[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 89 (Monday, June 2, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4863-S4866]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          CLIMATE SECURITY ACT

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I don't think, with all due respect to 
my good friend, the majority leader, who decided to bring up this bill, 
that discussing one of the most massive bills we have seen is a waste 
of time. I don't think 30 hours is too long. The Wall Street Journal, 
which he dismisses--I don't dismiss it--said:

       This is easily the largest income redistribution scheme 
     since the income tax.

  That was today's Wall Street Journal editorial. I wish to say, this 
is not a matter that should be lightly dealt with. Thirty hours is not 
enough. We need to spend a lot of time talking about what the 
provisions are in this legislation, what we can do, as the majority 
leader says--and I agree, there are a lot of things we can do and we 
can do now--but what we ought not to.
  I have to defend my friend, Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican

[[Page S4864]]

leader, who objects to this legislation, and his statement that the 
Democratic leadership is out of touch. I have been traveling my State. 
I travel it a lot. I talk with a lot of people, and I hear one point: 
People are concerned about gasoline prices and energy prices. They know 
it is hurting their family budgets. Families are paying $50, $100 a 
month more this year for the same number of gallons of gasoline they 
were paying 2 years ago.
  Where is that money going? Sixty percent is going to foreign nations 
where our oil is coming from. We are transmitting from our Nation $500 
billion a year in wealth to foreign countries to buy this oil. So we 
need to do something. This wealth transfer is the largest in the 
history of the world. We have never seen anything like it, and it is, 
in my view, impacting our economy adversely.
  I certainly believe we ought to do everything we can to create energy 
sources at home at reasonable prices and that we ought to seek to serve 
a lot of different interests.
  I wish to respond to this sort of putdown of Mr. Charles Krauthammer. 
I think he is a fabulous columnist, a brilliant man, and a commentator. 
I believe the Wall Street Journal is one of the most sophisticated 
editorial pages in the country. I read an article in the Washington 
Post, from Mr. Robert Samuelson, pointing out the flaws in the 
legislation that is before us today. Patrick Michaels, in the 
Washington Times, and others are talking about the difficulty with this 
legislation. It is not a good idea, and it should not be done in this 
fashion, in my opinion.
  We must be good stewards over this marvelous Earth over which we have 
dominion. It is also true that energy is a powerful force for good in 
the world. It has been estimated that in countries where electricity is 
readily available, the lifespan of the citizens are twice that in 
places where it is not. Electricity energy is the fabulous entity that 
has provided for the marvelous expansion of our lives, the quality of 
our lives, the health of our children and families, and without it, we 
would not be the people we are today. We would be still be hauling 
water in buckets from the spring.
  It makes no sense that we would see this in any other light than as a 
good thing--how we can create more of it, cleaner, with less adverse 
impact on the environment and less adverse impact on our economy--and 
is something we ought to do.
  Many are convinced and cite a great deal of scientific evidence that 
the world is warming and the time is short and the danger is great. But 
I think few would dispute the immensity of the Earth and the complexity 
of forces that are at work in our climate. So the warming experts have 
developed the most astounding, complex computer models to study and 
explain these forces and to monitor the warming trends that have been 
occurring for some decades, although apparently not the last 10 years. 
These computer models predict a continually abnormal warming trend in 
the long run. Many of our best scientists are convinced these computer 
models are fact, though others have questioned the extent of their 
accuracy of expected rise in temperatures and the negative consequences 
if it were to rise.
  In a recent article by a senior fellow at Cato, Patrick Michaels, he 
noted there are some legitimate questions. I say this because I think 
there is certainly a majority view that we are, by emitting 
particularly carbon dioxide, warming our planet and that can have 
adverse consequences. But he made these points a couple of days ago. 
One point he made was that it is certain that the Earth has not warmed 
since 1998. That was a warm year, a very warm year. And it hasn't 
warmed since 2001 either. So it raises some questions.

  Another study he quoted was published in Nature magazine by Noah 
Keenlyside of Germany's Leipzig Institute of Marine Science in which he 
predicts no additional global warming ``over the next decade.'' So the 
question is, if we haven't had any in the last 10 years, and he is 
predicting another decade in the future, it suggests that we need to be 
thoughtful about how we handle this program; that we need to reduce 
greenhouse gases, reduce pollution, and we need to take strong steps, 
which I would support, but we need to do it in a thoughtful way.
  Should we take action? Absolutely. Should it be a purely marketplace 
solution? I don't think so. I don't think we have a purely marketplace 
economy with regard to energy today. I believe government policies can 
impact what happens in the energy world, and I think there are things 
that we as a nation can do. So I would say, yes, I propose that we see 
and agree upon actions that can be taken now that will make a positive 
difference. And we can do that, I am convinced, in a way that does not 
drive up unnecessarily the burden on families or that mother who is 
trying to take care of her children and fill the gas tank and add 
another $1.50 a gallon.
  By the way, that $1.50 a gallon increase on gasoline as a result of 
this cap-and-trade bill was an analysis done by the Environmental 
Protection Agency--our own EPA--a group that certainly has earned its 
reputation for being a fierce advocate for the environment. The 
National Association of Manufacturers also has scored it. They think it 
could be as much as $5 a gallon. And the Heritage Foundation has higher 
numbers than the EPA. So I don't know what it is, but I will tell you 
that on top of the rise in prices we have already seen, this 
legislation would drive up prices further. Not a single study suggests 
or says anything other than it will drive up the price of fuel on the 
American consumer.
  Now, I will be frank with you. I participated in a hearing a couple 
of years ago in the Energy Committee on the cap-and-trade system in 
Europe. It sounded like something we might consider. I was interested 
in the hearings. I had believed that the sulfur dioxide emission cap 
and trade had worked in the United States and that this might work too. 
But after hearing the Europeans and business people and experts, I came 
away from that hearing in the Energy Committee very troubled.
  Then, just a few weeks ago, we had another hearing on the economic 
cost of it, and it was very troubling indeed. So I have concluded that 
those are not the right steps. This kind of legislation is not the 
right step for us to take. I do not believe we should go down this road 
with this cap-and-trade proposal.
  I want to note parenthetically, Mr. President, that the Environment 
and Public Works Committee that reported this bill to the floor never 
had a hearing, never had a hearing on how the trillions of dollars in 
cost that this bill will impose on working Americans and on businesses 
in this country will impact our economy. They never discussed that.
  So I thank Senator Bingaman, the Democratic chairman of the Energy 
Committee, for at least having one hearing, with a few government 
experts who ran some of the numbers and pointed out the cost that could 
occur from this legislation.
  So I have concluded that the cap-and-trade program is not going to 
work. It just will not work. It will create more lobbyists than ants in 
our country. It will, without doubt, sharply raise the cost of gasoline 
and electricity in America. It will make American businesses less 
competitive in the world, and it will surely damage our economy. It 
will also be, as everyone who looks at it will admit, a secret, sneaky 
tax. It is a tax of about $7 trillion on the American people, with the 
money going to some sort of funds and unelected persons to be spent in 
ways that we are not able to know right now how it will all be spent.
  George Will, writing in the Washington Post on Sunday, called it ``a 
huge tax hidden in a bureaucratic labyrinth of opaque permit 
transactions.''
  Now, is he an extremist? He is good with words, I will admit. I think 
that is maybe too kind for this legislation. In reality there is an 
element of power about it, and money. If the persons who propose this--
at least those from the outside, particularly, who are advocating it--
can overwhelm us at this point and overwhelm our common sense and our 
natural sense of caution, it may be that Congress will then turn over 
to them virtual control over the greatest engine of human progress the 
world has ever seen, and that is the American economy.
  If this cap and trade becomes law, there will be politics, campaign 
contributions, corruption, promises, and lobbyists--yes, many 
lobbyists. It is

[[Page S4865]]

perfectly natural. When the Congress takes control of large segments of 
the productive capacity of our Nation and commences to pass 
legislation, and bureaucrats begin to issue tens of thousands of 
regulations, the Congress will then be picking winners and losers. And 
businesses, union members, workers, cities, counties, States--special 
interests--all do not want to be losers. They want to be winners. So 
they must exercise, therefore, their right to petition Congress 
concerning a host of matters they had heretofore never considered to be 
a matter they would hear from Washington about. But now they have to be 
engaged.
  I can go on, but you can see the picture, and it is not a pretty 
sight. So I have decided this is not the right way to go forward to 
deal with the challenges that we face. It would be a calamity, I am 
convinced, to impose this process on the American economy and the 
American people. So I urge those who are listening today to pay close 
attention because those masters of the universe are at it again. They 
are ignoring the legitimate needs of the middle class and the poor for 
low-cost, clean energy. They think they can just repeal the law of 
supply and demand if we turn this economy over to them; that they can 
create energy and produce technological breakthroughs just by passing a 
law or by simply putting pretty words on a piece of paper. It is not 
going to work that way.

  The ones who bear this cost will not be the Nobel prize winners 
living in huge mansions but people who drive their cars and trucks to 
work every day, who fight our wars, who contribute to their churches 
and other noble causes, and raise their children right. They are the 
ones who will pay this cost. So I propose we get away from this 
concept. It has not worked well in Europe.
  Scientific American, last November-December, did a fabulous study. 
This premier scientific journal, which believes in global warming, says 
we ought to take strong action. You know what they say about it? From 
memory, my best recollection of the quote is:

       A simple tax is the best way to deal with this problem. But 
     because politicians don't have guts to impose a tax on 
     carbon, what they are going to do is pass this cap-and-trade 
     legislation, and it will be a below-the-radar-screen tax. And 
     as a result, it causes many, many problems in implementation.

  They pointed out those, one after another, in that important piece. 
So I propose we look for things that work by getting busy now, 
accelerating into production the ideas that may take us further and 
faster than we could proceed without government policy. In my view, 
common ground can be occupied on a need to deal with important issues 
along with global warming.
  I think we need to deal with national security--our dependence on 
foreign oil. We need to continue to reduce pollution. We need to make 
sure we do not drive up cost and imperil our economy. We need to reduce 
CO2 global warming gases. We ought to focus on all those 
issues, not just one, and we should take actions that will work by 
promoting hybrid automobiles, which we have done. We have promoted 
ethanol, and that has jump-started that industry. We can proceed to 
producing hydrogen fuel cells. We are not there yet, but it is 
possible.
  What about diesel automobiles? They get 35 or 40 percent better gas 
mileage. Conservation across the board should be a new ethic in this 
country as far as I am concerned. Wind, biofuels, especially cellulosic 
fuels can be beneficial, and I personally have seen that. We need more 
American production of natural gas. Natural gas is much cleaner than 
coal, and geothermal. But most particularly, I would note we are not 
going to reach our global warming goals, as Prime Minister Brown in 
Great Britain announced recently, without nuclear power. He reversed 
their policy and said they are going to add five new nuclear plants.
  We haven't built a nuclear plant in this country in 30 years. Nuclear 
emits no CO2. It is economically more productive and not 
more expensive than other sources of energy. It emits no pollution into 
the atmosphere, and it certainly is an American-made product that 
provides for our independence from foreign intervention. We must do 
that. Any legislation that does not deal or does not enhance nuclear 
power--and this one does not--is not going to help us solve this 
problem.
  So I would propose that we create an Apollo program, as we did in 8 
years when we were planning on going to the Moon. My friend, Senator 
Alexander from Tennessee, proposes a Manhattan project--well, OK--in 
which we move in quick order on a host of actions that could actually 
help us meet our global warming and our energy independence and our 
economy's needs. We can do that.
  Not a dime--not a dime--should unnecessarily be spent on bureaucrats, 
bean counters, technicians, regulators, lawsuits, or lobbyists. You 
think we would not have lawsuits with this legislation? The effort and 
money should be spent on doing what works, and doing that now, the 
things we know will work. I will support that.
  I think we need a new department in the Department of Energy that 
will focus exclusively on implementing a historic, coordinated effort 
to bring forward the many improvements that can make us more energy 
independent and more secure; that will reduce pollution, strengthen--
not damage--our economy, and quickly begin to reduce CO2. I 
know that can be done.
  I have been in Alabama this week traveling the State and taking a 
look at energy projects. Wood and switchgrass are being burned right 
now in a coal plant generating electricity. I saw a new clean diesel 
engine at the Mercedes plant that can get 35 to 40 percent better 
mileage than gasoline. The Europeans, by the way, have half their cars 
in diesel because it gets much better gas mileage. There is sustained 
work at the University of Alabama's Transportation Center on hybrids 
and plug-in hybrids. You plug in your car at night, at 11 p.m. to 5 
a.m., and charge your battery from a nuclear powerplant emitting no 
emissions, and you can drive and commute back and forth to work without 
using a drop of oil.
  That is the kind of thing that is within our grasp, that is not too 
far away, and we ought to look at it. Hydrogen fuel cells and other 
ideas were also presented at the university. Then, at Auburn 
University, I saw a transportable cellulosic gasification unit that 
will be brought to Washington on June 19, and they are going to receive 
the top award in the Nation for that. Wood goes in one end, it is 
heated, and out comes gas or liquid fuel, and at a price we believe can 
be competitive. It is clean energy, American energy, reducing our 
dependence on foreign oil, and because it is from a plant--cellulose--
it is not increasing the net CO2 in the atmosphere.

  I visited a small Christian school where students are working on 
algae as a source for gas for fuel. It has promise--trust me. I visited 
Huntsville, where, since 1984, they operate an incinerator to burn 
garbage for steam that operates the military's base at Redstone. This 
is proven. It is working. No other city in Alabama has such an 
incinerator. Another Alabama plan would take municipal waste and make 
ethanol from it. We were briefed on that. I visited the Jenkins Brick 
Company near Birmingham recently, and the heat they use comes from 
captured methane that comes off a landfill. So they are heating and 
cooking their brick with an energy source that, if leaked into the 
atmosphere, would be a particularly pernicious greenhouse gas. We have 
seen the collection, in Fairhope and Hoover and other places, of 
cooking oil for biodiesel instead of throwing it in the landfill. These 
are all actions that work.
  I say let's forget this legislation, let's get busy doing things that 
will work. I and the American people are fed up with a dependence on 
foreign oil and the resulting high prices driven by the OPEC cartel 
that meets to decide how much they want to tax the American economy. 
They want to fight back. They are willing to take strong action now. 
But they are not understanding what this bill does. They do not expect 
the Congress to pass a bill that is going to cause them to pay even 
higher prices; that is going to create a huge bureaucracy with more 
regulations, lawsuits, lobbyists, and trillions of new taxes going to 
people who are not accountable to the American people--and they should 
not.
  Snuffy Smith, the old cartoon guy who, in my youth, lived up in the 
mountains--he was a pretty good ethanol maker himself; maybe Senator

[[Page S4866]]

Webb would know that neighborhood--used to say, ``Great balls of fire, 
time's a wastin'.'' I say time's a wastin'. Let's get busy now, but 
let's do the things that work. Let's not create a bureaucracy that will 
be counterproductive.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________