[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 165 (Monday, October 29, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13498-S13505]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             GLOBAL WARMING

  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I have been waiting to speak to the 
Senate to place in the Record the case that we have to make to take 
action to ease the impact of unfettered global

[[Page S13499]]

warming. I think most Americans know by now--at least those who follow 
environmental issues--that on our committee, we have Senator Inhofe, 
who is the former chairman, in a very different place than the current 
chairman, myself. Senator Inhofe spoke for a couple of hours on this 
subject last week, and I told him I would come down and put forward my 
thoughts. I am sure he will want to respond to what I say. That is what 
the Senate should be. We should be able to debate. I have been looking 
forward to this debate because, frankly, there are very few isolated 
and lonely voices who keep on saying we do not have to worry about 
global warming. Those voices are getting fewer and fewer.
  The reality is that a growing and diverse group of voices has 
recognized the importance of addressing global warming.
  Here are a few calls to action. Some might surprise you. For example, 
President Bush, on September 28, said:

       [Y]ears from now our children are going to look back at the 
     choices we make today, at this deciding moment. . . .

  He goes into it and says:

        . . . it will be a moment when we turn the tide against 
     greenhouse gas emissions instead of allowing the problem to 
     grow. . . .

  This is President Bush in September.
  Again, some of these voices are surprising as we build our case for 
action in the Senate.
  Gov. Charlie Crist, a Republican Governor from Florida, said:

       We're all on the same planet. We need to work together to 
     make sure the environment is an issue at the forefront. It 
     shouldn't be a political issue. It's a global issue. It's not 
     bipartisan. It's nonpartisan.

  Certainly, in my own State, Governor Schwarzenegger and the Democrats 
in the legislature have worked very closely to make sure we move 
against unfettered global warming.
  ``Vatican to Become World's First Carbon-Neutral State.'' This is 
very recent, this year:

       The Vatican is installing solar panels and purchasing 
     greenhouse gas offsets to become the first carbon-neutral 
     sovereign state.

  We can see that everyone is working together except for a few. It is 
unfortunate because in the Senate, a few can stop us from doing our 
work. We already heard about some of the problems we are having getting 
the Energy bill through. But I am very optimistic because we have had a 
bipartisan breakthrough in the Environment and Public Works Committee 
with Senators Warner and Lieberman getting together and putting forward 
a very solid bill which, if it is enacted, will be the most far-
reaching global warming bill in the world today.
  Earlier this year, the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, known as 
USCAP, which includes major corporations, joined together with 
environmental groups to issue a call for action on global warming, 
calling for reductions of 60 to 80 percent in greenhouse gas emissions 
by 2050. I thought I would go over some of the members of U.S. Climate 
Action Partnership because, again, there are just a few voices out 
there saying we are putting our head in the sand, this isn't a problem. 
But mainstream America is with the program. Let me tell my colleagues 
who they are. I am just going to read a few: Alcoa, Boston Scientific 
Corporation, BP America, Caterpillar, Inc., Chrysler, ConocoPhillips, 
Deere, Duke Energy, DuPont, Environmental Defense, Ford Motor Company, 
General Electric, General Motors, Johnson & Johnson, National Wildlife 
Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council, PepsiCo, Pew Center on 
Global Climate Change, PG&E Corporation, Shell, Siemens Corporation, 
Dow Chemical Company, the Nature Conservancy, World Resources 
Institute, and Xerox corporation.
  We can see the diverse members of the American family from corporate 
America to environmental organizations that have gotten together and 
have urged us to cap greenhouse gas emissions and cut them. It is very 
important that we think about the amazing coalition that is out there 
behind us addressing global warming. When we hear some Senators come 
down to the floor of the Senate and say this is ridiculous, this isn't 
an issue, just remember this list of mainstream America urging us 
forward, urging us to act.
  Why should so many industries be calling upon us to enact climate 
legislation? Because they recognize a couple of points. One, the 
science is strong, it is irrefutable, and a sound business future for 
America lies in dealing with climate change. We cannot grow, we cannot 
move forward if we all of a sudden turn around and our planet is under 
threat. We cannot have a business looking out 50 years that does not 
think about this. We have to think about our grandkids and our great-
grandkids, and corporate America thinks about the people who are going 
to come forward to continue the work of that corporation. They 
recognize the threat, but they also recognize the opportunities.
  Let's read from USCAP's call for action. It is very clear:

       We believe that a national mandatory policy on climate 
     change will provide the basis for the United States to assert 
     world leadership in environmental and energy technology 
     innovation, a national characteristic for which the United 
     States has no rival. Such leadership will assure U.S. 
     competitiveness in this century and beyond.

  This is a very strong call for action from Republicans, from 
Democrats, from Independents, from corporate America, from the 
environmental community, and others that have joined together.

  All you have to do, Madam President, is pick up a newspaper, any 
newspaper--I don't care if it is a Republican editorial board, a 
Democratic editorial board, or Independent--and you will see an amazing 
amount of evidence as to global warming and its potential impact. I am 
going to go through a few recent headlines. I asked my staff--and they 
do an amazing job for me--to follow the news and let me know what is 
being written, what the scientists are saying. So I am going to give 
you just an example of some of these headlines. If we can walk away 
from this, then it seems to me we are being irresponsible. We have to 
listen to them.
  Early warning signs: ``Greenhouse Gases Fueled 2006 U.S. Heat.'' This 
is Reuters.

       According to NOAA--

  That is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. That is 
the Bush administration's NOAA--

     ``the annual average U.S. temperature in 2006 was 2.1 degrees 
     Fahrenheit above the 20th century average and the ninth 
     consecutive year of above-normal U.S. temperatures'' and that 
     this was a result of ``greenhouse gas emissions--not El Nino 
     or other natural phenomena.''

  This is our American Government under the President who has been very 
loath to move on global warming, warning us about these high 
temperatures.
  ``Scientists Report Severe Retreat of Arctic Ice.''

       The Cap of floating sea ice on the Arctic Ocean, which 
     retreats under summer's warmth, this year shrank more than 
     one million square miles--or six Californias--below the 
     average minimum area reached in recent decades.

  Again, these are scientists from the National Snow and Ice Data 
Center in Boulder, CO. This is not a matter of opinion; this is fact. 
They are measuring the ice. I was in Greenland. I saw it myself. 
Several of us went. It is the most awesome sight to behold, to see 
these icebergs, the size of a coliseum, bigger than this beautiful 
Senate floor, taller than this room, floating into the ocean. Each 
iceberg is an average of 9,000 years old, and they melt within 12 
months from the time they get into the ocean. So let's not put our 
heads in the sand or under the water.
  More early warning signs: ``China Blames Climate Change for Extreme 
Weather.'' This is China. China doesn't really want to move forward. 
They have been slow to come to the table.

       According to an official from Chinese Meteorological 
     Administration's Department of Forecasting Services and 
     Disaster Mitigation, ``It should be said that one of the 
     reasons for the weather extremes this year has been unusual 
     atmospheric circulation brought about by global warming.''

  A lot of people around here say: Let's not do anything until the 
Chinese come to the table. Now the Chinese are telling us we better 
watch out for this global warming.
  ``As Sea Level Rises, Disaster Predicted for Va. Wetlands.'' My 
colleague, John Warner, was present at a very important set of hearings 
where we looked at the impact of global warming on his State. It says:

       At least half, and perhaps as much as 80 percent, of the 
     wetlands would be covered in too much water to survive if sea 
     levels rise 1\1/2\ to 2 feet. The analysis was conducted by 
     Wetlands Watch, an environmental group.


[[Page S13500]]


  Senator Warner and his colleagues from the DC area all came to that 
hearing and were very concerned.
  ``From Greenland to Antarctica, the world is losing its ice faster 
than anyone thought possible.'' This was in the National Geographic.

       Scientists are finding that glaciers and ice sheets are 
     surprisingly touchy. Instead of melting steadily, like an ice 
     cube on a summer day, they are prone to feedbacks, when 
     melting begets more melting and the ice shrinks 
     precipitously.

  This is what is happening. You can come down on this floor and you 
can put a blindfold over your eyes and you can put your hands over your 
ears and say: I see no problem, I hear no problem. Then you are not 
really taking in the signs.
  ``Fires a `Consequence of Climate Change.' '' This is touching my 
heart because my State has been burning, and all of my colleagues know 
this and all of them have been most wonderful to us--to Senator 
Feinstein and to me--about offering help and assistance. In the long 
run, we need to do something about global warming or we are going to 
have that horrible combination of drought, low humidity, high 
temperatures, and terrible winds--weather extremes, Madam President, 
that you have experienced from time to time. This is what we are going 
to see.

  Greek Prime Minister Costas Kerryman said:

       The weather phenomena this year favored, as never before, 
     the outbreak of destructive fires. We are already living with 
     the consequences of climate change.

  This gives you an idea. There are some more. ``Climate Change 
Pollution Rising--Thanks to Overwhelmed Oceans and Plants.''
  This is the ``Scientific American.'' We are not taking articles here 
to show you where there is bias.

       The world's oceans and forests are already so full of 
     CO2 that they are losing their ability to absorb 
     this climate change culprit.

  This according to the Proceedings of the National Academy of 
Sciences.
  So, yes, someone is going to come to the floor and say: Oh, look at 
this great scientist, Mr. ABC, or whatever his name, and he is 
challenging this. Well, he is challenging the world's leading 
scientists. And I think it is very important to say there are always 
people who will say HIV doesn't cause AIDS; there are always people who 
will say, geez, cigarette smoking doesn't cause cancer; but thank God--
thank God--this Government has followed the preponderance of the 
science and we now are making progress. How sad it would be if America 
sits on the sidelines while the whole world looks to us for leadership 
on global warming.
  Here is this one.
  ``The Future Is Drying Up.''

       According to Nobel Laureate Steven Chu, diminished supplies 
     of fresh water might prove a far more serious problem than 
     slowly rising seas.

  He also remarked:

       ``The most optimistic climate models for the second half of 
     this century suggest that 30 to 70 percent of the snowpack 
     will disappear.''

  No wonder we have people visiting our offices who are already hurting 
from the recreation industry in this Nation. They see what is 
happening. They see the handwriting on the wall. We have to act.
  Here is this quote:

       There's a two-thirds chance there will be a disaster, and 
     that's in the best case scenario.

  That is from a prize-winning Nobel laureate. Then this:
  ``Study Links CO2 to Demise of Grazing Lands.'' From the 
Los Angeles Times.

       Rising levels of carbon dioxide may be contributing to the 
     conversion of the world's grasslands into a landscape of 
     woody shrubs, much less useful for livestock grazing.

  So this has implications for the very way of life we have here in 
America.
  ``Parks Face Climate Threat.''

       A report shows how climate change could have a huge effect 
     on the Great Smokey Mountains, the Blue Ridge Parkway and 
     other national parks.

  This according to a new report by--by whom?--the National Parks 
Conservation Association.
  Folks, this is mainstream thinking. Mainstream thinking. We have to 
act.
  ``Likely Spread of Deserts to Fertile Land Requires Quick Response, 
U.N. Report Says,'' New York Times.

       Enough fertile land could turn into desert within the next 
     generation to create an ``environmental crisis of global 
     proportions'' based on a new U.N. report. The report warns of 
     large-scale migrations and political instability in parts of 
     Africa and Central Asia. The report recommends national and 
     international action to address global warming.

  Another call to action. And here, from the Intergovernmental Panel on 
Climate Change, which just won the Nobel Peace Prize, along with former 
Vice President Al Gore:

       Projected trends in climate-change-related exposures of 
     importance to human health will increase the number of people 
     suffering from death, disease and injury from heatwaves, 
     floods, storms, fires, and droughts.

  So to come down here and talk about the polar bear and say the polar 
bear is fine--A, the polar bear is not fine, and we will talk about it; 
but this isn't about the polar bear. This is about God's creation that 
is in jeopardy. We had testimony from scientists that 40 percent of the 
species that were created are going to be gone. Now, it is our turn to 
do our part. That is why I have been working so closely with the 
religious community, the evangelical community. They are concerned 
about God's creation, and we ought to be. We talk a good game about it. 
We talk about values. We talk about it, so let us do something to show 
we are willing to protect this gift from God we have been given.
  ``Why Frogs Are Dying.''

       Climate change is no longer merely a matter of numbers from 
     a computer model. With startling swiftness, it is reordering 
     the natural world.

  Newsweek. That is a Newsweek article.
  We need scientific facts, not science fiction. In the past, we have 
had science fiction writers come and testify before our committee. 
Those days are over.
  ``Global Warming May Be Behind Increases in Insects and Disease-
Carrying Animals,'' Newsday.

       Rising global temperatures may be helping to spark a 
     population boom in insects and disease-carrying animals, 
     creating unexpected threats to human populations, a number of 
     scientific reports say.

  That is not a pretty future for my new grandson, to think about being 
exposed to all these vectors that have not attacked us, but this is 
what lies in our future if we do nothing.
  ``WHO--the World Health Organization--77,000 People Die Annually in 
Asia-Pacific Region From Climate Change.'' ``Pollution Cutting Life 
Expectancy in Europe.'' This was in USA Today.

       According to a Report by the European Environment Agency: 
     ``Poor air and water quality, and environmental changes 
     blamed on global warming, have cut Europeans' life expectancy 
     by nearly a year, Europe's environmental agency warned.''

  Well, Europe is moving forward. To be honest with you, the bills they 
are looking at in Europe don't quite match the bill we are looking at 
in the EPW Committee. That is why I am so proud of the work Senator 
Lieberman and Senator Warner have done, and we are only making this 
bill better.
  ``Report Calls on Europe to Move on Global Warming.''

       The European Commission report warns that unless there is 
     planning, European countries will face ``increasingly 
     frequent crises and disasters which will prove much more 
     costly and also threaten Europe's social and economic systems 
     and its security.''

  The point is, when you invest now, you save $5 later. That is a fact. 
We know that from Sir Nicholas Stern, who headed the World Bank.
  Now, how about national security? One of the reasons I got so 
concerned about this is when I learned what our own Pentagon and our 
own intelligence people are saying to us. And what are they saying to 
us?

       A report commissioned by the Department of Defense in 2003 
     found that the impacts of global warming would cause the U.S. 
     to ``find itself in a world where Europe will be struggling 
     internally, with large numbers of refugees washing up on its 
     shores and Asia in serious crisis over food and water. 
     Disruptions and conflict will be endemic features of life.''

  And, of course, our Pentagon and our Department of Defense are very 
concerned about that happening with our allies in Europe.
  ``Warming Will Exacerbate Global Water Conflicts.''
  According to many studies, including the IPCC, changing weather 
patterns will leave millions of people without dependable supplies of 
water for drinking, irrigation, and power.
  Now, the reason I took so much time and made all these charts--
because it did take a while to get them done--is

[[Page S13501]]

to show the breadth and the depth of the concern in this country, in 
the world, to make the point that there is a huge movement in this 
country and in the world to address global warming. We are not going to 
listen to those who have their heads in the sand or, frankly, have 
decided they want to leave this for another generation. That would be 
irresponsible. I know you, Madam President, and I share a conviction 
that this is our job. This information has been given to us on our 
watch, and we intend to stand up to the challenge.
  When Senator Inhofe came on the floor, he made a number of statements 
which were not true, and I am going to deal with a couple of them. He 
used an MIT report in a misleading fashion. Senator Inhofe has 
frequently claimed an MIT report shows the Boxer and Lieberman bills 
would lead to a $4,500 tax on a family of four. But the author of the 
MIT report, John Reilly, said:

       Senator Inhofe misread his findings. Rather than impose a 
     tax of $4,500 as Inhofe described it, he said, the study 
     shows the regulation could generate a substantial amount of 
     Federal revenue for the government to give back to Americans. 
     A family of four, Reilly said, could earn an additional 
     $4,500 if the United States adopted a carbon tax or auctioned 
     off carbon credits.

  So let us not misquote authors around here, because that is not the 
right thing to do for them nor is it the right thing to do to mislead 
our colleagues.
  I mentioned the polar bears before, and many of us have been touched 
to see the polar bears clinging to smaller and smaller pieces of ice in 
order to survive. Senator Inhofe has claimed--and he claimed it on the 
floor--that the polar bear populations are increasing.

       The best-studied population, in Canada's western Hudson 
     Bay, fell by 22 percent from 1,194 animals in 1987 to 935 in 
     2004, according to--who--the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

  Our own people are telling us that the polar bear is in trouble.

       The World Conservation Union projects that the bears' 
     numbers will drop by 30 percent by 2050 due to continued loss 
     of Arctic sea ice.

  I think it is important that we talk about facts. Science must 
dictate what we do, not ideological arguments that don't have any 
weight behind them. The leading scientists of the world, including the 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which I earlier mentioned, 
and which won the Nobel prize along with Vice President Gore, and the 
IPCC included hundreds of scientists, the best scientists from 130 
nations--they tell us clearly that global warming is happening now and 
human activities are the cause. I believe we can meet this challenge, 
with hope, not fear. I believe when we meet this challenge, we will be 
stronger as a nation and we will be healthier as a nation.
  And, by the way, we will create a whole new array of green-dollar 
jobs. My own State, a leader in the environment, has proven the point 
that when you step out and you address the needs of the environment, 
what comes with it are only good things--prosperity, job creation, and 
healthier families. We are doing it in our State with global warming 
and, by the way, many other States are following. If we did nothing, it 
would be a shame. It would be a shame if the America we love so much 
stood by and said: Well, gee, let a few States go off on their own.
  This is a seminal issue, and we need to do something about it, 
because doing nothing is not an option we can afford. The potential 
consequences will be devastating for our families in the future and for 
the world.
  We are seeing the early warning signs. People can come down to this 
floor and say whatever they want. We have seen melting of snow, we have 
seen melting of permafrost, increased temperatures, warming of lakes, 
rivers, oceans, changing in the seasons, shifts in the ranges of plant 
and animal species, rising sea levels.
  In the future, we can expect to see more extreme weather events, more 
severe heatwaves, droughts and flooding, increased storm surges and, 
sadly, an increased incidence of wildfires. We will see extinction of 
species, we will see freshwater resources at risk. By 2020, between 75 
million and 250 million people will be exposed to increased water 
stress due to climate change in Africa.
  In Asia there will be problems. Warming in the western mountains of 
America is projected to cause decreased snowpack and reduced summer 
flows, resulting in even greater competition for already overallocated 
water resources.
  I mentioned this figure before--we did hold 20 hearings on global 
warming. At one of them, we had scientists who were experts on 
wildlife. I remember sitting there, being so saddened to hear that if 
we do nothing, 40 percent of God's species on planet Earth could face 
extinction.
  Now we hear our oceans are at risk as well. The British Royal Society 
projects that progressive acidification of oceans due to increasing 
carbon dioxide is expected to have terrible impacts on marine life, 
such as corals and their dependent species. You have heard of coral 
bleaching. It is cause by increased water temperatures as well as the 
oceans becoming acidic from storing excess carbon. The water becomes so 
acidic some marine life, such as shellfish and coral reefs, can no 
longer form their shell, as it dissolves in the acidic water.
  The IPCC found that pests, diseases, and fire are having terrible 
impacts on forests, with an extended period of high fire risk and large 
increases in areas burned. Again, I wish to use this moment to thank 
the firefighters in my State, all of them--local, State, Federal--
working seamlessly together. We have the most extraordinary heroic 
firefighters in California, as we do all over this country. Their jobs 
are becoming more and more dangerous as these fires are so strong and 
are fueled by droughts, high temperatures, low humidity, and high 
winds.
  I mentioned before that in July, I was in Greenland. I was there with 
10 Senators and Dr. Richard Alley, an expert on ice from Penn State, 
who accompanied us on the trip. It was amazing to see this whole 
situation with him at my side. What I learned from him is Greenland's 
ice is melting faster than anyone thought. In some places, the glacier 
ice is moving so quickly, if you stand there you can actually observe 
it moving.
  In the past year, new islands were discovered that were previously 
connected to the main mass of ice. The Greenland ice sheet holds enough 
ice to raise sea levels globally by 23 feet. Think about 23 feet. Sea 
level increases of only a few feet will cause major disruptions.
  I wish to talk about public health. Public health officials have 
issued a call to action. We had a hearing the other day and we heard 
from the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 
Unfortunately, her testimony was heavily edited by the White House. I 
am working very hard, with other colleagues, to get her original draft. 
Let me tell you, we are not going to rest until we get that. But the 
fact is the public has a right to know everything about global warming 
and the threat it poses to their families and to their communities.
  At the same hearing where we heard from Dr. Gerberding, the 
Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Health presented the 
committee with a position statement from the Association of State and 
Territorial Health Officials on Climate Change and Public Health. Their 
statement was adopted unanimously.
  Yes, if a Senator wants to come down here and condemn all the public 
health officials in the country and claim they get some benefit out of 
this, let the Senator do it. The fact is, they have said they support 
the latest findings of the U.N., and they recognize that climate change 
has far-reaching implications for public health.
  According to the IPCC, climate change has already altered the 
distribution of some infectious disease vectors and the seasonal 
distribution of some allergenic pollen and increased heat wave-related 
deaths.
  We are already seeing and we are already feeling the difference. If 
trends continue, we could see increased malnutrition and related 
disorders, including those related to child growth and development. We 
will see increases in the number of people suffering from disease, 
injury, death because of heat waves and because of droughts and fires 
and all the things we mentioned.
  The World Health Organization has estimated that human-induced 
changes in the Earth's climate lead to at least 5 million cases of 
illness and more than 150,000 deaths every year already.

[[Page S13502]]

  We saw the European heat wave which caused countless numbers of 
illnesses and claimed 35,000 lives. That is accurate--35,000 lives were 
lost.
  You can come down to this floor and you can say everything is 
beautiful, but you are not in touch with reality.
  We are beginning to see right here in America what happens when the 
water warms. The Associated Press reported on September 27 that a 14-
year-old boy died from an infection caused by an amoeba after swimming 
in Lake Havasu. According to a CDC official, these amebas thrive in 
warm water and as water temperatures continue to rise, we can expect to 
see more cases of these amoeba infections.
  We are going to see an increase of ground-level ozone or smog because 
that is formed at higher temperatures. We know smog damages lungs and 
can cause asthma in our kids. We already have asthma as the leading 
cause of school absences in my State. I cannot speak for other States, 
but we have major problems with dangerous smog days.
  We know about wildlife. We know, as I said, that 40 percent of the 
species are at risk of extinction if we do nothing to reduce global 
warming. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concluded that shrinking 
sea ice is the primary cause for the decline in polar bear populations. 
Senator Inhofe comes down and says the polar bears are doing great: 
Wrong. False information. Listen to your own administration's U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service. The shrinking sea ice is the primary cause for 
the decline in polar bear populations.
  Guess what. This administration--because it was threatened by a 
lawsuit--proposed listing the polar bear as threatened under the 
Endangered Species Act. So come down here and show pictures of those 
magnificent polar bears, saying everything is fine--that is wrong. It 
is wrong by every measure, by every scientific account, by our own U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service.

  Global warming is a national security issue, as I mentioned before. 
People are telling me this current humanitarian catastrophe in Darfur 
is already linked to the extended drought in the region. The Secretary 
General of the United Nations said the Darfur conflict began as an 
ecological crisis, arising at least in part from climate change. This 
is happening right under our nose. The Senate and the House have been 
asleep at the wheel--until recently.
  A report commissioned by the Department of Defense found the impacts 
of global warming would cause the United States to ``find itself in a 
world where Europe would be struggling. . . .'' Projected global 
warming ``poses a serious threat to America's national security'' and 
``acts as a threat multiplier for instability. . . .'' This is all from 
retired admirals and generals. This is not from Barbara Boxer. This 
isn't from Al Gore. This isn't from Maria Cantwell. This isn't from 
Senator Warner. It isn't from Senator Lieberman. This is from our own 
retired admirals and generals: Projected global warming poses a serious 
threat to America's national security.
  The United States, they said, could more frequently be drawn into 
situations of conflict ``to help provide stability before conditions 
worsen and are exploited by extremists.'' Such missions could be long 
and require the United States to remain for ``stability and 
reconstruction efforts . . . to avert further disaster.''
  That report also warns of ``extreme weather events, drought, 
flooding, sea level rise, retreating glaciers, habitat shifts . . . the 
increased spread of life-threatening diseases'' and increased scarcity 
of clean water that could ``result in multiple chronic conditions'' and 
``foster the conditions for internal conflicts, extremism, and movement 
toward increased authoritarianism and radical ideologies.''
  I have never seen an issue such as this, where we have such a 
unanimous call for action, a unanimous call for action--from the 
business community, from environmental organizations, from admirals and 
generals, from the Department of Defense, from the Wildlife Service--
from all over the world. As yet we are nowhere, but we hope to change 
that.
  What are our States and our local governments saying? They are taking 
action.
  I have had the pleasure of having Mayor Gregg Nickels of Seattle 
before the Committee. He started the Mayors' Climate Protection 
Agreement in 2005. To date, mayors from nearly 700 cities across 
America, representing 75 million Americans, have pledged to reduce 
their greenhouse gas emissions.
  So come down to the floor and say what you want. But 75 million 
Americans are already acting. Come to the floor, say what you want, but 
the world is passing you by if you close your ears, cover your eyes, 
and convince yourself that you know more than the scientists of the 
world know.
  California is the sixth largest economy of the world. I am so proud 
to represent California--37 million people and a spirit of 
entrepreneurship, a spirit of neighbor helping neighbor. It is an 
incredible place.
  California has set the gold standard with its landmark global warming 
program, Republican Governor Schwarzenegger and a Democratic 
legislature setting us on a clear path toward 80 percent cuts by 2050.
  You know, what is important about the California experience is look 
at what we have already done on per-capita energy use. I am so honored 
that you are in the chair, Madam President, because of your expertise 
on energy.
  We have kept our per-capita energy use steady for more than 30 years, 
while per-capita energy consumption in the rest of the Nation has 
doubled. If the whole country could have been as efficient as 
California, we would have saved an amount of energy equivalent to all 
the oil we import from the Middle East each year. Can you imagine that? 
So when people fight against doing something about global warming, I 
say: If you look at the low-hanging fruit, which is energy efficiency, 
and look at what my State has done and now other States are doing, we 
can get halfway there without one sacrifice.
  I don't think anyone has ever said that Californians do not lead a 
very happy, pleasant life. I don't think anyone looks at Californians: 
Oh, those poor people, they are so unhappy because they are energy 
efficient.
  On the contrary, we have a booming economy and we have people who are 
feeling good about themselves because of the contribution they have 
made. It does not take much to get a refrigerator that is more 
efficient or get a car that gets better mileage or get an air-
conditioner that cuts your energy use in half. I have done it. I have 
done these things. I am saving money. I am driving my Prius, and I am 
waving to the gas station because I don't have to go in very often to 
fill up my car.
  People all over this country are already so far ahead of where we 
are. If you want to come down to the floor, if you want to take issue 
with 75 million Americans, be my guest. But you are not being honest 
with the facts. The facts are clear.
  Twenty-nine States have completed climate action plans and a number 
of States have established mandatory reduction targets, again including 
my home State. Last week, Gov. Kathleen Sibelius of Kansas wrote an 
open letter to the people of her State, expressing her support for 
clean energy. What is happening in Kansas? Good things. The State's 
environment secretary rejected applications to build two new coal-fired 
powerplants. They want cleaner energy. They want clean energy. They see 
they are going to move in that direction. The Governor of Kansas 
understands what we are facing. If you want to come down on the floor 
and tell her she is wrong, be my guest. It is a free country. But you 
know what? You are not going to change her mind and you are not going 
to change the minds in so many States that are moving so far past us it 
makes your head spin.
  Addressing global warming has major benefits. I have given you the 
truth about the dangers of global warming because a lot of people walk 
away. I wanted you to hear the truth about the dangers of global 
warming. Now I want to tell you what gives me hope. When we step up to 
the plate, we are going to benefit. We cannot only prevent the most 
dangerous effects of climate change, but we are going to be better off 
for it. I already mentioned Sir Nicholas Stern, former chief economist 
of the World Bank. He said: Spend a dollar now, save $5 later. So 
people are going to come on the floor and they are going to say: Oh my 
God, they are spending money on this.
  No, we are going to save money, because if we can avert the worst 
problems of global warming--you can't

[[Page S13503]]

build a flood protection tall enough unless we do something now. Do you 
know what it costs to build that flood protection? We know because we 
passed the Water Resources Protection Act and we kept our promises to 
the people of New Orleans and the others from Katrina and Rita who 
suffered so much.
  To take a little segue, the President is threatening to veto that 
bill. Now, that is one where Senator Inhofe and I are exactly together. 
We cannot walk away from building an infrastructure, but the point is, 
building an infrastructure to protect against the type of floods that 
could come if we do not act is going to be so much more expensive than 
investing the dollars now. And that is the point.
  Since 1990, Britain has reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 15 
percent. Guess what. Britain's economy has grown 40 percent. So people 
can come down to this floor and say: Oh, it is going to wreck our 
economy. Wrong again. It did not happen in California; it did not 
happen in Britain.
  Britain's environmental industries are the fastest growing sector of 
the country's economy. I was just there a couple of months ago. They 
are so excited. Their environmental jobs grew to 500,000 from 135,000 
in just the last 5 years.
  There is a study at UC Berkeley, University of California, Berkeley. 
They say that the State product in California, the gross State product, 
by 2020 will be up by as much as $74 billion, with 89,000 new jobs 
created because of our work on global warming and our laws.
  I have been to Silicon Valley. You are familiar with the 
entrepreneurial spirit there. They are just waiting to make the kind of 
investments necessary, but they need to have a clue as to what we are 
going to do. If we walk away from a cap-and-trade system, which will 
put a market price on carbon, they are not going to make those 
investments.
  The entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley are on the cutting edge. New 
companies are starting every day to respond to the growing demand for 
clean energy and more efficient vehicles and other technologies.
  Sun Microsystems is already reaping the benefits of greater 
efficiency. I just went to visit Sun Microsystems. They made some 
simple changes in the way they cool their computer servers. They have 
been able to cut their electrical consumption in half. I will tell you, 
simple things can save so much energy. Simple things can cut down on 
global warming.
  Tesla Motors, I would urge all of you to follow that company. They 
are producing an all-electric car with performance that rivals or even 
exceeds the world's best sports cars. It is exciting. It is in 
production. It is all electric.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Will the Senator yield?
  Mrs. BOXER. I will yield to the Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. First, I compliment the Senator for her very articulate 
understanding of the impact of greenhouse gases and where our country 
needs to go. So thank you for your leadership. We are so happy that you 
are chairing that committee and showing the fortitude to make sure this 
legislation starts moving through the Senate.
  You mentioned California's experience. I wonder if you would just 
elaborate on that one more time because I think the point may have 
been--it sounds so simple but yet so complex. California's savings is 
what we are trying to do in the Energy bill. Here we have a 20-percent 
reduction of fuel consumption and a 20-percent reduction of greenhouse 
gases. That is why we need to pass the Energy bill. But you are talking 
about California's efficiency, and the efficiency that it achieved was 
monumental and significant. If you would, emphasize or explain how it 
is that we should be doing the same thing in the Senate in moving 
forward on efficiency.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank my dear friend, such a great leader on energy 
reform, for taking to the floor. I want to say to you, Senator 
Cantwell, in California we have kept our per capita energy use steady. 
In other words, each person's energy use over time has stayed steady 
for more than 30 years, while the per capita energy use in the rest of 
the Nation doubled.
  Now, we have done it in ways that were very comfortable for people. 
You know, you look at the energy for appliances, you look at building 
codes, you look at all the things that we have done, simple things, 
things you are trying to do in the Energy bill.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Madam Chair, did that cost California jobs?
  Mrs. BOXER. It created jobs. We have been a leader in jobs. We are 
very prosperous. We believe our landmark legislation on global warming, 
the studies show, will create thousands and tens of thousands of green-
collar jobs.
  I think the point I would like to emphasize, and I know my friend 
from Missouri will be amazed at this, if every other State were just to 
emulate that, had emulated that, and we all did this as a national 
goal, not just one State's goal, we would have saved an amount of 
energy equivalent to all of the oil we import from the Middle East each 
year.
  That is the amount of savings from the simple things that we can do, 
some of the things that my friend is trying so hard to get done in the 
Energy bill.
  The fact is, when I look at the whole issue of global warming as a 
good news/bad news story, the bad news is we really have not tackled it 
here. The good news is there is so much we can do, so easily, with such 
benefits.
  Certainly, energy efficiency is one.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Madam Chair, I thank the Senator from California for 
answering that question and again for her great leadership on trying to 
push forward global warming and climate impact legislation in the 
Senate.
  We do have to move forward. Her resiliency in saying the committee 
will address it, the committee will mark up legislation is the next 
step in what we need to do in following through. I applaud her for her 
dedication and for answering that question.
  At $90 a barrel for oil, I certainly wish the rest of the Nation 
would have followed what California has done in that consumption 
reduction because it would have helped all of us on today's oil prices.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). The Senator has 9 minutes 
remaining.
  Mrs. BOXER. Thank you very much. I would just say that the California 
story is a good news story. California is trying to do more. They have 
asked the Bush administration for a waiver to move forward in the 
transportation sector. That waiver has not been forthcoming.
  California has gotten 50 waivers in the past. For some reason now 
there has been a very slow-walking act that has gone along with this 
request for a waiver. I am hoping that our committee is going to invite 
many of the Governors of the various States to the Capitol to talk 
about why it is so key for the Bush administration to grant the waiver.
  When I started to talk about what is happening now with the 
entrepreneurial spirit in my State, I talked about Sun Microsystems 
reaping the benefits of energy efficiency to their plant.
  First of all, they were able to consolidate the space that houses all 
of their computers, which was a big help. Secondly, just by moving 
forward with a new way to cool their computers, cool their computers in 
a low-energy way, they cut their energy bills in half.
  I talked about Tesla Motors producing an all-electric car. It is a 
beautiful car. They are not marketing it as a way to fight global 
warming. They are marketing it as a beautiful car, one of the fastest 
cars in the world.
  Tesla Motors, I hope you will go and take a look. Their first model 
is going to be very expensive, we know that. But their next models are 
going to be half the price. And they hope in the future to get to the 
$30,000 range. Now, what we are talking about is clean automobiles, 
zero emissions of greenhouse gases.
  There is another company, Bloom Energy, in San Jose. They are 
creating the next generation of fuel cell electrical generation 
systems. I visited there and the scientists were explaining how all of 
this works. I can tell you this technology has the potential to 
revolutionize the way that electricity is generated. It holds the 
potential to bring clean electricity to parts of the world that have no 
electricity now.
  So what are the benefits, the benefits of new technology? New jobs, 
cleaner

[[Page S13504]]

air as we reduce the pollution that causes global warming, by 
increasing our use of clean, renewable energy sources such as wind and 
solar, driving more efficiently, less polluting cars and trucks, and 
increasing efficiency. We will reduce other forms of air population 
too: sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, mercury.
  These are issues about which Senators Carper and Alexander are very 
concerned. They sit on the Environment and Public Works Committee. With 
this bill we will see that those pollutants will be reduced as we cut 
global warming pollution. And that means cleaner, healthier air for us 
all to breathe.
  Now, the IPCC also concluded that household benefits from reduced air 
pollution as a result of action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions can 
be substantial. So when I say: I meet this crisis with hope, not fear, 
I mean it. I think it is going to create jobs. I think it is going to 
make our communities healthier. I think it is going to make our air 
healthier. I think it is going to reduce our dependance on foreign 
countries to supply oil, which is now up to $90 a barrel.
  We know oil is a critical strategic interest of America. Our reliance 
on oil-rich rogue states and unstable regimes has been at the heart of 
wars and interventions in the Middle East. As we develop these clean, 
renewable sources of energy, which is all going to be done by the 
private sector, my venture capitalists at home cannot wait to make 
these investments, but they will not make them unless we take the lead 
on a strong anti-global-warming bill.
  Now, world leadership, the United States has always been the world 
leader on environmental protection. The core environmental laws that we 
created and enacted, most of them through the committee on which I am 
so proud to be a part of, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, Safe 
Drinking Water Act, National Environmental Policy Act, and others, have 
been models for environmental policy around the globe. The global 
warming legislation we pass will take its place alongside those 
landmark laws. It is time for us to step up and set the pace.
  Now, again, our States are doing it. I want our States to continue. I 
really do. But I really do believe this is an issue that belongs in the 
Senate. By leading now, we can ensure that the solutions to global 
warming are designed in ways that are good for America, good for our 
businesses, good for our consumers, good for our kids. We have the 
technology and know-how to export. Now is the time to move forward.
  Well, I have been working very closely with Senators Warner and 
Lieberman as they have assembled their bill. I was so impressed with 
the effort they have invested in seeking out the views of Senators and 
other groups, environmental organizations, business organizations.
  They have looked at all the other global warming bills that have been 
proposed: the Sanders-Boxer bill, the Kerry-Snowe bill. They have 
looked at the Lieberman-McCain bill and the Bingaman bill. I think 
those are all of them. There has been a broad range of views that they 
have reconciled in the process. I have laid out some important 
principles that I believe must be reflected in the legislation. Any 
bill has to have the emission reductions that will avoid dangerous 
climate change. It must be flexible to have look-back, to make sure we 
are on course. We need an emissions trading program so there is a price 
put on carbon by the private sector. We must protect the pioneering 
State efforts that are already underway. We need to ensure that other 
countries are stepping up and doing what they have to do. There are 
ways to enforce that, frankly, because a lot of folks want to trade 
with us. If they want to come in and trade with us, they better make 
sure they are not adding to this problem.
  Natural resources and wildlife concerns must be addressed. We must 
support American workers in their transition as we move to a greener 
economy and see, again, as they have in Great Britain, how many jobs 
would be created.

  I also want to express the moral imperative that was really brought 
to me by the religious community. The most vulnerable here and around 
the world have to be protected. I know we have colleagues who continue 
to say we have to do it, and they are absolutely right.
  There is no time to waste because the longer we wait, the harder it 
will be to achieve the goals we have to achieve--before we find we are 
spending a fortune on flood control and we are spending a fortune to 
try to mitigate the terrible ravages that global warming will bring.
  The point is, with good legislation we have these lookbacks. If we 
are on target, fine. If we are doing too much, we have a way to back 
off. If we are not doing enough, we could do more. That is the beauty 
of the Lieberman-Warner bill.
  I believe there is unprecedented momentum for change. Yes, you are 
going to have a few voices come down here and say this is ridiculous, 
this does not make any sense. That is fine. That is their right. But, 
again, in every great issues debate, you always have a few people who 
stand outside the mainstream, and I respect that. I absolutely give the 
folks who have that point of view all the time they want to express 
themselves.
  But the bill Senators Warner and Lieberman have crafted can set us on 
the path to achieving the goal of avoiding dangerous climate change. It 
is a bipartisan, mainstream breakthrough, and I am committed to further 
strengthening this legislation as we move forward because the 
legislation establishes a framework on which we can build. It embodies 
key concepts--such as cap and trade and lookbacks and it draws on the 
other strong global warming bills that have been proposed. It gets us 
started. Time is short.
  Now, there are a few who will say we should not do anything.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for 60 seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friends for yielding me that 60 seconds 
because what I want to do is wrap up.
  Some will say: This is not an urgent problem. Do nothing.
  Others will say: Do nothing until you go to the extreme, until you go 
to the 90-percent cut. Let's wait for a new President. Let's wait for a 
new Congress. Let's wait for a new day. Let's wait for the Sun to come 
out. Let's wait for the rain to fall.
  I do not ascribe to either of those extremes.
  We have the facts now. We have a good bill now. We have an 
unprecedented opportunity to send a signal to this country and to the 
world that we are ready, finally, to move to calm the effects of 
unfettered global warming. I think we can do it. I think we can be 
successful at it, and I do approach this with great hope.
  Some have tried to argue that we should not act now. These people say 
we should wait for a new President, a new Congress, another day.
  As I say, there is no time to waste. Right now, there is 
unprecedented momentum for change. We must harness that momentum to 
pass strong global warming legislation. We have a small window of time 
to get started down this path. The longer we wait to get started, the 
harder it will be to achieve the emissions reductions we know we need 
to reach. Starting now will send a signal to the world and the business 
community as they make their future plans that the United States is 
serious about its leadership role.
  Some have asked me, Why should we pass legislation now, when the 
President has said he is opposed to mandatory caps on global warming 
pollution and a cap-and-trade system?
  The President and I agree that technology is the solution. But he 
still won't accept that it won't happen on its own, not unless the 
price of carbon is built into the process. We still hope to change his 
mind, but even if we do not, we must begin the hard work of the 
legislative process. It takes time, patience, fortitude, and courage. 
Very few laws are passed the first time around. We must take good 
legislation as far as we can. It is our job to start down the path.
  I have a vision for my 11-year-old grandson and for my new grandson 
who was born a few months ago.
  My vision is that these children and yours will grow up and be able 
to know the gifts of nature that we saved for them, that they will 
understand we made the right choice for them--we protected the planet 
that is their home--that because of our action they

[[Page S13505]]

will not be shackled into fighting wars over the last drops of water or 
oil or remaining acres of arable cropland. They will not have to spend 
their last treasure building higher flood walls, bigger levees, and 
fortified cities to escape rising seas and angrier hurricanes.
  Their cars will run on clean renewable fuels that do not pollute the 
air they breathe. The United States will lead in exporting clean 
technologies and products that are the engine of a new green economy. 
We will lead the world in showing the way to live well, in a way that 
respects the Earth.
  To make this vision a reality, we must face our challenge in a way 
that overcomes our differences, and that defies our party affiliations.
  Madam President, I yield the floor to my friend, Senator Inhofe.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Thank you, Madam President. It is my understanding--I 
would ask for clarification--I am entitled to 30 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republicans control the remaining 30 
minutes of morning business.
  Mr. INHOFE. Thank you very much.

                          ____________________