[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 92 (Thursday, June 5, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5194-S5198]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             CLIMATE CHANGE

  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the legislation we have 
been debating and that we are going to be precluded from debating, 
should cloture happen tomorrow. The reason I say precluded from 
debating is we are not being allowed to do any amendments. The whole 
stage has been set: One amendment so far; it is a take-it-or-leave-it 
amendment. My experience in the 11\1/2\ years I have been around here 
is that bills that come to us that way do not pass.
  That is what the whole Senate was designed for, to see that take-it-
or-leave-it stuff doesn't make it through here, that the opinions of 
100 people get to be reflected in legislation. The longer we are here, 
the quicker we think we ought to be able to get bills done. The longer 
we are here, the more complicated the issues. This is a very 
complicated issue. There are things people are doing. There are things 
people need to be doing. But to make it very prescriptive and to not 
allow the opinions of 100 people who could point out some of the flaws 
and some ways it could be better is wrong.
  The majority leader and a number of Members on the other side have 
called climate change the ``greatest environmental threat facing our 
world.'' I am not hearing big arguments against that. But if that is 
the case, we should put our heads together and come up with a plan to 
protect us from this massive threat. We should spend time amending it, 
ironing out any problems, and determining what we will have to pay.
  There is a huge disconnect in America, thinking that we can solve 
this problem and it will not cost the consumer anything. We are 
actually promulgating that myth here, now. I heard the fuel economy we 
are going to get is going to offset any of the costs. I know a few guys 
out there who are getting ahold of me on a regular basis because they 
drive trucks. They do contract work. I am pretty sure they didn't put a 
little clause in there that gave them a fuel escalation break. Some of 
the big companies might have thought of that. The little companies 
didn't. So far as I can tell, they are not planning on trading that 
truck in for a more fuel-efficient truck because they can't afford to 
do that. New trucks cost more money. They have a contract that limits 
what they can do. So the offset is not going to pay to the person who 
is paying the bill. It may go to somebody else.
  We do need to encourage better mileage. We need to encourage less 
travel--although somebody the other day pointed out to me that if we 
have less travel--for instance, if I rode my bike back and forth from 
home to work, although I usually walk, that consumes calories. And to 
replace those calories, I have to eat food. And that food probably is 
transported in somehow, so I am still adding to the climate problem. It 
is not solving it just by doing some alternatives. I hadn't thought 
about that.

  But what I am talking about tonight is that the debate has been shut 
down; the amendment tree has been filled. That means a little 
parliamentary procedure around here has already put some amendments, 
with relatively insignificant changes in them, so nobody else can bring 
up an amendment and have it voted on. It is getting to be a very common 
thing around here.
  Now, I understand partly why it is being done. The majority has had 
two people out on the Presidential campaign trail, and now Senator 
Kennedy is not able to be with us. That is the loss of three votes. It 
is a 51-to-49 Senate. So I sympathize with the leader in trying to 
control votes when some of the people are not here, because with our 
one Presidential candidate gone and three of their people gone, it 
winds up with a tie. I have noticed the Vice President usually votes 
with me.
  But what we are trying to do, I think around here, is get bills done 
and get them done in a logical process and actually finish them. But I 
do not think that is what we are doing. The amendment tree got filled. 
The greatest threat of our time, the greatest deliberative body is not 
allowed to deliberate, to be deliberative. Something is wrong with that 
picture.
  Now, I have some amendments that are important. I think they are 
important to anybody who might be listening, especially my colleagues. 
Do not think that not paying attention to or being interested in 
politics is going to shield anyone from the consequence of this bill if 
it were to pass. It could change our way of life. The bill is going to 
cost money, and you have a right to know how much it is going to cost 
you.
  I filed an amendment that requires utilities to include on the bill 
they send you, the consumers, the amount it is costing to comply with 
this legislation.
  I would like to take a look at a part of the bill that is very 
significant for Wyoming residents; that is the coal portion. Coal is 
our Nation's most important and abundant energy source. Wyoming's coal 
is the cleanest coal in the Nation. We ship to every State in the 
Nation.
  They mix it with their coal to meet the clean air standards. I want 
the lights to stay on in Wyoming and the rest of the Nation. California 
relies heavily on electricity from Wyoming. Without coal, that is not 
going to happen.
  Now, China understands energy. China understands that the future 
economy of the world depends on energy. They have already bought all 
the oil supply, they have bought up gas supplies, they are in the 
process of buying up coal supplies.
  How do I know about that? They are buying coal in Campbell County, 
WY, and shipping it to China. Now, a lot of it is in the test burn 
stage, and I suspect they may be burning that in the powerplants right 
around Beijing, which will clean their air for the Olympics.
  I do not know how long the contracts are, and I do not know how 
expensive it

[[Page S5195]]

will be. But I suspect that coal will be sold, and I know, by the way, 
because of rotation of the Earth, the direction the wind blows. The 
powerplants in Wyoming do not put anything in California, but the 
powerplants in China, of which they are building one a week, it takes 
longer, but they are opening one a week, that air will blow to 
California. China is not going to be part of this.
  I have had an opportunity to sit down with some of the Chinese 
delegation who are at the global warming conferences. They do point out 
they are a developing nation. I have asked them, as a developing 
nation, is there any point in the future at which they would do 
something to cut down their pollution? They have assured me they will 
always be a developing nation and will always come under those 
provisions. So do not count on China to help out in this.
  Now, I filed another amendment with my colleagues from Missouri, 
Ohio, and Oklahoma that is an approach to making cleaner coal. I have 
also cosponsored another amendment with my fellow Senator from Wyoming, 
an amendment, that was filed by Senator Dorgan from North Dakota taking 
another approach to greening up coal so we can more efficiently harness 
its power while minimizing its impact on the environment.
  I have cosponsored multiple approaches because it is vital we improve 
the bill by improving the way we use coal. Half our electricity comes 
from coal. There is no short-term substitute for coal. We need to come 
together and come up with a real solution, hopefully one that does 
place a little bit of confidence in the ingenuity of the American 
people.
  If there is a problem, they can solve it; not always immediately and 
not always without some kind of incentive. There are a number of ways 
of providing that incentive. We have not gotten to discuss those, and 
the majority is not going to let us do that today. I cannot even call 
up my amendments to let other Members debate them because the majority 
leader has used a parliamentary tactic to prevent us from offering 
changes to this bill.
  The majority leader has decided we cannot fully debate what he calls 
the greatest environmental threat facing the world. Is he serious? 
Well, I am. But apparently the proponents of this bill are not. If they 
were, they would be working to come up with a solution to this problem 
rather than playing another inning of ``gotcha'' politics.
  This is a complex piece of legislation. I am not sure anybody knows 
exactly how it works. The bill we originally talked about came through 
committee. The substitute we are doing now did not come through 
committee, so it hasn't had the same look everything else had.
  Anytime we go to a bill that hasn't been through committee and we 
invoke cloture so amendments cannot be done, the bills do not make it 
here. I appreciate my colleagues' approach on that. I have seen it 
happen, though, regardless of who was in the majority. That is the way 
it works. People get upset when they cannot do amendments.
  Now, I do know people who buy coal from my State say this bill will 
be a real punch in the gut. I do know the vast majority of studies say 
this bill will take money out of your pocket because you will have to 
pay higher energy prices. These are issues that need to be addressed. 
But we are not being allowed to address them. There is this sudden 
urgency that if it does not pass this week, the world will not exist 
next week. I think that is a lit bit of an exaggeration.

  I have a list of people who were supporting this legislation 
apparently as it is. I think they were generally supporting the concept 
of cleaning up the environment. But I did notice the list of supporters 
included those who have figured out a way to make some money off this. 
That is how it works in America. But it does leave out those who are 
currently having a job in these areas.
  Now, it is baffling to me that we are being precluded, that it is 
being cut off early. I hope my Senate colleagues will not do that. When 
the Senate considered the Clean Air Act amendments in 1990, and it was 
very important for them to consider that, because prior to that time we 
had a one-size-fits-all approach in the United States. It needed to be 
corrected.
  Those clean air amendments of 1990 passed, and they made corrections 
to it. They made a system that worked, or at least worked better. There 
is no such thing as perfect legislation. We spent 5 weeks on the bill. 
There were 180 amendments that were considered, and 130 were processed.
  Usually, we are asked if we cannot get our amendments down to two or 
three or five. No, you cannot. The reason you cannot is that if you 
have a series of amendments that deal with the smaller topics, people 
understand them better.
  You will have one section 3 people will object to, another one 11 
people will object to, another one 4 people will object to, and pretty 
quickly you are at 51. It is a pretty good philosophy if you do not 
want an amendment to pass, you cram them all together, so you can 
generate enough animosity over each of the parts so it adds up to 51 
votes against and it never makes it.
  On the other hand, if you are serious about making changes, then you 
do it such as we did with--I was not here at that time--the Clean Air 
Act of 1990, where there were 180 amendments and 130 were processed.
  We have been debating this bill for less than a week at this stage, 
with lots of interruptions. We have considered exactly one amendment, 
and that is the substitute amendment from the Democratic chair of the 
committee that dramatically changes the bill from what came out of 
committee.
  That is not the way to conduct business in the Senate. It is not the 
way to get anything done. But, then again, that is probably apparent 
that if there was a real desire to get something done, this bill would 
be debated in the regular order.
  When the Senate was less polarized, it was because there was more 
debating in the regular order. The bill we were debating had gone 
through committee, S. 2191; but the bill S. 3036 did not. I do not know 
anyone who believes this bill is going to be signed into law. I am not 
even sure anybody wants it signed into law considering the process it 
is going through.
  I think it is an effort by the majority saying: Oh, woe is us. We 
need to have 60 on our side of the aisle so we can cram these ideas 
down the other side's throat. That is not the Senate. The majority, in 
fact, is saying, until we have 60 votes on our side, we are not going 
to let anything pass. They take this approach, even though the energy 
crisis is the main concern of the American people.
  Oh, but that is right, this bill is not going to do anything for 
energy prices, particularly in the short run. I am disappointed with 
the situation the majority leader has put the Senate in today that will 
actually happen tomorrow morning--it is happening at 9 o'clock--which 
means there is going to be debate before the vote, it will be rather 
limited, probably between the two leaders.
  I do not think this bill is ready for debate, so I voted against 
proceeding to this bill. However, now that we are on the bill, we do 
have to consider its merits. That is what I have done on all this. That 
is why I filed two amendments to it. Unfortunately, we are not truly 
debating the bill because the parliamentary procedure, the 
parliamentary tactics are going to cut off all the amendments.
  Oh, there will be some conversation about how there will be 30 hours 
to do things after cloture is done. I follow the proceedings around 
here. Now, you can stall through 30 hours and make sure not a single 
vote happens. So anybody who votes for cloture means voting to preclude 
amendments, and anybody who says: Oh, there will be an open debate on 
it and an opportunity for amendments, ought to check the history on 
this and see if they have actually talked to anybody who would allow 
that to happen because it will be a new one on me.
  So the whole purpose right now is to do ``gotcha'' politics, avoid 
the committee to bring it to the floor, have a motion to proceed 
introduced on Friday, we vote on Monday followed by 30 hours, while we 
are waiting for people to show up to vote during the week because they 
are out on the campaign trial, and then filing a final cloture motion 
to make it be a one-size-fits-all, take-it-or-leave-it bill.
  I think it is very unfortunate that we have come to this point. I 
will oppose

[[Page S5196]]

further tactics designed to shut Senators out in the cold while the 
proponents are inside making their own global warming plan.
  The ``take it or leave it'' has never been a successful approach 
around here. I am willing to bet it will not be a successful approach 
tomorrow.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders). The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I listened to my friend from Wyoming, and 
I will tell anyone who was listening, first, he says the bill is not 
ready for debate. Now he wants to debate.
  You know, my friend voted not to go to the bill in the first place. 
He does not want a global warming bill, neither do most of the people 
on that side of the aisle, with some exceptions.
  Their answer is: No, no, no, no, status quo. That is why they keep 
losing seats all around the country. Now, 89 percent of the people want 
us to take up this legislation. Now, you can say you are against this 
for technical reasons and procedural reasons. I wish to talk about 
that, I do, because our leader went to the Republican side and said: We 
are ready to come up with a good plan to move forward on this bill. And 
he said to the other side: Let's start off with doing two amendments a 
side.
  No, that wasn't good enough.
  OK. Let's make an agreement for 3 amendments, 10 amendments, germane 
amendments. No. It was obvious from the start. No. Well, we think it is 
time to say yes, to stand and tackle the problem of global warming. 
They do not think it is time.
  I don't think they will ever think it is time.
  What is really remarkable is that the States out there have started. 
The western Governors have gotten together. They have signed a western 
climate initiative. Why? The American West is heating up more rapidly 
than the rest of the world. That is where my friend comes from. I 
didn't hear him talk about global warming. I heard him talk a lot about 
China. I don't know what he was saying, whether he is so happy that 
China keeps building these dirty coal plants. I will tell him, the 
people of China can't breathe. There was a whole series about this. We 
want to have a clean coal future. That is why the Boxer-Lieberman-
Warner bill invests heavily in clean coal. We understand there is 200 
years worth of coal in America, and we want to make sure we get the 
technologies moving. That is why we want this bill, so we get to the 
day where we can have clean coal.
  I want to tell my friend, he got up and criticized the way this bill 
was handled and the rest. I wish to speak about what we have done on 
our committee.
  The Presiding Officer serves on that committee and is an active 
member who has supported even stronger legislation than this. We are 
getting attacked because they say it is too strong. The bottom line 
is--my friend will attest because he was part of this--we had 25 
hearings, one of which I remember well which he chaired, since the day 
I took the gavel, inclusive. The bill was written in the subcommittee. 
The bill was worked on. It got to the full committee. I remember my 
friend in the chair was not happy with the bill in the subcommittee. He 
worked very hard. We changed it. Yes, we changed it, because that is 
what legislating is about. There isn't one person in this Chamber who 
has all the answers. I certainly don't. This has to be a collaborative 
approach.
  Then a wonderful thing happened. Senator John Warner said: I am 
breaking the stalemate. I have kids. I have grandkids. I am a national 
security expert. The national security people are saying we need to do 
something about global warming. It is going to be one of the biggest 
causes of wars in the future. This is a big issue. Senator Warner came 
and said he wanted to work with us. That meant we could get legislation 
out of the committee. Senator Baucus comes from a huge coal State. He 
took the lead in the coal provisions. We worked very hard.
  When the bill came out of the full committee, we took it to our 
colleagues in the Senate. We did an unprecedented thing. We had open 
hearings for every Senator. I don't know if Senator Enzi came to any of 
those. Maybe he did. My staff is sitting here next to me. No, he 
didn't. I remember Senator Bennett came. I remember many Senators came. 
They asked the experts the questions. We had the IPPC, the leading 
experts. We had the Bush administration come to talk about public 
health problems. We opened a transparent process to all. We asked 
Senators: Can I come to your office? I went to probably 30 offices. 
Senator Lieberman did. Senator Warner did. Anyone who wanted it did. 
Transparent. What do you need? What do you think? How can we do this 
better? How can this work? That is the way legislation ought to be 
done. That is what leadership is.
  This is a tripartisan piece of legislation--a Democrat, a Republican, 
and an Independent. I will say this: When you say no to this and when 
you divert attention to gas prices, which have gone up 250 percent 
under George Bush--250 percent--and when you say this bill is going to 
make it worse, you don't really know what you are talking about because 
if you look at the modeling that was done--and George Bush confirmed 
this--the modeling says under a worst-case scenario, gas will go up 2 
cents a gallon per year for 20 years. It is a 12-percent increase 
attributable to this bill which we know will be entirely offset by the 
fuel economy. In other words, that 2 cents will be offset by the fuel 
economy bill. So this bill will lead to lower gas prices. Why? Because 
it will spur technology. That is the point of the bill.
  If we could look at the pie chart, what you see is that most of the 
money that is generated in this bill from the permits bought by the 
2,100 biggest emitters of carbon goes to tax relief for our people, 
consumer relief for people, deficit reduction, more than half, and the 
rest goes to investments. A little bit goes to help the emitters in the 
early years. The rest goes to national security, and international 
agricultural resources and forestry, low-carbon technology efficiency, 
and local government action. We want to help local governments. That is 
why the U.S. Conference of Mayors has endorsed this bill.
  I have to say, what amazes me about what I hear from the other side 
is there is nothing about the issue of global warming or climate 
change. You don't hear anything, very little except from the supporters 
of our bill. Senator Snowe, Senator Warner, yes, we hear from them. But 
for the most part, we have heard no words that let us understand where 
we can sit down and talk.
  As far as China is concerned, to hold them up as some kind of model, 
if that is what my friend was doing, let me say that I don't want to be 
a party to it. I want to be a party to leading China, leading India, 
leading the world, not following countries where the people are so sick 
they can't even breathe. That is not what we want. We heard the same 
thing when we passed the Clean Air Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, the 
Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act--this is the end of the 
world. They made all kinds of excuses why we should not act.
  Tomorrow, we have a chance. I hope we will get a good vote. I don't 
know what we will get. But I do want to put into the Record some very 
important letters from our colleagues.
  First, I am very touched to tell my colleagues that we have a letter 
from Senator Kennedy. I am so happy to say that. It reads:
       Dear Chairman Boxer: I commend you and Senator Lieberman 
     and Senator Warner for your leadership on the Climate 
     Security Act. At long last, significant legislation long 
     needed to address this growing crisis is ready for Senate 
     action, and I wish very much that I could be there for this 
     landmark debate.
       Regrettably, I'm unable to participate, but I hope my 
     colleagues will support the Act by voting for cloture, as I 
     would if I were able to do so.
       With respect and appreciation and all great wishes,
           Sincerely,
                                                Edward M. Kennedy.

  Ted, if you or your family is watching, we received this letter with 
such pride. We thank you so much, and we send you our heartfelt prayers 
and hopes for a speedy recovery. We miss you so much.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from 
Senator Biden:
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


[[Page S5197]]




                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                     Washington, DC, June 5, 2008.
     Senator Barbara Boxer,
     Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Boxer: As we discussed, I regret that a 
     longstanding speaking commitment will cause me to be absent 
     for the scheduled cloture vote on your substitute amendment 
     to S. 3036, the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act.
       I write to make it clear for the record that, had I been 
     present, I would have cast my vote in support of cloture.
           Sincerely,
                                             Joseph R. Biden, Jr.,
                                                     U.S. Senator.

  Mrs. BOXER. We thank Senator Biden. I again thank Senator Obama. He 
sent a similar letter that he would, if he were here, vote for cloture. 
And a beautiful statement from Senator Clinton from which I will read 
in part:

        . . . I would vote for cloture on this legislation if I 
     were able to be present in the Senate. . . .The time is now 
     to move forward and deal with global warming, and I urge my 
     colleagues to vote for cloture.

  Continuing from her letter:

       This bill makes steep reductions in emissions, encourages 
     the development and deployment of clean energy technology, 
     provides assistance for American families, training for 
     workers whom the clean energy industry will demand.

  I ask unanimous consent to have the letter printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       M. President, the scientific consensus is clear: strong and 
     swift action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is needed to 
     prevent catastrophic effects of climate change. That's why 
     the debate this week in the Senate about the cap-and-trade 
     bill crafted by Senators Boxer, Lieberman and Warner is so 
     important. This bill makes steep reductions in emissions, 
     encourages the development and deployment of clean energy 
     technology, provides assistance for American families, 
     training for workers that the clean energy industry will 
     demand. I congratulate Chairman Boxer for moving this bill to 
     the floor. It's a first step toward Congress enacting a cap-
     and-trade bill as part of a broad, comprehensive effort to 
     combat global warming and reduce our dependence on foreign 
     oil, including aggressive steps to improve energy efficiency 
     and deploy renewable energy that will benefit our economy and 
     help create millions of new jobs. I believe that we can and 
     should make this bill even stronger, and I hope that we can 
     do that as we continue to consider the bill. For now, we need 
     to move forward on this important legislation. That's why I 
     would vote for cloture on this legislation if I were able to 
     be present in the Senate for the vote. The time is now to 
     move forward and deal with global warming, and I urge my 
     colleagues to vote for cloture.

  Mrs. BOXER. She congratulates us on the bill. It is with great pride 
that I add these letters to Senator Obama's letter.
  I do hope my colleagues will give us a ``yea'' vote. We know that 
under the rule, we can have amendments. Absolutely, we can. We hope we 
will get a good cloture vote.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I compliment the Senator from 
California for her leadership on the Environment Committee and on this 
important legislation. It is time to face up to it. One cannot find a 
more critical environmental issue facing this Senate, our country, or 
our world than fighting global warming. We need legislation that faces 
this problem head-on. Inaction here endangers our children, our 
grandchildren, and future generations who can never understand the 
opposition and unwillingness of the Senate to deal with this problem. 
Yet, as we stand here now, Senators on the other side of the aisle are 
filibustering this legislation. We are losing precious time. The 
patient is sick, and we have to start providing the meds. We have 
already lost over 7 years under a President who has ignored science and 
questioned the very existence of global warming. We have seen other 
Members of this body do the same thing, even calling global warming a 
hoax.
  As we sit here and wait for leadership from our President and from 
this Congress, our world is literally paying the price. As temperatures 
rise, our world suffers. In the United States, the glaciers in Glacier 
National Park are shrinking. The park's largest glaciers are one-third 
of their 1850s grandeur. The oceans are being altered. Ocean levels are 
rising, threatening coastlines far across the globe and here at home, 
including, in my State, the New Jersey seashore, where the very 
survival of the State's residents is at stake. Defense experts see 
security risks from global warming. A Pentagon report says that large 
populated countries could become nearly uninhabitable because of rising 
seas. Megadroughts could affect the world's breadbaskets, such as 
America's Midwest, and future wars could be fought over the issue of 
mere survival in this new climate.
  The American people sent us here to take real action and to confront 
these problems. We need to take some bold steps to reduce greenhouse 
gas emissions to match the research of the world's best scientists. 
This bill would be a critical step forward. It would reduce emissions 
by 15 percent by the year 2020 and by nearly 70 percent by the year 
2050.
  It will do so by placing a cap on our emissions and giving industry 
the flexibility it needs within a cap-and-trade system. We already know 
that a cap-and-trade system works. We used it in the 1990s to 
successfully combat acid rain, and we should be doing the same thing 
now to fight global warming.
  I ask my colleagues, please join us in taking this landmark step 
forward, and do not let politics interfere with our obligation to 
protect our families.
  As we move forward, we have to listen to those scientists who 
dedicate their lives to the pursuit of fact and truth, not raw 
politics. We have to make sure scientists in our country can freely do 
their work and tell the truth to the American people without having 
their research suppressed--suppressed--by a President and an 
administration with a political agenda.
  President Bush, his administration, and many here in Congress have 
squandered precious years, ignoring the reality of global warming. Even 
worse, they hindered and outright suppressed, as I mentioned, the work 
of Government scientists who were sounding the alarm about global 
warming's effect on our planet and all of us who inhabit it.
  The United States is expected to be a leader in the world. Yet, while 
the 2,500 scientists from 113 countries were collaborating on the most 
recent United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report 
on global warming, the President of the United States was still 
unwilling to hear the truth.
  The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report found that:

       Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.

  And human activity is to blame.
  Beyond the importance of what the report said is the fact that the 
report relied on uncensored, unaltered science to say so. In contrast 
to the integrity and accuracy of the IPCC report, the Bush 
administration has censored the conclusions of the U.S. scientists to 
advance a political agenda. The administration has blocked or delayed 
the release of Government reports on global warming. It has deleted key 
words such as ``global warming'' from public documents. And it has 
denied scientists the ability to freely discuss their conclusions with 
the public.
  Mr. Phil Cooney, the former Chief of Staff for the White House 
Council on Environmental Quality, was one of the architects of this 
campaign of scientific suppression.
  Mr. Cooney--not a scientist--weakened or edited out scientific 
judgments from Federal climate change reports. These changes made the 
threat of global warming seem less serious. In the 2002 climate change 
report ``Our Changing Planet,'' the original text read, ``Earth is 
undergoing a period of relatively rapid change.'' Mr. Cooney changed 
that to, ``Earth may be undergoing a period of rapid change''--totally 
altering the significance of this statement. Mr. Cooney later left the 
administration to go to work for ExxonMobil.
  In 2006, 13 other Senators joined me in asking the inspectors general 
of NOAA and NASA--both agencies--to investigate the Bush 
administration's suppression of science on global warming. The report 
from NASA just came out this week and found that political appointees 
in NASA's press shop had manipulated the work of scientists. The 
inspector general stated that political appointees at NASA had 
``reduced, marginalized, or mischaracterized climate change science 
made available to the general public.''

[[Page S5198]]

  It is incredible to believe. It is simply unacceptable for the 
greatest democracy in the world to stifle the findings of scientists 
for political and ideological reasons. It is common sense to listen to 
the best scientists in the world and to act on their research. And 
their research is telling us that global warming is getting worse and 
it is time for us to act.
  It is disappointing beyond words that our colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle are preventing us from moving forward with this bill. 
In this place--the Senate--and at this time, some Members of the Senate 
are putting special interests and politics ahead of the safety and 
well-being of our people. We have to act now, and this bill is the 
right place to start. We dare not let this time pass without action.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.

                          ____________________