[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.
______