[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 89 (Monday, June 2, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4866-S4889]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CLIMATE SECURITY ACT OF 2008--MOTION TO PROCEED
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 3036,
which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Motion to proceed to S. 3036, 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.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from California is
recognized.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, if you will let me know when I have gone
20 minutes, I will greatly appreciate it.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair will so notify the
Senator.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, this is a historic day, not only for our
country, but I think the world is watching us. It is because we have a
pressing issue called global warming, climate change; you could call it
either one. Scientists have told us that in fact we have a very small
window right now within which to respond. But it is a historic day
because for the first time we have what I call tripartisan legislation
out of the Environment and Public Works Committee. It is the Boxer-
Lieberman-Warner bill. It is a Democrat, it is an Independent, and it
is a Republican. We have come together to say to our colleagues and to
the American people: Finally, we are going to deal with this critical
challenge.
I wish to take a moment to thank Senator Reid for scheduling this
matter. There were a lot of voices saying: Why do this now? Why do we
have to do this now? I know, because I came to the Congress with Harry
Reid, why he wants to do this now. Because it is, in fact, one of the
greatest challenges of our generation and we have to respond with a
landmark bill, it will take us a while. We must get started. We
certainly hope our colleagues will vote to get started. If they do not
vote to get started, they are going to have to explain why they have
turned their backs on the world's leading scientists and on the Bush
administration's own political appointees--such as the head of the CDC,
who told us that we face real problems if we do not act, such as the
vectors that will now live in warming waters. They will be turning
their backs on the intelligence community and the military community,
who have looked out in the future and have written papers--and this is
the main reason John Warner is into this--telling us that if we do not
act, we are going to see desperate refugees throughout the world. We
are going to see droughts and floods worse than the ones we have seen.
When refugees are moving because of rising waters, droughts, or floods,
you are going to see wars develop in all parts of the world. That is
why Senator Reid said yes. He said yes to American leadership. That is
what we want to say by moving to this bill and supporting it. We say
yes to green jobs.
Because the President already said he is going to veto this bill if
it passes, I have to say it is very interesting that one of the reasons
he gave is that in one of the models, it shows that gas prices will go
up 50 cents a gallon in 20 years. That would be 2 cents a year. In
fact, if you look at the record of this administration--and they have
done nothing to stop it--gas prices have gone up, under their watch,
250 percent. Just take a look at this chart--250 percent, from $1.47 to
$3.94; 250 percent. This administration did nothing. Now when they come
forward and they say we can't pass this bill because gas prices will go
up, here is the truth.
The truth is, because we are going to get better fuel economy--
because of a bill the President did sign, and we are glad he supported
this part--you are going to be putting less fuel in your tank. So even
if it is more per gallon, you are going to be getting better mileage,
so you are not going to feel that 2 cents a year. And second, and this
is key, it is fitting for this administration which has supported big
oil and supported foreign oil and goes to the Middle East and holds
hands with the leaders there and kisses them on the cheek and begs for
oil--it is very fitting: They are still the voice of the status quo.
They are still the voice for continuing our dependence on oil.
This is what has happened without a climate change bill. This is what
has happened without a bill to fight global warming. We see this
ridiculously impossible increase in costs, and then the administration
does nothing about this but is scaring the people and saying they are
going to get hit with higher prices.
Let me also address this. In this Boxer-Lieberman-Warner substitute
that is before us, we have in there two things we didn't have in the
Lieberman-Warner bill. One is a deficit reduction fund.
You can take down the chart now. It is too ugly to look at.
In the Boxer-Lieberman bill, we did not have a deficit reduction
trust fund, and therefore people could have argued that this is going
to be a terrible thing for us as we look out in the future. We put that
in there, and CBO says our bill is deficit neutral.
We also have in this bill a very large piece--almost $1 trillion--of
tax relief. So when we do see some increases in energy costs in the
early years--electricity, for example--we can offset that because there
will be tax relief and then there will be this consumer relief that
will go through the utilities. They will give rebates immediately.
For those people who said: Oh, my goodness, we are moving forward
with this and we need to make sure we can get off the track, I want to
say thank you to Senators Bingaman and Specter who, in their bill, had
created what I thought was a very important off-ramp. The one thing I
didn't agree with them on was the price they pegged for the price of
carbon because the business people I spoke to, including those in
Silicon Valley, said: That is a mess. If the price is too low, then
business will simply not invest. The Silicon Valley people and the
investors from across this country--we had one at a press conference
today who said he represented, I think, a $4 trillion fund,
[[Page S4867]]
said they are waiting to invest in new green technologies, in new jobs.
They are waiting to do it. They are waiting for this legislation. But
they will not do it unless we don't have an easy off-ramp, we have an
off-ramp that can be used in circumstances that warrant it.
We have put the number between $22 and $30, which reflects the
consensus of the labor groups as well as the environmental groups. We
have tried to come together. We have tried to put this together in such
a way that it essentially moves us forward, takes us where we have to
go, and takes us there in a way that will mean the creation of millions
of jobs.
Some of our colleagues will say this: Why do this now? We are in a
recession. Precisely because we are in a recession is why we should be
doing this. This bill is the first thing that brings us hope.
We sent a rebate check to people. I am really glad we did it. I voted
for it. Guess what. We had no money to do that. We had to go into the
red to do that. We had to go into deficit spending to send a rebate
check. This bill gives us the funds to give relief to our consumers.
This bill does that.
I compliment Judd Gregg because I have had meetings with him, and
this was his point. Mind you, he wants to give it all back to
taxpayers. We use some of it for investments in these new technologies
so we can swiftly move away from foreign oil and big oil, but it was
Judd Gregg--who I know was not a fan of our bill, again because of what
I said--who gave us this idea and this notion that we could have these
funds to return to our consumers.
I know Senator Warner, who is on the floor now, has many
contributions he is going to talk about in this bill. I will not go
into details. But he also said it was important that the President has
an ability to say: Wait a minute, this bill goes a little too far. We
have to take a pause, a timeout. He has written it in such a way that I
am very supportive of it because it balances the powers of the
President and Congress. He will talk more about it.
Now that I see my two colleagues are on the floor--I have not had a
chance to thank him on the Senate floor--I want to say to Senators
Lieberman and Warner how much they mean to me--on this issue and also
personally. I will not get overly emotional about it at all, but I will
say this about Senator Warner: Senator Warner has a legacy that if he
didn't do one more thing in the Senate, if he just decided to come by
and say ``Hi'' to us for his last 6 or 8 months, it would have been
enough. It would have been 10 times what most of us will achieve.
His legacy on national security is unparalleled; you know that and I
know that. You have spoken to me about it. But when Senator Warner came
to me, since I am now chair of the EPW Committee--which is the deepest
and greatest honor I have ever had--and he said: I have been doing a
lot of thinking about this, Barbara, and I think we have to move; we
have to get America back into a leadership position; I have told Joe
Lieberman; he said he is going to work with us.
I knew at that moment we would, in fact, reach this day. Now, even
reaching this day was not easy. When you read ``How a Bill Becomes a
Law,'' and it says, you take it to the subcommittee, and the
subcommittee approves it; you take it to the full committee, the full
committee approves it; then you take it to the floor and the floor
approves it, this was difficult for us to get through subcommittee and
then to get through the full committee and now to take it to the floor.
We know this is not easy. We know this is difficult. All great matters
of the day are not easy. They take time. They take effort.
Landmark laws take effort. They do not happen overnight. But at
moments such as these, when we are dealing with such a big issue, we
should think back to our predecessors, when our predecessors in
Congress saw rivers on fire from pollution or contaminated water that
made us sick or filthy air that filled our lungs, and magnificent
creatures such as the bald eagle close to extinction, Congress acted.
We were not afraid. We were not afraid. We stepped to the plate and
said: This is America, and our ingenuity can resolve these questions.
We could have walked away. They could have walked away. But they did
not walk away.
Now we are going to find out who is going to walk away from this and
who is going to step to the plate. I think it is that important. The
American people deserve to know who is willing to step to the plate.
Now, look, every bill means we have to compromise. Lord knows. I am
looking at my friend, Senator Warner, and smiling because I am thinking
of the many times he said to me: Senator, I do not think I can go there
with you.
Then he wanted something, and I said: Senator, I do not think I can
go there with you. But we met halfway here. We met halfway. That is
what we need to do in the Senate.
I wish to say that my colleagues in the Senate, including Senator
Webb, who is sitting in the chair, have allowed me into their lives,
into their offices. We have talked for hours. I have heard their
concerns. They have raised questions. In many cases, they have led us
in a good direction to be stronger.
For example, in the case of Senator Webb, he had many concerns. One
of them happened to be what about the countries we trade with, are not
they going to have an advantage? I cited the Bingaman-Specter bill
again and said: We took something good from that bill. We took that
part of Senator Specter that deals with saying, if countries come and
want to bring in a lot of products into our Nation, and their countries
are not doing anything about this, they are going to have buy
allowances; they are going to have to do their part.
These are the kinds of things we hope to strengthen in this bill.
Look, we have clear evidence, evidence that greenhouse gas pollution
will cause our planet to heat up well beyond what is safe. We have to
act. I do not want to do more than is necessary; I do not want to do
less than is necessary. I am trying to find that ``just right'' spot.
I do agree with Senator Warner that because we are looking out into
the future, we have to give the Presidents now and in the future the
ability to say: Let's take another look. We also have to continue to
look to the scientists. Therefore, in our bill we say, the scientists
should submit a report every few years. We need to see if we are doing
too little or is it just right and adjust to it.
I think I mentioned this before. Senator Reid deserves a lot of
credit for bringing this bill forward. We have wasted time. Look, I
blame myself. I blame myself. I did not grab the reins of this thing
early enough in my career.
I have to say, Senator Lieberman did. Senator McCain raised the issue
early on. I had some problems with their approach, and I did not
engage. I admit this. This is the hardest thing for anyone to admit,
for a Senator to say: I was wrong. I was wrong. I did not get it.
I have to give Al Gore and all the people who came before the
committee when I got the gavel a year ago, a year and a half by now--
and we said: You know, we are going to look at this thing. I did not
have all the answers then. I had a lot of questions. We had the world's
leading scientists, we had religious leaders, we had State leaders, we
had Republicans, we had Democrats, we had businesses, we had mayors.
We had 25 full-blown hearings on this. Plus we had lunches and we had
dinners where we invited in the scientists, the experts, people from
Europe who have taken the lead, to ask them questions.
They made a lot of mistakes in the beginning. We were nervous about
that. I remember one of the first times Senators Lieberman and Warner
and I spoke was, we have to make sure that whatever bill we work on
does not give rise to speculation and get-rich-quick schemes.
So we have been very careful to learn from the mistakes Europe has
made. But when you cut it all up and you look at Great Britain, for
example, a very small country compared to us, they have cut back carbon
by 15 percent. In the same time, they have raised their gross domestic
product by 45 percent. They have created 500,000 new jobs.
You do not have to go that far. Go to my State of California. We are
in a terrible mess right now because of the housing crisis. We have so
much of the foreclosure problem. We have a recession in housing and in
construction. I was told unequivocally that because of
[[Page S4868]]
our global warming legislation we have there, 450 new solar
businesses--and I am not even looking at nuclear and I am not looking
at wind, I am looking at solar--450 companies have formed.
They are hiring many of the workers who are losing their jobs in the
construction industry. So there are ways to do it that are wrong. There
are ways to do it that are right. Now, today, you will hear from those
who wish to kill this bill, kill it, kill it as dead as they can. They
say it is too complicated, that we should do nothing and we should
continue the status quo.
Well, the status quo is devastating, my friends. The scientists have
told us that. The price of gas is off the charts. My friend, Senator
Lieberman, made this point beautifully at a press conference we had.
The whole point of the bill is to get us off oil, is to unleash the
genius of America so there are investments in alternatives, alternative
fuel cars that get better fuel efficiency.
I will tell you this, knowing what I know from California, it is
going to have a positive and beneficial effect; whereas, if we turn
away out of fear, out of fear mongering, out of scare tactics, out of
saying global warming is a hoax, it does not exist, look at scientist
X, look at scientist Y.
You will hear it all on this floor. You will hear it all on this
floor. But I remind you, there were people who said the world was flat,
even when everyone knew it was not. There were people who said
cigarettes did not cause cancer, when the rest of us knew they did.
There are still people who say HIV does not cause AIDS. They are wrong.
I can go on.
Oh, airbags, they will not save lives. Wrong. When you stand on the
Senate floor, whether you are a Democrat or Republican, an Independent,
whether you are short or tall or medium, whenever you challenge the
status quo, watch out, folks, because the slings and arrows are going
to be at your back, at your front, at your side.
I am ready. Why am I ready? I am ready because we have unbelievable
bipartisanship on this bill. The quality of this partnership runs deep.
Lieberman and Warner, Lieberman and Warner.
Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has 5 minutes 15
seconds remaining.
Mrs. BOXER. Thank you very much. The bipartnership on this runs deep.
I have mentioned Senators Lieberman and Warner. Every member of my
committee on the Democratic side and even some on the Republican side
who did not like the bill contributed to the debate. Colleagues all
over the Senate helped us.
The Energy Committee helped us. I will tell you, I went into member's
offices, and I got great ideas from many offices. I mentioned Senator
Gregg gave me a great idea. He does not like this bill because he wants
to give all the money back. He does not want to invest any of the
money, but he gave me a great idea on the tax cut. We had Senators
Cantwell and Murray point out the importance of hydropower and how we
could address that.
I could name colleague after colleague. Senator John Warner, who will
be here for a lot of this debate, is a magnificent voice on this
subject. I put him in the category of Al Gore on this subject. He knows
what he is talking about. He helped so much without any credit. He put
together business meetings, he put together dinners. He had people come
over. We studied together. We studied with scientists. It was like
going to school.
Senator Kerry, Senator Casey. And I could go on with other
colleagues. The fact is, I am not fearful of what is going to come at
us starting soon because we have the facts on our side. We have a deep
well of support from colleagues who know their stuff. There are 11
National Academies of Science that concluded climate change is real.
The Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Committee on Climate Change:
Global warming is unequivocal. Human health impacts, children and the
elderly vulnerable. I have lots of other information which I do not
have the time to do.
I mentioned national security. National security. A report by the
Center for Naval Analysis found that the United States could more
frequently be drawn into situations of conflict to help provide
stability before conditions worsen and are exploited by extremists.
This is what Senator Warner said so wisely.
So in summing up at this point, I urge my colleagues to vote yes to
proceed. I do not know whether there is going to be a deliberate effort
to try to stop us on this motion to proceed because I have not been
informed. I can only say to colleagues: Do not be fearful because you
have nothing to be fearful about.
I will tell you what there is to be fearful about: doing nothing,
saying no, turning your back on the scientists, on the religious
leaders who are with us, on the mayors, the Governors, on so many
supporters who understand this. That would be dangerous because gas
prices are shooting up to the sky. If we do not get off oil, that is
our future.
With that bill, that is not our future. So if you want to be afraid,
and that is your motive, to be afraid, you want to be afraid, vote no.
If you want to start to address energy independence, clean energy, if
you want to address the threats science says we face, vote yes on the
motion to proceed. Let's get down to this and have a great debate in
the Senate tradition. Because this issue definitely deserves to have
that kind of debate.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, could we have the Chair advise the body
with regard to the existing time agreement. It would be my hope that I
could follow Senator Joseph Lieberman, since the two of us are the
principal sponsors of this bill.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, what I would like to do, we do have it
locked in right now in terms of a UC. It would be Senator Specter next
for 5 minutes, me for 25 minutes, and Senator Lieberman for 20 minutes.
I will be managing the time in opposition. The time that has been
requested from me is for Senator Bond to follow Senator Lieberman. Then
I am sure you would be on there.
Mr. WARNER. I will have to accept that.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I think I can resolve this. If my
colleagues will wait a minute, can you tell me how much time remains on
our side after Senator Lieberman finishes?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is Senator Specter speaking on the
proponent or opponent side?
Mrs. BOXER. I think he got some time from Senator Inhofe.
Mr. SPECTER. Undecided.
Mr. INHOFE. He is our time.
Mrs. BOXER. Senator Inhofe said he is speaking on his time, which is
fine either way. But I am trying to find out how much time remains.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. After Senator Lieberman speaks,
there will be 29 minutes left.
Mrs. BOXER. May I give 2 minutes to Senator Cardin following Senator
Lieberman and the remainder of the time to Senator Warner?
Mr. LIEBERMAN. I propose that Senator Warner and I divide the 20
minutes I have. I will take 10 and Senator Warner can take 10. Then we
will fill in after that. We have been in this together from the
beginning and we are going to be on the boat at the end as well.
Mrs. BOXER. Is that all right with the Senator?
Mr. WARNER. I think that is most generous, but you take 15, I will
take 5.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. I refuse the offer.
Mrs. BOXER. So it is 10 and 10.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. After we hear from Senators Specter and Inhofe.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for squeezing me in
for 5 minutes. I sought this time to talk very briefly about the
Bingaman-Specter bill which is aimed at solving the problem of global
warming but is somewhat more moderate than the Warner-Lieberman bill.
I will take a few seconds on a personal note. I have had quite a few
people take a look at me today and ask me how I am. On C-SPAN 2, some
people may notice I am a little pale, a little thin, and a little bald.
I feel better than I look. I have gone through this chemotherapy for
Hodgkin's once, and I am optimistic about doing it again. But I agree
with Senator Boxer that this is an historic day, and I wanted to be
here at the outset of this debate.
[[Page S4869]]
I have long been concerned about the problem of global warming, and I
congratulate Senator McCain and Senator Lieberman for what they did
several years ago and what Senator Warner and Senator Lieberman are
doing now. I think it is vital that we move ahead on this issue, and I
intend to vote yes on the motion to proceed. It is my hope that in this
debate we can reconcile many of the interests. Warner-Lieberman and
Bingaman-Specter have a lot of similarities, but there are significant
differences. I believe it is going to be difficult to get 60 votes to
impose cloture so that this bill can move ahead. Senator Bingaman and I
started a long time ago, 18 months ago, in January of 2007, with a
draft bill. We were ready for introduction July 11, 2007, and assembled
a large group of labor, business, industry, and environmentalists to
support the bill which we have. I would like to see us attain the goals
of Lieberman-Warner. I would like it very much. But for reasons which
are detailed in my extensive written statement, I do not believe that
is possible.
On February 14 of this year, at the request of management and labor,
I testified before the Finance Committee on the issue of what importers
were going to have to do. Illustratively, China wants 30 years. Well,
in 30 years there won't be a steel industry. We have to reconcile a
great many conflicting interests. My State is a major coal State. One
of the top experts on Capitol Hill on this subject, Tom Dower, worked
months working through complex issues with labor and management and
conservationists. The details of a very extensive analysis are set
forth in my floor statement, but that is the essence of my approach
today.
I ask unanimous consent that the full text of my statement be printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
America's Climate Security Act
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition to discuss
the Lieberman-Warner climate change bill, S. 2191/S. 3036,
``America's Climate Security Act of 2007.'' It is my
intention to support cloture to end debate on the motion to
proceed to this legislation, however I have concerns about
the legislation some of which I will outline here.
Global climate change is potentially the greatest threat to
mankind and our planet that our civilization has ever faced.
The amount and quality of scientific data continue to improve
our understanding of global climate change. This information
points toward potentially severe ramifications for Earth's
climate, ecosystems, and life as we know it. The most recent
assessment in February 2007 by the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that ``most of the observed
increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th
century is very likely due to the observed increase in
anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.'' This 90%
likelihood of human impact on the global climate adds to the
compelling case that action to fight climate change is
warranted.
Some skeptics of the human contribution to this global
problem remain, however their voices grow more distant as
more information comes to light and the realities that we
face in terms of regulatory uncertainty around this issue
have given rise to calls for action from the business
community. Given past uncertainties, I have previously been
unable to support legislative proposals which have threatened
U.S. economic interests without meaningful environmental
benefit. The Senate voted 95-0 in 1997 to overwhelmingly
support the Byrd-Hagel resolution (S. Res. 98) rejecting the
Kyoto protocol for its unequal treatment of developed and
developing nations, as well as the potential serious harm to
the U.S. economy. Subsequently, the Senate has twice voted on
climate change legislation offered by Senators McCain and
Lieberman--failing by votes of 43-55 in 2003 and 38-60 in
2005. As I stated on the Senate floor at the time, the
McCain-Lieberman bill did not contain adequate protections
for the U.S. economy, nor did it adequately address the
global nature of the problem.
Given my commitment to finding a way for the U.S. to combat
global warming, Senator Bingaman and I offered a Sense of the
Senate amendment to the 2005 Energy Policy Act. An effort to
set aside our amendment failed 54-43 and it was subsequently
passed by voice vote. The resolution called for adoption of
an economy-wide program that will slow, stop and reverse
greenhouse gas emissions without harming the economy and that
will encourage action by developing nations. Meeting these
dual tests is a great challenge that I believe must be met
not just to pass a bill into law, but to ensure the effort's
long-term viability and support from the American people.
Following the 2005 debate, Senators Domenici and Bingaman
as Chairman and Ranking Member, respectively, of the Senate
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources issued white papers
and held Committee sessions to debate the merits of various
approaches to this issue.
In January 2007, Chairman Bingaman and I proposed a
``discussion draft'' of comprehensive legislation to address
climate change. Between January and July, our staff held a
series of public workshops for stakeholders and Senate,
House, and Administration staff. Hundreds of people attended
these sessions and hundreds more were involved in other
meetings to provide comments, suggestions, and concerns. We
heard from electricity generators, mining companies,
transportation fuel refiners, natural gas producers, energy-
intensive manufacturers, consumer groups, environmental
organizations, conservationists, sportsmen, labor unions,
faith-based organizations, and many others.
The culmination of this process was the introduction of the
Bingaman-Specter ``Low Carbon Economy Act of 2007,'' S. 1766,
on July 11, 2007. We held a memorable press conference in the
Energy Committee hearing room in the Dirksen building flanked
by key supporters of our bill from labor groups, energy
companies, and conservation organizations. I was very pleased
to stand with Richard Trumka (AFL-CIO), Cecil Roberts
(Mineworkers), Bill Klinefelter (Steelworkers), John Rowe
(Exelon), Jim Miller (PPL), Jim Rogers (Duke Energy), Jeff
Sterba (PNM), Mike Morris (AEP), and David Crane (NRG
Energy). We also greatly appreciated the support of 21 groups
representing millions of hunters, anglers and other
conservationists including Ducks Unlimited; Trout Unlimited;
National Wild Turkey Federation; and Pheasants Forever. In
addition to Senator Bingaman and I, our bipartisan cosponsors
included Senators Akaka, Casey, Harkin, Murkowski, and
Stevens.
The ``Low Carbon Economy Act'' creates a strong and
credible approach to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions while protecting the U.S. economy and engaging
developing countries. The Act creates a cap-and-trade program
for U.S. GHG emissions that is modeled on the successful Acid
Rain Program. By setting an annual target and allowing firms
to buy, sell, and trade credits to achieve the target, the
program is designed to elicit the most cost-effective
reductions across the economy. The target is set to avoid
harm to the economy and promote a gradual but decisive
transition to new, low-carbon technologies.
The strategic targets of the Act are: Starting in 2012
reducing U.S. GHG emissions to 2006 levels by 2020 and 1990
levels by 2030. To limit economic uncertainty and price
volatility, the government would allow firms to make a
payment at a fixed price in lieu of submitting allowances.
This fee, referred to in the bill as the ``Technology
Accelerator Payment'' (TAP), starts at $12 per metric ton of
CO2-equivalent in the first year of the program
and rises steadily each year thereafter at 5 percent above
the rate of inflation. If technology improves rapidly and if
additional GHG reduction policies are adopted, the TAP option
will never be engaged. Conversely, if technology improves
less rapidly than expected and program costs exceed
predictions, companies could make a payment into the ``Energy
Technology Deployment Fund'' at the TAP price, to cover a
portion or all of their allowance submission requirement.
Under the Act, carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions
from petroleum and natural gas are regulated ``upstream''--
that is, at or close to the point of fuel production. For
these fuels, regulated entities are required to submit
tradable allowances equal to the carbon content of fuels
produced or processed at their facilities. Regulated entities
that must submit allowances include: Petroleum refineries,
natural gas processing facilities, fossil fuel importers,
large coal-consuming facilities, and producers/importers of
non-CO2 GHGs. GHG emissions from coal are
regulated ``downstream'' at the point of fuel consumption.
The proposal sets out a detailed methodology for
distributing tradable emission allowances. At the beginning
of the program in 2012, a majority (53 percent) of allowances
are given out for free to the private sector. This amount is
gradually reduced each year after the first five years of the
program. In addition, 8 percent of allowances will be set
aside annually to create incentives for carbon capture and
storage to jump-start these critical technologies; 24 percent
of total allowances will be auctioned by the government to
generate much-needed revenue for the research, development,
and deployment of low- and no-carbon technologies, to provide
for climate change adaptation measures, and to provide
assistance to low-income households; 5 percent of allowances
are reserved to promote agricultural sequestration; and 1
percent of the allowances will reward companies that have
undertaken ``early actions'' to reduce emissions before
program implementation. Another 9 percent of the allowances
are to be distributed directly to States which can use
associated revenues at their discretion to address regional
impacts, promote technology or energy efficiency, and enhance
energy security.
To effectively engage developing countries, the Act would
fund joint research and development partnerships and
technology transfer programs similar to the Asia Pacific
Partnership. The bill also calls for a Five-Year Review
Process that provides an opportunity to reassess domestic
action in light of efforts by our major trade partners (and
relevant
[[Page S4870]]
scientific and technological developments). If by 2020 other
countries are deemed to be making inadequate efforts, the
President could recommend to Congress that products imported
from such countries must be accompanied by allowances (from a
separate reserve of allowances) sufficient to cover their
embedded greenhouse-gas content. If there is sufficient
international progress in reducing global greenhouse gas
emissions, the President could recommend changes in the U.S.
program designed to achieve further reductions (e.g., to at
least 60 percent below 2006 levels by 2050).
There are many other provisions of this comprehensive
legislation that help set the U.S. on the right track in
taking meaningful steps to combat global climate change and
put our trading partners on notice that we take this issue
very seriously. Strong U.S. leadership will go a long way in
moving the Nation and the world toward a cleaner and more
sustainable future.
Much of the Lieberman-Warner bill tracks closely to the
Bingaman-Specter bill. The two bills regulate the same
entities (oil and natural gas producers; coal consumers; and
non-CO2 greenhouse gas producers) using the same
approach--cap-and-trade. They both initially provide a free
allocation of roughly three-quarters of available allowances
for affected industries and special purposes, while selling
the remaining quarter through a government auction, the
proceeds of which are used for technology research,
development, and deployment, as well as climate change
adaptation and other purposes. Both bills transition many of
the free allocations to auctions over time--thus providing an
increasing price signal to affected industries that they must
invest in new technologies.
While these provisions are similar, there are fundamental
differences that cause me great concern. First, the emissions
reductions ``targets'' or ``caps'' in Lieberman-Warner are
very stringent and potentially unattainable without high
cost. The bill begins in 2012 and would limit emissions to
2005 levels; it would require 19 percent below 2005 by 2020
(1990 levels); and 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2030.
The second crucial problem of the Lieberman-Warner bill is
the lack of adequate cost control mechanisms like a Bingaman-
Specter-style ``safety valve'' or price cap, particularly in
the context that we are considering taking unilateral action
on a global problem for which many of our trading partners
are not. Theoretically, the costs of a cap-and-trade program
will be manageable if optimistic assumptions about the
availability of affordable low-carbon technologies prove
correct, very meaningful improvements in energy efficiency
and conservation are attained, and ample ``offsets'' or
allowances from non-regulated entities like farmers are
readily available. However, there is a great deal of
uncertainty about all of these crucial elements.
Therefore, there must be some protection for the U.S.
economy as a whole and various sectors that would have to
shoulder the burden of higher than expected costs. It is for
this reason that I believe any cap-and-trade program should
include a ``safety valve'' or cap on the price of each ton
emissions. Without such a protection, a series of risks
remain including cost-sensitive industries moving production
overseas as a result of higher energy prices in the U.S. that
could not be passed through to consumers in a competitive
market. It is worth noting that such production would likely
move to countries that are not taking actions to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions, so essentially making the problem
worse. Other risks include raising energy costs in the
transportation and electricity sectors to levels that could
not be met by consumers, thus exacerbating the overwhelming
situation in which many Americans already find themselves.
I understand Chairman Boxer has included a new cost control
mechanism in her substitute bill that is modeled on
suggestions from the Nicholas Institute at Duke University
and the National Commission on Energy Policy, as well as the
U.S. Climate Action Partnership. My staff participated in a
number of meetings with the offices of Senators Boxer,
Lieberman, Warner, Baucus, and Bingaman over the timeframe of
January through April 2008 in an attempt to explore options
to control costs. I am disappointed that Chairman Boxer
decided to include these new cost containment auction
provisions without first vetting their details with me and my
staff. Upon review of the details provided in the substitute,
it appears that a number of emission allowances (6 billion
tons) would be borrowed from 2030-2050 and placed into a
reserve fund that could be used to release into the market in
the form of another auction. In 2012, the President would
choose a price between $22 and $30 from which this additional
auction of allowances would occur, and in subsequent years
the auction starting price would rise 5 percent over
inflation annually. While this is an interesting concept, it
is entirely unclear to me what effect, if any, this would
have on the cost of the program. It is clearly complicated
and does not likely provide affected industries with the same
level of certainty that is inherent in a safety valve with an
established price. I believe the new cost containment
provisions require extensive review and in the meantime, a
safety valve should be added--the details of which should be
open to discussion, debate, and analysis as well.
Some other concerns I have with the current bill involve
the international competitiveness provisions that were first
included in the Bingaman-Specter bill and were conceived by
American Electric Power (AEP) and the International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW). On February 14,
2008, I testified before the Senate Committee on Finance at a
hearing on the international implications of climate
legislation. I outlined my thoughts that the provisions in
the Bingaman-Specter and Lieberman-Warner bill to require
imports by the year 2020 to have credits to account for the
carbon emitted in their production is consistent with trade
law. The Boxer substitute has made some changes to these
provisions, including moving forward the start date of import
allowance purchases to 2014. While this and other provisions
are welcome, I remain concerned that we still have not gotten
this part of the legislation quite right. I intend to work
with my colleagues and affected industries like steel, glass,
iron, aluminum, cement, pulp, paper, chemicals, and
industrial ceramics, to shore up these imperative provisions.
I also understand that certain emissions from industrial
production were intended to be exempted because there is no
alternative method of production. These ``process gas
emissions'' provisions should be made very clear so as to
remove any uncertainty by these industries. Without these
protections, the competitiveness issues again might lead
companies to shift production of energy-intensive products
like steel to countries without emission standards.
Finally, as I review the Lieberman-Warner bill, I am
concerned that it does not provide the essential pathway to
the future of coal use and thereby protect consumers from the
price impacts of a rapid shift from coal to natural gas for
electricity consumption. The U.S. currently produces half of
its electricity through the combustion of coal. While there
is also a great deal of capacity to burn natural gas, the
high price of natural gas leads most regions of the country
to only use it at times of peak demand. However, if a price
to carbon places natural gas in a competitive advantage
relative to coal use, we could see immediate shifting to this
resource which is also used as a feedstock or raw material in
chemical and fertilizer production. Natural gas prices in
recent years have experienced a great deal of volatility.
Coal, by comparison, has been relatively stable and less
expensive.
If our Nation hopes to meet its rising energy demand into
the future and keep prices for consumers affordable, any
climate change response will have to factor how to bridge to
that point in the future when capture and storage or
sequestration of carbon dioxide is commercially deployable
and regulated to ensure the environmental integrity of
pumping millions of tons of carbon dioxide underground. This
technology will not only be a key to meeting domestic energy
needs while protecting the environment, but is likely the
most effective way we can influence the greenhouse gas
emissions of developing countries like China and India that
are heavily dependent on coal. Under all modeling scenarios
of climate change legislation, carbon capture and storage is
shown to be critical. Otherwise, we will have to greatly
exceed all expectations for deployment of nuclear energy,
renewable energy, efficiency, and conservation, as well as
other low carbon technologies, all of which will already be
called upon to shoulder a tremendous burden in shifting our
economy from one that is carbon-based on low-carbon-based. I
intend to work with my colleagues to ensure this clean future
for coal use.
In conclusion, the Senate has a unique opportunity to pass
our Nation's first comprehensive climate change response.
While this is an extremely complicated issue, much work has
been done to date and it now comes down to finding the right
balance between limiting U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and
protecting the U.S. economy. This is often the challenge of
environmental policy and we have found the right approaches
in the past--including the acid rain cap-and-trade program
after which this legislation is modeled. I look forward to
working with all of my Senate colleagues as this debate
proceeds. I thank the presiding officer and yield the floor.
Mr. SPECTER. It is my hope that we will reconcile all these interests
and move ahead, but I think it is very important that we not search for
a goal we cannot attain and end up doing nothing. We know the maxim
that the perfect is the destroyer of the good.
I thank my colleagues and yield the floor.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if the Senator from Oklahoma will yield
for a moment, I say to my colleague, we have served together now for 28
years in this body. I wish you well in this latest chapter, but I also
commend you for the forthright manner with which you have always come
forward in this body at any time. If there is an ounce of reduction in
the tremendous energy you apply to your work here in the Senate, you
acknowledge it, but always saying you will be back stronger than ever.
I wish you well.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for those remarks. I
feel better than I look, which isn't necessarily saying a whole lot.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oklahoma.
[[Page S4871]]
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I am going to have an opening statement.
Let me say that my good friend Senator Boxer and I, the last time we
had a major bill on the floor, were in agreement with each other having
to do with the Water Resources Development Act and, prior to that,
transportation reauthorization. On this, we very much disagree. She has
every right to be wrong. I wish to also mention, since she commented
about the possibility that the cloture vote might be tough, I don't
think it will be because there are a lot of people who very much oppose
this legislation who are going to vote for cloture, including some of
the leadership on our side that is opposed to this bill. Although the
vast majority of the scientists do not believe that manmade
anthropogenic gases, CO2, methane, are a major contributor
to climate change, that is not a part of the debate of the Lieberman-
Warner bill. If it were, it would take a lot more time than we will be
able to devote. So we are not going to discuss that. That is for
another day. As we begin the debate today, the climate legislation, I
want to make a few points.
First, I wish to discuss what we as Republicans stand for, then talk
briefly about the process of how we got to the debate and how we got
the debate on the floor today, then, finally, discuss how we wish to
see the floor debate progress over the coming days or perhaps the
coming weeks, as some believe it might be.
First and foremost, we, as Republicans, believe any legislation that
attempts to address climate change must protect American families and
must protect U.S. workers. It has to maintain global fairness and,
finally, offer clean energy solutions. Unfortunately, this bill, the
Climate Security Act of 2008, which, it is my understanding, is what it
is called now since this has been an amendment or a substitute that we
are considering, fails on all of these counts.
We believe any climate legislation must offer clean energy solutions.
Substantial investment must be made in new clean energy technologies
which would generate more energy efficiently by producing less carbon
without the Government picking winners and losers. It makes good
business sense to produce energy more efficiently, and American
companies are at the forefront of developing these new technologies. We
support investments in solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, and other
innovative technologies, but we must be careful not to interfere in the
free market system or we might stifle new innovations. Any approach
that addresses climate change must incorporate more emission-free
nuclear power. We are on the verge of a nuclear renaissance in this
country, and it is key to our long-term domestic energy independence.
We have to address the remaining issues that hinder the construction of
new nuclear plants such as loan guarantees, waste, and regulatory
certainty. Senator Domenici, the greatest champion the nuclear industry
has ever had, is retiring at the end of this year. I can think of no
greater honor to him than to make his renaissance a reality, the
renaissance of nuclear energy.
Coal is our most abundant energy source. It must be a part of any
solution. We must invest in clean coal technologies in order to
increase our energy security. While we are continuing to explore carbon
capture and storage, we cannot hold the future use of coal hostage to
this one technological feat. Senator Byrd has been a tireless advocate
for greater use of coal, and I know Senator Voinovich and Senator
Barrasso on the committee have been championing its use.
We need to promote natural gas. Increasing supplies of natural gas
are needed in order to compensate for fuel switching which could harm
America's industrial base and export jobs. We know that fuel switching
is taking place right now. We have an almost limitless supply of
natural gas available, and we have proven we can develop this important
resource in an environmentally friendly way. I wish to see us build
upon Senator Warner's past work and open up more of the offshore
resources which would be absolutely necessary for us to capture this
natural gas.
We must seriously consider how climate legislation will impact
economic competitiveness. Emissions are a global issue which should be
addressed globally, not unilaterally. All major emitting countries,
including developing nations, must participate in order for any U.S.
program to produce meaningful reductions in atmospheric concentrations
of greenhouse gases. Today China emits more carbon dioxide than we do.
That divide is only going to grow because 2 years ago we produced more
than they did. China is increasing their number of coal-fired
generating plants by two each week. The Kyoto treaty expires next year,
and any future treaties should include developing nations. Any action
has to provide real protections for the American economy and jobs.
American jobs should not go overseas where environmental laws are less
strict and emissions increase. If the United States were to act
unilaterally, manufacturing facilities will go overseas, because they
have to go where the energy is. We know that. That is where the energy
regulations or emission regulations are more lax. This will result in
more emissions at the industrial source and more emissions in
transporting products back to the United States.
Let me repeat that. In the event we acted unilaterally and we had a
cap-and-trade system that ended up reducing emissions of
CO2, then companies that would be the losers in this program
would merely move to China or India or down to Mexico. There they don't
have any emission requirements. So it would actually have the effect of
increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Any action
has to provide real protections for the American economy and jobs. We
must protect American families. Any action should not raise the cost of
gasoline or energy to American families, particularly for the low
income and elderly who are most susceptible to energy costs. Those who
make $20,000 a year spend one-third or more of their income on energy.
We can't turn our back on less fortunate people. We have to carefully
consider the policy tools used to enact any climate legislation. Any
solution must not include slush funds controlled by Federal
bureaucracies used to reward political friends. The climate solution
should not require an overhaul of our economy, and those decisions
should not be made by nameless bureaucrats rewarding friends or pet
projects.
Senator Corker has examined this legislation carefully and has
outlined over 45 new programs created by this bill. As the Wall Street
Journal said last week:
This bill would impose the most extensive government
reorganization of the American economy since the 1930s.
We can't afford any tax increases either directly or indirectly. We
must recognize that true innovation comes from the private sector. This
bill will raise over $6.7 trillion from carbon sales and auctions
primarily coming from consumers. In other words, consumers are going to
be paying the $6.7 trillion. But it does direct $2.45 trillion back to
consumers. So if all the transition assistance funding goes directly to
consumers without the businesses or States keeping any of the funds to
run their transition programs, which they are allowed to do, this means
that over $4.2 trillion will be used to fund new government programs.
The Senator from California referred twice in her opening remarks to
Senator Gregg, complimenting him, saying he believes the only
difference between the two of them is he wishes to send this back to
the taxpayers rather than to have $4.2 trillion of new bureaucracies in
this country. I agree with that. Any solution has to be national in
scope without States or regions imposing duplicative or additional
requirements on top of a Federal system. It will be impossible for
American industry to remain competitive if different regions or States
have additional climate programs on top of a Federal program.
Finally, any national program must contain a transparent, effective
cost-control mechanism to avoid harm to the economy and job losses.
There are many ideas out there which might work, including ideas from
Senators Bingaman and Specter. Senator Specter just spoke. Simply
borrowing credits from future years will only create a larger problem
later on.
How we got here: Unfortunately, the bill we are discussing today
violates all of these principles. It ignores the needs of American
families. It jeopardizes the jobs of American workers. It does not
[[Page S4872]]
offer a global solution and, in fact, will increase global emissions.
It does not promote good, clean energy solutions and, in fact, will
make us even more dependent upon foreign sources of energy.
One of the chief problems with this legislation is that it was
hastily considered by the Environment and Public Works Committee
without the benefit of the appropriate legislative process, and a new
version is now being considered on the Senate floor that we have had no
hearings on whatsoever.
The chairman of the Environment Committee has stated--and you are
going to hear again and again today and in the next few days and maybe
the next few weeks--that the committee held over 20 hearings last year
before proceeding to a substitute and a full committee markup. However,
you must take a look at the type of hearings we held. Most of the
hearings examined the potential impact of climate change 50 years in
the future. My favorite example is a hearing held on May 24 last year:
``The Issue of the Potential Impacts of Global Warming on Recreation
and the Recreation Industry.'' That was the name of the hearing. The
apparent point of this hearing was to show that if there is no snow in
50 years, the skiing industry might suffer. Well, I think that is
probably a reasonable statement, and I think it would. But the thing
is, that did not really address a cap-and-trade system that we needed
to study before coming to the floor.
Unfortunately, the list of issues unaddressed by this committee is
longer than the actual list of hearings the chairman did hold. These
topics, which were never explored by the committee prior to crafting
the legislation, include how to draft a cap-and-trade system--how do
you do it--how to allocate credits; how to design an auction system;
how many credits to assign each industrial sector; how to structure the
Carbon Market Efficiency Board; how to create a domestic offset
program; what to do with international offsets; what the impacts would
be on fuel switching; whether carbon capture and storage technologies
will be available by 2030; whether the number of nuclear powerplants
can be built in time to provide the necessary electricity; how the
impact on the natural gas supply will affect other industries; how many
jobs will be sent overseas; how much worldwide emissions will increase
when U.S. jobs will be sent overseas; what the international
provisions' impacts will be on trade and particularly exports; how to
effectively contain costs through a transparent mechanism. The list
goes on and on and on.
Contrast this committee process with the process currently underway
in the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Chairman Dingell's
committee, which has jurisdiction over climate change and environmental
issues in the House, is pursuing the issue under a much more methodical
and deliberative process, as any legislation of this magnitude demands.
Acknowledging the complexity of the issues surrounding any mandatory
greenhouse gas reduction policy, the committee has held a series of
hearings and has released several white papers. The topics have
included the fundamental aspects of greenhouse gas cap-and-trade
policy, including the point of regulation and the benefits of auction
versus allocation schemes; the interaction of climate change policy
with other environmental laws such as the Clean Air Act, the Endangered
Species Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act; State and
Federal preemption issues; international competitiveness and how to
engage the developing world; and technology barriers. These are only
threshold issues, as each one lends itself to further examination. Now,
that is what has been done over in the House of Representatives in
Chairman Dingell's committee, and he has made a lot of progress over
there, and there are some things we should pay attention to. In fact,
we plan to be using some of that on the floor here.
While the subcommittee did hold one legislative hearing prior to the
markup and the full committee held three such hearings over a 2-week
period before the full committee markup, all these hearings were held
without the benefit of any economic or environmental analysis. The
committee members had no idea what the impacts of this legislation
would be when we considered the bill in December. We offered a number
of amendments to protect workers, families, and to try to keep a check
on energy prices. Almost all of them were defeated. But we were
promised that our issues would be addressed before the bill reached the
Senate floor. Well, that was last December.
On May 20, less than 2 weeks ago, the committee bill and report were
finally filed after a more than 5-month delay. For a bill of this
magnitude--and I remind my colleagues how the Wall Street Journal
characterized it--I will repeat again--``this bill would impose the
most extensive government reorganization of the American economy since
the 1930s''--only allowing Senators to review the report for less than
2 weeks is highly troubling.
Even more troubling is that the same week, we all saw for the first
time two more versions of the same bill. Later on May 20 a new version
of the bill with a never before seen amendment was filed and held at
the desk as a new bill, S. 3036, which is actually the version we will
be voting on this evening.
Then finally, on Friday, May 23, a managers' substitute which
completely rewrote the legislation was circulated to Members. I can
only assume that once cloture is invoked--and it will be invoked--and
we begin debating this bill, the substitute will be offered, which, of
course, is something that has never been the subject of hearings,
economic analysis, or an environmental benefits test.
Since the markup last December, we have had numerous economic
modeling and analysis conducted by the EPA, the Energy Information
Agency, and multiple private sector analyses. Unfortunately, the
committee of jurisdiction, the Environment and Public Works Committee,
never bothered to hold a single hearing on any of these economic
reports.
I would like to point out that the Senate Energy and Natural
Resources Committee held an economic hearing on our bill 2 weeks ago,
and I applaud Chairman Bingaman for holding that important hearing. I
will be quoting from that hearing from the Energy and Natural Resources
Committee several times during the course of this debate.
So where are we today? We spent months holding impact hearings and
then rushed through a few quickly scheduled legislative hearings and
held a markup without any analysis of the bill. We then waited over 5
months before receiving yet two more drafts of the bill--the last
version a mere 10 days ago. The Senate is now being asked to vote for
cloture on a motion to proceed to a bill that was released 2 weeks ago.
Although I believe we really need to debate these issues on the
Senate floor--and many of the Members who oppose the Lieberman-Warner
bill are voting to proceed to it--I find it most difficult to vote to
proceed to the largest tax increase in the history of America. The
mechanics of this bill, the impacts, and the costs have never been
fully debated, and they deserve to be. Proponents of this legislation
have talked about how important this bill is and why we need to act. I
believe this warrants a full debate.
In 1990, the Senate spent over 5 weeks debating the Clean Air Act
amendments. I was serving in the House at that time. It went on and on
and on. This bill goes much further than the Clean Air Act amendments
in its impact on the American economy and jobs and our international
competitiveness. It will do more to direct our energy policy for the
next 50 years than either the Energy bill of 2007 or the Energy bill of
2005 combined. I hope the majority intends to provide enough time to
fully debate this legislation and does not plan to rush it on and off
the floor in an attempt to check a box.
Over the next few days, you will see a number of Republican
amendments, which I believe will get bipartisan support, which will
attempt to protect our workers, our families, our international
competitiveness, and will promote clean energy solutions.
There have been many comments in the press, particularly from the
chairman of the committee, that this bill will be pulled if any so-
called weakening amendments are adopted. I hope we will have a
constructive and open debate on this bill. There will be many
amendments offered and, I hope, debated and voted upon.
[[Page S4873]]
This bill is the largest bill we will consider this Congress. In
fact, it is probably the largest bill ever considered by the Senate in
its impact on the economy and our entire way of life, and I hope the
majority will give it the time it deserves.
But 2 weeks from now or whenever that vote does take place--keep in
mind, tonight's vote at 5:30 is only a cloture vote on a motion to
proceed. It is a procedural vote. It allows us to limit debate on the
motion to proceed to the bill. But whenever the real vote comes or
however long it takes to reach the final vote, it will be both
interesting and informative to see how many Members of the Senate vote
for the largest tax increase in the history of America.
Now, we will be talking about a number of things during the course of
this debate. Some of this will be tonight, some of it will be over the
next few days. We are anxious to do that. For our purposes today, we
will be allocating time, and I would like to announce that after the
time that is already under a unanimous consent agreement to go to
Senators Lieberman and Warner, we will start going back and forth. I
will be controlling the time for those who oppose the bill, and Senator
Boxer or Senator Lieberman will be handling the time for those who
support it.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at this point Senator
Cardin be recognized for up to 5 minutes. The reason for this request
is Senator Cardin has to preside at 4 o'clock. Then we would go back to
the 20 minutes divided between Senator Warner and myself. Then
presumably there would be somebody the Senator from Oklahoma would
designate to speak. We are happy to add 5 minutes to the Senator's time
to make it equal.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, that is all right so long as the
allocation of time does not punish us.
I also ask unanimous consent to lock in, after your presentation,
Senator Bond for 15 minutes.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Senator.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today America takes a major step forward
in reasserting our leadership on the world stage. Upon enactment, the
Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act will be the most aggressive
climate change bill in the world, slashing American greenhouse gas
emissions by two-thirds by mid-century, putting America in the lead in
reducing harmful emissions.
Let me begin by acknowledging the tremendous leadership of Senators
Lieberman, Warner, and Boxer. They have worked tirelessly to take on
this, the greatest challenge of our time. And they have done so with
great intelligence, great skill, and a remarkable willingness to forge
a consensus that meets our needs. I salute them. They are extraordinary
public servants, and the Nation owes them an incalculable debt of
thanks.
The Climate Security Act is truly historic.
The legislation will transform the American economy, positioning us
to continue our global leadership for decades to come. Energy
efficient, high-performance businesses will flourish here and serve as
international leaders in ushering in sustainable economic growth around
the world.
Retooling the American economy for the 21st century will put us in
charge of our own energy supplies. Our current reliance on other
countries, many of whom are not friendly to Americans or the values we
cherish, puts us at unacceptable risks to disruptions in the fuel
supply chain. This bill will put us on a path to energy independence
and that is a path to improved national security.
Dramatically reducing greenhouse gas emissions is essential to the
environmental health of our planet. This legislation goes further,
providing billions of dollars in resources to plant forests, grow
sustainable sources of biofuels, and protect and restore our most
precious natural resources, such as the Chesapeake Bay.
The Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act is good for our economy,
critical for our national security, and essential for the health of our
environment.
The bill will reassert American leadership among the nations of the
world. And we will do it the way America has always done it--with
ingenuity and hard work and leadership by example.
Global warming presents a real and present threat to our economy.
Four global warming impacts--hurricane damage, real estate losses,
energy costs, and water costs--will drain billions of dollars annually
from our economy. By the end of the century, the annual costs from
these impacts alone will reach an estimated $1.9 trillion annually.
Clearly, these impacts would be devastating. Unfortunately, they are
not the only adverse economic costs of doing nothing.
Rising food prices and global food shortages underscore the need for
stable, ample, and environmentally sound agricultural practices. But
climate change brings with it widespread droughts in some parts of the
world, an increase in plant pests and diseases, and reduced crop
yields. The drought that has persisted in Australia in recent years has
had a devastating impact on the world price of wheat. Today's rising
cost for a loaf of bread is a harbinger of the dramatic impacts on our
food supply if we fail to act.
And it is not just crops that will suffer. In the Chesapeake Bay
rising water temperatures are blamed for a dramatic loss of the most
common underwater grass in the lower bay. Eelgrass, as it is called,
simply cannot tolerate the warmer waters. That means crabs and other
species have no habitat. Virginia and my home State of Maryland have
just instituted dramatic reductions in the blue crab harvest next fall
because of the falling numbers of crabs in the bay. Our multimillion
dollar blue crab fishery is at risk--and at risk today--from global
warming.
The good news is that the actions we take to reduce global warming
will be good for our economy.
Through its innovative cap-and-trade system, the bill is designed to
be self-financing, and there will be sufficient funds to also make a
major contribution to debt reduction.
American businesses will see an unprecedented Federal investment in
retooling for tomorrow.
In the first 10 years, the bill provides $61 billion for renewable
energy. Wind, solar, geothermal and other zero- and low-carbon sources
of power will get the boost they need to become an integral part of our
energy distribution system. And to prepare for that capital investment,
the bill also provides $18 billion over that same period for an Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy Worker Training program. We will have
both the infrastructure and trained workforce for a new energy sector.
In Frederick, MD, today we already have one of the world's leading
solar energy operations. Companies such as BP Solar will have the
resources they need to grow their businesses and the trained workforce
to build, install, and operate a new generation of electricity-
generating equipment.
Our core heavy industries will benefit from $138 billion by 2022.
Those funds will help iron, steel, pulp, paper, cement, and other
carbon-intensive industries with the assistance they need to remain
competitive while they shift to cleaner energy sources.
Lehigh Cement's largest plant in America is located in Union Bridge,
MD. The plant produces up to 2 million tons annually. The company will
now have the resources it needs to become even more efficient--and more
profitable--because of this transition assistance.
The bill contains provisions that will help American consumers make
the transition to tomorrow's economy, too. More than $800 billion is
reserved for tax credits and tax cuts that will make sure that during
the transition average Americans don't have to bear the costs.
I am especially proud of a section of the bill I authored that will
direct about $171 billion, over the life of the bill, to States and
localities for public transit nationwide. About two-thirds of this
money will go to support existing systems such as Washington Metro,
MARC and MTA, while about 30 percent will help develop new systems that
will take more and more cars off
[[Page S4874]]
our roads, cut dangerous emissions, ease congestion, and reduce our
dependence on foreign energy sources, such as OPEC.
Today, too much of our national energy needs are supplied by other
nations. Our reliance on foreign oil weakens our position in the world.
Today, we are sending massive infusions of American dollars to oil-rich
countries that don't share our values and are often active opponents of
American foreign policy. We know that some of those petrodollars have
been used to finance terrorists.
No entity relies on petroleum more than the American Department of
Defense. We have a great strategic weakness with such a strong reliance
on foreign oil.
My senior Senator, Senator Mikulski, and I have been working with
Volvo-Mack Truck in Hagerstown, MD, to build prototype heavy-duty
hybrid trucks for military use. These trucks will dramatically reduce
their need for oil because of their increased fuel efficiency. They are
also being tooled to handle a wide variety of biofuels. In the future,
we envision fuel-efficient vehicles powered by home-grown biofuels.
The bill contains funding to support these prototypes, putting them
into widespread use. Our military will benefit, along with the entire
commercial sector of our economy.
Global warming threatens our national defense in another way. Naval
Station Norfolk in Virginia is a keystone location for American Naval
operations. But Norfolk is under grave threat because of rising sea
level.
At a hearing before the Environment and Public Works Committee last
summer, scientists told us that sea level rise has been higher in the
Chesapeake Bay than worldwide because of a number of factors including
land subsidence. Their best prediction is that we could see a 3-foot
rise is water levels by the end of the century. Our critical national
security infrastructure lies directly in the path of these rising
waters.
Just 30 miles east from here in Annapolis, MD, the U.S. Naval Academy
sits literally on the edge of the Severn River. The Academy has already
seen damage from major storms. This is a story that is repeated up and
down the coasts of America. Our military installations and assets are
at risk. We need to act to protect them so that our Armed Forces can
protect us.
While the Climate Security Act will have profound impacts on our
economy and our national security, at its heart, this is an
environmental bill. The bill was reported by the Environment and Public
Works Committee. It amends the Clean Air Act. The Environmental
Protection Agency is the central player.
The current administration has been painfully slow in recognizing the
threats to the worldwide environment that runaway greenhouse gas
emissions are causing. Begrudgingly, they are now accepting the fact
that the impacts are huge and growing.
The legislation will reduce dangerous greenhouse gas emissions by
over 70 percent from the 2,100 entities covered in the bill. Even with
the uncovered segments of the economy included, the emissions are two-
thirds below 2005 base levels. These are impressive cuts. I think we
can do even better. The consensus scientific opinion in the world is
that we must do better. Cuts of at least 80 percent are required, and I
will support efforts on the floor to set that as our 2050 target.
Periodic reviews that are built into the bill will build the case, I
believe, that we will need to do more to curb the most adverse
environmental outcomes.
Cutting greenhouse gas emissions is essential to putting our global
ecosystem back into balance. Doing so will have other direct health and
environmental benefits. Bringing down CO2 emissions will
almost assuredly bring down nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide, and mercury
emissions as well. The ozone code red days that are all too commonplace
every summer will be reduced as we cut greenhouse gases. Similarly, the
fish consumption advisories that every State faces because of
widespread mercury contamination will gradually be lifted as mercury
levels go down.
Although the bill modifies the Clean Air Act, we will see major
benefits for our coastal areas, including the Chesapeake Bay. Rising
water temperatures will abate. The bill also provides extensive funding
to manage the adaptation that will be needed for our natural systems.
A National Wildlife Adaptation Strategy will direct funding to those
areas most likely to be adversely affected by climate change and ocean
acidification.
The Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Program and the Land and
Water Conservation Fund are existing programs with strong State
partnerships that have proven track records of effectiveness. Both will
see major infusions of financial support: $185 billion for the Wildlife
Restoration Program and another $52 billion for the Conservation Fund.
Annually, Maryland would be expected to receive an additional $52
million for these well-established programs.
The EPA, the Army Corps of Engineers, and NOAA will all have
dedicated programs to protect and restore our fresh and estuarine water
systems. The Chesapeake Bay is one of several water bodies specifically
mentioned in the bill because of the value of the resources at risk and
the need for priority funding.
The Forest Service and the Department of the Interior will have
crucial roles to play as well. In all, the Federal investment in
programs to protect natural resources will approach $300 billion over
the life of the bill.
The time to act is now. There is no country in the world better
positioned than the United States to undertake this historic challenge.
We have the world's strongest economy. We are the international leaders
in climate science. We have an extraordinary history of facing the
gravest challenges facing mankind. I believe that America is ready to
meet this change.
The time to act has long since passed. The time to catch up is now. I
urge my colleagues to support the strongest possible Lieberman-Warner
Climate Security Act. It is a challenge we can and must meet.
Mr. President, again, I acknowledge the tremendous leadership of
Senators Boxer, Lieberman, and Warner in bringing forward this historic
legislation. The Climate Security Act is truly historic. The
legislation will transform the American economy, positioning us to
continue our global leadership for decades to come. Energy-efficient,
high-performance businesses will flourish here and serve as
international leaders in ushering in sustainable economic growth around
the world.
Retooling the American economy for the 21st century will put us in
charge of our own energy supplies. Our current reliance on many other
countries, many of which are not friendly to Americans or the values we
cherish, puts us at unacceptable risks to disruptions in the fuel
supply chain. This bill will put us on a path to energy independence,
and that is a path to improved national security. This bill is
important for national security. It is important for our economy, and
it is certainly important for our environmental health.
The legislation goes further, providing billions of dollars in
resources to plant forests, grow sustainable sources of biofuels, and
protect and restore our most precious national resources, such as the
Chesapeake Bay.
The Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act is good for our economy,
good for our national security, and good for our environmental health.
The bill will reassert American leadership among the nations of the
world, and we will do it the way America has always done it--with
ingenuity, hard work, and leadership by example.
Clearly, we know the scientific information as to the dangers we
face. The dangers we face are real, with extreme weather conditions,
disruptions to our food supplies. We have seen this already. In my own
State of Maryland, we have a problem today with the blue crab. The
reason, quite frankly, is the waters of the Chesapeake Bay are just too
warm for the seagrasses and juvenile crabs cannot survive. That is bad
for our watermen. That is bad for our State. That is bad for our
economy. I can give you another 100 examples in Maryland where science
is telling us that global climate change is real, hurting our economy.
The good news is that action we take to reduce global warming will be
good
[[Page S4875]]
for our economy. Through its innovative cap-and-trade system, the bill
is designed to be self-financing, and there will be sufficient funds to
also make major contributions to debt reduction. Because of the
financing and investments in the legislation, it will help reduce our
Government borrowing. It is good for our economy.
American businesses will see an unprecedented Federal investment in
retooling for tomorrow. In the first 10 years, the bill provides $61
billion for renewable energy. Wind, solar, geothermal, and other zero-
and low-carbon sources of power will get the boost they need to become
an integral part of our energy distribution system. To prepare for that
capital investment, the bill also provides $18 billion over that same
period for an energy efficiency and renewable energy worker training
program. We will have both the infrastructure and trained workforce for
a new energy sector.
For our core heavy industries, they will benefit also. There will be
$138 billion to help heavy industries. Those funds will help iron,
steel, pulp, paper, cement, and other carbon-intensive industries with
the assistance they need to remain competitive while they shift to
cleaner energy sources.
LeHigh, the largest cement plant we have in America, is located in
Union Bridge, MD. The plant produces up to 2 million tons annually. The
company will now have the resources it needs to become even more
efficient and more profitable because of this transition assistance.
I am especially proud of the section of the bill I helped author that
will direct $171 billion over the life of the bill to States and
localities for public transit nationwide. I wish to thank Senator Boxer
for helping make this amendment a reality in this bill. About two-
thirds of this money will go to supporting systems such as the
Washington Metro, MARC, and MTA, while 30 percent will help develop new
systems that will take more cars off the road. This legislation will
make public transit convenient and economic.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, this bill is important for our country and
for our future. I am proud to be a cosponsor. I urge my colleagues not
only to vote to bring up this bill, but let's work out the amendments
and let's pass it so that America can regain its leadership in the
world on fighting the rising problems of greenhouse gases.
I yield the floor.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask the Chair if I may be informed
when 10 minutes has expired.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator will be so notified.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair.
For the first time in the history of the Senate or of the House, a
comprehensive bill to curb global warming has reached the floor after
having been reported favorably by the committee of jurisdiction. This
has happened, in my opinion, because of two people. One is Senator
Warner, who joined the fight early on with me, to my great pleasure,
and made this a bipartisan piece of legislation and was responsible for
helping us get it out of the subcommittee and the full committee. The
second person is Chairman Boxer, whose drive and persistence and
legislative skill fashioned a majority within the committee and brings
this bill to the floor with some momentum behind it.
The fact is, twice in the past--in 2003 and 2005--Senator McCain and
I brought a comprehensive climate measure to a vote in the full Senate,
but we had to do it by amendment because in neither case did the
Environment Committee report it out favorably. I will say that the
amendment, as it is known, lost twice with a high vote total of 44. I
am confident we are going to do a lot better than that in this
consideration. So the bottom line is, this Climate Security Act has
reached this point through the regular order, as we say in the Senate,
having earned increasing and diverse political support along the way. I
think that represents a tremendous step forward.
The Climate Security Act has a bipartisan list of cosponsors in
addition to Senator Warner and myself, including Senators Coleman,
Collins, and Dole, Senators Cardin, Casey, Harkin, Klobuchar, Nelson of
Florida, Schumer, and Wyden. Each of those Members contributed
substantially to the bill while also helping garner support for it
among other Senators and key constituencies. I cannot thank them enough
for their help and for the trust they have placed in Senators Warner,
Boxer, and myself.
Senator Warner and I introduced the Climate Security Act for a very
simple but serious reason. It was to protect the environment, economy,
and national security of the United States of America from the worst
effects of manmade climate change.
Is it a problem, climate change? Well, just last week the Bush
administration itself released a scientific report confirming that if
we as a nation fail to take strong action now to cut our emissions of
carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, then the resulting climate
change will impose severe hardship on the American people.
The administration's Climate Change Science Report finds that over
the next 25 to 50 years increased temperatures will result in slower
economic growth and lower yields for staple crops such as corn,
soybeans, wheat, and rice. That is slower growth of those crops and
lower yields. Arid regions of the United States will face more frequent
wildfires, which will be made worse as fire-resistant plants are
replaced in the natural order by more combustible grasses.
In the American West, the mountain snows that provide a steady flow
of water for irrigation and reservoirs will dwindle. Rainfall will come
at times in amounts that will make it hard to manage. The sustained
temperature increases will stress livestock, slowing their reproduction
and growth rates, thereby decreasing their milk production and
increasing the time to market for animal products.
Across the Nation, an increased frequency and severity of heat waves
will lead to more illness and death, particularly among the young, the
elderly, the frail, and the poor. The climactic changes will allow
animal, water, and food-borne diseases to spread in the Nation or to
emerge in areas where they have been limited or had not existed.
These are the findings of a report of the Bush administration.
Unfortunately, our failure to take any action to reduce or even
stabilize our greenhouse gas emissions since the 1980s, when scientists
first began to warn us about it, means that some part of the negative
impacts described by this administration's Science Report are now
inevitable. That is the reality. Greenhouse gases don't go up and
dissipate; they accumulate. They are there now, and some consequences
are inevitable. The scientific community tells us that we can still
prevent the situation from reaching much worse, even catastrophic
proportions, if we take the lead now in reducing emissions of
greenhouse gases.
That is what this Climate Security Act would do. The bill, beginning
in 2012--remember, that is not now, in 2012. So if we begin by passing
this legislation now, we are going to have some time to work with it if
people find reasons to fix it as we go along before it goes into
effect. So beginning in 2012, this legislation would place a cap on the
aggregate greenhouse gas emissions of the 2,100 facilities in America
that are responsible for 85 percent of those emissions in this country.
This is a very important point.
People out there may wonder: Oh, my God. Does this mean in my little
business, in my factory, on my farm--am I going to have to start to
fill out a lot of paperwork and get involved in this cap-and-trade
business? No. This is an upstream piece of legislation. Only 2,100
facilities in America will be part of this cap-and-trade proposal. The
bill would tighten the caps slowly and steadily, such that the
aggregate emissions of those sources of greenhouse gases would be down
to about 30 percent of the current level by 2050. That would be a
substantial accomplishment.
Making conservative assumptions about actions by other nations; that
is, assuming other nations, including the rising great economic powers
such as China and India--frankly, don't do much. The administration,
through another agency, has determined that the emissions reductions
achieved by the Climate Security Act would prevent atmospheric
greenhouse gas concentrations from reaching the level to which
scientists ascribe a high risk of catastrophic impacts.
[[Page S4876]]
In other words, assuming that a lot of the other big nations don't do
much of anything, this bill will make sure we fulfill our
responsibility to protect our citizens. In fact, it would keep global
emissions below the catastrophic level.
Now, some say it will cost money. It will cost money. But what is the
cost? Remember, this sets up a system where money is raised through the
auctioning of allowances. But that money, a lot of it--that is, a lot
of the money that will be raised--is immediately reinvested in research
and development of new energy technologies, in subsidies to protect
people and businesses that are going to be most likely affected. We
have to understand as we consider this bill that it will not only deal
with the problem of global warming; this bill is the energy
independence, energy security act that America, in its right mind,
should have adopted 30 years ago. People have said we need a Manhattan
Project; we need an Apollo Moon shot project to make America energy
independent, to break our dependence on foreign oil. This legislation
will invest more than six times the amount of money that the Apollo
project and the Manhattan Project combined spent. We need to do it to
free ourselves--free America--from dependence on foreign oil, from
tyrants in places such as Iran and Venezuela.
Senator Warner and I asked the Energy Information Agency--a section
of the Department of Energy of this administration--what would be the
cost of our legislation. They responded that the Climate Security Act's
impact on the Nation's economic growth would be negligible. The fact
is, under our bill they say America would continue to grow robustly
until 2030, which is the period they measured, and would hit a level
just 0.3 percent lower than under a business-as-usual scenario.
Mr. President, those are my opening comments. With great honor and
gratitude, I yield to my friend and partner and cosponsor from
Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. I thank my colleague. I will have further words about my
colleague. The chairman of our committee, on behalf of the Senate as a
whole, has some information which, certainly, I find very heartwarming.
So I wish at this time to yield to the chairman on a matter that is
unrelated to the pending legislation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. CARDIN). The Senator from California is
recognized.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to read this e-
mail and then to add 2 minutes to Senator Warner's time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Senator Kennedy's Progress
Mrs. BOXER. This is the statement of Dr. Allan Freidman, who is
Senator Kennedy's surgeon:
I am pleased to report that Senator Kennedy's surgery was
successful and accomplished our goals. Senator Kennedy was
awake during the resection, and should therefore experience
no permanent neurological effects from the surgery. The
surgery lasted roughly three and a half hours and is just the
first step in Senator Kennedy's treatment plan. After a brief
recuperation, he will begin targeted radiation at
Massachusetts General Hospital and chemotherapy treatment. I
hope that everyone will join us in praying for Senator
Kennedy to have an uneventful and robust recovery.
Mr. President, I share that with all of our colleagues. I think we
should take just 10 seconds to think about the Kennedy family and pray
for them--just 10 seconds.
Thank you so much.
I thank the, Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of our
committee and our colleague and friend for bringing that to the
attention of all Senators. I have been privileged to know Senator
Kennedy for many years. His brother and I were in law school together
at the University of Virginia in 1949. I recall then meeting the
Senator for the first time when he visited the campus on occasion. But
he has been a very dear and valued friend, an absolute tower of
strength in this body which he loves so much: the U.S. Senate. So I
commend my colleague.
I also wish to thank my dear friend, Senator Lieberman. We have been
together on so many legislative measures through the many years we have
been here together, particularly as it relates to national security. He
is a pillar of strength in his own right on this bill and in many other
ways. I admire the independence of the Senator. I admire his
commitment, his fortitude, and the strength which he has been tested on
so many times. He is a great credit to this Nation and this
institution.
Mr. President, I was indeed brought to this moment as a consequence
of national security measures as there are implications with regard to
global climate changes.
I don't use the term ``warming'' because it is, to me, a complexity
of different climate variations--not only temperature but weather
patterns manifesting in drought, patterns manifesting in floods,
patterns manifesting in hurricanes, and all sorts of other things, such
as tornadoes.
I have had the privilege of living a little bit longer than most in
this Chamber. Indeed, in my lifetime, I have never seen such a
complexity and changes in weather. Certainly, the evidence seems to be
compiling every day that human activity and increasing carbon dioxide
emissions are the causes. It is now time to deal with that situation.
I belong to the school of thought in this debate that we simply
cannot do nothing; we cannot constantly postpone. Senator Lieberman and
I, over a period of almost a year now, have put this bill together. It
represents what we deem a consensus--I guess you would say a middle-of-
the-road position. We could not satisfy all those who want stronger
controls put in, more immediate corrections; nor could we satisfy those
who sort of say let's wait and see. We felt we should put this
together, bringing together the thoughts of so many of our colleagues.
I would say that several dozen colleagues contributed to this bill. One
is Senator Specter. In our bill, we relied on much of the good work
included in Bingaman-Specter Low Carbon Economy Act.
Most significantly, our legislation includes provisions from their
bill that protect U.S. manufacturers from competition with other
countries not curbing emissions. Second, we also ``borrowed'' their
idea for providing ``bonus allowances'' to facilities that adopt carbon
capture and storage. This incentive is critical. The third point I will
highlight is that we tried to provide the price certainty envisioned by
their ``safety value'' by including a ``rainy day account'' of extra
allowances that would be released to the market if a certain price
point is hit. I thank those Senators for their very important
contributions in improving this bill.
Mr. President, another reason I am drawn to working to address the
issue of global climate change is that there is a great feeling all
across America by people in small towns, large cities, and in State
legislatures that we must move and move now; that we simply must do
something. In my view, doing nothing is not an option. We simply must
do something.
I believe the American people will be the final factor in this bill
that is now about to be pending in the Senate, as to whether sufficient
votes are garnered to send the bill eventually to the President after
we have a conference, hopefully, with the House of Representatives,
which I am certain, if this is passed by 60 votes here, the House will
quickly put together their own thoughts--they have done a lot of work--
and we will have a bill that will go to the President. That will be
largely owing to the public, as they follow this debate and read about
it, as they discuss it among themselves. They will send back a message
to this institution that doing nothing is not an option. Do the best
you can. In crafting this legislation, we have done the best we can. If
my fellow Senators have ideas to further improve the legislation, I ask
them to bring them forward.
I commend the distinguished ranking member. He pointed out that he
will support going forward with this bill this afternoon and also that
there should be a number of amendments, hopefully, to strengthen it
from the perspective of the ranking member and a number of colleagues
on this side of the aisle. Let's show the American public that this
institution can work and address a complicated subject and try to reach
common ground and understanding. To do nothing is not an option.
In the substitute amendment, we significantly improved the bill by
giving the President of the United States emergency authority to modify
any requirement of this bill in the event of a
[[Page S4877]]
national, economic or energy emergency. In addition, Senator Lieberman,
Senator Carper and I will be offering an amendment with respect to
nuclear power. I ask unanimous consent that this section of the
substitute amendment, and my amendment with Senators Lieberman and
Carper be printed in the Record following my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See Exhibits 1 and 2.)
Mr. WARNER. Again, the first provision I refer to deals with the
authority of the President of the United States. The Committee reported
bill, I felt, did not give sufficient protections to the Nation for
unforeseen things that could occur while this law is being met across
the Nation. So we give to the President the authority to change any
provision in this bill that he--or possibly she--deems appropriate. And
then it is up to the Congress to determine whether they support what
the President has done or not. I say that because we have drawn on a
procedure that has been time tested by the Senate, and indeed the
Congress, to give such power to the President regarding legislation.
Supposing that, as a consequence of the legislation, it is shown it is
damaging our ability to recover from what appears now to be a weakened
economy? Then the President can readjust the timetable or the provision
which he deems is contributing to that problem.
Now, we ask the power industry--most notably those segments of the
industry dependent upon coal--coal is our largest natural resource of
energy. This bill does not in any way try to damage coal. It, in fact,
is a bill that will help that industry--our power industry--which
requires coal as a source of energy for our daily needs. Give us time
to explain to the coal industry how this is done. But if technology, in
terms of capturing the CO2, conveying, transporting it to a
repository for sequestration--if that technology is not in place in a
timely way, the President can step in and readjust the timetable.
If there are national security implications from this bill that the
President deems harmful, he can readjust this bill. So there are more
than adequate safety measures in here to protect this Nation, and the
President has full authority to implement them.
The Warner-Lieberman-Carper amendment relates to nuclear power. We
looked at this in the course of the deliberations in the committee, and
at that time, it simply was not feasible to include provisions. The
distinguished colleague from Oklahoma and others brought forward a
number of provisions about nuclear power during the mark up, which we
could not accept at that time for reasons I think are apparent to all.
But I am happy to bring forth an amendment now, joined by my
distinguished colleagues, Senator Lieberman and Carper, to look at the
absolute essential requirement that we rely on nuclear power as a
growing and a more important daily source of energy for this country.
Mr. President, I hope that when this debate has concluded, if it is
shown that the proponents of this legislation have not met the majority
requirements of this body as to what is to be done legislatively now--
not in the future--to deal with this global climate change, then I hope
that another legislative proposal will be brought forward via
amendment, or perhaps even by a substitute bill, to replace ours. If it
is the will of a majority to take that substitute, so be it. I hope I
can support it. But to do nothing is not an option, Mr. President.
How much time do I have under the 10 minutes?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. One minute remains.
Mr. WARNER. I yield that back to my colleague from Connecticut to
wrap up for the two of us--in 1 minute, 1 year's work.
Exhibit 1
Subtitle B--Presidential Emergency Declarations and Proclamations
SEC. 1711. EMERGENCY DECLARATION.
(a) In General.--If the President determines that a
national security, energy security, or economic security
emergency exists, and that it is in the paramount interest of
the United States to modify any requirement under this Act to
minimize the effects of the emergency, the President may make
an emergency declaration.
(b) Consultation.--In making an emergency declaration under
subsection (a), the President shall, to the maximum extent
practicable, consult with and take into consideration any
advice received from--
(1) the National Security Advisor;
(2) the Secretary of the Treasury;
(3) the Secretary of Energy;
(4) the Administrator;
(5) relevant committees of Congress; and
(6) the Board.
SEC. 1712. PRESIDENTIAL PROCLAMATION.
After making an emergency declaration under section 1711,
the President shall declare by proclamation each action
required to minimize the emergency.
SEC. 1713. CONGRESSIONAL RESCISSION OR MODIFICATION.
(a) Treatment of Proclamation.--A proclamation issued
pursuant to section 1712 shall be considered to be a final
action by the President.
(b) Action by Congress.--Congress shall rescind or modify a
proclamation issued pursuant to section 1712, if necessary,
not later than 30 days after the date of issuance of the
proclamation.
SEC. 1714. REPORT TO FEDERAL AGENCIES.
Not later than 30 days after the date on which a
proclamation issued pursuant to section 1712 takes effect,
and every 30 days thereafter during the effective period of
the proclamation, the President shall submit to the head of
each appropriate Federal agency a report describing the
actions required to be carried out by the proclamation.
SEC. 1715. TERMINATION.
(a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), a proclamation
issued pursuant to section 1712 shall terminate on the date
that is 180 days after the date on which the proclamation
takes effect.
(b) Extension.--The President may request an extension of a
proclamation terminated under subsection (a), in accordance
with the requirements of this subtitle.
(c) Congressional Approval.--Congress shall approve or
disapprove a request of the President under subsection (b)
not later than 30 days after the date of receipt of the
request.
SEC. 1716. PUBLIC COMMENT.
(a) In General.--During the 30-day period beginning on the
date on which a proclamation is issued pursuant to section
1712, the President shall accept public comments relating to
the proclamation.
(b) Response.--Not later than 60 days after the date on
which a proclamation is issued, the President shall respond
to public comments received under subsection (a), including
by providing an explanation of--
(1) the reasons for the relevant emergency declaration; and
(2) the actions required by the proclamation.
(c) No Impact on Effective Date.--Notwithstanding
subsections (a) and (b), a proclamation under section 1712
shall take effect on the date on which the proclamation is
issued.
SEC. 1717. PROHIBITION ON DELEGATION.
The President shall not delegate to any individual or
entity the authority--
(1) to make a declaration under section 1711; or
(2) to issue a proclamation under section 1712.
Subtitle C--Administrative Procedure and Judicial Review
SEC. 1721. REGULATORY PROCEDURES.
(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), any
rule, requirement, regulation, method, standard, program,
determination, or final agency action made or promulgated
pursuant to this Act shall be subject to the regulatory
procedures described in subchapter II of chapter 5 of title
5, United States Code.
(b) Exception.--Subsection (a) does not apply to the
establishment or any allocation of emission allowances under
this Act by the Administrator.
SEC. 1722. ENFORCEMENT.
(a) Violations.--
(1) In general.--It shall be unlawful for any owner or
operator of a covered entity to violate any prohibition,
requirement, or other provision of this Act (including a
regulation promulgated pursuant to this Act).
Exhibit 2
On page 164, strike line 15 and insert the following:
(c) Education and Training.--For each
Beginning on page 181, strike line 1 and all that follows
through page 183, line 3, and insert the following:
SEC. 536. EDUCATION AND TRAINING.
(a) Definition of Applicable Period.--In this section, the
term ``applicable period'' means--
(1) each 5-year period during the period beginning on
January 1, 2012, and ending on December 31, 2047; and
(2) the 3-year period beginning on January 1, 2048, and
ending on December 31, 2050.
(b) Nuclear Science and Engineering Education.--For each
applicable period, the Secretary of Energy shall use \1/3\ of
the amounts made available under section 534(c) for the
calendar years in the applicable period to increase the
number and amounts of nuclear science talent expansion grants
and nuclear science competitiveness grants provided under
section 5004 of the America COMPETES Act (42 U.S.C. 16532).
(c) Nuclear Energy Trades Training and Certification.--For
each applicable period, the Secretary of Labor, in
consultation with nuclear energy entities and organized
labor, shall use \1/3\ of the amounts made available under
section 534(c) for the calendar years in
[[Page S4878]]
the applicable period to expand workforce training to meet
the high demand for workers skilled in nuclear power plant
construction and operation, including programs for--
(1) electrical craft certification;
(2) preapprenticeship career technical education for
industrialized skilled crafts that are useful in the
construction of nuclear power plants;
(3) community college and skill center training for nuclear
power plant technicians;
(4) training of construction management personnel for
nuclear power plant construction projects; and
(5) regional grants for integrated nuclear energy workforce
development programs.
(d) Climate Change Science and Policy Education.--For each
applicable period, the Secretary of Education shall use \1/3\
of the amounts made available under section 534(c) for the
calendar years in the applicable period to support climate
change policy and science education in the United States.
On page 292, strike line 22 and insert the following:
SEC. 901. FINDINGS; SENSE OF SENATE.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) more than 40 years of experience in the United States
relating to commercial nuclear power plants have demonstrated
that nuclear reactors can be operated safely;
(2) in 2007, nuclear power plants produced 19 percent of
the electricity generated in the United States;
(3) nuclear power plants are the only baseload source of
emission-free electric generation, emitting no greenhouse
gases or criteria pollutants associated with acid rain, smog,
or ozone;
(4) in 2007, nuclear power plants in the United States--
(A) avoided more than 692,000,000 metric tons of carbon
dioxide emissions; and
(B) accounted for more than 73 percent of emission-free
electric generation in the United States;
(5) a lifecycle emissions analysis by the International
Energy Agency determined that nuclear power plants emit fewer
greenhouse gases than wind energy, solar energy, and biomass
on a per kilowatt-hour basis;
(6) construction of a new nuclear power plant is estimated
to require between 1,400 and 1,800 jobs during a 4-year
period, with peak employment reaching as many as 2,400
workers;
(7)(A) once operational, a new nuclear power plant is
estimated to provide 400 to 600 full-time jobs for up to 60
years; and
(B) jobs at nuclear power plants pay, on average, 40
percent more than other jobs in surrounding communities;
(8) revitalization of a domestic manufacturing industry to
provide nuclear components for new power plants that can be
deployed in the United States and exported for use in global
carbon reduction programs will provide thousands of new,
high-paying jobs and contribute to economic growth in the
United States;
(9) data of the Bureau of Labor Statistics demonstrate that
it is safer to work in a nuclear power plant than to work in
the real estate or financial sectors;
(10) while aggressive energy efficiency measures and an
increased deployment of renewable generation can and should
be taken, the United States will be unable to meet climate
reduction goals without the construction of new nuclear power
plants;
(11) modeling conducted by the Environmental Protection
Agency and the Energy Information Administration demonstrate
that emission reductions are greater, and compliance costs
are lower, if nuclear power plants are used to provide a
greater percentage of electricity;
(12) the United States has been a world leader in nuclear
science; and
(13) institutions of higher education in the United States
will play a critical role in advancing knowledge about the
use and the safety of nuclear energy for the production of
electricity.
(b) Sense of Senate Regarding Use of Funds.--It is the
Sense of the Senate that Congress should stimulate private
sector investment in the manufacturing of nuclear project
components in the United States, including through the
financial incentives program established under this subtitle.
SEC. 902. DEFINITIONS.
On page 293, line 14, insert:
``(D) establishing procedures, programs and facilities to
achieve ASME certification standards''
On page 294, strike line 10 and insert the following:
or low-carbon generation, including--
(A) a technology referred to in section 832(a); and
(B) nuclear power technology.
On page 294, line 11, strike ``902'' and insert ``903''.
On page 294, line 16, strike ``903'' and insert ``904''.
On page 297, line 5, strike ``904'' and insert ``905''.
On page 297, line 7, strike ``903'' and insert ``904''.
On page 297, line 10, strike ``905'' and insert ``906''.
On page 297, line 14, strike ``904'' and insert ``905''.
On page 297, line 18, strike ``906'' and insert ``907''.
On page 297, line 19, strike ``906'' and insert ``907''.
On page 298, line 4, strike ``907'' and insert ``908''.
On page 298, line 17, strike ``909'' and insert ``910''.
On page 299, line 16, strike ``908'' and insert ``909''.
On page 301, line 11, strike ``909'' and insert ``910''.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Virginia. I
thank him for an excellent statement. I think his point is well taken.
Let's have a full and open debate and in the classic way and in the
best Senate tradition. Let amendments come forward. We believe strongly
that this problem is too real and too urgent to keep saying no, no, no.
We have come some distance in the Senate's consideration or
discussion off the Senate floor about this. We are now at the place
where almost nobody says this is not a problem, that climate change is
not occurring; just about everybody agrees it is.
Now the question is, What do we do about it? We have tried to
fashion--I like what Senator Warner said--a balanced, kind of middle-
of-the-road response to the problem of global warming. In dealing with
global warming and climate change, there will also be the energy
independence declaration program that America needs to secure our
future. You cannot cut greenhouse gas emissions unless you cut
dependence on oil, and most of that oil comes to America from abroad.
This is an opportunity to deal with a big problem with a big solution
and truly to secure and better the future of our country and its
people.
I often say, when people ask why Senator Warner decided to join in on
this, that he responded with remarkable brevity for a Senator. He said
two words: Science. Grandchildren.
The science speaks loudly that we have a problem. He wants to feel,
on his watch, as we all should, that he did something to protect his
grandchildren and all our grandchildren from that problem. That is what
this legislation gives the Senate an opportunity to do.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I commend my colleagues for their fine
remarks about the need to cut carbon emissions. I agree with them on
cutting carbon emissions. I think that is important. But I think it is
timely that we have this discussion now about the cost of it because we
should pursue cutting carbon emissions, but we cannot slash family
budgets, knock farmers and workers out of jobs and out of productive
revenue.
At a time when Americans are suffering record pain at the pump, high
energy costs, a mortgage crisis, and a soft economy, I am very
concerned about raising energy prices on our families and workers.
I just returned from a six-city energy tour in my State of Missouri.
Did I learn something. From Joplin in the southwest of my State, to
Palmyra in the northeast, families, businesses, farmers, and truckers
are suffering from record-high prices. Drivers are fed up with gasoline
prices approaching $4 and diesel prices even higher. One pump in Joplin
is $4.75 for a gallon of diesel.
These truckers and small businesses are saying how they are
struggling now. Some are being forced out of business and don't know
how they are going to meet their fuel costs and still employ people and
carry the goods we need to get to market. When they pay higher prices,
we all pay higher prices for everything because transportation costs
are a critical element. They are squeezing farmers already. Do we want
to vote to make this misery much worse?
I fear that this bill, as currently drafted, will make our suffering
families and workers much worse off. The sponsors of the substitute
tell us this bill will raise, between now and 2050, over $6.735
trillion. I apologize that there are nine zeroes on the charts; so you
have to have two panels to have all the zeroes in that trillion-dollar
figure. It would not fit on one poster board. That is what this bill
would cost. Do you know where that cost goes? Similar to lots of stuff,
it rolls downhill. This would roll down on the consumers. They are the
ones who will pay for it in energy prices--millions of families and
workers across the Nation.
Now, some may claim they are trying to hit energy companies with the
cost
[[Page S4879]]
of this program. Does anybody think energy companies will continue to
produce if their costs go up this much? The first thing they do will be
to pass it along to all of us, and we will feel it. Energy consumers
and producers will have no other choice. That is because the technology
to meet deep-and-fast carbon cuts, without massive economic
disruptions, doesn't exist today; and as I talk to scientists in my
State, as we look at projects on which we are working, they will not be
ready for another 15 to 20 years.
We are working on some things that will work now. Biofuels is making
a small dent--a small, small dent. We can expand that a little more.
But even the advanced cellulosic ethanol processing is not economically
feasible now. Thus, the impossible mandates of Lieberman-Warner will be
a massive tax increase for all Americans.
To sum it up, cap and trade is a taxation, a massive taxation without
technology. Cap and tax is what it was called in an article today.
The $6.7 trillion cost would hit my Missouri constituents
particularly hard. Experts at the American Council for Capital
Formation predict Missouri will lose 76,100 jobs by 2030 if we enact
Lieberman-Warner. The average Missouri household will face a $6,852
extra cost per year. Energy cost for electricity will be 153 percent
higher. Gasoline cost at the pump will be 140 percent higher.
The Lieberman-Warner bill, regrettably, has a particularly unfair and
harsh impact on America's heartland. This chart shows how much bills
will go up depending on where one lives. In the Northeast, it is 40
percent. In the Midwest, it is 137 percent. In the South, it is 104
percent. In the Great Plains, it is 113 percent. In Mountain/West, it
is 87 percent. And the West Coast, not much. I mean no offense when I
say that it is easy when you look at the chart to see that the primary
proponents of this measure, in the Northeast and the far West--the pain
will be focused primarily on the coal-dependent manufacturing jobs,
heavy Midwest, South, and Great Plains.
Perhaps the most disturbing feature of this debate is that for all
the pain on families and workers, for all of its $6.7 trillion
pricetag, it will have no measurable impact on world temperatures. That
is right; the Environmental Protection Agency estimates that if China
and India do not institute similar plans to the same extent we do, as
they have already told us they will not, this bill before us will have
no measurable impact on world temperatures. That means $6.7 trillion in
pain for American families and workers for no gain in global
temperature lowering.
I will have more to say about this issue during this debate in the
coming days. I also look forward to debating how we can cut carbon
without cutting family budgets or worker payrolls. There is so much we
can do to reduce carbon emissions by increasing nuclear power
production, and we do need to get more nuclear power. Do we have the
scientists, the engineers? No. Do we have the basic vats that are
needed? No. We need to develop that industry in the United States. We
need to do something about reprocessing spent fuel. Right now we are
limited, we are constrained by our inability to get rid of spent
nuclear fuel. We need to reprocess it and reduce it by 95 percent.
We need to expand coal technology, coal to liquid, coal gasification.
These are very important. But what do we do with the carbon? That is
why we are working on a project in southwest Missouri, for which I got
an earmark 4 years ago, to try sequestration underground. Is it going
to work? We don't know. That is why it is a demonstration project.
We need to expand our domestic manufacturing supply base for more
advanced batteries to get more hybrid cars and trucks on the road. We
worked with companies in Missouri to help them build better batteries.
I would love to see the day when we have a full-size automobile, not a
golf cart, that we can plug in at night when power demand is lowest,
charge the battery, commute to work and back without ever having to
stop at a gasoline pump. We are not there yet. We do not have the
batteries.
We need more next-generation work on cellulosic biofuels. I was
talking to the top scientists in Missouri on Wednesday. I was talking
about biofuels. We have hundreds and hundreds of square acres with as
much as 4,200 tons of green wood that need to be cleaned out of the
forest to make it healthy.
I said: Congress, in its wisdom, has already mandated we produce 16
billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol by 2022. I said: By the way, how
is the technology to convert wood to cellulosic ethanol?
They said: We are not there yet. We haven't found a means of
converting wood to ethanol in an efficient, economically viable way.
I said: When do you expect it?
They said: We don't know.
I said: That is Congress; we passed a law saying you have to produce
16 billion barrels, and we forgot to ask the scientists when we were
going to get that conversion.
We are working on it, but we are not there yet.
In each of these areas, I am proud to say that Missouri is leading
the way to look for ways to reduce our carbon emissions. We want to do
that. Set aside the arguments over the international impact and what
the impact is. We will join with you in reducing carbon emissions, but,
please, friends, let us develop the technology and not impose taxes
when we put on caps without the technology. Caps without the technology
is a $6.7 trillion tax increase.
We can all be leaders in clean energy for the future. We need to do
so without ruining our economy, which this bill would do.
I look forward to discussing this issue in a constructive manner with
all my colleagues in the coming week, and I assume in the months and
years to come.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, Senator Domenici is on his way, and I
want to yield some time to him. He has been a real hero in our pursuing
one of the forms we are going to have to have if we are ever going to
run this great machine called America, and that is nuclear energy.
I was glad to hear the comments made by the Senator from Virginia who
had complimentary things to say about nuclear energy and what is
necessary if we are going to be able to continue to do this.
Before the Senator from Missouri leaves, he was referring to a chart
that showed the increase in the price of gasoline. I don't know whether
he still has that chart or if he has it in his notes. The Senator from
Missouri went over it so fast. To me that is the focal point, at least
in my State of Oklahoma.
Mr. BOND. The price of gasoline----
Mr. INHOFE. One hundred forty percent.
Mr. BOND. We said 140 percent. There are various figures that would
add $1.44 to $1.45. This one is from the National Association of
Manufacturers. I believe the EPA figures say $1.40, $1.45. I can tell
the Senator that we are looking at significant increases in the price
of gasoline. The low number would be $1.40, I believe, from the EPA.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask the Senator from Missouri also to
comment on the predictions as to what it would cost to the average
household. In my presentation--and the Senator was in our caucus when
we had a meeting--I had one chart that showed the United States. It
showed how much it would cost an average household. My State, Oklahoma,
and Texas were the largest hit. The increase for each family would be
$3,300. Missouri was in the next tier down, which I think was around
$2,800. That is something I think is very significant.
Mr. BOND. We have $6,852 on the average Missouri household. Our
source for that is National Association of Manufacturers, March 13,
2008. Obviously, these costs are only estimates. When you realize that
those States, such as Missouri, which depend on coal--and no telling
what the grand czars will allocate, the unelected bureaucrats will
allocate for coal production or utilities burning coal. They are right
now $13 a ton on carbon emissions. I think some are trading three times
that high in Europe. These numbers are all, at best, estimates. We can
tell you that there is no way this won't have a significant impact.
Mr. INHOFE. I suggest to my friend from Missouri that I am sure
Missouri
[[Page S4880]]
is not that different from Oklahoma and it is the major concern people
have. That is all, when I go around the State, people are talking about
now.
Many different economic studies show gasoline prices rising
significantly under this bill. Madam President, $1.50 is just an
estimated range. One of the Government EPA studies shows gasoline
prices going up by $1.40. Another independent agency study, the
independent Energy Information Administration, predicts it will go up
by 41 cents a gallon to $1 a gallon by 2030.
As gasoline prices continue to rise and set new record highs every
day, this bill would only keep prices rising. The Energy Information
Administration study predicts that gasoline prices will increase
anywhere from 41 cents per gallon to $1 per gallon by 2030.
We are waiting for a Senator. How much more time on the opposing side
do we have at this point?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 31 minutes.
Mr. WARNER. Madam President, before the Senator yields the floor, I
wonder if I may ask him a question.
Mr. INHOFE. That will be fine on the time on the other side.
Mr. WARNER. Fine. Of course, whatever the case may be. Because our
colleagues are listening to these statistics, I think we better with
greater specificity explain from where those numbers are coming. The
Senator made a comment about the possible increase in the cost of gas.
But is that not over the life of the bill, which is 20 years?
Mr. INHOFE. No.
Mr. WARNER. It is not tomorrow or the next day.
Mr. INHOFE. I am talking about by 2020 and some of the figures used
are by 2030. An article in The Hill, just the other day--of course,
that was before we had our recess--said that the Senate debate after
Memorial Day could add up to 50 cents to the price of a gallon of
gasoline, according to the study. They didn't say the timeframe. That
was one of the more objective groups.
Here is another one that talks about that. Investors Business Daily
says the bill essentially limits how much gasoline and other fossil
fuels Americans use.
Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I asked the question, but I will finish
it up. Let's be candid, we are talking about a bill that is 20 years
ahead of us. Look how much gas has risen, 26 increases in the past, I
think, 90 days. It has nothing to do with this bill. This bill has all
types of checks and balances that the President can move in and stop
these provisions from being invoked if he is concerned.
I listened patiently to my colleague from Missouri: This is wrong,
that is wrong, this is wrong. All right, folks, who is going to come
forward in this Chamber and say this is what is right, here is the
better approach? And let us be careful in the representation about
these incredible increases and so forth. Give the time period and then
contrast that to what has happened in the last 90 days, which has
nothing to do with this bill--nothing.
What has an impact is if this bill eventually becomes law, then it
will put in place the mechanism by which to relieve the crisis we are
faced with today--these repeated 26 increases in the cost of gasoline.
I yield the floor.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, how much time remains on either side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 28 minutes 19 seconds for the
opposition, and 18 minutes on your side.
Mrs. BOXER. I yield 5 minutes to Senator Klobuchar, a wonderful
member of our committee and, by the way, author of the carbon registry
portion of the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I thank Chairwoman Boxer for her
great leadership of our committee.
Today, we begin a discussion of a historic opportunity--an
opportunity to restore American leadership on something that is so
critical for the future of our country and of the world.
I just came back, Madam President, from Minnesota, where I spent the
last week. People are glad that spring is here, but I was surprised by
the number of people who came and talked to me about the climate change
issue. They knew this debate was coming. It is not just kids with
penguin buttons anymore. It is hunters in Hibbing who have seen the
changes to our wetlands, people who ice fish, and little city councils
in places such as Lanesboro, MN, that changed out their light bulbs to
save money. And it is business people in Duluth who have seen Lake
Superior at historic lows over the last 80 years. People in our State
are seeing the changes, and they are concerned about the changing
weather patterns and the frequency of changing weather patterns--with
tornadoes, with floods, and with fires.
Local communities all over this country are taking action. My State
of Minnesota has one of the most aggressive renewable standards in this
country. We don't view this as a partisan issue. We view this as a
bipartisan issue. Everyone from our Republican Governor to our
Democratic legislature to independent city councils all over the State
want to see action on climate change from Washington.
Just a year or two ago this Senate was debating whether climate
change existed, and now, finally, today, with a vote on this motion, we
can start debating how to solve it. We had an event today where people
from all over the country talked about the effect it had in their
communities--global warming. Someone from Alaska joined us to describe
the way climate change has affected whale populations and fishing
traditions that support her community.
It actually made me think of my own State of Minnesota where fishing
is very important. I would love to ask the Presiding Officer if she
knew how much money we spend on bait and worms alone in Minnesota every
year, but, of course, the rules prohibit her from answering. In fact,
the answer is, in the State of Minnesota we spend $50 million a year
alone on worms and bait. It gives you a sense of how important, in the
land of 10,000 lakes, fishing and outdoor recreation is to the State.
A total of $1.8 billion every year is spent on angling alone. That is
why everybody from snowmobilers to hunters, to people who fish, to
everyday citizens, care about this issue in my State, and why it is so
important to move forward on this legislation.
The other piece of interest is that our State is third in the country
with wind. We see the potential for jobs. If we set the standards in
this country, the investment will follow. Think of what happened when
we raised the gas mileage standard years ago: we saved money. Now we
are doing it again this year.
Think about when John F. Kennedy stood and challenged this country to
put a man on the Moon. We won that space race, but we did more than
that. By drawing that line in the sand, by saying this country was
going to move forward, we produced endless amounts of technology just
from that one moment we said we were going to put a man on the Moon.
We produced weather satellites, solar technology, digital
wristwatches, ultrasound machines, laser surgery, infrared medical
thermometers, programmable pacemakers, satellite TV broadcasts, high-
density batteries, high-speed, long distance telephone service,
automated insulin pumps, CAT scans, radiation blocking sunglasses, and
my personal favorite, those little chocolate space sticks that my
family used to take on camping trips in the 1970s.
That was all because someone in the Nation's Capital said we were
going to move in a new direction; we were not going to let other
countries be the first to put a man on the Moon; we were going to be
first.
That is what we have the opportunity to do with this legislation. We
have the opportunity to start moving and doing something about climate
change. Many people around the world are waiting for us to act, to go
first, as we have so many other times. Other countries have done
things, but our country, the United States of America, making a
statement on this matter, will make a difference for the rest of the
world. We need to set our expectations high. We need to set our
standards high. And we have to remember, while climate change is a
challenge--and I don't believe it is any longer seriously disputed in
terms of the science on global warming--it is also an opportunity.
I look forward to the debate that we will have in the coming days,
and I thank Chairwoman Boxer again for her leadership.
[[Page S4881]]
Madam President, I yield the floor.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I yield to the Senator from New Mexico
whatever time he consumes.
Before I do that, I say to my good friend from New Mexico that I
commented earlier on his being a real champion for nuclear energy, and
the recognition that we can't resolve the process we have without a
very bold nuclear program. And I would say this: We have over 30
applications now in the process, of people saying what they want to do.
So I look at this, as I characterized it a few minutes ago, as a
nuclear renaissance that is taking place, largely due to the efforts of
the Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, has time been yielded to the Senator
from New Mexico?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, whatever time the Senator shall consume.
Mr. DOMENICI. Let me comment on your observation. First, I thank you
for indicating that I had something to do with the rise of nuclear
power, which we are all glad to call a nuclear renaissance. I did have
a lot to do with it, and I am very proud of that.
I think the Senator knows I will not be here very long because I have
decided to retire after 36 years, and that means this January. But I am
very confident that even leaving in that short time from now we have
set the seeds for the nuclear renaissance. It will be in the world, not
just in America. But it would always have been short of what it could
be and should be if America was not part of this renaissance. If
America wasn't a part, the world somehow would not feel right about
nuclear. And since we started it, and then we unpropitiously stopped
producing it and stopped all the leadership we had, we are starting
anew. So there is great excitement in the American nuclear community,
which is expanding dramatically.
Universities are establishing new nuclear physics courses. I think
the Senator from Oklahoma knows that. We have put money in the energy
and water bill, $10 million to $15 million a year, for universities to
get started and bring them up where they were, and that is going to be
very exciting. But have no doubt, since the United States knows how to
produce the very best nuclear powerplants--the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission is of the highest quality--they are not going to approve
licenses unless they are absolutely certain of plant designs and that
locations are absolutely the best. And that is going to take a little
while.
We had, I think 33 or 34 is the number that are in the process of
applying, with about 7 or 8 firmed up, completed, and all the process
they need to submit being done. That is so exciting when you consider
that in 20-plus years we had zero, not a single one, until we passed
the Energy Policy Act. And the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma was
not on the Energy Committee, but he was very helpful at every step as
we produced this Energy Policy Act, which included, as everyone agrees,
all of the ingredients to cause American nuclear power to have a
renaissance, and it is doing that.
Now, there is no way we are going to effectively clean the
CO2 we produce in the use of power without nuclear power. It
is the one big source of power that has no CO2 emissions
attached to it, so it is good we are moving there. But today we have a
bill before us that has to be discussed, debated, and amended, as I see
it, for such a long period of time for the American people and the
Senators to understand its implications, that today I choose to just
speak about one little part--the impact of this bill on oil and gas
prices.
This is a bill that purports to put America on a path of producing
less and less CO2, but it has some real difficult hurdles to
cross as we move there. In the meantime, there is no question that it
has an impact on a lot of things, and we have to consider whether it is
worth all the ramifications, considering what the bill will or will not
do.
So, Madam President, let me remind Senators that we are all coming
back from our home States. I am returning from my home State of New
Mexico, where I visited constituents and listened to their concerns. In
every town I visited, at every event I attended, and during every
meeting, I took the same issue and put it before the people and
discussed it with them. They asked the same questions over and over:
How will Congress deal with the rising gas prices? I expect that most
every Senator had similar experiences during his or her recent recess
travels.
This morning, the price of gasoline was, on average, a record of
$3.98. Now, I used an average, and I got that from an appropriate
official. In many places it has already passed the $4 mark, but it
averages $3.98. At the start of this Congress, the average was just
$2.33, meaning the cost of gasoline has jumped by 70 percent in just 18
months.
Record gas prices are causing tremendous pain for Americans. In one
recent survey, 40 percent of workers said the high price forced them to
change the way they get to and from work. Many have stopped driving
altogether. Public transit ridership is at an all-time high. Others
have traded their vehicles in for smaller ones. But most importantly,
many are feeling the impact on the family budget. They are just feeling
like they can't make it because they only have one way to go to work.
They have to work, and if there are two workers in the family, when you
add the price of gasoline to that, it becomes an expense they can
hardly bear.
The impact is not limited to transportation. It affects nearly every
aspect of American life and ripples throughout our economy. As fuel
costs rise, as I indicated, family budgets are stretched. Millions have
canceled vacation plans and cut down on shopping trips. For those
living paycheck to paycheck, the price at the pump is the difference
between being able to pay their bills on time and going into debt.
Runaway energy costs also hurt our businesses, as evidenced by recent
announcements from Ford Motors and American Airlines.
High gas prices even impact the quality of education that our
children receive. A school district in Minnesota has already announced
that schools will move to 4 days a week to avoid budget shortfalls.
Schools in North Carolina are planning fewer field trips for their
students, which are often among the most memorable experiences that our
children can have.
As these examples illustrate, the consequences of high energy prices
are widely felt, far-reaching, and difficult to overcome. We must take
real steps to ensure that these are properly addressed and that we are
not telling these same types of stories in the future.
After hearing our constituents plead for relief from high gas prices,
it was my hope that Senators would rededicate themselves to reducing
the cost of oil and gas. Instead, by bringing up a bill to establish a
cap-and-trade regime, which we will hear much about in the ensuing
days, the majority has chosen to go in the opposite direction from
reducing gas prices or holding them steady for our constituents.
As the summer driving season begins, and oil prices remain at near
all-time record highs, it is simply incredible that the first measure
debated in this session will not be a bill to lower energy prices by
producing more of our own energy but a bill that will, in fact,
substantially increase energy costs.
By assigning a cost to the carbon content of traditional fuels, there
is no question this bill will increase the cost of gasoline. According
to EIA, gas prices could rise by 41 percent in the year 2030. The EPA
places this figure as high as a $1.01 per gallon by the year 2030.
Every policy has a price, but as we continue to face record energy
prices, the costs of this bill are simply unacceptable, no matter which
version is up for debate. An economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of
Dallas recently told the New York Times that:
Every one-cent increase in gasoline means Americans pay
$1.42 billion more a year for gas.
An absolutely incredible number. You wonder why the economy is being
affected by these enormous price increases of gasoline and diesel fuel.
At a time when they can least afford it, this will translate to even
greater pain at the pump for consumers. At a time when the strength of
our economy is already a serious concern, it will lower the bottom line
of American business and jeopardize their global competitiveness.
When recesses end and we make our way back to Washington, it is our
obligation to do our best to resolve the
[[Page S4882]]
concerns of our constituents. Right now we should be working to find a
way to reduce energy prices. Instead, as we begin to debate a cap-and-
trade regime which may not work, it is clear there is a fundamental
disconnect between many in this Chamber and the American people who
simply cannot afford to pay more for energy. As the Boxer bill proves,
there is much Congress can do to raise these prices and we are setting
about to do that.
I commend my colleagues for trying to tackle the task of reducing
carbon emissions to address global climate change. However, the
American people are facing higher costs and tough economic concerns.
They are worried about their family budgets and about their jobs. This
bill will make these worries greater and increase those costs even
more.
I will be speaking at great length as we consider this bill in the
coming days and I will speak of many other issues besides the one
today, for there are many more. I speak of only one today which I think
we should start with, and know what we are dealing with in terms of the
side effects of legislation that is controversial. It is not only
controversial but many are quite certain it will not do the job.
Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I am anxious to see action on this issue,
but I keep asking myself, are we doing the right thing for the wrong
reasons, or the wrong thing for the right reasons? Either way, I cannot
support proceeding at this time. The Senate is not yet ready to
consider this vastly important and highly complex legislation. It's
ramifications are too unknown.
In December 2007, after several hearings and with written comments,
the Environment and Public Works Committee reported S. 2191, America's
Climate Security Act. It includes a hefty 334 pages of legislative
text. Since then, a new bill has been drafted and placed on the Senate
Legislative Calendar--S. 3036, the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security
Act--which is what the Senate will consider if the motion to proceed is
adopted. And yet another bill--a third bill--is expected to be offered
as a substitute amendment by the chairman of the Environment and Public
Works Committee. That bill includes 491 pages of legislative text. That
is three bills, in 6 months, totaling 1,167 pages of legislative text.
This new bill was circulated only days ago before the Memorial Day
recess, and with an additional 157 pages that was not considered by the
Environment and Public Works Committee--no hearings, no economic
analysis.
In early April, after months of examination, the Congressional Budget
Office produced a cost estimate on S. 2191, outlining the $1 trillion
impact of that measure on the Federal budget, and the $90 billion
annual impact on the private sector. Incidentally, this legislation
would put hundreds of billions of dollars on automatic pilot, allocated
by unelected, unaccountable boards, with little congressional
oversight. However, no complete estimates exist for the substitute
amendment that the Senate might consider. In addition, the
Environmental Protection Agency and the Energy Information
Administration at the Department of Energy have produced their economic
analysis of S. 2191, outlining the impact of that legislation on
different sectors of the economy. But, again, no complete estimates
exist for the substitute amendment that the Senate might consider if it
proceeds to the underlying bill.
Industry and environmental experts differ widely on how these bills
will impact the American economy and energy prices. Without better
independent analysis of the facts, there is little to prevent Senators
from simply talking past one another. This being a presidential
election year, the atmosphere is already highly charged. There is
already too much political posturing on this complex, albeit popular,
issue. This Chamber, the world's greatest deliberative body, must
investigate further in order to render an informed decision. There are
all kinds of parliamentary tactics that can be used on both sides of
the aisle to limit debate and amendments on this bill, or to force
votes on dangerous measures. The process can get out of hand very
quickly and very easily.
I am haunted by another election year debate, when the Congress was
rushed to judgement in voting for war in Iraq. And last year, it
obviously did not adequately consider the consequences of a fuels
mandate, which has contributed to international crisis and famine. In
both cases, the result has been far different and far worse than what
was thought and said at the time.
We must not be rushed to judgement on this vital issue. If not
properly drafted, climate change legislation could bring unilateral
devastation to critical sectors of the U.S. economy. It could cause
massive increases in energy prices for American consumers. If not
properly drafted, such legislation could well result in more harm than
good.
The language of this measure is obviously still evolving, and the
American people must know what is being asked of them before the Senate
commits to mandatory emission caps. Otherwise, we cannot expect them to
long endure the consequences that will surely follow. Without long-term
public support, any effort to address this issue will eventually, and
quite certainly, unravel.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, while I am willing to proceed to the
climate security bill so that the Senate can debate and amend it, I am
opposed to this bill in its present form. I am hopeful that the Senate
will amend this bill and significantly improve it as we move forward.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, let me ask how much time is remaining on
the opposing side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Stabenow). Just less than 16 minutes.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I think it is the wish of the majority
to have us use our time so Senator Boxer will have the remaining time,
which is fine. I invite any Members who are around--I know several will
want to speak tomorrow, but we do have time right now if they want to
come down.
As I said in my opening remarks, this is not a discussion about
science. That is something for another day. We have been talking about
that now, the lack of science, for a number of years. I have to go back
to then-Vice President Gore, who had a study done by a very prominent
scientist--his name was Tom Wiggly. In this study, back when he was
Vice President, he said: If we were to have all of the developed
nations--not developing, not China, not Mexico, not India, but the
developed nations--to sign on to, to ratify the Kyoto treaty and live
by its emission requirements--of course they wouldn't do that anyway
because the emission requirements are not complied with in some 15
Western European countries; only 2 are living within their emission
requirements, but he said assuming all developed nations did sign on to
Kyoto and live with the requirements, how much would it reduce the
temperature in 50 years?
Do you know what his answer was after he did this massive study? Tom
Wiggly, the scientist for Al Gore, said it would reduce the temperature
by 7/100th of 1 degree Celsius. This is after all the economic pain.
I think what I might do is use a little of the time, if no other
Members come down, to talk about how other people are looking at this.
The Las Vegas Review Journal--I am hoping the leader of the Senate
would be reading the Las Vegas Review Journal--said:
Consumers are already struggling with gasoline approaching
$5 a gallon and other utility costs that have been moving
steadily higher for the past few years. New mandates placed
on producers in the name of ``global warming'' will only make
matters worse.
That was an editorial in the Las Vegas Review Journal a few days ago.
From the State of Ohio, The Plain Dealer--I know we are going to have
Senator Voinovich taking a very active part in this debate. He is
another one of the leaders bringing us into a renaissance for nuclear
energy in America, which is desperately needed. I have to say, as we
approach hopefully the solution--not having anything to do with this
bill, but the energy crisis in America--I agree we need all sources.
Oklahoma is very busy right now and very effective in their research on
biomass--cellulosic biomass. Both the University of Oklahoma and
Oklahoma State University, the Noble Foundation, are very active. We
want that. It is not here now. That is better, to me, than the ethanol
mandates that merely use up the market for corn to the extent that my
livestock people in Oklahoma are paying a lot more now for feedstock
[[Page S4883]]
than they did. You won't have to do it with feedstock in the future
because you will be able to do it with biomass and other forms. When it
gets down to what the solution is to the energy crisis, we do need to
have all these in the future: Wind, solar, and all that, when the
technology is here. But right now we are 53 percent dependent on coal
for our ability to run this machine called America.
As the Senator from Virginia stated, we will have to have coal as
well as nuclear energy. Clean coal technology is out there. We have to
keep that going. A lot of people fear this bill is going to put an end
to coal.
The one ingredient we have to have, of course, is natural gas. That
performs well. A lot comes from my State of Oklahoma. But one thing
that will be necessary to pursue in the future is nuclear energy. Right
now some countries such as France are 80 percent dependent upon nuclear
energy. We are down around 20 percent. That is an area where we can do
something.
Up in Ohio, The Plain Dealer newspaper, in their editorial, said:
The bill, as conceived, will just bore new holes into an
already battered economy.
In Pittsburgh, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review:
If there indeed is a second Great Depression to come, this
will be the government measure that guarantees it arrives
with a devastating gut punch.
That was an editorial called ``The Climate Security Act? Reject The
Ignorami'' in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.
San Francisco Chronicle--this is kind of interesting--from the State
of California:
The Senate debate on the climate bill probably will focus
on its impact on energy prices and the economy, which in the
short run could be considered significant.
The Associated Press recently said:
With gasoline at $4 a gallon and home heating and cooling
costs soaring, it is getting harder to sell a bill that would
transform the country's energy industries and--as critics
will argue--cause energy prices to rise even more.
The Wall Street Journal--there are a couple of them. I quoted already
from the Wall Street Journal. This one was a few days ago.
This is easily the largest income redistribution scheme
since the income tax.
I think it is interesting when people realize what we are talking
about here is redistributing the wealth from the people who are the
poorest, very poorest people. A CBO report found recently, quoting from
that report:
Most of the cost of meeting a cap on CO2
emissions would be borne by consumers who would face
persistently higher prices for products such as electricity
and gasoline. Those price increases would be regressive in
that poorer households would bear a larger burden relative to
their income than wealthier households.
We are going to hear from the chairman of the committee stating, I am
sure, in the future: We are taking care of that because we are
redistributing some of the $6.7 trillion, redistributing $800 billion
of that to some of the poorer families.
Wait a minute, that is $1 out of $8. That is not a very good deal.
I think there are so many reports that talk about how devastating
this is going to be to all of America but particularly those
individuals, the elderly and poor people, because these are the ones
who are spending a large portion of their spendable income on energy.
It is very appropriate I think to say this is easily the largest income
redistribution scheme since the income tax.
The New York Post:
The only thing that will cool is the United States economy.
Talking about this bill.
In effect, the bill would impose an average of more than
$80 billion in new energy taxes every year.
That is the New York Post, entitled ``Cap-&-Trade: Why It's Tax &
Spend,'' of June 2.
Robert Samuelson:
. . . let's call it by its proper name: cap and tax.
George Will:
Speaking of endless troubles, ``cap-and-trade'' comes
cloaked in reassuring rhetoric about the government merely
creating a market, but the government would actually create a
scarcity so government could sell what it had made scarce.
This is a rather interesting thing. I recommend this. It was
published in the Washington Post under ``Carbon's Power Brokers.''
Charles Krauthammer had several good editorials. He said:
There is no greater social power than the power to ration.
And other than rationing food, there is no greater instrument
of social control than rationing energy, the currency of just
about everything one does and uses in an advanced society.
That was Charles Krauthammer, ``Carbon Chastity,'' an editorial in
the Washington Post on May 30.
There was a very good one, another from the Wall Street Journal that
I have already quoted here. This is a different one than I quoted a
minute ago. The Boxer climate tax bill:
. . . would impose the most extensive government
reorganization of the American economy since the 1930s.
Investors Business Daily--this is something in an op-ed piece, an
editorial piece they had on May 29:
The bill essentially limits the amount of gasoline and
other fossil fuels Americans can use, as Klaus puts it--
referring to the President of the Czech Republic--
in the name of the planet. A study by Charles River
Associates puts the cost (in terms of reduced household
spending per year) of Senate bill 2191--
which is the Senate bill passed out of the committee
--at $800 to $1,300 per household by 2015, rising to $1500 to
$2,500 by 2050. Electricity prices could jump by 36 percent
to 65 percent by 2015 and 80 percent to 125 percent by 2050.
This was an editorial in Investors Business Daily.
It is interesting, I was noticing when Senator Bond from Missouri was
making his very well-stated remarks, the study he had showed it would
be closer to $6,000 a household. I do know in my State of Oklahoma and
in the State of Texas, of all the States that will have the highest
increase in taxes, it will amount to a minimum of $3,300 per family.
As I go around my State of Oklahoma--and I am back there every
weekend; I am never here in Washington on weekends--I talk to people.
They stop and think about what they do with $3,300 a year--it is not
just a lot of them want to have another pickup truck or a bass boat or
other things, but most of them are having real problems right now
meeting expenses. This will be something they wouldn't want to have to
try to endure.
We have had quite a few of the editorial writers around the country
talking about it. Several have talked about the raising of gas prices
and the effect that would have. I think we are all aware of that. I
think probably the biggest issue should be the job-killer issue. The
Independent Energy Information Administration says the bill would
result in a 9.5-percent drop in manufacturing output, and even higher
energy costs. The fact that it would grow Government--stop and think
about it. This is interesting. The figure the other side uses, the
promoters of the bill, is $6.7 trillion.
Then they say some of this is going to be going back into the
economy. It comes down to about $4.2 trillion--$4.2 trillion, and one
of the basic disagreements Senator Boxer had with the Senator from New
Hampshire was that he wanted to return that to the taxpayers as opposed
to having Government programs. It appears there will be, hopefully, not
a majority--in fact I don't think there will be a majority of people in
this body who are going to put themselves in a position where they say
we want to have a $4.2 trillion increase in the bureaucracy.
If there is anything that does not need to be increased, it is the
bureaucracy in America. It frightened me to think about what types of
governmental agencies there are, what, 45 new entities and agencies
that would be provided by this bill? Tomorrow we are going to parade
before you some charts to show the various increases in the size of the
bureaucracy. It is going to be something that will be frightening to
most people.
However, there is a mentality of many people in the Senate--I respect
every Member of the Senate--that somehow you must increase the size and
the magnitude and the authority and the power of Government to make
things happen. That is not the way our forefathers thought it would be.
I would suggest to you that we want to look at this increase in
Government, $4.2 trillion over this period of time, as something that
would be devastating to this country and its economy.
[[Page S4884]]
I see that my time has expired, and the remainder of the time will be
used by my chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, the
junior Senator from California.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. I thank my colleague. Today we are going to vote on
whether we want to continue the status quo when it comes to energy
policy and when it comes to ignoring the great threat to our planet
that scientists tell us is very serious.
Now, we can vote no, we can weaken this bill. It seems to me that is
every Senator's right. But, frankly, this Senator and I know my
colleagues who have worked so hard on this bill, Senators Lieberman and
Warner, feel deep in our heart that this is a moment for us to come
across party lines as we go back and remember we have tripartisan
legislation, a Democrat, an Independent, and a Republican.
Again, we did not agree with each other on every detail. Lord knows
we did not. But for the good of this country, for the good of the
world, for the good of future generations, we came together.
I ask the Chair to let me know when there is 4 minutes remaining so
it can be equally divided by these wonderful cosponsors. Would the
Chair let me know when 4 minutes remains.
Let me take this little time I have to say I do not mind debating on
the facts of our bill. But I have heard so much fiction that I had to
go over to both Senators Warner and Lieberman and say: Did I hear them
right? First of all, they are using numbers that are coming out of the
air by groups that oppose our bill, that have no validity, that are not
based on any modeling.
We have numbers based on modeling. Then I hear now the new thing. My
dear friend Senator Inhofe--we are dear friends--says the Boxer tax
bill. There is no tax in this bill. This bill is modeled on the acid
rain bill, I say to my friend.
Polluters pay. This bill has one of the largest tax cuts in it that
we have seen around this place in a very long time. It has a big piece
of consumer relief. So I say to my friends, do not get up here and say:
Boxer tax bill. Point to where there is a tax in this bill. There is no
tax. I will point to where there is a tax cut and a set-aside, a huge
one, almost $1 trillion, and a huge pot of almost $1 trillion in
consumer relief which will be given, if necessary, to consumers if the
cost of the electricity goes up.
So here we have a bill that takes care of our consumers, takes care
of our taxpayers. Then we hear from Senator Domenici and Senator Bond:
Oh, we cannot do this bill because oil prices, gas prices at the pump
are going to go up.
They put out a number that they pull out of the air. The modeling
shows, worst-case scenario, worst case, gas prices would go up 2 cents
a gallon per year until 2030. By the way, the modeling that Senator
Lieberman has shows that the automobile fuel economy bill we passed
will negate all that.
So this bill will bring no higher cost at the pump to our drivers.
But let's look at what has happened under the last 7 years. Here is the
status quo, folks. We have all lived it; now let's look at it. Gasoline
prices have gone up 250 percent in the last 7 years. The source: U.S.
Energy Information Administration. That is this administration's own
energy department.
So without a global warming bill or a climate change bill, call it
what you will, we have seen a 250-percent increase in the price of gas.
What we do in our bill will get us off foreign oil, will get us off big
oil, will lead to new technologies which will free us, will free us
from these prices.
So those people who say: Do not vote for this bill because it is
going to raise gas prices, only in a humpty-dumpty world, where you are
over on your head could you come out with that. It makes no sense.
Let me show you the job growth that people are telling us we can
expect from the Boxer-Lieberman-Warner bill. First of all, look at
Great Britain. They have reduced their greenhouse gas emissions by 15
percent. They have grown their economy by 40 percent, and they have
500,000 jobs in the last 5 years in these new green technologies.
A report by the Apollo Alliance--that is a beautiful organization
here in America--says this bill could create over 3 million new
American jobs over a 10-year period, stimulating $1.4 trillion in new
gross domestic product and producing over $280 billion in net energy
savings.
We are going to get off foreign oil. I do not want to see a President
have to run over to Saudi Arabia and hold hands with the Prince
anymore. I am tired of that. It has to be the end of the status quo.
This is an opportunity to do it.
Let's take a look. Job growth will follow strong legislation. In
California--I mentioned this before--450 solar companies are now
putting electricians and carpenters and plumbers to work where the
construction industry is laying them off because of the housing crisis
we are facing.
The top manufacturing States for solar are Ohio, Michigan,
California, Tennessee, and Massachusetts. That comes from Solar Energy
Industries. So we already are seeing it. Here is the labor support for
the Climate Security Act. The Sheet Metal Workers, the Journeymen and
Apprentices of Plumbing and Pipefitting, the United Union of Roofers,
the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, the International Association of Heat and
Frost Insulators. And it goes on. The Building and Construction Trades
Department of the AFL-CIO, the International Union of Operating
Engineers, the brick layers, the elevator constructors. Why are they
supporting this bill? These are the workers that my colleagues on the
other side are scaring.
They are smart, they read the bill. They understand the many billions
of dollars that are going to go into new technologies. And these
technologies will heat our homes and they will cool our homes and they
will run our cars and they will run our businesses.
The green jobs that will come are going to be jobs that can only be
filled in America. Time is of the essence. Time is of the essence. Sir
Nicholas Stern, former chief economist of the World Bank, found that by
spending $1 now to address global warming we will save $5.
We know we cannot afford to wait. The time is now. People say: Why
are you doing it before a Presidential election? Why this? Why that?
This is above politics. This is above partisanship. If somebody told
you, if somebody told you that if you brought your child to the
supermarket on a very warm day and say it was your grandchild, because
I know you are a proud grandma, and you said: Well, I have to run in
there just for a minute, can I leave my child alone? Well, obviously
you would never do it. The fact is, we would not lock our child in our
hot car in front of a supermarket.
We cannot consign the next generation to a hot planet that is going
to be inhospitable to our grandkids. We cannot do it. It is wrong. That
is why we find Tony Blair saying: America must lead. He says the
legislation sponsored by myself, Joe, and John matters. It shows
America will act. It will allow the United States to say to others: You
must act. We are not going to sit around and wait for India and China.
Since when do we do that? This is America.
I wish to go to the faith community. I think people ought to
understand who is backing our bill. I see the Senator from North
Dakota, who has been weighing this very strongly. The Evangelical
Environmental Network and the Evangelical Climate Initiative, the U.S.
Conference of Catholic Bishops, the National Council of Churches, the
Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, the Jewish Council for
Public Affairs, the Interfaith Power and Light Campaign.
Let me close by saying why. All you have to do is read, read from the
Scriptures, read from some of the great writings:
See my handiwork, how beautiful and choice they are. Be
careful not to ruin and destroy my world, for if you do ruin
it, there is no one to repair it after you.
This is, it seems to me, the moral reason we must act. I thank you
very much. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Connecticut and the
remainder of the time to Senator Warner.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, the first thing I would say, in
response to Senator Boxer's eloquent faith-based conclusion, is: Amen,
Sister.
Secondly, in this last 2 or 3 hours that we have begun this very
important debate you can see the different
[[Page S4885]]
arguments forming. There are serious arguments. They are important
arguments. So I appeal to our colleagues on both sides of this issue,
regardless of whether you have decided to support the bill, vote for
cloture on the motion to proceed so we can finally have the kind of
debate from which we will all learn and from which the American people
will take some encouragement that we are dealing with this problem.
It is obvious that one of the main arguments, perhaps the main one,
will be its cost. This is an important issue which we want to discuss.
The part that I respectfully take issue with is those who call this a
tax increase. It is not a tax increase.
Senator Warner and I had some choices to make. One was to do nothing.
We rejected that. I suppose if you still feel we should do nothing,
that, of course, you will want to come out and argue for that.
But we decided we had to do something. We had three choices. One was
a carbon tax. We rejected that. One, because we do not think it is
viable here. Two, it does not guarantee that you are going to reduce
carbon emissions.
Second, we had an old-fashioned command-and-control option; mandate
that this happens, control everything. We rejected that as well because
it is inflexible.
The third choice was a market-based choice. Set the general ground
rules, mandate a reduction in the cap, and leave it to the market. The
fees that are raised under this bill are voluntarily accepted by people
who decide they need to buy allowances. This is not a tax increase. We
rejected a tax increase.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I am pleased to be here today for the
opening debate on global climate change and the Lieberman-Warner
Climate Security Act.
The issue of global climate change is a pressing one that has
ramifications far beyond our imagination. It is my firm belief that we
need to temporarily put aside what we do not know about climate change
and its potential impacts and to focus instead on what we do know in
order to begin to address this critical problem.
We know that the science is clear. Some might respectfully disagree,
but they are in the minority. In fact, the science is so clear and the
observations on the ground are so convincing that more than half of the
States of this great Nation and more than 800 cities have taken the
bull by the horns and have enacted or are working to enact legislation
to reduce carbon emissions.
I am the strongest supporter of states rights and I commend these
States for their vision and their leadership absent Federal action. But
we cannot have a patchwork approach to addressing climate change.
Federal leadership is now warranted in this case.
We know that allowing global climate change to go unchecked will
result in increased threats to global security. In April 2007 the
Center for Naval Analysis Corporation issued a report, ``National
Security and the Threat of Climate Change,'' which detailed the
numerous threats posed by climate change.
The report found that global climate change does pose a significant
threat to America's national security. The extreme weather and
ecological conditions associated with climate change have the potential
to ``disrupt our way of life and to force changes in the way we keep
ourselves safe and secure.''
Some of the destabilizing impacts described in the report include:
reduced access to fresh water, impaired food production, human health
emergencies, and displacement of people. These are hardships that the
globe will have to face.
These serious implications of climate change will have security
consequences for the United States. For example, there will be an
increased potential for failed nations and growth of global terrorism.
Another serious implication of climate change is the mass migrations
of people that are likely to occur. Lack of water and food will force
the movement of people. In the United States, the rate of immigration
from Mexico is likely to rise because the water situation in Mexico is
already marginal and could worsen with less rainfall and more droughts.
In addition to these indirect risks to national security, there are
also direct impacts on U.S. military systems, infrastructure and
operations. Climate change will add stress to our weapons system,
threaten U.S. bases throughout the world, and have a direct effect on
military readiness. As stated in the CNA report:
As military leaders, we know we cannot wait for certainty.
Failing to act because a warning isn't precise is
unacceptable.
We know that the fate of the copious coal resources within our
borders hinges on Congress providing regulatory certainty. Have you
seen the record of late? Permit after permit for coal-fired powerplant
is being declined. In fact, 54 percent of coal capacity ordered since
2000 has been canceled or put on hold in the last 2 years, in part due
to uncertainty about climate legislation. The way to ensuring coal
remains a viable resource for the future and allowing coal to continue
to provide more than half the power in the U.S. is to give regulatory
certainty so that investors will once again finance the building of
coal-fired powerplants.
With that said, I know that the coal industry doesn't support this
bill. But we have done our best to provide more than the financial
support the industry says is necessary to fund the technologies such as
carbon capture and storage that are going to allow coal to remain
viable. But inaction is not an option for our Nation, and it is not the
best path forward for coal.
The concept of mandatory, by law, cap-and-trade is proven to work.
Cap-and-trade harnesses the best of free market power and brings in
industry, as partners, in solving the energy and emissions challenges
in the future. With all due respect to those who support the carbon tax
approach, I believe while the administration of such a new tax may be
simpler, there is no guarantee you get the environmental benefit that
consumers are paying for.
The very suggestion that there will be some huge increase in gas
prices due to capping pollution is false. It is a scare tactic. Absent
any program, gas prices have gone up about $1.10 this year alone. What
the increases show is that the status quo of laws are not working.
The United States will be hostage to the price of oil until we reduce
our demand--and a cap on carbon is the most effective step we can take
toward that goal. This bill provides a very large incentive for the
private sector to receive the investment so they can create improved
and new alternative sources of energy. It funds advanced vehicle
technology, efficient hybrid fleets, advanced biofuels and mass transit
that will transform the transportation sector and reduce our dependence
on oil.
Modeling suggests that the Act would reduce imports by 8 million
barrels per day by 2025, more than the entire amount currently imported
from OPEC. Overall, it reduces oil imports by up to 58 percent.
We also know that the cost of inaction is much more likely to hurt
American families and the American way of life more than the potential
costs of action.
Not addressing climate change is not going to keep energy bills low.
Increased demand for energy will drive prices up, without the
incentives for expanding the use of alternative energy sources or
providing a safety net for consumers, as my bill would do.
I relish this opportunity to debate climate change legislation in the
Senate. It is my hope that we will have robust debate. I want my
colleagues, both those who agree with my bill and those who don't, to
have ample opportunity to offer amendments. If we are going to be
serious, serious consideration must be given to all members who want to
have their say in this landmark debate.
In closing, I look forward to the time ahead spent on this bill, and
I am available to address any questions, concerns, or issues my
colleagues wish to raise with me.
Madam President, once again, I think as we debated this afternoon,
the bill has been passed out, put on each desk. I hope that represents
the majority of our colleagues will agree to letting this bill go
forward, because it is not just the bill, it shows the American people
we are doing their business.
We are trying, through a debate, well-intentioned individuals on both
sides, to solve one of the most difficult problems ever facing America,
our energy shortages, our increased prices of
[[Page S4886]]
energy, carbon emissions, how it has affected our environment, all
those things.
Here it is. This is our joint effort, together with the chairman and
members of the committee. If there is a better idea, bring it forward.
This is the function which our Founding Fathers established this
institution for. Bring forth our ideas and let us produce something and
show the American people we can solve their problems.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from 20
different prominent, well-known industrial firms, confirming that this
bill is necessary, be printed in the Record at this point.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Dear Senator: The undersigned companies and organizations
urge you to vote in favor of the Climate Security Act, S.
3036 (formerly S. 2191), which is expected to be considered
by the full Senate beginning June 2. This is a very important
vote on a bipartisan plan to address climate change. Prompt
action on climate change is essential to protect America's
economy, security, quality of life and natural environment.
The Climate Security Act, as revised in the manager's
substitute amendment released last week, sets forth a sound
overall framework for reducing America's emissions of
greenhouse gases. Most notably, it establishes an emissions
cap that steadily reduces greenhouse gas emissions from
current levels at a rate of about 1.8% annually. The bill
creates a flexible cap-and-trade system to achieve these
reductions at lower cost by tapping the power of free
markets. It includes an unprecedented national investment in
zero- and low-carbon technologies, and includes important
policies to advance energy efficiency and alternative energy
sources. The bill provides assistance to small energy
consumers, including low-income families, to ease the
transition to a low-carbon economy. And the bill protects
American industry to ease the transition to a cleaner future.
We all support the framework and approach contained in the
Climate Security Act. However, we also recognize that there
is continued work to be done to refine the details of the
legislation through the amendment process in the Senate and
as a bill is taken up in the House. Some of the undersigned
groups have already communicated with you on amendments and
will continue to do so and others may do so later.
However, we think it is notable and a testament to the work
of the bill's sponsors and contributors that such a diverse
group of interests are united on the following essential
issue:
A ``yes'' vote for the Climate Security Act represents
historic leadership to advance bipartisan solutions to
climate change; a ``no'' vote will slow progress and maintain
the status quo, which only increases the risks of unavoidable
consequences and potentially greater economic costs that
could result from the need for even steeper reductions in the
future.
Sincerely,
Lee Califf, Director, Government Affairs, Alcoa.
Yvonne A. McIntyre, Vice President, Federal Legislative
Affairs, Calpine Corporation.
Elizabeth Thompson, Legislative Director, Environmental
Defense Action Fund.
Betsy Moler, Executive Vice President, Government and
Environmental Affairs and Public Policy, Exelon Corporation.
Chris Bennett, Executive Vice President, FPL Group.
Ann R. Klee, Vice President, Corporate Environmental
Programs, General Electric.
The Rev. Canon Sally G. Bingham, Founder and President, The
Regeneration Project, Interfaith Power and Light Campaign.
Newton B. Jones, International President, The International
Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths,
Forgers, and Helpers.
Scott Kovarovics, Conservation Director, Izaak Walton
League of America.
Thomas B. King, Executive Director of Electricity
Distribution and Generation, National Grid.
Mark Wenzler, Director, Clean Air and Climate Programs,
National Parks Conservation Association.
Jeremy Symons, Executive Director, Global Warming Program,
National Wildlife Federation.
David Hawkins, Director of Climate Programs, Natural
Resources Defense Council.
Steven Corneli, Vice President, Market and Climate Policy,
NRG Energy, Inc.
Phyllis Cuttino, Director, US Global Warming Campaign, Pew
Environment Group.
Melissa Lavinson, Director, Federal Environmental Affairs
and Corporate Responsibility, PG&E Corporation.
Eric Svenson, VP of Environment, Health and Safety, Public
Service Enterprise Group.
Steve Moyer, Vice President for Government Affairs, Trout
Unlimited.
William P. Hite, General President, United Association of
Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting
Industry of the United States and Canada.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
Mr. INHOFE. I have 1 minute 50 seconds remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. INHOFE. I have to do this pretty fast. Let me respond to some of
the things the majority stated.
First of all, when they make the statement that this, talking about
the price of gas, all this happened during the Republican
administration, let me assure you this happened because of the
Democrats in the Senate voting against any increase in supply.
Now, if anyone has any doubt about that, go to our Web site www.epw--
that stands for Environment and Public Works--epw.senate.gov/minority.
Look that up. You will see that I have documented the votes all the way
back to the middle 1990s, when we have tried to increase our supply of
energy or our refining capacity.
Secondly, the statements that this is not a tax bill, I would only
read to you the total revenue generated through carbon sales auctions
for consumers of power, heating, cooling, and gasoline: $6.7 trillion.
That is their figure, not my figure.
The maximum potentially rebated to consumers would be $2.5 trillion.
That leaves $4.2 trillion. If that is not a $4.2 trillion tax increase,
I don't know what it is.
Thirdly, the fact that all labor seems to be for this. I suggest that
Senators talk to the United Mine Workers, who are very much opposed to
it, the United Auto Workers, who are opposed to it. As far as the
various communities on the chart shown by the junior Senator from
California, there are many of evangelical associations. We had a press
conference. They all showed up. They are all very much opposed to this,
and all these are Scripturally based.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. INHOFE. Has all time expired?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
Cloture Motion
Under the previous order, pursuant to rule XXII, the clerk will
report the motion to invoke cloture.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the motion to
proceed to Calendar No. 742, S. 3036, the Lieberman-Warner
Climate Security Act of 2008.
Barbara Boxer, Richard Durbin, Byron L. Dorgan, Charles
E. Schumer, Sheldon Whitehouse, Bill Nelson, Amy
Klobuchar, Dianne Feinstein, Joseph Lieberman, Daniel
K. Akaka, Christopher J. Dodd, Tom Harkin, Daniel K.
Inouye, Max Baucus, Ron Wyden, Robert P. Casey, Jr.,
Harry Reid.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the
motion to proceed to S. 3036, 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, shall be brought
to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Montana (Mr. Baucus),
the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), the Senator from New York (Mrs.
Clinton), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), the Senator
from Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr.
Lautenberg), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama), and the Senator
from Oregon (Mr. Wyden) are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Delaware (Mr. Biden) would vote ``yea.''
Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain),
the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), and the Senator from
Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). Are there any other Senators
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 74, nays 14, as follows:
[[Page S4887]]
[Rollcall Vote No. 141 Leg.]
YEAS--74
Akaka
Alexander
Bayh
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brown
Brownback
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hutchison
Inouye
Isakson
Johnson
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lugar
Martinez
McCaskill
Menendez
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sanders
Schumer
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Tester
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
NAYS--14
Allard
Barrasso
Bunning
Byrd
Coburn
Craig
DeMint
Enzi
Hatch
Inhofe
Kyl
McConnell
Sessions
Shelby
NOT VOTING--12
Baucus
Biden
Burr
Clinton
Kennedy
Landrieu
Lautenberg
McCain
Murkowski
Obama
Wicker
Wyden
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 74, the nays are
14. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. DORGAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I do not see the ranking member on the
floor, but I do see Senator McConnell here. So if I could get Senator
McConnell's attention for a brief moment.
I understand from my colleagues on the other side that they do not
intend to filibuster. So I would inquire, based on the vote we have
just had, can we now agree that following morning business tomorrow we
can begin consideration of the legislation?
I ask unanimous consent that following morning business on Tuesday,
June 3, all postcloture time be yielded back, the motion to proceed be
agreed to, and the Senate then proceed to the consideration of S. 3036.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, the Republican side certainly intends to use
the full debate time and, therefore, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I wonder if I modified my request to
provide that following the official Senate photograph on Tuesday, all
postcloture time be yielded back, the motion to proceed be agreed to,
and the Senate proceed to S. 3036.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. KYL. Objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, let me say, I am a little disappointed.
First, I thank my colleagues from the bottom of my heart, and I know
Senator Lieberman and Senator Warner are very gratified by this vote.
We are going to move forward. We are challenging the status quo. We
want to get us off foreign oil. We want to begin to move toward energy
independence and a clean and healthy environment and green jobs and all
the rest. So this is a great start.
But I am a little disappointed we cannot move to begin the real
debate which comes, obviously, after cloture on the motion to proceed.
I am sorry that is the case. But I say to my colleagues here, on both
sides, we look forward to a very important debate on this legislation.
This is a matter that is bigger than any one of us here. I think the
fact that you have a Democrat, an Independent, and a Republican
bringing you this legislation speaks to this issue. I think this is an
issue that has to leap over those differences.
I hope we can all show up tomorrow. Since we are going to have this
time--I am disappointed we cannot get to the amendment process, but we
will take advantage of the time. I know Senator Kerry will be here in
the morning. He is a national leader on this issue, and I intend to
yield as much time as he would want. I hope Senator Feinstein will come
tomorrow. Looking around, Senator Cantwell, Senator Klobuchar, and
Senator Lincoln have all played such a major role in the part that
dealt with making sure our consumers who are in need get help. Senator
Collins just went on the bill. We have a great number of people here
whose voices need to be heard, so I look forward to that debate
tomorrow.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, we, too, look forward to the debate. I won't
list all of the Members on our side who have asked to be recognized to
speak on this bill, but obviously both sides have a lot of Members who
wish to speak to the bill before we even get to the amendment process.
That is the reason we want to utilize the full time that is available
under the rules for that purpose, not intending to filibuster the bill.
But I think it is also going to be important that we do proceed to
amendments when that 30 hours is used. You will find the Republicans
most anxious to go to amendments which can be offered and then debated
and considered. So we will hold the other side to the proposition of
getting votes on lots of amendments on this legislation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I can't let that go by. I mean, we are
ready to start the amendment process now. We are ready to start work on
this bill now. There is no reason to wait 30 hours. I think colleagues
in the course of offering amendments can speak for as much time as they
want. It is disappointing to hear that we do have to delay. We are
ready, willing, and able to get to the amendment process.
I yield the floor.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, might I just make one other comment in
response to the Senator from California?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
Mr. KYL. This is one of the most dramatic--or would be, if passed--
one of the most dramatic changes in law, as one publication pointed
out, since the 1930s in terms of increasing the scope of Government.
Surely we can spend 30 hours debating this important legislation. It is
massive in its intent, in its goals, in its scope, and in its effect on
the American people. According to the Congressional Budget Office, it
would result in a tax increase on the American people of over $900
billion and a gas tax increase of 53 cents per gallon. Surely, the
Senate, the greatest deliberative body in the world, can take 30 hours
to debate something of this magnitude before we begin the amending
process. I thank my colleagues for appreciating that point.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would politely point out to the Senator
from Arizona--and I think he knows this full well--that the first
amendment that comes up is subject to endless debate. There is no
limit. The notion that we have to have 30 hours before we can get to a
debate on an amendment--each amendment is subject to endless debate;
the bill itself is subject to endless debate. So the concept of coming
out here and saying: Oh, we have to have 30 hours--this bill will be
debated, every amendment will be debated. But it would serve the
Senate's purpose to actually get to an amendment now and then we could
spend 30, 40, 48 hours, a week--we all know this is going to take a
while--legislating an important bill does take a while here. But this
notion that we have to spend 30 hours without any amendment just to
talk about the bill when the bill will be exhaustively talked about in
the context of any amendment is, frankly, specious.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I would just add to this debate about
the 30 hours that it is going to be a reality, and I would say this:
Senator Boxer, Senator Warner, and I are going to be on the floor. This
is an important matter. I think most important to the reality we now
face of the 30 hours of debate is that our colleagues, no matter what
their position on this legislation, should come to the floor, let's
debate
[[Page S4888]]
it, and then let's go to the amendments. I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.
Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I was in my home State last week, and I
can tell my colleagues that the American people have a very low
knowledge of this bill, certainly the vocabulary in it. I think 30
hours that we will spend on this floor talking about a bill that is so
important--so important to the environment, so important to energy
security, at a time when gasoline prices are where they are, combined
with the fact that people care deeply about the environment--is most
appropriate, and my guess is that we are going to have a lot of
technical amendments using language that most people in this body do
not use. We are going to be talking about an auction process that has
never been put in place in this country, an allocation process that
will be allocating trillions of dollars to people around this country.
I think for us to spend 30 hours talking about that so that all
Senators are fully aware of what this bill says prior to voting on
amendments is most appropriate. I would think that people who have
spent a year putting this bill together would relish the time to talk
about what this bill actually does and what it says. I look forward to
being a very active participant in that. I thank the sponsors for
bringing this forward.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thought it would be a good time to thank
you, since you are here in the chair today, for all of your hard work
on this bill. This has been a long time in coming. When you got on the
committee, when you came as a new colleague, you worked so hard. You
and Amy Klobuchar and Ben Cardin and Bernie Sanders, all new Members,
became my right arm on this issue.
I wanted to make that note. Also, I want to say specifically that the
Senator's work on the wildlife and enforcement sections, to name two, I
think is really important because we are going to push hard to make
this bill the law of the land right now. If we don't achieve that,
eventually we will have a bill that will be the law of the land. The
Senator's work will be present in all of those iterations going
forward. So I thank the Senator.
Mr. President, I am waiting for the closing script, and I will do
that when it arrives. I was taken by the Senator from Tennessee, Mr.
Corker, who has been a very interesting member in terms of this issue.
He went with our committee to Greenland and saw the ice melt. I have to
say to those who haven't been, it ought to be required if you really
care about this issue. It is extraordinary. You can actually sit and
watch the ice move and melt--the ice up there in Greenland. The average
age of these enormous icebergs is 9,000 years.
Mr. President, from the minute that ice starts moving, it is a year
until these enormously beautiful icebergs melt to nothing, leaving the
sea to rise as they melt. Senator Corker was very taken by that. He
will speak for himself, but he has problems with this bill. I don't
agree with him in the way he is interpreting the bill, but that is all
going to come out. He talked about the importance of debating. I have
to smile because today we had to debate, and we should not have to
debate a motion to proceed. That is ridiculous. We should just proceed.
We had a 74-to-14 vote to move to the first step.
Let's get to the bill. I have never seen a situation where you force
more debate time when you really are interested in doing a bill. You
usually force debate time when you are interested in slowing down the
bill. This is the way it is here. If you want to move forward, then you
don't say: I need 30 hours.
It will be interesting to see what happens tomorrow. As Senator Reid
said, I will be on the floor of the Senate all day. I encourage my
colleagues--particularly those who worked hard on the bill--to join me.
Let's see how many from the opposing side come over here. We need to
debate them and refute them because already, I say to my friend from
Rhode Island, we had charts on this floor that you would not believe.
We had charts that had numbers that were out of the air, predicting a
140-percent increase in gasoline, when I can tell you right now, we
looked at every model, and it is nothing like that.
As a matter of fact, we know the slight increase in the cost of
gasoline that could occur--2 cents a year--from the impact of the bill
will be entirely offset by the energy efficiency bill we just voted for
and is now the law.
What we know is that this bill is going to get us off foreign oil,
move us away from the status quo. Go out on the street and ask the
average American: Are you happy with big oil, the record profits for
them and their executives, and we are getting killed at the pumps? They
will say: No--unless they are related to one of them.
If you say: Do you think it makes us look good when President Bush
goes to the Middle East and kisses dictators and holds their hand and
begs for oil? Does that make America look strong? They will say: No.
Next, if you ask them: Would you support legislation that will lead
us to energy independence once and for all--and, by the way, we will
clean up our environment, the greenhouse gas pollution, and we will
save the planet? They will say: Yes.
So our opponents have a very tough job. They have to fight for the
status quo. I can say from their presentations today--and they worked
hard on them, believe me--in order to fight our bill, they have to
distort it. One of them said it is a tax increase. There is no tax
increase in this bill. There is a huge tax relief fund for tax cuts in
this bill. There is another almost $1 trillion in a fund to give
consumers relief.
If today was any indication, we are going to have a spirited debate.
I only ask my colleagues to debate the bill that is on the Senate
floor, not one that came to them from some special interest groups that
oppose this and don't want us to go to energy independence.
I wish to read from a statement from former Vice President Al Gore.
Since Senator Corker is from Tennessee. I thought it would be
interesting to put his statement in the Record:
I want to commend Senator Boxer for her leadership of the
Environment and Public Works Committee. We have the first
global warming bill in history that is comprehensive,
bipartisan, and that enjoys support across the country, from
labor and agriculture, to the business and the environmental
community.
Then he says he wants the bill to be stronger, but then he says it is
vital that Congress begins to act.
I think this last line is so important:
While it is important that people change their light bulbs,
it is even more important that we change the laws.
I think that says it all. We are so late to this issue. We are so
late. My Governor, a Republican, and my State legislature, Democratic,
crossed party lines and passed laws. We now have just in the last year
or so hundreds of new solar energy companies that have moved into the
State, and they are hiring people who are hurting because of the crisis
we have in the housing and construction business. So we believe a P-
32--they have told us this--the bill leading the way in the country, is
restoring economic renaissance to our State which otherwise is hurting
very badly because of the recession we are all experiencing. We owe
this to our grandkids, to our kids. We know the Conference of Mayors
has acted, so have the State legislatures, along with Governors
reaching across party lines, city councils, and boards of supervisors.
Companies are saying we should do this. Labor unions are saying we
should do this. Environmental and religious groups are saying we should
do this. So there is no question that we need to act.
When somebody gets up on the other side and says they are not slowing
it down, but they are going to require 30 hours of extra debate before
we get to amending this bill, excuse me, but I have been here long
enough to know they are trying to slow-walk this bill. The other side
is slow-walking it.
I want them to read the scientific records, listen to the religious
leaders, and listen to the venture capitalists coming forward and
saying we need a signal now. Listen to Tony Blair,
[[Page S4889]]
George Bush's best friend internationally, saying we must act because
America is pivotal. So we have our time tomorrow, after we wait here
for people to come and talk, and at some point maybe they will give us
permission to start the amendment process.
Our children want us to act. I have to tell you that one of the great
moments was when Senator Warner came to me and said: My daughters
really care about this issue. I knew if they were talking to him, he
might be open to this issue. He saved the day in committee. He is a man
who has such a great legacy already. He didn't have to do one more
piece of legislation. He has his place in history on national security.
He understood that global warming is a national security issue. Our
Navy intelligence officials tell us that, and we will have some quotes
tomorrow.
This is a win-win bill for national security, for our kids. It is a
win for clean air, and it is a win for our consumers and for our
workers and our businesses. Anything to the contrary--I believe this so
much--is just scare tactics.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleagues for holding
the vote open as long as they could. Unfortunately, both of the trains
I hoped would get me here were late, and I missed the vote by 10
minutes. I wish I had been able to get here in time to deliver this
statement in support of cloture on the motion to proceed to the Climate
Security Act, and to vote aye.
Mr. President, this is a historic moment. For the first time we have
before the Senate legislation to slow, stop, and reverse greenhouse gas
emissions in the United States.
When such a plan is finally passed, signed and enacted, we will look
back on this day as the beginning. Let us commit ourselves to that
goal.
And let us begin this historic process today by allowing the Senate
to take up the Climate Security Act.
In our own country, and among our fellow citizens on this planet, we
face a common threat. Now is the time for us to fashion a common
response.
I introduced climate change legislation over two decades ago, in
1986, at a time when this issue was just on the horizon. It called for
the establishment of national strategy to understand and respond to the
emerging threat of global warming.
Even at that early date, this was a bipartisan effort.
I was joined by Senator Mack Mathias, a Maryland Republican. In those
early days, Senators Kerry and Gore were also leaders, along with John
Chafee.
This remains a bipartisan effort today. In fact, on the legislation
laid down this afternoon, the Boxer-Lieberman-Warner bill, we have all
three political parties represented.
This debate would not be happening without leadership from both
parties over the years. Senator McCain joined Senator Lieberman in
introducing the first Senate cap-and-trade legislation.
Senator Warner has made climate change the issue that will cap his
already distinguished career in the Senate.
We would not be at this point today, without the leadership of
Senator Boxer, who has made global warming the signature issue of her
Chairmanship of our Environment Committee.
Later in this debate, I intend to offer an amendment, with Senator
Lugar, along with Senators Kerry, Warner, Menendez, and Snowe, calling
for renewed leadership by the United States in international climate
change negotiations.
I make these points because we all know that this debate hangs now in
a delicate balance between the best, bipartisan instincts of the
Senate, on the one hand, and the temptation, so strong at this time in
an election year, to score partisan points.
I hope that we do not succumb to that temptation. Global warming is
real, it is happening now, and the American people look to us for the
political will to fashion a solution.
We know that our physical climate is changing. And we all know that
the political climate in the United States is changing, too.
For too many years, the United States has stayed on the sidelines of
international efforts to combat global warming.
We have missed the chance to turn the impending threat of
catastrophic climate change into an opportunity to reduce the security
threat of our dependence on oil, to reduce the health threat from
pollution, to reduce the sheer waste and inefficiency in our economy.
And we missed the chance to do what many of the leading businesses in
this country know we should do--capture a leadership position in the
global competition for the next generation of clean technologies.
With this debate, we are taking the first steps toward meeting our
responsibilities and seizing those opportunities.
The physical consequences of global warming are right before our
eyes: the shrinking polar ice cap, retreating glaciers, changing
growing seasons, animal migration, and rainfall patterns.
In my own State of Delaware, our coastlines are threatened by rising
sea levels and the threat of stronger storms from warmer ocean
temperatures. Our wetlands, crucial to wildlife, water quality, and
fisheries, are threatened as salt water intrudes on the richest
biological zones in our State.
The groundwater we depend on is similarly threatened by saltwater. As
we draw from our aquifers, rising levels of sea water seep into the
water table, accelerating their depletion.
This is not an abstract threat--it is right here at home, where we
live.
Our national borders, our cities, our cultures, are all built around
patterns of rainfall, arable land, and coastlines that will be redrawn
as global warming proceeds.
Even the richest nations, the historical source of the emissions
behind global warming, will face huge costs coping with those
catastrophes.
The poorest nations, whose economies have contributed little or
nothing to the greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, will be hit the
worst, and will have the fewest resources with which to respond.
And now a third category has emerged: the rapidly expanding
developing nations which will be the leading sources of greenhouse
gases in the future.
Those nations must be part of the solution. But the United States
must be willing to lead.
In the course of becoming the wealthiest nation in history, we became
the greatest historical emitter of greenhouse gasses now in the
atmosphere.
Now, other nations are following our path to wealth, and will become
the next generation of major emitters.
It is no answer to say that we must now wait for poorer nations to
act before we take steps to lead the way to a global solution.
That is not the leadership this global threat demands, Mr. President.
We must first reach agreement here on our domestic approach to global
warming. That is why this debate is so crucial.
There will be honest differences on the best way to move to a low-
carbon economy. But no serious analyst of this issue believes that the
world can sustain business as usual.
This is a global problem, that demands a global solution. But that
solution will be built on the commitments of each individual nation to
do its part.
For too long, our differences have been stressed at the expense of
the global good. Our constituents look to us to reconcile those
differences, to find a way to respond in the name of the common good.
We are now engaged in the search to define and secure a truly global
common good. I urge my colleagues to vote for cloture, to join in a
constructive debate, in the best tradition of the Senate.
Thank you, Mr. President.
____________________