[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 11091-11101]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




            CLIMATE SECURITY ACT OF 2008--MOTION TO PROCEED

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 3036, 
which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to S. 3036, a bill to direct the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to 
     establish a program to decrease emissions of greenhouse 
     gases, and for other purposes.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order of 
speakers after morning business, prior to the recess for caucus 
luncheons, be as follows: Senator Feinstein for up to 20 minutes, 
Isakson for up to 15 minutes, Corker for up to 20 minutes, Specter for 
up to 15 minutes; Kerry for up to 20 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in favor of the 
climate change legislation sponsored by Senators Joe Lieberman and John 
Warner and the managers' substitute amendment offered by my friend and 
colleague, Senator Barbara Boxer.
  I congratulate all three of them. This is not an easy road. I want 
particularly to thank the chairman of the committee for her work. She 
has been open, she has been consultative, she has asked to meet with 
Members, she has asked for Members' participation in the work. She has 
been both strong and solid in her leadership.
  After years of debating about the science underlying the warming of 
our planet, today marks a momentous step because for the first time we 
are considering comprehensive legislation to address global warming in 
a comprehensive manner. I believe the time has come for the Senate to 
pass legislation to tackle this problem.
  The bill represents the most comprehensive opportunity we have in 
this Congress to help curb our carbon footprint and take meaningful 
action to prevent catastrophic climate change--and nobody should 
disbelieve that is coming. The fact is this: Global warming is 
happening. It has already begun to inflict changes on the world as we 
know it. If you read the newspapers, if you watch television, or if you 
simply take a look around, it is undeniable. Just look at weather 
patterns. More destructive and deadly storms, such as the cyclone that 
hit Burma and the tornadoes that have devastated parts of the Midwest, 
are happening. Species are beginning to disappear. The Fish and 
Wildlife Service has just announced that the polar bear has been placed 
on the endangered species list because of global warming.
  Its habitat is literally melting away. Polar icecaps are melting. The 
Northwest Passage was navigable for the first time last summer. The 
Arctic Circle could be ice free by 2030. The West is running out of 
water. Scientists at UC San Diego believe there is a 50-50 chance that 
Lake Mead, a key source of water for 8 million people in the 
Southwestern United States, will be dry by 2021, if the climate 
changes, as expected, and its use is not curtailed. Projections suggest 
that both Antarctica and Greenland could melt at the same time. If that 
were to happen, the seas would rise by 20 feet. So we are feeling the 
effects of warmer weather. Five out of the past 5 years and 19 out of 
the last 20 have been the warmest on record.
  The Western United States is receiving the brunt of warming. This is 
because the West's average temperature is 70 percent greater than the 
planet as a whole. So the Earth's temperature has warmed 1 degree over 
the past century, but it has warmed 1.7 degrees in the 11-State Western 
region, and it is only getting warmer. Take a look at this map.
  Here is why. Carbon dioxide doesn't dissipate in the atmosphere. It 
remains for 30, 40, 50, 100 years. The atmosphere is a shell around the 
Earth, and carbon dioxide has been growing since the Industrial 
Revolution in this atmosphere. So the question becomes, how much will 
the Earth warm? This very question is at the heart of why we need 
climate change legislation, because scientists tell us we can make a 
difference to impact how much the Earth will warm. We can't stop 
warming, but we can slow it down. But if we are to do even that, we 
have to act soon and decisively. I truly don't believe there is a 
minute to waste.
  To stabilize the climate and to prevent catastrophic warming, 
scientists say we need to begin by reducing emissions by 65 to 80 
percent below 1990 levels--that is 65 to 80 percent below what we have 
put into the atmosphere in 1990--and do all this by the middle of the 
century. That translates into a goal of 1,450 parts per million of 
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Vice President Al Gore told me 
recently there is some new science out that we actually may need to 
limit carbon emissions to 350 parts per million, which is even 
stronger. There is new science out that shows the Earth is warming even 
faster than was originally predicted. We need to contain the warming to 
1 to 2 degrees. We will still experience significant but manageable 
changes, but if we fail to act, the Earth's temperature could rise 5 to 
9 degrees or more. Those results are catastrophic and irreversible.
  I tell constituent breakfasts about the Earth. Most people believe 
the Earth can't change. But, in fact, planets do change. Look at Mars, 
look at the Earth 250 million years ago, when there was one mass on 
Earth only. The Earth is subject to change. That change can be 
dramatic, and warming affects that change. This is a gamble we cannot 
afford to take. The truth is, though, there is no silver bullet. There 
is no one thing that will turn the tide. We need to go clean and green 
in driving, in heating, in cooling, in building, and fueling. We need 
to move away from fossil fuels. We need the Lieberman-Warner 
legislation.
  By 2050, this bill would reduce emissions by 63 percent below 2005 
levels or 57 percent below 1990 levels. So the legislation sets us on 
the path toward

[[Page 11092]]

meaningful greenhouse gas reductions. It does so in a way that 
encourages innovation and makes the investment in cleaner energy and 
green practices across the entire economy. Importantly, it also 
includes important provisions to keep our economy strong. The bottom 
line: This legislation is a major step in the right direction. It is 
the most significant thing we can do right now to help prevent 
catastrophic climate change.
  Let me take a few moments to talk about what the bill does. There are 
two ways to deal with this. One is a carbon tax. Most scientists want 
the carbon tax, but most people believe a new tax is not going to 
happen. The other alternative is a cap-and-trade system, much as Europe 
has been doing and much as the Northeastern States have been doing to 
deal with acid rain. They have reversed acid rain by 45 percent through 
their cap-and-trade system. This legislation establishes a cap-and-
trade system for roughly 86 percent of the economy. It includes the 
electricity sector, manufacturing, transportation, and natural gas. It 
would be the world's most comprehensive effort to address global 
warming to date. It controls emissions in more sectors of our economy 
than Europe's carbon control program. It would restore American 
leadership in the fight to protect our planet.
  Here is how it works. In 2012, emissions are capped at 2005 levels. 
They begin to ratchet down 2 percent per year. By 2020, emissions would 
be 19 percent below current levels. By 2050, emissions would be cut to 
approximately 63 percent below 2005 levels by 2050, or 57 percent below 
1990 levels. That is the cap part. The trade part of the bill allows 
for the trading of allowances, which are permits to release 1 metric 
ton of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. It is a proven system. It is 
working well right now in the United States to control acid rain and 
smog pollution. It has given companies flexibility to innovate and 
embrace new technologies.
  Under the bill, the pollution permits are allocated in a way that 
transitions our economy toward a low-carbon future. In the early years, 
one-third of the allowances will be allocated to polluting industries 
covered by the bill to assist with their transition to less carbon-
intensive technologies. So one-third goes to those who pollute to help 
them convert. Revenue produced by selling allowances at auction will be 
used to invest in low-carbon technology development and deployment.
  The bill funds carbon capture and sequestration, renewable energy, 
and other low-carbon technologies for producing electricity. That is a 
good thing. It funds efforts to retool car factories, to produce more 
efficient vehicles and ventures to develop cellulosic biofuels, two 
steps essential to reducing vehicle emissions. It funds efforts to 
increase the efficiency of buildings, homes, appliances, and it rewards 
States that produce significant emission reductions.
  In later years, this bill refocuses its assistance toward worker 
training and financial relief for consumers. It is a good bill. It 
assists those in coastal and arid States who will have to adapt to sea 
level rise and rainfall loss. So it makes our world better off, but it 
also helps those who may have to shoulder an undue burden.
  Here is the bottom line: This cap-and-trade bill significantly 
reduces emissions. It funds new technologies. It deploys existing low-
cost options. It contains costs. It mitigates negative impacts. It 
effectively combats climate change, while protecting our quality of 
life.
  I wish to take a few moments to talk in detail about some of the key 
provisions of the bill that are of particular note. First, the 
legislation includes language to establish Federal oversight for the 
new carbon market. This is something I learned, as a Californian in the 
Western energy crisis, that we need to do. A $100 billion market for 
the trading of carbon emissions is going to spring up as this cap-and-
trade system is established. We need to be prepared. Just as there are 
those who manipulate the price of oil and the price of gas--and we in 
California found that out to the tune of $40 billion--this new market 
could attract Enron-like manipulation, fraud or excessive speculation, 
unless we take preventive action. This month Congress finally passed 
legislation in the farm bill to close the Enron loophole to protect 
electronic energy markets. It took us 6 years after the Western energy 
crisis to achieve that. It is time to learn from these mistakes. We 
need to take steps now to ensure that the market functions with 
transparency, as well as antifraud and antimanipulation provisions from 
the get-go.
  Specifically, this legislation requires the President to establish an 
interagency working group, the carbon market working group. It is made 
up of the heads of the following agencies: the EPA, the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, the 
Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Treasury Department. Within 
270 days of enactment of the bill, the working group would establish 
the regulatory framework for the market and recommend necessary 
regulations that ensure enforcement of core market oversight 
principles. These principles would include ensuring market transparency 
in price, volume, and other trading data--all of it made available to 
the public--requirements for recordkeeping, an audit trail which, up to 
this point, doesn't exist on the electronic marketplace--but thanks to 
the Enron loophole closure bill, it will exist--and finally, preventing 
fraud, manipulation, and excessive speculation.
  I was pleased to hear the Commodities Futures Trading Commission is 
now taking a look at excessive speculation in the oil market as a 
reason for the drive up of prices of gasoline. I will bet anything 
there is excessive speculation in that market today. These regulations 
would be fully enforceable by existing market oversight agencies, and 
violators would be subject to significant penalties. So it is critical 
we protect these markets from the outset. We cannot afford to delay.
  Secondly, the bill promotes green practices for farmers and 
foresters. This is something I am very interested in. California is the 
largest ag State. The legislation includes language I authored to fund 
research on innovative and cost-effective methods for farmers and 
foresters to store carbon in the soil.
  It is believed that farming and forestry practices to sequester 
carbon in the soil hold great potential to reduce our carbon footprint, 
and this is particularly true in my State. But the fact is, we do not 
yet know enough about the best ways to carry out carbon sequestration.
  So this legislation would help shed light on a number of practices 
farmers and foresters can take to sequester carbon. The research would 
be funded through allowances for agriculture in the cap-and-trade 
system established by the Lieberman-Warner legislation. Some of these 
practices could include several methods popular in my State, including 
row crop practices such as conservation tillage--this is a picture of 
it--permanent crop practices, including planting cover crops during the 
winter season, and using prunings for bioenergy production rather than 
chipping, mulching, or burning the material, and practices to reduce 
the digestion-related emissions of methane gas from cattle and 
livestock. Once we understand which of these innovative methods is the 
most cost effective, farmers could then sell low-cost offset credits to 
companies that need to reduce their emissions. So this is a win-win.
  Third, this bill promotes low-carbon fuels through a low-carbon fuels 
standard. Similar to the Clean Fuels and Vehicles Act, which Senator 
Snowe and I introduced last year, this would require each major oil 
company selling gasoline in the United States to reduce the average 
life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions per unit of energy in their 
gasoline. The provision ensures that the car and truck emissions go 
down as we increase the use of low-carbon renewable fuel, such as 
cellulosic ethanol. By improving the renewable fuel standard, which 
requires the use of 36 billion gallons of renewable fuel by

[[Page 11093]]

2020, it assures that the climate benefits of this provision are 
realized.
  My conclusion and my bottom line: Confronting global warming will 
require action on a broad scale. To those in this body who are 
dissenters, I say this: If we do not do it, when the science has 
coalesced, when the science tells us the time is limited, when the 
science tells us we cannot stop it because it does not dissipate--we 
must move away from carbon, and we must move to other kinds of fuels, 
and do so quickly, and we must take these steps to aid the conversion 
of American industry. Also, most important, this bill will signal that 
the United States, after a long period of doing nothing, is prepared to 
stand up tall and to lead.
  I thank Senator Warner and Senator Lieberman for this legislation. I 
know the senior Senator from Virginia is on the floor. I know he is 
going to retire at the end of the year. I want him to know very 
personally from me how much I respect him.
  I respect your leadership on this issue, Senator Warner. I think it 
leaves you a great legacy. I only hope we will do justice to you by 
passing this legislation here today. So thank you so much for your 
leadership.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I might just speak for 2 minutes.
  I thank my colleague from California. I say to her, it has been a 
pleasure to work with you and to continue to work with you in the 
Senate. Our primary responsibilities are on the Intelligence Committee, 
but you are a very diversified Senator and can seize many subjects and 
provide your expertise for the benefit of this Chamber. I thank you for 
your thoughtful, personal remarks and your very informative speech 
given this morning.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to 
speak for up to 15 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. That order has already been 
entered.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I wish to commend the Senate for 
assessing what is the most important issue confronting the United 
States of America today; that is, energy, its contribution to the 
environment, its costs, its availability, its future, and its impact on 
the economy.
  I rise today to thank a number of people who have contributed to the 
body of knowledge I want to try to recite as best I can today: Michael 
Quiello, Caroline McLean, and Duncan Hill of my staff; Annie Caputo of 
the staff of the EPW; and three individuals back in Georgia, two alive 
today, one, unfortunately, who is deceased: Carl Knobloch, a 
distinguished man in our State of Georgia, who is probably the most 
ardent advocate for open and green space and the preservation of our 
environment of any one I know; Mr. Chris Sawyer, who is a distinguished 
lawyer, who represents many national organizations and many 
conservation organizations; and Mr. Bob Shearer. Bob passed away last 
year, but in the 1970s he had led the Georgia Power Company during the 
time it built the Plant Vogtle, a nuclear energy plant in Georgia that 
today provides affordable, reasonable, reliable, and inexpensive energy 
without emitting any carbon into the atmosphere.
  Mr. President, I could not agree more with Senator Feinstein's remark 
that it is time for us to put all of the issues and all of the 
solutions on the table. It is time for us to talk about everything we 
need to do to improve our environment, make energy more affordable, and 
protect our economy.
  I think it is ironic that the legislation that will be before us is a 
piece of legislation that leaves out two subjects that are critical to 
being accomplished in what the bill portends. First, it basically 
leaves out any provisions for nuclear energy or the expansion of 
electricity through nuclear power. Second, it gives no attention to the 
single way we know to sequester carbon today. It talks about carbon 
sequestration in a prospective way but does not talk about the single 
way we sequester carbon today, which happens to be through Mother 
Nature.
  So for just a second I wish to talk about nuclear power, and I wish 
to talk about conservation and open and green space. Both are included 
in two amendments that at some point in time in the debate I hope to be 
able to offer.
  First nuclear--and Senator Warner was kind enough to share with me an 
amendment he plans to offer on nuclear, which is a recitation of a 
number of facts that ironically I am going to recite in my remarks--and 
I commend him for doing that--the most important of which is that today 
in America, 73 percent of the noncarbon-emitting energy generated in 
this country is generated by nuclear. That 73 percent saves 700 million 
metric tons of carbon from going into the atmosphere.
  You would think if you already know you are saving 700 million metric 
tons of carbon from going into the atmosphere and you know that 73 
percent of your noncarbon-emitting energy is coming from nuclear, it 
would seem that if you want to reduce carbon emissions and carbon in 
the atmosphere, you would empower nuclear energy.
  I think we should do that because regardless of your philosophy on 
global warming and climate change, carbon is making a difference, and 
it is in our geopolitical interest and it is in our environment's 
interest to reduce carbon--geopolitically because we buy less from 
Chavez, Ahmadinejad, and Putin, where we get a majority of our oil 
today. That is the geopolitical issue, and that is good for us to do. 
Environmentally, they are not exactly sure at Greenland what all is 
happening, but they are sure the carbon isotopes and the ice borings 
are much higher today than they were 30 years ago, and that is the one 
change.
  So it is important to reduce carbon. But to leave out the single way 
we know to do it best, to leave out the empowerment of nuclear energy, 
to talk about it only in terms of reference and not in terms of action 
is, to me, disappointing.
  The amendment I will offer--which I offered in committee--does a 
number of things.
  First of all, it provides incentives for nuclear energy in terms of a 
10-percent investment tax credit for the production of a new nuclear 
powerplant. By the way, solar tax credits today are 30 percent. This is 
one-third of the tax credit for solar. But 10 percent is a good 
incentive, and these plants are huge investments. That is No. 1.
  Second is accelerated depreciation or recovery of investment over 5 
years. That is appropriate.
  Third, loan guarantees--loan guarantees and standby help--for an 
industry that in the 1970s, when Government stalled it and investment 
dollars went away, absolutely almost went bankrupt trying to continue 
to build the plants that today emit carbon-free energy in the United 
States of America.
  Those three provisions--the standby loan guarantee, the investment 
tax credit of 10 percent, and the 30 percent in terms of depreciation 
and the 5-year depreciation recovery--make perfectly good sense, 
incentivize nuclear, and reduce the emission of carbon into the 
atmosphere.
  I have a chart I will put up. It is very interesting on these 
subsidies, by the way. There are a lot of antinuclear people who talk 
about how the Government should not subsidize nuclear. Well, we 
subsidize almost every form of energy. Today in America, $24.34 of 
every megawatt hour produced by solar is a tax incentive, a Federal 
subsidy. On wind, $23.37 is a Federal subsidy on every megawatt hour. 
For nuclear, it is $1.59. That is the level of subsidy. Ten times or 
really twelve times the nuclear subsidy is what you pay for solar and 
wind, which give you 27 percent of your carbon-free electric energy, 
while nuclear gives you 73 percent.
  The bill also deals with empowering the workforce. When we evacuated 
nuclear energy generation in the 1970s, something else evacuated in 
America, and that was the construction of nuclear equipment, and that 
includes all the employees the industry would need in a revitalized 
industry. So we focus on that and talk about trying to bring that back 
to the United States of

[[Page 11094]]

America and to empower our workforce so we can build safe, reliable 
nuclear energy plants in the 21st century.
  I have a number of quotes from the following members, in public 
debate, when we debated this nuclear amendment in the EPW Committee. 
Senator Lautenberg, Senator Baucus, Senator Cardin, Senator Carper, 
Senator Warner, and Senator Lieberman all made comments endorsing and 
embracing the fact that nuclear is a part of the solution. I would ask 
today, if it is a part of the solution, why is it not a part of the 
Lieberman-Warner climate change bill?
  On conservation, for just a second. Carbon sequestration is something 
we need to perfect, and we do not know how to do it yet. We think we 
can find some caverns in the earth and we can sequester it there, but 
we are not quite sure. The technology is not there yet, nor is the 
cost, but we hope we can do it. But Mother Nature has been sequestering 
carbon for all time because that is the way the balance in our 
environment works. That is one of the issues.
  So I have an amendment to propose which is a conservation easement 
tax credit amendment to incentivize the United States of America over 
the next 5 years through $25 billion in refundable tax credits to 
generate a fund to buy conservation easements in open and green space 
throughout the United States of America.
  Since the founding of our country, 15 percent of our forest and open 
space and green space is gone forever to an impervious surface known as 
urban development. If that continues, then our own natural carbon 
sequestration system will be broken. So it is important, while we still 
have the open and green space, while we know where our wetlands are, 
where our rivers and waterways are, where our important ecosystem lands 
are, that we create a mechanism for those lands to be protected, but 
not one where the Government goes and buys it--it costs you a lot of 
money to buy all this land--instead, to have a program where you create 
refundable tax credits, very much like the low- and moderate-income 
housing tax credits, $5 billion a year for 5 years, to be sold in the 
market, to raise the money for which you, in turn, allow 501(c)-
qualified organizations, like the Trust for Public Land, the 
Conservancy, et cetera, the capital to go to out and, according to a 
statewide plan, buy conservation easements to protect in perpetuity 
those areas critical to our ecosystem and our country and, in fact, our 
environment.
  It would seem to me that when you debate the most topical issue of 
the day, the most controversial issue of the day--the thing everybody 
wants to talk about--if you know there is only one way to sequester 
carbon, and that is through the natural process of nature--and 
protecting open and green space does that--and you know the only major 
supplier of carbon-free energy is nuclear, that you would make an 
investment in this act by seeing to it that you empower the future of 
the country to focus on conservation and nuclear and all the other 
sources available.
  I am a Republican. I am not one who likes to throw partisanship out 
in any debate. I think you ought to win something on merit. But I think 
we and our party and the Democrats and their party need to look at this 
issue in a different perspective. A lot of us have our biases. It is 
time to put our biases aside. If there is a known solution out there 
where we can reduce carbon, expand our energy availability, and reduce 
costs, we ought to embrace it. Nothing should be off the table. Solar 
shouldn't, wind shouldn't, nuclear shouldn't, renewable shouldn't, 
biodiesel shouldn't; whatever it is, synthetic fuels, we should act 
now, and we should act boldly to see to it that while we work for the 
best interests of our environment, we work for the best interests of 
our citizens.
  Our citizens today are paying more for gas and energy than they have 
ever paid before, and there is no end in sight. We have a debate today 
that if this bill passed in its form, it would raise that cost even 
more; by some estimates, $1.50 a gallon more. We are talking about 
serious business here. We need to be serious as Members of the Senate, 
as Members of the most deliberative body in the world, and make sure 
every option is on the table. For this Senator, that means expanding 
conservation easements for better sequestration of carbon naturally, 
and it means by reempowering the nuclear energy business to see to it 
that the one source of reliable, safe, carbonless energy that we know 
today in the United States is empowered for the 21st century.
  Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Virginia is 
recognized.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wish to commend our distinguished 
colleague from Georgia. I listened very carefully, and I appreciate his 
reference to the fact that I will be offering at the earliest possible 
time an amendment to lay some foundation in this proposed legislation 
addressing nuclear power.
  As I listened to what the Senator from Georgia said, I basically 
agree. But as the Senator well knows, if we were to have included these 
provisions, either during the course of the committee markup or indeed 
now in the amendment process, we would get blue-slipped. This type of 
legislation, which I support, I say to the Senator, must originate--as 
he well knows having served--in the House of Representatives and then 
come to the Senate.
  So as colleagues follow this and say to themselves: This Senator 
brings forth very constructive proposals, why didn't the managers put 
that in the bill, I think you would have to agree with me we would be 
faced with a blue-slip problem and our bill would come to a dead halt.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I appreciate the distinguished 
Senator's--may I address the distinguished Senator through the Chair?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Georgia is 
recognized.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I appreciate the generous comments of the 
Senator from Virginia and the work he has put into this, and I would 
publicly acknowledge that in the committee and privately. The Senator 
has stated eloquently to me his support for the concept of expanding 
and empowering nuclear energy.
  I also understand what our block is: the blue slip. I referred in my 
closing remarks: We have to start putting our biases aside to allow the 
full debate to take place on what we are going to do to lower energy 
costs and reduce carbon. If we talk about nuclear being good but aren't 
willing to address it and somebody is going to blue-slip or put a hold 
or kill a bill simply because it has nuclear in it, then we are not 
serious, in my judgment, about reducing the cost of energy, reducing 
the amount of carbon or dealing with the problem ahead. I am not 
speaking to the distinguished Senator from Virginia because I know 
where his head and his heart are, and Senator Lieberman has expressed 
the same thing. But there are others--there are biases on both sides. 
We need to put our biases away and allow every viable alternative to be 
debated on the floor of the Senate and voted on. Up until the time we 
do that, we are wasting our time and, unfortunately, we are wasting a 
lot of our taxpayers' money who are paying exorbitant prices for the 
problem today.
  Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. ISAKSON. I am delighted to yield.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator knows that Exelon 
has given its support to this bill and also NRG and they are coal and 
nuclear and Exelon is nuclear. So I wonder if my friend understands 
that Senator Warner is going to do an amendment, as he has said from 
day one, and I am sure you will help him with that amendment. The 
amendment probably has a very excellent chance of passing.
  I wish to make sure my friend knows companies that build nuclear 
powerplants endorse this bill without any changes, although there are 
going to be more changes. Under some of the modeling, I wonder if my 
friend has looked at what the projections are for building nuclear 
powerplants without one

[[Page 11095]]

amendment on this bill. Does my friend know the answer to my question? 
Has he looked at some of the modeling that we have gotten from this 
administration on this point?
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman. I am 
aware some of the companies that are in the nuclear business have 
endorsed this, and let me say this--and if I stand to be corrected, I 
would appreciate the Senator correcting me. But those who are heavily 
invested in nuclear that are operating today are in support of this 
because they are going to sell their carbon credits to those who are 
not heavily invested in nuclear and are generating coal. That 
motivation is a motivation that is economic as much as anything else.
  What I would like to see is for us to get everybody on a level 
playing field, where we have more nuclear and we have less coal and we 
have less gas and we have less oil-generating electricity. Then we will 
be better off. So this is a winners and losers game in terms of the 
carbon tax or the carbon credits. Those who have a low-carbon footprint 
are going to have credits to sell and those who have a high-carbon 
footprint who use coal or oil are going to have to pay a lot of money 
to buy it. That is why there are some biases in these industries that 
are for and against.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The time of the Senator has 
expired.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, if I might ask unanimous consent for 5 
minutes so the three of us can engage because I think this is a very 
important point.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. First of all, I think for my friend to say these two 
companies have no future plans to build powerplants or expand the 
plants, that makes no sense. I haven't read their annual report, but 
for him to say the only reason is because they are going to make some 
money off the allowances--I don't think he is looking at the plans for 
these companies, No. 1, but they can speak for themselves.
  The second part, which my friend didn't answer, is that in the 
modeling we have seen, without one amendment, it looks as if there will 
be built, over the period of the lifetime of this bill, 150 nuclear 
plants. So without one amendment--and there are going to be 
amendments--and I have never been a great fan of nuclear energy. For 
one reason, I worry about the waste. I worry about the waste. I worry 
about having all this waste. So that is my issue. I have said many 
times there are a few of us who care about that, and there are others 
who seem to feel comfortable it is totally safe. We will have that 
debate.
  But the fact is, when you pass legislation such as this, there is a 
winner. The winner goes to those energy sources that don't produce 
carbon just on its face. That is why we give so much for clean coal, 
because we are trying to make sure we keep going with coal and that it 
is clean coal.
  So I would say to my friend, and then I will yield my time to Senator 
Warner to go back and forth--I am pleased he came over here. I love 
working with Senator Isakson. He is a friend. He is a pal. We don't see 
eye to eye on this particular issue because I believe that to have 
people who are nuclear powerplant proponents say this bill doesn't do 
enough, means they haven't looked at what the projections are ipso 
facto because it is a clean energy source, in terms of carbon. I wished 
to make that point. But I wish to thank my friend for the tenor and 
tone of his remarks.
  I yield the remainder of my time to Senator Warner.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the chairman. I would say to my 
good friend from Georgia, I have talked extensively with a wide range--
as you have--of the industrial individuals who represent nuclear plants 
today and are forthcoming. The chairman is quite correct. A number of 
these companies are planning to go ahead boldly and courageously and 
build new plants. Given the uncertainties of where they are going to 
get the parts, can they be manufactured in the United States; given the 
uncertainties as to whether there are enough trained people to operate 
these plants, they are going ahead. So I don't believe it is just a 
profit motive.
  But as I talk to these individuals, it is clear to me they are 
watching the jurisdiction of the Energy Committee as having a great 
proportion of the nuclear responsibility; the Tax Committee, and they 
cautioned against trying to do too much in this bill for fear of 
interrupting a process that is in place with the Energy Committee, the 
Tax Committee, and such other committees as deal with nuclear power 
because that responsibility does spread over quite a number of 
committees within the Senate. So we could not simply put into our bill, 
recommended by way of amendment at this time, such a comprehensive 
amendment because we know it is disruptive to the work that apparently 
is going on in other committees as it relates to nuclear power.
  But perhaps I will reflect on this as to whether I could add in my 
amendment, or the Senator from Georgia might wish to modify my 
amendment and take those portions of his which do not impact blue 
slip--I think that is something we don't want to get tangled up with--
and doesn't infringe on the jurisdictions of the other committees and 
see if we can make it work.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I thank Senator Warner. To Chairman 
Boxer, first of all, if I said--I very well could have--if I said I 
knew they weren't going to build more powerplants in the future, I 
didn't mean to say that. What I meant to say was those nuclear 
companies that were the most supportive were the ones that were way 
ahead in the building of nuclear plants already generated far more 
carbonless energy because of that and were going to sell their 
credits--and I am a business guy; I think making money is a great 
deal--are going to sell their credits to those companies that are more 
coal- and carbon-producing friendly.
  You are right, I didn't talk about the modeling. The modeling does 
project more plants in the first 42, 43 years of the life of the bill 
to 2050. However, I would submit to you, a modernized nuclear title 
would allow those plants to come on safely, more quickly, and could 
more quickly address the carbon issue than the way we are currently 
caught in this conundrum of the antinuclear versus the pronuclear, so 
we do nothing to empower an industry that we know generates 73 percent 
of our carbonless energy today.
  But I thank the distinguished chairman for her patience, the 
distinguished Senator from Virginia for his contribution. I look 
forward to working with you in any way I can to hopefully move us 
forward.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, again, I commend our colleague for a very 
constructive contribution to the dialogue on this bill.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Tennessee is 
recognized for 20 minutes.
  Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the Lieberman-Warner 
Climate Act. I understand I have 20 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. That is correct.
  Mr. CORKER. I ask that the Chair notify me when I have 5 minutes 
remaining.
  I wish to say I am very excited to be on the floor today. I have 
tremendous respect for the sponsors of this bill and all those who have 
been involved for some time. I think everybody knows by this point that 
while there are a number of arguments regarding the bill that is on the 
floor, I choose not to debate the science. I accept the fact that we as 
a country and we as a world need to address this issue.
  I came to the Senate to focus on the big issues our country has to 
deal with. I saw this as one of those issues. For that reason, a year 
ago, I accompanied Senator Bingaman to Brussels, to Paris, and to 
London, where I sat down with carbon traders and with European 
Commission members. I met with cement manufacturers, utility providers, 
and all those involved, if you will, in this debate in Europe.
  I also was fortunate enough to accompany the chairman, Senator

[[Page 11096]]

Boxer, to Greenland to see the poster child, if you will, of what this 
debate in some ways is about. Ever since that time, I have been 
fixated, if you will, on the goal of figuring out a way that we as a 
country can put in place policies that allow our GDP growth, we can 
continue to ensure a better standard of living for those coming after 
us, having energy security as a country, and making sure we have 
climate security all at the same time. That has been my goal. I have 
seen, actually, this debate that is taking place this summer right now 
as a tremendous opportunity for us to come together as a country and to 
focus on those things.
  Some of what I saw in Europe were unintended consequences, things 
such as fuel-switching that took place, when people move from coal to 
natural gas and all of a sudden found themselves very dependent on an 
unfriendly government--Russia--to supply natural gas and using that 
political clout, if you will, over some of those countries that were 
dependent. So I have worked with Senator Warner and with others to try 
to craft legislation that I think works for our country.
  I see this as a tremendous opportunity; I do. A lot of people think 
this is not a good time to be talking about climate change legislation. 
They say that because we have $4 gasoline at the pumps, this is a 
terrible time to be talking about legislation of this nature. I 
actually think this is a perfect time to be talking about it. I think 
there is a passion in our country, exhibited by the chairman, to 
address the issue of climate change. I think there are many people in 
our country who feel that same way. I think Americans throughout our 
country, seeing the prices at the pump, are feeling very vulnerable as 
it relates to their own energy security and realize that we as a 
country need to have a comprehensive energy policy that we do not have 
today. So I see this tremendous opportunity for these two groups who 
have been at odds for so many years--actually generations--to actually 
come together and to do something that is good for our country, both 
from the standpoint of the environment but also making sure our country 
is energy secure.
  Now, I am going to say something I know that may not be that well 
received, but I think this bill, unfortunately--and with all the 
respect that I have for the sponsors--I think this bill unfortunately 
squanders that opportunity.
  The reason I say this bill squanders that opportunity, instead of 
addressing those two things I mentioned in a pure fashion, we have 
resorted to the old-time politics of making sure we support various 
interest groups around our country and spread trillions of dollars 
around the country to try to win support for this bill. I think that is 
a shame.
  I plan to offer some amendments I will discuss at the right time. Let 
me make sure the American people understand what happens with cap-and-
trade legislation. Most Senators do. What this bill contemplates is 
capping the amount of carbon emissions our country emits, and then 
reducing that cap over time, from the year 2012 to the year 2050, and 
establishing a price for that carbon by creating an auction. It would 
be much like if Senator Domenici and I and Senator Warner decided we 
were going to create a company, and what we did was allocated ourselves 
shares of that company, and in order to make the company grow, we sold 
public shares in the marketplace. Those shares would generate income 
into our company and allow us to grow, if that is what we wanted to do. 
But the day we went public, it would enrich us. Those allocations of 
shares we allocated to ourselves would enrich us immediately because 
they become marketable securities.
  Obviously, what this bill does is, No. 1, takes trillions of dollars 
into the Treasury beginning in 2012 through an auction process; in 
other words, we sell carbon allowances on the public market. On the 
very day that occurs, the allowances that are talked about as if they 
mean nothing become marketable securities, and they enrich all of those 
entities that receive those allocations. That is where I think this 
bill misses the mark.
  The auction proceeds that come in with this bill--let's be fair and I 
will not use words that are demagogic--when we pass cap-and-trade 
legislation, we all understand it increases the cost of energy that is 
generated through fossil fuel. That is a fact. That is petroleum, 
diesel, coal, ethanol, all of those things that, when they are 
consumed, emit carbon and will cost more on day one. So the American 
public is going to be paying for that.
  Everything Americans buy--if this bill passes--that has something to 
do with energy will increase. When they go to the gas pump, it will 
cost more. When they pay their utility bills at the end of the month, 
it will cost more. When they buy food and clothing, it will cost more.
  What this bill, unfortunately, does is takes in trillions of 
dollars--by the way, the EPA has modeled this based on a price of $22 
per ton for carbon in the beginning. I want people to understand that 
today, in essence, in London carbon is selling for $41 a ton. Based on 
the modeling, this bill, over its life, transfers wealth of $6.7 
trillion. But if it were, say, based on the prices of carbon today in 
London, it might be as much as $13 trillion.
  We all know if this bill passes, every American will pay more for 
energy, and I understand that. By the way, I want everybody in this 
body to know I am open to discussing cap-and-trade legislation that 
takes our country in the right direction. What I am so opposed to--and 
I am so saddened by the fact that this bill does this--is this bill 
takes trillions into our Treasury and then, in a prescribed way, much 
of it in nondiscretionary spending, spends that money from the year 
2012 through the year 2050. We have talked a lot about earmarks in this 
body. This is, in fact, the mother of all earmarks--to make sure I am 
neutral, it is the mother and father of all earmarks. This, in essence, 
creates an entitlement program from 2012 through 2050. I don't 
understand, if proponents want to affect our climate, why they don't 
take those trillions in and then immediately redistribute all of those 
dollars back to the American citizens. The reason is--and I am sad to 
say this--this bill attempts to win support of the American people and 
interest groups throughout our country by the same old thing that has 
gotten our country in trouble today, and that is spreading this money 
around to the various interest groups throughout the country and 
prescribing the spending in a way that I don't know of any bill since 
Medicare or Social Security. I don't know of a bill that has done this 
to this extent in modern times.
  Another piece that goes unnoticed is the allocation process. This 
bill allocates out to entities all across this country carbon 
allowances. Those are marketable securities. It is the same as owning a 
share in IBM. It is a tremendous transference of wealth. Twenty-seven 
percent of the allocation in this bill goes to entities that have 
nothing to do with emitting carbon. I have no idea why we would do that 
in legislation of this nature. I think it is reprehensible. One of the 
reasons we see so many people walking the halls of our Senate offices 
in tailored suits, carrying nice briefcases, is that people who are in 
the know--I know the Senator mentioned some of these companies--realize 
this is a tremendous transference of wealth. If they sit at the table 
and they have something to do with how these allowances are allocated, 
that might be better for them even in operating their companies, as 
well, because we are creating a situation that transfers trillions of 
dollars of wealth.
  I am going to be offering some amendments, and I am disturbed that 
some of the sponsors have indicated these are poison pill amendments. I 
have focused solely on the policies of this bill. I have never used 
demagogic language to describe this bill--never. I have never tried to 
debate the science. I am trying to focus on the policies of the 
legislation.
  Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. CORKER. I will yield when I finish. I know the Senator has spent 
a tremendous amount of time on this, and I respect that.

[[Page 11097]]

  The reason we have cap-and-trade legislation being discussed is the 
fact that we want to limit the amount of carbon emissions that come out 
of our country. So one of the other pieces of the bill that, to me, is 
truly offensive is that this bill allows for something called 
international offsets, which is nothing more--again, I will go into 
this in detail when I offer an amendment--this is something that 
encourages companies in our country to go through a loophole so they 
don't have to pay the full price of carbon, and actually spend billions 
of dollars in countries such as China, where we already have tremendous 
trade deficits.
  I absolutely have no understanding of why we would permit that in a 
bill such as this, which is being designed to limit carbon emissions in 
our country. These international offsets have been documented to be 
fraudulent. We have had tremendous problems in working through the 
United Nations to administer these programs. I have no idea why 
international offsets, which have been so fraudulent and have nothing 
whatsoever to do with lowering emissions in our country, would be part 
of this bill.
  Let me say, in general, I realize we are not going to pass a bill 
this year, in all likelihood. I think that, in many ways, is 
regrettable. I think we as a country, right now today, when the 
American people are feeling very vulnerable--and right now we have many 
Senators in the Chamber who have such a passion as it relates to 
climate security--I think it is regrettable that we cannot come 
together and, as a part of this legislation, add many components--for 
instance, that one which Pete Domenici from New Mexico led us on--and 
create a bill that doesn't just address climate but also addresses our 
country's energy security.
  The American people are looking to us right now to act like adults. I 
have to say I am not sure that as a country, for the last several 
years, for some period of time, we have owned up to our country's major 
problems. We have not done that. We have a tremendous opportunity in 
this body this week and next week to address our country's 
environmental issues simultaneously with energy security. I think that 
is what the American people are looking to us to do.
  I regret the fact that this bill, instead of being about climate 
security, instead of being about something that drives our country 
toward using technology that would cause our country to be energy 
secure, has ended up being about money. It has ended up setting up a 
command-and-control economy.
  Look at these various wedges on this pie chart. I could show many 
more. It is an amazing thing that from the year 2012 through the year 
2050, over a trillion dollars of this money is pre-prescribed. It is 
amazing that, as it relates to technology, there is a five-person board 
that has been set up to decide where the trade of dollars will be 
spent. I cannot imagine this body--I cannot imagine it--approving 
legislation of this type.
  What I hope will occur is that the American people will become aware 
of what this debate is about. I hope all of us will have a constructive 
debate in this body. My goal and hope is that we as a body will come 
together around climate change and energy security in an appropriate 
way and in such a way so those generations coming after us will have a 
better quality of life.
  Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator yield?
  (Several Senators addressed the Chair.)
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from California is 
recognized.
  Mrs. BOXER. How much time does the Senator from Tennessee have 
remaining?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Three and a half minutes.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, Senator Kerry wishes to question the 
Senator, if it is OK with the Senator from Tennessee. After that, I 
wish to be recognized for unanimous consent requests and perhaps an 
additional minute or two, to be followed by Senator Warner for 2 
minutes and Senator Domenici for 2 minutes. And then----
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want time.
  Mr. SPECTER. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Pennsylvania will 
state his inquiry.
  Mr. SPECTER. It is my understanding that I have 15 minutes at 12:15, 
which I have been waiting for all morning.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Yes, following the Senator from 
Tennessee.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair.
  Mrs. BOXER. I wish to have 2 minutes to do unanimous consent requests 
before my friend starts. I know Senator Warner wishes 2 minutes. The 
remaining time would be between the Senator from Tennessee and the 
Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am agreeable to defer my 15 minutes, 
which is scheduled to start at 12:15, for 2 minutes for Senators Boxer 
and Warner. I don't understand what followed that. So I wish to proceed 
at that time with that.
  Mrs. BOXER. Yes, that is exactly what I said.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, if I understand, the Senator from Tennessee 
has some time left. I did rise to ask a question. The Senator said he 
would be happy to answer the question.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection to the unanimous 
consent request?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I object.
  Mr. SPECTER. Reserving the right to object, I don't know what the 
request is.
  Mrs. BOXER. I will reiterate it. It is that Senator Corker finish his 
3\1/2\ minutes and do a colloquy back and forth with Senator Kerry; 
that immediately following that, I have some time to make some 
unanimous consent requests and have a minute to comment on what has 
transpired, and that be followed with 2 minutes for Senator Warner. So 
far we are 3 minutes delaying Senator Specter. Senator Domenici said he 
did want some time, or did not?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Let me say, I am going to ask the Senator from 
Tennessee to yield to me a minute of his time to answer a question, or 
ask a question on his time.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I do 
intend to object, I have already said I would be willing to yield 2 
minutes to Senator Boxer and 2 minutes to Senator Warner, where Senator 
Boxer then added some amorphous language about an exchange between the 
Senator from Tennessee and the Senator from Massachusetts. I don't 
understand what that is and how long.
  If I may finish, Mr. President. If I may finish.
  Mr. CORKER. I will take my time back.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Pennsylvania has 
the floor.
  Mr. SPECTER. I have been waiting a while. I would like to have my 
time which has been locked in and for which I have been waiting. Beyond 
the yielding to Senator Boxer for 2 minutes and Senator Warner for 2 
minutes, I will object to anything further.
  Mr. KERRY. Regular order, Mr. President.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The time of the Senator from 
Tennessee, 3\1/2\ minutes, has expired. Is there objection to the 
unanimous consent request?
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, will you restate the unanimous consent 
request?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Parliamentary inquiry: How did his time expire?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Through this conversation.
  Mr. DOMENICI. This conversation is automatically charged to him?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Yes, he had the floor.
  Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, if I could, I think what they have asked 
for is 3\1/2\ minutes plus 4 minutes, for 7\1/2\ minutes. The Senator 
from Pennsylvania, whom I admire and respect--I have sat here many 
times waiting for every Senator on this floor to speak. This is an 
important topic, and I hope he will allow Senators on the other side of 
the aisle to have a little discussion right now for 7\1/2\ minutes, and 
then we will stop.

[[Page 11098]]


  Mr. SPECTER. I will be glad to add to the 4 minutes 3\1/2\ additional 
minutes which Senator Corker asked for on the condition that be the 
extent of it.
  Mrs. BOXER. Yes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection to the unanimous 
consent request? Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Massachusetts, I believe, is recognized for a 
question for the Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I listened to the Senator from Tennessee 
calling this bill a spending bill--in fact, an entitlement bill. I ask 
the Senator from Tennessee--I believe the Senator from Tennessee voted 
for farm subsidies. I believe the Senator from Tennessee voted for 
capital gains tax reduction. I believe the Senator from Tennessee voted 
for the oil and gas depreciation.
  I would like to know from the Senator from Tennessee, if those are 
not subsidies, how he distinguishes incentives that change behavior 
that are market driven. You either take advantage of it or you don't. 
Nobody commands and controls. It is up to the individual company. Why 
is the effort to have a transfer of a payment that is an incentive for 
different behavior any different from any of those things for which the 
Senator from Tennessee has voted?
  Mr. CORKER. Actually, I am glad the Senator from Massachusetts 
brought that up. That is the portion of cap-and-trade legislation that 
I believe is appropriate. Unfortunately, what this bill does is it 
takes in trillions of dollars and then pre-prescribes how that money is 
spent, going out into areas to people who have nothing whatsoever to do 
with emitting carbons. Twenty-seven percent of the allocations go out 
to entities in this country that have nothing whatsoever to do with 
emitting carbon. That is a huge unnecessary transference of wealth.
  I would like to yield some time to Senator Domenici. I answered the 
question, and I would love to debate the Senator further on the floor. 
I know we have the Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to say to everyone in the Senate, 
in all honesty, they ought to have a chance to hear the Senator from 
Tennessee. If they haven't, they ought to read what he said because 
there is no question that I, as a rather informed Senator, had no idea 
what this bill does until I listened to him and then looked at it.
  It is absolutely incredible that we are thinking of a bill such as 
this to solve climate change when, as a matter of fact, it is going to 
be the biggest redistribution of wealth we have ever adopted in this 
Senate, and we are not even sure it will accomplish anything very 
significant toward the reduction of carbon dioxide as an impediment to 
climate change.
  I cannot understand why we would be doing this. One little piece is a 
commission of five men who will distribute allocations pursuant to this 
legislation, totally at their discretion, a trillion dollars or more. 
Who on God's Earth would think that is in this bill? But it is. I 
commend him. I hope he comes here two or three times and explains again 
in more detail what this bill does.
  I am not against legislation for climate change, but I am convinced 
that we better do something for the American people on bridging crude 
oil use, crude oil development, putting some of the things we need in 
place for energy before we put this legislation in place. I think the 
American people will soon understand that.
  Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, how much time is left?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has 15 seconds.
  Mr. CORKER. Let me just say, I hope we have further debate. I respect 
people on both sides of the aisle. Surely, we can come up with a way to 
make sure our environment is appropriately dealt with and that we have 
energy security----
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Time has expired.
  Mr. CORKER.--and not cause this to be a burden on Americans as it is 
by prespending trillions of dollars.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Time has expired. The Senator from 
California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, we all respect each other, but I have to 
say, I don't think my friend from Tennessee understands this bill at 
all. All I can say is, he couldn't understand it because the biggest 
piece of this bill, OK, is funds for the American people, a big tax 
cut. If my friend opposes a tax cut, he ought to say it. It is a huge 
tax cut for the American people to help them deal with the increases in 
gas prices.
  Right now, under this President, we have seen a 250-percent increase 
in the cost of a gallon of gas, just in 7 years. We have no resources. 
This bill gives us the resources. It gives us consumer relief.
  My friend from Tennessee used very harsh words, in my opinion, to 
attack a bill that really does address the issue of global warming, 
addresses the issue of energy independence. And for him to call it 
command and control is rather a joke since we specifically rejected a 
carbon tax and we allowed the free market to set a price on carbon.
  As to Senator Domenici's statement, again, he says it will do 
nothing. Read the modeling. We do what we have to do in this country to 
exert the leadership to decrease these greenhouse gases, and we do it 
in a way that has won the support of business, labor, and huge numbers 
of people across this country, including the U.S. Conference of Mayors 
and Republican and Democratic Governors.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when we resume after 
lunch that I be recognized to speak for up to 30 minutes, followed by 
Senator Inhofe to speak for up to 30 minutes.
  Mr. INHOFE. Reserving the right to object.
  Mr. KERRY. Reserving the right to object, it is my understanding, 
there was an order in place----
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Mr. INHOFE. Reserving the right to object.
  Mr. WARNER. Reserving the right to object, I thought I had 2 minutes.
  Mrs. BOXER. The Senator does.
  Mr. WARNER. Then at the appropriate time the Chair directs me, I will 
use the 2 minutes.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I simply would like to ask we modify that 
request because I was going to follow, but we have chewed up a lot of 
time now and we have our caucuses. I am happy to go after Senator 
Inhofe and Senator Boxer, or I am happy to go before, whatever they 
prefer, but I think we ought to do it after the caucuses now at this 
point. I ask the Chair what her pleasure is.
  Mrs. BOXER. If my colleague agrees.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, the understanding was that Senator Specter 
would be next for 15 minutes, and after that, the Senator from 
Massachusetts. If it is the Senator's preference to wait until 
afterwards, I have no objection to that.
  Mrs. BOXER. And Senator Warner has 2 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there an objection to the 
request as modified?
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, what is the pending unanimous consent 
request?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. To allow the Senator from 
California and the Senator from Oklahoma to each have 30 minutes after 
we come back from the recess.
  Mrs. BOXER. Followed by Senator Kerry.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. To be followed by the Senator from 
Massachusetts. Is there objection?
  Mr. INHOFE. I object.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thought you said it was OK.
  Mr. INHOFE. Let's just try a new one. I ask unanimous consent that 
the Senator from Virginia be recognized for 3 minutes, followed by the 
Senator from Pennsylvania for 15 minutes.
  Mr. SPECTER. That is this morning, now.
  Mr. INHOFE. All this takes place prior to the break for lunch.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, is there a request that we go past 12:30?

[[Page 11099]]


  Mr. INHOFE. My unanimous consent request, I say to the distinguished 
leader, would postpone the 12:30 recess for lunch for about 10 minutes.
  Mr. REID. I will just say, I have no problem if the lunches don't 
start until 20 till 1, but anything other than that, I respectfully 
have to say I hope people can come after the Senate picture this 
afternoon. I know comparing it to global warming, it is not a very 
important issue. Staff has worked some 6 weeks to set up this place to 
take the picture at 2:15. Both caucuses have a lot to talk about. 
Senator Kerry has agreed to wait until after lunch. That will be fine.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. For the record, we have not 
disposed of the unanimous consent request. But if my mathematics is 
correct, that unanimous consent request will take us up to 15 before 1. 
Is there objection to the unanimous consent request by the Senator from 
Oklahoma? Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Presiding Officer. Mr. President, I say to my 
good friend, this has been an excellent debate he engendered on this 
floor. This is what we should have. This is the only way we are going 
to resolve this issue of global warming. I urge the managers to 
consider building in a little block of time after speakers, such as 
there can be some colloquy taking place rather than just one speaker, 
another speaker, reading a speech or delivering a speech. This is what 
it is all about.
  Mr. President, I say to my good friend, he and I have worked on this 
issue over a period of about 2 or 3 months. I have worked on it for 8 
months. I don't claim any special credit. But if the Senator feels so 
badly about this bill, why haven't he and others brought to the floor a 
companion bill to replace this and to solve the problems he has? It is 
one thing to come in here and hail damnation on what we have done by 
means of putting this bill together, but if it is going to be a 
constructive process, show us--
  Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. WARNER. Let me finish the statement, and I will yield the floor--
a comprehensive bill that will work to the satisfaction of a majority 
of the people here. For example, you talk about this board, seven men. 
Let's say there might be a woman or two on it.
  Mr. CORKER. I didn't say ``men.'' I said five people.
  Mr. WARNER. The point is, if we look at section 435 of the bill, it 
says that chart the Senator has up there has to be approved by the 
Congress.
  Mr. CORKER. It can only be vetoed.
  Mr. WARNER. Nevertheless, you omitted any reference to the fact that 
Congress has a hand. If you look at the amendment I have thrown in, the 
President of the United States, at any time he or she desires, can go 
in and change that. So it is not as if we have unleashed this bill in 
perpetuity. There are a number of checks and balances in this bill to 
protect the very issues that the Senator states.
  Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, if I may proceed, because my name has been 
brought forth, for 60 seconds.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. CORKER. First of all, this bill, in black and white, prespends 
over $1 trillion with no congressional oversight. The Senator from 
Virginia is right on the one portion to which he was referring. We can 
either veto it or approve it, but we have no say-so on how those 
technology moneys are spent.
  I object to the comment about me being a Johnny-come-lately. I have 
been very transparent about this legislation. I have authored three 
very detailed amendments, sent them to every colleague in this Senate, 
and have given the background to them. I have been totally transparent 
throughout this process. I have made public presentations about the 
three amendments that I think would make this bill far better--things 
that people call poison pills. I think the Senator knows I certainly 
have not come to this debate at a late time, and I plan to offer those 
amendments.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Time has expired.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I agree with what the Senator has said.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Time has expired.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair. It has been a little tough getting 
these 15 minutes, but I am glad to have them.
  Mr. WARNER. The Senator showed courtesy in getting them.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I sought recognition to discuss a number 
of amendments which I will be proposing to offer. I intend to offer an 
amendment on emission caps because of my concern that the emission caps 
which are set in the Lieberman-Warner bill cannot be obtained.
  I believe the problem of global warming is a major problem and we 
ought to deal with it, but I think we have to deal with it within the 
realistic bounds as to what the technology would permit, and it is 
going to be very difficult to get 60 votes to oppose cloture, and if a 
legislative proposal is on the floor which is unattainable, we are 
going to end up getting nothing. So it is my intention to take the 
emission caps from the Bingaman-Specter bill and offer them as an 
amendment to the Lieberman-Warner bill.
  I intend to offer a second amendment--a cost-containment safety-valve 
amendment. This amendment will include the so-called technology 
accelerator mechanism which has been included in the Bingaman-Specter 
bill, and will provide a very important safeguard on the legislation.
  I intend to offer a third amendment on international competitiveness. 
It is vital that we not structure legislation which will put United 
States industry at a substantial disadvantage. On February 14, I 
testified before the Senate Finance Committee on this subject, noting 
that China wishes to have 30 years, and by that time there will be no 
steel industry. So there have to be restrictions on steel 
illustratively coming in the United States, and this amendment on 
international competitiveness will deal with that subject.
  I intend further to offer an amendment captioned ``Process Gas 
Emissions,'' because there is no technological alternative to a 
company's annual requirement to submit emissions allowances.
  Finally, there is a potential fifth amendment, which I am not yet 
certain about, and that would involve the pathway to the future for 
coal amendment.
  The statement was made earlier in the past half hour about Senators 
not understanding this bill. I think that is a real problem. This is an 
extraordinarily complex bill. We have had the Warner-Lieberman bill, 
then we have had the Boxer bill, a second bill, and now I understand 
there is going to be a third substitute. So as we are working through 
the amendments which I have articulated, it is a difficult matter, with 
the topography changing and with the underlying bill changing, and it 
is my hope this bill will remain on the floor with procedures to give 
Senators sufficient time to take up the very important matters which 
are at hand.
  The first and most fundamental one is to have enough debate so that 
there is an understanding of the bill. I agree with my distinguished 
colleague from Virginia, Senator Warner, who a few moments ago asked 
for time so there could be debate and an exchange. Too often speeches 
are made on this floor without an opportunity for debate and 
questioning and cross-questioning to get to the very important matters. 
There has been some speculation that the procedure that will be 
employed by the majority leader--so-called filling the tree--would 
preclude further amendments. I hope that will not be done here. 
Regrettably, it has become a commonplace practice, going back with 
Republican majority leaders and Democratic majority leaders, so that 
the filling of the tree has made a very fundamental change in Senate 
procedure, which traditionally has been that a Senator could offer an 
amendment on any subject at any time and get a vote.
  When the tree is filled, obviously matters cannot be debated and 
efforts for cloture cannot move forward. This is a matter which has 
awaited a fair amount of time. It is complex. And if Senators are not 
able to offer amendments, such as the amendments which

[[Page 11100]]

I am proposing to offer, there is no way to find out what the merits of 
the bill are and what the merits of the amendments are.
  On the subject of filling the tree, I have had for months now an 
amendment on a rules change filed with the rules committee which would 
alter the authority of the majority leader to employ the so-called 
procedure of filling the tree.
  Another concern which is related has been the shift in the practice 
of the Senate on the filibusters. There had been a tradition in the 
Senate that when somebody offered a bill, and there was opposition and 
the opposition intended to conduct a filibuster--that is to deny a vote 
unless 60 votes were obtained to cut off debate--that there would be 
that kind of debate. Most recently, we have seen the practice employed 
that if someone says there is an intent to have a filibuster, there is 
a motion to proceed for cloture on a filibuster, there is a 20-minute 
vote, and when cloture is not invoked, the matter is eliminated.
  Recently, we had a very serious piece of legislation coming to the 
floor which sought to change a ruling of the Supreme Court of the 
United States on the rights of women to obtain relief, where the 
Supreme Court had imposed a 6-month statute of limitations in a 
situation where the woman who sought relief didn't even know she had a 
cause of action within the 6 months. Well, that matter came and went so 
fast on the Senate floor that nobody knew what it was about. Had the 
proponents of that legislation debated it, brought it to public 
attention, and had the opponents of the legislation, who wanted to 
filibuster it, engaged in extended debate, the public would have 
understood what was going on.
  So the matter of having adequate time to debate this very complex 
legislation is very important. And if there is to be any possibility of 
finding 60 Senators to coalesce around a cloture petition, 60 Senators 
to agree on legislation, Senators are going to have to have an 
opportunity to offer their amendments. There is great therapy in being 
able to offer an amendment, even if it is not accepted. But we can 
hardly engage in a practice of filling the tree, where Senators are not 
permitted to offer amendments, and expect to have this bill move 
forward, people understand it, and find 60 Senators who are willing to 
come together on the very important piece of legislation which is at 
hand.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be included in the 
Record at this time a summary of the sheet of the five potential 
amendments I intend to offer, and an explanation of the amendment on 
the cost-containment safety valve, an explanation on the amendment on 
international competition, an explanation on the amendment on process 
gas emissions, and the single sheet which explains the proposal on a 
possible pathway to the future for the expanded use of coal amendment.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                      Potential Specter Amendments

       Emissions Caps/Targets Amendment.--Substitute the Bingaman-
     Specter (S. 1766) emissions limits in place of the Lieberman-
     Warner limits.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Lieberman-Warner                     Bingaman-Specter
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012--cap at 2005 level...................  2012--cap at 2012 level.
2020--15% below 2005 (1990 levels)........  2020--cap at 2006 level.
2030--30% below 2005......................  2030--cap at 1990 level.
2050--70% below 2005......................  2050--60% below 2006
                                             contingent on international
                                             effort.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       Cost-Containment Safety-Valve Amendment.--Include the so-
     called ``safety valve'' or Technology Accelerator Mechanism 
     that was included in the Bingaman-Specter bill; that 
     provision states that if the price for an allowance for each 
     ton of greenhouse gas (Carbon Dioxide equivalent) being 
     traded on the open market reaches a certain level, then 
     regulated entities have the option of purchasing additional 
     allowances directly from the government at a set price; 
     specifically, we set the price at $12 per ton, rising 5% over 
     inflation annually.
       International Competitiveness Amendment.--Address the 
     standard used to determine if our trading partners are taking 
     ``comparable action''; restrict an Administration's ability 
     to simply waive requirements on importers; bring the 
     compliance date in line with the start of the program (i.e. 
     2012, rather than 2014 in the new version--changed from 2020 
     in the original); revise provisions added for ``downstream'' 
     products that may ironically result in exempting the 
     ``upstream'' inputs like steel; include all countries, not 
     just large emitters; and equalize the ability of U.S. and 
     foreign entities to purchase international allowances to meet 
     the requirements.
       Process Gas Emissions Amendment.--Clarify that process 
     gases for which there is no technological alternative will 
     not be counted in a company's annual requirement to submit 
     emissions allowances.
       Pathway to the Future for Coal Amendment.--Potentially 
     including provisions: Providing technology funding and 
     incentives; adding a carbon dioxide storage liability 
     framework; adding a safety-valve; aligning emissions caps/
     targets with technology; improving allocations; addressing 
     duplicative State programs; and other issues.


                    Emissions Caps/Targets Amendment

       As I stated yesterday, I have serious concerns about the 
     stringency of the emissions reductions in the Lieberman-
     Warner ``Climate Security Act.'' There is great concern in 
     the industrial, electric, and general business sectors that 
     these emissions levels are unattainable without serious 
     demand destruction in the form of lost jobs and production in 
     the U.S. that would result from higher cost.
       If we do not set the emissions caps at a reasonable level, 
     the supply and demand situation set up under a cap-and-trade 
     program will impose high costs by definition. I intend to 
     propose an amendment to substitute the Bingaman-Specter (S. 
     1766) emissions limits in place of the Lieberman-Warner 
     limits. This will more closely align technology development 
     with the emissions reduction targets.
       In my view, the most important thing our nation can do is 
     start a mandatory climate change reduction program as soon as 
     possible. If we wait until there is consensus among important 
     stakeholders from both sides of the equation, we will lose 
     another year or two or three that we frankly do not have.
     Emissions targets/caps
       Bingaman-Specter 2012--cap at 2005 level.
       2012--cap at 2012 level 2020--15% below 2005 (1990 levels).
       2020--cap at 2006 level 2030--30% below 2005.
       2030--cap at 1990 level 2050--70% below 2005.
       2050--60 percent below 2006 contingent on international 
     effort.


                cost-containment safety-valve amendment

       Senator Bingaman and I worked very hard to find the right 
     balance between starting the U.S. on an emissions reduction 
     path, but protecting the economy;
       We are talking about taking unilateral action on a global 
     problem reducing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the 
     atmosphere; we cannot solve this problem alone and until a 
     comprehensive international agreement is in place, the U.S. 
     remains at risk of competitive disadvantages.
       If some proponents of climate change legislation are 
     correct in their predictions, the cost of domestic action on 
     the problem will not be high.
       However, if costs are above what Congress determines in 
     unacceptable, there must be an adequate mechanism to keep the 
     program in line with what the U.S. economy can handle; I 
     intend to offer an amendment to include the so-called 
     ``safety valve'' or Technology Accelerator Mechanism that was 
     included in the Bingaman-Specter bill; that provision states 
     that if the price for an allowance for each ton of greenhouse 
     gas (Carbon Dioxide equivalent) being traded on the open 
     market reaches a certain level, then regulated entities have 
     the option of purchasing additional allowances directly from 
     the government at a set price; specifically, we set the price 
     at $12 per ton, rising 5% over inflation annually; this 
     protects the economy, while still sending the necessary price 
     signal to industry that there is an escalating price to 
     carbon that must be factored in investment decisions; I am 
     open to a debate about the appropriate level at which to set 
     such a safety-valve;
       Unfortunately, opponents of this provision have flatly 
     attacked it without addressing the question of what an 
     appropriate price trigger would be; I was very glad to hear 
     Chairman Boxer state on the Senate floor yesterday thanking 
     Senator Bingaman and me for our proposal on this subject. She 
     described it as ``what I thought was a very important off 
     ramp. The one thing I didn't agree with them on is the price 
     they picked for the price of carbon.''
       I hope this is an indication that we can finally have a 
     legitimate debate about this important protection for the 
     U.S. economy and consumers.
       While Senator Boxer inserted a new ``cost containment 
     auction,'' I believe the new cost containment provisions 
     require extensive review and a true safety-valve should be 
     added.
       Senator Warner provided leadership in adding provisions to 
     empower the President to alter the program, but I fear this 
     still provides too much discretion and would potentially be 
     used after adverse effects have already happened.


                international competitiveness amendment

       Senator Bingaman and I included key international 
     provisions in our bill. These

[[Page 11101]]

     provisions were based on a proposal from American Electric 
     Power (AEP) and the International Brotherhood of Electrical 
     Workers (IBEW).
       Senators Lieberman and Warner included our provisions in 
     their legislation as well; The purpose of these provisions is 
     to ensure that greenhouse gas emissions occurring outside the 
     U.S. do not undermine our efforts to address global climate 
     change and we further want to encourage effective 
     international action.
       As first introduced, if eight years after the enactment of 
     the U.S. program, it is determined that a given major 
     emitting nation has not taken comparable action, the 
     President at that time is authorized to require that 
     importers of greenhouse-gas-intensive manufactured products 
     (iron, steel, aluminum, cement, glass, or paper) from that 
     nation submit emissions credits of a value equivalent to that 
     of the credits that the U.S. system effectively requires of 
     domestic manufacturers.
       I testified before the Senate Finance Committee on February 
     14th of this year on these provisions. It is my view that 
     since the provisions treat imports the same as domestic 
     products, I believe they are compliant with GATT and would 
     survive a WTO challenge. Now, I understand that modifications 
     of this proposal are found in the Boxer substitute.
       As my staff and various industries review the language, 
     there remain concerns that the provisions may still require 
     changes to ensure their effectiveness; specifically, I am 
     considering offering an amendment to: Address the standard 
     used to determine if our trading partners are taking 
     ``comparable action''; restrict an Administration's ability 
     to simply waive requirements on importers; bring the 
     compliance date in line with the start of the program (ie. 
     2012, rather than 2014 in the new version--changed from 2020 
     in the original); revise provisions added for ``downstream'' 
     products that may ironically result in exempting the 
     ``upstream'' inputs like steel; include all countries, not 
     just large emitters; and equalize the ability of U.S. and 
     foreign entities to purchase international allowances to meet 
     the requirements.


                    process gas emissions amendment

       It is my understanding that some emissions resulting from 
     production of energy-intensive manufacturers like steel and 
     cement would be exempted because there is no feasible 
     technological alternative;
       For example, the use of carbon is irreplaceable to the 
     processes and the metallurgical reactions necessary to 
     produce virgin steel. Carbon, in the form of coal or coke, is 
     used as a reducing agent to strip oxygen molecules from iron 
     ore, producing iron, the basic building block of steel, and 
     carbon dioxide. Without carbon there can be no steel.
       Without this exemption, given current technology, the only 
     way to substantially reduce emissions in the integrated steel 
     industry is to reduce production and employment.
       Cooperative efforts are underway between the steel industry 
     and the U.S. Department of Energy to find technologies to 
     produce steel with far less carbon emissions, but they are 
     far from commercial viability.
       I intend to offer an amendment to clarify that process 
     gases for which there is no technological alternative will 
     not be counted in a company's annual requirement to submit 
     emissions allowances.
       This exemption will only impact a very small percentage of 
     U.S. emissions, but will protect an essential industry that 
     will play a major role in the energy sector expansion that 
     would result upon passage of this bill or even in its absence 
     given rising energy demand.


                pathway to the future for coal amendment

       I am considering offering an amendment to address the 
     serious shortcomings in the Lieberman-Warner bill in terms of 
     providing a pathway to the future for coal;
       I am concerned that the bill does not provide sufficient 
     funding or incentives for carbon capture and storage (CCS) 
     and advanced coal technologies; It is my understanding that 
     the Boxer substitute replaces the original Lieberman-Warner 
     advanced coal research program with a ``kick-start program'' 
     that dramatically cuts carbon capture and storage technology 
     funding. According to the National Mining Association, the 
     substitute provides 85% less funding through 2030 for 
     advanced coal and sequestration development, and eliminates 
     all funding for carbon storage demonstration projects.
       Without adequate funding for these priorities, the result 
     is likely to be severe reductions in U.S. coal use--America's 
     most abundant energy resource.
       Further, the substitute dramatically reduces the number and 
     rate of bonus allowances for CCS deployment from the previous 
     Lieberman-Warner bill. The Bingaman-Specter bill was the 
     first to create this incentive for early deployment of carbon 
     capture and storage technologies. I am told the substitute 
     reduces CCS bonus allowances 19 percent through 2030 compared 
     to levels in Lieberman-Warner which were already 
     insufficient.
       Broadly, the Boxer substitute fails to harmonize the 
     timeline for emission reductions with the availability of 
     commercially deployed technologies necessary to reduce 
     emissions.
       I look forward to working with my colleagues and the coal 
     industry to find the right balance between imposing a 
     mandatory cap on carbon emissions while ensuring the future 
     of coal.
       Some issues we need to consider are: Providing technology 
     funding and incentives;
       Adding a carbon dioxide storage liability framework; adding 
     a safety-valve; aligning emissions caps/targets with 
     technology; improving allocations; address duplicative State 
     programs; and others.

  Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I say that my friend from Pennsylvania has 
been a great leader on this, and I am ready right now, as is Senator 
Warner, as is Senator Lieberman, to start debating amendments. 
Unfortunately, the Republican leadership has said we need to run out 30 
hours, so we are not going to be able to begin the amendment process. 
But it runs out tonight and, hopefully, first thing in the morning we 
will start with the amendment process.
  Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent request, signed off on by 
Senator Inhofe and myself, and I ask unanimous consent that the order 
of speakers for this afternoon's debate on the motion to proceed to the 
climate bill be as follows: Boxer, 20 minutes; Inhofe, 30 minutes; 
Kerry, 20 minutes; Barrasso, 15 minutes; Whitehouse, 15 minutes; 
Grassley, 15 minutes; Casey, 15 minutes; Enzi, 20 minutes; Carper, 30 
minutes; Alexander, 20 minutes; Warner, 20 minutes; Bond, 20 minutes; 
Lieberman, 30 minutes; Vitter, 15 minutes; Nelson of Florida, 15 
minutes; and Craig, 15 minutes.
  Further, I ask unanimous consent that following each speaker, the 
bill manager or their designee from the opposite side of the previous 
speaker have up to 5 minutes for a rebuttal statement prior to the next 
speaker listed above being recognized.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Mr. GREGG. Reserving the right to object.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. If the Senator would add me for 15 minutes on that list, I 
would appreciate it.
  Mrs. BOXER. Happy to do that. And, Senator, I will add a Democrat 
before you, and you will be the next Republican after Senator Craig, 
for 15 minutes.
  Mr. GREGG. Thank you. I appreciate it.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask that my 20 minutes be made 30, for my 
purposes.
  Mrs. BOXER. That is fine.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________