Congressional Record, Volume 158 Issue 25 (Wednesday, February 15, 2012)

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 25 (Wednesday, February 15, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S672-S679]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

GLOBAL WARMING

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I fear one of the major issues that not
only faces our country but faces our planet is not getting the kind of
serious debate and discussion it needs in the Senate; that is, the
planetary crisis of global warming, what its impact is having now in
our country and in other countries throughout the world and how, in
fact, we can address this enormous crisis.
I understand politically some of my colleagues do not believe global
warming is real and they do not think there is much our country should
or can do to address this crisis. I understand that. But with all due
respect, I strongly disagree with that position and believe, in terms
of the future of our planet, the lives of our kids and our
grandchildren, that is a very wrongheaded position and could lead to
enormous problems for our country and for the rest of the world.
But the truth is, the real debate about global warming is not whether
other Members of the Senate disagree with me or Senator Udall, the
issue is what the scientific community, the people who have studied
this issue for years, in fact, believes. As I think the Presiding
Officer understands, the overwhelming consensus in our country and
around the world from the scientific community is, A, global warming is
real, and, B, to a very significant degree global warming is manmade.
That is not just my position, not just what I say or what other
Members of the Senate say. Far more important, it is what leading
scientists all over the world are saying.
The National Academy of Sciences in this country, joined by academies
of science in the United Kingdom, Italy, Mexico, Canada, France, Japan,
Russia, Germany, China, India, Brazil, and South Africa, has said--this
is their statement, the National Academy of Sciences-- ``. . . climate
change is happening even faster than previously estimated'' and the
``need for urgent action to address climate change is now
indisputable.''
It is fine for radio talk show hosts to have their view. Frankly, I
think it is more significant that the scientific community from all
over the world is in agreement. Let me repeat what they say: `` . . .
climate change is happening even faster than previously estimated'' and
the ``need for urgent action to address climate change is now
indisputable.''
Mr. President, 18 scientific societies, including the American
Geophysical Union and the American Association for the Advancement of
Science, said:

Observations throughout the world make it clear that
climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research
demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human
activities are the primary driver.

That is not I; that is 18 scientific societies, including the
American Geophysical Union and the American Association for the
Advancement of Science.
They continue:

These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines
of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an
objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed
science.

But it is not only the scientific community. It is agencies of the
U.S. Government that have to deal or worry about the impact of global
warming.
The Department of Defense says:

[[Page S674]]

Climate change is an accelerant of instability.

What they worry about is, as the planet warms, as floods occur, as
drought occurs, we are going to see migrations of people, we are going
to see countries fighting over limited natural resources, whether it is
farmland or whether it is water. From the Department of Defense
perspective, they say, and I repeat:

Climate change is an accelerant of instability.

That is the U.S. Department of Defense--not Bernie Sanders.
The CIA--our intelligence agency--says: `` . . . climate change could
have significant geopolitical impacts around the world, contributing to
poverty, environmental degradation, and the further weakening of
fragile governments,'' as well as ``food and water scarcity.''
That is not a Senator on the floor. That is the Central Intelligence
Agency, the business of which is to gather and assess threats to our
country.
Interestingly enough, there are segments of the business community
that are also speaking out on climate change and global warming for
their own reasons.
The insurance industry, in a report from the National Association of
Insurance Commissioners, found there is ``broad consensus among
insurers that climate change will have an effect on extreme weather
events.''
What we are seeing is that scientists all over the world, academic
institutions all over the world, governmental agencies right here in
the United States of America--including the Department of Defense and
the CIA--and the insurance industry saying global warming is real, it
is a real threat to our planet, and it is imperative we address it.
I have more to say on this issue, and some of us will be on the floor
for an hour, but I want to give the floor over to Senator Tom Udall
from New Mexico, who has certainly been a leading advocate in the fight
for policies that will reverse global warming and move us in another
direction.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, thank you so very much.
I first wish to ask my colleague from Vermont a little bit about some
of the things he said that I find remarkable.
We are still in a very fragile recession. The economy is starting to
grow, but it is not strong enough, and we could slip back. So what has
happened is, we have these--what we call in this language--tax
extenders. What we are talking about is jobs, isn't it? We are talking
about the idea that we can have a clean energy economy; that over the
last couple years this has been the fastest growing sector, and we have
a production tax credit for wind, we have a section in the Treasury
Department's 603, and those provisions create jobs.

I just wish to ask the Senator, it seems to me, at this particular
time, we have the potential to grow the American economy, but we have
to get off the dime because these things expire on February 29--in less
than 2 weeks.
Mr. SANDERS. I say to my friend, he is absolutely right. The issue we
are talking about now is not only trying to reverse global warming and
save the planet, what we are talking about is creating, over a period
of years, millions of good-paying jobs.
We may not know it from some media reports, but the fact is the solar
industry in this country is exploding. All over this country, we are
seeing more and more installations of solar panels, we are seeing the
production of solar. One of the issues I think Senator Udall is
referring to is whether the United States of America will be a leader
in sustainable energy or are we going to give that whole enormous
economic area over to China.
I know the Senator and I are in agreement that we believe American
workers can manufacture those panels. We think American workers can
install those panels.
We also understand it is not just solar, it is wind; that these
industries need some of the help that the fossil fuel industry has been
receiving for years. I think we will also be talking about the whole
issue of energy efficiency and weatherization, which in my State is
enormously important. We are creating jobs, saving consumers money, as
we retrofit their homes and cut back on their use of fuel.
So, yes, I say to the Senator, we are talking about a major jobs
issue.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. I say to Senator Sanders, the thing we
should focus on, when it comes to wind farms, is how much these wind
farms can be expanded in terms of jobs. The average wind farm in
America built today has 50 large wind turbines. Each turbine can
produce electricity to power roughly 500 homes, even accounting for the
variability of the winds. So the average wind farm can power about
25,000 homes.
The average wind farm, then, produces many other benefits. This is
what is remarkable to me: There is $20 million in construction payroll
in a year from an average wind farm; $875,000 per year to rural local
school districts; and also $280,000 per year to rural county
governments; $150,000 per year in ongoing direct payroll for employees;
$1.5 million in contract labor payroll; and $300,000 to $600,000 per
year in royalties to land owners, farmers, and ranchers.
So when we talk about wind--wind power--what we are talking about is
American jobs, clean energy jobs, growing the economy, and it mystifies
me that our friends on the Republican side and in the House are saying:
These things are going to expire in 2 weeks, and there is no hurry to
push them, to put them in place, and to move it. Is that the Senator's
understanding, that they are saying we are going to let them expire?
Mr. SANDERS. Absolutely. It is incomprehensible. Here we have
technologies that are incredibly successful. They are producing
substantial amounts of energy, without pollution, without greenhouse
gases. They are creating jobs. Of course, we should continue these tax
credits, these extenders to make sure these industries can flourish.
Some people may think when Senator Udall and I talk about wind and
solar, we are talking about some kind of fringe idea. Let's be clear;
in the State of Texas today they are producing 10,000 megawatts of
electricity through wind. That is the equivalent of 10 average-sized
nuclear powerplants. That is not insignificant. In Iowa, as I
understand it, about 20 percent of the electricity in that State is
generated from wind.
So we are in the beginning, in the first stages of a real revolution
to transform our energy system to clean, safe energy which, in the
process, can create, over a period of years, millions of good-paying
jobs.
So I would certainly agree with the Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. I say to Senator Sanders, one of the things
that I think is very instructive is that the history of the wind
production tax credit has been completely bipartisan. I would like to
lay out a little bit of that history.
The production tax credit began in a bipartisan energy policy in
1992, signed by then-President George H.W. Bush. It was extended in
December 1999 by a Republican Congress and signed into law by President
Clinton. It was extended again in 2002 and in 2004, this time signed
into law by President George W. Bush. In 2005, it was extended again as
a part of bipartisan energy legislation, the 2005 Energy Policy Act.
The Senator and I, I think, were both in the House at that time, and we
voted for that in the House. In December 2006, it was extended again.
Most recently, it was extended in the 2009 Recovery Act, which was
signed by President Obama.
So Congress should continue this bipartisan tradition and extend the
wind production tax credit, these other tax credits that create clean
energy jobs, and stay focused on the good job we have been doing that
has been bipartisan. That is why I do not understand the House, the
chairman of the Ways and Means Committee saying: Oh, we can do these
later. We need to do this work today. We need to put that in place now
so that we can grow these clean energy jobs. Is that the Senator's
understanding?
Mr. SANDERS. Well, the Senator is absolutely right. Everybody
understands that if you are in business, if you are in wind or in
solar, you have to be planning for the future. And if you do not
believe or you are uncertain about whether these tax credits are

[[Page S675]]

going to be available, what is going to happen is you are not going to
go forward. We know there are examples right now of major projects that
have already been canceled.
Furthermore, we are not talking--given the context of U.S. Government
expenditures--about a huge amount of money, but it is money that I
think is very well spent, protects our environment, and creates jobs.
I see the Senator from Rhode Island has joined us. Senator Whitehouse
has surely been one of the strongest advocates for our environment and
the need to address global warming.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I am glad to have a chance to join with you today. I
appreciate very much Senator Sanders convening us on this day when we
have agreed, it appears, to extend the payroll tax; we have agreed, it
appears, to extend unemployment insurance; and we have agreed, it
appears, to extend the payments for doctors under Medicare, under the
so-called doc fix. And the one piece that has fallen out was the tax
extenders that support our clean energy industry.
Our clean energy industry has more employees than Big Oil, and there
are well-paying jobs. It is a growing industry, and it creates American
manufacturing and American installation.
Senator Udall was talking about the economic value of these wind
farms. I know that in his home State, there are plenty of wind farms
that are built on the land. In my home State, we are working toward
having wind farms that are built offshore. And the ability to construct
those giant turbines at Quonset Point in Rhode Island, in order to
install them offshore and enjoy the power and the jobs that result, is
something that is really important to us.
So I am glad the Senator has called us together to focus on this
question of the tax extenders and also to focus on the environmental
harm of climate change. I will turn it back to the Senator, but I wish
to make one last point before I do, which is that there is a certain
amount of sort of snickering around Washington about climate change,
which is a unique feature to Washington. If you go out in the
scientific community, nobody is laughing. They are very anxious. They
are worried.
The major scientific organizations have all signed off on public
letters urging us to do something about this because it is so
significant. We have looked out at the first dozen billion-dollar
storms year that we have had. Wherever you look around the world, we
are seeing extreme weather. And the notion that when the scientists
predicted extreme weather and now we are seeing it--if that should not
be cause for additional concern, that really flies in the face of both
prudence and reality.
The last area where we are really getting clobbered is with our
oceans. As we pump, in human time, unprecedented amounts of carbon into
our atmosphere, it is taken up by the oceans. It is absorbed by the
oceans. During the course of the Industrial Revolution and to now, the
oceans have absorbed enormous amounts of carbon. It is changing the
oceans. It is killing off coral reefs in the tropical areas. It is
making the oceans so acidic that the little organisms that are at the
base of the food chain are having trouble growing to their proper size.
It is becoming a hostile environment. Creatures do not live well in an
environment in which they are increasingly soluble.
These are not theories, these are measurements by scientists who go
out and actually measure what is happening. The blindness in Washington
to this problem is something that is not only a cause for concern now
but is going to be a cause for harsh judgment in history's eyes.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, may I just ask the Senator--
and I know he may have other places to go, but he mentioned offshore
wind on the Atlantic coast, and the study out of the University of
Delaware indicated that off of the Atlantic coast there is the
potential in wind to generate enough electricity to power the entire
east coast group of cities--very large cities, as you know--from
Providence, to New York, to Boston. And Google is already out there
starting to lay the grid with some other partners. So we have huge
potential to move forward, and basically what we are being told at this
point is, oh, let these things expire.
That is a very shortsighted position. But that study about the coast
is an eye-opener because it tells the American people: Look, here is
clean energy. We do not have to import oil anymore. We do not have to
bring in energy from outside. Just off our coast, we can go out there
and put a grid in place and generate wind energy. I know the Senator
has probably heard about this study.
Mr. SANDERS. If I can, let me just jump in to ask unanimous consent
that Senators Whitehouse, Udall, and I be permitted to engage in a
colloquy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SANDERS. If I could ask Senator Whitehouse and Senator Udall a
simple question--and Senator Whitehouse raised this issue--all over the
world, there really is no debate within the scientific community about
the reality of global warming, the basic causes of global warming, the
severity of global warming. Yet suddenly here in this Congress it
becomes a major political issue. We fund the National Institutes of
Health. We fund scientific organizations. They do research on cancer.
They do research on heart disease. They do all kinds of research. I
don't see great political debate about what this says. And suddenly,
when you have almost unanimity within the scientific community, this
becomes this great dividing political issue. How did it happen that
where there is so much unanimity among the scientific community in this
country and around the world, this has become such a hot-potato
political issue?
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Special interests would be my answer. We have seen it
before. We saw the science mocked that tobacco was injurious to human
health. We saw the science mocked that the lead in paint was injurious
to children. And now we have seen mockery of the science that shows
that when you put unprecedented amounts of carbon into the atmosphere,
it changes things.

The science is actually not new. The scientist who created the global
warming theory was a scientist named Tindall who published his work
around the time of the American Civil War, and it has never been
controversial. The idea that when you put enormous amounts of carbon
into the atmosphere, it creates a warming effect, a blanketing effect,
we have known this literally since the horse-and-buggy era. The
difference is that there are now powerful special interests that are
involved.
To Senator Udall's points, we are at a point of choice. We can choose
to go toward having the environmental needs of the country met and the
energy needs of the country met with clean, American-made, manufactured
power that is renewable. The Senator is right about the capabilities of
offshore wind on the east coast, but that is not the only road we can
take. We can continue to support multinational mega-corporations that
have no loyalty to any flag or nation, that traffic internationally in
oil, and that want to make sure that we stay, as President Bush said,
addicted to oil. There is a choice, and I think those special interests
have a clear desire as to what choice this country should make. I
happen to believe it is contrary to this country's national interests,
so that is why we are here fighting to try to steer in the other
direction.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Just to the point of why we aren't able to
move--and I agree with Senator Whitehouse, and I think Senator Sanders
has seen this also--when you get into energy, there are huge, powerful
special interests--especially those special interests that are
representing fossil fuels--and they would love nothing better than to
just have the status quo. What we have seen is they are relying--and
this is amazing to me, and the Senator has been one of the leaders on
this issue where Big Oil is getting subsidies today from the Federal
Government, and we have tried to take those Big Oil subsidies and move
them over into the clean energy area. They resist that even though
President Bush and the leaders of their industry say: We don't need
these subsidies.
Mr. SANDERS. If I could just point out, picking up on Senator Udall's
point, in recent years we have seen, as everybody in America knows--not
only

[[Page S676]]

are we paying outrageously high prices at the pump, but we are seeing
oil companies making huge profits. My recollection is that in the last
10 years the oil companies have made about $1 trillion in profits.
ExxonMobil has made more money than any corporation in history. Yet,
over the last 10 years, there have been examples, there have been cases
in a given year where a major oil company--ExxonMobil being one--made
huge profits, billions in profits, and ended up paying zero in Federal
income taxes and, in fact, got a rebate. So you have this absurd
situation where hugely profitable oil companies are paying nothing in
taxes, and some of us think that does not make any sense at all. We
think they should pay their fair share and that to a significant degree
that money should go into sustainable energy so that we can break our
addiction to oil.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. And the results are really profound.
I will close with this point in this discussion. For as long
essentially as mankind has been on this Earth, for 800,000 years--to
put 800,000 years in scale, we have probably been engaged in
agriculture as a species for 10,000 or 15,000 years. Before that we
were pure hunter-gatherers. So 800,000 years--8,000 centuries--is an
enormous period of time in human history. It is essentially the entire
sweep of the human species on the face of the Earth. Throughout that
period, we have existed within an atmosphere that stayed within a range
of carbon concentration. For the first time in 8,000 centuries, we have
now rocketed outside of that range. That ought to be a pretty
significant warning to us that we are in new and untested territory in
terms of the basic conditions of the environment that supports our
species. And because the concentrations in the atmosphere have grown so
greatly, so has the acidity of our oceans. If you go back into
geological time to look at what changes such as these can potentially
lead to, you see really massive adverse events such as catastrophic
die-offs of species.
So we are playing with potentially very big consequences. We are
playing outside of the boundaries that have governed our planet for
800,000 years, and we are refusing to correct what is going on, I
believe, as both of you have pointed out, because of one predominant
reason; that is, the power of special interests to phony-up a debate in
this town.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Two weeks from today, the payroll tax cut
championed by the President and extended by Congress in December will
expire.

Congress should renew this financial relief to American working
families while our economy is still recovering.
For a family making $50,000 a year, the payroll tax cut means about
$1,000 a year, or about $40 in every paycheck.
I'm encouraged by recent progress that Congress will resolve this
issue, but the payroll tax cut is not the only tax provision that can
create jobs in New Mexico, and across the Nation.
The production tax credit for wind is set to expire at the end of
this year. The Treasury Grant Program for renewable energy tax credits
expired this past December.
One of the best things we can do to help our economy recover is
invest in the clean energy economy. It has created the jobs of the
future while the broader economy was struggling. According to the
Brookings Institute, the clean energy economy grew twice as fast as the
broader economy during the recession.
To maintain the growth of wind energy jobs, Congress should renew the
production tax credit as part of the payroll tax cut. If we wait until
the end of the year, or delay until 2013, many projects will be delayed
and thousands of jobs will be lost. The production tax credit has, by
any measure, been extraordinarily successful. It was first used in 1992
and has led to the installation of wind energy capacity in America
equivalent to 75 average coal-fired power plants, and it is rapidly
growing.
We added the equivalent of 10 large power plants worth of wind power
in 2011, and are on track to do even more in 2012. In New Mexico, we
have enough wind power either already built, or currently under
construction to power 200,000 homes. New Mexico has tremendous wind
capacity, with 20 times more capacity in the planning stages. Those
plans depend in large part on Congress continuing to support the
American wind industry. The tax credit has been extended seven times by
Presidents and Congresses of both parties.
Wind is becoming cost-competitive with fossil fuels. A 4-year tax
credit extension would allow the industry to thrive long term. With 60
percent of wind turbines made in America, the beneficiaries of the wind
production tax credit are legion, including: U.S. iron and steel
producers, over 400 U.S. manufacturing facilities in 43 States, 85,000
employees in well-paid engineering and technical jobs, thousands of
farmers and ranchers who lease their land, rural school districts that
receive tax payments, and rural local governments.
The future is wide open. The Department of Energy estimates the U.S.
could receive 20 percent of its power from wind by 2030. Wind is not
just in the west and midwest. The east coast can be powered by huge
offshore wind resources in the Atlantic Ocean.
If the wind production tax credit is the engine for the clean energy
economy, the Treasury grant program is the turbo boost. Enacted as Sec.
1603 of the Recovery Act, this program allows renewable energy tax
credit earners to receive the value of the tax credit as a grant.
This eliminates the need for complex financing arrangements and
finding other parties who are able to use the tax credits. Typically
financial institutions will receive 10 or 15 percent of the value of
renewable tax credits in return for financing a project.
The Treasury grant program removes the middle man, and has led to the
rapid expansion of renewable energy in the last 2 to 3 years,
especially with solar energy. Until it expired in December, the program
awarded over 4,000 grants worth $1.75 billion for 22,000 solar projects
in 47 States.
This innovative financing then supported over $4 billion in private
sector investment. One report found that an extension of the program
would create an additional 37,000 jobs in 2012 in the solar industry
alone. China, the EU, India, Japan, and other nations are acting
aggressively to take leadership of the clean energy economy. They want
the job growth and the energy security that results.
I am confident that our workers and entrepreneurs can compete with
anyone.
But if we do counterproductive things, and pull the rug out from
underneath our fastest growing clean energy industries, our economy and
our energy security will fall behind. The payroll tax extension is a
logical vehicle for extending other expiring tax provisions that
benefit the economy.
On the other hand, the payroll tax extension is a terrible place to
make unrelated policy that subverts Congressional process on behalf of
special interests. The Environmental Protection Agency is, by and
large, following the Nation's long-standing environmental laws and
court orders when it updates standards to reduce pollution.
If Members are opposed to the Clean Air Act or the Clean Water Act,
then they can propose bills to change those laws. Pollution does not
create jobs. In fact, reducing pollution saves money for business and
reduces health care costs for citizens. I am personally opposed to
wholesale rollbacks of long-standing, bipartisan environmental laws.
But I am even more strongly and passionately opposed to backdoor
attempts to undermine those laws on unrelated legislation.
Congress has voted down several resolutions of disapproval for EPA
updated standards.
While I have opposed those efforts in the past, at least that is a
legitimate process under the Congressional Review Act.
Holding much needed tax relief hostage for anti-environmental policy
riders will not stand up to public scrutiny.
We must remain vigilant and keep upcoming legislation focused on tax
relief that will benefit working families and invest in clean energy
jobs.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record.
The material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Facts About an Average American Wind Farm

An average wind farm in America built today has about 50
large wind turbines.

[[Page S677]]

Each turbine can produce electricity to power roughly 500
homes, even accounting for variability of wind.
So the average wind farm can power around 25,000 homes.
That average wind farm then produces many other benefits:
$20 million in construction payroll in the year of
construction, $875,000 per year to rural local school
districts, $280,000 per year to rural county governments,
$150,000 per year in ongoing direct payroll for employees,
$1.5 million per year in contract labor payroll, $300,000 to
$600,000 per year in royalties to landowners, farmers, and
ranchers.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, as to the history of the wind
production tax credit, the production tax credit began in the
bipartisan Energy Policy Act of 1992, signed by President George H.W.
Bush.
It was extended in Dec. 1999, by a Republican Congress and signed
into law by President Clinton.
It was extended again in 2002 and 2004, this time signed into law by
President George W. Bush.
In 2005, it was extended again as part of bipartisan energy
legislation, the 2005 Energy Policy Act.
I voted for that legislation when I served in the House.
In December 2006, it was extended again.
Most recently, it was extended in the 2009 Recovery Act, which was
signed by President Obama.
Congress should continue this bipartisan tradition, and extend the
wind production tax credit very soon.
We should avoid the mistakes of the past, where last minute
extensions led to uncertainty and job losses.
I would like to thank the Senator for asking us to come to the floor,
for leading this debate. This is a debate we need to carry on until we
get the production tax credits and other tax extenders in place and
move our clean energy industry forward.
I thank the Senator for that.
I yield the floor.
Mr. SANDERS. I thank the Senator for the good work he is doing. What
I would like to do is just pick up on a point Senator Whitehouse just
raised; that is, the record of history shows us that we cannot take the
climate for granted. Our relatively limited experience of advancement
over the last 10,000 years, during the time of stable climate on a
planet that is billions of years old, has distorted our view of the
Earth's complex climate system.
A recent National Academy of Sciences report stated:

. . . it seems clear that the Earth's future will be unlike
the climate that ecosystems and human societies have been
accustomed to during the last 10,000 years. . . .

That is the point Senator Whitehouse just made, and that is according
to the National Academy of Sciences.
The reason is that human activities--primarily the burning of fossil
fuels--are increasing greenhouse gas emissions and causing global
warming. According to the U.S. Global Change Research Program, ``global
warming is unequivocal and primarily human induced.''
We have altered the climate that has sustained humanity for the last
10,000 years. We are now at 392 parts per million of carbon dioxide, up
from 280 parts per million in the 18th century. What an extraordinary
increase in carbon dioxide in that short period of time. And greenhouse
gas levels are rising steadily. In fact, carbon dioxide levels are
increasing faster than at any time on record, according to our EPA.
Maybe that 392 parts per million seems like an abstract number, so
let me put it into context. According to UCLA researchers, the last
time carbon dioxide levels were consistently this high--the last time--
was 15 million years ago--15 million years ago. The Earth, at that
time, was warmer by 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit than it is today. At
that level of warmth, there is no permanent sea ice in the Arctic and
little, if any, ice on Antarctica and Greenland.
That explains, in part, why sea levels at that time were 75 to 120
feet higher than today. If sea levels today even approached half that
level, we would inundate--inundate--major coastal cities around the
world and create hundreds of millions of displaced refugees. And that
is what we are talking about.
So let me repeat: The last time carbon dioxide levels were
consistently this high was 15 million years ago, at which time the
Earth was warmer by 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit than it is today.
There is no doubt, if we do nothing to reverse global warming, we are
doing more than just threatening harm to the environment. We are
jeopardizing the future of our planet and much of humanity. All too
often we talk about global warming as if the impact will be somewhere
down the line--maybe in 100 years, maybe in 200 years, and isn't it too
bad those polar bears are trying to get by on that little block of ice.
The reality is that global warming is impacting our planet today, and
the impact is devastating.
Mr. President, I see the Senator from Minnesota is here. He has been
very active on this issue, and I know he has some important points to
be made, so I yield the floor for Senator Franken of Minnesota.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of New Mexico). The Senator from
Minnesota.
Mr. FRANKEN. I thank the Senator from Vermont and also the Presiding
Officer and the Senator from Rhode Island for engaging in this colloquy
that is so important.
Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues in the Senate to
support an extension of the renewable energy production tax credit.
This tax credit, slated to expire at the end of this year, has created
thousands of jobs for the wind industry, has reduced our dependence on
foreign oil, and is hugely important to Minnesota and to the Nation.
But because it takes a lot of time to order and manufacture new wind
turbines, investors need to know the credit will exist in 2013 or else
they will not invest. That is why the credit must be extended now,
along with the payroll tax extension and unemployment benefits.
If Congress lets the renewable energy production tax credit expire,
we will let down the 80,000 people working on wind farms and
manufacturing facilities across the Nation, and we may cost this
country $10 billion in lost investment. Already, because of uncertainty
about the fate of the production tax credit, investment in the wind
industry is drying up. America cannot afford to wait any longer.
Congress must act now to extend this important measure for American
business and manufacturing and, indeed, for the future of our planet.
Just a few weeks ago, I received a letter from Terry and Janet
Carlson, who run a family farm in Parkers Prairie, MN, and are
developing a wind project in their community. They write:

Our family believes in renewable energy and the benefits it
can provide to our local community. Besides being
environmentally friendly, wind energy has proved to be a
great economic benefit to the State of Minnesota and small
communities such as ours. But the 2012 expiration of the
production tax credit has created a high level of uncertainty
in the wind industry. . . . We have a significant amount of
time and money invested in this project and the production
tax credit expiration has a significant impact on our project
moving forward. It also has a significant impact on the
thousands of renewable energy related jobs in America and the
economic boon it would provide to our community.

Terry and Janet have good reasons to be concerned. A Navigant
Consulting study found that if the tax production credit is not
extended, construction of wind turbines will drop by 75 percent in
2013. That means a lot fewer manufacturing jobs and construction jobs.
And, in fact, if Congress fails to extend the production tax credit,
the wind industry will lose half of its jobs, dropping from 80,000 in
2012 to 41,000 in 2013. That means 39,000 well-paying construction and
manufacturing jobs will evaporate if Congress fails to extend this tax
credit.
What a shame that would be. We have had this discussion. We have had
a colloquy before on global warming. As the Senator from Vermont said
in his opening remarks, the world community knows this exists. The
world scientific community knows where this is going. And so China is
doing wind, Germany is doing wind, and Denmark is doing wind. This is
the future of our energy. If we stop producing wind energy, we are
going to cede this to the rest of the world. If we don't act now, and
renew the production tax credit, we are going to lose 40,000 jobs right
now, but we are also going to lose the future.
On the other hand, this tax policy has major potential for the
American

[[Page S678]]

economy now and in the future. With a 4-year extension, the production
tax credit will continue to support growth in the wind industry,
boosting construction of wind farms by 25 percent, and instead of
losing 39,000 jobs, an extension of the wind production credit will
create 15,000 additional well-paying construction and manufacturing
jobs.
With the help of the renewable energy production tax credit, the wind
industry has been a bright spot in these tough economic times. There
are over 400 facilities across 43 States manufacturing for the wind
energy industry. Sixteen of these facilities are in Minnesota and
support about 3,000 jobs. Currently, a majority of wind industry parts
are produced here in America.

I think that is so important. We talk about the future of our
economy. We talk about all the time here, or at least should be talking
about all the time here, the future of our economy. Think about that.
Over half of wind energy parts are now produced here in America,
whereas in 2005, a quarter of components were made in this country.
That is what we have to continue to do. That is the story we want to
hear.
Instead of exporting manufacturing jobs to other countries, the wind
industry has been bringing well-paying, high-tech jobs back to America,
where the technology was first invented, and that is thanks to the
renewable energy tax credit. If we don't extend this tax credit, we
will fail these facilities and the people whose jobs are at stake. As
uncertainty about the tax credit deepens, we have already seen that
orders to wind manufacturing facilities are slowing down and companies
are making layoffs.
This is our fault, here in Congress, and it is unacceptable. The
longer we wait, the worse the layoffs and shutdowns will become. In
fact, if we don't extend the tax credit this month, it will be too late
for the wind industry to build any turbines in 2013. Wind turbines are
big, and wind farms need to plan and order parts a year in advance. If
the wind farms can't depend on the tax credit of 2013, they can't make
plans to build for the next year, which means they can't make orders to
400 manufacturing facilities across the country for parts.
Because of the uncertainty of the tax credit in 2013, production now
in 2012 has already come to a halt. That is why we need to extend this
tax credit now, immediately, in the payroll tax package.
For the past several months, we have been celebrating reports that
the unemployment rate is improving. This is fantastic news. But we
can't rest on our laurels yet. We must be sure to enact smart policies
that promote businesses and job growth in the parts of the economy that
need it most and which are the future. The renewable energy tax credit
does just that. It will promote growth in manufacturing and
construction--industries that deserve our help the most.
America has tremendous wind resources, most of which are still
untapped. Take Minnesota, for example. We are ranked fifth in the
country for the most installed wind capacity. Yet our wind resources
could still provide 25 times more energy. This is a huge opportunity
for this country--an opportunity that we can't afford to dismiss.
Wind blows all over this Nation. It blows in red States and in blue
States alike. It is an abundant, cheap, clean energy resource that is
proving to be a boon to our economy. We cannot stop developing it now.
I urge my colleagues to extend the renewable energy production tax
credit immediately, at the same time we extend the payroll tax cut and
unemployment benefits.
I want to thank the Presiding Officer for his leadership, and I want
to thank the Senator from Vermont and the Senator from Rhode Island,
and so many others, who are leading this fight. This is smart on an
economic basis, but we are facing a crisis that scientists around the
world agree on.
I yield to the Senator from Vermont. I have said what I wanted to say
about the wind production tax credit and the other renewable energy tax
credits. I thank the Senator from Vermont for his leadership.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Minnesota.
The point that he makes is indisputable; that is, if we are serious
about creating decent-paying, meaningful jobs in this country, why in
God's name are we not extending 1603 for solar and wind and the
renewable energy tax credit? This will enable us to create good-paying
jobs, make sure sustainable energy is an important part of our economy,
and allow this country to play a leadership role in reversing
greenhouse gas emissions and combating global warming.
I think there are some people who say: Well, maybe global warming
might be real, but we don't have to worry about it today. Its impact
will not be seen for decades or centuries to come. I would suggest that
is not quite correct. We are seeing the impact of global warming
climate change right now. Let me give an example.
According to studies, in my own State of Vermont in northern New
England, if we fail to reverse global warming we will see continued
temperature increases. Vermont's climate, by 2080, is projected to be
similar to Georgia's climate today. Mr. President, 2080, in the great
scheme of things, is not all that far away. To think that Vermont,
northern New England, will have a climate similar to Georgia's today is
rather extraordinary if that takes place by the year 2080. Clearly, if
that trend takes place, it would be devastating in many respects for
Vermont, including our winter tourism and our sugar maple producers,
among other aspects of our economy.
Lake Champlain, our beautiful lake which borders New York State and
Vermont, which used to freeze for 9 out of every 10 years in the early
20th century, froze over just three times in the 1990s and has not
fully frozen over since 2007. So in my small State, the State of
Vermont, northern New England, we are seeing the impact of climate
change today. The idea that by the year 2080 Vermont's climate will be
similar to the State of Georgia's climate today is just unthinkable and
extraordinary and tells us the impact that global warming is having.
According to NASA, 2010 tied 2005 for the warmest year since records
began in 1880. Nine of the ten warmest years on record have occurred
since the year 2000. The last decade was the warmest on record.
We have seen temperature records being recorded all over the planet
in the year 2010. During that year, Pakistan set a record for recording
the highest temperature ever in Asia, hitting 129 degrees Fahrenheit.
Iraq set its own record for high temperatures at over 125 degrees.
Sudan reached a record 121 degrees. Los Angeles, right here in our
country, had a record 113-degree day. Houston, TX, set a record for its
highest monthly average temperature.
In the United States, according to a New York Times article, two
record-high temperatures are now set for every one record low. The
National Climatic Data Center shows that 26,500 record-high
temperatures were recorded in weather stations across the United States
in the summer of 2011. Texas set the record for the warmest summer of
any State since instrument records began. Oklahoma set a record for its
warmest summer, exceeding the record set during the Dust Bowl era in
the 1930s.
But we are not just looking at hot temperatures and hot days. What
are the impacts of those kinds of weather changes? What does it mean to
people's lives? Scientists used to say they could not tie a particular
event to climate change. That is no longer true. Our understanding of
climate and extreme weather has advanced.
NASA's James Hansen and his colleagues can say that some of the
extreme heat waves we have seen, such as those in Russia and Texas and
Oklahoma, over the past several years were caused by global warming
because their likelihood would be negligible if not for global warming.
Let me give some other examples of what global warming is doing in
terms of heat waves and its horrendous impact on the lives of people.
Some of us remember Europe in 2003. During that period in Europe,
2003, a heat wave caused temperatures to reach or exceed 100 degrees
Fahrenheit in the United Kingdom and France and led to high
temperatures throughout Europe for weeks which killed 70,000 people,
according to the World Health Organization. Many older people, people
with respiratory problems, people

[[Page S679]]

who were fragile in health died during that period. In the heat wave in
Europe in 2003, 70,000 people died.
In Russia in 2010, a week-long heat wave sent temperatures soaring
above 100 degrees Fahrenheit in areas where the average temperature
that time of year is 67 degrees. Mr. President, 56,000 people died
during that period as a result of that heat wave, and wildfires created
a smoke plume nearly 2,000 miles wide, which was visible from space.
So this is not some kind of abstract issue: Oh, my goodness; isn't it
too bad it is really hot today. What we are talking about are prolonged
heat waves that kill substantial numbers of people.
In India in 2010, they recorded temperatures of over 100 degrees that
killed hundreds of people; Chile in 2011, a heat wave, drought, and
wildfire destroyed 57,000 acres of forest and land and forced 500
people to evacuate; Australia in 2012, the start of 2012 was the
hottest start of any year for Australia in the century, according to
ABC News, with temperatures exceeding 104 degrees and electricity cut
off in some areas to prevent the igniting of fires.

Prolonged and more severe drought is likely to increase as global
warming continues, according to the National Center for Atmospheric
Research in Colorado. This means increased risk of crop failure,
wildfires, and water scarcity. A recent study published in Scientific
American found that climate change has cut production of cereal crops--
wheat, rice, corn, soybeans--causing these crops to be nearly 19
percent more expensive than if global warming was not occurring.
I could go on and on about this issue. But the main point I want to
make is the following, and let me summarize it here. According to
virtually the entire scientific community in the United States of
America and around the world, according to virtually every agency of
the United States Government, global warming is real, and it is
significantly caused by human activity. People are mistaken if they
believe the impact of global warming will just be in decades to come.
We are seeing very negative impacts today. The scientific community
tells us if we do not begin to reverse greenhouse gas emissions, those
problems in America and around the world will only get worse.
If there is a silver lining in all of that, it is that right now we
know how to cut greenhouse gas emissions. We know how to move to energy
efficiency, mass transportation, and automobiles that get 50, 60, 100
miles per gallon. We know how to weatherize our homes so we can cut
significantly the use of fuel. What we also know is that in the middle
of this recession, if we move in that direction--energy efficiency and
sustainable energy--we can create over a period of years millions of
good-paying jobs.
Let me conclude by saying: we now have the opportunity to be in a
win-win-win situation. We can save consumers money, we can
significantly reduce greenhouse gases and protect our planet, and we
can create substantial numbers of jobs that we desperately need in the
midst of this terrible recession.
Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________