[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.
____________________