[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 158 (Thursday, October 18, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13080-S13087]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself, Mr. Warner, Mr. Harkin, Mr. 
        Coleman, Mrs. Dole, Ms. Collins, Mr. Cardin, Ms. Klobuchar, and 
        Mr. Casey):
  S. 2191. A bill to direct the Administrator of the Environmental 
Protection Agency to establish a program to decrease emissions of 
greenhouse gases, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, for me, today is one of the most important 
days in my career because, with the introduction of the Lieberman-
Warner bill, today will be remembered, in my view, as the turning point 
in the fight against global warming. Let me explain why I make that 
very sweeping statement.
  First, this bill represents a bipartisan breakthrough on the Senate 
Environment and Public Works Committee. When I took the gavel of the 
committee 9 months ago, I said that global warming was the challenge of 
our generation, a challenge that I believed our committee could meet 
with knowledge, with bipartisanship, and in pursuit of that knowledge 
we have held 18 global warming hearings and 2 scientific briefings this 
year in the Environment Committee.
  At our very first hearing in January, we invited all Senators to come 
to the committee and share their perspectives. More than one-third of 
the Senate took part in that historic event. Since then, we have heard 
from more than 120 witnesses, ranging from utility executives, Silicon 
Valley entrepreneurs, venture capitalists, religious leaders, and Nobel 
Prize winners. Indeed, yes, we had Al Gore, we had members of the 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and we also heard from 
business community leaders who have formed the U.S. Climate Action 
Partnership. We heard from mayors, Governors, and leaders of both 
parties, from many different States, cities, and counties across 
America.
  Then a wonderful thing happened: Senator John Warner, who is the 
ranking member on Senator Lieberman's Global Warming Subcommittee, 
decided it was time that he play a lead role in crafting a landmark 
environmental law which will take its place beside the Clean Air Act, 
the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and other great 
bipartisan environmental legislation.
  Senator Warner, this decision of yours is giving heart and hope to 
literally not only the people of the United States of America but all 
the people who share our planet. I know in your beautiful State of 
Virginia how proud they are. We had a hearing with you and with 
Senators Mikulski and Cardin, and we heard about the impact of global 
warming already taking place on the Chesapeake. Your Governor was also 
there. So this is a great moment.
  I cannot tell you how touched and moved I am that Senator Warner has 
joined Senator Lieberman. It is a wonderful moment in history. This, I 
believe.
  We would never leave a child alone in a hot, locked car, and I 
believe the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee will not 
leave this issue of global warming burning for another generation to 
address. It is our responsibility, and we must act.
  Today, with the introduction of this bill, we are taking the first 
immensely important legislative step to meet the challenge of global 
warming with hope and not with fear and with approaches that are 
carefully thought out and some already successfully tried out, like a 
cap-and-trade system that has been so successful in addressing acid 
rain. Also in this bill, which I am very proud of, is a section on 
energy efficiency, which has been so effective in lowering per capita 
energy use, costs, and greenhouse gas emissions in my own home State of 
California.
  For the past 50 years, the United States of America has been the 
world leader in environmental protection. Laws such as the Clean Water 
Act, Clean Air Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, Endangered Species Act, 
and the Superfund Act have achieved so much for our Nation and so much 
for our people. They have cleaned up our rivers and lakes, improved the 
quality of our air, and protected our drinking water supplies. Each of 
those laws--if you go back and study them--became a reality because 
Congress started on the path that, over time, would lead to enactment 
of strong legislation. The same is true for what we face today in 
global warming. We must start on the path to pass strong legislation.
  I have been working very closely with Senators Warner and Lieberman 
as they have assembled their bill, as have many other colleagues. I 
praise my friends for including so many people, including the occupant 
of the chair, Senator Casey, who was quite involved in crafting the 
green jobs portion of the bill. I have been so impressed with the 
effort they have invested, seeking out the views not only of other 
Senators but outside groups and business leaders, environmentalists, 
everybody, pro and con, with whom they have met. They have put great 
work into this effort. I am proud of that.
  In my own conversations with them, I have laid out some important 
principles that I believe must be reflected in legislation to address 
this challenge.
  First, the most important thing is that any bill has to include real, 
mandatory cuts in global warming pollution. Any bill we pass must set 
the Nation on the path to achieving the emissions reductions that will 
avoid dangerous climate change. Under the Lieberman-Warner bill, we 
anticipate reaching 1990 emissions levels by 2020. This will send a 
strong early signal to the marketplace, which is a very important part 
of getting where we need to go.
  The second necessary element is the flexibility to respond to new 
information because all of us know that daily we face new reports, new 
scientists telling us new things we didn't know before. So I ask my 
colleagues if they would include what I call a look-back provision in 
the bill. The bill must include provisions for continuing to review the 
science. We want to have our work based on science, and it has to 
happen at regular intervals. We have to know whether we are doing 
enough, too much, or if we have to do even more.
  Third, we must establish a cap-and-trade program for global warming 
pollution like the one that worked so well

[[Page S13081]]

in curbing acid rain. A cap-and-trade system will put a market price on 
carbon, driving greater efficiency and new technology, while reducing 
greenhouse gas emissions.
  Fourth, we must protect the pioneering State efforts that are already 
underway. The States have been leading the way on this issue and doing 
it in the most bipartisan fashion. In my own State of California, we 
have seen trailblazing there with a Republican Governor and a 
Democratic legislature. I believe my State has the gold standard bill. 
A total of 29 States have completed comprehensive climate action plans, 
and many have set mandatory reduction targets. We don't want to 
interfere with their work.
  Fifth, it is a moral imperative to do what we can to ease the impacts 
of global warming--not only on the American consumer but on world 
populations suffering from drought, floods, and famine. The religious 
community has worked very closely with all of us on this moral 
imperative.

  Finally, a bill must take into account the actions of countries that 
are not making progress toward a clean, sustainable energy future and 
must help level the playing field. Countries that want to export goods 
into the United States must take steps consistent with our global 
warming policy or be accountable for their emissions.
  All of these elements I have mentioned are included in the Lieberman-
Warner bill. Some of us may want to make them stronger, and some of us 
may want to make them weaker. But here is the important point: We have 
the framework. Every single issue anyone could raise about global 
warming has been raised and addressed in this bill, giving us a perfect 
place to start.
  I thank all of my colleagues who have introduced bills to deal with 
global warming. Each bill has made an important contribution to the 
debate, and I know each bill has helped Senators Warner and Lieberman 
craft an excellent piece of legislation. We have this framework. We can 
build on it; it embodies all of the key concepts. The bipartisan 
progress on the bill is a reflection of how far we have come and brings 
us that much closer to the day we will have comprehensive legislation 
to deal with this great challenge of our generation.
  It is with great pride that I yield the floor to Senator Joe 
Lieberman.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chair of our 
Environment Committee. I thank her for her very kind and informed 
remarks, but, more broadly, I thank her for the steadfast encouragement 
she has given to Senator Warner and me and for her principled, 
passionate, and very effective leadership. She understands that global 
warming is real and wants to use the chairmanship she has now to see 
that we, together, fashion a solution to this very real problem. I 
thank her.
  I hope and believe myself that she is right--that we will look back 
on this day, as we stand here together across party lines to introduce 
this legislation, as the beginning of something very significant that 
finally happened. I have said before, and I will say it again, at this 
moment, I feel as if we had been in a race between tipping points. The 
challenge would be that we get to the political tipping point where we 
could come together and do something about global warming before we 
reach the environmental tipping point, after which it would be harder 
to avoid the worst consequences of global warming.
  I think today we have begun to reach that political tipping point, 
and there is no one who is more responsible for that than the senior 
Senator from Virginia, my dear friend, John Warner. His partnership 
with me on this and his commitment to get this done have made all the 
difference.
  I am pleased to stand with my friend from Virginia to announce today 
the introduction of the America's Climate Security Act. I am proud to 
also say that we have five original cosponsors--Senators Cardin, 
Coleman, Collins, Dole, and Harkin. The doors are wide open for 
additional cosponsors as this day and the days after go on.
  This day comes after several months of work with Senator Warner, with 
our staffs, with stakeholders, environmentalists, business community 
people, and numerous hearings before the Environment and Public Works 
Committee.
  This legislation, S. 2191, America's Climate Security Act, is the 
result of all that work. It is a pleasure now to yield to the 
aforementioned great Senator from Virginia, John Warner. 
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I first thank our distinguished chairwoman 
from California. From the very moment she seized the reins of the 
chairmanship of this committee, she indicated a strong desire to 
address this problem.
  I thank my colleague from Connecticut. He is the chairman of the 
subcommittee with primary jurisdiction over this matter. I purposely 
chose, as the longest serving member on the Environment and Public 
Works Committee on the Republican side, to be ranking for the purpose 
of this day coming to the floor of the Senate and indicating to our 
colleagues that we had formulated a starting point for the Congress to 
assume its leadership which I believe, as a coequal branch of our 
Government, we have.
  I am proud of the achievements we have made to date. I shall address 
them further, but at this time, I yield the floor to our distinguished 
colleague, Senator Inhofe, the ranking member of the full committee, 
and thank him. While we differ on the substance of these matters 
procedurally and we work our will in the subcommittee and eventually 
the full committee, I do hope we can have his cooperation.
  Mr. President, at this time, I ask that the hour for this debate be 
extended from 10:30 a.m. to 10 minutes to 11 to accommodate Senator 
Inhofe, who now will give his remarks, and then Senator Collins and 
Senator Alexander.
  Once again, I thank my distinguished chairman and ranking member. We 
are off, we are out of the starting gate.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. First of all, Mr. President, I had to come down here. 
Quite frankly, I didn't find out until last night--actually, until this 
morning, really--any of the parameters of this bill. My good friend 
from Connecticut just said they have been working on it for months and 
months, and yet nobody knows what it is. So only this morning I 
received some information.
  I see it is very similar to the McCain-Lieberman bill that passed. I 
remember we stood here and debated that bill for 5 days, I guess it 
was, a couple of years ago. I hope--and with the chairman of the 
Environment and Public Works Committee here--that we are going to have 
hearings on this legislation and spend some time, get into it because 
we do not get into something this big without hearing very significant 
issues.
  I will give a couple examples. First, let me ask a question. How much 
time do I have, I ask my friend from Virginia?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, my understanding is the Senator wants 5 or 
6 minutes.
  Mr. INHOFE. I will go ahead. That is fine. I will initially mention a 
couple of points that are of concern to me.
  First, this has been something my colleagues have worked on for a 
long period of time. I understand that is true because I have heard my 
friend from Virginia tell that to me and others on the committee. But 
we really didn't find out what it is.
  I am reading something that came out of the Congressional Quarterly 
this morning. One sentence:

       Emissions caps would start at the 2005 level in 2012 and 
     decrease annually, reaching the 1990 levels in 2020 and 65 
     percent below 1990 levels in 2050.

  I assume that is an accurate description.
  Mrs. BOXER. Yes.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, the Senator from Oklahoma is correct.
  Mr. INHOFE. As I recall, the other bill we had 2 years ago was that 
emissions caps would start at the 2004 level by 2012, and there was no 
intermediate step at that time. So it went down to one-third below the 
baseline by 2050. That is my understanding. I think that is accurate. 
So there is not that much difference. If anything, it is lower because 
this is one-third below the baseline, and this one is 65 percent below. 
It would be even more of a cut by 2050.

[[Page S13082]]

  The reason I bring up this point is because these issues don't happen 
in a vacuum. These are issues that are very costly. The term ``tipping 
point'' was used recently. I agree there is a tipping point, and I am 
going to be reserving more than 2 hours in the next few days on the 
floor, and I don't want my good friends to endure the whole 2 hours but 
at least give consideration to what is happening right now, and it is 
unbelievable.
  I have never seen such a change in science as we have witnessed in 
the last 5 months. The entire speech I am going to give is talking 
about what has happened in the last 5 months. Let me give an example.
  In August alone, the University of Washington claims to be ``the 
first to document a statistically significant globally coherent 
temperature response to the solar cycle.'' They came out and said it is 
due to natural causes. They were on the other side of this issue 
before.

  A Belgium weather institute, August 27--all of this is in August of 
this year, 2 months ago--natural causes.
  A peer-reviewed study published in ``Geophysical Research Letters'' 
finds natural causes.
  Here is a significant one now because over and over, I say to my good 
friend from California, we have heard that 1998 was the hottest year. 
Now NASA has come along and said, no, it was 1934. Interestingly 
enough, 1934 precipitated the largest increase in CO2 going 
into the atmosphere. After 1940, there was an 80-percent increase going 
into the atmosphere.
  But here is the one, if my colleagues are not listening to anything 
else, and I have a feeling they are not, I say to my friend from 
California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Yes, I am with you.
  Mr. INHOFE. Listen to one point. I appreciate it. In the same month, 
August, they peer-reviewed scientific literature, all of the literature 
from 2004 to 2007. In this report--this is 539 papers. These were the 
same ones used before as an example of what is going on. This is what 
they are going to review. It has not been released yet. It was done in 
August:

       Less than half of all published scientists endorse the 
     global warming theory.

  Less than half. Then it says:

       Of 539 total papers of climate change, only 38--

  That is 7 percent ``gave an explicit endorsement'' that man is the 
major cause of climate change. That is huge. That wasn't here until 
August of this year.
  I only bring these points out to say that anyone who says the science 
is settled to at least give me their attention for 2 hours. I will be 
talking about these issues.
  Here is what the American people need to know. I don't know what the 
cost of this would be if we were to pass the Warner-Lieberman bill. I 
have no way of knowing because I didn't see it until this morning. No 
one has made an evaluation. If we go back to the old Kyoto reductions, 
the Wharton Economic Survey said it would cost the average family of 
four in America $2,700 a year. Then when MIT came out addressing the 
two bills--the Boxer bill that is not yet introduced--it would cost the 
energy system, it would increase the cost of energy an amount equal to 
$4,500 for a family of four, and this bill apparently, or at least the 
old McCain-Lieberman bill, which this is very similar to but a little 
bit more aggressive in the later years, it would be $3,500 per family 
of four.
  I remember coming down to this floor, I say to my good friend from 
Tennessee, back in 1993 during the largest tax increase in the last few 
years prior to that. It was called the Clinton-Gore tax increase. It 
was an increase that was equal to about $300 per family of four. Here 
we are talking about something that will be 10 times the largest tax 
increase in the last three decades.
  This fact cannot be ignored if there is some question in terms of 
science. They will say there is not, that it is settled. I am going to 
be quoting facts that will shoot that down, and people should look at 
it. We have to realize we have a lot of families in America, and we 
have to consider what kind of a tax increase this will impose on them.
  My hope is this--and I say this to the chairman of the Environment 
and Public Works Committee who will be joining me in about 3 minutes in 
a hearing--let's have some hearings on this legislation. Let's bring it 
out. Let's really spend some time because this is very significant if 
we are looking at something that is going to cost the average taxpayer 
something like 10 times the largest tax increase we have experienced in 
this country. I look forward to it.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I will take 1 minute. As I said to Senator 
Lieberman, before Senator Inhofe and I go to a hearing we are having in 
the Environment and Public Works Committee, I thank my colleagues for 
participating in this conversation. Senator Inhofe is right. This is a 
very important moment in time. The cost of doing nothing, according to 
the leading economist on this topic in the world, Nicholas Stern, is 
five times what the cost will be to address this issue now. So let's be 
wise about what we do.
  The second point is, I am looking forward to Senator Inhofe's 2 hours 
on the Senate floor. I really am. Mr. President, I say to Senator 
Inhofe, I am giving him a compliment.
  I said, I am looking forward to hearing Senator Inhofe for 2 hours on 
the Senate floor, and I hope he will stay for my 2 hours when he is 
done. I will, in fact, do that because many of the points Senator 
Inhofe makes--it is cherry-picking information.
  I think it is very important that we have this debate. In many ways, 
it is good we are chairman and ranking member--and the last time it was 
the opposite--because I do think certainly the Senate gets the benefit 
of the broad viewpoint on this subject of global warming.
  I yield the time back to Senator Lieberman.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the committee, 
and I thank the Senator from Oklahoma. Obviously, we are going to have 
a spirited debate on this subject.
  What I want to say is the pleasure I have in having announced the 
seven original cosponsors. As Senator Inhofe indicated, I had partnered 
with Senator McCain on an earlier version of a climate change bill. We 
brought it before the Senate twice. It failed twice.
  To me, the most remarkable and specific fact today that gives me 
encouragement is of the seven original cosponsors--that is, Senator 
Warner and I and the five others who have just come forward without us 
reaching out to them--four of those seven voted against one or both of 
the iterations of the McCain-Lieberman bill. So this issue is moving in 
the right direction. It is moving in the right direction because we 
have answered in this bill some of the questions and concerns that 
Senator Inhofe expressed about the economic consequences.
  First, I wish to say America's Climate Security Act is for real. It 
achieves necessary emissions by putting a cap on America's greenhouse 
gas emissions over electric power, transportation, and manufacturing 
sources that account for 75 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions 
and by strengthening energy efficiency standards for appliances and 
buildings.
  I note the presence on the floor of our colleague from Tennessee, 
Senator Alexander. I know this was of particular interest to him. He 
made a significant contribution to this bill in that regard.
  Now, what does this achieve? It does what we have to do. It doesn't 
do everything everybody wants to do. I have already heard from some who 
have said it doesn't go far enough. But let me set up this standard: 
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the group of more than 
2,000 scientists from around the world who just shared the Nobel Prize 
with our former colleague Al Gore, has said the goal should be to keep 
the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere below 500 parts 
per million, because that will avoid what they describe as the high 
risk of severe global warming impacts here in the United States, which 
obviously has to be our first concern, but also around the world.
  I am pleased to say that if you take the Environmental Protection 
Agency's analysis of the McCain-Lieberman bill and apply it to this 
bill that Senator Warner and I are introducing, you will find the 
concentration of greenhouse gases will be well below that danger level 
of 500 parts per million by the end of the century.

[[Page S13083]]

  Secondly, Senator Warner and I are as committed to promoting and 
sustaining American prosperity as we are to protecting America's 
environment and the global environment from the danger of climate 
change. Senator Inhofe made an interesting point. This is different 
from McCain-Lieberman, which had big jumps, or I should say big drops 
in greenhouse gas emissions. We create a steady glidepath down, and 
that is going to be easier for the sources of emissions to deal with.
  Yes, we set a good solid goal in 2020 to make it clear that this is 
real, a 20-percent reduction, bringing us back down to where the 1990 
levels were. So it is real, but it moves slowly. And in this cap-and-
trade system, with the auctioning of credits and the opportunity to 
subsidize some and provide free credits to other businesses while they 
are in the transition, we are going to smooth the impact.
  We have also created a mechanism--a carbon market efficiency board, 
very creative--which comes out of work Senator Warner did with Senators 
Graham, Landrieu, and Lincoln, a kind of Federal Reserve Board for 
climate change cap and trade, which can step in during times of 
economic stress to smooth this out so the American economy will 
continue to grow. And, of course, the basic premise here--cap and 
trade--is to set the standard: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Make 
sure you are reducing them.
  Others have said: Why don't we pass a carbon tax? Well, I suppose a 
carbon tax would reduce carbon-emitting fossil fuels, but we don't know 
that for sure. Look how the demand for gasoline has stayed up even as 
the price has gone up. So you don't want to tax people without a 
certainty of result. Mandatory cap and trade guarantees the result: We 
want to protect our environment, our lives, our health, our wildlife, 
and our beautiful natural places. It does it in a way that will drive 
innovation and entrepreneurship. The market this bill creates will do 
what we in this country have known that markets do best--they get the 
job done and drive prices down.
  I say finally that this legislation includes many provisions that 
were drafted, suggested and, in fact, in some cases introduced by 
colleagues in the Senate. This is an incomplete list, but I want to be 
certain I mention Senators Collins and Alexander, who are on the floor, 
Senator Coleman--and I will come back to him specifically--Senators 
Boxer, Lautenberg, Sanders, McCain, Bingaman, Specter, Dole, Harkin, 
Klobuchar, Carper, Lincoln, Casey, and Baucus. 
  Senator Coleman particularly has made a contribution to this 
legislation that responds to a statement Senator Inhofe made. What is 
the impact this is going to have on average working people in this 
country--middle income, low income? We are concerned about that, and 
Senator Coleman has essentially inserted a provision here that we 
worked on with him that will ensure that low- and middle-income 
Americans do not bear the brunt of paying for this program.
  This bill is a synthesis of an enormous amount of work on the part of 
many Members of the Senate. Senator Warner and I are deeply grateful 
for their contributions. Let me say it specifically: We are introducing 
the legislation today. Our subcommittee is going to have a hearing next 
week. We are going to do the markup the week after that, the week of 
October 29. This is an ongoing process.
  Our doors, Senator Warner's door and mine, are open. We are putting 
before the Senate today exactly what he said, a framework, a strong, 
detailed, politically credible bill that has a real chance of passing, 
but we are not claiming perfection here, and we welcome the opportunity 
to work with our colleagues on both sides of the aisle. This is not a 
partisan issue and it certainly is not a partisan problem to fix it 
before our children and grandchildren suffer from it.
  Finally, before I yield back to Senator Warner, I again want to come 
back to him. John Warner and I have worked together on many matters, 
mostly regarding America's national security, as I have served under 
his leadership on the Armed Services Committee. His decision to come to 
the leadership of this effort to stop the onward movement of climate 
change has made all the difference. I can't say it any better. It is 
the tipping point, as far as I am concerned, in this Chamber. I believe 
he is doing it for the same reason that has motivated him in the other 
work we have done in the Armed Services Committee. He feels America is 
threatened by this environmental problem and he wants to be part of the 
solution to it.
  We all know our colleague is retiring, after enormous service to our 
country, at the end of this session. I think that together we have the 
opportunity, with his participation, for this to be, in a long life of 
great service to America both in this Chamber and in service in the 
military, one of the great acts of service and leadership that John 
Warner has done for America. I thank him from the bottom of my heart as 
a dear friend and a wonderful partner in this effort.
  I also want to thank his extraordinarily tireless legislative 
assistant, Chelsea Maxwell, who has worked so well with Dave McIntosh 
and Joe Goffman on my staff. This is the day of a breakthrough, but it 
is only a beginning. We have kind of crossed the 50-yard line here, I 
think, my friend from Virginia, and we have some work to do before we 
go into the end zone, but with your help, we are going to do it.
  Mr. President, I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor back to my 
friend from Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska). The Senator from 
Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, this wonderful organization, the Senate, 
has strong friendships. That is the way we operate. It may not be 
apparent. We tend to be a little contentious. Partisanship has always 
been a part of the legislative process since its very inception, but we 
do have mutual respect for one another in this Chamber across the 
aisle.
  I thank my dear colleague from Connecticut for his very heartfelt 
remarks, and I assure him I return in full measure the compliments he 
has bestowed upon me, such as I can bestow the same upon him.
  Now, I am not as sure we are on the 50-yard line. I want to drop back 
a little bit. I think we have caught the punt and we are beginning to 
move down the field. This is going to be a very long and contentious, 
as it should be, piece of legislation. But somehow, I have a measure of 
confidence that the Senate, as a body, will eventually act on a bill 
for climate change. I am also confident that bill, in its final 
analysis, will have the basic goals we are outlining today.
  I say to my good friend from Oklahoma, the distinguished ranking 
member of the full committee, yes, we just finished the bill last 
night, but that is often the way things go around here. I have been 
absent a few days, but I am hopefully back now for an extended time to 
get this bill underway in our committee. But we did sort of open our 
doors for business, as the commercial world says, in August. That 
brought forth a very important forthcoming from the widest possible 
diversity of sources in the private sector, and not only the business 
world but the educational world, the philanthropic world, and on it 
goes. They came to accept our offer to work with us to try and fashion 
this bill. So together with our colleagues and others, we have put this 
together and we are launching it today.
  I want to make certain that time is given to my other colleagues, so 
I will give my remarks later, but I stress the work that has been done 
by so many of our colleagues prior to this bill being introduced today: 
the McCain-Lieberman bill, which my colleague from Connecticut has 
mentioned; the Bingaman-Specter bill. Senator Lieberman and I have made 
a point of personally going to the offices and visiting with each of 
the principal cosponsors, I believe, of all of these various bills and 
indicating to them our desire to take a portion of their work product 
and weave it into this, the bill that is before the Senate as of today: 
The Alexander powerplant bill, and Senator Alexander will soon be 
addressing the Senate on that; the Landrieu-Graham-Lincoln-Warner cost 
containment bill; the Kerry carbon capture and storage bill; the 
Coleman CO2 pipeline bill; and the Klobuchar-Snowe registry 
bill.
  We readily acknowledge the ground that has been broken, the important 
gains thus far of so many of our colleagues. But with due respect to 
the

[[Page S13084]]

administration, the basic difference between the administration's 
approach and our approach is we feel that voluntarism will not achieve 
the goals, the leadership that America must simply take on this issue 
to join the other nations of the world that have taken up leadership. 
The only way we feel to do this is by law.
  Essentially, we are asking the infrastructure in America--the 
industrial infrastructure, the transportation infrastructure, the power 
infrastructure--to consider very significant investments, calling upon 
the investment community in America to bring forward the private sector 
resources and begin to make those commitments now so we can attain the 
goals in the future. And, quite frankly, we have recognized from the 
beginning there will be a burden on the American taxpayers.
  There will be a burden, in fact, on almost every single American, and 
it will be financial in some respects. We do not anticipate exactly how 
much it will be, but every time you fill up your car with gasoline, 
some portion of that will go toward America's role to lead in global 
climate change. The power industry, the transportation industry, they 
will all have to make their respective contributions.
  So I join my good friend from Connecticut in acknowledging the work 
that has been done by our respective staffs, the staff of our chairman 
and others, but this is like a great ship that has been launched today. 
And as we say in the Navy, you launch them and then you finish 
outfitting them. Now it is up to our colleagues to come forward with 
their ideas. We approach it with an open mind. This body will 
eventually shape the bill.
  We will move it into subcommittee next week, do our markup, hopefully 
report that out successfully, move on to full committee, and in this 
calendar year finish a product by the Environment and Public Works 
Committee such that next year our respective leaders can determine when 
is the appropriate time for this measure to be brought to the floor.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the balance of the time 
be equally divided between Senators Coleman, Collins, and Alexander, in 
that order, and that they be given the opportunity, even though they 
are not at this point in time sponsors, to address the body. So that I 
believe the hour for this debate will continue from now until the hour 
of 11 a.m.
  I so make that unanimous consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. We did that in consultation with our respective leaders. 
I ask the time equally be divided between these two Senators.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Each Senator will have 5 minutes.
  Mr. WARNER. I yield the floor to Senator Coleman.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Connecticut and 
esteemed colleague from Virginia for their work on this critical issue 
of climate change. We spend a lot of time in this debate talking about 
large numbers: the number of species that could be lost, the millions 
of metric tons of CO2, the billions of dollars at stake for 
our economy if mitigated incorrectly. But it is smaller numbers I am 
most concerned about--hundreds of dollars. That is what the annual 
burden could be for a household making around $15,000 a year should we 
attempt to transform our energy supply without holding struggling 
families harmless. One elderly woman waiting at a bus stop in 
Minneapolis-St. Paul, when it gets to be about minus 15, minus 20, 
sometimes minus 25, who is on a fixed income, who can't find money for 
her other needs if energy rates go up--this is the price paid if we do 
not address climate change responsibly; the young daughter who hopes 
her dad can keep his job mining taconite up on the Iron Range in 
northern Minnesota. This is the family we must protect if China decides 
it won't take responsibility for its emissions. It is the numbers our 
neighbors count that raise the most critical issues in the climate 
change debate, the little things that end up becoming the big things.
  That is why, when I signed on to Senator Lieberman's Climate 
Stewardship and Innovation Act several months ago, we came to the floor 
together and signed our names to a sense-of-the-Senate resolution that 
stated that any comprehensive, mandatory greenhouse gas emissions 
reduction program enacted by Congress must also take care of low-income 
Americans, who will see their energy costs rise, prevent U.S. workers 
from being undercut by foreign industries that produce goods in 
countries without comparable greenhouse gas reduction programs, and 
incentivize the production of clean energy technologies so that 
Americans can create more green jobs at home while diversifying our 
energy supply.
  Senators Lieberman and Warner have listened to my concerns over the 
last few months as they have worked to craft this legislation. This 
bill is hard evidence that they took those concerns to heart and that 
they too care about the small numbers that affect our fellow Americans 
the most.
  There are several provisions I am particularly proud of in America's 
Climate Security Act, including provisions to provide an estimated $275 
billion for low- and middle-income families to help hold them harmless 
against increased energy costs, including additional funding for 
critical programs such as LIHEAP and the Weatherization Assistance 
Program--programs that the Senator from Maine, who is on the floor, 
championed, because we know how important they are for those, the least 
amongst us, who are impacted so greatly by energy costs.
  This bill includes $30 billion through 2030 for job training for new 
clean energy jobs that provide new employment opportunities in the new 
green economy. It authorizes the President to require importers of 
greenhouse-gas-intensive manufactured products credits if their home 
countries have not taken comparable action. It incentivizes clean 
energy technology by investing an estimated $400 billion through 2030 
in zero and low carbon technologies, to accelerate our transition to a 
clean energy future.
  This bill does not just take care of the environment; it takes care 
of our children. It is a major step forward in addressing global 
climate change in a manner that brings the Senate together. This is, a 
tremendous bipartisan coalition. Some folks were not on this side a 
while ago, but understand the problem is real and the path we are 
taking is a responsible path.
  I am proud to cosponsor this bill. I thank both Senators for their 
hard work and determination. They have proven they are committed to 
action. I am proud to stand by their side.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today as a proud cosponsor of the 
Lieberman-Warner America's Climate Security Act. This bill will address 
the most significant environmental challenge facing our country and I 
want to add my praise to that already heard of the two leaders, Senator 
Lieberman and Senator Warner. I am convinced this bill does represent a 
tipping point because of the coalition brought together to advance this 
bill.
  The scientific evidence clearly demonstrates the human contribution 
to climate change. According to recent reports from the 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, increases in greenhouse gas 
emissions have already increased global temperatures and likely 
contributed to more extreme weather events such as drought and floods. 
These emissions will continue to change the climate, causing warming in 
most regions of the world, and likely causing more droughts, floods, 
and other societal problems.
  In the United States alone, emissions of the primary greenhouse gas, 
carbon dioxide, have risen more than 20 percent since 1990. Climate 
change is one of the most daunting challenges we face, and we must 
develop reasonable solutions to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.
  That is why I am truly excited about this coalition. Senator 
Lieberman deserves much praise for his longstanding leadership, for 
working with Members on both sides of the aisle. Senator Warner's 
commitment to taking on this cause gives me much hope that for the 
first time we are actually going to get a bill through that is going to 
make a difference.
  This bipartisan bill presents a practical, economically sound 
approach to

[[Page S13085]]

reducing America's greenhouse gas emissions by 70 percent over 2005 
levels by the year 2050.
  I also thank Senator Coleman for his contributions to this bill, for 
making sure that we looked at the economic impact, particularly on low-
income families.
  I have observed in person the dramatic effects of climate change. I 
have had the opportunity to be briefed by the most preeminent experts 
in this field.
  On a trip to Antarctica and New Zealand, for example, I learned more 
about the groundbreaking research done by scientists from the 
University of Maine. One of those professors, a distinguished National 
Academy of Sciences member, George Denton, toured parts of sites in New 
Zealand with us. He showed us sites that had been buried by massive 
glaciers at the beginning of the 20th century but are now ice free. 
Fifty percent of the glaciers in New Zealand have melted since 1860--an 
event unprecedented in the last 5,000 years.
  The melting is even more dramatic in the northern hemisphere. In the 
last 30 years, the Arctic has lost sea ice covering an area 10 times as 
large as the State of Maine. At this rate that area is going to be ice 
free by the year 2050.
  In Barrow, AK, I witnessed the impact of the melting permafrost. I 
saw telephone poles that had been planted decades ago in the permafrost 
that are now leaning over. I talked to native people who told me they 
were seeing insects that they have never seen that far north; that 
there has been an extraordinary change in the pattern of fish spawning 
in the area.
  These are dramatic changes. The time has come to take meaningful 
action to respond to climate change--not only talk about it but to pass 
legislation. My colleagues have worked so hard to develop this 
legislation that will preserve our environment for future generations 
while providing reasonable, achievable emission reduction goals, 
offsets, and incentives for the industries covered by this bill.
  The America's Climate Security Act covers U.S. electric power, 
transportation, and manufacturing sources that together account for 75 
percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. It requires these sectors to 
reduce their emissions to 70 percent below 2005 levels by 2050. I am 
pleased that the bill also strengthens energy efficiency standards for 
appliances and buildings, and sets aside credits and funding to deploy 
advanced technologies for reducing emissions and helps protect low- and 
middle-income Americans from higher energy costs.
  Let me conclude my remarks by again applauding the leadership and the 
hard work of my colleagues from Connecticut and Virginia. I urge all of 
our colleagues to consider joining us on this important legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the senior Senator 
from Tennessee is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I congratulate the Senators from 
Connecticut and Virginia for their leadership. Their presence in front 
of this bill makes a huge difference in this Chamber. I congratulate 
Senator Collins, Senator Coleman, Senator Dole, and the other 
cosponsors.
  The question before the Senate is not whether to act on climate 
change, or when to act on climate change, but how to act on climate 
change. How shall we, in this Congress, begin to reduce greenhouse gas 
emissions with the most certainty, least complexity, and the lowest 
cost? The Lieberman-Warner legislation prefers an economy-wide cap-and-
trade approach. I prefer a sector-by-sector approach, that is, devising 
the lowest cost, least complex approach tailored to each of the three 
largest sectors of the economy that produce the most greenhouse gases.
  Since my first year in the Senate in 2003, first with Senator Carper 
and then with Senator Lieberman, I have introduced legislation to put a 
cap on carbon emissions from the first of these three large sectors, 
electricity powerplants. These plants produce 40 percent of the carbon 
dioxide and 33 percent of the greenhouse gases in the United States. I 
will now broaden my legislation to include two other major sectors of 
the economy, one, a low carbon fuel standard for the fuels used in 
transportation--transportation produces another one-third of America's 
greenhouse gases--and, third, an aggressive approach to building energy 
efficiency. I am grateful to the sponsors for including energy 
efficiency in their legislation.
  Tailoring our approach to only these three sectors--powerplants, 
transportation, and buildings--would cover about two-thirds of all U.S. 
greenhouse gas emissions. I believe I heard Senator Lieberman say the 
Lieberman-Warner bill would approach 75 percent of the greenhouse gas 
emissions.
  As we implement laws reducing emissions from these three large 
sectors, we could learn more and move on to the other sectors in the 
future. A sector-by-sector approach minimizes guesswork. For example, 
the United States has 16 years experience with a cap-and-trade program 
designed to reduce acid rain pollution from powerplants. The program 
costs less than expected. Utilities have experience with how it works, 
and we have in place right now the mechanisms we need to measure and 
regulate carbon from utility smokestacks. Cap and trade, which the 
Lieberman-Warner bill employs, and which my legislation employs for the 
utility sector, is a Republican idea, advanced by the first Bush 
administration in the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. With cap and 
trade, the Government sets the limits and the deadlines, and the market 
sets the price. With a carbon tax, on the other hand, the congressional 
tax committees and the Internal Revenue Service set the price.
  Cap and trade creates a more certain environment than a tax. Congress 
would have to revisit the carbon question to determine whether the tax 
is high enough to achieve the environmental goal, which could result in 
constantly changing limits and taxes. With a carbon tax there is more 
possibility that the cost of the tax will simply be passed along to the 
consumer.
  A sector-by-sector approach of the kind I advocate allows us to build 
on steps already taken. For example, in the transportation sector, 
Congress has already begun to mandate renewable fuels to reduce 
greenhouse gasses.
  This year the Senate enlarged that mandate and adopted fuel 
efficiency standards for cars and trucks. I believe we should add to 
those steps a low-carbon fuel standard; that is, requiring 
transportation fuels to decrease gradually the amount of carbon in the 
gasoline they contain, which is a logical and manageable next step.
  In addition, both in the Energy bill of 2005 and the Energy bill the 
Senate passed earlier this year, Congress began to encourage more 
efficient buildings. Making those steps more aggressive holds the 
promise for enormous carbon savings at the least cost.
  I believe a sector-by-sector approach will do the least harm. It 
avoids imposing new regulations directly on the manufacturing sector, 
who nevertheless may have higher costs for fuel and electricity, and 
therefore avoids adding to the pressure to ship jobs overseas.
  By minimizing guesswork, my approach avoids grand plans that sound 
good but may turn out to invoke the high law of unintended 
consequences. I also believe a sector-by-sector approach is the easiest 
approach.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 
additional minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I believe it is the easiest approach 
for Members of Congress to understand and explain to our constituents 
these very complicated issues. As the recent debate on comprehensive 
immigration should have taught us, this is not an insignificant 
concern.
  The Lieberman-Warner economy-wide climate change legislation is an 
important contribution. I will not be a cosponsor as this point because 
I prefer sector by sector, but I will be a full participant in the 
committee and the Senate to produce a sensible piece of legislation in 
this Congress.
  The question before the Senate is not whether to act on climate 
change or when to act, it is how to act. And we should act in this 
session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wish to thank my colleagues, Senators 
Coleman, Collins, and Alexander. Each of you made a contribution.

[[Page S13086]]

  I thank the leadership of the Senate who made available this very 
important hour for our bill to be laid down. Now the work begins.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise to speak about legislation which was 
introduced this morning, America's Climate Security Act. I congratulate 
and commend a number of our colleagues but especially Senators 
Lieberman and Warner for their work on this important legislation that 
slows, stops, and reverses global warming. I also thank Senator Boxer 
for her continued leadership and unwavering commitment to bringing 
global warming legislation to the Senate.
  There are going to be people in this Chamber and other places who 
will find fault with this bill, I am sure. Some will say it goes too 
far. Some will say it doesn't go far enough. But the most important 
thing is that this legislation, America's Climate Security Act, is a 
bipartisan bill. I believe we must have a full and robust debate on 
global warming, and we need to do it now. That is why this bill is so 
important. This legislation is both thoughtful and comprehensive. It is 
what we need to bring global warming to the forefront in American 
policy.
  I personally thank Senators Lieberman and Warner for their 
willingness to work with me on issues critically important to working 
families in Pennsylvania and America. I come from a State with a lot of 
coal and a lot of manufacturing. I believe the future of Pennsylvania 
and the people living there is closely linked to the future of both of 
these industries: manufacturing overall and coal itself. I believe we 
have a moral obligation to end our contribution to global warming, but 
I am also optimistic that we can do this in a way that protects workers 
and creates manufacturing jobs. Senator Warner and Senator Lieberman 
understand how important this is to bring our workforce with us into 
the new jobs created by greenhouse gas reduction and the programs that 
support that. Both Senators have agreed and have graciously offered to 
work with me to refine a placeholder provision currently in their bill 
that we call the climate change worker assistance program which we 
worked together to draft. I look forward to my continued work with them 
on this program and their legislation. I am proud to say I am an 
original cosponsor.
  Finally, I thank Chelsea Maxwell from Senator Warner's staff and 
David McIntosh from Senator Lieberman's staff for their work with my 
staff, especially Kasey Gillette of my staff, who worked so hard to 
make this possible.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. I also want to say a few words on climate change and the 
issue of global warming. Let me begin by quoting from an op-ed that 
appeared in the Burlington Free Press, my hometown newspaper, on 
October 7, by Bill McKibben, well known as one of the most savvy and 
best known environmental writers in the world. He happens to teach at 
Middlebury College. He said:

       It's not Democrats negotiating with Republicans or 
     environmentalists negotiating with business interests. It's 
     human beings negotiating with chemistry and physics, and 
     chemistry and physics don't really do much in the way of 
     bargaining. Science has told us what we need to do: cut 
     carbon emissions quickly in the next few years, and keep that 
     pressure on til we've trimmed our emissions at least 80 
     percent by midcentury. No loopholes for vested interests, no 
     hard-to-quantify offset schemes, no giveaways to the 
     utilities. Just a commitment to stop vetoing the laws of 
     nature. That commitment has got to come soon . . .

  The point that Bill McKibben and many other scientists and 
environmentalists have made is, we are up against very serious laws of 
physics. That is what we are dealing with. It is not what I say or what 
anybody else says. It is whether we are going to get a handle on global 
warming. Because if we don't, this planet is going to suffer severe and 
irreparable damage.
  I begin my remarks by thanking Senator Lieberman and Senator Warner 
for their hard work in putting together America's Climate Security Act. 
As a member of that same subcommittee, I look forward to playing an 
active role in strengthening that legislation. I look forward to 
working with them on this issue.
  I also take this opportunity to thank the 18 cosponsors of the 
legislation Senator Boxer and I introduced in January of this year, S. 
309. Those are Senators Akaka, Biden, Cardin, Casey, Clinton, Dodd, 
Durbin, Feingold, Inouye, Kennedy, Klobuchar, Lautenberg, Leahy, 
Menendez, Mikulski, Obama, Reed, and Whitehouse.
  This legislation, S. 309, tackles global warming as best we could 
based on the science. To be more specific, this bill is based on the 
desire to limit the global increase in temperature to no more than 2 
degrees Celsius, and to meet this goal science tells us we must 
stabilize global CO2 concentrations at no higher a level 
than 450 parts per million. This level only provides us, the scientists 
say, with a 50/50 chance of keeping the worst from happening. These 
odds are not great. It is a gamble. If we were cautious and 
conservative about these things, we would err on the side of safety and 
keep the pollution down lower than this level in order to protect the 
one and only world that we have.

  I thank all of the cosponsors of the legislation that Senator Boxer 
and I introduced for standing with science. We should also be clear 
about one other thing. This is a very important point. What the 
scientists are now telling us is, in terms of their projections, in 
terms of their analyses, they have been too conservative. What they are 
now telling us is the problem of global warming and the rapidity of the 
global warming changes is more severe than they had previously 
anticipated. In other words, we have to be even more aggressive, not 
less aggressive, in addressing this major planetary crisis.
  It may well be that the legislation Senator Boxer and I introduced is 
too conservative, but it is for sure that we should be going forward 
and not backward.
  Let me take this opportunity to quote from some of the major 
environmental organizations in terms of what they are saying about the 
legislation introduced today by Senators Lieberman and Warner. I think 
it is best that I read from them rather than giving my views at this 
particular point.
  This is what the U.S. Public Interest Research Group says:

       We applaud Senators Lieberman and Warner for their 
     leadership on global warming. Time is running out to stop the 
     worst effects of global warming, and this bill is an 
     important starting point for action.

  U.S. PIRG then goes on to say:

       To rise to the challenge of global warming, this new bill 
     must be strengthened. Three changes are essential:
       (1) The bill must achieve faster and deeper cuts in 
     pollution, which is what the science demands. The pollution 
     caps in the bill aim to reduce total U.S. global warming 
     emissions by about 11 percent by 2020 and by just over 50 
     percent by 2050.
       Additional, modest reductions may be achieved through other 
     policies in the bill, but those reductions are difficult to 
     quantify and are not guaranteed. According to the current 
     science, the United States must reduce its total global 
     warming emissions by at least 15% by 2020 and by at least 80% 
     by 2050. In addition, periodic reviews of the bill's 
     scientific adequacy must trigger additional pollution-
     reduction requirements.
       (2) Flexibility mechanisms in the bill must be tightened to 
     prevent undermining the goals of the bill. The bill currently 
     allows companies to exceed their pollution limits by paying 
     sources not covered by the program to reduce emissions. 
     Ensuring that a ton of pollution from such ``offsets'' equals 
     a ton of real reductions is a major challenge. In addition, 
     offsets delay the transition to cleaner technology that will 
     be needed to achieve deep future cuts in emissions. Under the 
     bill, a company could theoretically meet its entire 2020 
     pollution-reduction requirement through offsets. The number 
     of offset reductions allowed under the bill must be 
     significantly lowered.
       (3) Polluters must be required to pay for every ton of 
     pollution they put into the atmosphere. The bill gives 
     hundreds of billions of dollars to polluters for free, which 
     will create windfall profits, such as has occurred in Europe, 
     and take vital resources away from easing America's 
     transition to a clean energy future. In the United Kingdom 
     alone, windfall profits from emission trading have been 
     estimated at nearly $2 billion. These profits come directly 
     from the pocketbooks of consumers. Under this bill, just 
     under half (49%) of the pollution permits would initially be 
     given to polluters for free, and it will take 25 years (until 
     2036) before we stop handing polluters free money.

  That is what U.S. PIRG had to say.
  Let me go to another group, an even better known environmental group, 
and that is the Sierra Club. Let me tell you what they said today in 
their press statement. I quote from the Sierra Club:

       The bill is a significant political step forward for the 
     U.S. Congress, but unfortunately the legislation as 
     introduced still

[[Page S13087]]

     falls short from what is demanded by the science and the 
     public to meet the challenge of global warming. This comes 
     even as U.S. states, cities, and counties move forward with 
     ambitious, science-based proposals to tackle the issue. We 
     look forward to working with Senators to seek the additional 
     improvements necessary for the bill to sufficiently address 
     the challenge before us.

  I continue to quote from the Sierra Club:

       At this crucial moment, we must continue to insist on a 
     global warming bill that is committed to scientific integrity 
     and economic fairness. In order to prevent the most 
     catastrophic effects of global warming, we must cut emissions 
     80 percent by 2050--an achievable annual reduction of about 2 
     percent. In order to get the market moving and bring 
     America's clean energy future to life, any bill must start 
     out strong by seeking a short-term reduction on the order of 
     20 percent of total emissions by 2020. Disturbances to the 
     climate have come more quickly and forcefully than even the 
     most pessimistic among us predicted. The Lieberman-Warner 
     bill, as introduced, leaves us in serious danger of reaching 
     the tipping points that scientists tell us could lead to 
     catastrophic changes to the climate.

  Continuing to quote from the Sierra Club statement of today:

       While the bill has moved in the right direction, it gives 
     too many free allowances to polluters for far too long--
     enriching executives and shareholders instead of generating 
     the funds needed to help us meet our emissions goals and 
     ensure a smooth transition to the clean energy economy.

  That is some of the statement from the Sierra Club.
  Let me now quote from another organization, an organization of 
physicians. It is called Physicians for Social Responsibility, a well-
known group. They have also issued a statement today. Let me quote from 
the statement of the Physicians for Social Responsibility:

       Physicians for Social Responsibility appreciates the 
     efforts of Senators Joe Lieberman and John Warner to craft 
     legislation to address global warming but calls on the Senate 
     Environment and Public Works Committee to make necessary 
     improvements before passing the bill.

  It continues:

       The reality of global warming is becoming more apparent 
     every day, and the science is clear as to what action we need 
     to take. In order to prevent this world-wide disaster, we 
     must stabilize atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse 
     gases. And, the U.S. must meet the challenge of starting now 
     and reaching a goal of 80 percent reductions below a 2000 
     baseline. Unfortunately, the bill drafted by Senators 
     Lieberman and Warner will not meet that goal.

  Let me continue quoting from the Physicians for Social 
Responsibility, who, of course, are physicians. This is what they say, 
providing an interesting analogy:

       Physicians for Social Responsibility's approach to this 
     [global warming] is similar to the manner in which a 
     physician treats a patient: what are the symptoms, what are 
     the causes and how do we treat the disease? We would not 
     prescribe half of the needed medication to a patient, and we 
     cannot support a bill that does not fully address the causes 
     of global warming. To protect human health and reverse global 
     warming, we need to begin aggressive treatment right away.

  That is Physicians for Social Responsibility.
  I could sit here and quote from many other press statements or talk 
to my colleagues about the science, but I will not do that. This is 
what I want to say: If we are concerned about the future of this 
planet--I know every Member here is--and the lives and well-being of 
our kids and our grandchildren, not only in this country but all over 
the world, we are going to have to rise up to this issue.
  It is not just a bargain here and a bargain there. Because you can 
have all the bargaining you want, and all the nonpartisanship you want, 
and yet this planet will face catastrophic damage unless we deal with 
the reality of the science. It is not whether we are nice guys or bad 
guys. This is what we are facing. We are facing science. What the 
scientists are telling us is their projections were too conservative. 
The problem is more severe than they had anticipated.
  I note my friend and colleague, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, made a 
very important point that others have made, which is, as we deal with 
the issue of global warming, let us not forget about the workers who 
are impacted, the consumers who are impacted. Certainly and absolutely 
we must do that. One of the bright aspects, the positive aspects about 
this whole discussion of global warming is if we get our act together--
if, for example, we begin the process of breaking our dependency on the 
automobile and expand our rail system; if, in fact, we produce cars 
that get the kind of mileage we know Detroit can produce--we can grow 
jobs in the transportation area, not see them shrink.
  If we begin to move intelligently toward energy efficiency, if we 
retrofit our homes and our offices and our schools, we can create huge 
numbers of good-paying jobs through the installation and the production 
of the products we need to make this Nation much more energy efficient. 
It is all sitting there waiting to happen. If we have the courage to 
move away from fossil fuel, to move to solar energy, to move to wind, 
to move to other forms of sustainable energy, we can create millions of 
good-paying jobs.
  I would mention to my colleagues that right now out on the Mall--I 
was there last evening--there is a wonderful display of solar homes put 
together by the Solar Decathlon. We have universities from all over the 
United States of America, and from Europe as well, showing us what we 
can do today in making energy-efficient homes and utilizing the 
potential of solar energy. California is making progress. Germany is 
making progress. We are not moving anywhere near the degree to where we 
should be moving.
  Think about the jobs we create when 10 million homes in America have 
photovoltaic units on their rooftops. Think of the energy we produce 
through solar plants in the South and the West and the Southwest of 
this country. Think about what it means when we have small wind 
turbines all over rural America. It is not only moving away from fossil 
fuels, which are destroying the planet, not only moving to clean 
energy, it is creating millions of good-paying jobs.
  We know how to do this. We know how to do it. The technology is there 
today. It will only get better. Our country has to start investing in 
these technologies. We can create the jobs. We can reverse global 
warming.
  I conclude by saying this: I applaud Senator Lieberman and Senator 
Warner. I hope we can work together. But I think we have a distance to 
go to make that legislation better, stronger, more consistent with the 
science that is out there. I look forward to working with all of my 
colleagues to do that.
                                 ______