[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 154 (Wednesday, October 29, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13484-S13509]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    CLIMATE STEWARDSHIP ACT OF 2003

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works is discharged from further consideration 
of S. 139, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 139) to provide for a program of scientific 
     research on abrupt bankrupt climate change, to accelerate the 
     reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States by 
     establishing a market-driven system of greenhouse gas 
     tradeable allowances that could be used interchangeably with 
     passenger vehicle fuel economy standard credits, to limit 
     greenhouse gas emissions in the United States and reduce 
     dependence upon foreign oil, and ensure benefits to consumers 
     from the trading in such allowances.

  Thereupon, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, it is my understanding there are 3 hours 
tonight equally divided, which would be an hour and a half for each 
side. Because of something that happened today in Colorado, I yield up 
to 7 minutes of our time to the Senator from Colorado, Mr. Allard.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.


                           Fires in Colorado

  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for 
yielding.
  Today in Colorado we had two fires erupt in the State. One was a 
grassland fire that probably won't amount to much. The other is a very 
serious fire that happened north and west of Boulder and Jamestown. We 
have a school that has been evacuated; 300 people have been evacuated. 
There is an educational camp in the area that has been evacuated. The 
reason I bring this to the attention of the Senate at this particular 
point in time is because Colorado is one of those areas in the western 
part of the United States where we have a forest/urban interface. That 
is what the Forest Health Restoration Act is all about, trying to 
provide a program where we can begin to apply the principles of forest 
health.
  Along the Front Range of Colorado, running all the way from Colorado 
Springs all the way up into Fort Collins, including Boulder, where this 
fire has broken out, there are a lot of homes being built into the 
forest. Of course, if you don't practice good forest health, then they 
become vulnerable to fires that could erupt.
  The significant thing about what is happening today is this is not 
the fire season for Colorado. The fire season occurs in September, 
perhaps the first part of September, August, and July. Here we are, 
just 3 days from the first of November, and we have a fire that is 
breaking out with serious consequences in Colorado.
  This again points out the need for us to move forward with this 
particular piece of legislation. We need to be addressing this problem 
immediately in areas such as what we are seeing here in the State of 
Colorado.
  Last year during the peak of the Hayman Fire, the Front Range of the 
Rocky Mountains was covered in a thick blanket of smoke and ash that 
blocked visibility and dropped ash on surrounding towns and cities, 
creating a winter-like scene in the midst of a Colorado June. The 
Hayman Fire was the largest in Colorado history and cost $40 million 
and counting. It burned a little over 137,000 acres, destroyed 133 
homes, and 466 outbuildings. The fire burned for 30 days. The Colorado 
State Forest Service has advised that it will take up to 150 years for 
the forest itself to be reestablished.
  Some people ask, Why does it take so long? We are in a semi-arid 
area. Vegetation does not grow back rapidly. During the Hayman Fire, 
142 subdivisions were evacuated along with 85,000 people.
  Wildfires present a major cause of pollution, triggering severe 
asthma-related breathing problems and commonly causing death. Wildfires 
are also a major source of pollution. If we take 1 day out of the 
Hayman Fire, on June 10, 2002, the CO2 gas emissions from 
the Hayman Fire surpassed the CO2 emissions from all 
passenger cars operating in the United States on that same day. So this 
problem with a lot of undergrowth in the forests and trees being 
infested with beetles and a lot of dead and dying timber has made our 
forests extremely vulnerable in the forest/urban interface area.
  Federal land management procedures are very complex. They should not 
be so complex that they prevent timely action to address ecological 
crises on public lands. Forest Service officials have estimated that 
planning an assessment consumes 40 percent of their time at the 
national forest level, costing more than $250 million per year. 
Although much of this work is important, the officials estimate that 
improving administrative procedures may allow agencies to redirect up 
to $100 million a year from unnecessary planning to actual forest 
health restoration where it will improve the ecosystem and protect 
local communities from catastrophic fires which we see erupting today 
in Boulder County.

  The Front Range in Colorado also depends on the mountains to provide 
drinking water and water for gardens and children. But devastating 
fires threaten and destroy watersheds that yield this water. 
Catastrophic blazes consume organic matter in the littler layer of the 
soil and create a hard pan surface that impedes water penetration.
  When water flows over this hydrophobic layer, it carries debris, mud, 
and causes soil loss, clogging municipal water treatment facilities, 
affecting water quality, flavoring water with ash, and costing millions 
to rehabilitate. This is the problem we face today from the Hayman Fire 
which occurred just a year ago.
  In 2002, there were over 88,000 fires that burned 7 million acres. 
Thousands of structures were burned: 835 primary residences, 46 
commercial buildings, and 1,500 outbuildings. The 2002 estimated 
suppression costs hover somewhere around $1.6 billion. These 
unnaturally extreme fires are just one consequence of deteriorating 
forests and range health that now affects more

[[Page S13485]]

than 190 million acres of public land, an area twice the size of 
California.
  Wildfires destroyed wildlife and crippled watersheds. The Hayman fire 
occurred in the Cheesman Reservoir area, a primary source of drinking 
water for the city of Denver. Costs of the Cheesman reclamation have 
totaled nearly $5.5 million, with the U.S. Natural Resources 
Conservation Service and the EPA reimbursing Denver Water approximately 
$2.8 million of that amount.
  During the Buffalo Creek fire, 600,000 cubic yards of sediment went 
into Denver Water's Strontia Springs Reservoir.
  The fact is, there is too much paperwork and analysis and it is 
killing our forests. The Forest Service recently testified that it had 
to go through an 800-step decisionmaking process to complete the Upper 
South Platte restoration project, which took nearly 3 years to 
complete, and the fire that we see erupting today in northwest Boulder 
is in the Platte River drainage basin. Unfortunately, the bureaucratic 
process wasn't complete until a large wildfire ravaged the landscape 
set to be treated, plundering homes and an important watershed and 
forcing a number of endangered species to the edge of regional 
extinction.
  The Healthy Forest Restoration Act is a comprehensive plan focused on 
giving Federal land managers and their stakeholders and partners the 
tools to respond to this growing forest health crisis. The legislation 
directs the timely implementation of scientifically supported 
management activities to protect the health and vibrancy of Federal 
forest ecosystems, as well as the communities and private lands that 
surround them.
  This is why I ask Members of the Senate to join me in supporting the 
Forest Health Restoration Act.
  I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?


                           Amendment No. 2028

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I have an amendment on behalf of the 
Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, myself, and several other Senators, 
which I send to the desk at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Lieberman], for himself, 
     Mr. McCain, Ms. Snowe, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Chafee, Mr. 
     Durbin, Mr. Akaka, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Edwards, 
     Mr. Biden, Mr. Carper, Mr. Nelson of Florida, Mr. Corzine, 
     and Ms. Cantwell, proposes an amendment numbered 2028.

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am very proud to speak on behalf of 
this amendment, which I am delighted to cosponsor with my good friend 
and colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain. We have worked on this for 
a long time. We have worked on it with environmentalists, leaders in 
the business community, thinkers about this problem, and public health 
officials, and with just plain citizens who are worried about global 
warming.
  Global warming is one of the great challenges of our time. It 
challenges us in many ways. Greenhouse gas emissions from the burning 
of fossil fuels threaten our environment, of course, but they also 
threaten our economy and our public health. They also represent a 
challenge to political leadership, which is whether we are going to be 
prepared to look at the science, to face the facts, and to do something 
about a problem that is appearing but its most difficult, and 
potentially devastating, consequences are yet over the horizon. Should 
we continue to allow unabated our current rate of greenhouse gas 
pollution, we threaten to disrupt the delicate ecological balance on 
which our lives and our livelihoods depend.
  Global warming is not just a global challenge; it is also a very 
local one, impacting lives of Americans in critical and potentially 
disastrous ways. Every family has reason to fear the effects of global 
warming. Scientists predict that rising temperatures and rising sea 
levels through global warming will lead to damaged water supplies, 
increased flooding, depleted fisheries, sunken wetlands, devastating 
droughts, intensified forest fires.
  The parched conditions that are contributing to the ravaging fires 
raging now in southern California could become more widespread if the 
Earth's temperature increases. Over the long term, in a much more 
personal way, global warming will spell higher energy bills, increased 
insurance premiums, and lost jobs.
  I know that over the course of the debate this evening and tomorrow 
several of our colleagues will speak to the local physical and 
biological impacts of global warming. I want to tell one story that I 
heard about a year ago, which made this all real to me. It comes from 
the Native American population of Alaska and northern Canada.
  In the past few years, a robin appeared in one of the Native American 
villages in Alaska. The elders there, despite a very intimate awareness 
of their 10,000-year-old language, did not know what to call the bird. 
There is no word for robin in their language. Robins, by virtue of the 
climate of that area, for thousands of years preceding, felt--if I can 
put it this way--unwelcome there.
  The second example comes from Tanana in Alaska, which has an annual 
lottery to determine when a tripod placed on the frozen Tanana River 
would break through the ice. Over the past 50 years, the breakthrough 
has continued to occur earlier and earlier.
  So it is not only in the language of science and statistics that 
climate change and global warming is occurring, it is in the language 
of everyday life.
  The American public clearly understands this and, in fact, there is a 
gap between the public and our political leadership that Senator McCain 
and I hope we can close with this amendment. According to a recent 
Zogby poll, 75 percent of Americans support this legislation, this 
amendment, we are debating this evening.
  My colleagues now have to choose between meeting the public's support 
for action, demand for action, or siding with the minority who would 
ignore the scientific consensus and delay action on this critical 
problem.
  Meeting this monumental challenge and addressing this growing 
environmental threat demands strong leadership. I am afraid that, to 
date, such leadership has been lacking in the current administration. 
Today's Senate debate represents the first of its kind since 1998, 
which testifies, I am afraid, to a lack of leadership here. This debate 
provides us with an excellent opportunity to take action before it 
costs us so much more to deal with the consequences of inaction.
  I must say that even more dramatic has been the Bush administration's 
failure of responsible leadership on global warming. President Bush and 
his Environmental Protection Agency have not only offered no meaningful 
proposals to deal with global warming, they have tried to deny the very 
existence of the problem.
  Last summer the White House called for yet another study. This time 
it focused on whether global warming is caused by human behavior. Let 
me speak directly. That call is a shameless stalling tactic. As the New 
Orleans Times-Picayune described, ``It calls for further investigation 
of what the scientific community already widely accepts.'' In fact, as 
Don Kennedy, chief editor of the International Journal of Science, 
argued:

       Consensus as strong as the one that has developed around 
     this topic [climate change] is rare in science. . . . There 
     is little room for doubt about the seriousness of the problem 
     the world faces, and other nations, including most of our 
     trading partners in the Organization for Economic Cooperation 
     and Development, understand that.

  Yet in the face of these facts, President Bush has given us only a 
call to action, a call for more study and not action on global warming. 
I cannot resist saying this President has fiddled while the globe 
continues to warm.
  The plan the administration has put out would allow emissions of 
global warming pollutants to continue to grow at exactly the same 
alarming rate as they have grown over the past decade. Earlier this 
month, the General Accounting Office found that the plan of the 
administration would do nothing to reduce our emissions growth. In 
fact, the GAO was even unable to discern the extent to which the 
administration's identified methods and tools

[[Page S13486]]

would contribute to reducing emissions. They found that the 
administration was not going to evaluate whether they had made progress 
toward their goals until 2012. Too late.
  This deny-and-delay approach to meeting the real threat of global 
warming is no longer acceptable. It is an abdication of leadership--
environmental leadership, public health leadership, economic 
leadership, international diplomatic leadership.
  Senator McCain and I offer our bill, the Climate Stewardship Act, to 
confront this growing threat in a systematic and serious way. It is 
patterned after the highly successful market-based acid rain program of 
the Clean Air Act.
  The amendment was crafted in close consultation with industry leaders 
and, I am so pleased to say, enjoys strong support of many of them and 
leaders within the environmental community. It represents the most 
serious and balanced attempt at solving the crisis before us, and it 
does so by harnessing market forces and directing them to new economic 
opportunities in the future.
  Our bill limits emissions of global warming pollutants by electric 
utilities, major industrial and commercial entities, and refiners of 
transportation fuels. Those sectors represent about 85 percent of U.S. 
emissions of global warming pollutants.
  The amendment does not apply to farmers, individual residences, or to 
automobile manufacturers for the cars they sell. Because our current 
emissions are now at 2000 levels from a practical standpoint, our 
legislation simply holds them at those current levels in some ways, a 
modest goal--but a very significant step forward in American 
responsibility for the global problem of global warming.
  That is the full extent of national action that our amendment would 
require. More modest, yes, than the cuts envisioned by the Kyoto 
protocol, but a significant step forward, one that I think will not 
only get us on the road to protecting the public's health and the great 
environmental treasures of the United States of America but will 
reestablish our credibility and responsibility in the world. As the 
largest emitter of greenhouse gases, we will show that we are accepting 
our responsibility to be part of the global solution to this global 
problem.
  Our amendment achieves these significant reductions while embracing 
free market principles. By setting reasonable caps on emissions and 
permitting industry to trade in pollution allowance, we create a new 
market for reducing greenhouse gases. In this way, we hope and believe 
our amendment will change the fundamental terms of the debate because 
for too long the national dialog on global warming has seemed to be 
deadlocked, pitting business leaders on one side 
against environmentalists on the other in a zero sum struggle. It ought 
not to be. We ought to find common ground, and that is what this 
amendment attempts to do.

  The debate for too long has itself been overheated with acrimony and 
polluted with misinformation. Our hope is that this amendment will 
break through both of those obstacles. Environmental protection and 
economic growth are not mutually exclusive; they are mutually 
reinforcing over the long run.
  Measured steps to curb global warming in a business-friendly way 
promise to not only save us from environmental degradation but to open 
new opportunities and to spur innovative new technologies for American 
business to seize.
  In a July 25 letter this year, the Business Council for Sustainable 
Energy endorsed the concept that market-based climate policies can 
reduce gas emissions while promoting technology-based solutions, reduce 
energy dependence, and bolster the competitiveness of U.S. industry.
  In a July 18 letter to my office, a group called Environmental 
Entrepreneurs, which represents over $20 billion in investment capital, 
wrote that the bill will stimulate economic growth and give the United 
States a competitive edge in bringing these products to market.
  Finally, a letter of July 24 of this year from several of our 
Nation's most prominent investors encouraging the efforts Senator 
McCain, the other cosponsors, and I are making says:

       By employing strict goals and flexible means, we expect 
     your proposal will unleash the power of competition and spur 
     innovation to protect the environment. A healthy economy and 
     a healthy environment are not mutually exclusive; they go 
     hand in hand.

  I ask unanimous consent that all three of those letters be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                          The Business Council for


                                           Sustainable Energy,

                                    Washington, DC, July 25, 2003.
       Dear Senator: As the Senate prepares to consider several 
     global warming amendments that may be offered to the Energy 
     Policy Act (S. 14), the Business Council for Sustainable 
     Energy would like to offer another industry perspective.
       Some information has been circulated recently claiming that 
     any substantive program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in 
     the U.S. would cause widespread harm to our economy. The 
     analysis that is being circulated does not reflect any of the 
     proposals that are pending before Congress. Instead, it is 
     based on a widely criticized analysis by the Wharton 
     Econometrics Forecasting Associates (WEFA) that was conducted 
     five years ago.
       The WEFA analysis is a disservice not only to Senators who 
     need relevant information to make policy decisions, but also 
     to industry coalitions like ours that recognize the value of 
     responsible and responsive policy design.
       Senators McCain and Lieberman have developed legislation 
     (S. 139) that underscores the value of flexible emissions 
     trading programs that maximize innovation and minimize costs.
       The analysis being circulated in no way reflects the 
     approach proposed by S. 139. Key differences include:
       Moderate emission reduction targets with greater lead time 
     to industry. S. 139 reduces U.S. emissions to 1990 levels by 
     2016, which equates to about a one percent emissions 
     reduction annually over the next 13 years--a more modest 
     reduction occurring over a longer period of time.
       Flexible emissions trading. The McCain-Lieberman bill 
     utilizes market-based mechanisms within a cap-and-trade 
     program that encourages innovation through the use of 
     efficient, cost-effective emissions reduction strategies. The 
     WEFA analysis assumes that a carbon tax is imposed on 
     industry.
       Trading of non-CO2 gases. The McCain-Lieberman 
     bill incorporates reductions in other greenhouse gas (beyond 
     CO2) in the trading program, a design feature that 
     has been shown to significantly reduce the cost of 
     compliance. The WEFA analysis was limited to carbon dioxide.
       Credits to farmers for carbon sequestration. The McCain-
     Lieberman bill allows emitters to offset their emissions by 
     sequestering carbon through land use practices. The WEFA 
     analysis fails to account for these inexpensive offsets.
       Credits for international projects. The McCain-Lieberman 
     bill allows companies to meet a portion of their obligation 
     through global emission reduction projects. The WEFA analysis 
     once again ignores this opportunity.
       The model used by WEFA five years ago was based on 
     assumptions that U.S. industry would fail to deliver more 
     efficient and cleaner technologies over time in response to 
     policy incentives. A market-based program such as that 
     envisioned in S. 139 would provide incentives for industry to 
     innovate, just as with the Clean Air Act's acid rain program, 
     which pioneered the emissions trading approach and delivered 
     environmental results as much as 90 percent less than 
     economists had projected.
       The Council does not stand alone in our belief that market-
     based climate policies such as emissions trading can benefit 
     the economy. More than 2,500 economists, including eight 
     Nobel laureates, issued a statement in 1997 that read in 
     part:
       ``Economic studies have found that there are many potential 
     policies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions for which the 
     total benefits outweigh the total costs. For the United 
     States in particular, sound economic analysis shows that 
     there are policy options that would slow climate change 
     without harming American living standards, and these measures 
     may in fact improve U.S. productivity in the longer run.''
       While the economists' statement is not an endorsement of 
     any policy before Congress today, it speaks to the importance 
     of a more thoughtful dialogue about what the nation should be 
     doing.
       Properly constructed, global warming policies that 
     incorporate market mechanisms can reduce greenhouse gas 
     emissions while promoting technology-based solutions, reduce 
     energy dependence and bolster the competitiveness of U.S. 
     industry.
           With best wishes,
                                                Michael L. Marvin,
                                                        President.

[[Page S13487]]

     
                                  ____
                                  Environmental Entrepreneurs,

                                 San Francisco, CA, July 18, 2003.
     Hon. Joseph Lieberman,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. John McCain,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
        Dear Senator Lieberman and Senator McCain: We are writing 
     as members and supporters of Environmental Entrepreneurs (E2) 
     in support of your proposal to create a binding, market-based 
     program to limit global warming emission from U.S. industry. 
     E2 is an organization of business and professional leaders 
     who promote good environmental policy that supports economic 
     growth. The economic risks that climate change poses to the 
     U.S. economy are enormous, and E2 believes we must address 
     this issue without further delay.
       The first President Bush signed and the Senate ratified the 
     Framework Convention on Climate Change (the ``Rio Climate 
     treaty'') over a decade ago to provide for a worldwide 
     program to manage the manmade emissions that contribute to 
     global warming. Yet, in the time since we ratified the Rio 
     Treaty, the United States, which produces more global warming 
     emissions than any other nation, has not developed a serious 
     program to respond to the threat that global climate change 
     poses to the planet's environmental and economic health. As a 
     result, U.S. emissions of global warming gases have grown 
     steadily and now exceed 7 billion metric tons of 
     CO2 equivalent gases--a growth of 14% from 1990 
     levels.
       Every year that passes increases the difficulty and cost of 
     averting the threats of environmental and economic disruption 
     posed by climate change. Without a national framework for 
     addressing the issue of global warming, American businesses 
     continue to make long-term capital investments that commit us 
     to ever increasing greenhouse gas emissions. New buildings, 
     transportation systems, and power and industrial plants are 
     being designed and built today without regard for the need to 
     reduce global warming emissions. The large capital outlays 
     are committing us to a future of unacceptable risks to the 
     American economy from global warming.
       The threats to our economy from climate change may well 
     include, in some areas, the vitality of American agriculture, 
     the availability of water for consumption and irrigation, and 
     the destruction of recreational resources such as ski 
     resorts, coastal areas and wetlands. E2 considered these 
     risks serious enough in California that we actively 
     campaigned for the passage of the California Clean Cars Bill, 
     or AB1493, which was signed into law last summer and is the 
     first legislation in the country to regulate the amount of 
     CO2 emissions from passenger vehicles. We want to 
     acknowledge your leadership in supporting this bill and 
     helping Governor Davis to recognize the national, if not 
     global, implication of this kind of policy. We are promoting 
     similar legislation in the state of New York and hope that a 
     groundswell for carbon emissions policy at the state level 
     will convince the federal government of the need to provide 
     national standards.
       Your proposal, the ``Climate Stewardship Act of 2003,'' 
     recognizes what we, as business leaders, already know: the 
     engine of American innovation depends on market-based 
     incentives to guide capital investment. Your legislation 
     would: create manageable targets to control the growth in 
     global warming emissions from America's principal emitters 
     and put us on a path to reducing emissions over time; ensure 
     that the reductions occur in an efficient manner by letting 
     businesses decide where to best achieve them; and spawn new 
     business sectors to create the enabling technologies to meet 
     these goals.
       The economic benefits inherent in addressing global warming 
     reach far beyond avoiding the risks associated with inaction. 
     The deployment of existing ``climate friendly'' technologies 
     and the development of new ones will result in new markets 
     and create new jobs. Buildings and appliances that waste less 
     energy, transportation systems that meet our needs with 
     reduced global warming emissions, and energy systems that 
     make expanded renewable resources economically viable and 
     offer ways to use fossil energy without releasing carbon 
     dioxide--all these are key to our economic and environmental 
     future. These advances will stimulate economic growth and 
     give the U.S. the competitive edge in bringing these products 
     to market.
       The United States should be in the vanguard of this new 
     global market for climate friendly technologies. Our 
     businesses are second to none in developing advanced products 
     when the market conditions reward these investments. A market 
     in limiting global warming emissions is the policy step 
     needed to promote innovation and growth in this sector. We 
     look forward to working with you to implement this program at 
     the earliest possible date.
           Sincerely,
     Bob Epstein,
       Co-Founder, E2.
     Nicole Lederer,
       Co-Founder, E2.
                                  ____

                                                    July 24, 2003.
     Hon. Joseph Lieberman,
     Hon. John McCain,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Lieberman and McCain: As business leaders we 
     recognize that the risks and complexities of climate change 
     are so important that we must work together to meet this 
     challenge. We understand that any response that is sufficient 
     to avert dangerous climate change will be long term, but that 
     the nature of the problem requires that action begin now. We 
     understand that a constructive global or domestic response 
     must be equitable and support economic growth based on free 
     market principles. As business leaders, we know how 
     government policies can help--or hurt--business and the 
     economy. Good policies set clear goals and leave businesses 
     free to decide how to meet those goals at lowest cost. The 
     policies you have suggested be included in the Energy bill 
     seem to be both serious in their environmental goals and 
     prudent in using market forces to achieve them.
       By employing strict goals and flexible means, we expect 
     your proposal will unleash the power of competition and spur 
     innovation to protect the environment. A healthy economy and 
     a healthy environment are not mutually exclusive; they go 
     hand in hand. American business has the ingenuity and know-
     how to solve the problem of global warming while continuing 
     to prosper. Indeed, many of our colleagues already have 
     stepped forward to pledge to reduce their companies' 
     greenhouse gas emissions.
       We recognize that there is still debate about the levels of 
     greenhouse gas reductions necessary to stabilize the climate 
     and protect the U.S. economy. Several things are clear. 
     Reductions must begin promptly. Voluntary efforts abone won't 
     do the job. And finally, any mandatory restrictions must 
     employ market incentives. We congratulate you for recognizing 
     these needs and for your efforts to see that the Senate 
     addresses them.
           Sincerely,
         John Doerr; Jon Lovelace; Lewis S. Ranieri; Julian H. 
           Robertson, Jr.; John H.T. Wilson.

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, corporate America, fortunately, has 
already given us some models of companies that are dealing with global 
warming and, I believe, profiting from doing so. Companies such as 
Alcoa, British Petroleum, DuPont, Eastman Kodak, IBM, Intel, Johnson & 
Johnson, and Nike have all accepted targets for greenhouse gas 
pollution reduction that meet or exceed this amendment's requirements. 
These and other companies have cut their emissions of greenhouse gases 
not just because they sought to be good environmental citizens, which 
they are, but because their boards of directors and their senior 
management are convinced that a proactive stance on climate change 
makes good business sense.
  Perhaps the most compelling examples of that new corporate mindset on 
global warming come from American Electric Power and Cinergy, the 
biggest burners of coal by tonnage and percentage in our country. Both 
companies have now announced enforceable obligations to reduce 
greenhouse gas emissions to levels that are below what our proposal 
requires. And Cinergy has said it can make these reductions for no 
increased cost and with no additional fuel switching.
  It is quite remarkable that they say they can make the reductions at 
no increased cost. But for every BP and DuPont, IBM and Cinergy, there 
are scores of other enterprises that I fear are inefficient, that are 
refusing to rise to new environmental standards and curb their 
greenhouse gas emissions. That is why we must pass this amendment. We 
must set standards. We must exercise responsible leadership.
  I understand that taking action to combat global warming is not 
without cost, but it is worth the cost. The sacrifice of the Climate 
Stewardship Act is a minimal sacrifice. The cost of our amendment is 
reasonable and affordable by any measure and under any economic model 
employed to date. A recent MIT study estimated that our amendment would 
annually cost less than $20 per household. That is not a lot to ask for 
stemming the warming of the planet and all the devastating consequences 
it could bring.
  A second independent study released this summer by the Tellus 
Institute reaffirms that same conclusion. Tellus, in fact, found that 
net savings to consumers of $48 billion would be realized by 2020 and 
household electricity bills would decrease because of reduced energy 
demand.
  Finally, the recent study of the Bush administration's Department of 
Energy of our entire proposal found similar minimal economic impacts 
overall, but did find some spikes in natural gas usage at the expense 
of the coal industry.

  We feel very strongly that was a flawed study. Its assumptions only 
allowed compliance with the program through fuel switching. So the 
outcome

[[Page S13488]]

was preordained. In fact, the Pew Center for Global Climate Change has 
examined this analysis and believes the study's structure, combined 
with unrealistic input assumptions, results in unrealistically high 
cost projections.
  Senator McCain and I have worked very hard on this proposal. We have 
worked hard to achieve common ground on it, both among businesses and 
industries that are involved in emitting greenhouse gases, 
environmentalists, citizens, and among Members of the Senate. We are 
seeking a consensus position that will allow our Nation to move forward 
to take action on this critical challenge. As a result, we have 
modified our original bill to drop the second phase of its 
requirements.
  As time goes on, we will look forward to bringing that back up and 
convincing the Senate to adopt the entire program, but let's deal with 
the first phase amendment. It does not require or create a significant 
fuel switching, even according to the administration's own Energy 
Information Agency, and has a very low economic impact. It is a 
beginning in dealing with this problem.
  The true cost comparison is not between the cost of doing business 
now versus the cost of new regulations. It is between the cost of 
action now and the cost of inaction in the future, because the fact is 
the carbon we emit to the atmosphere today will remain there for a 
century. Every extra ton of emissions means we are going to need 
tighter controls. It will be more costly and more difficult to protect 
the environment and public health later on.
  A recent study calculated every ton of pollutants needlessly emitted 
into our atmosphere costs Americans $160, and we are currently emitting 
billions of tons each year. Property lost to rising sea levels, 
cropland lost to drought, revenue lost to dwindling fishing stocks 
caused by global warming, all represent real costs, not to mention the 
ultimately immeasurable damage to our health and quality of life.
  It is very interesting to follow the judgments of the insurance 
industry on this question if we want to gauge the cost of inaction. 
Uncertain about the potential increased liability from severe weather 
events and other costly side effects of global warming, insurers are 
now charging higher premiums to businesses and homeowners to cover 
higher expected costs. SwissRe, North America's leading reinsurer, says 
that ``global warming is a fact'' which ``has the potential to affect 
the number and severity of these natural disasters and result in a very 
significant impact on our business.''
  This reinsurance company projects that climate-change-driven natural 
disasters could cost global financial centers more than $150 billion 
per year within the next 10 years. Just think of that. We are making a 
proposal that the MIT study says will cost every American family $20 a 
year, compared to $150 billion a year within 10 years globally.
  Wall Street is also concerned about the future if we fail to act. A 
number of institutional investors recently joined with several 
utilities to call for the kind of market-based approach to global 
warming that is part of our amendment. There is also an opportunity for 
our American enterprise and innovation to produce the products that 
will respond to the global warming challenge, and in that sense to be 
ready to meet the global demand for such products.

  According to one reputable estimate I have seen, over the next 20 
years, $10 trillion to $20 trillion will be spent globally on new 
energy technologies. Our Asian and European competitors see this 
potential and, by complying with Kyoto protocol standards, are adapting 
their practices to seize that enormous international market.
  I want to say a special word about farmers and ranchers under our 
plan. They will be able to make money by adopting pro-environment 
practices. That would include increasing carbon levels in their land 
and selling emission credits to polluters. Rough estimates show that 
new, more sustainable management practices will sequester approximately 
one-half ton of carbon per acre for a farmer with a 5,000-acre farm. 
This would represent thousands of additional dollars a year. Many of 
those practices are better for the long-term health of our farms but, 
of course, can be of great benefit to cash-strapped farmers.
  Global warming is, of course, about more than the numbers about which 
I have talked. It is about our values. Do we take action to protect our 
children and grandchildren from having to bear the full cost and health 
risks and life changes from the pollution we are generating today or do 
we, as leaders of the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases, duck 
our responsibility and let the next generation take it?
  I am particularly pleased by the strong support Senator McCain and I 
have received from a broad and diverse coalition of religious 
organizations that affirms the moral imperative for action now on 
global warming. I cite the National Religious Partnership for the 
Environment, representing an alliance of faith groups, including the 
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, the National Council of 
Churches of Christ, the Coalition on the Environment and Jewish Life, 
and the Evangelical Environmental Network.
  I am reminded of the words from Scripture that the Earth is the 
Lord's and the fullness thereof, which is surely the truth and reminds 
us we are only visitors. We do not own the Earth. We are blessed to 
live on it for some period of time. With that time comes a 
responsibility to be good stewards of the Earth. I always remember the 
words from the story of creation, Adam and Eve, where it says in the 
Bible they were put there to work and guard the garden. In a very 
direct sense, that responsibility to work, enjoy, and develop is 
combined with a responsibility that we have to guard the garden, guard 
the Earth.
  We have failed in that responsibility. This amendment is an attempt 
to accept that responsibility and do something about it.
  This is an historic debate. It is a debate I believe our children and 
grandchildren and perhaps historians will look back on and ask, as the 
votes are counted, did the Senate of the United States rise to a 
challenge almost everyone sees is coming or did we wait until the 
consequences, the effects of global warming, were so serious that it 
was too late? It was certainly too late to deal with those consequences 
without drastic effects on our environment, on our health, on our 
economy, and on the way we live.
  Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I would yield.
  Mr. McCAIN. Is the Senator aware the major attack on this legislation 
will be related to the validity of the entire issue of climate change?
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I expect that will be true.
  Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield for a further question?
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I will.
  Mr. McCAIN. Is he aware there is widespread agreement on the 
occurrence of global warming and the human source of the observed and 
predicted changes? To make a long story short, there was a study 
conducted in 2001 by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. A 
third assessment report represented a collaborative, scientific 
endeavor involving 700 scientists worldwide, peer-reviewed by another 
700 scientists. The Bush administration requested an independent review 
of the IPCC report by the National Academy of Sciences. Now everybody 
can shop around for their expert. This is the National Academy of 
Sciences. The resulting 2001 national research report, which is 
delegated by the National Academy of Sciences, said the following in 
their summary, and I will ask my colleague just to comment on this. We 
need to keep coming back to this and coming back to this and coming 
back to this during this debate. Again, the National Research Council, 
an arm of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of 
America, says greenhouse gases are accumulating in the Earth's 
atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air 
temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise.
  Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over the last 
several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we 
cannot rule out that a significant part of these changes is also a 
reflection of natural variability.
  The point is we are going to hear--in fact, in the course of debate 
we will hear of a couple of scientists whose views were misinterpreted 
by the Senator from Oklahoma and by the Republican Policy Committee. We 
have their

[[Page S13489]]

rebuttals and we will be going into those. They state--not I state--
that their views were completely distorted. The fact is, the 
overwhelming body of scientific opinion in America and the world 
believes that human activity is causing climate change in the world, 
and that is an irrefutable fact.

  The opponents of this can shop around for the scientists of their 
choice, but the overwhelming majority of scientists say this and every 
year that evidence becomes more compelling and every year it becomes 
more of a compelling problem because of the manifestations of it. The 
manifestations of climate change are occurring, as we see on the west 
coast of the United States of America.
  I ask my friend, won't you hear that the emperor has some beautiful 
clothes on during this debate; that there are some scientists who will 
refuse to admit this, who will say that pigs fly and up is down and 
black is white, but the majority opinion is that of the most respected 
body in America, the National Academy of Sciences, and they are the 
ones who come forward with the views that are corroborated by thousands 
of scientists all over America and the world?
  I ask my colleague to comment on that.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Arizona. He is 
known globally, I might say, as a straight talker. He is basing that 
straight talk in this debate on scientific fact that is widely 
accepted--he is absolutely right--by international panels of 
scientists, by the independent National Academy of Sciences, and the 
National Research Panel.
  I want to quote again from Don Kennedy, chief editor of the 
international, very reputable journal, Science. He says:

       Consensus strong as the one that has developed around the 
     topic of climate change is rare in science. There is little 
     room for doubt about the seriousness of the problem the world 
     faces.

  I expect, unfortunately, that we will debate the science here. You 
and I, I know, are prepared to debate the science. But the fact is, we 
ought to be debating what we are going to do about it. We might argue, 
and some presumably will argue, that our proposal costs more than the 
American people are willing to spend. I don't think so. The polls don't 
show that to be true. People I talk to are ready to be part of solving 
a problem before it gets out of hand.
  Some may say our methods are wrong, although a market-based system, 
such as the one that worked to deal with acid rain in the Clean Air Act 
amendments, proposed and signed by the first President Bush, has a 
pretty good track record.
  But let's have that debate. It really takes us back way beyond where 
the science is to have a debate whether this is a real problem. I say 
again, to have a debate about what we should do about it, that might 
get our blood going, but that is a reasonable debate. But to see the 
administration ask for yet another study, I just can't see that as 
anything more than a stalling tactic.

  That is why I regret to say that this President really is fiddling 
while the globe is warming. We better do something about it before it 
gets so serious that we are going to look back and say: Why didn't we 
act?
  This is a chance to have debate, the first debate in 5 years in the 
Senate Chamber on this critical problem. Let's have a healthy debate. 
Let's try to find common ground.
  Senator McCain and I have worked very hard to reach a consensus. This 
is not a sharp-edged bill. It is a bill that is progressive and builds 
toward common ground. And then let's move forward together so we can 
say to our children and grandchildren: We saved you from a result that 
we saw coming that many were not willing to do anything about, but we 
finally got together and did something about it.
  I thank my friend from Arizona for his very good questions. I thank 
him for his principled partnership in this effort, and I look forward 
to the remainder of the debate.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first of all, let me just make a couple of 
comments, and then I will yield to the Senator from Missouri.
  I know it is so easy to stand up here and talk about ``the science is 
irrefutable,'' talk about how different groups are supporting S. 139. I 
know neither the distinguished Senator from Arizona nor the 
distinguished Senator from Connecticut would intentionally say 
something that is not true. However, some of the things they are saying 
are not true. They are not factual.
  A little bit later I am going to be going into detail on this science 
question. The science that has been reviewed since 1999 is 
overwhelmingly on the side that global warming, in fact, is not 
occurring and, if it is occurring, is not a result of manmade 
anthropogenic gases.
  I would also like to say, I will be talking about some of these 
groups that supposedly are supporting this bill who, in fact, are not 
supporting this bill. But I am going to save that for a few minutes 
because we have several Members who will be coming in on our side who 
will be wanting to address this issue. For that reason, I now yield to 
the Senator from Missouri 7 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized for 7 
minutes.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Environment and 
Public Works Committee, the committee I believe properly has 
jurisdiction over this issue, a committee on which I serve and which 
has debated these issues many times. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma 
for his leadership, his guidance, and his wisdom on these matters.
  Interestingly enough, today I was reading a couple of news articles 
and it seems the Soviet Union is backing out on the Kyoto Treaty. 
Russia is now finding that they cannot live up to the commitments that 
were made in Kyoto, so Russia is bailing out on them. I just read 
another article that the European Union finds they really can't come up 
with all of these carbon dioxide reductions that they had promised. 
Why? Even in a Communist country they begin to realize that government 
actions have consequences. There are some impacts. These impacts are 
pretty stark.
  Let me address for just a few minutes, for the benefit of my 
colleagues and those who may happen to listen, some of the practical 
impacts the passage of the McCain-Lieberman bill would have on our 
communities and on our families.
  I strongly believe this bill will cripple our economy, cripple our 
communities, and financially cripple many of our struggling families. 
We can debate the science of climate change here on the floor until we 
are all blue in the face--and I think we may be headed in that 
direction. We have heartfelt experts, scientists, and data on both 
sides of the issue. I happen to believe the causal effect of CO2 
emissions and recent changes to our climate is not yet fully proven.
  But the real impact, the real point of the McCain-Lieberman bill is, 
What will it do? That is kind of a practical test. I am from Missouri, 
the ``show me'' State. What would this bill do? Show me what this bill 
would do. How much will the McCain-Lieberman bill hurt our economy?
  How much will the McCain-Lieberman bill drive up electricity bills 
for my constituents to pay? How much will the McCain-Lieberman bill 
raise the price of natural gas which is already going through the 
ceiling thanks to unwise governmental increases in demand and 
restrictions on production? How much more will the McCain-Lieberman 
bill force our families to pay for gasoline? It would be nice if we 
stopped once before we rushed into a major thing such as this and found 
out whether the medicine we prescribe was going to make the patient 
sicker or make the patient well.
  I think we all recognize that our economy is just now starting to 
recover from the doldrums. We are just now starting to turn the corner 
on job growth. We are heading into a winter when we expect the cost to 
heat our homes will increase significantly because of previous 
overreaching congressional actions in the past. Now is not the time to 
place more burdens on our families and our communities.
  As I said, I sit on the Environment and Public Works Committee where 
we

[[Page S13490]]

considered legislation to cut carbon dioxide as part of a 
multipollutant strategy to cut emissions from electric powerplants. 
Before that committee, supporters urged caps on carbon dioxide from 
electric powerplants as a way to fight global climate change. What they 
didn't want to talk about was the negative impact this measure would 
have on the everyday lives of our constituents--those who use electric 
power.
  Experts conclude that the legislation under consideration to cut 
carbon dioxide in electric powerplants would cost the economy over $100 
billion. That is one-zero-zero billion dollars.
  Experts also estimated that the electricity bills would go up by 
about 40 percent.
  If you are sitting at home and you happen to have an electric bill 
handy, take it and multiply it by 1.4, see what that number is, and see 
what impact that would have on your family budget.
  I have read heartbreaking stories from families in Kansas City who 
have to decide between buying food and paying their utility bills. 
Other families could not buy school clothes because they had to pay 
higher heating bills. Seniors on fixed incomes often have no way to 
meet higher utility bills.
  I voted against that bill. And Democratic leaders when they 
controlled the Senate refused to even bring that measure to the floor 
because they knew what an impact it would have on senior citizens, what 
an impact it would have on the poor, and why union members who realize 
it can cost them their jobs object to it. We now have many of the same 
issues involved in this climate change bill.
  The McCain-Lieberman bill would establish mandatory caps for carbon 
dioxide emissions. Economists and energy experts at the Department of 
Energy's Energy Information Agency--or EIA--recently concluded that the 
enactment of the McCain-Lieberman bill would result in a 46-percent 
increase in electricity prices, a 27-percent increase in the cost of 
gasoline, and a 54-percent increase in the cost of home heating oil.
  Again, if you are at home and happen to have any of your last 
winter's bills handy, apply those percentages--a 50-percent increase in 
electricity and heating oil, a 27-percent increase in the cost of 
gasoline.
  The EIA--the Government agency with the experts and the expertise--
concluded that McCain-Lieberman would cost millions of Americans jobs. 
Excuse me. Did I say that right? Yes, I said that right--millions of 
American jobs. We are having slow job growth in our economy. We are 
working hard to get jobs back. This bill would cost millions of 
American jobs. Even if the sponsors dropped the second phase of this 
bill, it would still cost hundreds of thousands of jobs.

  Do we really want to be raising costs on senior citizens, on poor 
people, and be throwing people out of work?
  The EIA further concluded that McCain-Lieberman would cause a 
cumulative decrease in the gross domestic product of $1.4 trillion. 
Talk about sucking the wind out of the economic recovery; that baby 
would be flatter than a flounder.
  The effect of this bill would be, first, to send our economy back 
into recession, then strip the Nation of hundreds of thousands of jobs, 
and then increase the cost of heating our homes. I, frankly, cannot 
think of a better combination of ills. That is a trifecta that we 
obviously cannot afford to undertake.
  The most troubling part is that all of this pain would come without 
any real dent in the worldwide amount of carbon dioxide released into 
the atmosphere.
  McCain-Lieberman suffers from the same inherent flaw of the failed 
Kyoto Treaty. It imposes absolutely no restrictions on two of the 
world's worst largest and fastest growing polluters in the world. In 
case you can't guess who those are, those would be China and India.
  Not only do we unfairly punish U.S. communities but we let other 
countries off the hook and, therefore, have practically no real 
worldwide impact on carbon dioxide levels.
  The Kyoto Treaty was rightfully rejected in advance by a unanimous 
vote in this body of 95 to zero for a very good reason. On top of all 
the unfairness of the Kyoto Treaty, we now know the crippling effects 
McCain-Lieberman would have on the economy, on our communities, on our 
families, and on job creation in our country.
  For me, I cannot see voting to strip American families of hundreds of 
thousands or millions of jobs. I cannot see why we would be voting to 
increase electricity prices by 46 percent. I cannot see why we would be 
voting to increase the cost of home heating oil by 54 percent. That is 
why I cannot vote for this bill.
  I urge my colleagues to think about the practical impact before we 
vote on this bill. This is a disaster waiting to happen. This would be 
another congressionally inflicted disaster.
  For those reasons, I urge my colleagues to defeat McCain-Lieberman.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  That was a well-written presentation by my colleague from Missouri. 
Unfortunately, his analysis of the bill is not the bill that is before 
the Senate. But other than that, it was a pretty convincing case.
  Our bill is different from the analysis he provided. In fact, it is 
significantly different. But even those facts on which we had the 
previous analysis were incorrect as well. But it was certainly an 
interesting presentation.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I have talked to our good friend, my 
brother, the Senator from Hawaii, and he has graciously agreed to let 
one of our Members go first before he is recognized.
  At this time, I yield to the Senator from Ohio, Mr. Voinovich.
  Before yielding to Senator Voinovich, I was honored to chair the 
Clean Air Subcommittee prior to the time I chaired the Environment and 
Public Works Committee. During that time, Senator Voinovich was 
Governor Voinovich. He was the chairman of the Governors Clean Air 
Committee. I don't believe there is anyone in this Senate who has a 
better knowledge of air problems or who has higher credentials than the 
Senator from Ohio.
  At this time, I yield to the Senator from Ohio.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for 
his kind words. The two of us will try to explain to our colleagues the 
real meaning of this legislation proposed by Senator Lieberman and 
Senator McCain.
  I rise in opposition to the legislation offered by Senator McCain and 
Senator Lieberman. This legislation will place a cap on carbon dioxide 
emissions by requiring all segments of the economy to reduce emissions 
to 2000 levels by 2010 despite the fact that such a cap would have 
devastating impacts on our economy, on our manufacturing sector, and on 
average Americans, and especially on our brothers and sisters, the 
elderly and the poor.
  I have stated time and time again here on the floor that we must 
recognize that the energy policy and our environmental policies are two 
sides to the same coin and that the Senate has responsibility to 
harmonize those policies. We have an obligation in the Senate to ensure 
that any legislation we consider takes into account its potential 
impact on our economy, which is in intensive care, particularly in 
States such as mine. And we have a moral obligation to ensure that we 
consider a bill's potential impact on the poor and the elderly who must 
survive on a fixed income and who pay an inordinate amount of their 
income for energy. They are the forgotten people in this country. We 
must ensure that we do not pass climate change legislation that will 
significantly drive up the cost of electricity for those who can least 
afford it.

  Although some science has attributed changes in the climate to 
atmospheric concentration of carbon, it is clear the science of climate 
change is far from settled. We need significantly more research on the 
issue. To accept the statements of supporters of S. 139 at face value 
is to accept one side of the debate, a very serious debate, among 
respected scientists and policy experts on both sides of the issue.
  I recall the hearings Senator Lieberman had when he was chairman of 
the Governmental Affairs Committee and two hearings I had. It was 
interesting to see the difference of opinion among very respected 
scientists in this country.

[[Page S13491]]

  My distinguished colleague Senator Inhofe has discussed at length 
both in the Environment and Public Works Committee and in the Senate 
the newest information on the issue which is contrary to the views 
expressed by Senators McCain and Lieberman.
  In a recent column, former Secretary of Energy James Schlesinger 
commented:

       . . . despite the certainty many seem to feel about the 
     causes, effects and extent of climate change, we are in fact 
     making only slow progress in our understanding of the 
     underlying science.

  I ask unanimous consent the column by Mr. Schlesinger be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the Washington Post, July 7, 2003]

               Climate Change: The Science Isn't Settled

                         (By James Schlesinger)

       Despite the certainty many seem to feel about the causes, 
     effects and extent of climate change, we are in fact making 
     only slow progress in our understanding of the underlying 
     science. My old professor at Harvard, the great economist 
     Joseph Schumpeter, used to insist that a principal tool of 
     economic science was history--which served to temper the 
     enthusiasms of the here and now. This must be even more so in 
     climatological science. In recent years the inclination has 
     been to attribute the warming we have lately experienced to a 
     single dominant cause--the increase in greenhouse gases. Yet 
     climate has always been changing--and sometimes the swings 
     have been rapid.
       At the time the U.S. Department of Energy was created in 
     1977, there was widespread concern about the cooling trend 
     that had been observed for the previous quarter-century. 
     After 1940 the temperature, at least in the Northern 
     Hemisphere, had dropped about one-half degree Fahrenheit--and 
     more in the higher latitudes. In 1974 the National Science 
     Board, the governing body of the National Science Foundation, 
     stated: ``During the last 20 to 30 years, world temperature 
     has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the 
     last decade.'' Two years earlier, the board had observed: 
     ``Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the 
     present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end 
     . . . leading into the next glacial age.'' And in 1975 the 
     National Academy of Sciences stated: ``The climates of the 
     earth have always been changing, and they will doubtless 
     continue to do so in the future. How large these future 
     changes will be, and where and how rapidly they will occur, 
     we do not know.''
       These statements--just a quarter-century old--should 
     provide us with a dose of humility as we look into the more 
     distant future. A touch of that humility might help temper 
     the current raging controversies over global warming. What 
     has concerned me in recent years is that belief in the 
     greenhouse effect, persuasive as it is, has been transmuted 
     into the dominant forcing mechanism affecting climate 
     change--more or less to the exclusion of other forcing 
     mechanisms. The CO2/climate-change relationship 
     has hardened into orthodoxy--always a worrisome sign--an 
     orthodoxy that searches out heretics and seeks to punish 
     them.
       We are in command of certain essential facts. First, since 
     the start of the 20th century, the mean temperature at the 
     earth's surface has risen about 1 degree Fahrenheit. Second, 
     the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has been 
     increasing for more than 150 years. Third, CO2 is 
     a greenhouse gas--and increases in it, other things being 
     equal, are likely to lead to further warming. Beyond these 
     few facts, science remains unable either to attribute past 
     climate changes to changes in CO2 or to forecast 
     with any degree of precision how climate will change in the 
     future.
       Of the rise in temperature during the 20th century, the 
     bulk occurred from 1900 to 1940. It was followed by the 
     aforementioned cooling trend from 1940 to around 1975. Yet 
     the concentration of greenhouse gases was measurably higher 
     in that later period than in the former. That drop in 
     temperature came after what was described in the National 
     Geographic as ``six decades of abnormal warmth.''
       In recent years much attention has been paid in the press 
     to longer growing seasons and shrinking glaciers. Yet in the 
     earlier period up to 1975, the annual growing season in 
     England had shrunk by some nine or 10 days, summer frosts in 
     the upper Midwest occasionally damaged crops, the glaciers 
     in Switzerland had begun to advance again, and sea ice had 
     returned to Iceland's coasts after more than 40 years of 
     its near absence.
       When we look back over the past millennium, the questions 
     that arise are even more perplexing. The so-called Climatic 
     Optimum of the early Middle Ages, when the earth temperatures 
     were 1 to 2 degrees warmer than today and the Vikings 
     established their flourishing colonies in Greenland, was 
     succeeded by the Little Ice Age, lasting down to the early 
     19th century. Neither can be explained by concentrations of 
     greenhouse gases. Moreover, through much of the earth's 
     history, increases in CO2 have followed global 
     warming, rather than the other way around.
       We cannot tell how much of the recent warming trend can be 
     attributed to the greenhouse effect and how much to other 
     factors. In climate change, we have only a limited grasp of 
     the overall forces at work. Uncertainties have continued to 
     abound--and must be reduced. Any approach to policy formation 
     under conditions of such uncertainty should be taken only on 
     an exploratory and sequential basis. A premature commitment 
     to a fixed policy can only proceed with fear and trembling.
       In the Third Assessment by the International Panel on 
     Climate Change, recent climate change is attributed primarily 
     to human causes, with the usual caveats regarding 
     uncertainties. The record of the past 150 years is scanned, 
     and three forcing mechanisms are highlighted: anthropogenic 
     (human-caused) greenhouse gases, volcanoes and the 11-year 
     sunspot cycle. Other phenomena are represented poorly, if at 
     all, and generally are ignored in these models. Because only 
     the past 150 years are captured, the vast swings of the 
     previous thousand years are not analyzed. The upshot is that 
     any natural variations, other than volcanic eruptions, are 
     overshadowed by anthropogenic greenhouse gases.
       Most significant: The possibility of long-term cycles in 
     solar activity is neglected because there is a scarcity of 
     direct measurement. Nonetheless, solar irradiance and its 
     variation seem highly likely to be a principal cause of long-
     term climatic change. Their role in longer-term weather 
     cycles needs to be better understood.
       There is an idea among the public that ``the science is 
     settled.'' Aside from the limited facts I cited earlier, that 
     remains far from the truth. Today we have far better 
     instruments, better measurements and better time series than 
     we have ever had. Still, we are in danger of prematurely 
     embracing certitudes and losing open-mindedness. We need to 
     be more modest.

  Mr. VOINOVICH. Schlesinger points out that ``science remains unable 
to either attribute past climate changes to changes in CO2 
or to forecast with any degree of precision how [the] climate will 
change in the future,'' and warns that:

       We cannot tell how much of the recent warming trend can be 
     attributed to the greenhouse gas effect and how much to other 
     factors. In climate change, we have only a limited grasp of 
     the overall forces at work. Uncertainties have continued to 
     abound--and must be reduced. Any approach to policy formation 
     under conditions of such uncertainty should be taken only on 
     an exploratory and sequential basis. A premature commitment 
     to a fixed policy can only proceed with fear and trembling.

  Several Members of this body have introduced pieces of legislation 
this year and a couple last year to address the issue of climate change 
by capping carbon--such as the Jeffords-Lieberman 4-P bill, the Carper 
4-P bill, and, of course, the subject of our debate today, the McCain-
Lieberman climate change bill.
  Passage of any of these bills will force our utilities which are now 
using coal to generate over half of our Nation's electricity--by the 
way, 85 percent of electricity generated in my State--to fuel-switch 
and to rely solely on natural gas for generation despite the fact we 
have a 250-year supply of domestic coal and are currently in the grips 
of a natural gas crisis.
  Senator Lieberman, in his opening statement, mentioned two companies 
from Ohio I am very familiar with, ADP and Synergy. There was some 
indication there was possibly--from his words--support for S. 139. I 
make it clear for the record that ADP and Synergy--ADP is the company 
that burns more coal than any other utility in the country--are both 
opposed to S. 139.
  Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Certainly.
  Mr. INHOFE. I am glad you brought that up. That was the information I 
had on who is opposed to it, naming Synergy. The Senator from 
Connecticut said they are now supporting S. 139. You have information 
to the contrary, is that correct?
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Yes, I do.
  Over the last decade, use of natural gas electricity generation has 
risen significantly while domestic supplies of natural gas have fallen. 
The result is predictable: tightening supplies of natural gas, higher 
natural gas prices, and higher electricity prices.
  Home heating prices are up dramatically, forcing folks on low and 
fixed income to choose between heating their home and paying for other 
necessities such as food or medicine.
  Donald Mason, a commissioner on the Ohio Public Utilities Commission, 
testified earlier this year in the House Energy and Commerce Committee:

       In real terms, the home heating cost this winter will 
     increase by at least $220 per household. That might sound not 
     significant,

[[Page S13492]]

     but during the winter season of 2000-2001, one gas company in 
     Ohio saw nonpayment jump from $10 million a year to $26 
     million.

  One of the amendments I supported in the Senate to the Labor-HHS bill 
would have provided more money for LIHEAP, the low-income help in 
heating costs. We will have a crisis this winter in natural gas costs.
  As a result of these heating cost increases, 50 percent more 
residential customers were disconnected from gas service last year than 
in 2001. I personally have seen natural gas go from $4 an MCF to $8 an 
MCF in heating bills in northeast Ohio and projections indicate this 
winter will be devastating on the elderly and low-income families who 
are already struggling to survive.

  In an Environment and Public Works Committee hearing last year, 
Thomas Mullen, of Catholic Charities and Health and Human Services of 
Cleveland, described the direct impact of significant increases of 
energy prices on those who are less fortunate. Here is what he had to 
say:

       In Cleveland, over one-fourth of all children live in 
     poverty and are in a family of a single female head of 
     household. These children will suffer from further loss of 
     basic needs as their moms are forced to make choices of 
     whether to pay the rent or live in a shelter; pay the heating 
     bill or see their child freeze; buy food or risk availability 
     of a hunger center. These are not choices that any senior 
     citizen, child, or for that matter, person in America should 
     make.

  What really gets to me was after he made that statement the Clean Air 
Trust, the O'Donnell person who is always speaking out on these issues, 
named Tom Mullen, the head of Catholic Charities, as the villain of the 
month because he dared talk about energy costs impacting the poor and 
elderly in this country.
  Manufacturers that use natural gas as feedstock are getting hammered 
because of the doubling and tripling of natural gas costs and are 
leaving the country or closing their doors. It is happening. Lubrizol, 
a chemical company, has moved production to France as a result of a 
threefold increase in natural gas prices from $3 per million Btu in 
2002 to $10 per Btu in 2003. The president of Zaclon, a chemical 
manufacturer based in Cleveland, testified this year that increased 
natural gas costs resulted in lost sales revenue and increased total 
energy cost. The president of one major international pharmaceutical 
company, a company that has 22,000 employees in the United States, 
recently told me unless we do something about our natural gas crisis, 
his company will be forced to pull many of its operations out of the 
United States. Due to high natural gas prices, the Dow Chemical 
Company, headquartered in Michigan, will be forced to shut down several 
plants and eliminate 3,000 to 4,000 jobs this year. The American Iron 
and Steel Institute reported that an integrated steel mill--we have 
some in Ohio still--could pay as much as $73 million for natural gas 
this year, up $37 million from last year. An east Texas poultry 
producer reported his poultry house heating bill jumped from $3,900 to 
$12,000 in one month, forcing him to decide between paying the bank or 
the gas company.
  High natural gas prices have resulted in the permanent closure of 
almost 20 percent of the United States nitrogen fertilizer production 
capacity and the idling of an additional 25 percent. That is why the 
corn growers and other agriculture groups are opposed to McCain-
Lieberman.
  The Potash Corporation, one of the world's largest fertilizer 
producers, has announced layoffs at the Louisiana and Tennessee plants 
due to high natural gas prices. The company spends $2 million per day 
on natural gas.
  A farmer in Belleville, MO, who paid $295 per ton for nitrogen 
fertilizer last fall expects to pay between $400 and $600 this year. It 
is impacting the entire segment of our economy.
  Utilities are already facing tremendous increases in their fuels 
costs, which force them to either take losses or pass these increases 
on to their customers. And the carbon caps proposed by Senators McCain 
and Lieberman will only exacerbate this situation.
  The end result is a drag on the economy. But don't take my word for 
it. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has testified before the 
Senate Energy Committee, the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and 
the Congressional Joint Economic Committee on the supply and price of 
natural gas this year, stating:

       I'm quite surprised at how little attention the natural gas 
     problem has been getting because it is a very serious 
     problem.

  Among his comments, Chairman Greenspan noted:

       The price of gas for delivery in July closed at $6.31 per 
     billion Btu's. That contract sold for as low as $2.55 in July 
     2000 and for $3.65 a year ago.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the testimony of Dr. 
Greenspan be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

   Statement of Alan Greenspan, Chairman, Board of Governors of the 
   Federal Reserve System Before the Committee on Energy and Natural 
         Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC, July 10, 2003

       Today's tight natural gas markets have been a long time in 
     coming, and distant futures prices suggest that we are not 
     apt to return to earlier periods of relative abundance and 
     low prices anytime soon. It was little more than a half-
     century ago that drillers seeking valuable crude oil bemoaned 
     the discovery of natural gas. Given the lack of adequate 
     transportation, wells had to be capped or the gas flared. As 
     the economy expanded after World War II, the development of a 
     vast interstate transmission system facilitated widespread 
     consumption of natural gas in our homes and business 
     establishments. On a heat-equivalent basis, natural gas 
     consumption by 1970 had risen to three-fourths of that of 
     oil. But consumption lagged in the following decade because 
     of competitive incursions from coal and nuclear power. Since 
     1985, natural gas has gradually increased its share of total 
     energy use and is projected by the Energy Information 
     Administration to gain share over the next quarter century, 
     owing to its status as a clean-burning fuel.
       Recent years' dramatic changes in technology are making 
     existing energy reserves stretch further while keeping long-
     term energy costs lower than they otherwise would have been. 
     Seismic techniques and satellite imaging, which are 
     facilitating the discovery of promising new natural gas 
     reservoirs, have nearly doubled the success rate of new-field 
     wildcat wells in the United States during the past decade. 
     New techniques allow far deeper drilling of promising fields, 
     especially offshore. The newer recovery innovations 
     reportedly have significantly raised the average proportion 
     of gas reserves eventually brought to the surface. 
     Technologies are facilitating Rocky Mountain production of 
     tight sands gas and coalbed methane. Marketed production in 
     Wyoming, for example, has risen from 3.4 percent of total 
     U.S. output in 1996 to 7.1 percent last year.
       Moreover, improving technologies have also increased the 
     depletion rate of newly discovered gas reservoirs, placing a 
     strain on supply that has required increasingly larger gross 
     additions from drilling to maintain any given level of dry 
     gas production. Depletion rates are estimated to have reached 
     27 percent last year, compared with 21 percent as recently as 
     five years ago. The rise has been even more pronounced for 
     conventionally produced gas because tight sands gas, which 
     comprises an increasing share of new gas finds, exhibits a 
     slower depletion rate than conventional wells.
       Improved technologies, however, have been unable to prevent 
     the underlying long-term price of natural gas in the United 
     States from rising. This is most readily observed in markets 
     for natural gas where contract delivery is sufficiently 
     distant to allow new supply to be developed and brought to 
     market. That price has risen gradually from $2 per million 
     Btu in 1997 for delivery in 2000, and presumably well beyond, 
     to more than $4.50 for delivery in 2009, the crude oil 
     heating equivalent of rising from less than $12 per barrel to 
     $26 per barrel. Over the same period, the distant futures 
     price of light sweet crude oil has edged up only $4 per 
     barrel and is selling at a historically rare discount to 
     comparably dated natural gas.
       Because gas is particularly challenging to transport in its 
     cryogenic form as a liquid, imports of liquefied natural gas 
     (LNG) have been negligible. Environmental and safety concerns 
     and cost have limited the number of LNG terminals and imports 
     of LNG. In 2002, such imports accounted for only 1 percent of 
     U.S. gas supply. Canada, which has recently supplied a sixth 
     of our consumption, has little capacity to significantly 
     expand its exports, in part because of the role that Canadian 
     gas plays in supporting growing oil production from tar 
     sands.
       Given notable cost reductions for both liquefaction and 
     transportation of LNG, significant global trade is 
     developing. And high gas prices projected in the American 
     distant futures market have made us a potential very large 
     importer. Worldwide imports of natural gas in 2002 were only 
     23 percent of world consumption, compared to 57 percent for 
     oil.
       Even with markedly less geopolitical instability 
     confronting world gas than world oil in recent years, spot 
     gas prices have been far more volatile than those for oil, 
     doubtless reflecting, in part, less-developed, price 
     dampening global trade. The updrift and volatility of the 
     spot price for gas have put significant segments of the North 
     American gas-using industry in a weakened competitive 
     position. Unless this competitive weakness is addressed, new 
     investment in these technologies will flag.

[[Page S13493]]

       Increased marginal supplies from abroad, while likely to 
     notably damp the levels and volatility of American natural 
     gas prices, would expose us to possibly insecure sources of 
     foreign supply, as it has for oil. But natural gas reserves 
     are somewhat more widely dispersed than those of oil, for 
     which three-fifths of proved world reserves reside in the 
     Middle East. Nearly two-fifths of world natural gas reserves 
     are in Russia and its former satellites, and one-third are in 
     the Middle East.
       Creating a price-pressure safety valve through larger 
     import capacity of LNG need not unduly expose us to 
     potentially unstable sources of imports. There are still 
     numerous unexploited sources of gas production in the United 
     States. We have been struggling to reach an agreeable 
     tradeoff between environmental and energy concerns for 
     decades. I do not doubt we will continue to fine-tune our 
     areas of consensus. But it is essential that our policies be 
     consistent. For example, we cannot, on the one hand, 
     encourage the use of environmentally desirable natural gas in 
     this country while being conflicted on larger imports of LNG. 
     Such contradictions are resolved only by debilitating spikes 
     in price.
       In summary, the long-term equilibrium price for natural gas 
     in the United States has risen persistently during the past 
     six years from approximately $2 per million Btu to more than 
     $4.50. Although futures markets project a near-term modest 
     price decline from current highly elevated levels, contracts 
     written for delivery in 2009 are more than double the levels 
     that had been contemplated when much of our existing gas-
     using capital stock was put in place. The perceived 
     tightening of long-term demand-supply balances is beginning 
     to price some industrial demand out of the market. It is not 
     clear whether these losses are temporary, pending a fall in 
     price, or permanent.
       Such pressures do not arise in the U.S. market for crude 
     oil. American refiners have unlimited access to world 
     supplies, as was demonstrated most recently when Venezuelan 
     oil production shut down. Refiners were able to replace lost 
     oil with supplies from Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If 
     North American natural gas markets are to function with the 
     flexibility exhibited by oil, unlimited access to the vast 
     world reserves of gas is required. Markets need to be able to 
     effectively adjust to unexpected shortfalls in domestic 
     supply. Access to world natural gas supplies will require a 
     major expansion of LNG terminal import capacity and 
     development of the newer offshore regasification 
     technologies. Without the flexibility such facilities will 
     impart, imbalances in supply and demand must inevitably 
     engender price volatility.
       As the technology of LNG liquefaction and shipping has 
     improved, and as safety considerations have lessened, a major 
     expansion of U.S. import capability appears to be under way. 
     These movements bode well for widespread natural gas 
     availability in North America in the years ahead.
                                  ____


  Natural Gas Supply and Demand Issues, Full Committee on Energy and 
         Commerce, June 10, 2003, Rayburn House Office Building

     Hon. Alan Greenspan,
     Chairman, The Federal Reserve Board, Washington, DC.
       In recent months, in response to very tight supplies, 
     prices of natural gas have increased sharply. Working gas in 
     storage is currently at very low levels relative to its 
     seasonal norm because of a colder-than-average winter and a 
     seeming inability of increased gas well drilling to 
     significantly augment net marketed production. Canada, our 
     major source of imported natural gas, has had little room to 
     expand shipments to the United States, and our limited 
     capacity to import liquefied natural gas (LNG) effectively 
     restricts our access to the world's abundant supplies of gas.
       Our inability to increase imports to close a modest gap 
     between North American demand and production (a gap we can 
     almost always close in oil) is largely responsible for the 
     marked rise in natural gas prices over the past year. Such 
     price pressures are not evident elsewhere. Competitive crude 
     oil prices, after wide gyrations related to the war in Iraq, 
     are now only slightly elevated from a year ago, and where 
     spot markets for natural gas exist, such as in Great Britain, 
     prices exhibit little change from a year ago. In the United 
     States, rising demand for natural gas, especially as a clean-
     burning source of electric power, is pressing against a 
     supply essentially restricted to North American production.
       Given the current infrastructure, the U.S. market for 
     natural gas is mainly regional, is characterized by 
     relatively longer term contracts, and is still regulated, but 
     less so than in the past. As a result, residential and 
     commercial prices of natural gas respond sluggishly to 
     movements in the spot price. Thus, to the extent that natural 
     gas consumption must adjust to limited supplies, most of the 
     reduction must come from the industrial sector and, to a 
     lesser extent, utilities.
       Yesterday the price of gas for delivery in July closed at 
     $6.31 per million Btu. That contract sold for as low as $2.55 
     in July 2000 and for $3.65 a year ago. Futures markets 
     project further price increases through the summer cooling 
     season to the peak of the heating season next January. 
     Indeed, market expectations reflected in option prices imply 
     a 25 percent probability that the peak price will exceed 
     $7.50 per million Btu.
       Today's tight natural gas markets have been a long time in 
     coming, and futures prices suggest that we are not apt to 
     return to earlier periods of relative abundance and low 
     prices anytime soon. It was little more than a half-century 
     ago that drillers seeking valuable crude oil bemoaned the 
     discovery of natural gas. Given the lack of adequate 
     transportation, wells had to be capped or the gas flared. As 
     the economy expanded after World War II, the development of a 
     vast interstate transmission system facilitated widespread 
     consumption of natural gas in our homes and business 
     establishments. On a heat-equivalent basis, natural gas 
     consumption by 1980 had risen to three-fourths of that of 
     oil. But natural gas consumption lagged in the following 
     decade because of competitive incursions from coal and 
     nuclear power. Since 1985, natural gas has gradually 
     increased its share of total energy use and is projected by 
     the Energy Information Administration to gain share over the 
     next quarter century, owing to its status as a clean-burning 
     fuel.
       Recent years' dramatic changes in technology are making 
     existing energy reserves stretch further while keeping long-
     term energy costs lower than they otherwise would have been. 
     Seismic techniques and satellite imaging, which are 
     facilitating the discovery of promising new natural gas 
     reservoirs, have nearly doubled the success rate of new-field 
     wildcat wells in the United States during the past decade. 
     New techniques allow far deeper drilling of promising fields, 
     especially offshore. The newer recovery innovations 
     reportedly have raised the average proportion of gas reserves 
     eventually brought to the surface. Technologies are 
     facilitating Rocky Mountain production of tight sands gas and 
     coalbed methane. Marketed production in Wyoming, for example, 
     has risen from 3.4 percent of total U.S. output in 1996 to 
     7.1 percent last year.
       One might expect that the dramatic shift away from hit-or-
     miss methods toward more advanced technologies would have 
     lowered the cost of developing new fields and, hence, the 
     long-term marginal costs of new gas. Indeed, those costs have 
     declined, but by less than might have been the case because 
     much of the innovation in oil and gas development outside of 
     OPEC has been directed at overcoming an increasingly 
     inhospitable and costly exploratory physical environment.
       Moreover, improving technologies have also increased the 
     depletion rate of newly discovered gas reservoirs, placing a 
     strain on supply that has required increasingly larger gross 
     additions from drilling to maintain any given level of dry 
     gas production. Depletion rates are estimated to have reached 
     27 percent last year, compared with 21 percent as recently as 
     five years ago. The rise has been even more pronounced for 
     conventionally produced gas because tight sands gas, which 
     comprises an increasing share of new gas finds, exhibits a 
     slower depletion rate than conventional wells.
       Improved technologies, however, have been unable to prevent 
     the underlying long-term price of natural gas in the United 
     States from rising. This is most readily observed in markets 
     for natural gas where contract delivery is sufficiently 
     distant to allow new supply to be developed and brought to 
     market. That price has risen gradually from $2 per million 
     Btu in 1997 for delivery in 2000, and presumably well beyond, 
     to more than $4.50 for delivery in 2009, the crude oil 
     heating equivalent of rising from less than $12 per barrel to 
     $26 per barrel. Over the same period, the distant futures 
     price of light sweet crude oil has edged up only $4 per 
     barrel and is selling at a historically rare discount to 
     comparably dated natural gas.
       Because gas is particularly challenging to transport in its 
     cryogenic form as a liquid, imports of LNG have been 
     negligible. Environmental and safety concerns and cost have 
     limited the number of LNG terminals and imports of LNG. In 
     2001, LNG imports accounted for only 1 percent of U.S. gas 
     supply. Canada, which has recently supplied a sixth of our 
     consumption, has little capacity to significantly expand its 
     exports, in part because of the role that Canadian gas plays 
     in supporting growing oil production from tar sands.
       Given notable cost reductions for both liquefaction and 
     transportation of LNG, significant global trade is 
     developing. And high gas prices projected in the American 
     distant futures market have made us a potential very large 
     importer. Worldwide imports of natural gas in 2000 were only 
     26 percent of world consumption, compared to 50 percent for 
     oil.
       Even with markedly less geopolitical instability 
     confronting world gas than world oil in recent years, spot 
     gas prices have been far more volatile than those for oil, 
     doubtless reflecting, in part, less-developed global trade. 
     The updrift and volatility of the spot price for gas have put 
     significant segments of the North American gas-using industry 
     in a weakened competitive position. Unless this competitive 
     weakness is addressed, new investment in these 
     technologies will flag.
       Increased marginal supplies from abroad, while likely to 
     notably damp the levels and volatility of American natural 
     gas prices, would expose us to possibly insecure sources of 
     foreign supply, as it has for oil. But natural gas reserves 
     are somewhat more widely dispersed than those of oil, for 
     which three-fifths of proved world reserves reside in the 
     Middle East. Nearly two-fifths of world natural gas reserves 
     are in Russia and its former satellites, and one-third are in 
     the Middle East.
       Creating a price-pressure safety valve through larger 
     import capacity of LNG need

[[Page S13494]]

     not unduly expose us to potentially unstable sources of 
     imports. There are still numerous unexploited sources of gas 
     production in the United States. We have been struggling to 
     reach an agreeable tradeoff between environmental and energy 
     concerns for decades. I do not doubt we will continue to 
     fine-tune our areas of consensus. But it is essential that 
     our policies be consistent. For example, we cannot, on the 
     one hand, encourage the use of environmentally desirable 
     natural gas in this country while being conflicted on larger 
     imports of LNG. Such contradictions are resolved only by 
     debilitating spikes in price.
       In summary, the long-term equilibrium price for natural gas 
     in the United States has risen persistently during the past 
     six years from approximately $2 per million Btu to more than 
     $4.50. The perceived tightening of long-term demand-supply 
     balances is beginning to price some industrial demand out of 
     the market. It is not clear whether these losses are 
     temporary, pending a fall in price, or permanent.
       Such pressures do not arise in the U.S. market for crude 
     oil. American refiners have unlimited access to world 
     supplies, as was demonstrated most recently when Venezuelan 
     oil production shut down. Refiners were able to replace lost 
     oil with supplies from Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If 
     North American natural gas markets are to function with the 
     flexibility exhibited by oil, unlimited access to the vast 
     world reserves of gas is required. Markets need to be able to 
     effectively adjust to unexpected shortfalls in domestic 
     supply. Access to world natural gas supplies will require a 
     major expansion of LNG terminal import capacity. Without the 
     flexibility such facilities will impart, imbalances in supply 
     and demand must inevitably engender price volatility.
       As the technology of LNG liquefaction and shipping has 
     improved, and as safety considerations have lessened, a major 
     expansion of U.S. import capability appears to be under way. 
     These movements bode well for widespread natural gas 
     availability in North America in the years ahead.
                                  ____


   Statement of Alan Greenspan, Chairman, Board of Governors of the 
  Federal Reserve System Before the Joint Economic Committee, May 21, 
                                  2003

       Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to testify 
     before the Joint Economic Committee. As you will recall, when 
     I appeared here last November, I emphasized the extraordinary 
     resilience manifested by the United States economy in recent 
     years--the cumulative result of increased flexibility over 
     the past quarter century. Since the middle of 2000, our 
     economy has withstood serious blows: a significant decline in 
     equity prices, a substantial fall in capital spending, the 
     terrorist attacks of September 11, confidence-debilitating 
     revelations of corporate malfeasance, and wars in Afghanistan 
     and Iraq. Any combination of these shocks would arguably have 
     induced a severe economic contraction two or three decades 
     ago. Yet remarkably, over the past three years, activity has 
     expanded, on balance--an outcome offering clear evidence of a 
     flexible, more resilient, economic system.
       Once again this year, our economy has struggled to surmount 
     new obstacles. As the tensions with Iraq increased early in 
     2003, uncertainties surrounding a possible war contributed to 
     a softening in economic activity. Oil prices moved up close 
     to $40 a barrel in February, stock prices tested their lows 
     of last fall, and consumer and business confidence ebbed. 
     Although in January there were some signs of a post-holiday 
     pickup in retail sales other than motor vehicles, spending 
     was little changed, on balance, over the following three 
     months as a gasoline price surge drained consumer purchasing 
     power and severe winter weather kept many shoppers at home.
       Businesses, too, were reluctant to initiate new projects in 
     such a highly uncertain environment. Hiring slumped, capital 
     spending plans were put on hold, and inventories were held to 
     very lean levels. Collectively, households and businesses 
     hesitated to make decisions, pending news about the timing, 
     success, and cost of military action--factors that could 
     significantly alter the outcomes of those decisions.
       The start of the war and its early successes, especially 
     the safeguarding of the Iraqi oilfields, were greeted 
     positively by financial and commodities markets. Stock prices 
     rallied, risk spreads narrowed, oil prices dropped sharply, 
     and the dour mood that had gripped consumers started to lift, 
     precursors that historically have led to improved economic 
     activity. The quick conclusion of the conflict subsequently 
     added to financial gains.
       We do not yet have sufficient information on economic 
     activity following the end of hostilities to make a firm 
     judgment about the current underlying strength of the real 
     economy. Incoming data on labor markets and production have 
     been disappointing. Payrolls fell further in April, and 
     industrial production declined as well. Because of the normal 
     lags in scheduling production and in making employment 
     decisions, these movements likely reflect business decisions 
     that, for the most part, were made prior to the start of the 
     war, and many more weeks of data will be needed to 
     confidently discern the underlying trends in these areas.
       One reassuring development that has been sustained through 
     this extended period of economic weakness has been the 
     performance of productivity. To the surprise of most 
     analysts, labor productivity has continued to post solid 
     gains. Businesses are apparently continuing to discover 
     unexploited areas of cost reduction that had accumulated 
     during the boom years of 1995 to 2000 when the projected huge 
     returns from market expansion dulled incentives for seemingly 
     mundane cost savings. The ability of business managers to 
     reduce costs, especially labor costs, through investment or 
     restructuring is, of course, one reason that labor markets 
     markets have been so weak.
       Looking ahead, the consensus expectation for a pickup in 
     economic activity is not unreasonable, though the timing and 
     extent of that improvement continue to be uncertain. The 
     stance of monetary policy remains accommodative, and 
     conditions in financial markets appear supportive of an 
     increased pace of activity. Interest rates remain low, and 
     funds seem to be readily available to creditworthy borrowers. 
     These factors, along with the ability of households to tap 
     equity accrued in residential properties, should continue to 
     bolster consumer spending and the purchase of new homes.
       The recent declines in energy prices are another positive 
     factor in the economic outlook. The price of West Texas 
     intermediate crude oil dropped back to below $26 per barrel 
     by the end of April, but as indications of a delay in the 
     restoration of Iraqi oil exports became evident and 
     geopolitical risks crept back in, prices have risen to near 
     $30 a barrel--a worrisome trend if continued. Nonetheless, 
     the price of crude oil is still about $10 per barrel below 
     its peak in February. This decline has already shown through 
     to the price of gasoline in May. Some modest further declines 
     in gas prices are likely in coming weeks, as marketers' 
     profit margins continue to back off from their elevated 
     levels of March and April to more normal levels.
       In contrast, prices for natural gas have increased sharply 
     in response by very tight supplies. Working gas in storage is 
     presently at extremely low levels, and the normal seasonal 
     rebuilding of these inventories seems to be behind the 
     typical schedule. The colder-than-average winter played a 
     role in producing today's tight supply situation as did the 
     inability of heightened gas well drilling to significantly 
     augment net marketed production. Canada, our major source of 
     gas imports, has little room to expand shipments to the 
     United States. Our limited capacity to import liquified 
     natural gas effectively restricts our access to the world's 
     abundant supplies of natural gas. The current tight domestic 
     natural gas market reflects the increases in demand over 
     the past two decades. The demand has been spurred by 
     myriad new uses for natural gas in industry and by the 
     increased use of natural gas as a clean-burning source of 
     electric power.
       On balance, recent movements in energy prices seem likely 
     to be a favorable influence on the overall economy. In the 
     short run, lower energy bills should give a boost to the real 
     incomes of households and to business profits. To be sure, 
     world energy markets obviously remain susceptible to 
     politically driven supply disruptions, as has been evident 
     recently from the events in Venezuela and Nigeria. But, even 
     taking account of these risks, futures markets project crude 
     oil prices to fall over the longer run, consistent with the 
     notion that current prices are above the long-term supply 
     price of oil.
       As has been the case for some time, the central question 
     about the outlook remains whether business firms will quicken 
     the pace of investment now that some, but by no means all, of 
     the geopolitical uncertainties have been resolved. A modestly 
     encouraging sign is the backlog of orders for nondefense 
     capital goods excluding aircraft, which has been moving up in 
     recent months. Moreover, recent earnings reports suggest that 
     the profitability of many businesses is on the mend. That 
     said, firms still appear hesitant to spend and hire, and we 
     need to remain mindful of the possibility that lingering 
     business caution could be an impediment to improved economic 
     performance.
       One new uncertainty in the global economic outlook has been 
     the outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 
     Southeast Asia and elsewhere. This epidemic has hit the 
     economies of Hong Kong and China particularly hard, as 
     tourism and business travel has been severely curtailed and 
     as measures to contain the spread of the virus have held down 
     retail sales.
       To date, the effects of SARS on the U.S. economy have been 
     minimal. Airlines have obviously suffered another seriously 
     blow, and some U.S. multinational corporations are reporting 
     reduced foreign sales. But the effects on other industries 
     have been small. Initially, there had been some concern that 
     SARS would disrupt the just-in-time inventory systems of U.S. 
     manufacturers. Many of those systems rely on components from 
     Asia, and any disruption in the flow of these goods has the 
     potential to affect production in the United States. So far, 
     however, U.S. manufacturing output has not been noticeably 
     affected.
       In recent months, inflation has dropped to very low levels. 
     As I noted earlier, energy prices already are reacting to the 
     decline in crude oil prices, and core consumer price 
     inflation has been minimal. Inflation is now sufficiently low 
     that it no longer appears to be much of a factor in the 
     economic calculations of households and businesses. Indeed, 
     we have reached a point at which, in the judgment of the 
     Federal Open Market Committee, the probability of an 
     unwelcome substantial fall in inflation over the next few

[[Page S13495]]

     quarters, though minor, exceeds that of a pickup in 
     inflation.
       Mr. Chairman, the economic information received in recent 
     weeks has not, in my judgment, materially altered the 
     outlook. Nonetheless, the economy continues to be buffeted by 
     strong cross currents. Recent readings on production and 
     employment have been on the weak side, but the economic 
     fundamental--including the improved conditions in financial 
     markets and the continued growth in productivity--augur well 
     for the future.

  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, the Senate has passed a comprehensive 
energy bill that is currently stuck in conference with the House of 
Representatives. The energy bill passed by the Senate includes several 
provisions to increase domestic production of natural gas and to ensure 
that we have a healthy, vital fuel mix for electric generation.
  It is vitally important for the conference committee to wrap up its 
work and report a bill that will increase our supplies of natural gas 
and promote alternatives to natural gas.
  Unfortunately, the legislation that has been offered by Senators 
McCain and Lieberman goes in exactly the opposite direction. We are 
trying to free up more natural gas. We are trying to take the heat off 
the demand for natural gas. It will force our utilities to fuel switch 
to natural gas. It will significantly raise energy prices. It will 
cause additional thousands of jobs to be lost. And I agree with the 
Senator from Missouri, Mr. Bond, that is what is going to happen.
  The Energy Information Administration estimates that passage of S. 
139--I think this is really important, and our colleagues should listen 
to this--will raise petroleum products prices by 31 percent, raise 
natural gas prices by 79 percent, raise electricity prices by 46 
percent, and reduce GDP by up to $93 billion by 2025.
  I just received a letter today from Commerce Secretary Evans, Labor 
Secretary Chao, and Acting EPA Administrator Horinko. Here is what they 
said in the letter:

       According to an analysis conducted by the Independent 
     Information Administration (EIA), S. 139 would cause an 
     estimated average loss of 460,000 American jobs through 2025, 
     with estimated job losses reaching 600,000 by 2012. Instead 
     of improving our economic security through economic growth 
     and job creation, the job losses resulting from S. 139 would 
     place an unacceptable burden on American workers and the 
     American people.
       EIA's analysis further reveals the higher energy costs the 
     legislation would impose on American energy consumers: once 
     fully implemented, S. 139 would require a 40 cent per gallon 
     increase in gasoline prices and cause a nearly 50% increase 
     in natural gas and electricity bills.
       As a result of these higher energy costs, EIA projects a 
     net loss of $507 billion (1996 dollars) in Gross Domestic 
     Production over the next two decades. These higher energy 
     costs and reduced economic growth would likely lead American 
     businesses to move overseas, taking jobs with them.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter from 
Secretary Evans, Secretary Chao, and Acting EPA Administrator Horinko 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                 October 28, 2003.
     Hon. George Voinovich,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Voinovich: We are writing to state our serious 
     concerns about S. 139, ``The Climate Stewardship Act of 
     2003,'' and to strongly urge that you vote against this bill 
     to avoid the significant job losses and economic harm that it 
     would inflict on our economy, without necessarily achieving 
     any reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions.
       According to an analysis conducted by the independent 
     Energy Information Administration (EIA), S. 139 would cause 
     an estimated average of 460,000 American jobs through 2025, 
     with estimated job losses reaching 600,000 by 2012. Instead 
     of improving our economic security through economic growth 
     and job creation, the job losses resulting from S. 139 would 
     place an unacceptable burden on American workers and the 
     American people. EIA's analysis further reveals the higher 
     energy costs the legislation would impose on American energy 
     consumers: once fully implemented, S. 139 would require a 40 
     percent per gallon increase in gasoline prices and cause 
     nearly a 50% increase in natural gas and electricity bills.
       As a result of these higher energy costs, EIA projects a 
     net loss of $507 billion (1996 dollars) in Gross Domestic 
     Product over the next two decades. These higher energy costs 
     and reduced economic growth would likely lead American 
     businesses to move overseas, taking jobs with them. As a 
     result, S. 139 may actually lead to an increase in global 
     greenhouse gas emissions as companies formerly in the U.S. 
     move their operations (and emissions) overseas to countries 
     that do not require similar emissions reductions. To 
     compensate for the economic dislocation that S. 139 would 
     cause, the legislation establishes a ``Climate Change Credit 
     Corporation'' for ``transaction assistance to dislocated 
     workers and communities.'' However, we believe that the 
     Senate should instead reject this legislation and avoid 
     inflicting the harm that would create the need for such 
     ``transition assistance'' in the first place.
       President Bush has committed the U.S. to an ambitious and 
     comprehensive strategy to address the issue of global climate 
     change. It is based on the recognition that only a growing 
     American economy can make possible the sustained investments 
     in energy and carbon sequestration technologies needed to 
     reduce the projected long-term growth in global greenhouse 
     gas emissions. Because of its negative impacts on jobs and 
     economic growth, we call upon the Senate to reject 
     S. 139 as a misguided means of achieving our international 
     environmental goals.
     Donald L. Evans,
       Secretary of Commerce.
     Elaine L. Chao,
       Secretary of Labor.
     Marianne L. Horinko,
       Acting Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coleman). The Senator has used 7 minutes.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask for another 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Three?
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I yield an additional 3 minutes from our 
side to the Senator from Ohio.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. As I said, Mr. President, carbon caps mean fuel 
switching. Carbon caps mean the end of manufacturing in my State. They 
mean enormous burdens on the least of our brethren. And they mean 
moving jobs and production overseas.
  What we need to do is move forward in a responsible manner, and move 
away from harshly ideological positions that advance nothing other than 
the agenda of environmental groups that have made support for carbon 
caps a political litmus test.
  We must move forward in a manner that includes sound science and 
concrete reductions in carbon without seriously harming our economy.
  In response to the need for better understanding of the underlying 
science of climate change, President Bush has moved forward 
aggressively to focus administration science and climate programs on a 
comprehensive approach to this issue.
  Earlier this year, Secretary Veneman announced a new series of 
initiatives to increase agricultural sequestration of carbon, which is 
a major problem. The Department of Energy is implementing President 
Bush's $2 billion Clean Coal Technology Initiative. And the DOE and the 
Environmental Protection Agency have worked with the State Department 
on several international carbon control and sequestration projects, 
including the exportation of clean coal technologies to underdeveloped 
nations.
  I appreciate the steps the administration is taking on climate 
change. I would like to make clear today that, as a State legislator, 
county official, mayor, and Governor of Ohio, I have been able to work 
across the aisle with environmental groups to accomplish many things. 
Efforts were successful because reasonable minds were able to sit at 
the table together, work together in good faith, and get things done.
  It is unfortunate in this debate that we have not been able to sit 
down with folks and work through this issue in good faith. Our friends 
in the environmental community and their allies in Congress have 
hardened their positions on climate change to the point that voting for 
carbon caps--despite the tremendous negative impact such caps have on 
jobs, the poor, and our economy--has become a litmus test.
  In a word, this position is unreasonable. It is unreasonable that 
nothing other than capping carbon is acceptable. It is unreasonable 
that nothing other than forcing utilities to rely solely on natural gas 
to generate electricity and devastating our economy is acceptable. And, 
finally, it is unreasonable that nothing other than sending

[[Page S13496]]

American jobs overseas and driving up energy costs for the poor and 
elderly on fixed income is acceptable.
  Mr. President, I have been fortunate to serve the State of Ohio for 
many years. I take my responsibility to serve my State's interests very 
seriously. And I will work all day, every day, to block legislation 
such as this legislation that will devastate my State.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no on S. 139, a bill that will shut down 
our manufacturers, send thousands of American jobs overseas--to 
countries that do not have the environmental laws that we have in 
America--significantly raise energy prices for those who can least 
afford them, and do little or nothing to solve the global warming 
problem.
  I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I just want to, very briefly, respond 
to a few of the remarks of my friend from Ohio.
  My friend from Ohio is talking about a bill that is not the one 
before us. The EIA estimate was of the original McCain-Lieberman bill. 
In an attempt to achieve consensus, we took off the second set of 
requirements. So now the bill says, to put it simply, that the Nation 
has to reach the 2000 level by 2010 of greenhouse gas emissions. No EIA 
study has been done on this bill.
  We have a study from the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy 
of Global Change. Just to put the minds of viewers at ease about what 
the impact of this will be on the cost of energy, MIT estimates that 
the bill before us will have a positive effect on coal prices, in fact, 
dropping them by 5 percent, natural gas prices by 5 percent, and crude 
oil prices by 2 percent.
  Secondly, there has been some reference to Cinergy and American 
Electric Power. I want to make clear, I did not say--I certainly did 
not intend to say; I do not believe I did say--that those companies 
endorsed our proposal. But the fact is, Cinergy did testify that they 
could live by the amendment without additional cost. And that is the 
relevant part of it.
  Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield for one question?
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. I have a letter entitled ``The State of Climate Science: 
October 2003, A Letter from U.S. Scientists''--1,010 scientists from 
across America. I want to go into it later on, but they say, in 
summary: The main conclusions of the IPCC and the NRC--that is the 
National Academy of Sciences--reports remain robust consensus 
positions, supported by the vast majority of researchers in the fields 
of climate change and its impacts.
  The body of research carried out since the reports were issued tends 
to strengthen their conclusion, 1,010 scientists.
  We will probably hear it again, but they are relying on an analysis 
of a bill, because it is what was handed out, that is not even before 
the Senate. I argue to my friends, it is a waste of the Senate's time 
to argue statistics, as the Senator from Ohio just did, about a bill 
that is not before us.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Senator from Arizona. I will yield the 
floor, but I ask unanimous consent that a summary of this MIT study of 
the bill before us and its cost impacts be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

Energy Price Impacts of Phase I of S. 139, the McCain/Lieberman Climate 
 Stewardship Act According to the June, 2003, Economic Analysis of S. 
   139--By the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global 
                                 Change

       I. Fuel prices followed by % change from reference 
     projections (+/-):

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             2005               2010               2015               2020
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gasoline Prices ($/gallon)..........         $1.63 (0%)         $1.72 (3%)         $1.87 (4%)         $2.14 (5%)
Coal Prices ($/metric ton)..........        $28.08 (0%)        $27.56 (3%)       $28.12 (-4%)       $28.70 (-5%)
Natural Gas Prices ($/mbtu).........         $3.31 (0%)        $3.36 (-2%)        $3.17 (-3%)        $4.14 (-4%)
Crude Oil Prices ($/bbl)............        $27.92 (0%)       $28.31 (-1%)       $31.08 (-1%)       $36.58 (-2%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

       Note 1: Prices are reported in 2001 $$.
       Note 2: Phase I implementation of S. 139 is represented by 
     Scenario #12 in the MIT analysis.
       Note 3: The gasoline prices are inclusive of the carbon 
     price, so that whereas the price index of coal drops 
     (exclusive of the carbon price), the price of gasoline goes 
     up when the carbon price is included. This is how the 
     ``upstream allowance'' system works to affect gasoline 
     consumption--through the gasoline price. Coal, oil, and 
     natural gas prices, in contrast, do not include the carbon 
     charge because in S. 139 emissions of CO2 are 
     controlled at the point of combustion, and so this charge 
     will not be seen in the price.
       Note 4: The reason for the natural gas price decline is 
     that, while a bigger share of electricity is produced using 
     gas, overall gas use does go down. (Electricity use goes down 
     due to conservation because of higher electricity prices, so 
     there is less overall need to generate as much electricity as 
     in the reference case.) There are also some modest 
     improvements in efficiency of gas in the electric power 
     sector, and conservation and efficiency in other uses, as 
     well.

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I believe the Senator from Maine is next on our side. 
I yield to her at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I commend Chairman McCain for his 
extraordinary leadership on this issue, and Senator Lieberman for being 
able at this point for the first time to debate global climate change 
here in the Senate. Chairman McCain has held many Commerce Committee 
hearings. As a member of that committee, I can tell you that he is 
focused singularly on this issue in terms of trying to address one of 
the most significant environmental issues facing this country in this 
century. It is long overdue, and this is the first real debate the 
Senate has had.
  I am glad that Senator Lieberman raised this issue on domestic 
reductions because that is what this legislation is addressing, 
domestic reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, specifically carbon 
dioxide, thought by the vast majority of international scientists to be 
the cause of global warming.
  The legislation before us today, the McCain-Lieberman amendment to 
the Climate Stewardship Act of 2003, sets out to do just that in an 
environmentally and economically friendly way. I believe any future 
delay in acting on climate change will lead the U.S. down a path to 
even greater environmental damage and greater economic harm. As we 
review more and more the scientific evidence, it is clear to me that we 
have to address this issue in a very vigorous and aggressive way.
  The main finding of the 2001 National Academy of Science report 
called ``Climate Change Science: Analysis of Some Key Questions,'' was 
this:

       Greenhouse gases are accumulating in the Earth's atmosphere 
     as a result of human activities, causing surface air 
     temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise.

  While this report did not rule out natural variability, it stated 
that:

     . . . the changes observed over the last several decades are 
     likely mostly due to human activities . . .

  This first chart that I have from the Intergovernmental Panel on 
Climate Change should give us all great pause. The red line on this 
chart shows the extreme jump in increases in temperatures in the last 
decade alone when compared to the last 1,000 years, according to tree 
rings, corals, historical records, and from thermometers. Notice how 
the red line dramatically shoots up at the far right corner of this 
chart.
  Since carbon dioxide emitted today will linger in the atmosphere on 
average of at least a century, this should be more of a red flag waving 
before our eyes than just a red line spiraling upwards as to why we 
should be attempting to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions now.
  What is there not to get when you see the variations of the Earth's 
surface temperature for the past 1,000 years and see the dramatic 
incline in just the last few years alone?
  Addressing global climate change is an issue that cuts across State 
and national boundaries as well as across interest groups. The majority 
of religious groups see it as a moral issue, and 75

[[Page S13497]]

percent of the general public, according to a new Zogby poll, supports 
actions under the McCain-Lieberman amendment. Some of the largest 
companies see it as a business issue. Dupont and BP, realizing climate 
change's effect on their bottom line, have already achieved larger 
reductions than our amendment calls for with no net cost.
  As a matter of fact, the companies have posted an annual savings of 
$365 million, and this amendment before us today will give them credits 
for these early actions.

  One might wonder why a Senator from a cold State such as Maine would 
worry about a little more warmth, unless you consider the implications 
of climate change on a number of ecosystems that could be thrown out of 
balance and truly affect life as we know it.
  As an example, predictions are that the range of the sugar maple, of 
significant economic importance to my State during the fall foliage 
season, will move northward over the next 50 years. The range of 
softwood and hardwood tree species that grow in Maine are also expected 
to shift, interfering with the long-term growth plans of the timber 
industry. In addition, at a recent ``Climate Change and Horticulture'' 
symposium at Cornell University, scientists stated that crops such as 
potatoes could be pushed north into Canada. This news doesn't bode well 
for Maine's crop or those of other potato States such as Idaho, 
Washington, North Dakota, and Oregon.
  As you can see from this next chart, States across the country, as 
indicated in green, are urging the EPA to consider carbon dioxide a 
pollutant under the Clean Air Act, and have put carbon caps on 
powerplants, or are calling on Congress to address the need for 
reductions in manmade greenhouse gas emissions.
  The green States with the stripes are currently investigating 
potential legislative positions the States can take for carbon 
sequestration through agriculture and forestry initiatives, a move that 
could be very important in capturing and storing carbon dioxide that 
will help with domestic emissions reductions.
  As a matter of fact, the New York Times reported in this morning's a 
edition:

       In the last three years, state legislators have passed at 
     least 29 bills, usually with bipartisan support [that address 
     global warming.]

  But it is not just the States that are taking action on this key 
issue, as mayors from large metropolitan areas and small rural towns, 
indicated on this chart by the yellow dots, have written Congress in 
support of the McCain-Lieberman legislation that we are considering 
tonight.
  This past June, my State of Maine passed a bill mandating reductions 
in carbon dioxide emissions to below 1990 levels by the year 2020. The 
law requires Maine to develop a climate change action plan by next July 
to guide State agencies, businesses, and others with a goal of reducing 
emissions. This bill grew out of a 2001 regional emissions agreement 
signed by six New England Governors and five eastern Canadian premiers.
  New Hampshire has passed a law curbing carbon dioxide pollution from 
powerplants. On July 9, Northeast States, led by New York Governor 
George Pataki, called for a Maryland-to-Maine cap on global warming 
pollution from powerplants and announced a formal agreement for a 
regional strategy in the Northeast to reduce emissions through a 
market-based emissions trading system.
  Over a year ago, the State of California passed legislation making it 
the first State to regulate tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases. And 
just last month, the Governors of California, Washington, and Oregon 
announced plans to develop a coordinated strategy to reduce global 
warming.
  In the Midwest, 10 years ago, Wisconsin implemented mandatory 
reporting requirements for large generators of carbon dioxide and is 
developing a registry that will enable firms to report carbon dioxide 
reductions that will allow them to obtain credits for these reductions 
in any future Federal and State greenhouse gas programs.
  These grassroots efforts are sending Congress a clear and unequivocal 
message, and one that we should certainly listen to because our 
atmosphere knows no boundaries. We need to develop a national approach 
as a first step to emissions reductions for solutions that are 
environmentally and economically sound. The McCain-Lieberman amendment 
is a first step in that process.
  Looking beyond the continental United States at the effects of 
climate change, scientists tell us that the snows of Kilimanjaro could 
vanish in 15 years.
  The glaciers in the Bolivian Andes that once appeared indestructible 
may disappear in another 10 years.
  In Alaska, where the average temperature has risen almost 5\1/2\ 
degrees over the past 30 years, there is evidence of melting 
permafrost, sagging roads, and dying forests.
  There is also a 150-square mile, 100-foot thick mass of ice that has 
existed on the coast of Canada for 3,000 years that is disintegrating 
from a century-long warming trend, and the melting has been 
accelerating over the past 2 years.
  Coral reefs, a large and integral part of the coastal oceans around 
the world, are under huge stresses as coral bleaching is induced by 
high water temperatures. Nature magazine reported there is a massive 
region-wide decline of coral which supports a huge variety of sea life 
across the entire Caribbean Basin.
  Experts at a July 2003 NOAA workshop on coral reefs concluded that 
climate change will continue to render coral reefs even more vulnerable 
to human-related stresses, such as pollution, diseases, habitat 
destruction, and overfishing. Prevailing theory has generally held that 
the climate will respond to rising carbon dioxide and other greenhouse 
emissions by gradually growing warmer.
  However, according to a December 2001 National Academy of Sciences 
report, a growing body of scientific evidence suggests that the climate 
does not respond to change gradually but in sudden jumps that such 
abrupt changes--and I quote from the report--``are not only possible 
but likely in the future.''
  If such a shift were to happen, it would have immense societal 
consequences. The report urged that a new research program be initiated 
to identify the likelihood of the potential impact of a sudden change 
in climate in response to global warming.
  I am pleased the Senate Commerce appropriations legislation included 
$1.6 million for abrupt climate change research that I and Senator 
Collins requested to establish a NOAA joint institute at the University 
of Maine for the study of abrupt climate change.
  There is no doubt we will continue to need fossil fuel as an energy 
source. Yet at the same time we should be actively supporting increased 
use of renewable energy as well. Energy produced from wind, solar, 
geothermal, and hydropower do not emit carbon dioxide. We must have the 
will to change, and Congress must take actions to supply the incentives 
to promote these clean energies and for energy efficiencies so 
companies can make investments that extend over a period of time.
  The amendment before us creates a cap in the trade system that gives 
businesses more certainty in their business planning, allowing them to 
receive credits for emissions reduction actions that they can then 
trade in the marketplace to others who may require credits to meet 
their obligations. Our proposal even allows the forestry industry to 
voluntarily enter this program and receive credits for sequestering 
carbon dioxide through the trees they plant.
  We also need more accurate data of just how much carbon dioxide the 
United States is emitting into the atmosphere every year, and I am 
convinced we can obtain these numbers voluntarily from some of the 
worst offenders. So a mandatory registry and reporting system for 
emissions should be put in place as proposed under this amendment.

  Mr. President, I urge the Senate to adopt the McCain-Lieberman 
amendment to the Climate Stewardship Act. This is going to be 
absolutely critical for the future of this Nation and for future 
generations. Through our ingenuity and technology, we need to begin to 
take the actions to mitigate and to adapt to changes in the global 
climate

[[Page S13498]]

system rather than just deferring through benign neglect the problems 
for other generations to address.
  Working together, as this legislation is purporting to do, on a 
bipartisan basis, we have the ability to bequeath future generations a 
world better and more beautiful than was transmitted to us.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, we have agreed to go back and forth. I 
know Senator Akaka has been waiting for a while. Certainly it is all 
right to go to him. I wish to make one point first.
  It is a little unfair and unrealistic--and I want to make sure 
everyone interested in this issue understands, we have had the McCain-
Lieberman bill for months now, and we have all had a chance to study 
it. The fact they changed this bill and they are saying you are not 
talking about the bill before you now, that did not happen until 11:53 
this morning. We have not had a chance to see it.
  The bottom line is this: As was stated by the Senator from 
Connecticut, this is just a start. So if their bill is just a start, 
what it does is recognize CO2 as a pollutant, and that 
changes the policy for America. I think the debate from this point 
forward should go on as if we are talking about the original McCain-
Lieberman bill. That is what we will be doing.
  I yield to the Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Oklahoma. With 
all respect, I say the Senator and others opposing our amendment may 
continue to talk about the original McCain-Lieberman bill, but that is 
not the one before us. We announced at a Commerce Committee hearing on 
October 1 that in an attempt to achieve consensus and find common 
ground, we were pulling back the second part of our proposal. The first 
part sets a goal of achieving the standards of emission of 2000 by 
2010. The second part would have taken us back to 1990 standards by 
2016. We pulled that back.
  This is an attempt to try to see if we can move forward together. It 
has been out there for some period of time now, and the estimate we 
have seen of its effects comes from MIT, which I submitted for the 
Record earlier.
  We will continue to debate whether the facts being presented are 
relevant to our amendment. I say respectfully they are not.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I had yielded to the Senator from 
Connecticut, so let me respond. There are other provisions that arose 
this morning that no one has seen. It is a new bill. It is a different 
bill. The Senator may have talked about it in the Commerce Committee. I 
am not on the Commerce Committee.
  I will say this: To receive a bill after months and months of having 
this bill to look at, preparing our case, only to find out at the last 
minute, since they obviously didn't have the votes, it was changed, and 
we received it at 11:53, is not realistic.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, we did distribute a 
draft of this amendment last week, according to staff. I suppose in 
some sense we are progressing in this disagreement. I would rather 
disagree about the impact of the bill than disagree about the science 
that I think says so clearly the world has a problem. The globe is 
warming. It is the result of human activity, and we ought to figure out 
what to do about it.
  We will continue this debate. I thank the Senator from Maine for her 
very eloquent statement on behalf of the amendment. I am very proud of 
the bipartisan support for the amendment. The truth is, this is a 
nonpartisan amendment, as the public support for doing something about 
global warming is truly nonpartisan.
  Mr. President, I also thank my friend and colleague, the very 
distinguished Senator from Hawaii, for his patience and support of the 
bill. His experience as a Senator from Hawaii with the evidence of 
global warming is real. It goes beyond statistics and arguments. They 
have begun to see it with their own eyes. It is, therefore, with a real 
sense of gratitude I yield whatever time the Senator from Hawaii needs 
to make his statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to support the Climate 
Stewardship Act of 2003. As a cosponsor of S. 139, I commend Senators 
Lieberman and McCain for their bipartisan efforts to craft an important 
first step in addressing the serious issue of climate change. As was 
mentioned by Senator Lieberman, Hawaii, a State in the Pacific, is 
certainly subject to climate change. I also support the proposed 
amendment which establishes an emissions reporting database, provides 
climate change research grants, and requires a freeze on current levels 
of greenhouse gas emissions using a cap and trade system. I compliment 
Senators Lieberman and McCain for their continued leadership on this 
issue.
  The United States makes up less than 5 percent of the world's 
population, but releases the largest amount of greenhouse gases of any 
country. The U.S. accounts for roughly 25 percent of the world's global 
emissions. In 2001, the National Research Council conducted a study on 
greenhouse gases at the request of the Bush administration. The council 
reported that concentrations of greenhouse gases are increasing as a 
result of human activities. In other words, elevated levels of carbon 
dioxide are not due solely to natural climate variations. One example 
is the increase in energy production from the burning of fossil fuels.
  The council concluded that increased concentrations of greenhouse 
gases are causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean 
temperatures to rise. As you can see in the first chart, the World 
Meteorological Organization, WMO, shows an increase in combined land 
and ocean temperatures during the past 120 years. We can see clearly 
the trend that has occurred and where it is at this time. If we look 
farther back in the historical record, the second chart shows a 
dramatic spike in air temperature just after the Industrial Revolution. 
We can see that spike and rapid rise on the chart.
  The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, a premier 
international working group, predicts an increase in air surface 
temperature. The IPCC estimates the increase would be between 2.5 to 
10.4 degrees Fahrenheit from the year 1990 to 2100. The Panel also 
predicts that climate change will likely affect the distribution and 
availability of regional water resources. My colleagues should 
recognize that all the varied climate models and scenarios used by the 
IPCC show a continued increase in air surface temperature.
  Strong evidence of increased atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases 
and climate change is obvious in my home State. The global warming 
debate began in Hawaii. Over 30 years ago, the Mauna Loa Climate 
Observatory documented evidence of increased carbon dioxide levels. 
This graph clearly shows an undeniable upward trend of carbon dioxide 
in the atmosphere around the world.
  It is interesting to note, however, that island communities account 
for less than 1 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. Major 
population centers and infrastructure are located along or near coastal 
areas. As a result, Pacific island nations are highly vulnerable to 
increased impacts of climate change. Scientists predict an increase of 
extreme climate change events such as hurricanes, floods, and droughts. 
The impacts of these events on business and agriculture in Hawaii and 
Pacific islands could be particularly severe and devastate our tourist-
dependent economies.
  In just the past 100 years, Honolulu's average temperature has 
increased 4.4 degrees Fahrenheit while precipitation has decreased by 
20 percent. In Hawaii we have seen that ``El Nino'' events can have 
strong influences on our climate, causing prolonged periods of drought 
that hurt Hawaii's agricultural industry. Some climate projections show 
that the Pacific may actually transition into a more persistent ``El-
Nino''-like state, causing dramatic changes to the ecosystem around the 
world. This change would not only affect farmers, but perhaps even 
permanently destroy many coral reefs and their associated fisheries 
throughout the Pacific. In the mid-1990s, El Nino events destroyed at 
least one-third of Palau's coral reefs. The costs of inaction on 
climate change far outweigh the costs of this bill.

[[Page S13499]]

  Sea level rise is also a tremendous concern for Pacific island 
communities. It can greatly accelerate coastal erosion and saltwater 
intrusion into groundwater supplies. For many Pacific island nations 
facing severe shortages of drinking water, sea level rise is a 
devastating prospect. In Hawaii, sea level has risen six inches in 
Honolulu and nine inches in Hilo, the big island. The IPCC predicts 
that sea level will rise another one to two feet in the Pacific by the 
year 2100. The impacts of even a relatively small sea level rise on 
Pacific nations and atolls, some with maximum elevations which are less 
than ten feet above sea level, can be severe. As recently as 2001, 
rising sea levels caused the loss of land areas in Kiribati and Tuvalu, 
Pacific nations with low-lying atolls. In the Pacific, cultural 
activities were interwoven with the conservation of the environment. 
These traditions allowed the survival of dense populations on small 
land areas. Today, the global issue of climate change extends beyond 
our borders and threatens the livelihoods of these nations. Climate 
change is an important challenge and high priority for immediate action 
in the Pacific.
  The U.S. has tried initiatives such as the Voluntary Reporting of 
Greenhouse Gases Program. These voluntary programs have not succeeded 
in reducing or even stabilizing total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. 
Although program participants committed to reduce certain portions of 
their carbon dioxide emissions, many entities had substantial increases 
in their overall emission levels. This rise in emissions was due to 
increasing demands for their products and services. According to the 
Pew Center on Global Climate Change, total greenhouse gas emissions 
have increased approximately 12 percent between the years 1990 and 
2001. Emissions are projected to increase another 42 percent by 2020. 
The United States needs to address climate change in a significant way. 
We must implement a responsible and reasonable policy to stop 
greenhouse gas emissions from rising.
  Under the Lieberman-McCain amendment, the United States would adopt a 
uniform, Federal program to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions. The 
amendment would require all major electric power, industrial, or 
commercial facilities that emit over 10,000 metric tons of greenhouse 
gas per year to take action. A program that uses emissions trading 
would provide these sectors with the flexibility needed to determine 
the most cost-effective and practical approaches to stop greenhouse gas 
emissions from rising. The U.S. has already demonstrated that a cap-
and-trade system can be both environmentally and economically 
effective. The primary example is the Acid Rain Program which was 
established in 1990 to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide.
  Four U.S. corporations are already taking the lead in reducing 
greenhouse gas emissions. BP, British Petroleum, the largest oil and 
gas producer in the U.S., and DuPont, a $24 billion/year corporation 
that produces chemicals, materials, and energy, have already taken on 
emission reduction strategies. Both BP and DuPont have claimed to save 
millions of dollars in the process. Cinergy, the largest burner of coal 
in the U.S., has pledged to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 5 
percent with the belief that they can meet this target at no additional 
cost to the company or ratepayers. American Electric Power, the largest 
emitter of carbon dioxide in the U.S., has joined the Chicago Climate 
Exchange. This marketplace trades greenhouse gas emissions with a 
target of reducing emissions. The Governors of ten northeastern States 
developed a regional greenhouse gas trading program because of the lack 
of national leadership on climate change. Their program requires a 
mandatory cap on power plants in July of this year. In total, carbon 
reduction initiatives are already underway in 27 States.
  We must take this first, critical step to stabilize greenhouse gas 
emissions in the United States. If we fail to address the issue of 
climate change now, the U.S. may have to face catastrophic and 
expensive consequences. A relatively small investment today is far 
wiser than spending vast amounts in the future to replace destroyed 
homes and infrastructure, restore altered ecosystems, and reinvest in 
collapsed agricultural economies. Scientists at MIT, the Massachusetts 
Institute of Technology, conducted a study that analyzed the proposed 
costs of the Lieberman-McCain amendment to S. 139. They estimated the 
cost to be less than $20 per household per year.
  The United States has the technological capabilities and intellectual 
resources to lead the world in an effort to reduce future greenhouse 
gas emissions. The Lieberman-McCain amendment demonstrates to the 
international community our serious commitment. The European Union, EU, 
has recently adopted a mandatory cap and trade program with a carbon 
dioxide reduction target of 8 percent by the year 2012. The proposed 
amendment only calls for a stabilization of U.S. greenhouse gas 
emissions. The compliance costs of the EU greenhouse gas reduction 
program are expected to total less than 0.1 percent of their GDP, Gross 
Domestic Product. Therefore, the EU predicts a minimal effect on their 
economic growth even under a rigorous approach.
  I thank Senators Lieberman and McCain for recognizing the importance 
of climate change and taking the lead on legislation to stabilize 
greenhouse gas emissions. Research shows that our climate is changing 
due to human activities. It is clear that piecemeal, voluntary 
approaches have failed to reduce the total amount of greenhouse gas 
emissions in the United States. Now is the time to send a strong 
message that the U.S. is serious about the impacts of climate change. A 
policy of inaction on climate change is not acceptable and will cost 
the United States more than preventive policies. I firmly believe that 
we can have economic growth while protecting the global environment. I 
urge my colleagues in the Senate to support the Lieberman-McCain 
amendment to S. 139.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Alabama, Mr. 
Sessions.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank Senator Inhofe for his 
leadership on this issue. I recall several years ago, as a member of 
the EPW Committee, we served on the Clean Air Subcommittee and had 
field hearings and took testimony from a number of the scientists who 
are still speaking out and discussing the issue of global warming. I 
remember Dr. Lindzen from Harvard sat back in one of our hearings, kind 
of relaxed, and he said: We can debate this global warming, but even if 
we do, the things people are proposing are not going to have any 
significant impact on the global climate situation in which we are 
involved.
  I do think, as Senator Inhofe has ably pointed out, a lot of the 
scientific data is being disputed. One of the issues that I know about 
personally and have heard this witness, Dr. Christy, testify about, is 
the satellite data. Dr. John Christy at the University of Alabama at 
Huntsville studies NASA scientist space data, temperature readings in 
the upper atmosphere. According to the models that were supposed to 
predict global warming, those models called for the increase in 
temperature to show up first in the upper atmosphere.
  According to his rigorous analysis of the upper atmosphere 
temperatures, they have not increased in the last 15 or 20 years--maybe 
just the most minute fraction, but probably not any.
  So this contradicts some of the things we are hearing. I don't know 
what changes are out there in the environment. We know a lot of factors 
are involved.
  Professor Sallie Baliunas from Harvard, an astrophysicist, has 
recently discussed sunspots and Sun activity, and charts that show that 
tend to correspond with increasing or falling temperatures.
  I don't know. It could be increasing carbon dioxide, increasing soot, 
increasing other materials that have some impact on the environment, 
although it does appear--our best science shows in the early middle 
ages temperatures were hotter than they are today, before we had a lot 
of the things that people are complaining about.
  What I want to get around to saying is I believe there are legitimate 
disputes about the validity and extent of global warming. There is 
little or no dispute that what the United States

[[Page S13500]]

does unilaterally is not going to have any impact on the situation that 
is happening in our global environment. We have countries, like India 
with a billion people and China with a billion people, that are growing 
dramatically and have almost no environmental controls and are not 
going to participate in environmental controls. What we do here, 
whether or not we can spend billions and billions of dollars, what 
impact will we have here? Not much, I submit.
  I remember all these world gurus that met in Kyoto and they passed 
the Kyoto resolution and they wanted us to adopt the Kyoto accords. 
That was wonderful, to be at this conference and everybody got excited, 
apparently, and passed this resolution and asked all the nations to 
sign.
  We studied that here in the United States. What they wanted to do, 
and this was in the late 1990s, I believe 1997-1998, they wanted the 
United States and the other countries to commit to reducing greenhouse 
gases 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2012.
  Far from beginning to show a reduction, by the late 1990s we were 10 
or more percent above the 1990 level. Projections of increased energy 
demands and other projections raised a clear indication that we were 
going to continue to show increases and not declines.
  What I would say is that was ludicrous. It was totally unrealistic, 
could not be accomplished. Yet these so-called scientists were saying 
you are not a good person, you are not politically correct if you 
didn't agree to the Kyoto Treaty. So we had a big debate about it. We 
talked about it, and it became so apparent that it was so bogus and so 
unrealistic that when we voted, it was 97 to nothing, as I recall, to 
reject the Kyoto Treaty.
  Senator McCain and Senator Lieberman have come back with a more 
modest proposal. One thing I would have to say about it is that the 
Kyoto accord at least proposed to bring other countries on board, to 
have them agree to these reductions. This one is a unilateral economic 
action, I suggest. It says that by 2010 we ought to be at 2000 levels. 
The projections for growth indicate that would be very costly to meet. 
The Department of Energy research group suggests that by 2010 it would 
create, that year alone, a $45 billion cost on this economy. Make no 
mistake, $45 billion is real money, and it comes right out of this 
economy. It is sucked right out of the growth of this economy. It adds 
to the bill of every business, every homeowner, and if it drives up the 
cost of natural gas as people say, it is going to take money out of the 
pockets of fixed-income Americans all over this country.
  We cannot expect that there will be no cost for this.
  The question is, Will the cost be worth the benefit? I suggest that 
President Bush has it right. Let us not focus on CO2. Carbon 
dioxide does not hurt you. We have to have it in the atmosphere. It is 
what plants breathe. In fact, the more carbon dioxide that exists, the 
faster plants grow. Plants will grow in desert environments much better 
with higher levels of carbon dioxide. It does not hurt our lungs. It 
doesn't hurt our health. It does not injure. Sulfur dioxide, mercury, 
other particulate pollutants are harmful to us. Also, we need to focus 
on those issues. As we focus on those issues, we will reduce 
CO2 at the same time and perhaps that will play a role in 
our meeting some of the goals we are facing today.
  But to commit ourselves to a political goal of reducing a gas that is 
not harmful, and reducing it by amounts suggested here that will have 
no impact on global warming but a significant adverse impact on our 
economy--which means jobs, jobs, jobs--is a mistake.
  We have people in this body who say: Oh, we have too much 
unemployment; we have too many people who can't find work; we are 
seeing too many jobs go over to China. Do you think China is going to 
be meeting these requirements? Do we think they will be spending $45 
billion or more to get some minor increase that we were talking about 
here? I don't think so.
  This reduces our competitiveness in the world marketplace. It hurts 
us as we seek to maintain our manufacturing. It hurts our people on 
fixed incomes. It increases their cost of heating and cooling their 
homes. It is a big-time mistake. We do not need to make this mistake.
  I don't believe anybody will stand on the floor of this Senate and 
suggest that meeting CO2 emission goals will help this 
economy. It can only hurt this economy.
  Mr. McCAIN. If the Senator will yield for a question, I will stand on 
the floor of the Senate and ask what climate change is doing to future 
generations of Americans--the fishing industry and the farming and the 
climate and the forest fires that are taking place in California as we 
speak. If the Senator will yield for a question, I will stand up--
  Mr. SESSIONS. I will not yield for a question. I have accepted the 
speech of the Senator while I held the floor. I am pleased to do so. He 
is a great advocate.
  But I repeat: It is going to hurt this economy. And everyone knows 
it. It is going to drive up the cost of energy. When you do that, it 
drives out jobs. It will be a unilateral economic disarmament--a 
unilateral act by this country in which other nations will not be 
participating. It will not help us.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for my time. I 
appreciate the commitment of the Senator from Arizona, and I thank the 
Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Inhofe, for his leadership and support him 
on this side.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I congratulate the Senator from Alabama 
for smiling his way through that intensive interrogation by the Senator 
from Arizona.
  I now yield 10 minutes to the Senator from New York whose support for 
our amendment I greatly appreciate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mrs. CLINTON. I thank the Senator very much.
  I am proud to rise in support of the bipartisan climate change 
legislation offered by Senators Lieberman and McCain. I will be brief 
in my remarks, because I believe that the sponsors of the amendment 
have eloquently made the full case for the legislation. But this is a 
very important issue, and I did not want to miss the opportunity to 
voice my support.
  Climate change is greatest environmental challenge that we face. Its 
effects will unfold over decades and will touch every corner of the 
globe. I think the time to act is now.
  First, I want to briefly touch on the science. Many of the details 
remain to be filled in, and I support further climate research so we 
can refine our understanding of how human activities are affecting the 
climate system. But there is already a strong scientific consensus that 
supports action now. The most definitive recent reports were issued by 
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the National Research 
Council in 2001. In brief, the findings of those reports include the 
following:
  No. 1, anthropogenic climate change, driven by emissions of 
greenhouse gases, is already underway and likely responsible for most 
of the observed warming over the last 50 years--the largest warming 
that has occurred in the Northern Hemisphere during at least the past 
1,000 years;
  No. 2, over the course of this century the Earth is expected to warm 
an additional 2.5 to 10.5  deg.F, depending on future emissions levels 
and on the climate sensitivity--a sustained global rate of change 
exceeding any in the last 10,000 years;
  No. 3, temperature increases in most areas of the United States are 
expected to be considerably higher than these global means because of 
our Nation's northerly location and large average distance from the 
oceans;
  No. 4, even under mid-range emissions assumptions, the projected 
warming could cause substantial impacts in different regions of the 
United States, including an increased likelihood of heavy and extreme 
precipitation events, exacerbated drought, and sea level rise;
  No. 5, almost all plausible emissions scenarios result in projected 
temperatures that continue to increase well beyond the end of this 
century; and
  No. 6, due to the long lifetimes of greenhouse gases in the 
atmosphere,

[[Page S13501]]

the longer emissions increase, the faster they will ultimately have to 
be decreased in order to avoid dangerous interference with the climate 
system.
  These are disturbing findings from the most authoritative scientific 
sources we have. And the findings are further bolstered by an October 
1, 2003, letter to the U.S. Senate signed by over 1,000 leading 
scientists.
  So opponents who argue that we need more study before we act are 
simply wrong. We need to know more, but we already know enough to take 
initial steps to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that are causing 
climate change.
  I would add that we are already seeing the effects of climate change. 
Glaciers are retreating all over the world. In March 2002 the Larsen 
Ice Shelf on the Antarctic peninsula completely broke off and broke up. 
The glaciers in the mountains in the tropics are rapidly melting; e.g., 
the snows of Kilimanjaro will be gone by 2015. One of my staff members 
took a photo of himself on the summit in 1970 next to a 20 foot high 
glacier at Uhuru Point; 29 years later his daughter was at the same 
Uhuru Point and only a trace of ice was left.
  We are already feeling the effects of climate change. And the 
scientific consensus is that unless we act to reduce emissions, the 
planet will continue to warm over the next century, with widespread and 
potentially devastating effects. These potential effects include more 
frequent extreme weather events, the wider spread of diseases such as 
West Nile, Eastern Equine Encephalitis, and malaria.
  As a Senator from New York, I am concerned about coastal flooding if 
sea levels were to rise, and how that would affect communities on Long 
Island. I am concerned about how warming will affect the Adirondacks, 
where tourism and a way of life depend on cold and snow in the winter. 
I am concerned about impacts on New York farmers. But I am also 
concerned about impacts in other parts of the country and around the 
world.
  I am in wholehearted support of the effort undertaken by Senators 
Lieberman and McCain to address this issue of climate change. I have to 
say I find it somewhat bewildering, this note of fatalism, this sense 
of pessimism, this defeatism I am hearing from the other side of the 
aisle.
  No. 1, it is a real problem. You can say that it isn't. You can say 
it over and over again. It is a real problem, and it is a problem that 
is getting worse because we failed to attend to it.
  But what bothers me is this idea that somehow America--the most 
innovative, creative nation the world has ever seen--cannot cope with 
this problem. This defeatism, this pessimism, this fatalism that I hear 
from the opponents is fundamentally un-American.
  We have a problem. We should get about the business of addressing the 
problem.
  What Senators McCain and Lieberman have done is to give us a roadmap 
to doing that. It may not be everything that many advocates would wish 
for, but it lays out a marker, and, more than that, it fulfills for me 
the traditional sense of how Americans respond in the face of a 
difficulty.
  This legislation is not only necessary but I think it provides an 
opportunity. Yes, in the short run there may be some adjustments that 
are needed, just as there always are when we have to face inevitable or 
necessary change.
  We are confronting the greatest environmental challenge when we talk 
about global climate change. There can only be one conclusion: Because 
of human activity, we are warming the Earth.
  Some might say, ``Well, it doesn't seem that bad to me,'' or, ``The 
consequences don't seem that dire.'' But I believe we have disturbing 
findings from the most authoritative scientific sources that argue 
otherwise. The most definitive recent reports were issued by the 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and by the National Research 
Council in 2001.
  I remind my colleagues that the National Research Council study was 
requested by the Bush administration. And it fundamentally confirms the 
results of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
  What was the response of the administration? Kill the messenger. Hide 
the findings. Order EPA to take the information about global climate 
change out of its review of the status of the environment.
  You can deny a problem, you can ignore it, and you can delude 
yourself that it is not an issue. But I don't think that any longer is 
sustainable. It is not intellectually honest, and it is not politically 
defensible.
  Opponents who argue that we need more study before we act are simply 
wrong. Yes, we need to know more, but we already know enough to take 
initial steps to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that are causing 
climate change. That is what this legislation proposes to do.
  There are so many facts that support the evidence of climate change--
whether we talk about the Larsen Ice Shelf on the Antarctic peninsula 
breaking off and breaking up or whether we talk about the snow at 
Kilimanjaro.
  I want to show this one picture because it is so telling. It comes 
from the personal experience of one of my fellows who is working with 
me on my staff. He took a photo of himself on the summit of Kilimanjaro 
in 1970 next to a 20-foot-high glacier at Uhuru Point. And 29 years 
later, his daughter was at the same point and there was only a trace of 
ice left. Maybe people climbed up there and carted the ice off. I don't 
know. Maybe that became some kind of economic activity that the folks 
in Tanzania decided to pursue.

  That is not what happened. I think what happened is we have evidence 
in the most dramatic way possible of the effects of 29 years of global 
warming. The scientific consensus is clear: That unless we act to 
reduce emissions, the planet will continue to warm over the next 
century, with widespread and potentially devastating effects. We have 
heard some of those mentioned already.
  I listened carefully to the Senator from Maine talking about the 
change in everything from sugar maple to the potato crop in her State. 
I listened to my colleague from Hawaii, where we really began to 
acquire the evidence and understanding of global climate change.
  I worry about disease. I think it is indisputable that we are seeing 
disease move up in latitude. Diseases such as West Nile, eastern equine 
encephalitis, and malaria are now found at latitudes that they have 
never been before.
  As a Senator from New York, I am concerned about coastal flooding, if 
sea levels were to rise, and how it would affect the communities I 
represent and that my colleague from Connecticut represents at Long 
Island Sound and along the ocean.
  I am concerned about the warming effects on the Adirondacks; I am 
concerned about the effects on New York farmers; I am concerned about 
the economy, if we do not act.
  What is clear to me is that we have extraordinary economic 
opportunity. Since when did Americans say in the face of a challenge, 
Oh, my goodness, we can't admit it, we can't confront it, because we 
don't know how to deal with it economically?
  We could be making money and creating jobs if we took seriously the 
opportunities for alternative energy and conservation. The fact that we 
do not is because of the stranglehold special interests who are 
committed to always producing energy have on this body and on the 
administration.
  Let's be clear, we put out most of the greenhouse gasses from our 
country and we have the technological know-how, we have the 
understanding that would enable us to be the leaders in addressing this 
issue. That is why the bill offered by Senators McCain and Lieberman is 
so timely. Simply put, we would stabilize greenhouse gas emissions at 
2000 levels by 2010.
  Think of the energy we would unleash among our entrepreneurs if they 
got the go-ahead to deal with this challenge. A market-driven system of 
greenhouse gas tradable allowances would exempt farmers, residences, 
and auto manufacturers, and that would give us a chance to go forward 
to try to find solutions to the challenge of addressing greenhouse 
emissions. We know this cap-and-trade approach can enable cost-
effective reductions in emissions. We have seen it in the 
implementation of the acid rain provisions of the 1990 Clean Air Act. 
We know that has worked. Why do we turn our backs on what we know 
works?
  It is amazing to me how often the Congress, Capitol Hill, and 
Washington

[[Page S13502]]

end up becoming evidence-free zones because people do not want to deal 
with what the evidence demonstrates. We know the cost for this would be 
minimal.
  Let's be honest. The science is clear. The opportunities are clear. 
This bill represents a modest and flexible first step. Despite the 
assertions of opponents, compliance costs will be minimal. The United 
States needs to regain leadership. We need to take responsibility. It 
gives a chance, then, to go to the rest of the world to try to build an 
international consensus. In the absence of some kind of protocol or 
treaty, we will be choking to death on the emissions from countries 
such as China and India as their standard of living rises. Now is the 
time to act. We owe it to our children and our grandchildren and 
generations beyond.
  I thank the two sponsors for giving us the opportunity to go on 
record on the right side of history.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to express my support for the goal 
of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 2000 levels by the year 2010.
  The scientific evidence that people are causing the Earth to warm 
grows more robust each year. According to the National Academy of 
Sciences, ``Greenhouse gases are accumulating in the Earth's atmosphere 
as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and 
subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, 
rising. . . .'' Indeed, a new scientific analysis shows that the Earth 
is warmer now than it has been in the last 1,000 years.
  Perhaps most alarming is the rapid warming that is occurring in the 
Arctic. According to data released last week by the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration, Arctic temperatures are currently 
increasing at a rate of two degrees per decade, and Arctic ice is 
melting at a rate of 9 percent per decade. Scientists are now 
projecting that the Arctic Ocean could be ice-free in the summer by 
mid-century. Due to the importance of the Arctic Ocean to the world's 
climate as a whole, this prediction is truly alarming.
  To be sure, there are still numerous uncertainties. Researchers at 
the University of Maine have pointed out that past changes in the 
climate have tended to occur very abruptly, but we do not know if 
future changes in the climate will also occur in abrupt shifts. Nor do 
we know how quickly future warming will occur. Due to these 
uncertainties, I believe we should not only direct more attention to 
better understanding the climate, but also take prudent actions to 
reduce the risk of disruptive climatic changes.
  The McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship proposal would reduce U.S. 
greenhouse gas emissions to 2000 levels by the year 2010. In light of 
the climate changes observed to date and the potential risks of even 
greater and more abrupt changes, I support this goal. It is a prudent 
step in the right direction, and I intend to vote in favor of the 
McCain-Lieberman amendment.
  Although I am in favor of the Climate Stewardship Act, I think more 
thought needs to go into the exact actions by which we reach the goal 
of reducing emissions to 2000 levels by 2010. These are important 
decisions, and Congress should not allow such important decisions to 
rest in the hands of the agencies. I support concrete, certifiable 
reductions, and these reductions should come primarily by increasing 
the efficiency of our economy and further developing our renewable 
energy resources. Increasing CAFE standards for automobiles, efficiency 
standards for air conditioners and other appliances, and reducing power 
plant emissions are just a few examples of concrete steps that we can 
take to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
  The United States has made tremendous strides in increasing the 
energy efficiency of the economy. In doing so, we have averted millions 
of tons of greenhouse gas emissions. With further steps in improving 
our energy efficiency, the McCain-Lieberman target is imminently 
attainable. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from Utah.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I have enjoyed listening to this debate 
either in person or over the television. I will not try to add to it 
with a plethora of statistics, forecasts, or predictions. Rather, I 
want to deal with some of the statements that have been made including 
some we have just heard from the Senator from New York and try to do a 
little math of a very simple and direct kind and ask a few questions.
  First, the Senator from New York said the United States produces most 
of the greenhouse gasses. My understanding is the correct number is 25 
percent of the greenhouse gasses produced in the world as a whole. That 
is the largest of any single country. It does not constitute most. But 
it is a plurality and pluralities win elections so that puts us in 
first place.
  Now let us assume for the sake of following this through that we 
achieve a savings of 10 percent. I am not sure we will. No one is 
really sure in all of the predictions, dire and rosy, that are made 
with respect to this legislation how much the savings will be, but we 
will pick a number easy to calculate, 10 percent. That means, if the 
laws of mathematics have not changed, we would reduce the world 
emissions by 2.5 percent because 10 percent of 25 percent is 2.5 
percent.
  The question then arises, will the rest of the world stay static 
while we reduce the total by 2.5 percent or will a combination of 
China, India, Russia, Australia, what have you, increase the total by 
2.5 percent so that the net effect in the atmosphere of America doing 
this is zero. That is a very likely scenario. The net effect of the 
United States doing this as far as manmade emissions are concerned 
would be zero. Yes, we could reduce theoretically ours by 10 percent. 
That would be made up by the rest of the world.
  The question arises, how much benefit is there to see to it that the 
overall world situation is as it is now with the United States 
producing no significant impact on the total?
  The next question, what do we do if we reduce it by 10 percent? How 
do we do that? Obviously, we will need the power. Indeed, we will need 
substantially more power between now and the year 2010 if we are going 
to reduce the emissions that come from fossil fuel to generate the 
power we will have to go someplace else. There are a variety of places 
we can go.
  One we hear often is we should use natural gas. We should replace 
coal with natural gas. That is a good idea. But let us understand 
something right now. We have in the United States currently a shortage 
of natural gas. As Alan Greenspan pointed out, that is one of our major 
economic challenges. He also has pointed out, natural gas is the one 
fossil fuel we cannot import. In order to import natural gas we have to 
have a pipeline, unless you liquefy it, and that is tremendously 
expensive, and we do not have the ports available to receive natural 
gas in liquefied form. The only places we can import natural gas are 
Mexico and Canada, and we are doing that.
  If you look at a geological chart of the United States you find there 
is plenty of natural gas in the United States, but a very large 
percentage of that is on public land. Now the people who are telling us 
we must reduce greenhouse gas, namely the environmental groups, are the 
same people who are telling us we cannot drill for natural gas in the 
United States because that somehow will desecrate the public lands. I 
am not sure the land cares whether there is a drilling rig on it or 
whether there is a pipeline running across it, but certainly the Sierra 
Club cares. They say absolutely no drilling for natural gas on public 
lands.
  If we cannot get to the natural gas, we will continue to use coal. 
Let's use clean coal. We have enough clean coal in the State of Utah to 
heat, light, drive the city of San Francisco for the next 300 years. We 
proposed mining that. Clean coal, low-sulfur coal would significantly 
reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Who got very upset at the idea we 
might start to use clean coal? The Sierra Club. They got President 
Clinton to declare a national monument right on top of the potential 
clean coal to make sure there would never be any coal mined from that 
place because environmentally they do not want any coal mines.
  Well, we cannot use natural gas because we cannot get it off our 
public lands. We cannot use the clean coal in the West because we 
cannot get it off

[[Page S13503]]

our public lands. What is our alternative? Nuclear. That will do it. 
That is what they do in Europe. That is why Europe is in favor of Kyoto 
because they do not use fossil fuel to generate electricity; they use 
nuclear power.
  So let's have nuclear plants all over the United States in order to 
produce the 10 percent reduction called for in this bill. Is the Sierra 
Club ready to endorse and embrace nuclear? They will not let us drill 
for natural gas. They do not want us to use the clean coal and they 
absolutely do not want us to build nuclear plants.
  All right. Where else do we go? Well, in the West, we get a portion 
of our power from hydroplants. Dams have been built to store water. And 
as the water tumbles down the front of the dam, why, we get power. And 
it is the goal of the Sierra Club, and other groups that are supporting 
this bill, to dynamite these dams. They want to drain Lake Powell and 
dynamite the dam.
  It is very interesting, if I could make a quick historic aside, when 
my father was in the Senate, and they were talking about building the 
Glen Canyon Dam that would produce this power, the Sierra Club opposed 
it and said: We will never, ever need that much power. But, they said, 
if for some reason we are wrong, and we should need that power, there 
is no point in building the dam to provide the power because look at 
all the coal that is there. The coal is the coal that they moved to 
make sure would never get mined.
  I could embrace the idea of reducing the emissions in a test fashion 
to see if it did indeed have any impact on global warming if I could 
see the way clear to produce the power some other way than the way we 
are doing it now.
  I would say to the Senator from Connecticut, who has excellent 
contacts in the environmental world, if he would go back to those who 
are supporting this bill and say to them, ``In return for support of 
this bill, will you agree to drill for natural gas on public lands, to 
exploit low-sulfur coal where it exists on public lands, and to explore 
the possibility of more nuclear plants so that we don't become 
dependent on fossil fuel?'' I might very well be interested in 
cosponsoring and voting for this bill.
  But until those who are driving the debate publicly are willing to 
address the question of how you replace the sources of power that would 
have to be eliminated if this bill should pass, I intend to vote 
against the bill.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, in 1997, the Senate unanimously passed the 
Byrd-Hagel resolution that stated that the Senate would reject any 
climate agreement that did not mandate ``new specific scheduled 
commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for Developing 
Country Parties within the same compliance period'' as the United 
States or that ``would result in serious harm to the economy of the 
United States.'' The Kyoto Protocol failed to meet these conditions, 
and consequently, President Clinton never submitted the protocol for 
Senate ratification, nor has President Bush.
  The initiative before us, The Climate Stewardship Act of 2003, also 
fails to comply with the Byrd-Hagel resolution. First, it unilaterally 
commits the United States to carbon emissions restrictions, and second, 
it puts into place the regulatory structure for future carbon dioxide 
emissions reductions. This initiative represents the first phase in a 
long-term effort to reduce carbon dioxide emissions that would 
ultimately inflict serious harm on the U.S. economy. There is no need 
at this time to go down that path.
  There are many reasons why the U.S. should avoid committing itself to 
carbon dioxide reductions. First, carbon dioxide is the unavoidable 
consequence of burning carbon-based fuels such as coal, oil and natural 
gas. The only way to get energy from a carbon-based fuel is to force 
the carbon to combine with oxygen through burning it. The result of 
that process is carbon dioxide, an odorless, colorless, non-toxic gas 
that sustains life. Reducing carbon dioxide to levels that would be 
climatically meaningful would mean using something other than coal, oil 
or natural gas to fuel our economy. Unfortunately, there are no 
economically viable alternatives to replace these fuels at this time.
  This was made clear in a review of available energy technologies 
published in Science magazine in November 2002. In that review, a team 
of scientists many of whom are climate alarmists--concluded that our 
fossil fuel-dominated energy system ``cannot be regulated away'' and 
that we must instead rely on ``the development within the coming 
decades of primary energy sources that do not emit carbon dioxide to 
the atmosphere.''
  The review notes that the United Nations' Framework Convention on 
Climate Change calls for a stabilization of greenhouse gases at levels 
that avoid ``dangerous anthropogenic [man-made] interference with the 
climate system.'' Nobody really knows what that level is, but the 
authors of the study argue that stabilization at levels as low as 450 
parts per million may be necessary to do this. The review states that, 
``[t]argets of cutting to 450 parts per million . . . could require a 
Herculean effort.'' And, ``[e]ven holding at 550 parts per million is a 
major challenge.'' Incidentally, we are currently at 370 parts per 
million, so the Herculean effort would still result in carbon dioxide 
levels significantly higher than we have now.
  Now I realize that the initiative before us falls well short of 
stabilizing atmospheric emissions at 450 or 550 parts per million. But 
let me be clear that if the Senate passes this initiative it would set 
a precedent that would lead to future, more costly reduction 
requirements. Currently, the executive branch has no authority to 
regulate carbon dioxide emissions. Indeed, the Clean Air Act expressly 
forbids the executive to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. This 
initiative would create the architecture for a series of increasingly 
stringent controls on energy use. It is widely acknowledged that if 
indeed global warming is a serious problem, that even the Kyoto 
Protocol is woefully inadequate to meet the challenge. As noted by the 
EU, and elsewhere, ``avoiding dangerous interference with the climate 
system . . . would require substantial (50 to 70%) global reductions in 
total greenhouse gas emissions.'' So this precedent-setting initiative 
would be the first stage of what appears to be a monumental and 
extravagantly expensive undertaking, and the levels of carbon dioxide 
in the atmosphere would still be higher than they are now after all our 
efforts and all the cost.

  The Science review notes that the world's power consumption is about 
12 trillion watts, 85 percent of which is supplied with fossil fuels. 
By 2050, total energy consumption will be as much as three times the 
amount currently produced by fossil fuels. The review states: ``Energy 
sources that can produce 100 to 300 percent of present world power 
consumption without greenhouse emissions do not exist operationally or 
as pilot plants.''
  The authors conclude that the ability to stabilize greenhouse gas 
emissions without seriously damaging the economy is not possible at 
this time: ``CO2 is a combustion product vital to how 
civilization is powered.'' All of the possible alternative fuels ``have 
serious deficiencies that limit their ability to stabilize global 
climate.'' The authors simply hope that we can ``develop revolutionary 
changes in the technology of energy production, distribution, storage, 
and conversion.''
  In other words, the means to meaningfully reduce carbon dioxide 
emissions are not available, suggesting that the economy would suffer 
from a premature attempt to reduce emissions.
  How would this initiative affect the U.S. economy? The Department of 
Energy's Energy Information Administration makes it quite clear that 
policies that regulate carbon dioxide emissions would most heavily 
impact coal, which is the United States' most plentiful and affordable 
domestic energy source, and is the most important fuel in electricity 
generation. Currently, 52 percent of America's electricity needs are 
generated from coal. And while that share is projected to decrease 
somewhat over the next 20 years, total coal use may well go up to keep 
up with growing electricity demand. It doesn't make a lot of sense to 
target our most important and plentiful domestic energy resource.
  Incidentally, my State's only significant coal reserves are located 
on Black Mesa and the mine there is a major employer of Native 
Americans from the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation. This

[[Page S13504]]

mine also supplies secure, affordable energy for millions of Southwest 
families.
  There is also a lot of concern up here about the decline in 
manufacturing jobs nationally. But the Energy Information 
Administration also makes it clear that energy intensive manufacturing 
industries would also be harmed by policies that regulate carbon 
dioxide.
  Finally, we are not the only nation to come to the realization that 
Kyoto-style policies carry a hefty price tag. Russia made it quite 
clear at a recent United Nations' World Climate Conference that the 
Kyoto Protocol does not serve the economic interests of her people, and 
therefore will not be pursuing greenhouse emissions reductions. Andrei 
Illarionov, President Putin's chief economic advisor has stated that 
Kyoto is incompatible economic growth, noting that 40 years of data 
from 150 countries shows that GDP growth is highly correlated with 
increased carbon dioxide emissions. Thus Kyoto is incompatible with 
Putin's goal of doubling Russia's economic growth over the next 10 
years, which would put the country slightly above its Kyoto target. 
Moreover, Illarionov stated: ``But Russia isn't going to stop at this 
level, so the carbon dioxide level will be much higher.'' He concludes 
that supporting Kyoto would mean ``dooming the country to poverty, 
backwardness and weakness.''
  And that is the message I want to leave with my colleagues. Engaging 
in Kyoto-style emission reduction programs are incompatible with 
economic growth at our current levels of technology, and to act now 
without sound scientific justification would be foolish. I urge my 
colleagues to vote no on S. 139.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I would like to inquire as to the amount 
of time we have left on our side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 30 minutes 35 seconds.
  Mr. INHOFE. All right. Mr. President, I was telling my good friend 
from Connecticut a few minutes ago, if we keep hearing it repeated that 
``the science is real, the science is real, the science is real,'' 
sooner or later they are going to start believing it. Nothing could be 
further from the truth.
  Let me just say, first of all, reference was made by one of the 
speakers to the Byrd-Hagel resolution that was passed 95 to 0. What did 
that resolution say? The resolution said, if there is economic damage 
or if the developing countries do not have to do the same thing the 
developed nations do, then we are not going to ratify the treaty. That 
is exactly what they came back with.
  So here we have a situation now that is even worse because we are 
talking about passing a bill that would put the United States of 
America in a position where they have to do something that not only the 
developing nations do not have to do, but even the developed nations do 
not have to do.
  So I can tell you right now, there are a lot of people in China who 
are rejoicing, thinking: Boy, all those American jobs are going to come 
to us if they pass this. In India, they are rejoicing; in Brazil, the 
same thing. In South Korea, President Roh, and President Vincente Fox 
of Mexico would be delighted to think about the great jobs that would 
go there--many of which have already gone there because of some of our 
overregulation in this country.
  Like Kyoto, this is an extreme approach. I am not going to try to 
figure out which bill we are talking about. The McCain-Lieberman bill 
has been around now for months. And now, at 11:53 this morning, they 
changed it. I don't know what was changed.
  But I would say this: This is a cartoon that appeared that I think 
you will enjoy, I say to Senator Lieberman. It is the camel's nose 
under the tent, the fact that if you get just a little bit here, then 
all of a sudden the rest of it will come in. And the rest of it is the 
body of Kyoto.
  Now, why do I say that? I say that because they are actually saying 
one thing. I don't care how they change their bill, they are changing 
the policy of America to make us believe and have, as a new policy, 
that CO2 is a pollutant. CO2 is not a pollutant. 
Other things are pollutants.
  In fact, we have the Clear Skies Act which the President of the 
United States, President Bush, is promoting. It has the largest 
reduction in emissions that any President has ever promoted, with a 70-
percent reduction. And those are in sulfur dioxide and mercury.
  But in this case here, just to show you that nothing really has 
changed by the last minute change, these features--the covered gases, 
emission caps, timetables, emissions trading, wealth transfer, 
emissions reporting, sequestration and sinks, verification, and future 
racheting--those are the same things that are in the current bill that 
appeared in the bill mysteriously at 11:53.
  Now, I would like to suggest we have heard a lot of hysteria tonight. 
We are going to hear it tomorrow for 2 more hours--no, 1 more hour. 
That time is going to be equally divided, and they are going to be 
talking about the horrible things that are going to happen, the ice 
caps are going to be breaking, all these things.

  I would suggest to you, Mr. President, we heard the same thing a few 
years ago. Looking at a couple magazines--this is Science Digest. They 
came out, and they said: ``Brace Yourself for Another Ice Age.'' The 
same people who are talking about warming today were talking about 
bracing yourself for another ice age. If there were time, I would read 
the script. It is really enlightening to do so. I would encourage my 
fellow Senators to do that.
  Then, Time magazine came out, and they have ``Another Ice Age?'' They 
talked about these horrible things that are going to happen: We are not 
going to be able to grow anything anymore. We are going to have to shut 
down businesses because we are no longer going to be able to function 
because we have another ice age--not global warming, global cooling.
  Then along came Newsweek, and it says: ``The Cooling World.'' They 
talk about the horrible things that are going to happen.
  So it seems to me it is the strategy of those individuals who are 
catering to the extreme environmental left to try to scare people. And 
there is no reason to do that.
  Now, I think probably the most significant thing I am going to be 
talking about tonight is to try to make people realize that if you say 
something enough times, as we keep hearing--as I mentioned a minute 
ago, about the science being real, about it is proven, and all that--
sooner or later people believe it. One reason is we do have a liberal 
national media, and they would like to have people believe that.
  Now, we heard a lot of discussion about the National Academy of 
Sciences. I would like to quote Dr. Frederick Seitz, who is the former 
president of the National Academy of Sciences, and 17,800 other 
independently verified signers.
  Now, the Senator from Arizona talked about the 1,010 scientists. We 
are talking about 17,800. This is what the Oregon petition said. This 
is a petition that was put together by the lead, Dr. Frederick Seitz, 
the former president of the National Academy of Sciences, along with 
17,800 other signatures:

       We urge the U.S. government to reject the global warming 
     agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan, in December, 
     1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on 
     greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the 
     advance of science and technology, and damage the health and 
     welfare of mankind.

  This is the former president of the National Academy of Sciences. He 
goes on to say:

       There is no convincing scientific evidence that human 
     release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases 
     is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause 
     catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption 
     of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial 
     scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon 
     dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural 
     plant and animal environments of the Earth.

  Now, this is significant. We are talking about not only is 
CO2 not a pollutant--which it is not a pollutant--but it is 
a fertilizer. It is something that helps us and something that would be 
to the benefit to have more of, not less.
  Now, in addition, there are over 4,000 scientists, 70 of whom are 
Nobel prize winners, who have signed the Heidelberg appeal.
  The Heidelberg appeal says: No compelling evidence exists to justify 
controls of anthropogenic greenhouse gas

[[Page S13505]]

emissions. Anthropogenic is the term meaning ``man-made.'' We keep 
hearing the Senator from New York talking about the man-made gases. It 
does not exist. These are 4,000 scientists. Look at some of the 
scientists we are talking about. They are on this list. It is too many 
to delineate at this time. The bottom line is that the science just 
flat is not there.
  Ninety percent of the science--in fact, 100 percent of the science I 
have heard the other side talk about tonight is all science that they 
allege happened, but it was all before 1999. What we are talking about 
are things that have happened since then. There has been a turnaround.
  Last July 8, James Schlesinger--we all remember him; he certainly is 
no Republican--the Energy Secretary to former President Carter, said:

       There is an idea among the public that the science is 
     settled. That remains far from the truth.

  He goes on to talk about the fact that the science is not sound 
behind the myth, the hoax of global warming.
  It is important to realize that the IPCC, which is the 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, came from the United Nations 
with the idea that they are making the recommendations. The lead 
scientist behind that was a scientist named Dr. Michael Mann.
  What we have done here is talk about what has happened in terms of 
the science that has come from this recent 2003 science, as opposed to 
what came under Michael Mann or the the Intergovernmental Panel on 
Climate Change. One is the detail, less hemispheric, and the 
information that they used, the age of the data. Under Michael Mann it 
was older, 1999 or before. The newer is after the IPCC. This is all new 
stuff. I will submit this for the Record because it is all very self-
explanatory.
  Several times reference was made by the distinguished Senator from 
Connecticut to MIT and what MIT is saying to us. I would like to quote 
Dr. Richard Lindzen, an MIT scientist and a member of the National 
Academy of Sciences. Both of these--MIT and National Academy of 
Sciences--were used to fortify the case that this hoax called 
greenhouse gas is a reality. This is what Dr. Rich Lindzen said. He has 
specialized in the climate issue for over 30 years. He told the 
Committee on Environment and Public Works, the committee I chair:

       There is a definite disconnect between Kyoto and science. 
     Should a catastrophic scenario prove correct, Kyoto would not 
     prevent it.

  These are new discussions that are coming from scientists whose 
credentials cannot be questioned. Again, it is MIT science--we heard 
that a few minutes ago--and the National Academy of Sciences.
  Dr. David Legates is director of the Center for Climatic Research at 
the University of Delaware. This is going back to Michael Mann, the guy 
who is the scientist behind the IPCC, all this stuff that we have been 
hearing. Dr. Legates said:

       Although [Mann's work] is now widely used as proof of 
     anthropogenic global warming, we've become concerned that 
     such an analysis is in direct contradiction to most of the 
     research and written histories available. Our paper shows 
     this contradiction and argues that the results of Mann . . . 
     are out of step with the preponderance of the evidence.

  Preponderance of the evidence, we keep hearing the other side say the 
science there. No one is going to question it. We are all questioning 
it.
  This is from a publication called ``Energy and Environment,'' and 
this was November 15, last week. It starts talking about the flaws in 
the logic that were used by the Mann study. The flaws all come out. I 
will show the greatest flaw of all.
  Let me hold this piece of paper up to this side. This is what Dr. 
Mann has been talking about. He referred to the famous hockey stick. 
Here is the hockey stick. The shaft goes along here and all of a sudden 
that is the hockey stick part. That is supposed to be where it is 
getting so warm. What he failed to do was to go back to the 1400s. If 
you look at this, the Earth was much warmer, the temperatures were much 
warmer back then than they are today by a long ways. So it is just 
leaving out these little convenient things that causes the truth to be 
distorted.
  I think this is probably the most important chart. It shows you what 
the other side does. They will cover up the part that disclaims 
everything they are saying and come out and use it as evidence to 
promote it. I am saying that the temperatures on the Earth's surface 
were higher in the 1400s than they are today.
  One of the most recent things that came out just in March was the 
Harvard Smithsonian study. This was the most far-reaching study ever 
made on climate change. It examined the results of more than 240 peer-
reviewed papers published by thousands of researchers over the past 
four decades. The study covers a multitude of geophysical and 
biological climate indicators. They came to the conclusion that climate 
change is not real, that the science is not accurate. We will be coming 
back to that from time to time, probably tomorrow also.
  This is the range of climate proxies that were used to come up with 
the conclusions of the Harvard Smithsonian study. If you read them all, 
it starts with borehole data, cultural data, glacier advance and 
retreats, geomorphology, all these things were used. Primarily what was 
used by Dr. Mann were the tree rings. And this covers every known type 
of a proxy that could be used. All of this was in the Harvard 
Smithsonian study.
  So I think if you go back one more time to the chart that we had up 
here that shows how they are misrepresenting the data, if you stop and 
think about it, just use logic on things that we know. What is 
incontrovertible? What do we know right now that no one can question? 
What we know is that there was a medieval warming period. That period 
was around from 800 A.D. to about 1300. Then there was the little ice 
age that came along. The little ice age went from 1300 to 1900. Then we 
went into another warming period that endured from 1900 until 1940.
  Something significant happened in 1940. In 1940, we started going 
into another cooling period. But wait a minute. The 1940s was the 
decade when the surge came in CO2 emissions. That was during 
the time when more people were driving, and it happened right after the 
war. So we had the greatest increase in releases of CO2 
during that time, an 80-percent increase.
  What did that do? Did that cause warming? It did not. It precipitated 
a cooling period that endured through the 1970s. I think if you look at 
that, I don't know how anyone can say that the science is at all 
favoring--and certainly not recent science--the concept, I call it a 
hoax, of global warming.
  Since I gave a speech on the floor when I used these charts, which I 
may not have time to do tonight, there have been a lot of things that 
have come out. The University of Colorado researched the Arctic Circle 
information. To do that, they actually went down beneath the snowpack 
in the Colorado Rockies, and the scientists discovered fungi emitting 
large quantities of carbon dioxide in methane. Of course, this is 
totally unrelated to manmade emissions. That is not man-made. They are 
talking about man-made emissions. That is something that was there that 
was never considered until it was discovered about a month ago. They 
said in an article in the Washington Post, quoting the scientist:

       Indeed, scientists said, if other regions of the world have 
     similar fungal communities thriving under the winter snows, 
     as seems likely, climatologists will have to revise their 
     models of global warming to accommodate fungi surprisingly 
     massive role in the winter production of greenhouse gases, 
     such as carbon dioxide.

  It went on to say--these are the scientists now, after this discovery 
just a month ago:

       The global warming models can no longer ignore fungi in 
     snowy regions and seasons as they had, scientists said, 
     especially because about 40 percent of the landmass is 
     covered with snow for at least part of the year.

  We will revisit this issue, but there is no question that the science 
refutes everything the alarmists we have heard about have been trying 
to promote. I think something that would be more meaningful to the 
Members of this body would be, so what, there is. There is a preacher 
named Lon Solomon. On the rare occasions I am here on Sunday, I will go 
out to the McLean Bible Church. Right in the middle of his sermon he 
says: So what.
  We have gone through all this, the science is flawed, it doesn't 
exist. So what. What is the big deal? The big deal is the economic harm 
that would

[[Page S13506]]

come to this country. Let's examine it for a moment.
  Later on I will go over all of the letters, but here is what the 
teamsters, boilermakers, electrical workers, and others wrote me in a 
letter on September 9--this past September 9. This is not in 1999. They 
write:

       Mandatory reduction requirements for carbon dioxide and 
     other greenhouse gases would create much higher energy prices 
     for consumers and put the economic recovery at risk, while 
     providing little or no tangible benefit for the global 
     environment. We, therefore, urge you to vote against S. 139, 
     the Climate Stewardship Act.

  CBO, the Congressional Budget Office--we depend on them for scoring, 
for coming up with numbers we use to make economic decisions in this 
body. They said it best:

       The price increases resulting from a carbon cap would be 
     regressive. That is, they would place a relatively greater 
     burden on lower income households than on higher income 
     households.

  A minute ago we heard Senator Voinovich from Ohio. During one of our 
committee hearings, a guy named Tom Mullen, who is the president of 
Catholic Charities, testified before our committee and said:

       The overall impact on the economy in northeast Ohio would 
     be overwhelming, and the needs that we address at Catholic 
     Charities in Ohio with the elderly and poor would be well 
     beyond our capacity and that of our current partners in 
     government and the private sector.

  You heard about the harassment he has been subjected to because he 
cares--sincerely, genuinely cares--about these older people.
  What about minorities? According to a study by the National Black 
Chamber of Commerce and the United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, 
if the United States ratifies Kyoto or passes domestic climate 
policies--that is what we are talking about, effectively implementing 
the treaty; that is their goal--the result would ``disproportionately 
harm America's minority communities, and place the economic advancement 
of millions of U.S. Blacks and Hispanics at risk.''

  That was the Center for Energy and Economic Development doing a study 
for the Black Chamber of Commerce and the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce.
  It gets down to being more specific. We find out from this study that 
the Kyoto issue we are talking about right now would cost 511,000 jobs 
by Hispanic workers and 864,000 jobs held by black workers. Poverty 
rates for minority families will increase dramatically, and because 
Kyoto will bring about higher energy prices, many minority businesses 
would be lost.
  Here is a chart that shows the unemployment rate this study revealed. 
This study was sanctioned by the Black and Hispanic Chambers of 
Commerce because of their concern. Keep in mind all these things will 
happen to them, and yet there is no science or logic behind those 
decisions.
  This information came from Pennsylvania State University. They did a 
study. In this study, they break it down by State as to how many jobs 
are going to be lost. I will point out a couple of States.
  Illinois would lose, if we were to pass S. 139, 159,000 jobs. I hope 
the Senators from Illinois are watching right now because 159,000 jobs 
is not what they would want. Ironically, in Indiana, they would lose 
194,000 jobs. In Michigan--and that is a big auto State--they would 
lose 133,000 jobs. They tell you we are going to carve out a special 
deal for the autos. Look, this is the nose-under-the-tent concept. They 
now say if we adopt this, our policy is the science is real and global 
warming, in fact, exists.
  In Pennsylvania--and I am sure the Pennsylvania Senators are very 
sensitive to this--they would lose, if we pass this bill, 178,000 jobs. 
In the State of West Virginia, it will be 126,000 jobs; in Wisconsin, 
113,000 jobs; for the interest of the Senator presiding, over 100,000 
jobs in the State of Minnesota.
  Something was stated by the Senator from Connecticut concerning 
farms. He said we are going to carve out farmers and agriculture, that 
nothing is going to happen there. Standard & Poor's Data Resource 
International did a study--again, a very recent study. They talked 
about what is going to happen.
  Let me share with my colleagues what will happen to the agricultural 
families in America, according to Standard & Poor's. You can discredit 
Standard & Poor's, but I don't think you will get by with it. They are 
legitimate.
  Fewer small family farms: Higher energy costs, together with the 
reduced domestic and export demand, would lead to a severe decline in 
agricultural investment and a sharp increase in farm consolidations. 
The number of small farms likely would decline much more rapidly than 
under business-as-usual conditions.
  Higher production costs: Production costs would increase by up to $16 
billion, an increase of almost 9 percent, and would be difficult for 
agriculture to pass on to the consumers. These higher production costs 
include a $13 billion increase in manufactured input--that is fuel, 
fertilizer, and chemicals--expenditures, and $1.6 billion increase in 
farm origin.
  Lower demand for agricultural products: Weaker demand for 
agricultural products results both from the 1.6 percent decline in GDP 
and 2.4 percent decrease in consumers' disposable income. It goes on 
and on.
  Higher food program costs: If you are not sensitive to the farmer, 
you ought to be sensitive to the people who have to eat in this 
country. For example, USDA spends more than $39 billion for six food 
assistance programs, including the Food Stamp Program--there are a lot 
of people interested in that program--and child nutrition programs. We 
talk about that every day.
  For these programs alone, emission controls from the protocol would 
add 500,000 persons to the food stamp rolls and increase program costs 
up to 5 percent annually.
  Again, this is not Senator Jim Inhofe talking. I am not qualified to 
make these assessments. This is a study made by a Standard & Poor's 
research group.
  Getting back to the MIT joint program, since they have been used 
quite a bit, the MIT Joint Program on Science and Policy of Global 
Change, the average crop yield is 30 percent higher in a 
CO2-enhanced world.
  That is what the Senator from Utah was talking about.
  I inquire from the Chair as to our remaining time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Three minutes and thirty seconds.
  Mr. INHOFE. I reserve the remainder of my time. I am anxious to hear 
from the Senator from Connecticut and the Senator from Arizona.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, devastating fires across California fueled 
by unusual drought conditions have already claimed the lives of 18 
people, destroyed nearly 2,000 homes, consumed nearly 600,000 acres 
roughly the size of Rhode Island, and caused over $2 billion in 
damages. Glaciers in Glacier National Park have dwindled from 150 more 
than a century ago to about 35 today. Some scientists estimate that the 
park will have no glaciers in 30 years. An ice-dammed lake drained 
recently when the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf, which a century ago rimmed the 
entire northern coast of Ellesmere Island, broke up along the coast of 
northeast Canada. NASA has confirmed that part of the Arctic Ocean that 
remains frozen year-round has been shrinking at a rate of 10 percent 
per decade since 1980.
  We can talk about the impact of the Kyoto Treaty, as Senator Inhofe 
just did. I call the attention of my colleagues to this picture. Here 
is the Arctic Sea ice boundary in 1979. There it is today. I am sure 
that that will be natural causes and have nothing to do with man-made 
activity, human activities, but the fact is, as the Senator from New 
York showed, Kilimanjaro is now without snow.
  At a conference in Iceland in August, scientists told senior 
government officials that the Arctic is heating up fast, disclosing 
disturbing findings from a massive study of polar climate change. Dr. 
Robert Corell, who heads the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment team, 
said: If you want to see what will be happening in the rest of the 
world 25 years from now, just look at what is happening in the Arctic.
  Look at what is happening in the Arctic. The destruction of 70 
percent of heat-sensitive coral reefs due to increases in water 
temperatures places reef fisheries in jeopardy, increases coastal 
damages from hurricanes, and hurts local economies supported by 
tourism.

[[Page S13507]]

  Researchers at the University of Texas, Wesleyan University and 
Stanford University earlier this year reported in the journal Nature 
that global warming is forcing species around the world, from 
California starfish to Alpine herbs, to move into new ranges or alter 
habits that could disrupt ecosystems.
  The end result of these changes could be substantial ecological 
disruption, local losses in wildlife, and even extinction of certain 
species.
  From an article in the July 2003 Journal of Hydrology: The winters in 
New England are getting shorter. According to U.S. Geological Survey 
scientists, northern New England winters have receded by 1 or 2 weeks 
in length over the last 30 years.
  The list of what is happening goes on and on.
  The chair of the Climate Research Committee of the National Academy 
of Sciences stated very clearly during an October 1, 2003, hearing 
before the Commerce Committee: The planet has a fever, and it is time 
to be taking action.
  I caution my colleague from Oklahoma about statements that he 
attributes to certain members of the scientific community. 
Specifically, I am referring to two scientists that he referred to 
before, Dr. Wigley and Dr. Schneider. Dr. Wigley has written to 
Senators Frist and Daschle about the misrepresentation of his work by 
Senator Inhofe. He writes a long letter: Senator Inhofe urges that 
Congress should put stock in scientists who rely on the most objective 
scientific data. He characterizes me as someone whose credentials 
cannot be trusted.

  Mr. INHOFE. May I interrupt for a question?
  Mr. McCAIN. Yes, but not to take my time.
  Mr. INHOFE. I do not believe I mentioned Dr. Wigley in my remarks. It 
must have been somebody else.
  Mr. McCAIN. Pardon me?
  Mr. INHOFE. I do not believe I mentioned Dr. Wigley in my remarks.
  Mr. McCAIN. Dr. Wigley was mentioned by the Senator in his statement 
on the floor.
  He goes through several misrepresentations. Perhaps the most serious 
one, and this is a quote from his letter: the third representation made 
by Senator Inhofe concerns the observed record of global mean 
temperature changes over the past 100 years. This data show a warming 
to about 1940, little change from 1940 to the mid-1970s, and then 
further warming. Senator Inhofe implies that these changes are 
inconsistent with the global warming hypothesis and with climate 
models. This is categorically incorrect. In order to understand these 
observed changes, it is necessary to consider all likely causal 
factors, both human-induced and natural. Human-induced factors include 
the warming effects of greenhouse gases and the cooling effects of 
sulfate aerosols. Natural factors include changes in the output of the 
sun, effects of explosive volcanic eruptions like Mount Pinatubo in 
1991. When all these factors are considered, models give an expected 
pattern of 20th century temperature changes that is in remarkable 
agreement with the observations, and the models clearly show the three 
phases as noted above, in particular the leveling off, the warming 
trend over 1940 to 1975, turns out to be explained largely by the 
cooling effects of sulfate aerosols, temporarily offsetting the warming 
due to increasing concentration of greenhouse gases, something which 
was first pointed out in the paper of mine published in Nature in 1989, 
which has been clearly stated in a subsequent IPCC report. This 
remarkable agreement shows quite clearly that human factors have been 
the dominant cause of global scale climate change over the past 50 
years, contrary to the assertion by Senator Inhofe that all observed 
changes are merely manifestations of natural viability.
  For his part, Dr. Schneider had the following to say about Senator 
Inhofe's statement: It is misrepresenting my views to characterize them 
as even implying that IPCC is exaggerated or failed to describe the 
state of the science fairly at the time the assessment reports were 
completed in the year 2000.
  So Dr. Wigley and Dr. Schneider take some exception to how their 
views were characterized on the floor of the Senate.
  I want to point out again that the 17,000, or whoever they were, 
scientists or those who claimed to be scientists--and there are some 
interesting signatures to that--were in opposition to the United States 
signing the Kyoto Treaty.
  I know that my colleague, the Senator from Connecticut, would like to 
say a few words, but I again want to read a letter from 1,010 
preeminent scientists who write:

       Dear Senators Frist and Daschle: Two years have elapsed 
     since the publication of the reports by the Intergovernmental 
     Panel on Climate Change and the National Research Council on 
     the state of the science of climate change and its impacts on 
     the United States and the rest of the world. As scientists 
     engaged in research on these subjects, we are writing to 
     confirm that the main findings of these documents continue to 
     represent the consensus opinion of the scientific community. 
     Indeed, these findings have been reinforced rather than 
     weakened by research reported since the documents were 
     released. In brief--

  And he goes through a number of aspects of it.
  I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

 The State of Climate Science: July 2003--A Letter From U.S. Scientists

                                                    July 29, 2003.
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Frist and Daschle: Two years have elapsed 
     since the publication of the most recent reports by the 
     Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the 
     National Research Council (NRC) on the state of the science 
     of climate change and its impacts on the United States and 
     the rest of the world. As scientists engaged in research on 
     these subjects, we are writing to confirm that the main 
     findings of these documents continue to represent the 
     consensus opinion of the scientific community. Indeed, these 
     findings have been reinforced rather than weakened by 
     research reported since the documents were released.
       In brief, the findings are that:
       (1) Anthropogenic climate change, driven by emissions of 
     greenhouse gases, is already underway and likely responsible 
     for most of the observed warming over the last 50 years--the 
     largest warming that has occurred in the Northern Hemisphere 
     during at least the past 1,000 years;
       (2) Over the course of this century the Earth is expected 
     to warm an additional 2.5 to 10.5 deg.F, depending on future 
     emissions levels and on the climate sensitivity--a sustained 
     global rate of change exceeding any in the last 10,000 years;
       (3) Temperature increases in most areas of the United 
     States are expected to be considerably higher than these 
     global means because of our nation's northerly location and 
     large average distance from the oceans;
       (4) Even under mid-range emissions assumptions, the 
     projected warming could cause substantial impacts in 
     different regions of the U.S., including an increased 
     likelihood of heavy and extreme precipitation events, 
     exacerbated drought, and sea level rise;
       (5) Almost all plausible emissions scenarios result in 
     projected temperatures that continue to increase well beyond 
     the end of this century; and,
       (6) Due to the long lifetimes of greenhouse gases in the 
     atmosphere, the longer emissions increase, the faster they 
     will ultimately have to be decreased in order to avoid 
     dangerous interference with the climate system.
       Evidence that climate change is already underway includes 
     the instrumental record, which shows a surface temperature 
     rise of approximately 1 deg.F over the 20th century, the 
     accelerated sea level rise during that century relative to 
     the last few thousand years, global retreat of mountain 
     glaciers, reduction in snow cover extent, earlier thawing of 
     lake and river ice, the increase in upper air water vapor 
     over most regions in the past several decades, and the 
     0.09 deg.F warming of the world's deep oceans since the 
     1950's.
       Evidence that the warmth of the Northern Hemisphere during 
     the second half of the last century was unprecedented in the 
     last 1000 years comes from three major reconstructions of 
     past surface temperatures, which used indicators such as tree 
     rings, corals, ice cores, and lake sediments for years prior 
     to 1860, and instrumental records for the interval between 
     1865 and the present.
       On the subject of human causation of this warmth, the NRC 
     report stated that, ``The IPCC's conclusion that most of the 
     observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been 
     due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations 
     accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific 
     community on this issue.'' Indeed, computer simulations do 
     not reproduce the late 20th century warmth if they include 
     only natural climate forcing such as emissions from volcanoes 
     and solar activity. The warmth is only captured when the 
     simulations include forcings from human-emitted greenhouse 
     gases present in the atmosphere.
       In summary, the main conclusions of the IPCC and NRC 
     reports remain robust consensus positions supported by the 
     vast majority of researchers in the fields of climate

[[Page S13508]]

     change and its impacts. The body of research carried out 
     since the reports were issued tends to strengthen their 
     conclusions.
           Sincerely,
       Richard J. Abitz, Ph.D., Director, Fluor Fernald, Inc., 
     Cincinnati, OH.
       Vincent J. Abreu, Ph.D., Research Scientist, University of 
     Michigan, Department of Atmospheric, Oceanic, and Space 
     Sciences, Ann Arbor, MI.
       Ilse Ackerman, M.S., Doctoral Candidate, Cornell 
     University, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Ithaca, NY.
       Leslie M. Adams, Ph.D., University of New Hampshire, 
     Department of Plant Biology, Durham, NH.
       Steven M. Adler-Golden, Ph.D., Principal Scientist, 
     Spectral Sciences, Inc., Burlington, MA.
       David D. Ainley, Ph.D., Senior Ecologist, Harvey and 
     Associates, San Jose, CA.
       Neela Malati Akhouri, Ph.D., Information Manager, 
     University of Toledo, Lake Erie Center, Oregon, OH.
       Becky Alexander, Ph.D., Post-Doctoral Fellow, Harvard 
     University, Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 
     Cambridge, MA.
       J. David Allan, Ph.D., Professor, University of Michigan, 
     School of Natural Resources and Environment, Ann Arbor, MI.

  Mr. McCAIN. The letter further states:

       Over the course of this century, the Earth is expected to 
     warm an additional 2.5 to 10.5 degrees Fahrenheit, depending 
     on future emissions levels and on the climate sensitivity--a 
     sustained global rate of change exceeding any in the last 
     10,000 years.
       Temperature increases in most areas of the United States 
     are expected to be considerably higher than these global 
     means because of our nation's northerly location and large 
     average distance from the oceans.
       Almost all plausible emissions scenarios result in 
     projected temperatures that continue to increase well beyond 
     the end of this century, and
       Due to the long lifetimes of greenhouse gases in the 
     atmosphere--

  Those are the ones that cause no harm in the view of the opponents of 
this legislation.

       the longer emissions increase, the faster they will 
     ultimately have to be decreased in order to avoid dangerous 
     interference with the climate system.
       Evidence that climate change is already underway includes 
     the instrumental record, which shows a surface temperature 
     rise of approximately 1 degree Fahrenheit over the 20th 
     century, the accelerated sea level rise during that century 
     relative to the last few thousand years, global retreat of 
     mountain glaciers, reduction in snow cover extent, earlier 
     thawing of lake and river ice, the increase in upper air 
     water vapor over most regions in the past several decades, 
     and the 0.09 Fahrenheit warming of the world's deep oceans 
     since the 1950s.
       Evidence that the warmth of the Northern Hemisphere during 
     the second half of the last century was unprecedented in the 
     last 1,000 years comes from three major reconstructions of 
     past surface temperatures, which used indicators such as tree 
     rings, corals, ice cores, and lake sediments for years prior 
     to 1860, and instrumental records for the interval between 
     1865 and the present.
       On the subject of human causation of this warmth, the NRC 
     report stated that the IPCC's conclusion that most of the 
     observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been 
     due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations 
     accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific 
     community on this issue.
  What the Senator from Connecticut and I are doing is an incredibly 
modest proposal to try to at least stop the increase of greenhouse 
gases. The overwhelming majority of the scientific community in the 
United States of America agrees that climate change is taking place. 
How serious that is, how significant it is, and how longlasting its 
effect could be the subject of significant debate and discussion.
  But the fact is that the loss of jobs, which I do not believe is 
accurate, is an issue that needs to be addressed. But what about the 
loss of our environment? What happens if the coral reefs die? What 
happens if the Arctic icecap melts? What happens if we continue to see 
increased temperatures?
  I don't know all the answers as to what happens. I leave that in the 
hands of people who are smarter than I am. But if this picture doesn't 
concern you, then nothing will. I hope we will be able to pass this 
legislation as a very modest and a very humble beginning to addressing 
the issue of climate change.
  I assure my colleagues of one thing. I will talk about this again 
tomorrow. We will be back on this issue, just as we were back on the 
issue of campaign finance reform. We will be back on it because this is 
not stopping. This is not stopping. More and more evidence will be 
accumulated and more and more people will become concerned because we 
love this great country of ours and we love this world and we do not 
want to see it destroyed.
  The overwhelming body of scientific evidence indicates we are placing 
our globe in jeopardy and the lives and futures of our children and our 
grandchildren. We may have lived in a very nice time in the history of 
the world. Our children and grandchildren may be condemned to a much 
less happy world.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. McCAIN. As sponsors of the amendment, traditionally, we speak 
last.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Would the Chair advise us how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There remain 23 seconds for the proponents of 
the measure and 3 minutes 23 seconds for the Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Since it was called to our attention that tradition would 
have it you wrap up, you may have the last 23 seconds. Let me say to my 
good friend from Arizona--and he is a good friend--you can talk about 
these people. He talked about 1,010 scientists. I talked about over 
20,000 scientists who have agreed with this, looked at this, and said 
it doesn't really exist. I have talked about sources that cannot be 
impugned by anyone. I am talking about the Smithsonian, Harvard, 
Standard & Poor's, and others.
  Let me just mention I have saved, I think, the best for last because, 
yes, we are concerned about jobs. That is the biggest concern we have 
in America now. Wharton Econometric Forecasting Associates came out 
with something that delineated exactly the damage that would be done to 
America and that it would cost 2.4 million U.S. jobs. That is why the 
labor unions are involved in this. It would reduce GDP by 3.2 percent, 
or about $300 billion, which is more than we spend on primary and 
secondary education combined.
  They said because of Kyoto, American consumers would face higher 
medical, food, and housing costs. Tomorrow I will delineate exactly how 
much that is. At the same time, an average household of four would see 
its real income drop by $2,700 by 2010, and each year thereafter.

  They go on to say--this is the Wharton School of Economics:

       Under Kyoto, energy and electricity prices would nearly 
     double and gasoline prices would go up an additional 65 cents 
     a gallon.

  I know I am almost out of time. Since it was brought up by the 
distinguished Senator from Connecticut about the farmers, let me tell 
you who is frantically trying to stop us from destroying the American 
farmer: the International Dairy Foods Association, the National 
Association of Wheat Growers, National Cattle and Beef Association, 
National Food Processors Association, National Grange, the National 
Oilseed Producers, the American Farm Bureau, the National Corn Growers 
Association. The list goes on and on, because these people are very 
much concerned about the competitive disadvantage in which they would 
find themselves.
  I would also have to say I invite my very good friend from Arizona to 
go back and search the record of my remarks, the 40-minute talk I made 
a few minutes ago. Nowhere in that talk are the two names--what were 
they, Wigley and Schneider?--who were mentioned during that time. 
Tomorrow there will be ample opportunity to address that issue.
  We are talking about a big deal. You wonder what the motivation is? I 
will quote a couple of people. If the science is not real, if it 
inflicts all this damage on America, then what could possibly be the 
motivation? I think maybe Jacques Chirac, the President of France, the 
other day was correct when he said, ``Kyoto is not about climate. It is 
the first component of an authentic global governance.''
  Do we really want to have France dictating policies to us?
  Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Oklahoma 
have an additional 3 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. Let me just say I will yield the remainder of my time. I 
think it would be only fair if I get an additional 3 minutes, that they 
get an additional 3 minutes, too, and I don't want that to happen.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I wish to express my appreciation to all 
who

[[Page S13509]]

have engaged in this debate tonight. I wish we had more time. This 
press of end-of-year business prevents us from doing so. We will be 
revisiting this issue. I congratulate the Senator from Oklahoma for an 
articulate presentation of his views. I look forward to our additional 
2 hours together tomorrow.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________