[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 93 (Friday, June 6, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5333-S5349]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             LIEBERMAN-WARNER CLIMATE SECURITY ACT OF 2008

  Pending:

       Reid (for Boxer) amendment No. 4825, in the nature of a 
     substitute.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  On Page S5333, June 6, 2008, under Pending the following 
appears: REID amendment No. 4826 . . .
  
  The online record has been corrected to read: REID (for Boxer) 
amendment No. 4825, in the nature of a substitute.Reid amendment 
No. 4826 . . .


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 

       Reid amendment No. 4826 (to amendment No. 4825), to express 
     the sense of the Senate that the United States should address 
     global climate change through the negotiation of fair and 
     effective international commitments.
       Reid amendment No. 4827 (to amendment No. 4826), to express 
     the sense of the Senate that the United States should address 
     global climate change through the negotiation of fair and 
     effective international commitments.
       Reid amendment No. 4828 (to the language proposed to be 
     stricken by Reid (for Boxer amendment No. 4825), to provide 
     for the enactment date.
       Reid amendment No. 4829 (to amendment No. 4828), to change 
     the enactment date.
       Reid motion to commit the bill to the Committee on the 
     Environment and Public Works with instructions to report back 
     forthwith, with Reid amendment No. 4830, to provide for the 
     enactment date.
       Reid amendment No. 4831 (the instructions of the Reid 
     motion to commit), to change the enactment date.
       Reid amendment No. 4832 (to amendment No. 4831), to change 
     the enactment date.

                             cloture motion

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order and 
pursuant to rule XXII, the clerk will report the motion to invoke 
cloture.
  The assistant 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 debate on the substitute 
     amendment No. 4825 to S. 3036, the Lieberman-Warner Climate 
     Security Act.
         Barbara Boxer, John Warner, Joseph Lieberman, Tom Harkin, 
           Robert Menendez, Bill Nelson, Thomas R. Carper, Sheldon 
           Whitehouse, Charles E. Schumer, Frank R. Lautenberg, 
           Dianne Feinstein, Joseph R. Biden, Jr., John F. Kerry, 
           Robert P. Casey, Jr., Patrick J. Leahy, Richard Durbin, 
           Harry Reid.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. By unanimous consent, the mandatory 
quorum call is waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on 
amendment No. 4825 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.

[[Page S5334]]

  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), 
the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd), the Senator from New York 
(Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Conrad), the Senator 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. 
Obama) 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 Minnesota (Mr. Coleman), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), the 
Senator from Idaho (Mr. Craig), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. 
DeMint), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from 
New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), the 
Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Specter), and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Stevens).
  Further, if present and voting the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. 
DeMint) and the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn) would have voted 
``nay.''
  The Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Coleman) would have voted ``yea.''
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the 
Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 48, nays 36, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 145 Leg.]

                                YEAS--48

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Dodd
     Dole
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Martinez
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Smith
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Sununu
     Tester
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--36

     Alexander
     Allard
     Barrasso
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Corker
     Crapo
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Biden
     Byrd
     Clinton
     Coleman
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Craig
     DeMint
     Graham
     Gregg
     Kennedy
     McCain
     Murkowski
     Obama
     Specter
     Stevens
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. On this vote, the yeas are 48, the 
nays are 36. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not 
having voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. For everybody here, this will be the last vote today. We 
will have at least one vote in the morning on Tuesday, and perhaps 
multiple votes. So everybody will have to be here Tuesday morning. The 
votes will probably start at 10 o'clock in the morning.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Virginia is 
recognized.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wish to put in the Record a statement by 
Senator Coleman. He would have voted aye if he had been here today. I 
ask to have his statement printed in the Record.
 Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, we are in the middle of an energy 
crisis, and the only way we're going to get out of it is to 
dramatically transform how this country does energy.
  That is what the Lieberman-Warner climate bill does--it takes on one 
of the greatest economic and national security threats America faces 
today: our energy insecurity.
  Sometimes we must look around the mountain, we must look to our 
future and recognize where our path must lead. We must recognize that 
we need massive and speedy development of domestically produced clean 
energy sources.
  If we had committed to this bill 10 years ago, we wouldn't be in the 
tight spot we find ourselves in right now. We needed carbon capture 
technology for coal, increased nuclear power, cellulosic ethanol, and 
widespread renewable energy use yesterday.
  This year, nearly half a trillion of our dollars will be sent 
overseas for energy we are capable of producing at home. The fact is, 
we are being held hostage by a world oil market where much of the 
supply is controlled by thugs and tyrants like Ahmadinejad and Chavez. 
But, as we have found in Minnesota, we can grow our own fuel, and the 
potential of cellulosic ethanol to replace foreign oil makes today's 
renewable fuels production look small, but it still hasn't reached 
commercialization.
  Meanwhile, nuclear energy is an affordable, zero-emissions source of 
energy, yet we have not built a nuclear plant in this country in 30 
years.
  And, due to environmental concerns, it is increasingly difficult to 
utilize one of our greatest sources of energy in the country: coal. We 
have a 250 year supply of coal that we must find a way to use for 
energy production because one thing is certain--America's energy needs 
are only increasing.
  At the same time, we have abundant energy around us that has yet to 
be tapped. When I am fishing on a beautiful morning up in Lake Ada back 
home, the sunshine and steady breeze are a constant reminder of the 
renewable resources that we can harness to power our homes and 
businesses.
  The solutions to our energy woes are at our fingertips; it's time we 
grabbed hold of the great opportunity at hand and lead an energy 
revolution that will be the source for future security and increased 
opportunity for generations to come.
  But, we can't wait for this revolution to come to us. I am skeptical 
that we are just going to wake up one day and see cellulosic ethanol at 
the pump or see a nuclear energy renaissance or clean coal with carbon 
sequestration or widespread use of renewables, unless we take bold 
action.
  Mr. President, that's what this bill is about.
  The Climate Security Act empowers Americans to do what we must do, 
which is to transform our production of energy. It sets up a cap-and-
trade system, just as was done in the 1990 Clean Air Act to combat acid 
rain, that gives greenhouse gas producers flexibility in meeting their 
obligations through submission of allowances. Listening to some of the 
debate over this last week, one might think this bill is a windfall for 
the Federal Government, but what this bill really does is allocate 
these allowances to help the folks regulated in their transition to 
clean energy and to help energy consumers, both families and businesses 
with their energy costs. Just look at what happens in 2012, when the 
cap begins:
  Over 38 percent of allowances are given out for free to fossil-fired 
power plants, energy consumers, natural gas and petroleum facilities, 
carbon intensive manufacturing facilities, agriculture and forestry, 
and states that are manufacturing and coal reliant;
  Another 36 percent of allowances go to states and emitters to 
incentivize clean energy deployment and carbon sequestration; and
  The 25 percent of the allowances that the Government does ``auction'' 
go to programs that invest in our energy future by doing things like 
dramatically boosting clean coal technology, clean energy research and 
development, and worker training assistance.
  In particular, the bill provides record investment in clean coal, 
renewables, and cellulosic ethanol, including: $17 billion of support 
for carbon capture and storage technology for coal to kick start this 
technology, $120 billion in incentives for carbon capture and storage, 
and my CO2 pipeline study proposal; bonus allowances for 
renewable energy that I have strongly supported; $150 billion for 
renewable energy; $92 billion for low-carbon electricity technology; 
and $26 billion for production of cellulosic ethanol.
  But there is no doubt in revolutionizing our energy production, a 
transition will be required that won't come easy. That's why, from the 
time I cosponsored the first Lieberman-Warner proposal, I made clear 
that as we work on this legislation, we have to keep in mind the single 
mother in St. Paul working two jobs who can't afford higher energy 
prices and we must protect the economy and American jobs.

[[Page S5335]]

  I compliment Senators Lieberman and Warner for taking these concerns 
to heart. This substitute makes several critical changes from earlier 
drafts to assist poor and middle class families with energy prices and 
to protect jobs.
  First, this substitute dramatically increases the resources dedicated 
to help consumers, both families and businesses, with energy costs--
bringing the total assistance to $1.7 trillion. $800 million of this 
amount is targeted at a tax cut for low income Americans' energy costs. 
Meanwhile, this substitute increases by 40 percent the funding that 
will go to energy consumers through their utility bill, bringing this 
provision's assistance total to $900 billion.

  Secondly, this bill includes a new allowance trigger at between $22 
and $30 per allowance that provides an important off-ramp should costs 
become high. This trigger is critical because economic consequences 
escalate when the price of an allowance increases.
  Many of the high energy cost and GDP estimates cited on the floor 
this week have been taken from an EPA study that assumes an allowance 
price of at least $46 per allowance. Under this substitute, prices 
won't be allowed to get anywhere near that level.
  Finally, this bill places an allowance purchase requirement on 
importers of products like steel, chemicals, and other energy intensive 
products if a commission does not find that the country of origin is 
taking comparable action to curb greenhouse gases.
  There is a lot of concern that this bill will increase energy prices 
and hurt the economy. You will hear many of my colleagues cite studies 
with drastic cost increase numbers. While this substitute amendment, 
with the protections I just outlined, has yet to be analyzed, I believe 
much of the economic pain projected in some studies is overstated--even 
without the off-ramp.
  For instance, the independent Energy Information Agency found in 
their High Cost scenario that there is a predicted electricity price 
increase of 1.5 percent a year and a gas price increase of 2 cents per 
year. Meanwhile, EIA has projected less than half of one percent effect 
on GDP--again, this is before the off-ramp.
  I do want to commend Senators Lieberman and Warner for their work on 
this bill--they deserve much credit for taking this on, for pouring 
themselves into this very difficult, complex task--taking on one of the 
great challenges of our day.
  That's why I am so disappointed that we won't have a chance to 
consider this bill on the floor. Mr. President, the Clean Air Act took 
5 weeks, we have been given less than 5 days on a much more 
comprehensive piece of legislation. The process set up here robs us of 
an opportunity to take our energy crisis head on.
  I have supported the Lieberman-Warner effort as a cosponsor, and I 
continue to support this bill, but I have always made clear that I 
would work to improve the bill to protect Minnesota jobs. So, I have a 
few amendments, some that I am introducing, some I am cosponsoring that 
substantively improve this bill--many of these changes are very small, 
but the consequences of not including them will be very large in my 
state.
  Because of this process, I won't have the chance to offer my 
amendment to create a fuel assistance fund that will lower Federal fuel 
taxes by an amount equal to fuel price increases those driving cars and 
trucks and riding on airplanes have to pay as a result from this bill. 
This is an amendment to protect American consumers, it's common-sense, 
and it keeps the Highway Trust Fund and the Airport and Airways Trust 
Fund whole.
  I won't have a chance to amend the bill to ensure that my state's 
many waste-to-energy facilities are considered renewable. This is a 
small change, but without it, we could disadvantage an important clean 
energy technology.
  This bill needs a nuclear energy title. We need to boost tax 
incentives for nuclear power plants and improve the existing loan 
guarantee program. We need to train a workforce for the nuclear 
renaissance that we'll need to meet our energy needs.
  Meanwhile, we need to restore the transition assistance for rural 
electric cooperatives that was included in earlier drafts of the bill, 
and we need to exempt steel process emissions as there is no feasible 
technological alternative to using carbon to produce iron ore. If these 
process emissions aren't excluded, we're going to send steel jobs 
overseas.
  These amendments are designed to work within the structure of this 
bill, to augment it, to remove negative impacts that could hit 
Minnesotans--they deserve to be considered.
  Mr. President, the challenge we face in solving our energy security 
problems is great, but for the folks who don't think America can meet 
this challenge, I would like to remind them of the fight we had over 
the first Renewable Fuels Standard, RFS, just a few years ago. I worked 
with a bipartisan cast of colleagues to pass the first RFS in 2005, and 
at the time, it was criticized as onerous and too ambitious.
  We thought we were aiming high by passing a 7.5 billion gallon 
renewable fuels requirement by 2012. Today, in 2008, we have the 
renewable fuel production capacity of 8.5 billion gallons--we have far 
out surpassed expectations of production at the time.
  Driving around Minnesota's countryside, I have witnessed the source 
of this overwhelming success--local entrepreneurs, innovators, and 
visionaries. And, the Minnesotans who have built our renewable fuels 
industry, which contributes over $5 billion to the State's economy, 
have transformed their local economies. The government sent the market 
a strong signal, and the American people responded.
  Mr. President, the time for an energy revolution is long overdue. We 
cannot afford delay, and it is my hope that we will be provided the 
time we need to consider and pass this critical bill in the near 
future.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the Lieberman-
Warner Climate Security Act. I am deeply grateful that we are at last 
beginning to address an issue that goes to the heart of our security, 
our economy, our ingenuity and our leadership in the world: Climate 
change.
  Over the course of this debate, I have no doubt that some will 
continue to argue that the science of global warming remains 
``inconclusive''--that there is simply too much uncertainty to take any 
sort of action.
  But before we even go into the science of global warming, let us 
consider all that is quite certain today because of our dependence on 
fossil fuels.
  We can start with our national security, which is compromised because 
we import oil to the tune of $300 billion every year, much of it from 
the most unstable countries in the world, a great many of whom are no 
friends to America.
  We can then examine how this dependence puts our economy at risk, as 
families and businesses struggle with ever-rising gas prices that now 
top $4 per gallon, impacting our economic security and competitiveness 
alike.
  We can also look at the public health implications, as asthma rates 
soar, disease spreads to new regions and the developing world 
experiences increases in climate-sensitive diseases, such as malaria, 
malnutrition--diseases that acutely threaten children.
  There is also the rise in extreme weather incidents of Katrina-like 
ferocity that have increasingly become not the exception but the rule.
  And finally, we can reflect on our waning moral leadership in the 
world, due at least in part because of this administration's stubborn 
insistence on abandoning the Kyoto Protocol entirely.
  They didn't propose ways for the United States to improve a flawed 
but noble effort important to virtually every other nation in the 
civilized world. Nor did they demonstrate any commitment whatsoever on 
our part to leading the world in alternative energy production.
  Instead, they simply let the problem fall to the next administration. 
They picked up their chair and went home.
  Whatever else you think about the science of climate change, surely 
you must agree that American families have paid a price for our failure 
to act on these many related issues.
  But I would immediately add, on the fundamental question of whether 
climate change is real and whether human actions are responsible, there 
can be no debate.
  The Intergovernmental Panel on Global Warming, an international panel 
composed of hundreds of the

[[Page S5336]]

most respected scientists in the world, conducted a comprehensive study 
of available climate change data.
  And what they found was unequivocal. The IPCC concluded that, and I 
quote, ``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.''
  In plain English, virtually the entire scientific community agrees on 
two points--one, that temperatures are rising because of greenhouse gas 
emissions, and two, that such increases are caused by human activity.
  And so, let us be very clear: global warming is real, and we are 
causing it. It is not in question. And it is a very big problem for all 
of us.
  Yet even still, some continue to push back. Some acknowledge the 
science behind climate change but argue we cannot take action because 
of the threat it poses to our economy.
  They present us with what I believe is a false choice:
  That we can choose environmental responsibility or economic 
prosperity, but not both.
  I completely and emphatically disagree.
  Our dependence on foreign oil and fossil fuels may pose some of our 
biggest problems. But breaking that dependence offers us the single 
greatest opportunity for a brighter, more secure future.
  How is that possible?
  Because if so many problems can stem from a single source--and in the 
case of energy, they surely do--then it is only logical that if we deal 
with that problem, we can begin meeting those challenges as well.
  We can begin creating a stronger, more prosperous America that relies 
not on politically fragile corners of the globe for its security, but 
on the ingenuity of America's small businesses and university 
laboratories.
  A stronger, more prosperous America that uses its abundant economic 
resources not to perpetuate anti-American sentiment abroad but to 
create jobs here at home--from the construction of energy efficient 
buildings and renewable energy power plants to an auto industry that 
builds cars that lead the world in fuel efficiency.
  An America that charges not simply our cities with helping us achieve 
these goals but also rural communities across the country. That is not 
only a stronger, more prosperous America; it is one more Americans get 
to be a part of.
  As such, I believe we can no longer wait to move to quickly reduce 
America's greenhouse gas emissions in a comprehensive way. That is why 
I have supported cap-and-trade proposals in the past, and I will 
continue to do so, because they offer a way for America to begin 
tackling global warming.
  But I believe there is a more promising solution that too often gets 
lost in these debates: A carbon tax, a fee placed on each ton of carbon 
dioxide emitted from fossil fuels.
  Such a solution has been endorsed by everyone from NASA scientist 
James Hansen and former Secretary of the Treasury Lawrence Summers to 
conservative Harvard economist N. Gregory Mankiw, President George W. 
Bush's former chief economic advisor.
  Even Ronald Reagan's Secretary of State, George Schulze, has voiced 
support for the idea. All agree it is the most efficient way to address 
the climate problem.
  The idea is simple. We already know how much carbon is emitted from 
the burning of various fossil fuels, and we already collect the data we 
need to figure out how much to tax each sale of fossil fuels. As such, 
all that we would need to do to impose a carbon tax is set a price for 
a ton of carbon. That price would increase over time, leading to 
decreased carbon emissions as the cost of using dirty fossil fuels 
overtakes the cost of investing in clean, renewable technologies.
  I know ``new taxes'' have been anathema to American politics for 
years. But a carbon tax eliminates the last incentive there is to 
pollute because it is cheaper.
  A carbon tax would reduce carbon emissions much more efficiently than 
a cap-and-trade program. The Congressional Budget Office said as much, 
finding that ``available research suggests that in the near term, the 
net benefits . . . of a tax could be roughly five times greater than 
the net benefits of an inflexible cap.
  Put another way, a given long-term emission-reduction target could be 
met by a tax at a fraction of the cost of an inflexible cap-and-trade 
program.''
  Why? Because a tax provides the kind of long-term predictability for 
the price of emissions a carbon allowance would not. It allows 
companies to more effectively plan over the long-term how they could 
most cost-effectively reduce emissions.
  Additionally, a carbon tax could be much more easily administered and 
overseen than a cap-and-trade program because the administrative 
infrastructure already exists to levy taxes on the upstream sources of 
fossil fuels, with their carbon contents known quantities as well.
  Unlike cap and trade, which would require a complex new 
administrative structure to oversee and regulate the carbon market, we 
don't have to start from scratch.
  In my view, a carbon tax is a critical piece of the debate over 
global warming, and I look forward to engaging with Chairwoman Boxer 
and my other colleagues in making part of this discussion. If for no 
other reason than the short window of time with which we have to 
address this problem before it is too late, it must be.
  Allow me also to briefly address some other issues raised by the 
Lieberman-Warner bill.
  I appreciate all that Chairwoman Boxer and her colleagues on the EPW 
Committee have done to take care of low-income consumers who will 
struggle with rising energy prices and the increased cost of consumer 
goods. The steps taken in this bill are certainly a good start.
  However, I am concerned that we could be delivering rebates to low-
income consumers more efficiently than we do in this legislation. 
Already, nearly 3,000 of the 5,400 households in my State who qualify 
for heating assistance are exhausting their benefits in the dead of 
winter every year.
  We cannot put seniors and low-income households in the position of 
having to stretch tight household budgets to the breaking point simply 
to heat their homes, drive to work and put food on the table.
  I look forward to working with Chairwoman Boxer and others to make 
sure our most vulnerable citizens are taken care of, which I know is as 
high a priority for her as it is the rest of us.
  Lastly, I want to say a word about public transportation which falls 
within the jurisdiction of the Banking Committee. Given that the 
transportation sector is responsible for a third of all U.S. greenhouse 
gas emissions, clearly we need to direct significant resources toward 
public transit, which reduces the number of cars on the road.
  While I thank Chairwoman Boxer as well as Senators Lieberman and 
Warner for recognizing transit's importance in this bill, I do believe 
more needs to be done, and I look forward to working with them to make 
that possible.
  Ultimately, I believe this bill represents an important first step 
toward grappling with what may prove to be the defining challenge of 
our age. And if we meet this challenge, it could mean the difference 
between rural America being left behind by the 21st century economy or 
becoming the engine that drives it.
  It may be the difference between small businesses being burdened by 
energy costs or finding innovative ways to drive them down.
  It may well be our very best chance to give our children and 
grandchildren the future of hope, prosperity, and optimism I know we 
all want to give them.
  I thank the Chair for this opportunity, yield the floor, and look 
forward to this debate continuing in the coming weeks and months.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, today I share with my colleagues some 
thoughts regarding how to reduce worldwide greenhouse gas emissions and 
a few key benchmarks I believe should be included in a national 
strategy to address this environmental and economic security challenge.
  The scientific evidence linking the effects of man-made releases of 
carbon dioxide and the warming of the Earth's climate is clear. In 
2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

[[Page S5337]]

Change analyzed the science on climate change and concluded with high 
probability that the Earth is dramatically warming and that the 
atmospheric concentration of CO2 is at the highest level in 
400,000 years. To forestall the most significant effects of predicted 
changes in the world's climate over the next 50 years, the United 
States and other major emitting nations must begin to transition to a 
low-carbon economy. Although South Dakota may avoid the direct 
consequences of rising sea levels or more powerful storms caused by 
climate change, in many other respects my State is vulnerable to 
changes in the Earth's temperature. More frequent and severe droughts 
would dramatically harm the State's economy. The loss of productive 
farmland, denuded pastureland, and scarce ground and surface water 
supplies are probable under the current scientific modeling on a 
warming planet. The Prairie Pothole Region, which is partially located 
in my State, and is the most important duck and geese habitat in North 
America, is threatened by the effects of climate change. These changes, 
if borne out in the next generation, would have significant and severe 
economic consequences for my State.
  Understanding clearly the probable environmental harm from taking no 
action, I support a mandatory, nationwide program that limits 
greenhouse gas emissions. I have voted in support of a nationwide plan 
previously because it is important to reach agreement and understanding 
on the complicated legislative, regulatory and economic choices from a 
nationwide strategy.
  With the strong, peer-reviewed scientific conclusions linking climate 
change to human caused greenhouse gas emissions, the future uncertainty 
and cost of a nationwide program to reduce these emissions challenge 
our path to producing the optimal bill. We need to take strong steps 
with an early no regrets policy of action. Over the longer-term, 
addressing this problem will require changes in how we produce and use 
energy. It is realistic to expect such a plan to have costs. Transiting 
to lower carbon forms of energy production not yet commercially 
deployable could increase the price of producing energy. Creating 
policies and incentives that contain those costs over the next several 
decades to lessen impacts to consumers is a key concern of mine.
  A nationwide plan that caps greenhouse gas emissions must make room 
for the expansion of traditional fossil fuel generation sources to meet 
growing energy demand. I am a strong supporter of renewable energy--
biofuels, wind and solar energy can and should make up an increasingly 
greater share of our country's energy mix. I support a mandatory, 
nationwide renewable electricity standard to increase the amount of 
renewable electricity produced from less than 5 percent currently to a 
requirement of 15 percent in the next 10 years. However, we need the 
full suite of energy resources and that includes natural gas and coal. 
In my State, we have a diverse mix of energy resources, including 
hydropower, wind, natural gas and coal-fired generation. To keep that 
available and cost-competitive mix of fuels, a mandatory greenhouse gas 
reduction program must be linked to an aggressive and dedicated source 
of funding for reducing the emissions from conventional energy sources. 
Carbon capture and sequester is a path forward to keep coal as a fuel 
source, but reduce harmful CO2 emissions. Commercially 
deployable CCS technology is not yet available. It will take several 
more years and billions of dollars in research and testing to develop 
the right types of CCS processes that separate CO2 from the 
emissions stream. Accordingly, it is important to try to link 
reductions from existing sources with the likely path of technology 
development. Is it possible to completely match up reduction targets 
with technology development? Probably not. Technology develops at an 
inconsistently timed pace. Nonetheless, a plan that includes an 
unrealistically optimistic emissions reduction schedule that does not 
meet up with the resources for next-generation emission reduction 
technologies will break the program and hamper our efforts to reduce 
greenhouse gas emissions.
  Part of the solution to this challenge resides in ensuring that 
incumbent as well as new entrant fossil fuel generators can manage 
price and emission reductions and have the resources to invest in new, 
low-emitting technologies. Allowance distribution should, as one 
factor, take into consideration historic emissions in allocating 
emission allowances. A limited and tightly controlled auction and other 
distribution calculations can be incorporated into this framework, but 
if we don't get this part of the program right it could swamp our 
efforts in other parts of the economy to wring carbon from the 
production process.
  The good news is that South Dakotans can bring our strengths to 
contributing to the solution of a low carbon and economically strong 
America. Farmers, ranchers and forestland owners can play an important 
role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Agriculture practices and 
land management decisions that sequester carbon dioxide are cheap and 
efficient ways to comply with the requirements of a nationwide and 
mandatory program. The use of limited offsets and the flexibility of 
producers and landowners to get credit for past, current and future 
action target an incentive that eases costs for other sectors of the 
economy while at the same time creating an income stream for rural 
America. A ton of carbon sequestered, verified, and accounted is as 
powerful as reducing a ton of carbon from the smokestack of an electric 
utility or the smelter from a manufacturing facility. There is a strong 
coalition of Senators who believe that a vigorous offset program should 
be part of a comprehensive climate bill. Properly administered, offsets 
lower costs and improve compliance which is why I am confident that 
such a plan strengthens the objectives of a low carbon economy.
  Mr. President, I feel confident the Congress can come together and 
address these challenges. Those deniers of the problem who throw up 
obstacles and simply say no to any and all avenues for action will find 
themselves increasingly marginalized and ineffective as the American 
people demand a serious response to a serious problem. My objectives 
and concerns should be viewed as a way to make an eventual policy more 
equitable and efficient. The consequences of taking no action are dire 
and simply unacceptable. Although the Congress will not find consensus 
this year on tackling the problem, I am glad that the Senate has 
started a much needed debate on this issue and count myself in the vast 
majority of citizens who feel we have the capability to curtail the 
effects of climate change.
   (At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to 
be printed in the Record.)
 Mr. Byrd. Mr. President, the Constitution places the power of 
the purse squarely in the hands of Congress. The Lieberman-Warner 
climate security bill and the Boxer substitute to it, however, thwart 
the Constitution and longstanding tradition by shifting much spending 
power to the executive branch. In order to protect Congress's 
constitutional role to make spending decisions, I have introduced an 
amendment, cosponsored by Senators Murray, Dorgan, Leahy, Durbin, 
Feinstein, and Mikulski.
  Enacting this climate change legislation in its current form would 
vest unelected executive branch boards and agencies with unprecedented 
discretion on Federal spending in excess of more than $1.4 trillion in 
new and existing Federal programs over a span of 38 years.
  Rather than Congress making decisions on funding and conducting 
oversight of Federal programs as intended by the Constitution, much of 
these responsibilities would be in the hands of the executive branch 
agencies.
  In one specific case, the burden would be on Congress to stop 
executive branch decisions on Federal spending related to climate 
change initiatives. The Climate Change Technology Board would simply 
have to notify congressional committees 60 days in advance of a funding 
distribution for a range of energy technology programs. The money would 
be spent unless Congress could pass a law, signed by the President, to 
stop it. Effectively, the Senate could only stop the spending if it 
could muster 67 votes.
  The legislation would not expire until 2050, meaning that the 
executive branch would go unchecked on spending decisions related to 
climate change

[[Page S5338]]

initiatives for 38 years. Our Founding Fathers clearly did not intend 
for Congress to relinquish the power of the purse to any President for 
any issue--and certainly not for nearly four decades on such a crucial 
and timely issue.
  The clock is certainly ticking for America to take more responsible 
action on the global climate security challenge. Congress should retain 
its active role in funding and oversight of climate security programs, 
as it does for every other Federal program. It would be irresponsible 
to concentrate such power in the executive branch and then sit on the 
side lines watching as Federal agencies take action without a 
congressional check.
  There is concern that the new funds raised in this bill through the 
auctioning of emissions allowances should be spent on the measures 
authorized in this bill to address climate change. Some may worry that 
our amendment would allow these new receipts to just sit in the 
Treasury and not get spent on their intended purpose. That is simply 
not the case.
  Our amendment, No. 4920, addresses that concern head-on by granting 
these receipts special budget treatment and requiring that they be 
allocated only to the specified purposes and programs authorized in 
this climate change bill. The Committee on Appropriations would 
continue its rightful role in allocating these funds.
  Under this approach--known as ``offsetting collections''--the amounts 
are appropriated annually in appropriations acts for the specific 
purposes allowed under the authorization act, but those appropriations 
are paid for by the auction receipts collected pursuant to the Boxer 
substitute. The receipts serve to offset the cost of the appropriation.
  The ``offsetting collections'' model has worked successfully in the 
past. It has given the authorizing committees that have raised new fees 
the comfort that their new revenues would be spent on their intended 
purpose. At the same time, it has given the Committee on Appropriations 
the ability to continually oversee the spending of these funds and 
ensure that they are spent responsibly.
  For example, the Appropriations Committee has successfully 
coordinated this approach with the Commerce Committee for new receipts 
that were established after the September 11 tragedy for the costs of 
the Transportation Security Administration. Every penny of the security 
fees that were newly established in the Aviation and Transportation 
Security Act have been appropriated annually by my Homeland Security 
Appropriations Subcommittee Act and only for the purposes specified in 
the authorizing law.
  The purpose of our amendment is not to put a roadblock to these funds 
being spent. To the contrary, it is to keep honor with the intent of 
Chairman Boxer and her legislation while simultaneously keeping honor 
with the Constitution of the United States and the role of the 
legislative branch.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, there have been several companies, 
organizations, unions, and environmental groups that have come out 
against this bill by sending letters urging Senators to vote no on the 
legislation. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
these letters signed by the following groups:

       Duke Energy, National Association of Manufacturers, U.S. 
     Chamber of Commerce, United Auto Workers, Farm Bureau, and 
     the United Mine Workers of America.

  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                  Farm Bureau,

                                                     May 30, 2008.
       Dear Senator: The full Senate is expected to debate climate 
     change legislation, S.2191, the Lieberman-Warner Climate 
     Security Act, during the week of June 2. We also expect that 
     there will be a Boxer substitute amendment that will be the 
     focus of the debate. The American Farm Bureau Federation 
     urges you to oppose the substitute.
       Agriculture can play a significant role in addressing 
     climate change by reducing and sequestering carbon through 
     tillage practices, manure and soil management, and other 
     practices. These practices can also help to offset the 
     emissions reductions imposed by cap and trade legislation, 
     thereby reducing the costs of the bill to regulated 
     industries and to consumers. The Boxer amendment fails to 
     recognize these benefits that agriculture can provide.
       While establishing a domestic offset market, the bill fails 
     to assure that domestic offsets will be available. It leaves 
     the decision whether to allow any agricultural offsets at 
     all, and which to allow, at the sole discretion of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency. The bill establishes an 
     artificial cap of 15 percent on the number of domestic 
     offsets available, and further provides that any unfilled 
     portion of that amount may be filled by international 
     offsets. The cap on agricultural offsets stifles efforts of 
     producers to reduce or sequester carbon, and the cap on 
     offsets also increases the economic impacts of the 
     legislation on businesses and consumers.
       The bill also stifles development of agricultural reduction 
     or sequestration projects by creating uncertainty as to 
     whether projects will even be approved for the offset market. 
     The bill requires any project to be completed first and the 
     carbon reduction or sequestration benefits be verified before 
     a decision to approve is made. This uncertainty creates a 
     disincentive for project managers and buyers of offsets to 
     enter into carbon reduction projects if they might not be 
     approved as offsets.
       Many agricultural practices that reduce or sequester carbon 
     also have other environmental benefits. For example, reduced 
     tillage practices have soil erosion control and water quality 
     benefits in addition to sequestering carbon. By requiring 
     that projects may not be approved as offsets unless their 
     sole purpose is to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG), the bill 
     disqualifies many otherwise worthwhile projects that have 
     collateral environmental benefits, and may discourage the 
     development of these multi-benefit projects.
       Finally, unilateral carbon mandates by the United States 
     that impose cost increases on American producers without a 
     corresponding and similar commitment from other countries 
     such as China, India or Brazil, among others, puts American 
     producers at a significant competitive trade disadvantage. 
     Any benefits from reduced GHG emissions by the United States 
     will be minimal if other countries continue to emit as usual.
       Agriculture can play an important role in reducing and 
     sequestering carbon, and thereby ease the costs to industry 
     and to society of compliance with emission reductions. Its 
     role must be fully recognized in any climate change 
     legislation. The Boxer substitute fails to recognize this and 
     provides no assurances that agriculture will have any 
     opportunity to mitigate the obvious increased costs of this 
     legislation. We urge you to oppose it.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Bob Stallman,
     President.
                                  ____



                                      Duke Energy Corporation,

                                      Charlotte, NC, June 2, 2008.
       Dear Senator: I appreciate the tough decisions you may be 
     called on to make in the next several days as climate change 
     legislation comes to the Senate floor for, what I hope will 
     be, a healthy debate. I am grateful for the courtesy you've 
     extended Duke Energy and me personally in allowing us to make 
     our case for a fair climate bill that benefits the 
     environment without penalizing the customer.
       As you are well aware, Duke Energy has been a strong 
     supporter of enacting a mandatory, economy-wide greenhouse 
     gas cap-and-trade program. As this issue has continued to 
     develop over the last several years we have taken a 
     leadership role in working with a wide group of affected 
     stakeholders on both sides of the debate to try and find 
     common ground and move this issue forward. I think we have 
     made progress in that regard, and I am confident more will be 
     made in the months ahead.
       But we have said from the beginning that, as important as 
     it is for Congress to act on climate change, it is just as 
     important that Congress get it right. In our view, the 
     legislation Senator Boxer plans to offer on the Senate floor 
     does not meet that test. Its provisions, as written, would 
     impose excessive and unfair costs on our customers which, in 
     our view, would unnecessarily disrupt the regional and 
     national economies.
       While costs cannot be a reason for inaction, they must be 
     part of the decision making process. Our country will require 
     time as we transition to a low-carbon economy and Congress 
     must find effective ways to cushion that transition, which is 
     particularly important for customers in states that depend 
     heavily on fossil fuel generation. Senator Boxer's amendment 
     makes some progress in trying to mitigate these economic 
     concerns, but it does not go far enough to ensure against 
     substantial electricity price increases on Day 1 of the 
     program. Customers in the 25 states whose generation is more 
     than 50 percent coal-fired will pay a disproportionate share 
     of these higher costs.
       As previous successful cap-and-trade programs have shown, 
     there are more effective ways to achieve our environmental 
     goals, while keeping costs low. Providing transitional 
     allowances to fossil generators based on and equal to 
     historic emissions proved to be a win-win for customers and 
     the environment under the Acid Rain Program and Duke believes 
     this approach would have the same results under carbon 
     legislation.
       If the measure to be debated were enacted into law, costs 
     to the average household, especially in those 25 coal-based 
     states, would increase rather quickly because a significant 
     number of emission allowances would have to be purchased 
     through an auction at a fluctuating price. These costs to 
     consumers would be in addition to increased costs for the 
     capital investments required for actually

[[Page S5339]]

     lowering carbon emissions. The additional charges paid by 
     these customers to buy allowances will not lower carbon 
     emissions by one ounce, but will have a profound economic 
     impact on their everyday lives.
       In 2007 Duke Energy provided electricity to more than 3.7 
     million homes in South Carolina, North Carolina, Ohio, 
     Indiana, and Kentucky. More than 20 percent of these homes 
     had a combined income of less than $25,000 a year, with 7 
     percent earning less than $10,000 a year. These families are 
     already struggling due to higher prices for other goods and 
     commodities and it is unfair and unnecessary to require them 
     to fund a substantial portion of the climate program through 
     increased energy bills. And while there are provisions 
     contained within the bill to assist low-income families with 
     their energy bills, it is somewhat disingenuous to tell them 
     they will get a rebate when they get back only a fraction of 
     what they put in.
       As I have stated before, addressing climate change should 
     be a transition from where we are today to where we need to 
     be tomorrow. The program will not work if it is based on the 
     premise that there needs to be an immediate upheaval of our 
     current infrastructure base. Instead, legislation will work 
     if its intent is to build the foundation to transition our 
     economy to a low-carbon environment.
       Even without a national climate change policy Duke Energy 
     is implementing steps to lower its carbon footprint. We 
     continue to invest in energy efficiency and over the next 
     five years plan to invest approximately $23 billion (almost 
     equal to our current market cap) to make our entire system 
     more efficient, retire inefficient plants and increase our 
     renewable energy portfolio. These investments show Duke 
     Energy's commitment to addressing climate change. But, this 
     transition will take time and cannot be accomplished 
     overnight.
       While it is unfortunate that Duke Energy cannot support the 
     current climate change measure, we remain committed to being 
     a constructive part of the debate as this issue moves 
     forward. Strong leadership will be required to pass 
     legislation that protects our environment, protects our 
     economy and protects our customers and I look forward to 
     working with you to make this a reality.
           Sincerely,
                                                  James E. Rogers,
     Chairman, President and CEO.
                                  ____

                            National Association of Manufacturers,
                                     Washington, DC, June 3, 2008.
     Hon. James M. Inhofe,
     U.S. Senate, Senate Russell Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Inhofe: On behalf of the National Association 
     of Manufacturers (NAM), the nation's largest industrial trade 
     association representing manufacturers in every industrial 
     sector and in all 50 states, I urge you to oppose S. 3036, 
     the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act, as introduced.
       The NAM understands the importance of environmental 
     stewardship. Our member companies are committed to pursuing 
     reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, provided that 
     any commitments made by the United States are mirrored by 
     comparable commitments by our trading partners, are based on 
     sound science and cost-effectiveness, and are applied equally 
     throughout the economy.
       The NAM opposes S. 3036's nationwide cap-and-trade program 
     because it:
       Does not pre-empt conflicting state and local climate 
     change laws and/or regulations;
       Imposes major new requirements on businesses without 
     sufficiently protecting U.S. competitiveness or funding the 
     research, development and commercial deployment of essential 
     new technologies;
       Omits ``safety valve'' provisions that are key to ensuring 
     cost containment;
       Is limited in scope and does not include all sectors of the 
     economy;
       Unnecessarily increases demand on natural gas, driving up 
     energy costs and job losses;
       Does not adequately promote global participation; and
       Creates a multitude of conflicting and duplicative 
     regulations for manufacturers.
       The NAM, in cooperation with the American Council for 
     Capital Formation, commissioned a study earlier this year to 
     assess the potential economic impacts of the Lieberman-Warner 
     legislation. The study concluded that, if adopted, the 
     legislation by 2030 could lead to net national employment 
     losses of up to 4 million jobs, electricity price increases 
     of up to 129 percent, gasoline price increases of up to 145 
     percent and a loss of household income of up to $6,752 per 
     year.
       Manufacturers are committed to working with Congress to 
     establish sensible and responsible federal climate change 
     policies that reduce GHG emissions, but these policies must 
     maintain a competitive playing field for American companies. 
     S. 3036 fails this test, and we oppose its passage. We will 
     be closely evaluating amendments that affect U.S. 
     manufacturers and workers and will be communicating our views 
     on these amendments prior to their final consideration.
       The NAM's Key Vote Advisory Committee has indicated that 
     votes on S. 3036, including votes on related amendments or 
     procedural motions, merit designation as Key Manufacturing 
     Votes.
       Thank you for your consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Jay Timmons,
     Executive Vice President.
                                  ____



                               United Mine Workers of America,

                                        Fairfax, VA, May 27, 2008.
     Re: S. 2191

     Hon. Barbara Boxer,
     Chair, Environment and Public Works Committee, Senate Dirksen 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. James Inhofe,
     Ranking Minority Member, Environment and Public Works 
         Committee, Senate Dirksen Office Building, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Senators Boxer and Inhofe: As President of the United 
     Mine Workers of America (UMWA), I am writing to explain why 
     we do not support S. 2191, the Lieberman-Warner Climate 
     Security Act of 2008.
       The UMWA has participated in the global climate change 
     debate for more than 15 years, both domestically and abroad 
     as an NGO at all major negotiating sessions of the U.N. 
     Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC). Last July, we 
     were pleased to join the AFL-CIO and many of our labor 
     colleagues in endorsing the bipartisan Bingaman-Specter bill, 
     S. 1766.
       Our support for S. 1766 reflected our agreement with its 
     emission reduction targets and timetables provisions to 
     accelerate the commercialization of carbon capture and 
     sequestration (CCS) technology, and projected moderate 
     impacts on the U.S. economy overall, and on coal utilization 
     in the electric utility sector. Recent analyses by EPA and 
     EIA confirm our judgment in this regard.
       We met with Committee staff during the development of S. 
     2191, expressing our deep concerns about the Bill's overly 
     aggressive targets and timetables for near-term reductions, 
     particularly the magnitude of reductions required by 2020, It 
     is not feasible to deploy CCS technology on a large-scale 
     basis by that time. With the economy-wide emission trading 
     system employed by S. 2191, the electric utility and coal 
     industries would bear the brunt of the adverse economic and 
     job impacts associated with compliance. EIA's recent analysis 
     shows that over time, these adverse impacts will spread 
     across our manufacturing and industrial base.
       The severity of these impacts cannot be justified on 
     environmental grounds in light of EPA's analysis of the 
     comparative global CO2 concentrations resulting 
     from alternative climate change bills before the Senate. In 
     essence, there is no significant difference among these bills 
     measured in terms of future atmospheric concentrations of 
     CO2.
       The world's ability to stabilize future global 
     CO2 concentrations--the long-term goal of the U.N. 
     FCCC--depends overwhelmingly upon the willingness of major 
     developing economies like India, China, Brazil and Mexico to 
     accept meaningful commitments to reduce their future rate of 
     emissions. The magnitude of their commitments will not be 
     evident until the conclusion of the Copenhagen negotiations 
     scheduled for December 2009.
       We appreciate the efforts that you and the Committee have 
     made to accommodate labor's interests in the initial bill, 
     the Committee mark-up, and the Manager's Amendment. CCS bonus 
     allowances, provision for Davis-Bacon compliance, inclusion 
     of the IBEW-AEP trade provisions from S. 1766, a limited 
     cost-containment ``off-ramp'' and additional technology 
     incentives are welcome additions. However, these measures do 
     not mitigate the severe adverse impacts that S. 2191 would 
     have on American workers, primarily due to the unrealistic 
     schedule of emissions reductions required by 2020, just 12 
     years from now.

                       Impact on Coal Utilization

       Both EPA and EIA's analyses of S. 2191 indicate that U.S. 
     coal production for electric generation would be sharply 
     reduced due to the concentration of emission reductions in 
     the utility sector, in turn reflecting the low availability 
     of CCS technology when the 2020 reductions are required. 
     Emission reductions in the transport sector are minimal in 
     comparison.
       The table below summarizes EIA's findings for electricity 
     generated by coal and natural gas under its business-as-usual 
     Reference Case, Core S. 2191 case, and ``Limited 
     Alternatives'' case for 2020 and 2030. ElA's core case 
     assumes that nuclear generation will triple by 2030. The 
     limited alternatives case constrains coal-based CCS, new 
     nuclear power, and renewables generation to reference case 
     levels.

                                                       EIA S. 2191 PROJECTIONS OF COAL AND NATURAL GAS ELECTRIC GENERATION, 2020 AND 2030
                                                                      [Billions of kilowatt-hours and pct. chg. from 2006]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    2006          2020 Ref. Case     2020 Core Case    2020 Ltd. Alter.    2030 Ref. Case     2030 Core Case    2030 Ltd. Alter.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coal.......................................................              1,988              2,357              1,890              1,606              2,838                703                703
                                                             .................               +19%                -5%               -19%               +20%               -65%               -65%
N. Gas.....................................................                806                833                761              1,094                741                427              1,558

[[Page S5340]]

 
                                                             .................                +3%                -6%               +36%                -8%               -47%              +93%
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: DOE/EIA, n.2, Table ES2.

       These findings, showing a 65% reduction in coal use in both 
     the core and limited alternatives cases from 2006 levels, 
     underscore our concerns about the lopsided impacts of S. 2191 
     on our members. We also note the potential for huge increases 
     in the demand for natural gas in the limited alternatives 
     case, with adverse implications for other industries and 
     consumers dependent on scarce gas resources. If EIA's core 
     case assumptions about the robust growth of nuclear power 
     proved optimistic, utilities would have little choice but to 
     switch from coal to natural gas on a massive, unprecedented 
     scale.
       EPA's results are consistent with EIA's findings. EPA 
     projects that coal production for electric generation would 
     decline from 1.1 billion tons in 2010 to less than 800 
     million tons in 2020, and to less than 700 million tons by 
     2025--a reduction of nearly 40% from 2010 production. 
     Electricity prices are forecast to increase 44% by 2030, 
     assuming that allowance cost can be partially passed through 
     to consumers.
       EPA attributes the disproportionate concentration of 
     emission reductions in S. 2191 within the utility sector to 
     the ``relatively modest indirect price signal an upstream cap 
     and trade program sends to the transportation sector.'' EIA's 
     analysis of the distribution of CO2 emissions 
     expected in 2020 and 2030 under its core case and five 
     alternative cases shows a similar disproportionate impact on 
     the electric power sector.

               Manufacturing and Other Industrial Sectors

       Higher electricity and other fuel costs would depress 
     demand for industrial output and result in job losses across 
     of the economy. EIA's analysis compares the reduction of the 
     value of industrial shipments (excluding services) for S. 
     2191 and S. 1766, as summarized below for the S. 2191 core 
     and limited alternatives cases:

                      IMPACTS OF S. 2191 AND S. 1766 ON INDUSTRIAL SHIPMENTS, 2020 and 2030
                        [In billions of 2000 dollars and pct. change from reference case]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        2020 Core Case    2020 Ltd. Alter.    2030 Core Case    2030 Ltd. Alter.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S. 2191.............................              -$100              -$153              -$233              -$354
                                                  -1.4%              -2.1%              -2.9%              -4.4%
S. 1766 Update......................               -$55               n.a.              -$139               n.a.
                                                  -0.8%  .................              -1.7%  .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: DOE/EIA, n. 2, Table 4.

       The adverse impacts of the Bingaman-Specter bill on 
     industrial shipments (and by implication, on industrial 
     employment) are roughly one-half those projected for the S. 
     2191 core case, and one-third those for the limited 
     alternatives case.
       At 2002 productivity rates, each U.S. manufacturing worker 
     produced shipments or sales receipts of some $266,000 
     annually. At this rate, one billion dollars of reduced 
     manufacturing output translates to approximately 3,750 direct 
     job losses. A loss of $354 billion of industrial shipments 
     could represent the loss of 1.3 million jobs. Multiplier 
     effects for indirect job losses are typically a factor of 2 
     to 3 times direct job losses, implying total potential job 
     losses of 2.7 to 3.9 million American workers.
       Given the rising uncertainties about our future economic 
     growth, sacrificing an additional hundred billion dollars or 
     more of annual industrial output relative to other policy 
     measures is difficult to justify without a compelling 
     demonstration of offsetting environmental benefits. We do 
     not believe such a demonstration is possible for 
     differences of a few parts per million of global 
     CO2 concentrations 50 to 100 years from today.

                             Looking Ahead

       The global climate debate has progressed rapidly in the 
     past few years due to the commitment and sincere efforts of 
     leaders on both sides of the aisle in seeking balanced 
     solutions that can protect the American economy and jobs 
     while achieving significant reductions of greenhouse gases. 
     This is the basic objective that has guided our involvement 
     in this issue from the outset.
       Legitimate debate remains about measures such as cost 
     containment, preemption of duplicative state and regional 
     cap-and-trade programs, emission offsets, international 
     trading, technology incentives and other provisions of S. 
     2191. We remain persuaded, however, that the key to striking 
     an appropriate balance must involve adjustment of unrealistic 
     targets and timetables that do not provide sufficient time 
     for the widescale commercial deployment of CCS technology. 
     Neither advance allowance auction reserves, as proposed by 
     the Manager's Amendment, nor additional CCS incentives will 
     allow CCS to play a major role in compliance plans by 2020. 
     It requires a decade or more to site, permit and construct a 
     single baseload facility.
       We look forward to working with you and your colleagues in 
     the Senate as you seek to further improve S. 2191.
           Sincerely,
     Cecil E. Roberts.
                                  ____

                                     Washington, DC, June 2, 2008.
       Dear Senator: This week the Senate is scheduled to consider 
     legislation to decrease emissions of greenhouse gases, the 
     Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2008 (S. 2191). At 
     that time, we understand that Chairwoman Boxer and Senators 
     Lieberman and Warner intend to offer a manager's amendment 
     making a number of important changes in the bill that was 
     reported by the Committee on the Environment and Public 
     Works. Unfortunately, even with these changes the legislation 
     still contains serious defects that would undermine the 
     environmental benefits, while posing a threat to economic 
     growth and jobs. Accordingly, the UAW opposes this bill in 
     its current form. We urge you to insist that the legislation 
     must be modified to correct these defects.
       The UAW agrees that climate change is a serious problem 
     that urgently needs to be addressed through the establishment 
     of an economy-wide cap-and-trade program. We commend 
     Chairwoman Boxer and Senators Lieberman and Warner for 
     crafting legislation that would establish this type of 
     program and achieve very significant reductions in greenhouse 
     gases. The UAW is pleased that this bill covers the electric 
     power, industrial and transportation sectors, which account 
     for the overwhelming percentage of greenhouse gas emissions. 
     We are also pleased that the transportation sector is covered 
     on an ``up-stream'' basis through the regulation of fuels, 
     which is the most economically efficient mechanism. The UAW 
     applauds the inclusion of transition assistance for workers. 
     And we welcome the provisions allocating allowances to states 
     whose economies rely heavily on manufacturing.
       The UAW would especially like to commend the chief sponsors 
     of this legislation for including provisions (Sections 1111-
     1115) establishing a Climate Change Transportation Technology 
     Fund that would use revenues from the auction of 1 percent of 
     the allowances each year to finance a manufacturer facility 
     conversion program. This critically important initiative 
     would provide grants to manufacturers to pay for up to 30 
     percent of the costs to retool facilities in the United 
     States to produce advanced technology vehicles (hybrids, 
     clean diesels, fuel cells) and their key components. This 
     will help to speed up the introduction of these advanced 
     technology vehicles, thereby reducing oil consumption and 
     greenhouse gas emissions. At the same time, it will provide a 
     significant incentive for auto and parts manufacturers to 
     retool facilities in this country to produce these vehicles 
     of the future and their key components. This can create tens 
     of thousands of jobs for American workers.
       While recognizing these very positive provisions in S. 
     2191, the UAW still is very troubled by a number of 
     provisions and omissions.
       1. Even though S. 2191 establishes an economy-wide cap-and-
     trade program to reduce greenhouse gases, Section 1751 makes 
     it clear that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would 
     retain residual authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate 
     CO2 emissions. This effectively means that EPA 
     would be free to disregard key decisions that Congress will 
     make in considering S. 2191 concerning the timetable for 
     reductions in CO2 emissions, the appropriate point 
     of regulation, and the distribution of economic burdens. 
     Instead, EPA would be free to regulate CO2 
     emissions from the electric power, industrial and 
     transportation sectors in ways that differ fundamentally from 
     S. 2191. The UAW believes it is inappropriate and untenable 
     to allow a federal agency to supersede decisions by Congress 
     in this manner.
       2. Section 1731 of S. 2191 does not simply preserve 
     existing state authority to regulate greenhouse gas 
     emissions. Instead, as the Committee report makes clear, this 
     provision is drafted in a manner that would trump

[[Page S5341]]

     pending litigation concerning the scope of existing state 
     authority--specifically whether state auto CO2 
     tailpipe standards are preempted by federal law. The UAW 
     believes the courts should be allowed to resolve this 
     contentious issue. Thus, Section 1731 should be redrafted to 
     indicate that it is just preserving existing state authority, 
     not deciding what the scope of that authority is.
       3. S. 2191 fails to deal with the important issue of how 
     state climate change measures will interface with the federal 
     cap-and-trade program. Instead, it simply calls for a study 
     on this issue (Section 1761). Because of this critical 
     omission, the unfortunate reality is that state climate 
     change measures would result in ZERO additional reduction in 
     greenhouse gas emissions beyond the level already mandated by 
     the federal cap-and-trade program established by S. 2191. 
     Although state measures could reduce emissions from a 
     particular sector, this would simply relax the pressure from 
     the federal cap on other sectors, without providing any net 
     environmental benefit. The UAW submits that this is a 
     nonsensical result. If the states are going to be allowed to 
     implement climate change measures that impose significant 
     economic burdens on particular industries, a mechanism should 
     be established to ensure that these state measures can 
     interface with the federal cap-and-trade program in an 
     appropriate manner, and thereby provide additional reductions 
     in greenhouse emissions.
       The UAW believes this can easily be accomplished by 
     allowing entities regulated by state climate change measures 
     to purchase and retire allowances from the federal program to 
     satisfy the state standards (to the extent they are more 
     stringent than comparable federal standards). This would 
     guarantee that the state measures actually provide an 
     environmental benefit through additional reductions in 
     greenhouse gas emissions, while also allowing this to be 
     accomplished in the most economically efficient manner in 
     keeping with the fundamental premise of the federal cap-and-
     trade program.
       4. In our judgment, S. 2191 still does not deal adequately 
     with the problem of international competition. We recognize 
     that the manager's amendment includes a number of changes 
     that strengthen the provisions of the bill that are intended 
     to encourage other nations--especially India and China--to 
     adopt comparable climate change programs, and to prevent 
     American businesses and workers from being placed at an 
     unfair competitive disadvantage. However, the UAW is still 
     concerned that the definition of ``manufactured item for 
     consumption'' (Section 1301(13)) grants too much discretion 
     to the International Climate Change Commission and the EPA in 
     determining whether finished products (such as automobiles or 
     auto parts) are subject to the international reserve 
     allowance requirements. If these products are not covered, 
     this could pose a major threat to the jobs of American 
     workers. Thus, we believe this section of the legislation 
     needs to be redrafted to make it clear that these products 
     are in fact covered.
       The UAW strongly urges the Senate to correct the foregoing 
     deficiencies in S. 2191. We believe all of these concerns can 
     be addressed in a manner that is consistent with the 
     essential thrust of S. 2191. If these problems are not 
     corrected, we urge you to oppose this legislation.
       The UAW also urges you to reject amendments that may be 
     offered by various industries such as steel and airlines--to 
     exempt the coal or oil that they use from the requirements of 
     the cap-and-trade program. We firmly believe that a cap-and-
     trade program covering most of the economy is the only fair 
     and effective way to meet the challenge posed by climate 
     change. To the extent any industries obtain special ``carve 
     outs'' for themselves, this will only serve to increase the 
     pressure on the rest of the industries and sectors that are 
     still covered under the cap-and-trade program. In the end, 
     this could unravel the prospects for enacting any meaningful 
     federal program to combat climate change.
       The UAW recognizes that Senate consideration of S. 2191 
     represents the beginning of a long process to determine 
     federal policy to address the serious threat posed by climate 
     change. The UAW looks forward to working with Congress and a 
     new administration to pass legislation establishing a federal 
     cap-and-trade program that resolves the concerns discussed 
     above, achieves major reductions in greenhouse gases, and 
     enhances prospects for economic growth and the creation of 
     jobs for American workers.
       Thank you for considering our views on this critically 
     important issue.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Alan Reuther,
     Legislative Director.
                                  ____



                                     U.S. Chamber of Commerce,

                                     Washington, DC, June 5, 2008.
       To the Members of the United States Senate: The U.S. 
     Chamber of Commerce, the world's largest business federation 
     representing more than three million businesses and 
     organizations of every size, sector, and region, strongly 
     urges you to oppose cloture on the Boxer manager's amendment 
     to S. 3036, the ``Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 
     2008.'' This week's truncated debate left many serious 
     questions unanswered as to how to control domestic and 
     international greenhouse gas emissions while keeping costs in 
     check and assuring a reliable energy supply. As the debate 
     vividly demonstrated, S. 3036 is not the proper vehicle to 
     answer those questions.
       First, and foremost, S. 3036 will be very expensive. Its 
     predecessor, S. 2191, was forecast by a range of analyses to 
     result in two to four million lost jobs, as high as 60 to 80 
     percent increases in household energy prices, as much as a 
     3.4 percent decrease in GDP, and an annual household cost of 
     compliance, ranging from $1,000 to $6,700. Although S. 3036 
     was brought to the floor too rapidly for similar studies to 
     be completed, it is clear that the cost of purchasing 
     allocations under the bill would result in a $3.2 trillion 
     tax. Moreover, the Congressional Budget Office recently 
     estimated that S. 3036 would result in tens of billions of 
     dollars annually in private sector mandates.
       S. 3036 also creates a massive federal bureaucracy, via 
     more than 300 mandates, that must be translated into rules, 
     regulations and reports by the Executive Branch. The result: 
     a cavalcade of new bureaucrats, decades of costly 
     implementation and prolonged litigation. The Chamber's chart 
     summarizing this regulatory nightmare is available at: http:/
     /www.uschamber.com/issues/index/environment/
 080603climatechange.
       Finally, although S. 3036 earmarks a tremendous amount of 
     money to provide support for the families impacted by the 
     legislation, it fails to support the research and development 
     of the technologies necessary to continue powering our 
     economy as fossil fuels are restricted by the cap. S. 3036 
     also fails to address the problem of deployment, specifically 
     the streamlining of permits for low- and zero-carbon energy 
     technologies.
       The Chamber strongly urges you to protect American jobs and 
     the economy by voting no on cloture on the manager's 
     amendment to S. 3036, and will include this vote in our 
     annual How They Voted scorecard.
       Sincerely,
                                                  R. Bruce Josten.

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I invoke cloture in order to move forward 
with the debate and break the Republican filibuster so that we can 
amend and improve the bill in order to begin to address the problem of 
global climate change. I oppose it in its current form and would have 
voted no if the vote were on whether to pass the bill. For this reason, 
I joined with other Senate colleagues in a letter identifying many of 
my concerns and outlining a way to move forward. A copy of this letter 
is printed at the end of this statement.
  Chairman Boxer and Senators Lieberman and Warner have taken on a 
matter of global significance, which will impact both present and 
future generations.
  We are in agreement on the fundamentals: Global warming is occurring, 
and human activity is causing it. Scientists tell us that we need to 
act with urgency to attain the levels of global greenhouse gas 
concentrations in the atmosphere that will prevent catastrophic impacts 
from occurring.
  The impacts of global climate change are being realized already. We 
have already been experiencing more heat waves, shorter winters, and 
more frequent severe weather events.
  In the future, the EPA estimates that an acceleration in heavy 
rainfall events will cause more runoff, stressing the sewer 
infrastructure and harming water quality. Other projected future 
impacts are even more alarming: Portions of countries and entire 
islands could be lost to rising sea levels, crop yields could 
significantly decline, water shortages are expected, and droughts, 
hurricanes, and floods will likely increase.
  Most experts agree that these phenomena will have a huge impact on 
people living in less developed countries and could result in the mass 
dislocation of millions throughout the world. Along with dire 
environmental and economic consequences, climate change could also 
impact our national security. Heightened domestic and international 
tensions caused by competition for scarce resources such as fresh water 
or agricultural land may result in armed conflict in and between 
nations.
  While we agree on the fundamentals of the problem, I have some 
differences with the approach of this bill regarding how to confront 
the immense and complex problem of global climate change. I have 
consistently argued that the best way of addressing global warming is 
through an effective and enforceable international agreement that binds 
all nations to reductions in greenhouse gases, including developing 
nations such as China and India. Proponents of this bill have argued 
that U.S. action through this cap-and-trade bill will prompt action by 
other countries to reduce their emissions. The international provision 
in this bill that attempts to level the playing field may put some 
pressure on other countries to act, but it will not automatically get 
these

[[Page S5342]]

countries on board with us to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at levels 
comparable to ours. Unfortunately, if we do not get these other 
countries on board, what we do in the United States as a result of this 
bill will only have a marginal impact on controlling global greenhouse 
gas emissions and could create a severe economic disadvantage to us.
  This bill does not adequately assure American manufacturing a level 
playing field. A recent Energy Information Administration analysis, 
EIA, projected manufacturing job losses in the hundreds of thousands 
each year if the Lieberman-Warner bill were signed into law. Cumulative 
job impacts in the manufacturing sector through 2030 are estimated at 
between 2 to 14 million manufacturing jobs. We have already lost 3.3 
million manufacturing jobs since 2001, about 250,000 in Michigan alone. 
We cannot afford to lose any more because of an unlevel playing field. 
Significantly, EIA's projected manufacturing job losses can be 
attributed to manufacturers moving to countries with less stringent 
environmental standards. Without the proper protections, our actions 
may ship manufacturing facilities and the greenhouse gas emissions that 
go with them overseas, providing no environmental benefit while 
needlessly hurting our economy.
  The substitute amendment offered by Senator Boxer makes few 
improvements to the Lieberman-Warner bill that was reported from the 
Environment and Public Works Committee. The cost containment auction 
will help to moderate emission allowance prices and help contain 
compliance costs, which will ultimately help control prices that hard-
working consumers face. More assistance is provided to energy-intensive 
manufacturers to transition to a carbon-constrained world, and more 
allowances are provided to reward early action. The substitute 
amendment provides additional flexibility for covered sources to use 
EPA-verified offsets, which will also help control the costs of this 
bill. The substitute also includes some carbon market oversight 
mechanisms that will help monitor the new emission allowance trading 
market created by this bill. However, one of the changes in the 
substitute could have damaging impacts to our domestic auto industry 
because it could lead to potentially conflicting State regulations for 
greenhouse gas emissions from mobile sources and potentially highly 
unfair discriminatory impacts on U.S. manufacturers as a result of 
those state regulations.
  I have filed a number of amendments and have cosponsored others that 
will strengthen the bill to protect American jobs, reduce the burdens 
on working families and consumers, and also protect the environment.
  One of my amendments would provide Americans with protection from 
economic disruptions in case the costs of the bill exceed a certain 
level. Specifically, my amendment would suspend the compliance 
requirements of the cap-and-trade program if the emission allowance 
price reaches a prohibitively expensive amount. This amendment would 
provide an effective backstop if the various cost containment 
mechanisms included in the bill turn out to be less effective than 
expected and would prevent harm to the US economy.
  Another amendment I filed would protect the competitiveness of U.S. 
manufacturers in international markets. While I am pleased that the 
bill sponsors included an important provision that would help level the 
international playing field between U.S. manufacturers and 
international competitors not facing similar greenhouse gas limits, if 
this provision does not survive a WTO challenge, the bill provides no 
recourse to correct the situation. My amendment would suspend this 
program and compliance obligations of manufacturers that face global 
competition if a foreign country retaliates against the international 
allowance requirement that would be imposed by this bill. Also, 
additional allowances would be provided to these manufacturers to 
compensate for their higher production costs that would result from 
this bill. This amendment would help keep manufacturers and jobs in the 
United States if the international reserve allowance program in title 
XIII results in retaliation by other countries.

  I also joined Senators Specter and Brown in filing an amendment that 
would strengthen the international reserve allowance program to ensure 
that importers bear the same responsibility as American manufacturers 
with respect to limiting greenhouse gas emissions. The bill attempts to 
do this by requiring certain importers to submit emissions allowances 
to account for the greenhouse gas emissions of their products if the 
product comes from a foreign country that has not taken comparable 
action to limit greenhouse gas emissions. However, the bill defines 
``comparable action'' in such broad terms that it would likely exclude 
many countries that in fact have not taken similar actions. The bill 
gives discretion to the International Climate Change Commission that 
would be established by the bill to determine that a foreign country 
has taken comparable action if they are using state-of-the-art 
technologies to limit greenhouse gas emissions, without considering the 
magnitude of the reductions achieved by these technologies.
  The Specter-Brown amendment would determine that a foreign country is 
taking comparable action only if actual greenhouse gas reductions are 
comparable to those achieved in the United States. The amendment would 
also broaden the types of imports that would be required to submit 
emission allowances by including both direct and indirect emissions 
generated in the course of manufacturing the product. The substitute 
amendment only includes direct emissions and emissions associated with 
the electricity used to manufacture the product, which fails to account 
for emissions associated with other inputs used to make downstream 
products. The Brown-Specter amendment corrects the competitive problem 
that would be faced by U.S. manufacturers.
  I also filed an amendment that would provide more allowances to 
fossil fuel-fired electric utilities whose prices are regulated. A 
coal-fired powerplant is limited in its ability to reduce its 
greenhouse gas emissions because this depends entirely on the 
efficiency of the generating plant. A Congressional Research Service 
analysis found that efficiency improvements on the order of 4-to-6 
percent could be achieved by improving an existing unit, which would in 
turn have a 4-to-6 percent reduction in carbon emissions. The only way 
to further reduce emissions from a powerplant would be to install 
carbon capture and sequestration technology, which is not expected to 
be commercially available until sometime after 2030. Because the 
electric utilities can do very little to address greenhouse gas 
emissions at existing plants, it is only fair to provide emission 
allowances to these facilities that power homes, retail establishments, 
and industry with vital electric power. Limiting additional allowances 
to utilities whose prices are regulated will prevent companies from 
realizing windfall profits, which occurred in the European Union.
  I continue to be concerned about provisions of this bill that could 
result in both conflicting cap-and-trade systems and conflicting 
underlying regulations for greenhouse gas emissions. I believe that 
Congress should adopt a mandatory Federal economywide cap-and-trade 
program that will be the single regulatory regime for overall control 
of greenhouse gas emissions. Existing State laws and initiatives should 
be integrated into the Federal cap-and-trade program where the policies 
do not conflict, but in areas where the regulations or programs 
conflict or overlap, there must be a single clear national authority. 
Federal authority in this area should be made clear in the statutory 
language to prevent conflicts in regulation, preserve overall 
efficiency, and ensure harmonization of regulations.
  I am also concerned about other provisions of the Boxer substitute. 
These provisions, taken together, seek to preserve state authority and 
to reward States that have been leaders in the effort to reduce 
greenhouse gas emissions and increase energy efficiency. I applaud 
efforts to encourage energy efficiency, and I have no concerns about 
that aspect of these provisions. I am very concerned, however, that 
rewarding States for leadership in greenhouse gas emission reduction 
efforts in the way laid out in this bill may have the effect of setting 
up an unworkable system that will result in confusion, at best, and 
regulatory chaos, at worst.

[[Page S5343]]

  Section 614 would provide additional allowances to States that are 
``leaders'' in the effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and 
increase energy efficiency. A leader is not defined by the act, 
however, and the EPA Administrator is given the task to establish a 
system, by regulation, for ``scoring historical State investments and 
achievements in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and increasing energy 
efficiency.'' To qualify as a leader under the terms of the bill, it 
appears that a State must have set more stringent standards than the 
Federal Government. To receive the reward of additional allowances, 
however, a State must either have never established a cap-and-trade 
system or have terminated its cap-and-trade program. In other words, on 
the one hand, the bill is encouraging States to set their own standards 
in order to qualify for additional allowances, but then, on the other 
hand, the States are told to terminate their programs in order to 
receive the additional allowances. That sounds to me like regulatory 
chaos. Worse still, the bill does not actually require States to 
terminate separate cap-and-trade programs it simply provides a 
financial incentive to do so. Therefore, if the financial incentive is 
not sufficient for the State to decide to terminate its program, there 
is too great a likelihood there will be conflicting and confusing 
Federal and State cap-and-trade systems.

  It simply does not make sense to have competing Federal and State 
cap-and-trade programs. It simply will not work. If a State were to 
implement a more stringent cap-and-trade program that allowed regulated 
entities to purchase Federal emissions allowances to satisfy State 
compliance requirements, this would in turn increase demand for the 
Federal allowances, which would increase the price of Federal 
allowances. Thus, such an action by a State would affect entities in 
other States because the Federal allowance trading market is 
nationwide.
  Another provision of this bill that gives me cause for concern is 
section 1731, entitled ``Retention of State Authority'', which purports 
to be a savings clause that simply preserves authority under existing 
provisions of law. I am concerned, however, about language in Senate 
Report 110-337, the report accompanying S. 2191, which states in part, 
``The purpose of this section is to make it absolutely clear that this 
bill does not affect the validity of these State and local greenhouse 
gas emissions laws and regulations (and any related laws or 
regulations), so long as these laws require state and local reductions 
of greenhouse gas emissions at least as stringent as those required by 
federal law. There will be no express, implied, field, or conflict 
preemption of these regional, state, or local efforts.'' The report 
language concludes by saying, ``In interpreting the scope of this 
savings clause, the courts should follow the applicable precedent that 
calls for a narrow reading of federal preemption of state and local 
authority and a broad reading of this savings clause.'' Because of that 
concern, I have filed an amendment that would make clear that nothing 
in this act confers authority on either the Federal Government or State 
government to establish new standards in this area.
  Lastly, I want to speak to why I am so concerned about the potential 
for conflicting State and Federal regulations in this area, 
particularly as it relates to greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles. 
The State of California has already issued regulations to limit 
greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles by establishing fuel economy 
standards that would apply to vehicles sold in that State. A number of 
other States have either adopted similar regulations or indicated that 
they intend to do so. The net effect of these regulations adopted in 
many States across the country--if allowed to go into force--would be a 
patchwork of potentially conflicting regulations because the average 
fuel economy standard required in each State would be driven by the 
sales mix of vehicles in that particular State.
  Moreover, the regulations adopted by the State of California--the 
model regulations that other States would adopt--include a provision 
that is highly discriminatory against our domestic manufacturers. The 
California regulations have an exemption for manufacturers who sell 
less than 60,000 vehicles in the State. The effect of this exemption is 
that the California law would only regulate vehicles made by Ford, GM, 
Chrysler, Toyota, Honda, and Nissan. Other manufactures, such as 
Volkswagen, which is the fourth largest automaker in the world, would 
be exempt from the California law. In addition, automakers from Korea, 
India, and China and their vehicles would be exempt from the California 
constraints. Surely, we do not want to perpetuate such a discriminatory 
State law around the country. However, if the provisions of this bill 
confer new authority on State governments to set separate standards, we 
may do just that.
  In response to questions I posed to Senator Boxer, the manager of the 
bill for the majority, concerning the scope of State and Federal 
authority in this bill, I have obtained from Senator Boxer answers to 
my questions to her, which clarify her intent as the author of the 
language in question. I will ask that the text of the questions and her 
answers be printed at the end of my statement.
  I have highlighted a number of ways this legislation could be 
repaired. I filed amendments and cosponsored other filed amendments, 
which would do that. I agree with many provisions in this bill. The 
bill attempts to provide the necessary funding and technical resources 
so that we can successfully transition to a low carbon economy and 
recognizes at least in part the burdens of this transition. I am 
pleased that the substitute amendment provides more funding for 
manufacturing States to implement a variety of programs and measures 
that would help mitigate any negative impacts from global warming or 
the regulatory requirements of this bill. I am also pleased that the 
bill funds advancements in technology that could provide jobs and also 
reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
  The bill establishes a national wildlife adaptation fund with 
mandatory funding that could be used for a very broad range of 
activities including Great Lakes restoration projects. In developing a 
plan for wildlife adaptation, the bill specifically requires the 
President to consider the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy 
which was developed with extensive public involvement. I have long 
supported the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy, but the lack 
of funding has presented a serious impediment to implementing it. The 
President's plan must include measures to protect, maintain, and 
restore coastal ecosystems to ensure that the ecosystems are more 
resilient to withstand the additional stresses associated with climate 
change, including water level and temperature changes in Great Lakes. 
The National Wildlife Adaptation Fund would be distributed to federal 
agencies for a series of wildlife programs, and the Great Lakes are 
eligible to receive funds through many of these programs. Each agency 
has the discretion to allocate funds to its various programs so it is 
unknown how much money the Great Lakes would receive.
  To be sure, far-ranging action is needed to confront the daunting 
challenges of global climate change. While we are just now beginning to 
see the preliminary impacts of global warming, most scientists agree 
that the problems of climate change will only worsen in the future. I 
am hopeful that this debate has laid a foundation for us to move 
forward and for the United States to lead in what may be the defining 
issue of our planet's future environment. The potential costs of global 
climate change are tremendous, and these costs will only mount if we 
wait too long to address this critical problem. Clearly, we need to act 
to avert a global catastrophe. However, this action must be taken in a 
way that does not needlessly sacrifice additional American 
manufacturing jobs and further burden the working men and women of our 
country with higher gas, food, and energy prices. We need to invest in 
advanced technology that will help create jobs and spur our economy as 
well. With significant investment in research and development, public-
private partnerships and incentives for manufacturers to invest in new 
technologies, we can make great technological leaps to reduce 
greenhouse gas emissions not only here but around the world.

[[Page S5344]]

  I ask unanimous consent that the materials to which I referred be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                     June 6, 2008.
     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Majority Leader, United States Senate, S-221, the Capitol, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. Barbara Boxer,
     Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works, Dirksen 
         Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Leader and Chairman Boxer: As Democrats from 
     regions of the country that will be most immediately affected 
     by climate legislation, we want to share our concerns with 
     the bill that is currently before the Senate. We commend your 
     leadership in attempting to address one of the most 
     significant threats to this and future generations; however, 
     we cannot support final passage of the Boxer Substitute in 
     its current form.
       We believe a federal cap and trade program must not only 
     significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions but also ensure 
     that consumers and workers in all regions of the U.S. are 
     protected from undue hardship. A federal cap and trade 
     program is perhaps the most significant endeavor undertaken 
     by Congress in over 70 years and must be done with great 
     care. To that point we have laid out the following principles 
     and concerns that must be considered and fully addressed in 
     any final legislation.
       Contain Costs and Prevent Harm to the U.S. Economy: We hope 
     that you recognize, as we do, the inherent uncertainty in 
     predicting the costs of achieving the emission caps set forth 
     in this or any climate legislation. While placing a cost on 
     carbon is important, we believe that there must be a balance 
     and a short-term cushion when new technologies may not be 
     available as hoped for or are more expensive than assumed. 
     There are many options to deal with the issue and all should 
     be up for discussion in order to meet our environmental and 
     economic goals. Ultimately, we must strive to form a 
     partnership with regulated industries to help them reduce 
     emissions as they transition from an old energy economy to a 
     new energy economy which will protect both our environment 
     and our economy.''
       Invest Aggressively in New Technologies and Deployment of 
     Existing Technologies: There is no doubt that we need a 
     technological revolution to enter into a low carbon economy. 
     It is critical that we design effective mechanisms to augment 
     and accelerate government-sponsored technology R&D programs 
     and incentives that will motivate rapid deployment of those 
     technologies without picking winners and losers. We also want 
     to include proposals to provide funding for carbon capture 
     and storage and other critical low carbon technologies in 
     advance of resources being available through the auction of 
     emission allowances. We also need to aggressively deploy 
     existing energy efficiency technologies now to retrofit 
     millions of homes, buildings and manufacturing facilities to 
     reduce electricity costs for everyone.
       Treat States Equitably: Just as some groups of consumers 
     will be more severely affected by the cost of compliance, so 
     too will our states. The allocation structure of a cap-and-
     trade bill must be designed to balance these burdens across 
     states and regions and be sufficiently transparent to be 
     understood.
       Protect America's Working Families: Any legislation must 
     recognize that working families are going to be affected most 
     significantly by any cap and trade legislation. Price relief 
     for these families must be included in any federal cap and 
     trade program. For instance, one way to provide some relief 
     would be to provide additional allowances to utilities whose 
     electricity prices are regulated, which would help to keep 
     electricity prices low.
       Protect U.S. Manufacturing Jobs and Strengthen 
     International Competitiveness: The Lieberman-Warner bill 
     contains a mechanism to protect U.S. manufacturers from 
     international competitors that do not face the same carbon 
     constraints. If this mechanism does not work, or is found to 
     be noncompliant with the World Trade Organization, then the 
     program needs to be modified or suspended. The final bill 
     must include adequate safeguards to ensure a truly equitable 
     and effective global effort that minimizes harm to the U.S. 
     economy and protects American jobs. Furthermore, we must 
     adequately help manufacturers transition to a low carbon 
     economy to maintain domestic jobs and production.
       Fully Recognize Agriculture and Forestry's Role: 
     Agriculture and forestry are not regulated under the bill but 
     they can contribute to reducing emissions by over 20% 
     domestically. Furthermore, international deforestation 
     contributes to 20% of global greenhouse gas emissions. 
     Strong, aggressive and verifiable offset policies can fully 
     utilize the capabilities of our farmers and forests. A strong 
     offset policy can also reduce the costs of a cap and trade 
     program while maintaining our strong environmental goals.
       Clarify Federal/State Authority: Congress should adopt a 
     mandatory federal cap-and-trade program that will be the 
     single regulatory regime for controlling greenhouse gas 
     emissions. Existing state laws and initiatives should be 
     integrated into the federal cap-and-trade program where the 
     policies do not conflict. Federal uniformity in this area 
     should be made clear in the statutory language to prevent 
     conflict in regulation, preserve overall efficiency, and 
     ensure harmonization of regulations. Where a conflict exists, 
     federal law needs to clearly prevail.
       Provide Accountability for Consumer Dollars: The cap and 
     trade program developed in the Lieberman-Warner bill has the 
     potential to raise over $7 trillion. Much of these funds will 
     be indirectly paid for by consumers through increased energy 
     prices. The federal government has a fundamental obligation 
     to ensure these funds are being spent in a responsible and 
     wise manner. The development of any cap and trade program 
     must recognize the sensitivity of this obligation and 
     eliminate all possibility of waste, fraud or abuse.
       We look forward to working with you to ensure that any 
     final bill will address the problems of climate change 
     without imposing undue hardship on our states, key industrial 
     sectors and consumers.
           Sincerely,
         Debbie Stabenow, John D. Rockefeller, Carl Levin, Blanche 
           Lincoln, Mark Pryor, Jim Webb, Evan Bayh, Claire 
           McCaskill, Sherrod Brown, Ben Nelson.
                                  ____



              Questions of Senator Levin to Senator Boxer

       Would you be able to provide answers to these questions 
     prior to the cloture vote on the Boxer Substitute to S. 3036?
       Relative to the pending substitute,
       1. Does the substitute (or underlying bill) directly or 
     indirectly establish or provide federal or state authority to 
     set standards relative to greenhouse gas emissions from 
     mobile sources?
       2. Does the substitute (or underlying bill) provide 
     authority for states or regions to establish their own cap 
     and trade programs for greenhouse gas emissions?
       Concerning the language in Senate Report 110-337 relative 
     to Section 9003, Retention of State Authority, in S. 2191, as 
     reported, which states in part, as follows: ``The purpose of 
     this section is to make it absolutely clear that this bill 
     does not affect the validity of these state and local 
     greenhouse gas emissions laws and regulations (and any 
     related laws or regulations), so long as these laws require 
     state and local reductions of greenhouse gas emissions at 
     least as stringent as those required by federal law. There 
     will be no express, implied, field, or conflict preemption of 
     these regional, state, or local efforts.''
       3. Does this mean ``There will be no express, implied, 
     field, or conflict preemption of these regional, state, or 
     local efforts'' by this Act, referring to S. 2191, as 
     reported?
       The report language concludes, ``In interpreting the scope 
     of this savings clause, the courts should follow the 
     applicable precedent that calls for a narrow reading of 
     federal preemption of state and local authority and a broad 
     reading of this savings clause.''
       4. Does this mean ``federal preemption of state and local 
     authority'' by this Act, referring to S. 2191, as reported?
       Finally, with respect to existing law,
       5. Does this bill in any way amend, change, or modify the 
     other statutes relating to the authority of the Federal and 
     State governments to adopt vehicle emissions standards?
                                  ____


 Response to Senator Carl Levin's June 5, 2008 Questions From Senator 
                             Barbara Boxer

       You have asked several questions about the Boxer-Lieberman-
     Warner substitute to S. 3036, the Climate Security Act. My 
     response follows. Relative to the pending substitute:
       1. Question: Does the substitute (or underlying bill) 
     directly or indirectly establish or provide federal or state 
     authority to set standards relative to greenhouse gas 
     emissions from mobile sources? Answer: No.
       2. Question: Does the substitute (or underlying bill) 
     provide authority for states or regions to establish their 
     own cap and trade programs for greenhouse gas emissions? 
     Answer: No.
       3. Question: [Concerning language in Senate Report 110-337 
     relative to Section 9003, Retention of State Authority, in S. 
     2191 as reported] Does this mean ``There will be no express, 
     implied, field, or conflict preemption of these state or 
     local efforts'' by this Act, referring to S. 2191, as 
     reported? Answer: Yes.
       4. Question: [Concerning report language regarding 
     interpretation of the scope of the savings clause]: Does this 
     mean ``federal preemption of state and local authority'' by 
     this Act, referring to S. 2191 as reported? Answer: Yes.
       5. Question: Does this bill in any way amend, change, or 
     modify the other statutes relating to the authority of the 
     Federal and State governments to adopt vehicle emissions 
     standards? Answer: No.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to talk about the cloture vote on 
the climate change legislation pending before the Senate.
  Global warming is a problem that we must address and the sooner the 
better. We must meet it with a strong and mandatory regulatory system. 
Of all the possible options, a cap-and-trade system makes the most 
sense. Turning that concept into legislative language is not easy, and 
turning it into legislative language that can become law is far harder 
still.

[[Page S5345]]

  The substitute amendment before us is the product of a lot of hard 
work and passion to do the right thing. I applaud that and thank the 
sponsors for their sincere efforts. There are many ideas in this 
amendment that I support, but, as the sponsors know, I also have many 
concerns about the substance of their proposal. I am sorry that we will 
not have a chance to debate the many complex and far-reaching issues 
they present.
  I have been in the Senate for 25 years. I have learned, and firmly 
believe, that the only way to write legislation that stands a good 
chance of becoming law is to ensure that all sides have a legitimate 
opportunity to comment on and contribute to legislation as it is being 
written. I know very well from my own experience that in bills as 
complicated as this one, many Senators will have concerns that they 
would like to see resolved. It is the prerogative of the authors to 
include these issues or not. But it is important to assure all Senators 
that their concerns have been carefully and openly considered and that 
even if the sponsors don't share those concerns, the right of Senators 
to have them considered by the full Senate will be protected. Without 
these assurances, it is much harder to ask Senators to support the 
final product and work for its passage. I hope that when we return to 
this issue, we can use such a process to produce a bill that will be 
signed into law.
  I am especially disappointed by the tactics we have seen in recent 
days from the other side of the aisle to slow this bill's progress and 
frustrate the amendment process. While Senators certainly have the 
right to use all 30 hours of postcloture debate time following cloture 
on the motion to proceed and to make the Senate clerks spend 9 hours 
reading the text of a long substitute amendment, it is hard to square 
those actions with any sense of real concern about this critical issue 
we should be working on.
  We will be turning to the Defense bill later this month. I have a 
hard time imagining that the same tactics will be applied. That would 
be totally inconsistent with our responsibilities for national 
security. Similarly, the tactics of the past few days have been totally 
inconsistent with our responsibility to deal seriously with this 
important issue.
  I have struggled with this cloture vote. A vote for cloture can be 
seen as a message vote that rejects the tactical maneuvering we have 
seen to prevent consideration of this bill. At the same time, if 
cloture is invoked it will mean that only a tightly prescribed set of 
amendments would be in order. I do not believe that the problems in the 
legislation before us can be adequately corrected under postcloture 
procedural constraints. Ultimately, though, we must send a message 
about how important this issue is and how it should not be hamstrung by 
obstructionist parliamentary tactics. That is why I voted for the 
cloture motion laid down by the majority leader.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, the Climate Change Act of 2008 wisely 
recognizes that chemicals such as hydrofluorocarbons, HFCs, and 
hydrochlorofluorocarbons, HCFCs, are valuable commercial products that 
are used in refrigeration equipment, home and automobile air 
conditioners, aerosols, insulating foams, and other products and should 
be treated differently than other greenhouse gases. These important 
gases are essential to the energy efficient operation of many of the 
appliances and refrigeration equipment American consumers and 
businesses rely upon. Having a separate market for HFCs is designed to 
reduce emissions of these gases over time, while safeguarding the 
business model of the producers and users of these gases in energy 
efficient equipment and products.
  The Montreal Protocol treaty has been widely praised as a model of 
international cooperation to phase out the production of many ozone 
depleting substances including Freon and other CFC-based gases. 
Accordingly, the industry substituted HFCs for these substances, but 
now these gases are thought to contribute to anthropogenic global 
warming. The Montreal Protocol currently calls for a complete phaseout 
of HCFCs by 2030, but does not place any restriction on HFCs.
  The regulation of hydrofluorcarbon refrigerants represents a major 
component of the Climate Security Act of 2008, and will have a 
significant impact on jobs, taxpayers, businesses that manufacture and 
import these chemicals, and the millions of users of these chemicals in 
refrigeration and air conditioning equipment as well as other 
applications. The businesses in this industry sector have a commendable 
track record of protecting the environment, and are successfully making 
the transition from ozone-depleting refrigerants to HFCs. Now, as there 
is a call to phase down the production and consumption of HFCs to 
address global warming, we must recognize the need for a regulatory 
regime that reflects the industry's complex marketplace dynamics, cost 
to the economy, and ensures fair and equitable treatment for producers, 
importers, and end users.
  It takes about 10 years for industry to develop a new class of 
refrigeration gases with the required thermodynamic properties, low 
flammability and toxicity, and reduced global warming potential than 
what is currently in use. At this time, there is no known commercially 
available replacement for HFCs. The gas providers and equipment 
manufacturers will have to invest a significant amount of time and 
money to develop these new, safe refrigeration gases and the compatible 
equipment that can use them.
  I believe that we can come to a reasonable and balanced approach on 
this issue. The fact is that we need a realistic baseline. The baseline 
for 2012 should be set at an amount necessary to avoid a supply 
shortage, the cost of which will be borne by small businesses and 
consumers. One study suggests that 365 million metric tons is an 
appropriate baseline. Such a baseline will provide for a smoother 
transition in subsequent years, which also will result in less cost to 
small businesses and taxpayers without any adverse effect on the 
environment.
  I encourage Congress, the EPA, the gas producers, and the end-use 
equipment manufacturers to work closely together to establish a more 
reasonable emission cap and timeline for the transition from HFCs to a 
cost-effective, low greenhouse gas potential, alternative substitute. 
Through cooperation, I am sure we can establish a program that will 
guarantee the future development of economically sound and 
environmentally friendly alternatives for these important chemicals.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, it is disappointing that a minority of 
Senators has chosen to delay and stall rather than allowing us to 
consider the serious matter before the Senate--climate change. In order 
to have the opportunity to debate and vote on amendments, I support 
cloture on the Climate Security Act of 2008, S. 3036. The Climate 
Security Act is far from perfect, but it represents a serious effort to 
reduce greenhouse gas pollution, lessen our dependence on foreign oil, 
and spur new technologies and green job opportunities. By supporting 
cloture, we can begin to do the hard work of improving this legislation 
so that we can enact a workable, effective cap-and-trade program.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this week the Senate has undertaken the 
beginning of a historic debate on global warming. For the past week we 
have attempted to pass this important legislation that will reduce the 
carbon dioxide pollution that causes global warming, while using market 
incentives to create American jobs. Unfortunately it appears the other 
side of aisle has no interest in enacting this important global warming 
legislation. I am disappointed a minority in the Senate are blocking 
our efforts to move forward on this important bill.
  The time for debate about the existence of global warming has ended. 
We are staring down the barrel of global crisis if we do not 
aggressively address this problem now, and not 5 years from now or when 
the oil companies decide the time is right.
  The most recent assessment of global climate change published by the 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, in November found that 
the Earth's climate indisputably has warmed over the past century. Most 
of this increase is very likely due to the increase in greenhouse gas 
concentrations created by humans--primarily from the use of fossil 
fuels. As we look around us every day and see all of the exhaust gases 
emanating from factories, buildings, and vehicles, it only

[[Page S5346]]

stands to reason that human activity now, and for much of the last 
century, increasingly has become a factor in the quality of the air we 
breathe and in the natural processes of our environment.
  The U.S. Climate Change Science Program, CCSP, recently released the 
first of several climate change reports, and their assessment was 
stark. They report that even under the most optimistic carbon dioxide 
emission scenarios, we can expect a host of profound impacts that range 
from changes in sea level and regional and super-regional temperature 
hikes, to increased incidence of disturbances such as forest fires, 
insect outbreaks, severe storms, and drought.
  If we do not take aggressive action now to curb emissions, our 
environmental and economic future is bleak. Even as we speak, our world 
is experiencing alarming and detrimental changes from manmade 
greenhouse gases. The Arctic Sea ice melted in 2007 to the smallest 
coverage since satellite measurements began in 1979--perhaps 50 percent 
below sea ice levels of the 1950s. The U.S. National Snow and Ice Data 
Center at the University of Colorado projects that the Arctic Ocean 
could be ice-free in summer as early as 2030.
  As if to highlight the urgency, while the EPA was recently delaying a 
decision over whether to add polar bears to the threatened species list 
due to a decrease in their habitat, more than 160 square miles of 
arctic ice collapsed away from the Wilkins Ice Shelf. If we needed any 
clearer signal that now is the time to address this problem, the 
partial collapse of an arctic shelf formed more than 1500 years ago 
should leave no doubt.
  How do we responsibly and aggressively address this problem? 
According to the Bush administration, we should talk about curbing 
global climate change on the one hand, while quietly eroding the safety 
net that had been designed to better protect our environment with the 
other.
  We need only to look at the recent unprecedented intervention by this 
administration in the EPA's decision to override the institutional 
advice of the EPA's own experts--not to mention the Clean Air Act--and 
stop California, Vermont, and 15 other States from setting their own 
tailpipe emission standards. Even the release of CCSP research on 
climate change last week had to be mandated by court order--and during 
the course of this research, scientists left the CCSP alleging the 
administration was rewriting the science for political purposes.
  Add to all of this the auctioning of environmentally sensitive public 
lands for oil development, the weakening of air quality regulations for 
corporate polluters, and the billions of dollars of handouts in the 
form of subsidies to oil companies at the expense of renewable energy, 
and it adds up to 8 years of an administration that cares more about 
corporate profits than the public's health and our environment's 
protection.
  This legislation is not a perfect solution, but its goals are 
positive and its solutions are constructive. The annual reductions in 
emissions, funding for renewable energy technologies, and a cap-and-
trade system designed to reward companies that invest in cleaner energy 
are innovative solutions to a problem that won't just go away on its 
own.
  Failure to address global warming is a failure to address weather 
catastrophes that can destroy entire Nations, a failure to address the 
loss of species that will never return, and a failure to pass along to 
future generations--our children, our grandchildren, and beyond--the 
kind of world we want for them.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the consensus among scientists, whose 
expertise I respect, is that there's something happening to the climate 
of this planet that we need to be concerned about. As a result, I 
believe that the Congress needs to enact climate change legislation to 
address global warming It is one of the significant challenges of our 
time. Addressing the issue of climate change will require a national 
commitment of all the resources that are available to us to change 
course and protect our planet.
  I voted no on the motion to invoke cloture today, but this should not 
be seen as a statement of my opposition to enact mandatory, climate 
change legislation in the future. The specific proposal that has been 
brought to the floor of the U.S. Congress by Senators Boxer, Lieberman, 
Warner, Kerry, and others is a legitimate and thoughtful piece of 
legislation.
  The Senate has voted on climate change legislation in 2003, 2005, and 
now in 2008. In all three cases, many Members have expressed their 
opposition to any mandatory legislation. Yet, during this 5-year 
period, there has been a significant shift in public awareness, the 
certainty of the science, and the demand for legislative action. I hope 
that industry in this country will understand what we are required to 
do and start preparing for it.
  When there is a new President and a new Congress in 2009, I predict 
that there will be another debate, and there will be passage of 
landmark U.S. climate change legislation. Major pieces of landmark 
legislation such as the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, Superfund, 
and others took several Congresses to be refined and enacted. I believe 
that time for climate change legislation will be in the 111th Congress.
  In order for our country to dramatically shift our energy use to a 
lower greenhouse gas emitting blend, a strong commitment from all 
sectors of the economy is needed. We need a ``moon shot'' approach to 
increasing energy efficiency and conservation, renewable energy 
production and technologies that allow us to capture and sequester 
carbon emissions from fossil fuel energy generation.
  I am a big fan of renewable energy, including wind, solar and 
geothermal energy as well as biofuels. In order for these energy 
sources to become a larger portion of the energy used in this country, 
however, we need to demonstrate a robust commitment to funding research 
and development to increase the efficiency of renewable energy and 
drive the costs down so they are competitive with fossil energy 
sources. Until they are cost-competitive, we need to provide long-term 
incentives that signal certainty to potential investors. Even as we 
strongly support our renewable energy research, development and 
deployment, we also need to understand that in order to meet our energy 
needs we will need to continue to use fossil fuels--but use them in a 
different way.
  For example, we use coal to produce about 50 percent of the 
electricity we now use in this country. Coal is going to continue to be 
a significant part of our energy future, so that means we must make a 
major research push to find ways to the capture the carbon and 
sequester the carbon.
  The climate change bill that is now on the floor includes what is 
called ``kick start'' funding and ``bonus'' funding that its authors 
say addresses the needs of the industry to get carbon capture and 
storage. However, the bill does not provide any funding for the 
substantial research and development that will be necessary to find 
ways to capture the carbon and safely sequester it.
  Similarly, advancing renewable energy will require substantial 
funding, of which there is not enough in the underlying bill. There is 
money in the underlying bill for demonstration and commercialization of 
technologies, both in the renewable area and carbon capture and 
storage. But there is not the kind of funding that will be necessary to 
fund the research and development at the front end of the process for 
both carbon capture and renewables.
  I prepared and filed amendments to address those two deficiencies. 
Together, my amendments would add $30 billion in the first 12 years to 
carbon capture and storage and renewable energy. The amendments provide 
a full commitment by our country to fund the necessary research and 
provide the opportunity to succeed in both areas on the front end. We 
will not succeed in our quest to address global warming unless we 
invest in these areas of research. The product of research for the 
environmentally safe use of coal and the expanded use of renewables is 
what will allow us to meet the targets in the global warming bill.
  Today, however, we find a tangled procedure in the United States 
Senate by which we are asked to vote to shut off debate and vote 
cloture on the Boxer substitute. This means that my amendment and 
others designed to improve the bill will not be allowed to

[[Page S5347]]

even be offered. That is because the minority blocked the process when 
the bill came to the floor, so no amendments have been allowed to be 
offered. Therefore, none are pending, and post cloture, only pending 
amendments can be voted upon.
  In short, voting for cloture means I would be voting to deny myself 
the opportunity to offer the important amendments I have just 
described. I am not prepared to do that. I am prepared to seriously 
address global warming. I will count myself as someone who is going to 
vote to advance appropriate legislation to address global warming. But 
I am not going to vote this morning to prevent myself from offering the 
amendments that I think are necessary to make this legislation work.
  Let me state again, I think my colleagues that have brought the 
Warner-Lieberman-Boxer bill to the floor today have done some good 
work, and I am appreciative of their effort. The bill in its current 
state is not ready to become the law of the land. We need to have a 
serious debate about this legislation, amendments need to be 
considered, the bill needs to be modified in significant ways before it 
should be passed by this Congress.
  Let me repeat, a piece of legislation that will have some of the most 
significant consequences for the environment, for the economy, and for 
a way of life than anything we have done in many decades in this 
Congress has been brought to the floor and will now be subject to a 
cloture vote without any opportunity to offer an amendment. That is not 
a process that I can support.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of 
amendment No. 4950, which I have offered to the Climate Security Act, 
S. 3036, along with Senators Snowe, Wyden, and Cantwell.
  This amendment is intended to improve section 412, the market 
oversight and enforcement provisions. I helped author section 412 of 
the Climate Security Act with Senator Dodd and Senator Whitehouse, and 
I believe this amendment will improve the underlying provision by even 
more clearly prohibiting speculation, fraud, and false reporting by 
traders in carbon markets.
  Specifically, this amendment would add a ``prohibitions'' subsection 
to section 412, to establish that it is illegal:

       No. 1, to knowingly provide to the President, or his 
     designee, any false information relating to the price or 
     quantity of emission allowances sold, purchased, transferred, 
     banked, or borrowed by the individual or entity, with the 
     intent to fraudulently affect the data being compiled;
       No. 2, to use in connection with the purchase or sale of an 
     emission allowance any manipulative or deceptive device or 
     contrivance--within the meaning of section 10(b) of the 
     Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78j(b))--or;
       No. 3, to otherwise cheat or defraud another market 
     participant.

  Including these prohibitions, which were part of the Emission 
Allowance Market Transparency Act that I introduced with Senator Snowe, 
clearly establishes the legal framework under which market manipulation 
in these markets will be pursued. But unlike our legislation, the 
amendment does not instruct the Environmental Protection Agency to 
enforce these prohibitions. Instead, the amendment instructs the 
President to decide which agency must conduct enforcement within 270 
days of enactment.
  I believe this amendment is necessary because it will establish that 
the full legal history of the Securities Exchange Act's 
antimanipulation provision forms the foundation upon which the carbon 
market's principles-based regulation must stand. It gives guidance to 
future regulators on the intent and meaning of the core principle that 
``the market shall be designed to prevent fraud and manipulation.'' And 
it adds teeth to that principle by making manipulation and fraud in 
this market a defined crime subject to severe penalty.
  With this amendment, authority to prevent fraud and manipulation in 
carbon markets will mirror the authority over natural gas and 
electricity markets that Congress granted to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission in 2005, as well as the authority over crude oil 
that Congress granted to the Federal Trade Commission in 2007. By 
mirroring proven market oversight mechanisms that protect market 
participants and consumers, this amendment allows us to slip already 
broken-in regulatory concepts onto a new market.
  I believe this amendment will strongly discourage traders from 
seeking to manipulate the market. If we don't set up a framework for 
oversight, the greenhouse gas market could turn into a Wild West. The 
market--estimated to be worth as much as $100 billion annually--would 
invite the worst kind of manipulation, fraud, and abuse. The resulting 
volatility would affect consumer energy costs.
  This is not a hypothetical. In 2000 and 2001, newly created 
California energy markets lacked the basic protections in this bill. 
The electricity and related natural gas markets emerged before the law 
caught up, and much of the manipulation that resulted, shockingly, was 
legal.
  Enron, for instance, ran a market where only they knew the prices. 
Without market transparency laws, this one-sided market was legal. 
Enron manipulated natural gas and electricity prices--but nothing in 
the Natural Gas Act or the Federal Power Act made this manipulation 
unlawful.
  Only years later, after millions of consumers had been harmed, after 
billions of dollars had been lost, and after the entire West had 
endured an energy crisis largely fabricated by traders, did Congress 
act.
  In 2005, Congress succeeded in prohibiting manipulation in natural 
gas and electricity markets. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
has put this authority to good use. It has performed aggressive natural 
gas market oversight, and has brought its first manipulation case, 
against Amaranth--a notorious hedge fund that allegedly manipulated 
natural gas prices month after month.
  This Nation needs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and most 
economists agree that a cap-and-trade system with a greenhouse gas 
market would be the most cost efficient way to guarantee emissions 
reductions.
  Economists also tell us that markets are most efficient when buyers 
and sellers have complete information, no market participant can cheat 
another, and prices result from supply and demand, not manipulation.
  Bottom line: this amendment improves a provision designed to protect 
the integrity of greenhouse gas emissions markets, and it should be 
included as part of any cap-and-trade legislation approved by Congress.


                   FURTHER CHANGES TO S. CON. RES. 21

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, pursuant to section 308(a) of S. Con. Res. 
21, the 2008 budget resolution, I previously filed revisions to S. Con. 
Res. 21, the 2008 budget resolution. Those revisions were made for 
Senate amendment 4825, a complete substitute for S. 3036, the 
Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2008.
  The Senate did not adopt Senate amendment 4825. As a consequence, I 
am further revising the 2008 budget resolution and reversing the 
adjustments made pursuant to section 308(a) to the aggregates and the 
allocation provided to the Senate Environment and Public Works 
Committee for Senate amendment 4825.
  Mr. President, this will be the final revision to the 2008 budget 
resolution. This week, Congress passed S. Con. Res. 70, the 2009 budget 
resolution. The 2009 budget resolution now replaces the 2008 budget 
resolution for purposes of budget enforcement in the Senate.
  I ask unanimous consent to have the following revisions to S. Con. 
Res. 21 printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

 CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008--S. CON. RES.
  21; FURTHER REVISIONS TO THE CONFERENCE AGREEMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION
       308(a) DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR ENERGY LEGISLATION
                        [In billions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Section 101
(1)(A) Federal Revenues:
    FY 2007................................................    1,900.340
    FY 2008................................................    2,016.793
    FY 2009................................................    2,114.754
    FY 2010................................................    2,170.343
    FY 2011................................................    2,351.046
    FY 2012................................................    2,493.878
(1)(B) Change in Federal Revenues:
    FY 2007................................................       -4.366
    FY 2008................................................      -34.003
    FY 2009................................................        7.826

[[Page S5348]]

 
    FY 2010................................................        6.622
    FY 2011................................................      -43.504
    FY 2012................................................     -103.218
(2) New Budget Authority:
    FY 2007................................................    2,371.470
    FY 2008................................................    2,501.726
    FY 2009................................................    2,520.890
    FY 2010................................................    2,573.040
    FY 2011................................................    2,688.764
    FY 2012................................................    2,720.897
(3) Budget Outlays:
    FY 2007................................................    2,294.862
    FY 2008................................................    2,473.063
    FY 2009................................................    2,569.024
    FY 2010................................................    2,601.423
    FY 2011................................................    2,695.166
    FY 2012................................................    2,702.695
------------------------------------------------------------------------


 CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008--S. CON. RES.
  21; FURTHER REVISIONS TO THE CONFERENCE AGREEMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION
       308(a) DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR ENERGY LEGISLATION
                        [In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Allocation to Senate Environment and Public Works
 Committee:
    FY 2007 Budget Authority...............................       42,426
    FY 2007 Outlays........................................        1,687
    FY 2008 Budget Authority...............................       43,535
    FY 2008 Outlays........................................        1,753
    FY 2008-2012 Budget Authority..........................      316,183
    FY 2008-2012 Outlays...................................      124,070
Adjustments:
    FY 2007 Budget Authority...............................            0
    FY 2007 Outlays........................................            0
    FY 2008 Budget Authority...............................            0
    FY 2008 Outlays........................................            0
    FY 2008-2012 Budget Authority..........................     -134,696
    FY 2008-2012 Outlays...................................     -114,402
Revised Allocation to Senate Environment and Public Works
 Committee:
    FY 2007 Budget Authority...............................       42,426
    FY 2007 Outlays........................................        1,687
    FY 2008 Budget Authority...............................       43,535
    FY 2008 Outlays........................................        1,753
    FY 2008-2012 Budget Authority..........................      181,487
    FY 2008-2012 Outlays...................................        9,668
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to share my views on the 
preeminent environmental challenge facing our generation--climate 
change. I believe we must urgently address this looming issue--in 
partnership with the rest of the world--and I commend the bill's 
authors for finally getting this dialogue started after years of White 
House and congressional inaction.
  Scientists have determined conclusively that an ongoing buildup of 
greenhouse gas emissions is causing the Earth's climate to warm and 
will likely lead to drought, flooding, and other catastrophic natural 
disasters.
  The most recent United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 
Change report found that about 1 billion people will be affected by 
water shortages because of declining snow cover on land currently used 
by one-sixth of the world's population.
  The report also predicts global warming will parch large swaths of 
the Earth, threatening the existence of up to 30 percent of its animals 
and plants.
  Global warming's impact on the Pacific Northwest could be 
particularly harmful because our temperatures are rising faster than 
the global average. In Washington, climate change is expected to alter 
the region's historic water cycle, threatening drinking water supplies, 
wildlife and salmon habitat, and the availability of emissions-free 
hydropower. We are also already seeing the ominous beginning of ocean 
acidification off our coastline.
  According to a University of Washington analysis, temperatures in the 
Puget Sound region will rise about 2 degrees by 2050. Cascade mountain 
temperatures could rise 10 degrees or more, causing snowpacks to be 
reduced to just 20 percent of their current levels by 2090.
  In the eastern half of my State, temperatures are expected to rise 
even faster. By 2050, parts of the Columbia Basin could be up to 5 
degrees hotter. In 2090, much of the basin will be up to 8 degrees 
warmer, very harmful to eastern Washington agriculture.
  There has been a great deal of discussion of what the accumulation of 
greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide is doing to change the Earth's 
atmosphere. I am very concerned about that. But today I would like to 
help my colleagues appreciate carbon dioxide is also slowly, silently, 
but surely devastating our oceans and the marine life that depend on 
them.
  I would like to share with you the silent devastation of ocean 
acidification.
  Since the start of the Industrial Revolution 130 years ago, humans 
have released more than 1.5 trillion tons of carbon dioxide into the 
atmosphere, increasing the global atmospheric carbon dioxide 
concentration by 35 percent. But while carbon dioxide is accumulating 
in our atmosphere, it is also being rapidly absorbed by our oceans. At 
least one-third of our carbon dioxide emissions end up in the oceans--
more than half a trillion tons since the start of the Industrial 
Revolution.
  For decades, we assumed that the oceans absorbed these greenhouse 
gases to the benefit of our atmosphere, with no side-effect for the 
seas.
  Science now shows that we were wrong. Today, ocean acidification is 
actually changing the very chemistry of the oceans. As carbon dioxide 
is absorbed, seawater becomes more acidic and begins to withhold the 
basic chemical building blocks needed by many marine organisms.
  According to National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration 
scientists, humans have increased the oceans' acidity by 30 percent 
since the start of the Industrial Revolution. In such acidic waters, 
coral reefs--the rainforests of the sea--cannot build their skeletons. 
In colder waters like the waters of Washington State, scientists 
predict a more acidic ocean could dissolve the shells of the tiny 
organisms that make up the base of the ocean's food chain.
  A recent article in last month's journal Science detailed how acidic 
seawater is already moving closer to shallow waters off of Washington 
State, the habitat for most of my State's marine life.
  These frightening findings were a surprise to researchers who didn't 
expect finding acidic water for several more decades. Because ocean 
acidification has the capacity to lead to a total collapse of ocean 
food chains, it will have major impacts on coastal communities that 
rely on the ocean's bounty.
  And when we add ocean acidification to the effects of carbon dioxide 
coming from a warming atmosphere--increasing ocean temperatures, 
changing winds and currents, and rising sea levels, it is clear that 
our carbon emissions will impact our ocean environments in ways far too 
devastating to ignore.
  Not many people think of orca whales, salmon, coral reefs, or oysters 
when they drive their cars to work each day, but as ocean acidification 
begins to take its toll, there is definitely a connection between the 
carbon emissions we emit and the ocean environments we enjoy and depend 
on.
  Last week, I held a Commerce Committee field hearing in Seattle to 
examine how climate change and ocean acidification are impacting the 
marine environments of my State. What I heard from my constituents was 
nothing short of frightening.
  Brett Bishop, a fifth-generation shellfish farmer in Mason County, 
WA, told me how his business is being devastated by the impacts of 
climate change and ocean acidification. His story can be summed up by 
two words he said to me: ``I'm scared.''
  Climate change is killing his business, and threatens to destroy 
everything his family has worked for over the past 150 years. If things 
continue on their current path and Mr. Bishop can't grow his shellfish, 
then the bank will foreclose on the mortgage, his 27 employees will be 
left jobless, and his family will lose their farm, their homes, and 
generations of hard work.
  This is not some obscure scientific theory pieced together by 
academic scientists. This is real, and it is happening now. Today it is 
shellfish farmers in Mason County, WA. but who will fall victim 
tomorrow? Commercial fishermen? Coastal tourism from dead coral reefs? 
Recreational fisheries?
  These are frightening possibilities--but very real ones that our 
Nation will face in the coming years. And unfortunately, if we don't 
act, Brett Bishop will be one of the millions of Americans with similar 
stories. And, unfortunately, these dangers are largely under the radar 
because they occur beneath the surface of the ocean.
  That is why one of the amendments to the Climate Security Act I am 
pleased to be part of includes a bill I introduced with Senator 
Lautenberg of New Jersey called the Federal Ocean Acidification 
Research and Monitoring Act. Our bill, which passed the Senate Commerce 
Committee unanimously last December, would establish a much-needed 
Federal research program on ocean acidification.
  This amendment also incorporates my Climate Change Adaptation Act

[[Page S5349]]

which was also approved unanimously by the Senate Commerce Committee. 
This important legislation ensures that our Government plans for the 
changes that global warming will inevitably bring. Because the reality 
is that even if we were somehow able to stop using fossil fuels today, 
a certain degree of warming and ocean acidification will still occur 
over the next two or three decades. Planning for the future isn't just 
common sense--it is responsible Government.
  That brings me back to the Climate Security Act the Senate is 
debating today. This is the first comprehensive effort to legislate on 
climate change that has come through the committee process. It is a 
historic feat, and in many ways it reflects the complexity of this 
issue and the varied views and stakeholder interests that accompany any 
effort to cap and trade climate change emissions.
  I commend Senators Boxer, Lieberman, and Warner for their leadership 
in beginning this process and starting us on the path we know we must 
take soon. As Sun Tzu said in the ``Art of War,'' ``the journey of a 
thousand miles begins with a single step.''
  Unfortunately, it looks like our debate may end up being largely 
confined to floor statements because opponents of the bill will succeed 
in blocking the consideration of any amendments. The minority even 
forced our hard-working Senate clerks to read the entire text of the 
bill, word for word, for almost 9 hours on Wednesday. Unfortunately, 
that is about as fitting an example of how opponents want to stall, 
delay, and preserve the status quo as one can imagine.
  While I do believe we must act urgently and decisively to control our 
Nation's and planet's greenhouse gas emissions, I do have a number of 
concerns about the pending legislation.
  Ironically, many of my concerns stem from the fact that Washington 
State is blessed with abundant, affordable, and emissions-free 
hydropower. Unfortunately, this bill fails to recognize that Washington 
State has significantly lower carbon dioxide emissions than other parts 
of the country and how that dynamic poses unique energy challenges 
going forward.
  Some of these challenges are that Washington's hydropower system is 
largely tapped out, so any future electricity generation will largely 
come from relatively more polluting sources for which we will not 
receive any emission allocations under the pending legislation. 
Similarly, the bill does not provide Washington with any allocations we 
will need to provide electricity to the 1.5 million people moving to 
the Puget Sound region by 2020, unlike other parts of the country that 
rely primarily on fossil fuel generation.
  As currently drafted, the bill also effectively penalizes the Pacific 
Northwest for its years of aggressive energy efficiency measures, which 
have avoided the construction of 3,400 megawatts of additional 
capacity. In other words, if we would have built fossil fuel plants 
instead of conserving, we would be getting emission allocations for it 
today. In addition, since we have already taken advantage of many of 
the low-hanging efficiency ``fruit,'' additional efficiency savings 
would be relatively more costly than in other parts of the country.
  I also believe the legislation needs to more carefully consider how 
Federal climate legislation might preempt or overturn the 
groundbreaking efforts in Washington State, such as the Western Climate 
Initiative.
  As a scarred veteran of the Western energy crisis, I also have strong 
concerns that there are not enough safeguards in the bill to prevent 
excessive speculation and manipulation of emission allocation trading 
markets. Even today we see what happens when there is not enough 
transparency and clear rules of conduct in energy markets. Excessive 
speculation and possibly market manipulation artificially elevate 
prices and hurt consumers.
  And finally, we need to make sure that anything we do is actually 
going to do the job. Unfortunately, I understand that the emission-
reduction caps proposed by this legislation are actually not strong 
enough to slow or stop global warming according to the latest science.
  While I am disappointed that there probably won't be an opportunity 
to improve the historic legislation before us today, I am proud that 
after Congress came under new management last year we were able to 
craft and pass the greenest, most important energy bill in our Nation's 
history.
  The Energy Independence and Security Act, which became law last 
December, will create cleaner, more diverse sources of energy supply, 
build new growth industries that support high-wage ``green-collar'' 
jobs, give consumers and businesses more affordable energy choices, and 
protect our environment. For instance, this landmark energy legislation 
aggressively boosts energy efficiency efforts by making our lighting 
and appliances more efficient and reducing the Federal Government's 
energy use.
  Under the new law, fuel economy standards will increase for the first 
time in over two decades to a nationwide average of 35 miles per 
gallon, up from 25 miles per gallon today, by 2020 for all vehicles, 
including SUV's and light trucks. By 2030, these measures will displace 
the equivalent of one-third of our foreign oil needs and save American 
consumers at least half a trillion dollars in energy costs.
  And the new energy law includes mandates and incentives that biofuels 
from nonfood feedstocks such as agriculture and wood waste become a 
much more significant part of our Nation's effort to end our dependence 
on fossil fuels and imported oil.
  All together, these measures and others will reduce our Nation's 
carbon dioxide emissions by the same amount as all of our vehicles on 
the road produce today.
  I think it is important to note that while tackling climate change 
will not be easy or free, moving to a clean energy system, which is a 
prerequisite to any serious effort to reduced greenhouse gases, has 
many benefits beyond reducing greenhouse gases and the costs of 
inaction will be far more significant.
  According to a study by the Natural Resources Defense Council and 
Tufts University, if the United States doesn't do something soon to 
dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions, it could cost the country 
$3.8 trillion annually from higher energy and water costs, real estate 
losses from hurricanes, rising sea levels, and other problems.
  According to the Apollo Alliance, a labor-environmental partnership, 
investing $30 billion per year over 10 years would create 3.3 million 
jobs and boost the Nation's GDP by $1.4 trillion. The Apollo Alliance 
estimates that dollars invested in clean energy create more jobs than 
those invested in traditional energy sources because renewable energy 
is more labor intensive. It is possible for a Nation to grow while 
being environmentally conscious. For example, the British economy grew 
by about 40 percent since 1990 while their greenhouse gas emissions 
decreased by 14 percent.
  The science is undeniable that human activities are changing the 
world we know and love and depend on for our well being. We are already 
seeing the effects on our oceans, our forests, our crops, and our 
wildlife--and unless we act, I am afraid the worst is yet to come.
  We will only succeed in combating climate change if we work together, 
across the aisle here in Congress, across our States with their very 
different greenhouse gas profiles, and across the world. By working 
together we can find a path forward to solve this greatest of 
challenges. And if we do it right, the solutions we create will also 
help address other pressing needs such as providing more clean and 
renewable energy sources, high-wage manufacturing jobs, and new export 
markets.
  Our Nation and the world is waiting for us to take action--and the 
lead in preventing and mitigating the catastrophic effects of global 
climate change. Our children and their children and all of the world's 
citizens' future depends on it. I look forward to continuing this 
dialog with my friends on both sides of the aisle.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Georgia is 
recognized.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for up to 5 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. REID. I object.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.




                          ____________________