[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 11102-11142]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




       CLIMATE SECURITY ACT OF 2008--MOTION TO PROCEED--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, is it appropriate at this time to yield some 
of my time? I have an hour postcloture; is it appropriate now to yield 
that to someone?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is.
  Mr. REID. I yield \1/2\ hour to the Senator from California, Mrs. 
Boxer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, to remind the first few speakers, what we 
have is Boxer for 20 minutes, and I plan to yield 5 of those minutes to 
Senator Durbin, then a rebuttal by Senator Inhofe or his designee, then 
Senator Inhofe for 30 minutes, then a rebuttal by our side, then 
Senator Kerry for 30 minutes.
  I have found this debate so far to be very interesting and very 
heartfelt. What I would like to do before I yield a few minutes of my 
time to Senator Durbin is kind of take it to where it has gone thus 
far. So far we have had a vote to proceed to this matter, a very strong 
vote to do that, 74 votes yes. That is good.
  What isn't so great is, we are kind of being slow-walked by the 
Republican leadership in such a way that we can't start the amendment 
process which, as we all know, is crucial on a bill of this nature. So 
that is disappointing.
  I think the debate has been very interesting, and I would like to 
relate where I think it is at this point.
  Those of us who believe the Boxer-Lieberman-Warner proposal makes 
sense believe it is time to change the status quo as it relates to our 
energy policy in this country. What we have now with our dependence on 
fossil fuels is an energy policy which is now getting very costly 
because of increased demand in the world, because of speculation, 
because of a lot of reasons, and it is also polluting the planet to the 
point where we see the global warming impacts already starting.
  My colleague, Senator Feinstein, was brilliant today, both at a press 
conference and on the floor, in talking about what is already happening 
in the West with our snow pack, with lakes that are disappearing, with 
the problems we are having. We know, if we listen to the scientists--
and the scientists are in agreement, and I am glad that my colleagues 
on the other side are not debating whether global warming is happening; 
they have, it seems to me, accepted that fact--that we have a choice. 
Either we continue what we are doing today with the same kind of energy 
sources we have, with the buildup of greenhouse gas emissions and 
carbon pollution or we move forward and say: How can we tackle this 
issue in a way that saves the planet, saves the species?
  By the way, 40 percent of God's creatures may be extinct if we don't 
act. How are we going to do this in such a way that our grandchildren 
and their children don't face a disastrous situation where the planet 
becomes inhospitable. We have the numbers, how many thousands more 
people will die of heat stroke. We have the numbers, and the numbers 
come from the Bush administration. So how do we do this in a way that 
saves the planet, cuts down on pollution and, by the way, gives us 
alternatives to energy we now have which, in the long run, will be 
cheaper, more reliable, and make us completely energy independent?
  I believe what our bill does is achieve those goals. We fight global 
warming. At the same time, we bring about an economic renaissance from 
investments in new technologies that will make us energy independent. 
To me, it is a pretty stark choice. Either you are for the status quo 
and you are going to find an excuse not to be for this bill or you are 
going to take a look at this bill, which is a tripartisan bill--a 
Democrat, an independent, a Republican bringing it to the Senate--
reflective of America, reflective of the span of our views in this 
Nation.
  The one thing I hear--again, it must be out of some talking point 
somebody wrote over there on the other side--is gas prices. Don't do 
this bill because of gas prices.
  I am going to show you what has happened to gas prices without this 
bill. I want you to look at this. This is what has happened under 
George Bush's watch. We have seen gas prices go all the way up to $3.94 
from $1.50, and that, in 7\1/2\ years, is a 250-percent increase. That 
is what our people are upset about.
  My colleagues on the other side know this. They have done nothing 
about this. I am going to ask my assistant majority leader to talk 
about this. How many times we have begged them, do something about big 
oil. Return the money to the people. Investigate what is happening with 
speculation. No, they won't do anything. But what they are saying is, 
and what the Bush administration is saying is, if you pass this bill, 
this Climate Security Act, gas prices are going to go up.
  Folks, they are going to go down. Worst case scenario that the 
President picked up, they will go up 2 cents a year. That is the worst 
case scenario. But that is going to be offset by the fuel economy bill 
that the President himself signed.
  I am looking at Senator Carper, the Presiding Officer. He worked hard 
on that, with Senator Feinstein, Senator Inouye, and Senator Kerry, 
those of us on the Commerce Committee. That will be offset. The truth 
is, the stark truth is, you pass this bill, we are going to see a 
reduction in gas prices. We are going to have alternatives, and we are 
going to see jobs created. We are going to see new companies starting. 
We are going to see the genius of America take hold if only we have the 
courage--not to come on this floor and make a bogus argument about an 
issue they did nothing about, but if we have a real debate on what this 
bill means.
  So at this time, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thirteen minutes.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes of those 13 minutes to 
the Senator from Illinois.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized for 5 
minutes.

[[Page 11103]]


  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, first, I extend my gratitude to Senator 
Boxer for her extraordinary leadership on this issue, a bipartisan 
issue, with Senator Lieberman, Senator Warner, and so many others on 
both sides of the aisle.
  In the history of our country and of this great institution, the 
Senate, there have been many occasions when Senators have come to the 
floor and spoken of threats to the security of the United States of 
America. Those threats usually came in the form of dictators or 
ideologies such as communism and fascism, and we mobilized American 
opinion behind fighting those threats. We asked great sacrifices from 
our people to come forward to make sure future generations would enjoy 
the freedoms and opportunities we enjoy today, which many take for 
granted.
  The debate today is about another threat, a very real threat, to the 
future not only of the United States but to all the countries in the 
world. It is a common threat. This bill is about reducing carbon 
pollution that causes global warming. It uses free market incentives to 
protect American jobs and creates international sanctions for those 
countries that do not participate. It is a tried and true approach. We 
have used this very same approach, as this bill suggests, to 
successfully reduce acid rain. So we know it works. We know how 
compelling it is for us to move on it, and move on it quickly. Delay on 
this subject will mean even greater sacrifices in the future. In fact, 
it may reach a point where it is not even feasible to address the 
issue.
  We are all concerned about the cost of fuel, whether it is gasoline 
or diesel fuel or heating oil or jet fuel. The stark reality is, this 
bill will bring us to a new attitude and a new approach: more fuel 
efficiency, driving the same miles using less fuel, with less carbon 
pollution, and fewer emissions.
  This bill drives us forward in a positive way to deal with the needs 
of our economy and to keep the costs of energy within the grasp of 
families and businesses and farmers.
  Secondly, the bill focuses on creating new jobs, the jobs of our 
future. In this country and in the world will be jobs that really look 
to the environment as a major element in costing out things. It is no 
longer just the cost of bringing a ton of steel halfway around the 
world from China. It is also the carbon cost of transporting that steel 
that has to be taken into consideration. That is a very real cost.
  When we start thinking in terms of fuel efficiency, the United States 
can use the same kind of entrepreneurial spirit and innovative spirit 
that has been such a successful engine to our economy in the years gone 
by, whether it has been the Silicon Valley or medical technology. The 
United States can lead again because we have the economy and the talent 
to get in the front of this parade and to stay there when it comes to 
job and business creation.
  It is also a question of public health. We know global warming is 
going to create an environment where many will suffer; pulmonary 
disease, such as asthma, cancers, such as melanoma, are going to 
increase if we do not get serious about this issue. I think we 
understand that. For the good of our children and grandchildren, and 
for our desire to make sure they have better and longer lives than 
ourselves, this bill is extremely important.
  Finally, this whole issue of global warming is an issue that really 
addresses stability in our world. It is no surprise that some of the 
tinder boxes--and I do not mean any pun by that--some of the tinder 
boxes in the world today are countries in desperate straits trying to 
find water for their people. It is a huge issue in the Middle East. It 
is also an issue in Africa. When that issue has become its most 
extreme, we find genocide in Darfur, we find turmoil in other parts of 
the world and instability. Coming to grips with global warming, 
stabilizing our global climate, is a way for us to try to bring some 
peace and stability to this world.
  When you think about the parameters of this debate, could you think 
of anything more serious? How can we face our children and 
grandchildren if we do not honestly debate this issue, if we do not 
step up and say: On our watch, at our time, our generation did the 
right thing?
  We cannot undo what has been done in the past, generations gone by, 
centuries in the past. But we are responsible for now and for the 
future.
  This is our chance to move forward. I beg my colleagues, even if you 
find differences and difficulties with the bill, let's work together.
  Senator Warner, I am glad you are here. We would not be here without 
you, and that is a fact. You have shown a bipartisan spirit to address 
this issue, and you have taken a little bit of grief from your side of 
the aisle. Well, trust me, many of us appreciate your leadership on 
this issue, and it will be long remembered.
  In that spirit--Senator Warner, Senator Lieberman, Senator Boxer, and 
others--we need to say to future generations: We can come together, 
both parties, and take on this challenge successfully.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his comments. But 
a short time ago there was a colloquy on the floor, and someone said 
they felt----
  Mrs. BOXER. I did.
  Mr. WARNER. There was a slow roll. I immediately went back to consult 
with my leadership, and that is not the case. The reason for not going 
to amendments today seems to me to be a valid one; that is, a number of 
Senators wish to speak. The list is up to 18 now, and they want to 
speak in such a way that is not feasible if we are in an amending 
posture.
  So I thank the distinguished chairman on this matter because I do 
believe we have made some progress today. We have had good, 
constructive speeches. Senator Corker spoke, Senator Isakson spoke on 
this side, and colleagues on your side. I think Senator Kerry was about 
to speak.
  Mrs. BOXER. He is going to speak.
  Mr. WARNER. So I think, Mr. Chairman, we are making some good, solid 
progress in the Senate and can rightfully take pride in what we have 
done thus far. Would you agree with me?
  Mrs. BOXER. Yes, I do.
  Mr. President, I wonder how much time I have left of my time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Seven minutes.
  Mrs. BOXER. OK. Senator Warner is speaking on my time, then? Which is 
fine.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I have nothing further to say.
  Mrs. BOXER. No, it is fine. I say to Senator Warner, I believed we 
were slow-walking it only because we are so anxious to get to the 
amendments. But I hear what you are saying--if this is real. We are 
going to have some good debate today. This is the list of Senators on 
both sides. This is good.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, that would not be possible if we were in 
an amendment posture. We could not get all those Senators in.
  Mrs. BOXER. Well, let me say, I welcome everyone to the floor.
  Let me conclude my little part today at this time by saying we have 
seen the faith communities come out very strongly for the Boxer-
Lieberman-Warner bill--the Evangelical Environmental Network, the 
Evangelical Climate Initiative, the U.S. Conference of Catholic 
Bishops, the National Council of Churches, the Religious Action Center 
of Reform Judaism, the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, the 
Interfaith Power and Light Campaign. These are just some.
  I think we have had some very wonderful meetings with them and press 
conferences with them. The way they look at the world is this: It is 
God's creation that is at stake, and they feel very moved and very 
bound to respond. It is rare you see this kind of coalition coming 
forward. But they look at God's creatures, and they say: We have a 
responsibility. They look at human beings all over the world who will 
suffer mightily if we do not get a grip on this global warming because 
we know, with rising sea levels, we will have refugees who will be 
stranded. We know in our own country we will have thousands die of heat 
strokes. We will have

[[Page 11104]]

many thousands die from vectors and problems of new kinds of amoebas 
and so on that will now be present in the warmer waters.
  We had an incident, and I believe it was at Lake Havasu, where we had 
some little child who went swimming and got a brain infection, who got 
that because the waters are getting warmer. So this is not theoretical. 
It is real.
  Here, as shown in this picture, is a beautiful creature, the polar 
bear and people say: Oh, is this all about saving the polar bear? It is 
about saving us. It is about saving our future. It is about saving the 
life on planet Earth. And, yes, it is about saving God's creatures.
  I remember sitting just a few feet away, at our hearings, from the 
scientists who said 40 to 50 percent of God's species could be extinct 
if we do not act. Now, that is not something we can turn away from, at 
least in my opinion. Here is this magnificent creature in peril because 
of the disappearing ice.
  I also think we have to remind ourselves that global warming is a 
national security issue. I know when Senator Warner became involved in 
it, it was in great part because of this. A report conducted by the 
Center for Naval Analysis found that the United States could more 
frequently be drawn into situations of conflict to ``provide stability 
before conditions worsen and are exploited by extremists. . . . The 
U.S. will find itself in a world where Europe will be struggling 
internally, with large numbers of refugees washing up on its shores, 
and Asia in serious crisis over food and water. Disruptions and 
conflict will be endemic features of life.''
  Look, this is not a quote from Senator Boxer or Senator Kerry or 
Senator Lieberman or Senator Warner, who care about this bill. This is 
a quote from the Center for Naval Analysis. This is very serious. This 
is, Implications for U.S. National Security, commissioned by the 
Department of Defense in October 2003. Here we are in 2008, and we have 
a long way to go to get this bill done.
  So I would say in my remaining few minutes that you are going to hear 
people come to the Senate floor and say: If we do this bill, it is 
going to imperil jobs. Well, nothing could be further from the truth.
  You look at Great Britain, where they have reduced greenhouse gas 
emissions by 15 percent since 1990, and their economy grew 40 percent. 
Mr. President, 500,000 new jobs were created.
  The Apollo Alliance here at home said we are going to see thousands 
and thousands of new jobs created. We have a study of the impacts of 
California's global warming law: 89,000 new jobs projected. I can tell 
you right now, we are in a tough time in California because of the 
housing crisis, OK. A lot of folks being laid off are going to work for 
the 450 new solar companies that have sprung up in California.
  If you look at the top manufacturing States for solar, it is Ohio, 
Michigan, California, Tennessee, and Massachusetts. So these jobs are 
going all over America.
  Look at all of labor supporting our bill. It is remarkable: the 
Operating Engineers, the Building and Construction Trades, the 
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. They understand we 
will be building a new infrastructure for our new energy which is going 
to result in lower energy prices.
  Our local governments support action--the Conference of Mayors; the 
National Association of Clean Air Agencies; the Climate Communities, 
which is a coalition of cities, towns, counties, and other communities.
  Not only will we see lower gas prices as a result of this 
legislation, but we are going to see amazing job growth. It occurred in 
Germany, just as it occurred in Great Britain.
  Here we see this group that came together to support us saying: 
``Prompt action on climate change is essential to protect America's 
economy, security, quality of life and natural environment.'' I want to 
reiterate this. You are going to hear predictions of gloom and doom.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 20 more seconds to close.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. You are going to hear predictions of doom and gloom. But 
do you know what? Either these folks have not read the bill or they are 
reading off talking points that were made to start a political fight. 
We should come together across party lines. We should pass this bill.
  I look forward to hearing from the rest of my colleagues.
  Before I yield the floor, I ask the Presiding Officer, since we do 
not have anyone to rebut us, is it possible to go to Senator Kerry at 
this time? Would that be possible? I ask unanimous consent that we go 
to Senator Kerry, since we do not have the other side here. Or, 
actually, I ask unanimous consent to go to Senator Lieberman for 3 
minutes, followed by Senator Kerry for 30 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Hearing no objection, the Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank the Chair, and I thank my 
colleagues.
  I rise to build on something that Chairman Boxer just said about the 
national security implications of the global warming problem.
  Last week I had the privilege to attend an Asian-Pacific Security 
Conference in Singapore, which is called the ``Shangri-la Dialogue.'' 
At that conference, there were high-ranking defense officials from just 
about every country in the Asian-Pacific region, large or small. I 
noticed on the schedule of meetings there was a session on climate 
change. So this intrigued me because, again, this was a defense group, 
an international security group.
  I went to the conference, and it was quite something. Our friends in 
the Asian-Pacific region are deeply concerned about the possible 
consequences of global warming and anxious that the world unite to 
protect them and us from the worst of it. A gentleman leader in the 
Defense Department of Singapore said they have begun to negotiate with 
European experts in the construction of dikes, because they think if 
they can build adequate dikes, they can probably withstand a rising sea 
level which they believe will happen--probably will happen, according 
to the best science--of a meter. But if the water rises above a meter, 
their leaders have concluded that as much as a third of Singapore could 
be under water. There was a gentleman there from the Defense Department 
of Bangladesh who said they are beginning to try to make plans for 
confronting a migration of as many as 5 million people in Bangladesh 
who will be forced by rising tides to leave their homes--5 million 
people.
  Now, I say by reference, we don't think about those extraordinary 
effects of global warming, but if seas rise--to say the obvious, the 
United States has enormous coastlines and our low-lying areas will be 
subject to consequences that could be severe to the way of life of the 
people there. There has been a trend in our country of people moving to 
the coast, millions and millions and millions. If we don't do something 
about global warming soon, the life they lead will be severely 
compromised, and that is what this bill is all about--trying to avoid 
that.
  I thank the chairman, Senator Boxer, for stressing that this is not 
only an environmental protection bill, this is not only an economic 
growth bill; this is a national security bill.
  I thank the Chair, I thank my colleague, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Durbin). The Senator from Massachusetts is 
recognized.
  Mr. KERRY. I thank the Chair. Let me begin by thanking first Senator 
Boxer for her unbelievable leadership in this effort, as well as 
Senator Lieberman and Senator Warner, all of whom have worked 
diligently on the Environment and Public Works Committee. As everybody 
knows, there are some shared committee assignments with respect to this 
issue--the Commerce Committee and the Energy Committee--but I think 
there has been a superb effort of bringing everybody together under one 
roof, and that has largely been because of Senator

[[Page 11105]]

Boxer's determination to get us to this point.
  We are here to debate what is absolutely--and it is interesting. We 
hear it from colleague after colleague on the other side of the aisle. 
They say: Oh, yes, we have to do a global climate change bill; yes, 
this is a critical issue. Then they add the caveat: But not this bill, 
not this time; then not providing a genuine effort or alternative to 
say this is how it could work.
  It is also interesting to note there has been a huge shift in America 
with respect to this issue. Major Fortune 500 companies support the 
fundamental underlying precept of this bill. They haven't necessarily 
all landed on this bill yet, but they support the notion that we put a 
market-based mechanism in place whereby the marketplace will decide how 
rapidly and how each individual company will decide to reduce its 
emissions. What is important here is that we are creating a framework--
and not a new framework. This is not something sort of brought out of 
the sky untested that is a new theory. We have been doing this since 
1990 when we passed the Clean Air Act and successfully reduced sulfur 
dioxide, the cause of acid rain, and successfully reduced it at about a 
quarter of the cost that most of the naysayers predicted.
  So I think our colleagues on the other side of the aisle frankly come 
here with a particular burden of proof. They have been wrong over the 
course of 25 or 30 years. They have been wrong when they opposed water 
treatment facility efforts at the Federal level, when they opposed air 
quality treatment at the Federal level, and each time when we have 
proceeded forward because we had forward-leaning leadership, Republican 
and Democratic alike--it is important to note that the Clean Air Act 
was reauthorized under President George Herbert Walker Bush, who 
understood the importance of moving forward. So we have shown that this 
mechanism, which was created to deal with acid rain, works. It is the 
law of our land today. The marketplace is doing it today. Companies are 
participating in this today. This is a proven mechanism whereby the 
marketplace--not the Government--will decide at what rate and who bears 
what burden and people are free to choose within an economic benefit 
how they proceed.
  What is at stake today is whether Washington and this institution can 
rise above partisanship and break with the old entrenched interests and 
finally start to come together to solve what is undoubtedly the most 
urgent and profoundly complex challenge we face--how we protect this 
planet we live on. We have been down this road before. Twenty years ago 
I participated in the first hearings that were ever held in the Senate 
which Al Gore--then Senator Gore--chaired, with several other Senators, 
and we looked at this issue of climate change in the Commerce 
Committee. Ever since then, the story at the Federal level has been one 
of disgraceful denial, delay, back-scratching for specialized 
interests, and a buck-passing that has brought us perilously close to a 
climate change catastrophe. We have witnessed a failure of leadership 
in our time, and here on the floor of the Senate this week, at this 
moment--now--we Senators have the ability to reverse that.
  Today, all of the scientific evidence--I am not going to say too much 
about it, but I cannot sort of frame this debate for the next days 
without saying something about it--all of the scientific evidence is 
telling us we can't afford to delay the reckoning with climate change 
any longer. All of the science is already telling us we have waited too 
long. Since the start of the Industrial Revolution, atmospheric levels 
of carbon dioxide have increased from 280 parts per million to now 380 
parts per million. Today, we know not as a matter of guesswork--we know 
as a matter of scientific fact, incontrovertible fact--we know the 
atmospheric carbon levels are higher than they have been at any time in 
the past 800,000 years. How do we know it? Because scientists have been 
able to bore down into ice core and measure the carbon dioxide levels 
that have been preserved in the ice over those years, as well as other 
time-measuring mechanisms. That accumulation translates into an 
increase in global temperatures of about .8 degrees centigrade.
  Now, because this carbon dioxide that we put up into the atmosphere 
has a life--it continues to live--as nuclear materials have a half life 
of thousands of years, carbon dioxide has a life of anywhere from 80 to 
100 years. So what we have already put into the atmosphere will 
continue to do the damage it is already doing, unless somehow, by a 
miracle of science or a miracle, there is a method discovered in order 
to go backwards. So we are looking at another .7 to .8 degrees of 
temperature increase that we can't stop. That brings us to about 1.4, 
1.5 degrees of centigrade increase.
  Why is that figure important? I will tell you why that figure is 
important. Because there is a scientific consensus of thousands of 
scientists across the planet that is telling us that as a matter of 
public policy, to avoid the potential of a tipping point--they can't 
tell us with a certainty that the tipping point is at 1.9 degrees or 2 
degrees or 2.3, but they are telling us that their best judgment is 
that to avoid a tipping point of catastrophe on the planet, we must 
hold the temperature increase of the Earth to 2 degrees centigrade and 
to 450 parts per million of greenhouse gases. So we are looking at now 
being at 380, we have a cushion of going to 450; we already know we 
have risen 100 in the Industrial Revolution, but the Industrial 
Revolution didn't have China and India and the rest of the world 
industrializing as it is today. So we are staring at the potential of a 
much greater input of carbon dioxide, much greater input of greenhouse 
gases unless we take steps now, with the United States leading, in 
order to lower the levels of emissions and ultimately stabilize them at 
a level that is sustainable in terms of the science of our planet.
  Two weeks ago I brought several of our country's top climate 
scientists to brief us in advance of this debate. Now, those 
scientists--scientists are by profession conservative people. They have 
to be. If you are going to be accepted as a top scientist, your reports 
are peer reviewed, they are analyzed, they are looked at by others in 
the same field and judged as to their methodology and the conclusions 
they draw. The fact is we have something like 920 peer-reviewed 
reports, all of which say we have to do what we are seeking to do here 
on the floor now. And there isn't one report--not one peer review--to 
the contrary. There is not one report that suggests humans aren't doing 
what we are doing and that we don't have to stop doing it now or face 
the potential of catastrophe.
  The fact is these scientists also told us that what they predicted 2 
years ago, 3 years ago, 4 years ago is completely eradicated now by the 
rate at which the evidence from Mother Earth herself is coming back. 
Earth is telling us that we are now seeing a degradation at a rate that 
is far greater than those scientists predicted. In fact, the science 
projected a general decline in the Arctic Ocean in 2001. Well, guess 
what. The 2007 IPCC Report sounded significantly more alarm bells, 
saying:

       Late summer sea ice is projected to disappear almost 
     completely towards the end of the 21st century.

  Less than a year after that report, in January of this year, another 
report found that a seasonal ice-free--ice-free--Arctic Ocean might be 
realized as early as 2030. I am told that the scientists who study this 
topic now believe it could even happen sooner, but that is what they 
are comfortable telling us publicly. Scientists are observing a 30-
percent increase in the acidity of oceans with a devastating impact on 
ocean life, literally destroying the ocean food chain from the bottom 
up. Scientists project that 80 percent of living corals will be lost in 
our lifetime. The impact of the acidity--the acidity, for those who 
don't follow it, comes from the greenhouse gases. We put them up in the 
air, they travel around the world, they rain, it gets into the clouds, 
rains and comes down into the ocean, or spills as particulates into the 
ocean. The result is that acidification reduces the ability of 
crustaceans in the ocean to form their shells. So starfish, lobsters, 
clams, crabs,

[[Page 11106]]

coral reefs, all of these things that rely on their ability to form 
shell are threatened as a consequence of the increase of acidity in the 
oceans.
  What is more, scientists know that the oceans act as a storage center 
for carbon dioxide. In the jargon of global climate change, it is 
called a ``sink'' because the carbon dioxide sinks into it and 
disappears. What we know is the oceans do this. What we don't know is 
where is the kickback point in the oceans. When are the oceans full and 
they start to spit it back out because they can't contain it anymore? 
Well, I tell you what: Sound the alarm bell. Because scientists in 
Antarctica found that that is already happening; that there is a 
regurgitation of carbon dioxide in the Antarctic they didn't anticipate 
and which now sends warning signals about the rest of the oceans.
  Even the Bush administration's own top scientists last week laid out 
a chilling assessment. They said the following: Floods, drought, 
pathogens and disease, species and habitat loss, sea level rise, and 
storm surges that threaten our cities and coastlines are what we are 
looking at unless we begin to reduce the global greenhouse gases.
  The effects of climate change are now apparent on every single 
continent. It is being witnessed in very tangible and unexpected ways. 
For instance, if you are a hunter in South Carolina and you like to go 
duck hunting, today the only reason South Carolina has real duck 
hunting to offer is because of farm ducks, not because of the migration 
that used to take place. It is the same thing in Arkansas, with the 
population of the waterfowl that is significantly reduced. The Audubon 
Society has reported a 100-mile swathe of migration of vegetation, of 
growth. In Alaska, we are seeing millions of acres of spruce destroyed 
by beetles that used to die because of the level of the cold, but 
Alaska has warmed more than any other part of the United States, and 
the result is they now infest those trees. There are consequences that 
none of us can even properly define or imagine. But prudence dictates 
that, knowing this is the course we are on, we need to do something 
about it. We need to do something about it now.
  The instability of the permafrost, increasing avalanches in mountain 
regions, and warmer and dryer conditions in the Sahelian region of 
Africa are leading to a shortening of growth seasons. Yesterday, there 
was a huge meeting of the U.N. to discuss food shortages taking place 
in various parts of the world. Up to 30 percent of plant and animal 
species are projected to face extinction if the increase in global 
temperature exceeds 1.5 to 2.5 degrees Celsius.
  The impacts are not limited to species and ecosystems. Last week, the 
U.S. Department of Agriculture released a new study projecting that the 
rise of concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere will 
significantly disrupt water supplies, agriculture, forestry, and 
ecosystems in the United States for decades to come. By midcentury, 
anticipated waterflows in much of the West is going to decline by an 
average of 20 percent. Already in the West--to listen to our Senators 
from the West talk about the drought and the problems they have of 
lakes that are now drying up--all these are concerns we need to address 
here.
  The same report says that, by 2060, forest fires and the seasonal 
severity rating in the Southeast is projected to increase from 10 to 30 
percent and 10 to 20 percent in the Northeast. The impact on 
infrastructure will be severe. In March, the U.S. Department of 
Transportation found that the projected sea level rise in the gulf 
coast would put substantial portions of the region's transportation 
infrastructure at risk. Storm surges in the gulf coast will flood more 
than half the area's major highways, almost half the rail miles, 29 
airports, and virtually all ports.
  The question before the Senate now is, How do we turn this prediction 
of danger into opportunity? And it is opportunity. I don't think to 
anybody it is ``pie in the sky'' when they think about the 
possibilities of what we can do for our health as a nation, for our 
environment, for our obligation to future generations, for our 
security, for our energy policy, and for the price of gasoline. All 
these things can be driven in the right direction if we make the right 
choices in the Senate in this next week.
  The fact is the Climate Security Act that Senators Boxer, Lieberman, 
Warner, myself, and others bring to the floor is a bill that puts us on 
the right path. No one agrees with every compromise that is made in 
this bill. We all understand that. We all agree on the importance of 
action, though. We all agree on the importance of getting something 
done now.
  This is a strong and flexible piece of legislation. It will reduce 
the emissions, the gases, the carbon dioxide that creates global 
warming by 19 percent by 2020 and 71 percent by 2050. That will lead to 
an overall reduction that meets targets well within the range of the 
reduction that scientists tell us is necessary to avoid catastrophic 
impact on climate change.
  In the next days, I hope we can work with our colleagues. If you have 
an objection to the bill and you have a better way of coming about it, 
that is what we are looking for. That is legislating in the best 
tradition of this institution. What we don't want to do is have people 
come to the floor and say this is the most important issue, we have a 
better way of doing it, but the better way never appears. It is never 
framed in an appropriate amendment that seeks to do other than kill the 
bill. We have the ability to be able to frame this in a responsible 
way.
  I have concerns and others have concerns that the cost-containment 
auction, when coupled with the borrowing and offset provisions--I wish 
to make sure it has the potential to lower the target in the early 
years of the program. I don't want to see us avoid responsibility for 
years to come. So I hope to work with the bill's authors, and maybe we 
can develop a mechanism to make sure we maintain the short-term targets 
as directed by the scientists, while at the same time providing 
adequate cost certainty. But the overall structure of this bill 
provides important incentives to create a clean energy economy in our 
country. It directs auction proceeds--and this is important to 
understand. This is not a bill that goes out and taxes Americans and 
says you have to pump a whole bunch of money into the Federal budget so 
the Government can do something. That is not what happens here. This 
bill creates a marketable unit of reduction of carbon dioxide. By 
providing that, people will be able to buy and trade in those units. 
The money that comes from that purchase and trading is money that is 
then directed to help States make the transition, to help soften the 
transition for companies, to help provide the technology and the 
research and development that speeds us down the road to the creation 
of alternative and renewable fuels.
  There are only three ways to deal with global climate change. One is 
to move to alternative and renewable fuels. Two is to come up with a 
way of having clean coal technology quickly. Three, it is through 
energy efficiency mechanisms.
  The United States is literally the worst of all participating nations 
at this point, in terms of energy efficiencies. You can travel to 
Europe or to Asia and go up to an escalator and it is not working and 
you think you have to call somebody to fix it, but when you get near 
it, the escalator starts to move. When you get off and nobody else is 
coming, it stops. That is energy efficiency. We don't do that. Ours 
turn 24 hours a day, no matter whether people are there--unless they 
are turned off. It is the same thing with lights. When you walk out of 
a hotel room in some other places and it is dark and you shut your 
door, the lights go on. As you walk down the hallway, lights go on in 
front of you and off in back of you. When you get onto the elevator, 
the lights go out. We don't do that. There are countless efficiencies 
we can put into buildings, fleets, automobiles, and into the use of 
energy. The McKinsey report--that company is a well-respected profit-
making company in America--tells us that we can get anywhere from 40 
percent to 75 percent

[[Page 11107]]

of all of the savings we need in order to deal with this crisis just 
from energy efficiency.
  What are people waiting for? If we moved down that road, we would be 
doing better than by doing nothing. This bill provides very important 
incentives to capture and seek restoration of carbon itself. It targets 
$14 billion to expedite the near-term development of these facilities. 
It focuses on the need to support communities here and abroad, in order 
to adapt to the problems of climate change.
  I wish to highlight the fact that $68 billion in this bill is devoted 
to reducing emissions from deforestation. A lot of people don't realize 
that cutting down forests is one of the biggest contributions to carbon 
dioxide. Deforestation and forest degradation is an enormous 
contributor that we have to turn around. Many of us wish the number was 
more, but we think it is enough to be able to get moving and start down 
that road and have an impact.
  My colleagues on the Foreign Relations Committee hope to address this 
issue in greater depth because deforestation accounts for 20 to 25 
percent of global emissions. We need to help other countries move in 
the right direction.
  When you look beyond the details of the allocation formulas and the 
offset verification procedures, this bill sends a critical message to 
our economy. I have spent a lot of time, as have the chairman and 
Senator Lieberman, meeting with businesses across the country. I have 
talked to the Business Roundtable. I have met with the U.S. Climate 
Action Partnership companies. These are Fortune 500 companies, such as 
Dow Chemical, DuPont, British Petroleum, American Electric Power, and 
Florida Power and Light. While they don't all agree with every piece of 
this bill yet, they all agree they want the Congress to pass a program 
where we are helping the marketplace to solve this problem by creating 
a system where you trade these units of carbon dioxide reductions and 
where you have a cap on the total level of emissions in order to push 
people to go out and adopt this program.
  What this program does is provide certainty to the marketplace. If 
you talk to those on Wall Street today, they will tell you what they 
want is certainty. They want to know what is the pricing of carbon. 
This allows the marketplace to adjust and set the price of carbon. It 
allows the marketplace to come up with the mechanisms and indeed drives 
a lot of venture capital money into the efforts to create the 
alternative renewable fuels that are the better long-term economic 
responses to global climate change and to the imperatives to reduce 
emissions.
  In addition, let me say my colleagues, with all due respect, have 
continually overestimated and overstated what the costs of doing this 
would be. I wish to refer back to the acid rain debate. I was part of 
those negotiations. I remember sitting in a room off the Senate floor 
with former Senator George Mitchell, Bill Reilly, John Sununu, and 
others, and we negotiated. The very people who today stand up and say 
don't do this, it is going to cost too much, are the same people who, 
in 1990, said don't do it, it will cost too much. They came in with 
industry-driven figures. The industry-driven figures said it is going 
to cost $8 billion and will take 8 years, and you are going to bankrupt 
America. To the credit of George Herbert Walker Bush, he didn't buy 
into those figures; he accepted the figures of the environmental 
community, which came in and said it is not going to cost $8 billion; 
it will be about $4 billion and it will take about 4 years. To the 
credit of President Bush, we did it. They were all wrong because it 
cost $2 billion or so and took about 2\1/2\ years. It was 25 percent of 
the cost that was predicted. Why? Because nobody is able to predict 
what happens went the United States of America sets a national goal and 
we start to target our technology and innovation and move in a certain 
direction.
  What I am hearing from our venture capitalists and scientists is they 
are already moving in that direction. They are already exploring 
unbelievable alternative fuels. If this passes, we will create much 
more incentive and energy behind that race to find those alternatives. 
I predict there will be two or three ``Google'' equivalents created in 
the energy field in the next 10 to 15 years if we pass this bill and 
start moving in this direction.
  There are plenty of economists out there to document what I said. 
Nicholas Stern, former chief economist at the World Bank, said the 
investment of 1 percent of GDP can stave off a 5- to 20-percent loss of 
GDP. So when colleagues say to us don't do this because it is going to 
cost too much, they don't ever tell you it is going to cost more not to 
do it. It is going to cost us much more not to do it. Every year we 
delay and wait, we drive up the curve of what we have to grab back to 
reduce in order to meet the target goals. So, in effect, delaying will 
make it more dangerous, as well as more expensive, because you are 
going to have to grab back more and faster in order to make up the 
difference. Frank Ackerman at Tufts recently updated the Stern model. 
He found that four global warming impacts alone--hurricane damage, real 
estate losses, energy costs, and water costs--will come with a price 
tag of 1.8 percent of U.S. gross domestic product, or almost $1.9 
trillion annually, by the end of the century. Bill Nordhaus, at Yale 
University, and Robert Samuelson, of the Washington Post, might take 
issue with some of Stern's methods, but the larger point is there; that 
those are huge figures, much bigger figures, being quoted on the 
downside of not doing anything rather than the cost of doing something.
  In the end, addressing global climate change is going to be good for 
American business, and those businesses that are supporting it 
understand it is going to be good for American business. We can 
actually market our technologies. We can get involved in technology 
transfer with other countries. We can rejoin the global community in an 
effort to act responsibly. Once we put a cap on carbon, we can expect 
an explosion of new technologies which will take advantage of that new 
market.
  The fact is, I think that is one of the most exciting things I have 
run into. I met recently in Massachusetts with 45 Massachusetts green 
energy companies. We have companies that are taking construction waste 
right now and they are turning construction waste into clean fuels and 
selling electricity. That could spell the end of dumpsites as we have 
known them in America, of landfills if we take that product and turn it 
into energy that is clean.
  We have a battery manufacturer in Watertown, MA. That battery is 
powering a car for the distance of 40 miles of travel. The length of 
the average American commute is 40 miles. So if we were to push these 
batteries out in the marketplace, the average commuter in America could 
go through the entire day barely touching a drop of gasoline. People 
today who cannot fill up their tank completely because their credit 
card shuts off would all of a sudden be filling it up once a month or 
more. That is the future of America.
  The price of fuel is going to go down because, in fact, this bill 
lowers our imports by almost 8 million barrels a day. If we do that, it 
is inevitable that we will be paying less money and lowering the price 
of gasoline. The fact is, to not do it is to see a continued increase 
at a rate the American people cannot afford.
  I mentioned this in the caucus earlier today. I met a week ago with 
Dr. Craig Venter, who is the person in the private sector who did the 
mapping of the human genome. They are taking the knowledge they now 
have from the mapping of the genome and are using that to apply it in 
biology, to synthetic biology where, through certain microbio processes 
as well as through photosynthesis, they are now taking carbon dioxide 
and using it as a feedstock for the creation of new fuel. If that 
works, that is just a total game changer--a total game changer--if we 
can actually take carbon dioxide, which is the biggest problem we face 
with respect to global climate change, and turn it into something that 
is positive in a fuel alternative.
  There is more to say on this issue. There will be more to say in the 
next days. I look forward to this debate.

[[Page 11108]]

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 5 additional minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, in 2006, the renewable sector of energy in 
America generated 8.5 million new jobs, nearly $970 billion in revenue, 
over $100 billion in industry profits, and more than $150 billion in 
increased tax revenues at all levels of government.
  One study found that with a serious commitment to an aggressive clean 
energy strategy, we could create 40 million jobs and $4.5 trillion in 
revenue by the year 2030, which is not even the end of the period this 
bill seeks to address in terms of reductions. We can create millions of 
jobs at every single level of our economy. We can create jobs for 
scientists, jobs for professors, jobs for people in the software and 
computerware business, jobs that come all the way down the food chain 
in terms of every aspect of American life and particularly in the 
infrastructure and construction industries where we would be building 
the new plants and new facilities and the new delivery systems for all 
of this technology.
  This is the future. This is the future we can see because we have 
been there before. The United States has transitioned in fuels before. 
We used to do everything by burning wood, and then after we burned all 
the wood around our cities and learned we could not do it anymore, we 
discovered oil. We used to use whale oil from Nantucket, MA, and lit 
most of the streets in New England. Then we moved to a mix of items, 
including hydro, coal, even nuclear ultimately.
  We are in that next transition now. I remind my colleagues that one 
of the sheiks who helped organize the oil cartel years ago said the 
stone age did not end because we ran out of stones, and the oil age 
will not end because we have run out of oil. The oil age will end 
because global climate change and global warming are sending us a 
message about what is happening to this planet.
  We have a God-given responsibility. You can read Genesis or Isaiah or 
any of the other parts of the prophets, and there are enough references 
to our responsibilities as individual human beings to be the guardians 
of the Earth, to protect this creation. That is why many Evangelicals 
and others are supporting this bill, because they understand that 
responsibility. Anybody here, whether they are religious or not, ought 
to understand the fundamental responsibility we have not to see 30 
percent of the species wiped out and whatever possibilities of disease 
cures with any one of those species as yet undefined and untested.
  This is the greatest challenge we are to face. We are staring in the 
face of opportunities where the United States has the ability to 
strengthen our economy, provide more jobs, save fuel, provide 
alternatives for people, reduce the cost of day-to-day life, and, in 
the end, live up to our responsibilities as legislators.
  I remind my colleagues of what President Kennedy once said of the 
race to the Moon when he challenged America to go there. There were a 
lot of doubters and a lot of people who thought it was a pipe dream. 
President Kennedy himself was not absolutely certain, did not know for 
sure we could do it, but he believed in America. He said this is a 
challenge we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, 
and one which we intend to win. And he said we have to do it not 
because it is easy but because it is hard. That is the kind of spirit 
this Congress and this Senate ought to show now. This issue is a lot 
easier, frankly, than going to the Moon, and the United States has 
proven we can do the former. Now we need to do what we can to reduce 
the emissions that create global warming and threaten all of us.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, in dealing with climate change, there 
are certain principles I always apply in assessing the approach to this 
issue. One is that our Nation will continue to need and depend on 
fossil fuels. Fossil fuels must be a part of any effort to achieve a 
cleaner energy future. There is no way we can get there without them. 
No. 2 is a strong American economy, one that creates jobs, that creates 
new technologies. That is critical to developing the tools we need to 
capture and sequester carbon. China and India will not address carbon 
emissions until such technologies are developed. And No. 3, we cannot 
afford to hurt the very regions, the very industries, and the very 
workers who will provide that technology through hard work and 
innovation.
  In terms of economic impact, I have serious concerns with the 
Lieberman-Warner approach as currently written. According to a recent 
study done by the National Association of Manufacturers, the negative 
economic impact to the Rocky Mountain West and to my home State of 
Wyoming is very real and significant. The impact is perhaps the 
greatest in terms of high gasoline prices for folks all across the 
Rocky Mountain West. Gasoline prices for western families will increase 
significantly under this bill.
  Every day, folks in the Rocky Mountain region are going to have to 
drive long distances. They do it to get to work. They do it to shop for 
food. They do it to go to school. The distances, in many places, are 
much greater than they are in other parts of the country. My home State 
of Wyoming ranks at the top of the list of all the States in terms of 
vehicle miles traveled on a per capita basis. I drive these roads every 
weekend visiting folks in Gillette, Riverton, Cheyenne, and Casper. 
They are hours apart. Westerners are rightfully upset about how much 
they are paying at the pump. I am sure my colleagues' constituents are 
too. Letters come in every day from all across Wyoming asking when 
Washington is going to help them. Yet we hear in testimony from the 
Energy Information Agency that gas prices under this bill could go up 
anywhere from 40 cents to $1 a gallon. Others are predicting it could 
go up even higher than that. Whichever estimate you choose, whichever 
one you choose to look at, gas prices are going to go up under this 
bill.
  Why will it be even worse in the Rocky Mountain States? Partly 
because the West and Rocky Mountain West rely on small refiners for 
their fuel. It is not uncommon in the Rocky Mountain West to have the 
local gasoline station in these small towns be just across the road 
from the small refiner. Towns depend on these refiners for their fuel. 
They provide the fuel for the families of the West. Without the small 
refiners, Wyoming and the Rocky Mountain West would have to ship our 
gasoline in from out of State.
  The small refiners do not fair very well under this bill. They have 
to compete with the large refineries for a small portion of the 
allowances. Without additional help, they will go under and an entire 
region of the country will pay even more significant increases in the 
price of their fuel.
  Some may try to lump small refiners in with the big oil companies 
that actually produce the oil. The small refiners have to buy their oil 
from that oil producer. These small refiners are paying $125 to $130 a 
barrel for oil, and it is having a devastating impact on them. Some 
have suggested that they simply pass along the cost to the consumer. 
Tell that to the folks in the West who are already being punished at 
the pump.
  This part of it is not a partisan issue at all. I plan to offer an 
amendment I am working on with Members of both sides of the aisle----
  Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. BARRASSO. I will yield, if I may, at the end of the presentation.
  I want to work with others to offer this amendment because this 
affects everyone in the Rocky Mountain West.
  Gas prices have reached the point where people are simply driving 
less. Family vacations and school field trips are being canceled. 
People are working 4 days a week but longer hours each day. Why? 
Because of the high cost of fuel.
  Some may say: Great, we want people to drive less. Some may say: Hey, 
have your constituents take alternative transportation, public 
transportation, such as the subway or bus. As

[[Page 11109]]

many of you know, we in the West have spectacular, majestic rural areas 
that many of you enjoy on your vacations. We ask you to come and visit 
our national parks, our many State forests and monuments. But these 
majestic natural places come with a cost: there is no subway.
  High gasoline prices are just one of the many major negative economic 
impacts to the West under this bill. Job loss is another major factor. 
The National Manufacturers Association study projects that Wyoming 
would lose between 2,000 and 3,000 jobs by 2020 and double that by 
2030. Montana would lose between 4,000 and 6,000 jobs in 2020, double 
that by 2030. Utah would lose 10,000 to 15,000 jobs in 2020, double 
that by 2030. The numbers in the West go on and on. What kinds of jobs 
will be lost? Jobs in the energy sector, jobs that pay well, jobs with 
pensions, jobs with health insurance--the kinds of jobs we should be 
protecting in this country.
  Westerners are being told by the supporters of this bill: Don't 
worry, green-collar jobs will replace the jobs lost in the West. Where 
is that written? What guarantee can you point to in this bill that a 
family in Gillette or Laramie or Riverton or Cheyenne is going to get a 
green-collar job? And what is a green-collar job? Will they get the job 
the minute they lose the one they have now? How long will they have to 
wait? Will they have to uproot their family and move to find work? 
Where is it written in this bill that the pay and the benefits of the 
so-called green-collar job will be equal to the job the bill takes 
away? The reality is it is not written anywhere.
  In terms of energy costs, the situation is not very good for the 
Rocky Mountain States. Wyoming is among the top five States in what are 
called heating degree days. That is a measure of what it takes to heat 
a home all throughout the year. If you have been through a Wyoming 
winter, you would understand why. The most vulnerable people in my 
State, the seniors, people on fixed incomes, cannot afford to have 
their energy bills increased.
  Why are we asking people all across the country to pay more of their 
hard-earned dollars on high gas prices and energy prices in this bill? 
I frankly cannot answer that, except to say, That is Washington for 
you.
  But it gets worse for Wyoming. According to a National Association of 
Manufacturers' study, Wyoming coal would face a severe decline. That 
too would result in lost jobs, broken family budgets, and displacement. 
As I have said, fossil fuels, including coal, are vital to our energy 
security. We need to make them cleaner because they will remain a vital 
part of America's energy mix. Clean coal technology is still a work in 
progress. It will take time to perfect. The men and the women of 
Wyoming who are the backbone of the coal industry are essential to 
providing clean coal technology to America.
  America simply cannot tolerate the lost jobs and the high energy 
prices that will come from dramatic decreases in coal production under 
Lieberman-Warner. As I stated in the beginning, we need to have a 
strong economy. We need an economy that creates jobs and fosters 
innovation. That is how to provide the clean energy technologies we 
need.
  It is not only the Rocky Mountain West that is going to be hard hit 
by this legislation. The Energy Information Agency testified before the 
Memorial Day recess in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee that the larger price impacts occur from Lieberman-Warner in 
those regions of the country that are most reliant on coal. So that is 
also the South. It is also the Midwest. That is rural America.
  The median income in Wyoming is $46,000 a year. Wyoming family 
budgets are predicted to lose between $1,000 and $3,000 a year in 
income over the next 13 years and double that by 2030 under this bill. 
Many families in Wyoming would have to dedicate $1 out of $5 from their 
family budget for energy costs under this bill. This is what rural 
America can expect under this bill. Sadly, it appears the impacts of 
the bill hit lower income families the hardest. It doesn't have to be 
this way. I truly believe we can address climate change. There are 
better ways and more economically friendly approaches, and those ways 
that can make a real difference.
  Earlier this year, I introduced legislation to address climate 
change. I believe overlooked in the debate are greenhouse gases that 
are currently in the atmosphere--the gases that are currently 
contributing to the warming of the planet. The best science tells us it 
is a factor. To what extent, we are not sure. It would seem to me a 
worthy approach to find a way to remove existing greenhouse gases from 
the atmosphere and permanently sequester them. This is the other end of 
the problem. Now, to accomplish this, we are going to need to invest 
the money to develop the technology. The approach my legislation takes 
is to address this through a series of financial prizes, where we set 
technological goals and outcomes. The first to meet each criteria would 
receive Federal funds and international acclaim. The prizes would be 
determined by a Federal commission under the Department of Energy. The 
commission would be comprised of climate scientists, physicists, 
chemists, engineers, business managers, and economists. They would be 
appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate. 
The awards would go to those, both public and private, who achieve 
milestones in developing and applying technology, technology that could 
significantly help to slow or to reverse the accumulation of greenhouse 
gases in the atmosphere. The greenhouse gases would have to be 
permanently sequestered, and sequestered in a manner that would be 
without significant harmful effects.
  I believe this approach is only one example of how we can tackle the 
problem of climate change in an economically acceptable way without 
sacrificing real progress. I hope as we begin this debate on this 
issue, more Members of this body embrace approaches that address 
climate change while protecting jobs, family budgets, and the 
industries we count on today.
  I have repeatedly asked questions during the hearings in both the 
Environment and Public Works Committee and the Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee on this bill about what the impact will be on my 
home State. To date, I have not been able to get a straight answer. I 
am relying on the State-specific numbers that we have available. If you 
don't like the National Association of Manufacturers' numbers, then try 
the Heritage Foundation. The Heritage Foundation is predicting major 
job losses in the Rocky Mountain West. The study says Wyoming will lose 
1,100 jobs by 2025, and Utah will lose over 5,000 by that same year, 
with Montana losing 1,800. Most of those will be manufacturing jobs. 
And those are the numbers that predict job losses even if everything in 
the bill goes according to plan, including full implementation of clean 
coal technology.
  It is important to note that gas prices nationally will go up 25 
percent under Lieberman-Warner, according to the Heritage Foundation. 
Another source, the Energy Information Agency, testified at the Energy 
and Natural Resources Committee and said gas prices would go up 40 
cents to $1.
  As Americans, we have always looked within ourselves for solutions. 
We have always had confidence in American ingenuity and American 
creativity to deal with the challenges of the future. Yes, we want to 
protect our environment; and, yes, we want a strong economy. It just so 
happens that the one does rely on the other.
  It has been said that the environmental movement in the United States 
was born out of America's prosperity. Americans who had benefited from 
post-World War II prosperity began to become more concerned with clean 
air, with clean water, and with land management. Since then, a 
prosperous America has also been an environmentally conscious America. 
Nothing could be more true in terms of addressing climate change. Let's 
keep our economy strong, let's use our untapped human potential and 
American spirit to develop the technological solutions we need.

[[Page 11110]]

  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, does the Senator still have time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. KERRY. I understand we have 5 minutes; is that correct?
  Mrs. BOXER. Why don't you take 2 minutes.
  Mr. KERRY. I ask the Senator, first, is he aware that the National 
Association of Manufacturers' report allows for zero technological 
advances; that it has no technological advances taken into account 
whatsoever? Does the Senator believe, in fact, the United States is not 
going to make any technological advances in the days ahead?
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, every study--every study--points to lost 
jobs and higher energy prices, higher gasoline prices, whether it is 
the Heritage Association or the National Association of Manufacturers. 
I have looked at study after study after study. I have read the books 
and visited with experts around the country and around the world, and 
everything I am seeing and reading takes me in that direction, and that 
is that gas prices will be going up and jobs will be lost.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, again, it is not true that every study says 
that. In fact, the EPA study itself comes out with about a .04 change 
in GDP at a time when the GDP is going up 97 percent according to our 
own administration. So it is simply not accurate to say that every 
report says that.
  Secondly, I wish to know on what scientific study the Senator bases 
the notion that we are going to get the carbon dioxide out of the 
atmosphere in time to be able to deal with the predictions of what is 
happening, which require us to move immediately to deal with emissions. 
Could the Senator tell us what scientific report says we can get it out 
in time to meet this challenge? And does the IPCC, the 2,000 scientists 
who have been working on this for years now, suggest that is an 
alternative?
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, that is why I introduced the GEAR Act 
earlier this year and gave a speech from this Chamber at this desk 
talking about giving the same kind of prizes that allowed people 500 
years ago to understand longitude so ships could sail the seas; the 
same kind of prizes Charles Lindbergh was searching for when he flew 
across the ocean. It is those kinds of prizes and incentives that say, 
Let's get our best minds working on this. I don't know what the 
timetable is. I have talked to the scientists, and I say, Let's put in 
incentives, and that is why I brought that bill.
  Mr. KERRY. The answer is, there is no study. The answer is, there is 
no serious scientist who is suggesting we can meet the needs of global 
climate change and conduct some long-term analysis of whether we can 
get it back out of the atmosphere. It doesn't exist. It is nonexistent.
  Secondly, the analysis used by the National Association of 
Manufacturers has a skewed oil price which completely cooks these 
numbers; and it is a report which has no allowance whatsoever for any 
technological advancement. That is not representative of the United 
States of America when we talk about the technologies I talked about. 
Moreover, they are the same people who came in in 1990 with those crazy 
predictions of what it was going to cost us to do the other.
  I think the people who relied on people who were wrong years ago have 
a bigger burden of proof to come to the floor now and show us they have 
a study that actually makes sense.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I was hopeful to have 5 minutes, and I 
know Senator Inhofe is going to take a lot of time to rebut, so I ask 
unanimous consent to take 5 minutes now.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I have to say it is amazing to me how a 
Senator from a place that is almost ground zero on global warming could 
stand up here and be so negative, very unlike his Governor.
  I ask unanimous consent to place in the Record the testimony of the 
Hon. David D. Freudenthal, Governor of the State of Wyoming, before the 
House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

  Testimony of the Honorable David D. Freudenthal, Governor, State of 
 Wyoming, Before the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and 
                             Global Warming


                               Greetings

       Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the Select Committee 
     thank you for the opportunity to appear before you and 
     comment on the future of coal under carbon cap and trade. 
     This is really a discussion on carbon management, more 
     particularly carbon capture and sequestration, which 
     inevitably leads to a discussion of the role of coal in 
     fueling the American and international economy.


                           Wyoming in Context

       Please allow me to place my comments in the factual context 
     of Wyoming as a state committed to both energy production and 
     environmental protection. I find people in Congress are most 
     familiar with our two national parks--Yellowstone and Grand 
     Teton--and our role as the leading coal producing state in 
     the nation with production of 446 million tons of low sulfur 
     coal in 2006.
       What is generally not as well known are the other forms of 
     energy Wyoming produces. Depending on the day of the week and 
     the mood of our friends in Oklahoma, we are either the second 
     or third largest natural gas producing state in the country 
     with annual production a bit over two trillion cubic feet or 
     about 10% of the domestic supply. Wyoming has for several 
     years been the largest producer of uranium in the country 
     with approximately 2 million pounds a year of yellowcake 
     (uranium concentrate) produced. We currently rank in the top 
     quartile of states in wind generation, and have an estimated 
     8,000 megawatts of developable wind when the transmission 
     constraint is released. Two projects have been announced 
     recently which will add approximately 200 megawatts of 
     capacity and at least 10 wind power projects are in various 
     stages of review and development with state regulatory 
     agencies. We produce about 53 million barrels of oil annually 
     placing Wyoming in 7th place among the states.
       Put another way on a net BTU exporting basis, subtracting 
     state consumption from state production, Wyoming is by far 
     the largest energy exporting state in the nation providing 
     about 10 quadrillion BTUs or roughly 10% of the country's 
     energy supply. [See attached graphic]


                            Coal in Context

       My purpose today is not to argue, but to recognize some 
     fundamental realities.
       Like it or not, coal is going to be used in America and the 
     world for some time to come. Even without any new coal fired 
     plants there are 1,522 existing generating plants consuming 
     over one billion tons of coal per year. Over the next twenty 
     years, new and replacement generating capacity is forecast at 
     292 gigawatts, the equivalent of 25 coal-fired power plants 
     each year. While conservation and efficiency programs are 
     forecast to make a real dent in the rate of growth of 
     electricity consumption, we are going to need every form of 
     energy we can harness including clean coal, natural gas and 
     renewable resources. Non-hydro renewable resources of wind, 
     solar and geothermal meet less than 1% of our energy needs 
     today. Fossil fuel sources provide over 80%. For the 
     foreseeable future, carbon based resources are a necessity if 
     we want to keep the lights on. Hence, any serious carbon 
     management effort must include aggressive support for carbon 
     capture and sequestration.


                               Who Pays?

       Without question, long term carbon management is going to 
     cost a lot of money. Private and public sector investment 
     will be redirected and those costs will ultimately fall to 
     taxpayers and consumers. Carbon capture and sequestration 
     will also consume significant energy in the capture 
     processes, compression and transportation which of course 
     will add to operating costs. It would seem an appropriate 
     policy goal then to pick those processes most likely to yield 
     the greatest effectiveness at least cost to the consumer/
     taxpayer.
       Consumer energy costs are not a trivial matter in my state. 
     A recent analysis we completed suggests that the lowest 
     income quartile, those households earning less than $25,000 
     per year pay about 16% of their income for energy. Those in 
     the highest quartile pay on average 2-3% of their income for 
     energy. So those that can least afford it. pay 7 to 8 times 
     as much a portion of their income for energy as most of us in 
     this hearing room. Imagine what happens if the cost of energy 
     rises 15, 20 or 25 percent and that differential begins to 
     rise exponentially. In my small state that would affect over 
     51,000 households or 25% of my constituents. That means 
     nearly 130,000 people are going to have to make very hard 
     choices about how they

[[Page 11111]]

     spend scarce dollars. As policy makers we cannot ignore this 
     issue in our search for solutions.


                           No Silver Bullets

       It is clear the public attitude is changing with respect to 
     greenhouse gas management and as proof you need look no 
     further than the ads surrounding the Sunday morning talk 
     shows. Company advertising now talks about how green they 
     are, not how efficient they are, or how much growth they 
     enjoy. Other advertisements publicly shame firms which make 
     money off of projects or companies which do not meet the 
     ``green'' test. And much of the public conversation is about 
     increased consumption of natural gas in lieu of coal.
       But even the current shift to natural gas is not without 
     carbon implications. Burning natural gas has fewer 
     CO2 emissions per unit of electricity produced but 
     still has carbon emissions and if one considers the upstream 
     footprint of exploration and production natural gas is an 
     answer, but not a perfect answer. For example, in my state, 
     natural gas processing plants emitted 6.9 million metric tons 
     of CO2 equivalent in 2005, representing nearly 25% 
     of our net carbon footprint. One of the two largest plants 
     operated by ExxonMobil has a large well field and plant that 
     produces natural gas, helium and CO2 for the 
     enhanced oil recovery industry. However much of the 
     CO2 is currently vented to the atmosphere. In 
     fact, for every million cubic feet of natural gas produced, 
     nearly two million cubic feet of CO2 is produced 
     and a majority of it is vented to the atmosphere. My friends 
     in California where much of the natural gas ends up don't 
     always take this into account when they do their carbon 
     footprint analysis.


                           State Perspective

       We believe the state has a role in managing greenhouse 
     gases and to that end we have begun to construct the legal 
     framework to do so. However, even the simple question of who 
     has the right to sequester CO2 under state law is 
     amazingly complicated. Does that right belong to the surface 
     owner or to the owner of the mineral estate? How do we take 
     into account the vast federal ownership of both the surface 
     and mineral estate?
       From the point of view of a Governor, the absence of a well 
     thought out, cogent federal policy that maps the pathway 
     forward makes the task of setting workable rules, regulations 
     and operating practices that much more difficult. This is 
     equally true for the private sector. Until someone monetizes 
     CO2 through performance standards with offsets, 
     cap and trade or some variation of these schemes the 
     marketplace is wandering in the desert. The level and pace of 
     technology development will be set largely by the scheme you 
     adopt as the price of carbon, the timeline for implementation 
     and off ramps such as safety valves anchor the assumptions 
     behind any economic investment. With these variables in mind, 
     the structure needs to be set sufficient to promote large 
     scale demonstration projects sufficient to resolve the 
     outstanding questions in a rational but aggressive manner.
       We meet with folks who are absolutely serious about 
     developing new plants to supply energy and they assume they 
     will live in a carbon constrained world. They fully 
     anticipate sequestration of C02 or the necessity 
     of some other mechanism to manage greenhouse gases. Most are 
     not shy about their dislike of taxes or escalating costs, but 
     uncertainty about future carbon rules absolutely overwhelms 
     every discussion. It appears to me that a number of these 
     investments will never come to fruition until the other shoe 
     drops and the boundary conditions are established for the 
     risk with respect to carbon management.
       In a minute I will list some specific actions I think make 
     sense, but first I want to make an observation as a predicate 
     to those recommendations. It is the simple notion that when 
     it comes to carbon management, it is difficult but necessary 
     to admit what we don't know. Because in the absence of full 
     knowledge we tend toward absolutist positions like ``only 
     wind'', ``no nukes'', ``only biomass'' or ``no coal''. I am 
     not sure the federal government knows how we should construct 
     the greenhouse gas management regime and I am not sure 
     industry knows either.
       If you will grant me this observation for a moment, it 
     seems a prudent course would be to pick those activities we 
     believe must be undertaken no matter what path ultimately 
     proves to be the correct one. For example, we know we need 
     studies and demonstrations putting C02 in the 
     ground in quantity to determine the physical facts i.e. 
     measuring, monitoring and verifying sequestration data in the 
     real world. We favor an array of these demonstrations as 
     proposed by the Department of Energy carbon sequestration 
     partnerships as a sensible approach given different 
     conditions across the country.
       Additionally, we know there are differences between 
     enhanced oil recovery (EOR) and carbon sequestration which 
     may or may not overlap. Monetizing a C02 stream 
     for the purposes EOR may mitigate the cost impact on 
     consumers in the early years of a carbon policy. This needs 
     to be studied with some degree of granularity.
       Staying with the theme of moving from the abstract to real 
     world data, I believe we need to accelerate those programs 
     that lead quickly to economically viable, commercial scale 
     electric generation plants. This would include both super 
     critical pulverized coal plants with significant carbon 
     capture and sequestration as well as integrated gasification 
     combined cycle (IGCC) plants with carbon capture and 
     sequestration. My observation is that substantial federal 
     underwriting to hasten this process is required to assist 
     those companies willing to pursue these types of plants. 
     Short of constructing and operating these plants and learning 
     the lessons required to engineer follow on plants, we will be 
     confined to the laboratory bench and speculation.
       While I have heard and seen a number of presentations I am 
     not sure there is definitive information on available 
     technologies and the quantitative analysis surrounding 
     commercial deployment of carbon sequestration. Academics and 
     companies have their plausible estimates but I have yet to 
     see money changing hands in a commercial transaction. In fact 
     the discussion with the individuals charged with financing 
     these projects, quickly becomes an exercise working through a 
     list of the uncertainties. On that list are not only 
     questions about the technologies involved with carbon 
     management but the impact of the hyper-inflation in material, 
     manpower and construction costs. Simple questions such as 
     whether CO2 capture and sequestration costs 
     (capital and operating) will be recoverable as part of a 
     utility's rate base has yet to be answered.
       With respect to the federal-state interface and their 
     respective roles in this enormous undertaking, we favor a 
     model of federal standards and state implementation. The 
     Clean Air Act is an example of how this might work. One 
     important difference however between that process and our 
     current situation is the state of development of the 
     technology enabling implementation. Hence another threshold 
     activity would seem to be the federal underwriting of the 
     research and development of capture and storage technology to 
     the point of commercialization. We need to not only 
     understand the capital costs but the operating and 
     maintenance costs through time. Additionally, the likely 
     internal energy requirements to implement both a robust 
     capture system and preparing CO2 for transport and 
     sequestration are most probably significant. This needs to be 
     understood not only by the plant design engineers but by 
     public policy makers as well.
       Indemnification and risk assumption and at what juncture 
     are also critical unresolved issues. There is precedent that 
     the private sector absorbs the operational risk related to 
     capture, transportation and injection. But post-injection 
     risk, namely in situ liability of harm to human health, the 
     environment and property related to CO2 leakages 
     needs to transfer to the public sector at a reasonable point 
     in time when the operational risk of the initial process has 
     practically concluded. Funding for this long-term risk 
     management pool would likely need to derive from the 
     monetization of CO2 through a federal cap and 
     trade or taxation system.
       Another point of separation between the historically 
     successful management of sulfur dioxide and carbon dioxide is 
     the amount of material involved. In rough terms there is 
     about 250 times the amount of material involved in dealing 
     with CO2 as with SO2 in electric power 
     generation. It would seem a detailed study of the required 
     infrastructure would make sense. What will it take to move 
     significant amounts of CO2 from generation source 
     to ultimate sequestration site? How much pipeline capacity 
     will be needed and where will it need to be installed? What 
     are the energy requirements to move large amounts of 
     CO2? What design standards will need to be in 
     place and in force to ensure safe handling?
       Resolving these vital questions requires a long-term 
     commitment to fund demonstration projects at scale, to 
     monitor, measure and verify the CO2 activity and 
     begin to build a risk assessment profile. According to a 
     recent MIT study, to do so requires an 8-10 year commitment 
     and a federal commitment of at least $1 billion/annum. But 
     with a projected decline in GDP growth of $400-800 billion if 
     carbon capture and sequestration is not deployed, our economy 
     stands to suffer a far worse outcome if CCS is not 
     commercially available in the next few decades.


                            State Activities

       As I mentioned before, Wyoming has undertaken a number of 
     activities to address the management of greenhouse gases. We 
     are a founding member of the Climate Registry.
       We are in the process of conducting an inventory of 
     greenhouse gas sources to establish our emissions baseline 
     and begin to identify practical opportunities for reduction. 
     Many of our significant oil and gas companies are members of 
     EPA's Natural Gas STAR Program which implements best 
     practices to reduce methane emissions in natural gas 
     exploration and production. For a number of years, our 
     Department of Environmental Quality has employed a permitting 
     protocol requiring best available control technology (BACT) 
     for oil and gas minor sources which significantly reduce 
     greenhouse gases. We have for many years had a Carbon 
     Sequestration Committee investigating terrestrial 
     sequestration opportunities springing from our agriculture 
     lands and forests.

[[Page 11112]]

       We have funded a study underway by the Wyoming State 
     Geological Survey to identify optimal CO2 
     sequestration sites and to date they have found a site that 
     is calculated to store all emission from every source in 
     Wyoming for 350 years (20 billion tons). We have funded and 
     operated the Enhanced Oil Recovery Institute at the 
     University of Wyoming which assists primarily independent oil 
     producers in finding suitable fields and employ 
     CO2 floods to produce more oil. We participate in 
     two carbon sequestration partnerships and have proposals for 
     large scale demonstration projects at two promising sites. We 
     have established the Wyoming Infrastructure Authority, a 
     state instrumentality to address the electricity transmission 
     constraint that keeps our vast wind resource from the 
     marketplace. Recently, Rocky Mountain Power has announced 
     plans to build nearly 1200 miles of high voltage power lines 
     across four western states. We have competed in the FutureGen 
     competition making the case for a western mine mouth plant 
     located near both enhanced oil recovery well fields and deep 
     saline aquifers for long term carbon sequestration. We have 
     actively and seriously pursued section 413 of the Energy 
     Policy Act of 2005 which calls for an Integrated Gasification 
     Combined Cycle (IGCC) electric generation plant with carbon 
     sequestration at an altitude above 4,000 feet with low ranked 
     coals in a western state. We have signed a Memorandum of 
     Understanding (MOU) with the State of California and 
     particularly the California Energy Commission and California 
     Public Utility Commission to work toward the development of 
     this IGCC plant. We have funded a clean coal request for 
     proposal (RFP) process with intention of drawing the best 
     ideas from industry partnerships to advance the state of the 
     art in clean coal technology.
       We have established the School of Energy Resources at the 
     University of Wyoming and will dedicate a portion of our time 
     on the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) 
     supercomputer to sequestration reservoir characterization. We 
     have passed statutory incentives for the development of wind 
     energy. We are exploring an exchange with a Chinese province 
     focused on CO2 sequestration.


                                Summary

       As you can see we are expending a good deal of money, time 
     and talent in the pursuit of greenhouse gas management and 
     will continue to do so. But please recognize this is just the 
     tip if the iceberg and we need federal involvement in a 
     serious way to really move forward in a meaningful way.
       My recommendations for the Committee's consideration are 
     three. First, continue to focus the debate on the proper, 
     rational and achievable framework that leads to the 
     monetization of carbon. However, let me be clear here, I am 
     not urging continued inaction. The lack of a federal plan 
     essentially paralyzes the other players, both private and 
     public sector.
       Secondly, focus short-term spending and federal 
     underwriting on the nearly universally agreed upon activities 
     of carbon capture and sequestration. With respect to capture, 
     a better understanding of the technologies particularly the 
     economics and power requirements is fundamental. Given the 
     amount of material involved, a comprehensive study of the 
     infrastructure requirements to move CO2 from 
     source to sink is necessary. With respect to storage, 
     continuation or acceleration of the multiple current 
     sequestration projects which will put CO2 in 
     quantity in the ground is essential.
       Finally, the Congress should take up the issue of parsing 
     the long-term liability of carbon storage. Serious investment 
     in plants which will make use of carbon sequestration will 
     likely not be forthcoming until this issue is settled.
       It is my understanding that there have been over 105 
     hearings on this and the broader topic of energy independence 
     in just the last eight months. I ask to you consider what 
     specific information is still required to chart the course. 
     For while I'm only one Governor, we will commit our resources 
     towards obtaining the answers you need, so that we can 
     effectively move forward now. The problem at hand is 
     enormous, climate change does not wait for us and we cannot 
     afford to delay.
       Mr. Chairman, thank you for your time and attention.

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, to quote part of what Governor Freudenthal 
said:

       I am not urging continued inaction. The lack of a federal 
     plan essentially paralyzes the other players, both private 
     and public sector. The problem at hand is enormous. Climate 
     change does not wait for us and we cannot afford to delay.

  I have had many conversations with the good Governor, and let me tell 
you why he is upset. The West has got problems. In my friend's own 
State, the average temperature rising in the Colorado River Basin, 
which stretches from Wyoming to Mexico, is more than double the average 
global increase. So his State is facing real problems, and essentially 
he gets up here, and has every right, and reads off the National 
Association of Manufacturers' talking points. I thought the West was 
independent. I am a little stunned.
  We are hearing the same things now over and over: Raising gas prices. 
Let us look again. Under George W. Bush, we have had a 250-percent 
increase in gas prices. Where was my friend when we tried to do a 
windfall profits tax and give back the money to his poor working people 
he is crying about today? He wasn't with us on this. He has never been 
with us on this.
  The fact is, we know if you look at this administration's own charts, 
not the National Association of Manufacturers', we will lower gas 
prices, because clearly we are going to have other technologies--other 
technologies. And the fuel economy standards that we passed here--and I 
don't know if my friend supported them; I hope he did--are going to 
make it cheaper for folks to drive because their cars will do better. 
So if there is a 2-cent-a-year increase--which is the outside limit, by 
the way--as Senator Lieberman says, at the end of the day it won't be 
an increase for our families.
  Now, my friend talked a lot about working people, so let's talk about 
working people. Let's see the working people who support this bill. My 
friend says he talks for working people, so I will tell you who is 
supporting the Boxer-Lieberman-Warner bill. The International Union of 
Operating Engineers. They see jobs, jobs, jobs. The building and 
construction trades. They see jobs. The International Association of 
Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers; the 
International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators; the 
International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron, Shipbuilders, 
Blacksmiths.
  I don't have enough time. I don't have enough time. The Laborers 
International Union of North America. It goes on and on. So when folks 
on the other side get up and say they are crying for working people, 
why don't you listen to working people? Because they see what is 
happening.
  Let me tell you, my friend, what is happening in California, where we 
have a cutting-edge global warming law, and whether this bill passes or 
not, they are moving forward. So are the western States, I say to my 
friend. The fact is, let me tell you what is happening. We have a 
terrible recession in my State because of the crash of the housing 
industry. We are hoping we come out of this, but in the meantime, I am 
told by my Governor, who is a Republican, Governor Schwarzenegger, who 
supported this bill, that 450 new companies, solar companies, have set 
up shop and they are hiring those workers.
  Then my friend says: What are you doing for the workers? Take a look 
in this bill. We have worker training. My friend actually wrote one of 
the pieces of this part of the legislation. Universities have think 
tanks, and they have job training. We are very excited about the jobs 
that will come. We are excited about the fact that finally we will get 
energy independence.
  Really, in a way, I smile. I am not happy about it, but I have to 
smile when my colleagues on the other side complain about gas prices 
when they stood there and supported George Bush through his whole term 
when gas prices have gone up 250 percent. What was his answer? He went 
across to the Middle East and held hands with a Saudi prince and 
begged. It did not work. Let's forget about these phony arguments and 
support this bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, we have heard the same thing over and 
over. This is only the second day. I guess we have maybe 10 days to go. 
The junior Senator from California is so interested in the fact that it 
is only up by 2 cents a year. Looking at the Energy Information Agency 
study, what is interesting about that is the Energy Information Agency 
study presumes that we would have an additional 260 nuclear plants on 
line. When the appropriate time comes I will be asking her that 
question, if she supports that.
  We have several speakers coming down. Senator Grassley from Iowa is

[[Page 11113]]

coming down, so I will visit a little bit until he gets here. Then we 
want to go on schedule, and I am hoping we will be able to go back and 
forth and hear from a number of these Members.
  First, I thank my colleague from Wyoming. I don't know what he 
experienced this last winter. When the Senator from California talks 
about temperatures and all this, it happens that we in the State of 
Oklahoma have had the worst cold spell during this last winter than we 
have in 30 years. I find this to be true all over the country. You just 
can't have it both ways.
  One of the good things about this discussion and this debate is we 
are not going to be discussing the science. I know the Senator from 
Massachusetts talked about the scientists in the IPCC. I have to remind 
my friends across America, really it was the IPCC. That is the United 
Nations, in case nobody knows who the IPCC is. They are the ones who 
started all this.
  By the way, anytime there is a quote from the IPCC, it is a summary 
for policymakers. Those are not--
  Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. INHOFE. No, I will not.
  That has nothing to do with scientists. We talked about 2,000 
scientists. We have a list of 30,000 scientists who said: Yes, there 
can be a relationship between CO2 and a warming condition, 
but it is not major.
  Let me use an example. This is the best example because it comes from 
someone we all love dearly, former Vice President Al Gore. Former Vice 
President Al Gore wanted to explain to us how serious it was way back 
when he was Vice President. This is in the middle 1990s. He said he 
hired a scientist. The scientist's name was Tom Wiggly. Tom Wiggly was 
a well-known scientist, one who was supposed to know what he was 
talking about. He was the choice of Vice President Al Gore.
  When he did this, the Vice President said: Do a study and tell us 
what would happen, how much cooling would take place if all of the 
nations who were developed nations--not developing nations, not China, 
not India, not Mexico--just the developed nations were all to sign onto 
the Kyoto Treaty and live by the emissions requirements. How much would 
that reduce the temperature in 50 years?
  Do you know what the answer was? Do you remember that? You remember 
that. It was seven one-hundreths of 1 degree Celsius. That is not even 
measurable.
  Of course, that is not Senator Jim Inhofe; that was Vice President Al 
Gore. Al Gore has done his movie. Almost everything in his movie--in 
fact, everything has been refuted. Interestingly enough, the IPCC--on 
sea levels and other scare tactics used in that science fiction movie, 
it has been totally refuted, and refuted many times, by the IPCC.
  On the conversation we have been having on gas prices, if you look at 
different studies--you don't want to believe studies. Look at some of 
the government studies. They have a responsibility to come out with 
something that is realistic. If you do not want to do that, just use 
logic. If you are to pass a bill that has a cap on the supply of oil 
and gas in this country, and that cap goes into effect, by mere supply 
and demand the price is going to go up. It has to go up. So the EPA 
estimates that this bill, the Lieberman-Warner bill, will increase fuel 
costs an additional 53 cents per gallon, and by $1.40 by 2050.
  The Energy Information Agency weighed in on the same thing and 
estimated gas prices will increase anywhere from 41 cents a gallon to 
$1 a gallon by 2030. While the climate bill's proponents, as we heard 
just a few minutes ago from the distinguished junior Senator from 
California, argued that this shows the gas price numbers going up by 
only 2 cents a year, that is assuming we have 2\1/2\ times the nuclear 
plants we have today. That is all written in this report. Right now we 
have approximately 104. That would be 260 nuclear plants.
  Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. INHOFE. No, I will not. Not now.
  Then, getting into the nuclear, it is one of the things I think no 
one is going to argue with. You are not going to resolve the energy 
crisis unless it has a strong nuclear component. I think you are going 
to have some amendments coming up on this bill that certainly are 
supported by Senator Warner, who is a cosponsor of the bill, that say 
we need to dramatically increase our nuclear capacity in America. I 
have been saying that for a long time.
  If you look at European countries where there are not problems right 
now, in the European countries, actually 80 percent of their energy 
comes out of nuclear energy. In our country it is about 20 percent. I 
would say any kind of correction of this problem is not going to take 
place unless we have the nuclear plants.
  The study that was referred to, the one that said only 2 cents a 
year, that is assuming we have an increase of 260 nuclear plants--it is 
wildly optimistic, impossible, can't be done. Nonetheless, that is what 
is being discussed. Nuclear energy is a very important part of our mix. 
It is going to have to be in the future.
  I would say this: If I were on the other side of this bill, and I 
were trying to get this bill passed, I would welcome the opportunity to 
have that discussion on the nuclear amendment that will be offered by 
more than one person, but certainly offered by even the author of the 
bill, Senator Warner.
  I see the Senator from Iowa has arrived, and I think he is scheduled 
to speak for up to 30 minutes.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I probably will not take all that time.
  Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator just yield for a question before he 
yields?
  Mr. INHOFE. The problem with that is, as you well know, it is not 
very reasonable because we are on a schedule to listen to other people, 
other than the distinguished junior Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. With all due respect, Madam President, we are here to have 
a debate. It is hard to have a debate when you are talking all by 
yourself. If the other side wants to engage in a good discussion, there 
are an awful lot of things said that are inaccurate, and I wonder if 
the Senator wants to discuss them.
  Mr. INHOFE. I will be happy to do that after the remarks of the 
Senator from Iowa. Is that all right?
  Mr. KERRY. Terrific.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, on April 24 of this year the Senate 
Finance Committee held a hearing on the tax aspects of what we call the 
cap-and-trade program, which is an essential part of this bill before 
the Senate. At that hearing, the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office, Peter Orszag, testified about the economic impact of a cap-and-
trade system.
  Then we also had Robert Greenstein of the Center on Budget and Policy 
Priorities testifying on the impact of a cap-and-trade system on low-
income families.
  I would like to share with my colleagues some very relevant 
information, in the case of my colleagues not having an opportunity to 
review the testimony that was before the Senate Finance Committee. Mr. 
Greenstein, who is often pointed to by Members of the other side of the 
aisle on economic issues, expressed support for policies to address 
climate change, but pointed out:

       Significant increases in the price of energy and energy-
     related products will necessarily occur as a result of the 
     enactment of effective policies to reduce greenhouse gas 
     emissions.

  I think sometimes this issue is presented as though there will be no 
cost or that big corporate polluters will pay all the costs. On the 
contrary, we have then the CBO Director Orszag testify:

       Under a cap-and-trade program, firms would not ultimately 
     bear most of the cost of the allowances but, instead, would 
     pass them along to their customers in the form of higher 
     prices.

  So we are in this situation where everybody wants you to believe that 
corporations pay taxes or corporations absorb costs. But corporations 
are tax collectors or, if they have costs, they are passed on to the 
consumers and individuals end up paying. Mr. Orszag explained that 
price increases stem from

[[Page 11114]]

the restrictions on emissions itself, and price increases are, in fact, 
an integral part of a cap-and-trade system. This is because price 
increases would be a key mechanism through which businesses and 
households would be encouraged to change behavior, leading to 
reductions of CO2.
  Regarding the impact of higher energy prices, I would like to refer 
to Mr. Greenstein again, whom I know many on the other side of the 
aisle very closely listen to about issues that affect the poor. He 
observed in his testimony:

       Households with limited incomes will be affected the most 
     by these higher prices because they spend a larger fraction 
     of their budgets on energy and energy related products and 
     because they--

  Meaning people who are in lower income levels--

       are less able to afford investments that could reduce their 
     energy consumption, such as a new or more fuel efficient 
     heating system or car.

  That is the end of the quote from Mr. Greenstein.
  It is important to emphasize we are not just talking about heating 
bills. Mr. Greenstein further testified:

       The impact of climate change policies on low-income 
     consumers goes well beyond the direct effect of higher energy 
     prices on their utility bills. More than half of the 
     increased costs that low-income households would face would 
     be for goods and services other than utilities.

  Any item that requires energy to produce will become more expensive--
common sense. Items he mentioned that would be more costly for low-
income families are quite obvious--gasoline, food, and rent.
  We have heard a lot of rhetoric from the majority party expressing 
concerns about the current high gas prices. Now they have brought 
before us a bill that would yet further raise gas prices. It seems like 
making points that are in conflict, very definitely in conflict. You 
cannot complain about high gas prices and then introduce legislation to 
raise gas prices yet higher.
  The new substitute amendment does contain a token provision for tax 
relief for consumers, but it only allocates the revenue from 3.5 
percent of the allowances in the first year for this relief.
  Robert Greenstein, whom I have quoted many times--many of the 
supporters of this bill usually quote him, maybe on other issues--
testified that 14 percent of the allowance revenue would be needed to 
shield low-income households from further poverty and hardship instead 
of 3.5 percent. The current bill still falls short even in the year 
2030, when 12 percent of allowances will be available to fund tax 
relief for consumers and emissions will be 45 percent below 2012 
levels.
  Mr. Greenstein estimates that the average increase in energy-related 
costs for the poorest fifth of our population would be somewhere 
between $750 and $950 per year for a modest 15-percent reduction in 
emissions. Can you imagine the outcry if Congress passed a bill to 
raise taxes on the poorest fifth of our population by $750 to $950 per 
year? Some of the very proponents of this legislation would be those 
crying foul the quickest. But that is exactly what this bill will do. I 
guess the Democratic leadership is hoping no one will notice.
  Be forewarned, just look at a recent election in Britain. The Labor 
Party recently enacted a new tax policy that was perceived as a tax 
increase on low-income people, and its approval ratings hit historic 
lows, leading to sweeping losses in local elections. If Congress is 
going to impose significant new costs on working families, we must take 
sufficient action to maintain their standard of living. However, that 
means more than providing benefits to offset direct costs imposed by 
the bill before Congress. All Americans rely on healthy economic growth 
to provide jobs and opportunity.
  CBO Director Orszag testified regarding a CO2 cap that 
``the higher prices caused by the cap would lower real wages and real 
returns on capital, which would be equivalent to raising marginal tax 
rates on those sources of income.'' In other words, a cap-and-trade 
system has the same economic effect as the most antigrowth type of tax 
increases one could think about. We are talking about a loss of jobs. 
We are talking about a loss of economic opportunity for too many 
Americans.
  The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that this bill could 
reduce U.S. manufacturing output by almost 10 percent in 2030 and could 
cut gross domestic product by as much as 7 percent--by $2.8 trillion--
in the year 2050. So we have people proposing this legislation from 
whom I have sometimes heard outcries on the floor of the Senate because 
there is outsourcing of manufacturing jobs, losing manufacturing in the 
United States. We have a bill before the Senate that is going to make 
that situation worse, according to the EPA.
  To help mitigate the adverse effect of a CO2 cap, Director 
Orszag suggested that one option would be to use revenue from 
auctioning allowances to reduce existing taxes that tend to dampen 
economic activity. Instead, what does the bill do? The bill before us 
creates a raft of new Government spending programs. In fact, this bill 
is 491 pages long, and I have had my staff count how many pages of new 
spending programs. They counted 212 pages. Much of the rest of the 
bill, then, is devoted to creating new bureaucracy to manage new 
programs and to bring about new mandates. We are talking about $6.7 
trillion in spending over the life of the bill. That is an astounding 
amount of money, even by Washington standards.
  Of course, the authors of the bill will say these new spending 
programs would invest in new technology. I heard that sort of 
discussion on the floor of the Senate a week or two before we took our 
Memorial Day recess. I also heard speeches a couple weeks ago that it 
would help the environment in some way. One problem with that argument 
is that almost all of this spending would occur after the caps have 
taken effect because that is when the revenue from the allowance 
auctions will start coming in. So common sense tells me that is way too 
late. It is too late to start investing in alternative energy 
technology after we already have a cap in place that effectively limits 
the amount of energy that can be produced from fossil fuels. We need to 
develop those alternatives right now. If we wait, the pinch we feel 
from the cap will be much harder. We must have alternatives in place 
before caps.
  I should add that even though this bill showers money on many 
industries and special interests in an attempt to attract political 
support, it does little or nothing to promote further use of wind 
energy. My interest in wind energy is that I happen to be the father of 
legislation that passed in 1992, and Iowa is one of the leading 
producers of wind energy of the 50 States. As a promoter of the wind 
energy tax credit, I can tell you that this is zero-carbon, zero-
pollution technology, and it has tremendous potential to help meet any 
future carbon emissions goals.
  Congress should take a very positive, concrete step toward reducing 
greenhouse gases right now. You don't do that by leaving wind energy 
out of the legislation. That step we ought to be taking right now would 
be to send to President Bush a package of extensions of expiring 
renewable energy production tax incentives. In order to become law, 
that package would need to be in a form obviously acceptable to the 
President. The Senate acted on this issue when the Cantwell-Ensign 
amendment passed the Senate in the housing bill debate. The full 
Congress needs to follow through and get it to the President. With 
those production incentives and investments in effect and way ahead of 
time of what this bill would do, the projects will be built and more 
green energy will be supplied to American homes, motor vehicles, and 
businesses.
  I look forward to seeing these vital incentives extended, but we need 
to do more--much more--if we are going to have in place the 
alternatives to meet any future emissions targets. Instead, what does 
this bill do? This bill for the most part waits until the cap has 
already taken effect and we will need to start switching to alternative 
sources of energy. Only then does it begin spending money to develop 
the alternatives we will already desperately need by that point.

[[Page 11115]]

  In addition, this legislation creates a whole new Federal 
bureaucracy, called the Climate Change Technology Board, to spend 
money. So we tax the American people. We are going to have an 
independent agency spend the money, independent of any other Government 
agency. It will consist of five Directors appointed by the President. 
This new unelected bureaucracy will have broad discretion to spend 
funds that are allocated directly to it without going through Congress 
and with minimal congressional oversight. Congress will only be allowed 
to block funding after the fact and only if it passes legislation 
within 30 days. Anyone who is familiar with the legislative process 
around here, particularly in the Senate, knows this is essentially a 
carte blanche to spend money.
  I am sure we will hear justifications of how each of these new 
spending programs will do a lot of good. When we hear that, I urge my 
colleagues to keep one thing in mind: According to the EPA, a typical 
American household will lose $1,400 in purchase power, and $4,400 in 
2050, due to this legislation. What we need to ask is whether these new 
spending programs justify a tax of $1,400, increasing to $4,400, on a 
typical American family.
  The authors of this bill will say this is not a tax. I have already 
quoted the CBO Director saying that this bill will have the same 
economic effect as tax increases. We know this bill will raise 
trillions of dollars in Federal revenue, and CBO says it will consider 
auction proceeds to be Federal revenues. Spending in the bill, quite 
obviously, will be Federal outlays. In the process, American families 
are going to feel a tight pinch on their pocketbooks.
  So you get back to something that is kind of Midwestern common sense 
about this legislation and about whether it is a tax increase or not a 
tax increase, whether it is a Federal expenditure or not a Federal 
expenditure, because where I come from, as the saying goes, if it walks 
like a duck, talks like a duck, it is a duck. Well, this looks like a 
tax and it talks like a tax.
  The question is, What to do with the revenues? We are faced with a 
tough decision. With this much new spending, there is something in 
there for everyone. But does it justify a tax of $1,400--eventually 
$4,400--on hard-working American families? Rather than spend this money 
on new Government programs, the right thing to do is to return it to 
the American people to offset increased costs they will bear, prevent 
increased poverty, and preserve economic opportunity for all.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I believe Senator Inhofe may have some 
time left--4 minutes--on his 30 minutes, then I would have 5 minutes to 
rebut, and then we would go to Senator Whitehouse.
  Mr. INHOFE. I don't think that is entirely accurate because I think 
the Senator who just spoke, Mr. Grassley, was on the list and was 
designated as the speaker with some time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair understands that the Senator from 
Oklahoma yielded time to the Senator from Iowa from the 30 minutes of 
the Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. The UC that was passed allowed Senator Grassley to speak. 
He was out of order only by one. Senator Whitehouse was supposed to be 
first, and then he was supposed to speak. What is it you want? Maybe I 
can accommodate that.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I was going to suggest that you controlled 30 minutes. 
You had 4 minutes remaining. If you wanted to use that, then I would 
take the 5 minutes under the order we have for rebuttal, and then we 
would go to Senator Whitehouse.
  Mr. INHOFE. That is fine.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Good.
  Mr. INHOFE. According to the Chair, I have 4 minutes remaining.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. INHOFE. First, let me repeat what I started out talking about in 
the opening discussion on this bill. We said we are going to go ahead 
and we will not talk about the science because the science is not in 
this bill. What we are going to talk about is the economics of this 
bill. That is what we have done. I have also said that if anyone wants 
to talk about science--I used the example of Vice President Gore's own 
scientist who said what a small, immeasurable impact it would be if we 
were to sign on to the Kyoto treaty which is cap and trade, very 
similar to what we are talking about today.
  Then, in 2005, we went through the same thing with the McCain-
Lieberman bill. That bill, I have to say to my good friend from 
Connecticut, was not nearly as bad as the Kyoto Treaty and far better 
than this bill today because the price tag on that was less than the 
Kyoto Treaty. The Kyoto Treaty would have been in the range of between 
$300 and $330 billion. That amount of money was a huge, very high 
amount. But the bill that came along in 2005 was the bill by McCain and 
Lieberman which is far less than that. Now, this is the one that is the 
big one. The range here in terms of the cost is about 20 percent, 25 
percent higher than Kyoto would have been at that time.
  We started talking about gas prices and the fact that the nuclear 
component is going to have to be necessary. But what we did not really 
get around to--and I think we need to do it over and over again in the 
next few days, until such time as we get onto the amendments--is the 
fact that the amount of money this is going to cost over a period of 
time, according to Senator Boxer in one of her early press releases, is 
$6.7 trillion. This would be in the form of higher gasoline or electric 
bills. A lot of people will make the statement that this really is not 
an accurate figure. Well, this is not my figure, this is her figure.
  They have also said the bill provides that some of this money can 
be--or the amended bill, which we have not seen all that long a time, 
provides that some of this money can go back to poorer families. That 
amount in the maximum, as I calculate it, is $2.5 trillion, which 
leaves $4.2 trillion.
  Now, you might wonder, what is all this going to go to? I found it 
very interesting, when the junior Senator from California was 
complimenting the senior Senator from New Hampshire, when Senator Gregg 
said: Well, we are in somewhat agreement, she said: The difference is, 
he wants to return that money to the people, that $4.2 trillion, 
instead of supporting this bureaucracy.
  Well, as to the bureaucracy, we think it is going to be about 45 new 
bureaucracies, and it is going to take, over the 50-year life of this 
bill, I would suspect, right around $4.2 trillion to run that 
bureaucracy. I would conclude, though, by saying this country does not 
need 45 more bureaucracies.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time is expired.
  The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, let me respond to some of the things 
that have been said in the last half hour. But let me come back to why 
we are here and why the Environment Committee reported this bill.
  This bill has a purpose, and the purpose is to reduce the carbon 
pollution that causes global warming. Why are we doing it? We are doing 
it because we want to turn this country and this planet over to our 
children and grandchildren and those who follow them in a better, safer 
condition than it will be if we just let global warming go unchecked.
  There have been a lot of things that have been blamed on this bill 
today: Gas prices, which got pretty high without this bill being 
adopted because it has not been adopted. The response has been given to 
that. Tax increases. These are not tax increases. We rejected a carbon 
tax. This is the result of a market where businesses exercise choice. 
They can either reduce their carbon emissions below the cap, in which 
case they have some credits to sell or, if they cannot do it, they will 
go back out in the market, of their own choice, and buy some at 
auction, and that creates the revenue which we then refunnel.
  In the last block of time, what seemed to be suggested was that the 
passage of this bill would gravely hurt the American economy. In the 
first place, my friend from Wyoming, Senator Barrasso, cited a study by 
the

[[Page 11116]]

National Association of Manufacturers and the American Council for 
Capital Formation. I believe the underpinnings of this study have been 
undercut by independent authorities.
  At a May 20 hearing before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee, the Deputy Administrator of the Energy Information Agency--
part of the Department of Energy, part of the Bush administration--Mr. 
Howard Gruenspecht said that this NAM, National Association of 
Manufacturers, modeling mistakenly attributes costs due to rising world 
oil prices as impacts of the Climate Security Act, which will reduce 
world oil prices because it will reduce demand for oil, rather than 
considering those costs as part of the economic baseline for the study. 
The fact is--and here again I cite two studies done by agencies of this 
administration, the EPA and the EIA--both predict continued strong 
growth for the U.S. economy under this Climate Security Act. The 
modeling of the Environmental Protection Agency found that under this 
bill, gross domestic product would grow by 80 percent between 2010 and 
2030.
  Here is the slight impact of the Climate Security Act.
  Incidentally, these studies all do not account for the costs of doing 
nothing, which we believe would be many billions of dollars. Look at it 
this way: If we do not pass this act--and this does not count for the 
cost of hurricanes and other extreme effects of global warming--the 
total output of the American economy is projected to reach $26 
trillion--that is a great number--in June of 2030. With the passage of 
the bill, the economy will reach $26 trillion in April of 2030. So is 
it worth that few months' delay to get to the $26 trillion to avoid the 
cost of doing nothing and the harm global warming will do to our 
country and our planet, affecting our children and our grandchildren? 
My answer is yes.
  Let me suggest this too. There is a cost of the status quo for 
industry. My friend from Wyoming, Senator Barrasso, comes from a great 
coal-producing State. Coal is America's most abundant natural energy 
resource. America has the largest coal reserves in the world. This bill 
aims to continue to allow American industry, power companies, to use 
coal--in fact, to use it more.
  But let me suggest this: Under the status quo, without this bill, 
coal and those manufacturers who rely on it are in trouble. Fifty-four 
percent of the new coal-fired electric power capacity ordered in this 
country since 2000 has been canceled. Why? Because companies cannot get 
affordable financing to build the plants. And why not? Because 
investors have 100 percent certainty that a climate law is going to be 
enacted in this country within the next few years, certainly within the 
lifetime of a coal plant.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. The bottom line is, coal and the manufacturers who 
depend on it need this bill to raise the money they need to build 
additional coal plants to provide energy for American industry. That 
would be great for our economy.
  Madam President, I yield the floor to my friend from Rhode Island, 
who I might say played a very important and constructive and creative 
role in the work the Environment Committee did in bringing S. 2191 to 
the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I thank the distinguished Senator 
from Connecticut for his kind words and, more importantly, for his 
leadership.
  Madam President, for the first time the Senate is embarked on a full 
debate on one of the most pressing issues facing America and the world 
today; that is, reducing the carbon pollution that causes global 
warming.
  This legislation, admirably and painstakingly pieced together by 
Senators Warner and Lieberman and by our chairman, Senator Boxer, takes 
a historic step to confront the crisis before us.
  As we speak, unchecked greenhouse gas emissions are causing the most 
significant and rapid climate and ecosystem shifts living memory has 
ever witnessed, affecting our oceans, our rivers, our lakes, our 
plants, our crops, and our wildlife. They affect our economy. They 
affect our very national security.
  The evidence of global warming can be found in every State in the 
country. My home State of Rhode Island, the Ocean State, is perhaps the 
smallest, but it is no exception. Over the past 20 years, the annual 
mean winter temperature in our beautiful Narragansett Bay has increased 
by about 4 degrees Fahrenheit. Now, the difference between, say, 63 and 
67 degrees may not feel like much to someone plunging into the clear 
waters of Narragansett Bay, but for the populations of fish and 
shellfish that make Narragansett Bay their home, that feed Rhode Island 
families, and fuel Rhode Island's proud fishing tradition, it is an 
ecosystem shift. It displaces cold water species, and it threatens the 
fragile and rich diversity of marine life in our precious Narragansett 
Bay.
  So far, the consequences of global warming have been relatively mild. 
But there are worse things to come--in the world and in the waters 
around us. We are forewarned by overwhelming and undeniable scientific 
evidence.
  Let me speak briefly about the science underpinning the evidence of 
global warming. We are fortunate to have an enormous body of scientific 
data measuring the warming of the Earth, the rising of the seas, the 
shift in weather patterns, and the effects on all the Earth's 
creatures. This data comes from all corners of the world and from the 
full spectrum of scientific thinking, most recently, indeed, from a 
report by the Bush administration's own Department of Agriculture. The 
scientists essentially all draw the same ultimate conclusion: Global 
warming is happening, it is manmade, and it is getting worse.
  Let me talk for a minute about some of the very foundations of the 
science we will be discussing.
  As shown on this chart, this is a very simple scientific device: the 
bell curve, the standard normal distribution. It basically is the 
standard analytical device for almost all the observations in which 
science works. In this dimension, one measures the danger of what could 
happen. In this dimension, one measures the likelihood that will 
happen.
  What you find in the bell curve is that there is a strong agreement, 
a strong, solid foundation of observed agreement around a level of 
danger that has a very high likelihood of taking place. It is this 
area, as shown on this chart--this key area--where the likelihood is 
the greatest that we face the dangers that have been described on this 
floor so eloquently by Chairman Boxer and Senator Kerry and others of 
the global warming that the Earth is undergoing.
  Now, you will, during the course of this debate, hear about other 
points of view. I am confident of that. Most of them lurk down here, as 
shown on this chart, in the area where the likelihood is the least, but 
the danger is the least. That is the key. But this is really fringe 
science. The body of science on global warming, like the body of 
science on almost any other topic, follows a curve in which the vast 
majority of the observations, the vast majority of the scientific 
conclusions follow an allocation, a curve like this.
  What the people who are fond of pointing out these low-danger but 
low-likelihood opinions usually forget to tell you is that there is 
this side of the curve. This side of the curve may also be unlikely, 
but it is very significant to us as a species because here the danger 
is even greater than what the vast bulk of the science we are relying 
on here in this discussion today would indicate. These are very 
significantly dangerous scenarios for our species.
  What we have found as time has gone on and as the scientific 
observations have kept coming in is that we think it is here, as shown 
on this chart, but when the observations come in, they tend to be here, 
as shown over here on this chart. We are always running ahead of the 
science when the observations come in. Science is not telling us: Take 
it easy, don't worry. Science is telling us that the more information

[[Page 11117]]

we get, the more dangerous it appears to be.
  It is a simple, traditional, normal distribution curve. The 
discussion that supports the changes we are making here is taking place 
where the weight of the science is. If people try to take you off that 
and show you this end of it, beware because there is just as great a 
likelihood that this other end of the danger spectrum will occur.
  Another aspect of the science here is the so-called trend line. Now, 
this is just an example. It is not any statistics at all; it is just 
dots we put together to show a variety of data over time and how a 
trend line flows through it. It is calculated through a very 
established scientific process.
  There is a book that was written several years ago called ``How to 
Lie with Statistics.'' A trend line provides a lot of opportunity to 
mislead people with statistics. In this debate, unfortunately, that 
happens a fair amount.
  I will give an example of that in a second. But basically, each of 
these, as data points come in over time--and in this case the 
temperature of various places on the Earth is measured--scientists are 
able to draw a trendline that essentially any reputable scientist, 
almost any reputable mathematician, can draw through those points, and 
then you base your conclusions on the trendline. That is standard, 
grade A, basic 101 science.
  Now, let's look at how that works in terms of global warming. Here 
are temperature changes plotted over years 1978 through 2003. Here is a 
trendline that has been plotted through all of these orange data 
points. It clearly indicates the warming of the Earth. This is the type 
of information on which reasonable and prudent people across this 
country--in businesses, in homes--base their decisions all the time. It 
is the type of decisionmaking our military relies on, our intelligence 
communities rely on, our scientists rely on, our corporate leaders rely 
on. It is not anything special or magic. The trendline is very clear 
about what is happening.
  Now, in the green box I have highlighted a section of the data 
because what I have seen is a number of reports that have focused on 
only this little piece of information. If you pull this little piece of 
information out--this was an El Nino year, so temperatures were 
unusually high. If you pull this little bit of data out, you can draw a 
very different trendline through this. It would probably look something 
like that. There have been people who have said: Well, that shows that 
in 1998 global warming stopped--because they took this tiny little 
segment of the overall data and tried to focus only on that.
  So it is very important in this debate, when you see some of the 
information that has been brought out, to understand that books such as 
``How To Lie With Statistics,'' their principles are still alive and 
well, and unfortunately, data such as this has even seeped into 
discussion in the Senate.
  For many years, global warming denial thrived on an industry of sham 
science bought and paid for by special interests. Those days are 
diminishing. Even the most vocal global warming deniers have 
increasingly fallen silent because the science is speaking to us now 
with an unequivocal voice. We can reduce the carbon pollution that is 
causing global warming, and time is of the essence. The bill before us 
takes a badly needed step toward the new green economy that beckons 
America with the promise of new technologies, new products and, most 
importantly, new jobs that will drive our American economy for decades 
to come.
  This country has never before shied away from the next great 
challenge or the next big idea. Classic American know-how has always 
led the world into new frontiers of scientific and technological 
discovery. The cold hand of the past always has reached out to impede 
progress, and we see it clawing on this floor today. But America is 
called by the future, not by the past.
  We have heard discussion today on whether there are costs if we act 
to address the carbon pollution that is causing global warming. What 
are the costs if we do not act? If we do not act, we will continue to 
send our hard-earned dollars overseas to buy oil from nations that do 
not care for us. The economic implications of our crippling dependence 
on foreign oil are evident to every American every time they pull up to 
the gas pump. The challenge to our national security grows increasingly 
clear with every day our troops spend mired in the war in Iraq. If 
President Bush had tackled this problem 7 years ago after he was 
elected, we would not have the gas prices we see today. We would not 
have the weakened oil economy we live in today. We are paying at the 
pump because President Bush was AWOL when the future called.
  If we do not act, we will not only keep paying at the pump for our 
continued addiction to foreign oil, but we will fall behind the rest of 
the world in developing and exploiting the green jobs and technologies 
of the future. If we do not act, we will witness increasing destruction 
of our natural landscape, disappearing coastlines back East, fire-swept 
prairies out West, a tornado-ravaged heartland, our hurricane-battered 
gulf coast. Hunters will see game species change their patterns and 
migrate away. Trout fish will find rivers too warm. If we do not act, 
we will allow the extinction of cherished creatures who share God's 
Earth with us, from the struggling polar bears of Greenland to Rhode 
Island's own little piping plover.
  If we do not act, we will become the first and only generation of 
Americans--the first and only generation of Americans--to leave the 
world to our children in worse condition than the one that was handed 
to us. We should not make ourselves that first and only generation. We 
should not break the faith with our children and grandchildren.
  I look forward as much as anybody in this room to a spirited debate 
that will give all Members of this body the opportunity to share their 
ideas and concerns. But when the debate is done, we must not shirk our 
duty. This has to be a legitimate debate. This can't be just about 
scoring political points. There is a true problem before us. We have it 
within our care, within our control, within our power to do something 
to get this right. I look forward very much to this debate. I hope my 
colleagues are all joining in it in good faith. I hope we will rely on 
real science and real arguments and not on talking points from 
industries that haven't gotten it yet.
  But when you see indications such as this, that people are willing to 
take one little segment of the data out of context as much as that, I 
think people who are watching this can see if that is what people are 
doing, there is cause for concern about how serious they are about 
solving this problem.
  Madam President, I thank you very much and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, first, before the Senator from Rhode 
Island leaves, let me remind him he started the discussion by saying 
this is the first time we have been debating this. We have been 
debating this for years. I know the Senator from Rhode Island wasn't 
yet elected when we had the McCain-Lieberman bill on the floor and I 
remember that so well because I was down here for 6 solid days doing 
nothing but debating this.
  One thing I wish to ask you to do is--we made the request when we 
first started--this is not a discussion on science. We are now talking 
about a bill. We want to talk about the bill. I am convinced that 
people coming down and talking about science are doing that because 
they don't want to talk about the bill, they don't want to talk about 
the tax ramifications of this bill.
  Now, for the purpose of this discussion from now on, let's assume the 
science is there, that we don't have to worry about science. Let's talk 
about the bill.
  I yield the rebuttal time to the fine Senator from Tennessee, Senator 
Corker.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.
  Mr. CORKER. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma. I say 
to my friend from Rhode Island--would the Presiding Officer let me know 
when I have a minute left?

[[Page 11118]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will be so notified.
  Mr. CORKER. The Senator from Rhode Island has talked about science, 
as the Senator from Oklahoma has mentioned, and I say I agree with him, 
that the large body of science says that man is contributing to global 
warming. As a matter of fact, I will even give to the Senator from 
Rhode Island the fact that cap and trade may be a legitimate way for us 
to deal with this. I think everybody in this body knows I am very open 
to looking at a legitimate cap-and-trade bill.
  What I would ask the Senator from Rhode Island is--and I know he 
knows this subject well; he and I were in Greenland together and I know 
his beautiful wife Sandra actually swims daily in the bay that he is 
talking about, so she knows well about those temperatures. I know they 
discuss this at great length.
  But if, in fact, we have this issue to deal with, why isn't the issue 
itself, by itself, good enough for us to focus on it? Why is it that we 
create a bill that--instead of focusing on cap and trade and lowering 
emissions in our country, why is it instead that we create a bill that 
brings trillions of dollars into the United States Treasury and then 
pre-spends that money from the year 2012 to 2050? Why would we do that? 
Isn't the issue by itself strong enough? This is the mother and father 
of all earmarks. I have no understanding why anybody in this body would 
support legislation that prescribes trillions of dollars of spending.
  Secondly, why would the Senator from Rhode Island support a bill 
where 27 percent of the allocations that are worth trillions of 
dollars--why would he support a bill that actually transfers those 
allocations which, in essence, is a tremendous transference of wealth 
to entities that have nothing whatsoever to do with lowering carbon 
emissions? Why would he support a bill such as that? Again, I have seen 
a lot of people walking around here with nicely tailored suits and 
briefcases, and I know that they realize if they sit at the table, they 
are going to benefit themselves by being tremendously enriched in the 
process. But why would the Senator not support a cap-and-trade bill 
that returned the auction proceeds to the people of America who are 
going to be paying higher costs legitimately as a result of this bill?
  The last piece--and this is one that is very difficult for me to 
understand. Why would the Senator from Rhode Island--my friend, whom I 
love serving with--support a bill that pays and sends U.S. companies--
instead of spending money here in our country on technology that lowers 
emissions here, encourages them to spend billions and billions of 
dollars in China that benefit that economy when we have tremendous 
trade deficits today?
  So what I would say is again--I will say it over and over--I respect 
the authors of this bill. I agree with the science. I think we are 
squandering a tremendous opportunity in this body, because we are using 
old-time politics to win support for legislation that ought to be good 
enough on its own, and in the process the American people are paying 
the tab. I think it is reprehensible that we are going about it in this 
fashion. I think today with gasoline prices at $4 a gallon, we have an 
opportunity--I think this is a perfect time to talk about this bill to 
marry responsible climate security with responsible energy security.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute.
  Mr. CORKER. The American people elected us--the Senator from Rhode 
Island, the Presiding Officer, all of us at the same time--to focus on 
the big issues of this country. We have a tremendous opportunity in 
this body to have a balanced climate security bill that doesn't take 
money out of the pockets of Americans forever and spend it through 
bureaucracy, but to tie that with energy security and do it in a way 
that everyone wants, in a way that creates growth and economic 
development in this country. I think it is a shame--a shame--that we 
are squandering that opportunity by having legislation on this floor 
that instead takes money from the American people, never returns it, 
builds a bureaucracy that doesn't exist, and damages our country for 
the next 40 years.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I wish to take a few minutes to 
respond to the questions that were asked of me. I think I have some 
time remaining of the 15 minutes I was allocated.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute remaining on his 15 
minutes.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, that was a 5-minute rebuttal. The 
question I will ask the Chair, has the 5-minute rebuttal time expired?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. INHOFE. So it would take a unanimous consent request for him to 
have more time; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I ask unanimous consent that I may respond to the 
questions that were asked of me by name.
  Mr. INHOFE. OK. For 1 minute. After this I think we will try to stay 
on schedule.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, since time is very short, to my good 
friend Senator Corker from Tennessee I say this: First, the basic 
principle of this legislation is that polluters should pay, and I would 
hope that every person in this room would agree with that. Polluting 
industries should not get away with causing global warming by releasing 
carbon pollution for free and having all the rest of us pay the costs 
of that. If you agree with the proposition that polluting industries 
should pay, then you have to, as you suggested, figure out the best way 
to get the funds back to the American people.
  We try to do it in this bill in ways that step us into the green 
economy we need for the future and in ways that step us up toward 
energy independence. The Senator may disagree. That is what the bill is 
about. If the minority would allow us to go to amendments, we could 
discuss that. That is not the way it is right now. We have to step 
forward. Senators Biden and Lugar are going to come forward with 
foreign policy recommendations to make sure the rest of the countries 
move with us. I agree with the Senator from Tennessee that we have to 
make sure the rest of the world moves with us. But we cannot wait for 
the rest of the world to move.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Salazar). Who yields time?
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I yield 20 minutes to the Senator from 
Wyoming.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized for 20 
minutes.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I have an important message for everyone 
listening to me right now: This bill will cost you money. It will make 
your gasoline more expensive. It will increase your electric bill--
dramatically. It will take hard-earned money out of your pocket. 
Companies don't pay the costs of higher energy. They pass it on to you, 
the customer. You need to think about what you want to pay for your gas 
and electricity when this bill has its full effect on you.
  How willing are you to pay the personal cost of global warming 
legislation--even if it might not make a difference? What you and I 
need is a bill that spurs innovation and recognizes what is possible 
with technology. What you and I need is a bill that cleans the 
environment without destroying our economy. I am in favor of using 
alternative sources of energy and reducing emissions and giving 
incentives to invent cleaner air. I am in favor of increasing our 
supplies of energy. I am in favor of actions that will bring down your 
cost of energy.
  We are now debating an issue that Congress has been discussing for a 
long time. I have been involved in this global warming debate for a 
long time. I was a member of the original Senate delegation that 
attended the Kyoto conference, at which the Kyoto protocol was created. 
I saw right away

[[Page 11119]]

that that conference was not an environmental conference, it was an 
economic conference with the United States as a target.
  Well, before that, I was also the mayor of Gillette, WY, the center 
of the largest coal-producing area in the Nation. Like many of my 
colleagues, I have spent a lot of time studying this issue.
  Some say this bill is essential. I am not convinced that such is the 
case because I am not convinced it takes the right approach to reducing 
emissions. We may need to address this issue but not through the 
legislation we have before us today.
  I am concerned that this is a piece of legislation that will make 
energy much more expensive for Americans, at a time when the No. 1 
issue I am hearing about is the need to decrease energy prices, 
especially gasoline. I am concerned that we are debating a bill that 
will send American jobs overseas. I am concerned we are debating a bill 
that will irrevocably harm our ability to use our Nation's most 
abundant energy source--coal.
  I am not a fearmonger. I am an environmentalist. I am in favor of 
using alternative sources of energy. As my constituents will tell you, 
we have a great potential for wind and solar energy in Wyoming. I am 
for conservation. We need to find ways to consume less energy. I am for 
inventions that reduce gasoline and diesel consumption, and I am for 
inventions that reduce or eliminate all suspect chemicals and gases. 
But I am not a fearmonger.
  We have held congressional hearings, but hearings around here aren't 
designed to get at the truth; hearings are to make a preconceived 
point. The chairman selects all of the panel members but one. The 
ranking Republican gets to pick that one. Then both sides show up to 
make specific points and to discredit the other approach. We have a 
bill before us that is one approach to this issue. Now we need to 
determine if it is a sensible solution, and we must determine what you, 
the public, are willing to pay. What are we willing to make you, our 
constituents, pay to implement the plan we have before us today to 
maybe address global warming? I suspect my folks in Wyoming are not 
willing to pay the enormous costs associated with this bill.
  This bill is a one-size-fits-all approach. It is expensive. It 
creates a huge new bureaucracy. It assumes that technology is further 
along than it truly is, and it ignores the fact that nations such as 
China and India do not and will not have similar programs. We need a 
bill that spurs innovation and recognizes what is possible with 
technology. What we need is a bill that recognizes that if we want a 
clean environment, we cannot destroy our economy.
  I figured out when I was mayor of Gillette and we were going to have 
a coal boom that we could wait to be run over or we could work to 
realize the benefits from development. We worked with the mines. We got 
the necessary facilities and amenities their employees would like. We 
made sure they did a reclamation job that makes us proud. You see, 
Wyoming coal is a clean coal. We ship it to all 50 States. Other States 
mix their coal with ours to meet the clean coal standards.
  In the early days of my hometown's coal boom, the critics of coal 
said, ``Don't let them tear that area up. It is not reclaimable.'' 
Today, visitors in Gillette say, ``Don't let them tear that lush land 
up.'' And I have to say, ``That is where the mine used to be, and that 
area is where the mine is headed.'' Most of those visitors then say, 
``Let the mines move ahead if they can improve it like that.'' Of 
course, the next generation is going to say, ``You moved all that dirt 
and you didn't make a bigger difference than that?'' The mining 
companies have to put the contours back exactly as they found it. That 
comes from one-size-fits-all legislation. People in the East got upset 
about mountaintop removal, and they should be upset when that occurs. 
But we mine coal differently in Wyoming. Our coal is in 60- to 90-foot 
seams under a few feet of dirt.
  When we talk about coal mining, the first question should be: What 
would be hurt by mining? Second, we should ask: Can we improve what was 
there before? Are there any local needs that could be met? Wildlife is 
part of Wyoming's heritage. It is part of our recreation and even our 
food. What can we do to improve the habitat for wildlife? These 
questions are all asked before we allow mining to move forward in 
Wyoming in the first place. Unfortunately, sometimes policy in 
Washington dictates that we cannot do everything we want to do.
  A few years ago, a prime emphasis from Washington was wetlands. 
Wyoming was photo-surveyed during our wettest spring in years, and we 
have been maintaining at that level. As the mayor of Gillette, I wanted 
to do better. I worked to get more wetlands on reclaimed mine property. 
But I was turned down because they weren't wetlands before. I finally 
got permission for a demonstration on one mine. It worked beautifully. 
It looked lush and it attracted animals and birds that were supposed to 
be attracted. It was a marvelous success. Do you think we have been 
able, in the next 20 years, to do one other project like that? No, we 
have not. Why not? Because restrictive policies in Washington by 
Congress have held us back. Don't try to make things better; try to 
keep them the same. That is not a good policy.
  The Lieberman-Warner bill is an example of a similar policy. Instead 
of recognizing that, if given the proper tools, American innovation can 
solve any climate crisis, instead of trusting that industries will make 
advances and will improve technology, providing they can pass the cost 
on, the bill assumes that technologies are far ahead of where they 
truly are. And it does so at a tremendous cost to consumers. You may be 
paying for huge costs that may not make any difference.
  There are so many studies on this subject that you cannot count them 
all. The bottom line is you can count on the fact that this bill will 
be expensive. You can explain it any way you want, but it will increase 
the energy cost of all you hard-working Americans. I have heard a lot 
of my colleagues talk about the struggling middle class. Well, if you 
implement a policy that will significantly increase energy prices, the 
middle class will struggle even more.
  There is also a lot of talk about the need for the United States to 
be the leader on climate policy. People argue that if the United States 
acts, the world will follow. Europe is working to meet the greenhouse 
gas reduction standard they set up, but they are doing it by shipping 
their manufacturing to India and China because those countries don't 
have to meet any sort of standards. I don't want the United States to 
do the same thing. I want the jobs here. Presidential candidates are 
complaining about jobs going overseas. Whose jobs will be shipped out 
because of this bill? I cannot support a bill such as this, which does 
little to include the developing world in this effort. We have already 
reduced our logging, and those jobs shipped overseas have almost 
eliminated the Siberian tiger. We have placed an emphasis on ethanol 
and have Brazilians chopping down the rain forests to plant corn.
  We are going to spend some time talking about this bill. The American 
people need to know that this bill costs money. It will make gasoline 
more expensive. It will increase their electric bills. It will take 
hard-earned money out of their pockets. It is the right time to have 
this debate so we can discuss the approach this bill is taking and 
determine if we are willing to saddle the people of our States with the 
enormous costs caused by it.
  On June 1, George Will did an editorial in the Washington Post and 
exposed the cap-and-trade policy of this bill for what it is--a carbon 
tax, but clever and hidden. While I was at the global warming 
conference in The Hague, the United States was negotiating to get some 
recognition for the increase in trees in the United States since they 
absorb CO2 and put out oxygen. The United States has had a 
significant increase in trees over its history, and studies have shown 
that the trees absorb more CO2 than the people of the United 
States put out. The other countries wouldn't allow that since the

[[Page 11120]]

conference every year is an economic conference, not an environmental 
conference.
  Here is how the cap and trade will work. Actually, here is how cap 
and trade will shift wealth. Landowners who have trees on their land 
can put their trees' CO2 absorption on the market. They can 
do that right now. The same trees that have been absorbing and 
transforming--that the world will not credit--will now be paid to do 
what they have always done. And you will pay for it at the gas pump and 
when you flip the electric switch, or when your furnace or water heater 
come on. That is right, the companies will buy the cap-and-trade 
credits for the trees and other absorbers, but you will pay it because 
it will be passed on.
  I want everybody listening to visualize opening their utility bill 
the month after this bill goes into effect. Can you see your shocked 
look as the already high bill is now 50 percent higher? But that is 
nothing. Visualize how high your bill will go when you get into the 
spirit of selling credits. Speculation has driven up oil costs. Cap and 
trade will result in speculation as well. You will wonder what happened 
to your utilities, and they will tell you that Washington foisted this 
expense on you. The utilities will explain how Congress forced them to 
buy CO2 credits to stop global warming. If there were a 
carbon tax--and I am not suggesting any new tax--if it were a carbon 
tax, it would at least be in proportion to what you yourself used and 
could be transparent. If this bill becomes law, you should visualize 
what will happen when you fill up your automobile. If you have a job in 
manufacturing, imagine what will happen to your job when India and 
China, that have no constraints, get your job because their energy, 
with no environmental controls, is cheaper. Without a way to increase 
energy supplies that we rely on every day, so that prices will come 
down, this bill is out of step with the times and will cost you 
dollars--and perhaps your job.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, if the Senator has completed, it is my 
understanding I will have a 5-minute rebuttal time; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mrs. BOXER. I am going to make a few comments and then turn to 
Senator Lieberman. Can you tell me when I have used 2\1/2\ minutes, 
please.
  Let me say, new speaker, same talking points. Unbelievable. Not one 
of my friends on the other side, not one, in my opinion, has offered 
anything to combat global warming, to get us off foreign oil--not one. 
It is unbelievable.
  I checked the record. Let's hold up these charts on oil. Here we go 
again. It has been 7 years since George Bush took office, and gas 
prices have gone up 250 percent. I did not hear my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle saying: Oh, my people are hurting, let's go to 
the oil companies; we know the executives are earning many millions. 
Nothing.
  Let's look at what happened in the past 9 months, since January 7: an 
82-cent increase. My colleagues, silent. Now they are worried, just 
when we can get off foreign oil, just when we have a plan to do it, we 
can say goodbye to big oil, out of the stranglehold, oh, they are 
suddenly concerned because gas prices could go up 2 cents a year, 
which, by the way, is the outside limit and we know, because of fuel 
economy we passed, is not going to impact our people.
  Let's look to June 2007. The Senate rejected an effort by Senator 
Baucus to provide tax credits to renewable energy by closing loopholes 
for the oil industry that is taking all the money from my people and 
your people and the hard workers of America: 47 Democrats said yes; 34 
Republicans said no.
  In November 2005, an amendment by Senator Cantwell to establish a 
national goal of reducing our dependence on foreign oil so the 
President does not have to go hold hands with a Saudi prince, let's see 
what happened then: 45 Democrats voted yes, but 52 Republicans said, 
no, they don't want to be energy independent. That is what this is 
about. All these crocodile tears, and you will hear it time and time 
again.
  Where were they when we tried to do something about oil prices? How 
about in November 2005, an amendment by Senator Cantwell to create a 
new Federal ban on price gouging: 45 Democrats yes; 42 Republicans no.
  Don't listen to this. This is a phony attack just when we are ready 
to get off foreign oil.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mrs. BOXER. I yield to the Senator from Connecticut.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from California. 
In the midst of all the attacks being made against the Climate Security 
Act, something may be missed by those who are listening or watching. We 
have a problem. It is called global warming. This bill, according to 
the Environmental Protection Agency of the Bush administration, solves 
that problem, protects us from the worst consequences of global 
warming.
  I presume, because my friends on the other side are opposed to the 
bill, they don't deal with either the reality of global warming or the 
fact that our bill solves it. They are blaming just about everything 
but the common cold on our bill.
  One of the biggest deceptions is this business that this bill will 
increase gasoline prices. I presume that argument is being made because 
all of us and the American people are angry about the increase in 
gasoline prices. The truth is the Climate Security Act will not 
increase gasoline prices, it will decrease gasoline prices because it 
will decrease our reliance on oil. In reducing carbon emissions, we 
have to stop using oil and use other ways to power our vehicles and 
that reduces the demand for oil.
  Look at this chart. This is a study done by the International 
Resources Group, an economic consulting firm. This is the line for what 
oil imports will be in 2015 if we do not pass this bill: about 15 
million barrels a day. Here is the line for 2191 if the Climate 
Security Act passes: down 58 percent, 6.4 million barrels a day, the 
lowest amount of imported oil in this country since 1986. That is 8.4 
million barrels per day less imported into the United States.
  We know there is speculation in the oil market, but the laws of 
supply and demand still have some effect. If we can reduce demand for 
oil that much, we are going to reduce the cost of gasoline. That is 
what this bill is all about. It is going to take that money and invest 
it in the kind of new technologies America has been waiting for, and 
they exist.
  So let's go from the attack to something positive. Let's protect our 
children and grandchildren from global warming caused by carbon 
pollution.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the order, the Senator from Pennsylvania 
is to be next for a period up to 15 minutes.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I believe I have 6 minutes remaining on my 
20 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Did the Senator wish to retain his time?
  Mr. ENZI. I certainly wish to retain a portion of it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 7 minutes remaining, and that 
time apparently was not yielded back.
  Mrs. BOXER. I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. I understand Senator Whitehouse tried to reclaim his 
time, and he was not allowed to do it. Was he at the end of the day? It 
took a new consent agreement. Do we wish to now have a new consent 
agreement that people can do half their time and reclaim their time 
later? Is that something, I say to Senator Alexander, he wants to do? I 
don't mind it at all. I would like to have it in the agreement.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, as I understand it, that is what the 
practice has been recently in the debate.
  Mrs. BOXER. Why don't we formalize it?

[[Page 11121]]


  Mr. ALEXANDER. That would mean a Senator who had 20 minutes could 
reserve an amount of time used for rebuttal.
  Mrs. BOXER. As long as they use it immediately after the rebuttal, 
and does that mean you get another rebuttal? That is why this is a 
problem. The whole notion was for rebuttal after the individual 
finished speaking. If somebody withholds, it is very complicated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator wish to make a unanimous 
consent request?
  Mrs. BOXER. I would like to keep it the way it is but make an 
exception now for Senator Enzi because I feel like he didn't know that 
rule. I would like to keep it the way it is and not be able to yield 
back time. You have your time, we have the rebuttal, we move on. I 
object to changing it, except in this circumstance, allowing Senator 
Enzi to have that 3 minutes.
  Mr. CORKER. Reserving the right to object, I think we already have a 
unanimous consent agreement that says exactly what is happening right 
now. My thought was we would have a debate on the floor.
  Mrs. BOXER. Excuse me, if Senator Corker objects----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California will withhold.
  Mr. ENZI. I was here for the previous discussion, and it was my 
understanding that the train had to continue on time, but it was set up 
that it would flow, that we could withhold shortly and then have a 
slight rebuttal after the rebuttal.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California has a unanimous 
consent request pending and that unanimous consent request is that 
Senator Enzi be able to retain his 7 minutes and thereafter Senators 
with allotted time under the current order must use that time in one 
block.
  Mrs. BOXER. I am going to amend that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is the unanimous consent request of the 
Senator from California. Is there objection?
  Mr. CORKER. I object.
  Mrs. BOXER. Then he cannot speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee objects.
  Mr. CORKER. That is the order that is on the floor. You can't change 
the rules.
  Mrs. BOXER. That is not the order.
  Mr. CORKER. That is the order. The fact is the order is if people 
have remaining time, they can speak after rebuttal. That is exactly 
right.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President: Could the Chair 
state the existing unanimous consent agreement?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California and the Senator 
from Tennessee will hold on for a minute. The understanding of the 
Chair at this point is that Senators use their allotted time and then 
there is up to 5 minutes for rebuttal. If the Senator does not use the 
entire allotted time during the one block, then time is yielded back 
and nothing is reclaimed. That is the understanding of the Chair with 
respect to the unanimous consent order in place. That unanimous consent 
agreement was enforced with respect to Senator Whitehouse, who asked 
consent to be granted an additional minute, which time he had not 
previously used.
  The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, that was not the understanding Senator 
Inhofe had left me with. However, I respect the Chair. If that is the 
ruling, then I do not object. I thank the Senator from California for 
her courtesy in giving Senator Enzi his remaining time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I wish to amend my UC to say that there be 
2 minutes of rebuttal, after Senator Enzi completes his 7 minutes, to 
be controlled by myself.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. WARNER. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Let us make it clear that the value of this debate, not 
just to ourselves but to the American public, is to have some exchange 
between us and to have a little followup and some questioning. I hope 
nothing that has been said thus far will restrict a Senator--for 
example, my dear friend who is about to speak, I would like to ask him 
a question and then that be charged against my time. Is that to be in 
any way obstructed by that procedure which we normally follow--I assume 
you will accept the question or maybe equally divide the time so we 
have some colloquy taking place.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It would take consent to enter into that form 
of colloquy.
  Mr. WARNER. I beg your pardon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It would take consent for the time to be 
charged against the time allocated to the Senator from Virginia.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am thrilled to report the white smoke is 
coming out, and we have reached agreement on how to proceed. We are 
going to keep the order--and I hope everyone will make sure I am saying 
this right--keep the order the way it is. The only exception is, if a 
Senator wants to question another Senator, that Senator will do it off 
of the time they already have.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Hearing no objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. That is wonderful. Now I believe we go to Senator Casey 
for 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, we are making history today in the Senate 
because this is the first global warming bill that has reached the 
floor for a full debate and vote. Congress has, in the past, as we 
know, considered symbolic global warming legislation, but this is the 
first time that we are working on the details--how to create a national 
policy to slow, stop, and reverse the catastrophic global warming that 
we see across the world. At the same time, this legislation and this 
debate could not be more important to our economy and our national 
security.
  This bill is very simple. There is a lot of complexity to it, 
obviously, but at its core it is very simple. It is about creating 
jobs, first of all; it is about protecting God's creation; and it is 
also about enhancing our national security and, indeed, the world's 
security. It is not a perfect bill, but it is a good bill on which to 
build a national program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
  I do want to commend several Members of the Senate: Senators 
Lieberman and Warner, Senator Boxer, and so many others who have worked 
so many years on this legislation, and especially worked in the last 
year and the last 6 months to bring this to where we are today. These 
Senators, with help from other Members of the Senate, have crafted a 
bill that includes all of the major policy issues that we must address: 
the cost to American families, job creation, worker protection, 
focusing on developing nations that will soon be the largest emitters 
of carbon, and keeping America competitive internationally.
  At its core, this bill also recognizes and celebrates the best of the 
American spirit. We are confronting challenges in this bill, no doubt 
about that, but we are confronting challenges with American innovation, 
American ingenuity, the can-do spirit of the American people, and the 
skill of the American people in leading the world in confronting a 
difficult challenge. So I think that is something we should recognize: 
that this is a good opportunity for the American people not only to 
confront the crisis of global warming, but also to create jobs, to 
build a stronger economy, to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and 
to do something very significant on the question of what happens to our 
planet.

[[Page 11122]]

  The authors of this bill have worked to include a number of things 
that are important to me, especially a program in this bill that is 
critical to the security of American workers--the Climate Change 
Workers Assistance Program. In short, what this program will do is make 
sure that workers who are adversely affected will have wages, they will 
have health care benefits, and they will have the intensive training 
they need to make the transition that will happen to some of our 
workers. This program will also provide a link between creating new 
manufacturing jobs in the future and helping transition to those new 
jobs of the future over time. This program is also a safety net 
intended to give American families peace of mind that they will not be 
left behind as we build a new economy with these new jobs.
  That is the key point. Americans have called on us--have called on 
us--to take action and to prevent global warming, and they are willing 
to do a lot of the hard work to implement a national program to secure 
our collective future. Together, we can do this. We know we can do 
this. America has always been able to confront difficult challenges, 
whether that challenge was the Depression or a World War or any 
challenge presented to us. We have met those challenges just as we are 
meeting the challenge that is global warming. We can stop global 
warming at the same time that we create a robust new economy that will 
provide good jobs for our families.
  There is a lot of talk about the cost of this bill, and there is no 
question that there are costs. But I also worry about the cost to our 
families. All of us worry about that. People are working so hard just 
to make ends meet. This bill contains programs to directly address 
these concerns, including a paid-for tax policy to return money to 
consumers to offset increased costs and special assistance for States 
such as Pennsylvania, my home State, that rely on manufacturing and 
coal as a major part of their economy.
  But to this discussion of cost I wanted to add something opponents of 
this bill don't talk much about, and that is the cost of inaction, the 
cost of doing nothing, which many in this Chamber apparently believe we 
should do--do nothing and hope it gets better; talk about it and talk 
about it and do nothing and wait for another day. While there is 
certainly a cost to implementing this legislation, there is also a cost 
if we sit back and do nothing. Not only will it be more expensive to 
address global warming the longer we wait, we can expect even greater 
costs in terms of major storms and weather events, increased wildfires, 
loss of food crops, and so many things that we are seeing playing out 
right before our eyes today in the world.
  Just last week, a report commissioned by the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture acknowledged the impact global warming could have on crop 
disasters. We already know what happens when grain crops fail due to 
drought and flooding in different parts of the globe. It is happening 
right now. Lack of crops and increased costs of staples, such as wheat 
and rice, are causing food riots in some countries. By one estimate, 
one-fifth of the world's nations are in a food insecurity situation 
right now, as we speak.
  So this is not just a humanitarian crisis for those people and their 
countries, this is also a national and international security threat--
that threat being food insecurity--caused by a number of events and 
causes but especially the challenge that we have of global warming 
because that is contributing to that food insecurity. To sit back and 
do nothing about global warming when we see this path ahead of us and 
have heard the warnings from scientists all over the world would be not 
just the wrong policy--to do nothing on global warming--it would, in 
fact, in my judgment, be immoral.
  So I support the Climate Security Act, and I will vote in favor of 
its passage.
  Before I give up the floor, I have heard a lot of discussion in the 
last day or so from people criticizing this legislation, about a number 
of parts of the bill they do not like. But one of the things they keep 
pointing to is gas prices. Senator Boxer and others have used the chart 
that talks about the price increase of gasoline since President Bush 
has been in office, an exorbitant increase in the cost of gasoline. But 
I have to ask my friends on the other side of the aisle who keep 
talking about this bill increasing gas prices--and, frankly, it would 
not do that over time. We know from some of the data that has been 
presented that this bill will bring down the cost of gasoline. But 
let's say they are really concerned about this part of the legislation. 
Let's just say they are trying to make their point about gas prices.
  If they are so concerned about gas prices today, why don't they 
support, as we have tried to push on this side of the aisle, strategies 
to bring down that cost or to, at a minimum, provide some measure of 
relief to our families?
  How about a windfall profits tax? If people really are worried about 
gasoline prices, why don't critics of the bill support that? Why don't 
the critics of the bill, if they are so worried about families and gas 
prices, not only support a windfall profits tax but support measures 
that we have introduced already--and I hope we can have a vote on 
this--to focus on excessive speculation that is in the market right 
now?
  So there is a lot we can do right now to bring down the cost of 
gasoline, or at least try, but it seems the other side of the aisle 
just wants to talk about bringing gas prices down but does not want to 
do it.
  I think this Climate Security Act is one way not only to deal with 
our energy challenges but to do our best to protect God's creation, to 
enhance our national security, and to create lots and lots of jobs for 
our families and for our future.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Tennessee 
up to 5 minutes to rebut the Senator from Pennsylvania.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.
  Mr. CORKER. I thank the senior Senator from Tennessee. I will only 
take a moment.
  I enjoy so much working with the Senator from Pennsylvania. We came 
in at the same time and I appreciate the points he made. I actually 
wish to more fully address the comments made by the bill manager, the 
Senator from California, and say that I don't see any crocodile tears 
coming from this desk. The fact is, we will be offering meaningful 
amendments that focus on this legislation, with no excuses. I know the 
senior Senator from Tennessee has been in the forefront of this issue 
for some time. I think all of us realize that while gasoline prices 
have increased no doubt over the last 7 years, no doubt this bill will 
cause gasoline prices to continue to increase.
  I think there is a big discussion about what we do with the revenues 
generated by this bill. That is a legitimate argument. We all realize 
there is a tremendous transference of wealth that takes place in this 
bill. All we are trying to do is cause this bill to be more pure and at 
the same time to try to link it toward energy security. I am looking 
forward to the amendment process.
  I thank the Senator from Virginia for adding so much to the tone of 
debate we are having here.
  I yield back my time to the Senator from Tennessee for not only 
rebuttal but his comments about the bill itself.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I understand under the regular order 
that leaves me with a couple of minutes plus 20 minutes, is that 
correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 3 minutes for rebuttal and 
then 20 minutes.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. May I ask the Chair to let me know when 3 minutes 
remains in my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will be so notified.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, this is an important day in the Senate 
because we are debating an important issue. It is one the country cares 
about and should care about. It is one which a great number of Senators 
here on both sides of the aisle have discussed. I

[[Page 11123]]

congratulate Senator Warner and Senator Lieberman for their leadership. 
The chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee is here. She 
has worked diligently on this and made it a priority. We are doing what 
the Senate ought to do.
  What the American people do not like is when they see us engaged in 
what I like to call playpen politics--when we start trying to see who 
can stick fingers in each other's eyes. What they do like to see is for 
us to have principled, vigorous debates about important issues that 
have to do with the future of our country, and how we deal with climate 
change is one of those issues.
  That is how we are dealing with this. We voted by a large margin, 
Democrats and Republicans both, to proceed with this debate and say 
this is important enough to put on the floor. The majority leader 
apparently is giving us a significant amount of time to debate this--as 
we say in Tennessee, to air out the issues--and that is surely what we 
ought to do.
  We began this morning in a bipartisan breakfast. Senator Lieberman 
and I are the hosts, along with some others, of a bipartisan breakfast 
on Tuesday mornings. The Presiding Officer often attends those meetings 
as well. The purpose of that is for Democrats and Republicans to sit 
around a table in a room, with no staff and no media, and discuss 
issues about which we do not agree in hopes we can find a way to deal 
with them.
  This is an important day in the Senate. We are doing exactly what we 
ought to be doing on an issue of importance to the American people. The 
Lieberman-Warner bill is the basis for this discussion. We are going to 
be hearing this week a lot of criticisms of the Lieberman-Warner bill 
and I am going to make some of them myself. But that is not to 
criticize the effort, because we have to start somewhere. These are two 
of our most distinguished Members. The bill has gone through the 
committee and it is now on the floor. We would be derelict if we didn't 
say let's deal with climate change in the correct way.
  What I wish to do in the time I have remaining is to talk about three 
things: No. 1, what is wrong with this bill; No. 2, to suggest a better 
way to deal with the climate change issue; and No. 3, to suggest what I 
believe is the best way to deal with the entire range of issues that 
are presented to us which I believe are much larger than climate 
change.
  Let me jump to the end of my remarks at the beginning by simply 
saying: I believe climate change is a real issue, that humans are a 
contributor to climate change, and we must deal with it. But I also 
believe that an unusual demand for energy in the United States and the 
world is a real issue. In our region where the Tennessee Valley 
Authority produces about----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The rebuttal time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I thank the Chair.
  In our region where the Tennessee Valley Authority produces about 3 
percent of all electricity in the country, estimates are that we would 
need 700 new megawatts of power in the next year. That is a coal plant 
and a half. That means 30 or 40 new coal plants around the country just 
to meet that, if the rest of the country is like TVA. That is a real 
issue as well.
  Our Nation's overreliance on oil from other countries is a huge issue 
for us. We don't like being in the pocket of people who are selling us 
oil, including some who are trying to kill us by bankrolling terrorism. 
We want to be more independent than that in the world. It affects 
almost every aspect of our national security. It is costing $500 
billion a year. Overdependence on foreign oil is driving down the value 
of the dollar. That lack of independence in our supply is a major 
issue.
  Clean air is an issue. Carbon is not the only pollutant in the air 
that I am concerned about, coming from Tennessee, nor would it be for a 
Senator from California either. We have a real concern about sulfur, 
nitrogen, and mercury. I have, since I have been in the Senate, 
supported legislation in a bipartisan way--first with Senator Carper--
to stiffen requirements on mercury, nitrogen, and sulfur as well as 
begin to cap powerplant emissions for carbon. That is a little 
different perspective as well, rather than just saying carbon is the 
only problem. There is a range of problems we need to deal with.
  My preference, as I will say in my remarks, is that we should have a 
new Manhattan Project for clean energy independence. That is the real 
way to deal with high gas prices, high electric prices, climate change, 
clean air, and the national security implications of too much 
dependence on foreign oil. But let me go back to the beginning and 
start with some problems with this bill.
  What is wrong with Lieberman-Warner? The first thing wrong is that 
the Warner-Lieberman bill, according to an analysis by the 
Environmental Protection Agency, would increase the tax on gasoline by 
53 cents per gallon by the year 2030, and an additional 90 cents or so 
after that. That's a 53-cent-per-gallon gas tax increase, according to 
the Environmental Protection Agency. That is not some Republican policy 
group speaking--that is the EPA.
  I intend, when the opportunity comes, to offer an amendment to strike 
from the bill the provisions that would put a 53-cent gas tax increase 
on the American people. That is the first thing wrong with the bill.
  The second thing wrong with the bill is that the Environmental 
Protection Agency says a 53-cent gas tax increase may hurt the 
pocketbook of the American consumer, but it will not reduce the carbon. 
It is not enough to cause people to drive much less and it is an 
ineffective way to do what the sponsors of the bill want to do, so we 
would have the worst of both worlds--we would be increasing the gas tax 
by 53 cents per gallon, and we would not be doing what we aim to do 
which is to reduce carbon with that effort.
  The third thing wrong with the bill is it creates, over the next 10 
years--according to the Congressional Budget Office--what I would call 
a trillion dollar slush fund. It would collect money--in effect a 
carbon tax, through a cap-and-trade system on the entire economy of the 
United States--and bring it to Washington, DC, where Members of 
Congress would, over the next 40 years, create about 42 mandatory 
entitlement spending programs for that money. Nothing is more dangerous 
in Washington, DC than a $1 trillion slush fund with a group of 
Congressmen with ideas about how to spend it.
  My cure for that, and I think there will be amendments to this 
effect, is that to the extent there is any money brought into 
Washington as a result of a cap-and-trade auction--whether it is only 
on powerplants or the whole economy--that money ought to be returned 
directly to the taxpayers, especially the working people who will be 
having to pay for the higher electric rates or the higher gas prices 
caused by this legislation.
  Those are three problems I have with the bill. No. 1, the 53-cent-
per-gallon gas tax increase--that is what the EPA says. I don't think 
anyone doubts that. No. 2, it doesn't work because the EPA also says--
and so does other testimony before the committee of which Senator Boxer 
is chairman--that an economy-wide cap on fuel is not an effective way 
to reduce the amount of carbon produced, at least in the early years. 
And third is the trillion dollar slush fund for Members of Congress to 
use for their own great ideas they come up with. I can't think of a 
worse way to spend the money.
  It is well intentioned, but the bill as it has grown has become, in 
effect, with all respect, a well-intentioned contraption and it creates 
boards and czars and commissioners and money, and it is too complicated 
and too expensive. It has the potential for too many surprises. It 
overestimates what we in the United States have the wisdom to do in 
writing legislation about an economy that produces about 30 percent of 
all the wealth in the world every year and uses 25 percent of the 
energy. This is a very complex free market economy we have here and we 
have to be very careful about how we affect it.
  Having said that, would there be a better way to deal with climate

[[Page 11124]]

change? The answer is, I believe so. I wish to say briefly what I think 
that is. I believe it would be to put a cap-and-trade system on 
powerplants alone--that is 40 percent of the carbon produced in the 
American economy--and a low-carbon fuel standard on fuel. A low-carbon 
fuel standard, which is already in this legislation, is very simply the 
idea that beginning in the year 2023 we would control the amount of 
carbon that fuel in cars and trucks could produce, and that is it. In 
other words, instead of putting cap and trade on the whole economy as 
the Lieberman-Warner bill would do, we should only put cap and trade on 
powerplants--nothing else--and use a different approach for fuel.
  Why would cap and trade work for powerplants? We have a lot of 
experience with cap and trade for powerplants. Cap and trade is simply 
a system of setting limits on the amount of carbon to come out of the 
smokestacks at a powerplant--if it is a coal plant or whatever kind of 
plant it might be. We have experience with measuring that. We actually 
have measurements for sulfur, nitrogen, and now mercury. We could do it 
for carbon. We could select effective enforcement dates that had some 
realistic relationship to the development of technology--for example, 
the technology to recapture the carbon that comes out of coal plants. 
And, in doing so, I believe that could be an effective way to begin to 
control the source of 40 percent of the carbon produced in the United 
States--the powerplants.
  Would it add to the cost of electricity? Yes, it would. What would we 
do with the revenues from credits that were auctioned if there were a 
cap-and-trade system? We would give the money back. Not through a lot 
of federal spending programs, not to the State governments, not to pet 
projects; we would give it straight back to the working people to help 
pay their electric bills because they are the ones who would have those 
higher rates.
  That would leave manufacturers alone. It wouldn't drive them 
overseas. It would avoid setting up all these boards and commissions 
and czars and government bureaucracies.
  Then what would we do about fuel? Already we have done the single 
most important thing we could do as a Congress for climate change when 
we passed higher fuel efficiency standards at the end of last year. We 
did that in a bipartisan way, too. In 2007, we increased by 40 percent 
the fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks in the United States 
for the first time in over 30 years. Testimony from David Greene of the 
Oak Ridge National Laboratory said that is the single most important 
thing the Congress can do to deal with climate change, overdependence 
on foreign oil, or clean air. And we did it. That is the first thing.
  But there is another step we could do and that is already in this 
bill. It is the low-carbon fuel standard that I talked about a few 
moments ago. As it is now presented in the bill, it would require fuel 
suppliers to lower the carbon content of transportation fuels by 5 
percent less per unit of energy in 2023, and 10 percent less in 2028. 
The advantage of a low-carbon fuel standard, unlike the cap-and-trade 
system which is ineffective in terms of reducing carbon in fuel, is 
that it would be 100 percent effective because it would require a 
certain amount of reduction. Second, it is the way we normally deal 
with fuel and pollution. For example, the low-sulfur diesel standards 
for big trucks that the Clinton EPA started and the Bush EPA finished 
is making a big difference in the Smoky Mountains of Tennessee by 
reducing the amount of sulfur in the air starting this year. That is a 
form of fuel standard. This would be a low-carbon fuel standard, just 
like the low-sulfur diesel standard is for big trucks. It is simple. 
There would be a timeline that we could prepare for, and it might 
actually lower gasoline prices rather than adding 53 cents per gallon 
to the price of gasoline as the Lieberman-Warner bill would, because if 
you know that there needs to be a low-carbon fuel standard, then you 
might, for example, choose electricity as a fuel and have a plug-in 
hybrid vehicle and that would reduce the amount of carbon for fuel.
  Or you might advance research for biofuels made from crops we don't 
eat, such as cellulosic ethanol, and use more of that kind of fuel. But 
we wouldn't have Senators and Congressmen and people who are elected to 
office making judgments about picking and choosing winners and losers.
  If you are asking me how I would do it, I would imagine that if we 
looked ahead a couple years and had to guess today what kind of climate 
change legislation might actually pass the Senate, the House of 
Representatives, and be signed by the President, I think it will be a 
very simple piece of legislation, probably cap and trade for 
powerplants, with effective dates regulated or adjusted to the 
development of technology that would permit powerplants to meet the 
standards. Then, for fuel, it would be the higher fuel efficiency 
standards we already passed into law last year, plus a low-carbon fuel 
standard. That would cover two-thirds of the carbon we produce in the 
United States. The current bill only presumes to cover 85 percent. The 
approach I am suggesting would fairly distribute the burden because 
most people buy electricity and most people buy gasoline. It should be 
lower cost, fewer surprises, and much less complicated than the bill we 
are debating in the Senate today.
  I might add to that framework I suggested, we would take whatever 
money was auctioned off in the cap-and-trade system on powerplants 
and--rather than building what I call a slush fund--refund it to the 
taxpayers. That money would come right in and go right back home, right 
back to the taxpayers. It wouldn't stop.
  Finally, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1\1/2\ minutes. I stand 
corrected. The Senator has 4\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Finally, the best way to deal with the climate change 
issue would be a different agenda--one that focuses on clean energy. I 
would much prefer to see the Senate today talking about clean energy 
independence rather than the President asking the Saudis to drill for 
more oil or the Democratic majority saying: Don't explore for oil but 
raise taxes on gasoline by 53 cents per gallon. I would rather see a 
Republican or a Democratic President work with the Congress and say: 
Let's say to the world we are going to launch a new Manhattan Project 
for clean energy independence. So within 5 years we will be well on our 
way to saying to the Saudis: We want to be your friends, but we can 
take or leave your oil.
  The way to do that would be, first, to begin to do the things we know 
how to do to increase supply. For the next 30 years, we are going to 
use oil; it might as well be ours rather than importing it. Explore for 
oil offshore, and use it from the 2,000 acres in Alaska that is next to 
13 million acres of wilderness. Then agree on six or seven grand 
challenges, such as those I suggested at the Oak Ridge National 
Laboratory a couple of weeks ago, to give us a chance to make 
breakthroughs that would give us that kind of clean energy 
independence. Those would include making plug-in cars and trucks 
commonplace, a crash program for carbon recapture, for making solar 
costs equal or as low as fossil fuel costs, advanced research for 
biofuels from crops that we don't eat, more new green buildings, even 
fusion for the longer term.
  I believe from the day the American President and the Congress 
announced to the world that we were engaged in a new Manhattan Project 
for clean energy independence that included both supply, demand, and 
research, what would happen is that the rest of the world would change 
its way of thinking, that the speculators would get nervous, that the 
oil-producing countries would get real, and that the price of gas would 
stabilize and eventually go down. Within 5 years, we would be well on 
our way to clean energy independence. That is the way to deal with high 
gas prices, high electric prices. That is also the way to deal with 
clean air, climate change, and the national security implications of 
our overdependence on foreign oil.
  I yield the floor.

[[Page 11125]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 5 minutes available for rebuttal. 
The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, Senator Lieberman and I had planned to 
share this, but if Senator Warner wishes to jump in, we will try to 
yield him some time. Let me say this one more time: Every Republican 
speaker who has come to the floor has talked about a gas tax. It in a 
way is so ironic, because when they had a chance to help us deal with 
gas prices, where were they? My friend, Senator Alexander, says gas 
prices are going up 52 cents. He didn't tell you it is over 20 years, 
folks. He didn't tell you that, 2.5 cents a year, if he is right, and 
he is not right. That is the outer limit. The automobile fuel economy 
standard we passed will negate that, even if it is true. But where was 
he? Where were they?
  We had three initiatives, we Democrats. They said nothing. Now, when 
we are on the brink of getting off foreign oil, getting off big oil, 
suddenly we can do nothing. It is sad, but that is the case.
  What we are forgetting--and not one Republican has talked about this 
issue except for Senator Warner, and I am happy to say Senator Snowe is 
on her way to speak--the National Academy of Sciences concluded that 
climate change is real, attributed to human activities, and that global 
warming is unequivocal, and we need to do something about it.
  The human health impacts, these come straight from the Bush 
administration people: Increase in the frequency and duration of heat 
waves and heat-related illness, increase in waterborne diseases, 
increased respiratory diseases. All they can talk about is 2 cents a 
year on gas prices, which isn't going to happen because we are going to 
get off foreign oil. Increased respiratory disease, lung disease, 
asthma, if we don't act. Children and the elderly are vulnerable. I 
don't hear any talk about that. All we hear about is 2 cents a year on 
gas, which we are not going to see either. The polar bears, we know 
they are in deep trouble. They are God's creatures, God's creatures. We 
have a responsibility to protect the 40 percent of the species that 
could be extinct.
  Let me close my part by saying this. Evangelicals, the Conference of 
Catholic Bishops, the National Council of Churches, the Religious 
Action Center of Reform Judaism, the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, 
the Interfaith Power and Light Campaign--these dedicated religious 
leaders have joined hands with us. Why? Because they feel this is a 
moral issue. We believe jobs will be created. Businesses will be 
created. Technologies will come to the fore and will solve the global 
warming problem.
  I yield the remainder of my time to Senator Lieberman, if he wishes 
to share it.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Is there time remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I yield to Senator Warner.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, before my distinguished colleague from 
Tennessee leaves the floor, I listened to his proposal, just taking out 
the power industry and use that. But the revenues you gain by your 
bill, wouldn't they be subject to the same accusation? Is it a tax? I 
think it is a false accusation, but I think your plan is basically a 
part of our plan. If they call our plan a tax, yours is a tax; am I 
correct?
  Mr. ALEXANDER. If I may answer the Senator briefly, the answer is, 
correct, to the Senator.
  Mr. WARNER. That is all I need to know.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Except that the rest of my answer to the Senator from 
Virginia is, any increase in revenue that came into the Government as a 
result of the cap-and-trade system on powerplants would then go 
straight back to the working people who pay their electric bills 
instead of coming into the unwieldy contraption this bill sets up which 
creates what I call a slush fund.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I reply to my good friend, your plan is 
just as subject to the calls in here that it is a tax as is ours. But 
you send it back to the taxpayers. What we do is to give it to research 
and technology to try and improve the efficiency of the spectrum of 
organizations. We will have a proper pie chart tomorrow, showing how we 
take the money we collect and send it to research and development to 
improve our ability to develop solar and wind and all types of things. 
That is the difference. You are, in a sense, a tax collection agency. 
You collect it and give it back to the people. We collect it the same 
way, but we then put it into where technology will benefit the people.
  Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield for a question on his time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The rebuttal time on this matter for this 
period has expired.
  Mrs. BOXER. I was asking if the Senator could use some of his own 
time.
  Mr. WARNER. I yield to the manager part of my time for the purpose of 
a colloquy. The colloquy will add strength to this whole debate.
  Mrs. BOXER. It is the colloquy that I believe is important because my 
friend is so right. We approach the future with hope. We are not going 
to pull the covers over our heads. This is America. We need to lead, 
and we need to lead in technology. We know venture capitalists have 
told us they are waiting for this bill. They are going to invest more 
in new technologies than they ever did in biotech and high tech. I wish 
to ask my friend this question: It is true that we do have a very large 
tax cut in this bill; is that not so?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the chairman is correct.
  Mrs. BOXER. Is it not so that we have a large, almost a trillion 
dollars of consumer relief that goes through the utilities to help our 
consumers; is that not correct?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the chairman is correct.
  Mrs. BOXER. And lastly, is it not true that we have a deficit 
reduction trust fund of about a trillion dollars as well?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the chairman is correct.
  Mrs. BOXER. I wish to make that point because I resent the Senator 
from Tennessee saying our bill is a slush fund.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I resent being resented and ask 
unanimous consent for a couple minutes to get into this colloquy, if I 
may.
  Mr. WARNER. I have no objection, but where is the time coming from? I 
would hope you could find it.
  Mrs. BOXER. He is asking unanimous consent.
  Mr. INHOFE. He is asking for additional time.
  Mrs. BOXER. That is fine with me.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I am trying to get to a result here. 
Ever since I have been a Senator, I have proposed a cap-and-trade 
system on powerplants to deal with climate change. All I am saying is 
it would be better to keep it simple, to take the money collected and 
send it straight back home rather than bringing it up here and putting 
it in a slush fund. If ``slush fund'' is offensive to the Senator from 
California, I am sorry, but that is what large funds tend to be here. 
It is mandatory spending that is earmarked for the next 42 years.
  So removing that slush fund would be an improvement on their bill. 
Take that out. Send the money back to the people. Return it to the 
individuals who paid it. That is all I am suggesting. No one ought to 
be offended by that. If we need to invest dollars in solar research, 
for example, I sponsored the amendment for the solar energy tax credit 
that is in the law now. Let's do that separately and with a clear 
appropriation, rather than a 42-year mandatory spending program that is 
drawn from $800 billion.
  I thank the Chair and Senators for their courtesy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I may take 2 minutes off my time to say 
to my good friend, when you get up and say it is going there for the 
next 42 years or whatever statement you made, you are incorrect. In our 
managers'

[[Page 11126]]

amendment, the substitute, whatever comes up tomorrow--and that will be 
the order of business--we explicitly give the President of the United 
States the power at any time to come in and alter where those funds go. 
Of course, it requires the concurrence of the Congress, so the Congress 
has a voice.
  There is nothing in our bill that acts in perpetuity. If at any time 
the President determines there is a crisis in the economy or that the 
technology, as required by the power sector to do the sequestration, is 
not there, the President pulls back on the throttle.
  So I would hope colleagues, when they get up to discuss this bill, 
recognize that flexibility has been put in it to take care of all of 
these situations. I hope we do not have anybody saying again: And for 
42 years this will stay in fixed cement, in place. It is not true. 
Flexibility is at every turn.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, can I make a parliamentary inquiry?
  Is the time that was used by the Senator from Virginia going to be 
taken from his time?
  Mrs. BOXER. Yes.
  Mr. INHOFE. The reason I ask is because we have a lot of people who 
have lined up afterwards who do not want to wait much longer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On the parliamentary inquiry from the Senator 
from Oklahoma, the time will be charged against the Senator from 
Virginia.
  The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I yield myself some time from the 20 
minutes I have allotted on the list.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, let me 
explain why. I know you are going to take it from your time, but the 
problem is, we have two speakers on this side who are pressed for time, 
and you are actually scheduled for after these two speakers. So if you 
could wait until your time, it would be----
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, as Mr. Alexander, the Senator from 
Tennessee, did, I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes from my time to 
respond to something the Senator from Tennessee said.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, two points. One is on the discussion of 
an increase in the cost of gasoline. There was a lot of citing from 
Senator Alexander and others about the projection of a 53-cent increase 
per gallon of gasoline. Again, it is over 22 years, made by EPA, 2008 
to 2030. That is about a 2-cent-plus, at the outside, per year increase 
in a gallon of gasoline.
  I tell you, look at what it has done this year. Just this year, in 8 
months: January 7, $3.11; May 26, $3.93--an 82-cent increase since the 
beginning of this year--compared to about a 2-cent a year, outside, 
increase projected to do something, which is to help us achieve the 
purpose of this bill, which is to reduce carbon pollution that causes 
global warming. That is the point.
  The second point, and we are going to come back to this, Senator 
Alexander--and we agree--sees there is a problem. He wants to deal with 
it in a mandatory way and agrees on cap and trade. But he only wants to 
do it for the powerplant sector. We think if you do that, and eliminate 
the oil and fuel sector, eliminate the industrial sector, you are 
simply not going to get the reductions in carbon pollution we need to 
reduce global warming, and you are going to diminish the marketplace.
  A lot of the companies that want to come in are going to be deprived 
of the kind of broad marketplace we believe will work best to stimulate 
innovation and to reduce the carbon pollution that causes global 
warming.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to claim the 30 
minutes that was previously reserved for Senator Carper.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. SNOWE. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I rise in support of the legislation that is pending and the 
substitute that will be offered by the chair of the committee, Senator 
Boxer, to the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act, which is obviously 
a historic measure that is a benchmark for America in confronting the 
pressing and pervasive threat of global climate change.
  This is not a Democratic issue; it is not a Republican issue. It is 
not a conservative or liberal issue. This is a human issue. It is a 
planetary issue. It is a moral issue. It is a matter and a question of 
stewardship, of responsibility not only to ourselves and the world in 
which we live but, most critically, to a future we will never inhabit 
but will largely determine based on decisions we make now.
  In that light, I express my profound gratitude to the chair of the 
committee, Senator Boxer, without whom, obviously, this simply would 
not have been possible. I thank her for her longstanding advocacy and 
leadership, bridging the partisan divide which I think is what this 
legislation that is pending before the Senate does--the substitute that 
will be offered by her tomorrow--because I think it is critical we 
begin this process in developing the United States' leadership with 
respect to one of the most pressing and transformational issues not 
only facing this country but the world community.
  I also express my profound gratitude to Senator Lieberman and Senator 
Warner for their outstanding and longtime leadership as well, and for 
their advocacy in developing those solutions to stem global climate 
change. It is certainly one of the most consequential issues of this 
century. I thank them for their vision and courage--and Senator Boxer--
for doing all they could to bring this legislation to this point in the 
Senate to have the first ever debate on a monumental issue that will 
reverberate for generations.
  I have heard much here in the debate. Hopefully, I will be able to 
offer some of the counterpoints later on in the debate. I want to lay 
out my own views with respect to this issue because I think it is so 
critical for the future of this country. I do not think we can afford 
the option of inaction any longer. I think this is the time in which we 
have to engage in global leadership and to lead the way on this 
critical issue, and not to forfeit what is essential, for the United 
States to position itself on one of the major environmental issues of 
all time.
  I thank the Senator from Virginia, for whom leadership has been the 
hallmark of his 29 years of service in the Senate. That ennobling 
quality is now on display yet again today on this vital and timely 
issue before this body.
  We have arrived at this day, as this issue of global warming should 
no longer be open to serious skepticism. This past week, the U.S. 
Government released a report that concluded that climate change is 
affecting the Nation's ecosystems, causing significant changes, such as 
increasing incidences of severe storms in some areas, and water 
scarcities from the lack of rain and snowpack in others, along with 
insect outbreaks and forest fires.
  Looking to the future, in the words of the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture report, ``Even under the most optimistic carbon dioxide 
emission scenarios, important changes in sea level, regional and super-
regional temperatures, and precipitation patterns will have profound 
effects.''
  The bottom line is, this debate is no longer a question of science. 
It is now a question of our political will to provide solutions to 
these problems. I believe the substitute bill we will be debating later 
on this week, with an approach that mirrors closely what Senator Kerry 
and I called for in the Global Warming Reduction Act that we introduced 
in the last two Congresses, offers a measure that anyone who has 
analyzed the science and is honestly committed to addressing global 
warming can support.
  It establishes a Federal program to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas 
emissions

[[Page 11127]]

as much as 66 percent by 2050, through a mandatory cap-and-trade 
program that provides companies with both the flexibility and certainty 
necessary for their continued viability and growth, while allowing the 
United States to lead the world in reducing damaging CO2 
emissions for the generations to follow. It presents us with a 
watershed opportunity that our obligation to the future dictates we 
must seize now.
  I have not come lightly or lately to this debate, having cosponsored 
the Lieberman and McCain Climate Stewardship Act in the 108th and 109th 
Congresses, as well as the Global Warming Prevention Act as far back as 
1988, when I was a Member of the House of Representatives. So I am left 
to wonder exactly how far down the road we would be now if we had acted 
then. That was 20 years ago, when one of the first pieces of climate 
change legislation was introduced in the House of Representatives and 
Senate, and here we are, in 2008, and yet we have not engaged this 
issue in a proactive way as a nation.
  Indeed, it has been my concern regarding global climate change that 
led me to accept an invitation in 2004 to be the cochair of the 
International Climate Change Taskforce, established by three respected 
``think tanks''--the Institute for Public Policy Research in the United 
Kingdom, the Center for American Progress in the United States, and the 
Australian Institute.
  In working with my cochair, the Right Honorable Stephen Byers of the 
United Kingdom, our goal was to develop recommendations to blaze a 
trail for engaging all countries to forge an international consensus 
for action on climate change, including the United States, China, and 
India, which are not bound by the Kyoto Protocol, as we all know.
  Subsequently, our task force published a series of recommendations in 
January 2005, ``Meeting the Climate Challenge.'' Right at the top of 
our list, based on scientific consensus, was the necessity of 
preventing global temperatures from rising more than 3.6 degrees 
Fahrenheit, or 2 degrees Celsius, over the course of this century. 
Beyond that 2-degree Celsius increase, the planet would arrive at a 
tipping point--a potential abrupt climate change that would have 
catastrophic effects on our ecosystems and our society. Already, we 
have witnessed the early warning signals, with the loss of Arctic Sea 
ice, for instance, that appears to be accelerating faster than 
scientific models only recently predicted.
  So what will it require to ensure we remain below the 2-degree 
Celsius tipping point? Well, currently, there exists a concentration of 
380 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the world's atmosphere. An 
increase of 2 degrees Celsius correlates with a carbon dioxide 
concentration at 450 parts per million. Therefore, ensuring we do not 
exceed this concentration level is absolutely essential.
  An additional recommendation in our report calls for the G8 and other 
major economies, including from the developing world, to form a G8+ 
Climate Group, to involve major CO2-emitting countries in 
the climate change debate to ultimately develop a blueprint for moving 
forward in the carbon dioxide reduction program.
  As a result, the G8+5 Ministerial Level Group was established with 
the five major developing countries of China, India, Mexico, Brazil, 
and South Africa. President Bush has expanded upon this idea as the 
basis for his current Major Economies Meeting. The current G8 
president, the Japanese Prime Minister, is employing the same guidance 
at this summer's G8 Summit.
  The point is, we have established we cannot risk an increase of more 
than a 2-degree Celsius increase in global temperatures. We further 
know that CO2 emissions contribute to global warming. There 
is no doubt this is an international problem requiring an international 
solution that must include action on behalf of the world's highest 
CO2 emitters if the effort is to be effective.
  Indeed, our task force specifically recommended that all developed 
countries introduce national mandatory cap-and-trade systems for carbon 
emissions, and construct these systems so they may be integrated into a 
single global market. And that, of course, is the linchpin of the bill 
before us: a mandatory domestic carbon cap-and-trade system for the 
United States that would achieve an actual 71 percent emissions 
reduction by 2050 for the 87 percent of the Nation's emitters that are 
capped under the bill, with a 66 percent reduction of total U.S. 
emissions by 2050.
  Now, I fully understand this bill represents a major new initiative 
for the United States. Therefore, I want to underscore that this is 
not, as some have asserted, a proposed solution to a problem that does 
not actually exist. We are not being compelled by guesswork or by 
unsubstantiated theory or by popular perception. We are being led by 
the facts.
  This past year, the scientists on the United Nations 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change--who shared in the 2008 Nobel 
Peace Prize--recently completed the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report, 
which was 6 years in the making, and drew on the work of more than 
2,500 scientists, 800 contributing authors, and 450 lead authors. As 
the ranking member of the Commerce Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, 
Fisheries, and Coast Guard, which oversees the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration, I wish to congratulate the 120 NOAA 
scientists--NOAA scientists, I add--who were part of Working Group I, 
the Physical Science Basis of the International Panel on Climate 
Change, who shared in the Nobel Peace Prize. You can see all the names 
listed on this poster I have right here: 120 of our own scientists who 
reached the same conclusions.
  I ask unanimous consent that the names of these exceptional Federal 
scientists be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                       NOAA 2007 Peace Prize List

       Dan Albritton, J.K. Angell, John Antonov, Phillip A. Arkin, 
     Raymond A. Assel, John Austin, A. Barnston, J. Bates, T. 
     Bates, Tim Boyer, A. Broccoli, H. Brooks, Kirk Bryan, Earle 
     N. Buckley, James L. Buizer, J.H. Butler, Muthuvel Chelliah, 
     Thomas J. Conway, W. Cooke, M. Crowne.
       J.S. Daniel, Margaret Davidson, Thomas L. Delworth, H.F. 
     Diaz, Keith Dixon, Ed Dlugokencky, B. Douglas, David 
     Easterling, James W. Elkins, William P. Elliott, R.E. 
     Eskridge, J. Everett, David W. Fahey, James Fahn, Lisa 
     Farrow, Richard Feely, Fred Fehsenfeld, Josh Foster, Melissa 
     Free, Dian J. Gallen (Seidel), K. Gallo, Hernan Garcia.
       Byron Gleason, S.M. Griffies, Pavel Groissman, A. Gruber, 
     Richard Gudgel, G. Gutman, Y. Hayashi, J. Hayes, J. Haywood, 
     Isaac Held, Masao Kanamitsu, Sally Kane, Thomas Karl, George 
     Kiladis, Richard W. Knight, Thoms Knutson, Chris Landsea, 
     John Lanzante, E. LaRoe, Ngar-Cheung Lau.
       R. Lawford, Jay Lawrimore, Ruby Leung, David Levinson, 
     Sydney Levitus, Clement Lewsey, C. Liu, Robert E. Livezey, S. 
     Manabe, Martin Manning, Ken Masarie, Michael McPhaden, James 
     H. McVey, J. Meehan, Richard Methot, Richard B. Mieremet, 
     John B. Miller, Robert Molinari, Stephen A. Montzka, David 
     Mountain.
       D. Murphy, Claudia Nierenberg, J. Norris, Paul C. Novelli, 
     George Ohring, J. Overpeck, T. Owen, Tsung-Hung Peng, Thomas 
     Peterson, Stephen R. Piotrowicz, Roger Pulwarty, R. Quayle, 
     Frank H. Quinn, Patricia Quinn, Venkatachalam Ramaswamy, 
     George Reid, R.W. Reynolds, Sergei Rodionov, C.F. Ropelewski, 
     Anthony Rosati.
       Karen Rosenlof, R. Ross, Christopher Sabine, Russ Schnell, 
     M.D. Schwartzkopf, Dan Schwarzkopf, Kenneth Sherman, Caitlin 
     Simpson, Susuaon Solomon, D.J. Stensrud, William Stern, Macol 
     Stewart, R. Stewart, Ronald J. Stouffer, Tonna-Marie Surgeon, 
     Pieter P. Tans, Juli M. Trtanj, Russell Vose, Rik Wanninkhof, 
     Richard T. Wetherald, Stan Wilson, M. Winton, Scott D. 
     Woodruff, David Wuertz, Bruce L. Wyman, P. Xie, T. Yamada.

  Ms. SNOWE. The IPCC's key findings were agreed to unanimously by more 
than 130 governments, including those of the United States, China, 
India, and the European Union, and now are forming the basis for 
international policy. For the first time since its first assessment in 
1990--and I repeat, 1990--the IPCC concluded that there is at least a 
90-percent chance that manmade activities, through the burning of 
fossil fuels, are the major cause of global warming.
  Now, if we were told in any sphere that we had at least a 90-percent 
chance of diverting a disaster through changes we ourselves could make,

[[Page 11128]]

would we not take action? Is the IPCC finding not a compelling reason 
to assume reasonable steps when climate change is occurring, even 
beyond the projections that were outlined just decades ago?
  So here on these charts we have some illustrations of just what the 
science is referring to: Arctic sea ice from NASA's images taken in 
1979, 2005, and again in 2007 displaying the increase in the melting of 
the polar ice in September when the sea ice is usually at a minimum 
each year. So you can see the differences. In 1979, when we can see the 
sea ice, we can see the masses of the sea ice, and then, of course, you 
look progressively and see what has happened in 2005 and 2007 and you 
see the demonstrative difference and discrepancies of what is happening 
with the melting process just since 1979.
  When you look at the amount of sea ice noted in September, it looked 
like this massive amount in 1979; and here we are progressively to 
2007: Obviously, we have a serious problem that the global community 
needs to recognize and we need to address. That is why we cannot 
forfeit our leadership in this process. It is quite obvious that more 
of the sea ice has melted than ever before. When you look at the 2007 
picture, it obviously indicates how alarmingly the sea ice has 
diminished, even opening the Northwest Passage. This is some of what 
the U.S. Department of the Interior looked at when listing the polar 
bear as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, as its habitat is 
literally melting away.
  The May 29 U.S. Climate Change Science Program called ``The 
Scientific Assessment of the Effects of Global Change in the United 
States'' stated that the 2007 Arctic sea ices were 23 percent below the 
previous all-time minimum observed in 2005. I will repeat that because 
that is significant. By our own report that was issued just last week 
saying that Arctic sea ices were 23 percent below the previous all-time 
minimum observed in 2005, in just 2 years we see a decline of more than 
23 percent. Some models suggest that the Arctic Ocean is likely to be 
free of summer ice as soon as 2040.
  Closer to home, the report stated that the energy sector will be 
subject to the effects of climate change through direct impacts from 
increased intensity of extreme weather events. Increasingly, global 
temperatures, rising sea levels, and changing weather patterns will 
pose significant challenges to the Nation's roads, airports, railways, 
transit systems, and ports. What we are talking about is our energy and 
transportation network that is vital not only to the entire U.S. 
economy but to our quality of life.
  The new facts just keep on coming. Just last month a study was 
published in the Journal of Science called ``Expanding Oxygen Minimum 
Zones in the Tropical Ocean,'' warning that marine zones where fish and 
other sea life can suffocate from lack of oxygen are spreading across 
the world's tropical oceans. Scientists warn that if global 
temperatures keep rising, there could be dramatic consequences for 
marine life and for humans and communities that depend on the sea for a 
living.
  So let's move beyond the question of should we act, as many of our 
own States have chosen to do. Maine, California, Hawaii, Minnesota, New 
Jersey, Oregon, and Washington have all had mandatory climate laws on 
the books that mandate limits on greenhouse gas emissions. At least 23 
States have joined one of the three regional partnerships that will 
require greenhouse gas and just carbon dioxide emission reductions.
  Set to take effect in 2009, the Northeast Regional Greenhouse Gas 
Initiative, known as RGGI, is a partnership of 10 Northeast and Mid-
Atlantic States, including my own State of Maine, that creates a cap-
and-trade system to limit carbon dioxide emissions from powerplants. 
Yet while the States have moved out on the vanguard as their citizens 
have demanded, Congress has delayed, hiding behind the red herring of 
arguments of scientific uncertainty rather than considering the truth 
that peer-reviewed science has revealed.
  The legislation before us has been crafted to respect the courageous 
initiative of these States while recognizing that a patchwork of State-
to-State regulation is a serious impediment for U.S. businesses and 
industry. It does not preempt existing State policy or State authority 
to limit or to avoid greenhouse gas emissions but, rather, authorizes 
transition funds to assist the Northeast Regional Greenhouse Gas 
Initiative partners, for instance, in meshing with the new Federal 
program if they so choose.
  We have worked to make additional improvements to the bill that was 
passed out of the Senate Environment Committee to garner the breadth of 
support necessary to get this bill passed. But I think it is 
illustrative of the States' leadership that 23 States have already been 
willing to take action, to be progressive, to understand the dimensions 
of this problem, and that they are willing to accept the challenges and 
also the costs of being able to move forward independently and 
separately because the Federal Government has failed to take action; 
that the Congress has failed to take action for so long that 23 States 
across this country have been prepared to do it.
  So this legislation recognizes that. That is why it is important to 
give the certainty of a Federal standard so that businesses can operate 
knowing what regulations will be in play. In fact, businesses have 
joined together with environmental organizations to reach an agreement, 
understanding that it is in the national interest to work in concert 
and to understand as they prepare to make the investments for 40 and 50 
years beyond. That is the point of having a national standard. That the 
States have been prepared to assume that leadership irrespective of the 
failure of the Congress to address it certainly illustrates their 
willingness and their courage to move forward on this critical issue.
  For those who have expressed concerns about the impact to the Federal 
budget, this new substitute is now deficit neutral, according to a June 
2 CBO report. I ask unanimous consent to have this CBO report printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

                             (June 2, 2008)

     Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2008.--A substitute 
         amendment for S. 3036 transmitted to CBO on June 2, 2008
       Background: S. 3036 would set an annual limit or cap on the 
     volume of certain greenhouse gases (GHGs) emitted from 
     electricity-generating facilities and from other activities 
     involving industrial production and transportation. Under 
     this legislation, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
     would establish three separate regulatory initiatives known 
     as cap-and-trade programs--one covering most types of GHGs, 
     one covering hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), and a third program 
     to cover the carbon emissions embodied in imported goods.
       EPA would establish a quantity of allowances for each of 
     calendar years 2012 through 2050 and would auction some of 
     those allowances. The proceeds would be used to finance 
     various initiatives, such as developing renewable 
     technologies, assisting in the education and training of 
     workers, and providing energy assistance for low-income 
     households. EPA would distribute the remaining allowances at 
     no charge, to states and other recipients, which could then 
     sell, retire, or use them, or give them away. Over the 40 
     years that the proposed cap-and-trade programs would be in 
     effect, the number of allowances and emissions of the 
     relevant gases would be reduced each year.
       Funds from the auction of allowances are considered to be 
     federal revenues and the spending of the auction proceeds to 
     be federal outlays. In addition, because the government would 
     be essential to the existence of the allowances and 
     responsible for the readily realizable monetary value of them 
     through its enforcement of the cap on emissions, and because 
     the market for non-HFC allowances would be relatively liquid, 
     CBO considers the distribution of those allowances at no 
     charge to be functionally equivalent to distributing cash.
       Finally, because the receipts from selling or giving 
     allowances away would effectively be an indirect business 
     charge that reduces the federal tax base for income and 
     payroll taxes, in most cases, CBO adjusted a portion of the 
     gross gain to the federal government from auctioning and 
     giving away allowances to account for reductions in other 
     federal revenues; we assume that tax offset totals 25 
     percent--an approximate marginal tax rate on overall economic 
     activity.

[[Page 11129]]

       CBO's cost estimate for S. 2191 (the Lieberman-Warner 
     Climate Security Act of 2007), as ordered reported by the 
     Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works on December 
     5, 2007, includes a detailed discussion of how the budgetary 
     treatment of the cap-and-trade program, including a 
     discussion of how tax offsets are applied to the revenues 
     generated by allowances auctioned and given away. It also 
     describes the methodology that CBO uses for analyzing this 
     type of legislation. That estimate was provided to the 
     Congress on April 10, 2008.
       Estimated cost of the amendment: CBO estimates that 
     enacting the amendment would increase revenues by about $902 
     billion over the 2009-2018 period, net of income and payroll 
     tax offsets. That estimate excludes revenues from the sale of 
     international reserve allowances for imported goods because 
     CBO has not had sufficient time to analyze the impact of such 
     allowances and to assess either the number or value of those 
     allowances that would be auctioned. Over the next 10 years, 
     we estimate that direct spending would total about $836 
     billion. That figure also excludes any spending of proceeds 
     from the auction of international reserve allowances for 
     imported goods because the spending of any such receipts 
     would be subject to future appropriation acts. The additional 
     revenues from enacting this legislation would exceed the new 
     direct spending by an estimated $66 billion, thus decreasing 
     future deficits (or increasing surpluses) by that amount over 
     the next 10 years (see table below).
       CBO has not completed its estimate of spending that would 
     be subject to future appropriation action. Therefore, this 
     estimate does not address such spending. In years after 2018, 
     net revenues attributable to the legislation would exceed 
     annual direct spending through 2050.
       Intergovernmental and Private-sector Mandates: The 
     amendment would impose private-sector mandates, as defined in 
     the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), with costs that 
     substantially exceed the annual threshold established in UMRA 
     for private-sector mandates ($136 million in 2008, adjusted 
     annually for inflation). The most costly mandates would 
     require certain private-sector entities to participate in the 
     cap-and-trade programs for greenhouse gas emissions created 
     by the bill.
       CBO estimates that the cost of complying with those 
     mandates would total tens of billions of dollars annually.

                ESTIMATED IMPACT ON REVENUES AND DIRECT SPENDING OF A SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT TO S. 3036, TRANSMITTED TO CBO ON JUNE 2, 2008
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             By fiscal year, in billions of dollars--
                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            2009     2010     2011     2012     2013     2014     2015     2016     2017     2018   2009-2013  2009-2018
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  CHANGES IN REVENUES a
 
Proceeds from Auctioning Allowances:
    Allocated for Government Activities.      0.7      0.7      0.8     17.8     18.2     19.3     20.3     21.3     22.3     26.0      38.1      147.3
    Allocated for Spending Subject to         0.5      0.5      0.6     11.0     11.7     12.3     13.9     15.1     16.1     18.1      24.3       99.9
     Appropriation......................
    Free Allocation of Allowances.......        0        0     19.6     83.1     84.4     83.6     88.4     93.9     98.8    102.3     187.1      654.1
    Other Revenues......................        0        *        *        *        *        *        *      0.1      0.1      0.1       0.1        0.3
        Total Estimated Revenues........      1.2      1.3     21.0    111.8    114.3    115.2    122.6    130.4    137.3    146.5     249.6      901.6
 
                                                               CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING
 
Spending from Auction Proceeds:
    Estimated Budget Authority..........      0.9      1.0      1.0     23.7     24.3     25.8     27.0     28.4     29.7     34.6      50.8      196.4
    Estimated Outlays...................        0      0.2      0.5      5.6     11.3     16.4     21.3     24.8     26.7     28.5      17.5      135.2
Spending from Freely Allocated Emission
 Allowances:
    Estimated Budget Authority..........        0        0     19.6     88.5     90.2     89.7     94.8    100.9    106.2    110.1     198.3      700.0
    Estimated Outlays...................        0        0     19.6     88.5     90.2     89.7     94.8    100.9    106.2    110.1     198.3      700.0
TVA and Other Spending:
    Estimated Budget Authority..........        0        *        *        *        *        *      0.1      0.1      0.3      0.5         *        1.0
    Estimated Outlays...................        0        *        *        *        *        *      0.1      0.1      0.3      0.5         *        1.0
Total Changes:
    Estimated Budget Authority..........      0.9      1.0     20.7    112.2    114.4    115.5    122.0    129.3    136.1    145.2     249.1      897.3
    Estimated Outlays...................      0.1      0.2     20.1     94.1    101.4    106.1    116.2    125.7    133.1    139.1     215.8      836.1
 
                                NET CHANGE IN THE BUDGET DEFICIT OR SURPLUS FROM CHANGES IN REVENUES AND DIRECT SPENDING
 
Impact on Deficit/Surplus b.............      1.2      1.1      0.9     17.8     12.9      9.2      6.3      4.7      4.2      7.4      33.8       65.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: * = less than $50 million; TVA = Tennessee Valley Authority.
Components may not sum to totals because of rounding.
The bill would affect spending subject to appropriation, but CBO has not yet completed its estimate of such spending.
a Revenue estimate does not include proceeds from the sale of international reserve allowances for imported goods.
b Positive numbers indicate decreases in deficits (or increases in surpluses); negative numbers indicate increases in deficits (or decreases in
  surpluses).

       The amendment also contains several intergovernmental 
     mandates as defined in UMRA. CBO estimates that, during the 
     first five years following enactment, states would realize a 
     net benefit as a result of this bill's enactment (resulting 
     from the allowances they would receive). Therefore, the 
     annual threshold for intergovernmental mandate costs 
     established in UMRA ($68 million in 2008, adjusted annually 
     for inflation) would not be exceeded.
       Previous CBO estimates: On April 10, 2008, CBO transmitted 
     a cost estimate for a substitute amendment to S. 2191, the 
     Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2007, as ordered 
     reported by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public 
     Works on December 5, 2007. That substitute amendment to S. 
     2191 was introduced as S. 3036, the Lieberman-Warner Climate 
     Security Act of 2008, on May 20, 2008. CBO has estimated the 
     budgetary impact of those versions of this legislation as 
     follows:
       S. 2191, as ordered reported by the Senate Environment and 
     Public Works Committee on December 5, 2007, would increase 
     deficits (or decrease surpluses) by $15 billion over the 
     2008-2017 period; and
       An amendment to S. 2191 that was introduced as S. 3036 on 
     May 20, 2008, would reduce deficits (or increase surpluses) 
     by $78 billion over the 2008-2017 period.
       Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Susanne S. Mehlman. 
     Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Neil Hood. 
     Impact on the Private Sector: Amy Petz.
       Estimate approved by: Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant 
     Director for Budget Analysis.

  Ms. SNOWE. At the same time, the bill also allows us to respond to 
the complex issues of curbing greenhouse gas emissions while squarely 
confronting the argument that reducing carbon dioxide emissions will 
damage our economy. To the contrary, funds generated for the Federal 
Government from this auction of carbon emission allowances that are 
established under this legislation can be held, purchased, or sold in 
the program's first 18 years so that it can generate $1 trillion for 
clean technology, in worker training and retraining programs.
  Moreover, the bill provides funding to help industry meet the new 
emissions targets not just in the short term but all the way through 
2050. So it has a long-term view and also accepts the long-term 
responsibilities and obligations that accompany this legislation. It 
also encourages low and zero carbon technologies that would change as 
the technologies are developed and come on line by placing a cost on 
greenhouse gas emissions. But it also offers the private sector the 
certainty they require with respect to the laws they must comply with 
well into the future before they invest in low and zero carbon 
technologies. That is important so that businesses not only understand 
the standards that will be established for the next 40 to 50 years; it 
also is logical for them in terms of making their decisions, their 
financial investments, and understanding what the long term will 
prescribe.
  In addition, this bill provides a range of funding incentives from 
manufacturers of high efficiency consumer products, manufacturers with 
zero and low carbon generation technology, advanced coal technology, 
fuel from cellulosic biofuels, electric vehicles, hybrid or plug-in 
electric cars, fuel-cell-powered cars, and advanced diesel--all areas 
of potential future economic growth that should put America well on its 
way toward developing the alternative technologies that are so 
essential to making us independent of fossil fuels.

[[Page 11130]]

  The substitute legislation to the Climate Security Act also adds $800 
billion through 2050 for a tax relief package to help consumers with 
energy costs that will be developed by the Senate Finance Committee. It 
also will provide $250 billion in funding through 2050 from auction 
revenues for States to assist them in protecting against possible 
future effects of climate change such as storm surges and rising sea 
levels in coastal States. In addition, $566 billion will be provided 
through 2050 for States that take action to reduce greenhouse gas 
emissions and that the funding can be used for specific State purposes 
such as the LIHEAP program and energy efficiency programs as well.
  I am also pleased that the Climate Security Act has included language 
from a bill that Senator Klobuchar and I introduced establishing a 
robust tracking system to inventory greenhouse gas emissions from 
significant sources across this country. This was a critical first step 
that the European Union did not have in place when instituting their 
emissions training system, and as a result of this lack of accurate 
data, they gave away too many allowances to industry that could be 
traded, and the carbon market bottomed out.
  The substitute further includes strong market oversight provisions 
from legislation that Senator Feinstein and I introduced to ensure 
price transparency and prevent market manipulation and other abusive 
practices when carbon emission allowances are sold in the carbon market 
created by this legislation.
  This bill is not perfect, but in fact it does go hand in hand with 
robust economic growth. The science of the matter tells us that 
business as usual certainly is not an option. Adhering to the status 
quo will continue current U.S. job losses to other countries that must 
be brought under the same umbrella for greenhouse gas reductions as we 
are attempting to do with this legislation through international 
mechanisms and partnerships. There should be no reason for good U.S. 
jobs to move overseas and be lost to those countries with no checks on 
their lax environmental laws.
  The only other alternative which some of my colleagues and economists 
have called for is a carbon tax. Yet those in favor of a carbon tax and 
not a free market cap-and-trade system cannot guarantee that a tax will 
achieve the necessary environmental protection. If a tax is set too 
low, companies will simply pay the tax without reducing emissions. If a 
tax is set too high, unnecessary costs will be imposed upon businesses 
and consumers, especially on low-income Americans. A flexible but 
mandatory cap and trade allows market forces to find the lowest cost 
solutions for the desired level of environmental protection.
  Additionally, according to the Government's own Energy Information 
Agency, under this legislation the U.S. gross domestic product will 
continue to grow. In 2003, the EIA finds that the GDP would be just 3 
percent lower than under a ``business as usual'' scenario.
  At the same time, the largest proportion of revenues--hundreds of 
billions of dollars that this legislation will generate through the 
transaction of carbon credits--will be designated to develop and deploy 
technologies to transform existing energy sectors and to create 
entirely new green industries such as solar, wind, renewable 
industries, cellulosic biofuels, hybrid, plug-in cars, as I mentioned 
previously, as well as high-paying jobs and to wean us off carbon 
dioxide-polluting fossil fuels.
  As we look to the future, we must also be reminded that reducing our 
carbon emissions means reducing our use of oil. When we spend more than 
$500 billion purchasing imported oil, helping to finance the radical 
ambitions of radical leaders, do we really want to say we are unable to 
summon the innovative can-do spirit on which this country was built to 
break our dependence on fossil fuel and foreign oil? This legislation 
is a monumental step forward in severing that bond and advancing our 
energy security and our national security, and we must not wait a 
moment longer.
  Mr. President, I would prefer that the Substitute bill contain 
measures to update the means by which the U.S. prioritizes its 
scientific research . . . reports this research to stakeholders and 
Congress to assist in decisionmaking . . . and transmits this 
information to planners who must establish mitigation and adaptation 
plans at local, state, and regional levels. The Global Change Research 
Improvement Act I have introduced with Senator Kerry that has already 
passed out of the Commerce Committee addresses this issue and should be 
considered in the context of this bill.
  Moreover, Senator Kerry and I have an amendment requiring the 
National Academy of Sciences to advise Congress to act if future 
scientific research demonstrates that changes must be considered to 
meet percentage emissions reductions goals.
  Ultimately, however, there should be no misunderstanding--
thissubstitute bill represents the defining opportunity of this 110th 
Congress for reversing the unmitigated damage that climate change 
continues to cause, and to assist every State in its ability to adapt. 
And if the UnitedStates is to meet its commitments made under the Bali 
Roadmap to reach an international agreement among all countries for 
greenhouse gas emissions reductions for common but differentiated 
obligations by December of 2009, we should also say ``yes'' to the 
amendment Senator Biden will offer to set us on the right course for 
this process. This week and next, over 2,000 U.N. delegates from around 
the world are meeting in Bonn, Germany, to take the next steps forward 
for the Bali Roadmap--and what we do right here and right now is 
enormously critical in their planning for moving forward.
  Let us not allow this opportunity to slip out of our grasp--the world 
is watching and waiting to see what the world's richest country--and 
its biggest emitter--has the fortitude to do.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I am going to just take a second on the 
rebuttal time, and then I am going to go ahead and yield to the Senator 
from New Hampshire. But my distinguished colleague, the junior Senator 
from California, several times talked about tax relief. I think it is 
time that we take this out, look at it, and put this issue to sleep.
  At a press conference on June 2, the distinguished Senator said:

       Today is the day to say yes to clean energy, yes to green 
     jobs, yes to science, yes to energy independence, yes to tax 
     relief.

  Later on in the same news conference:

       We also have in this bill a very large piece, almost $1 
     trillion of tax relief so that when we do see some energy 
     increases in energy costs in the early years, electricity, 
     for example, we can offset that.

  In other words, send that back to those people as tax relief.
  This bill has one of the largest tax cuts we have seen around this 
place in a long time. What does the bill say about this? It says the 
tax relief in the bill is a nonbinding sense of the Senate that says 
some funds ``should be'' used to protect consumers from the coming 
``increases in energy and other costs.'' Here is the quote:

       It is the sense of the Senate that funds deposited in the 
     Climate Change Consumer Assistance Fund under section 583 
     should be used to fund a tax initiative to protect consumers, 
     especially consumers in greatest need, from increases in 
     energy and other costs.

  Now, I only say here that this does not direct any money to be paid. 
It doesn't authorize any money to be paid. Besides, if it did, it would 
have to go to the Finance Committee. So there is no tax relief in the 
bill.
  I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from New Hampshire.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Pryor). Is the Senator from New Hampshire 
taking the time of the Senator from Tennessee?
  Mr. INHOFE. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for his 
courtesy in finding a spot for me to speak.

[[Page 11131]]

  This is obviously a bill of immense proportions and implications for 
us as a nation, for our economy, for consumers, for our place in the 
world, and for how we deal with the passing on of the quality of life 
that we have to our children so they can live in an environment that 
will sustain them and be sure that we do not overly pollute our world 
or atmosphere.
  I think the Senator from California needs to be congratulated for 
moving the initiative forward. It is my opinion that this is a debate 
that needs to be pursued aggressively. I respect all the different 
parties' views on this. There has been an excellent discussion of how 
to proceed in this area.
  In the past, I have strongly supported initiatives that are similar 
to this effort, in the sense that they tried to reduce the amount of 
pollutants we put into our atmosphere through a variety of different 
means. The Lieberman-McCain bill and the Carper-Alexander bill, both of 
which I have supported, had attempted to do this also.
  This bill, however, is much more comprehensive, much more extensive, 
and the implications are far greater to our economy and to our quality 
of life in the United States.
  It is safe to say that were this bill to become law in its present 
form, it would impact our future as much as anything that we could do--
after addressing the issue of defeating global terrorism as they 
attempt to try to destroy our culture--and making sure we are fiscally 
solvent as a result of the cost of programs we already have on the 
books, such as entitlements. So it is a tremendous issue and deserves 
serious and thoughtful consideration, which it is getting so far in 
this debate.
  I respect both sides of the argument. I find myself, on this issue, 
in a variety of different camps because I am attracted to parts of the 
bill, and I find parts of the bill to be very difficult. I am not going 
to get into all the different elements. I am concerned about the effect 
on our competitiveness internationally. I am concerned that if we put 
limitations on our economy in place, economies such as India and China, 
which will not be subject to these limitations, will simply pursue 
courses that will end up polluting at a rate that overwhelms whatever 
we save and that, as a practical matter, we may significantly undermine 
our competitiveness.
  I am concerned about how this cap-and-trade issue is going to work. I 
am concerned that NOX and carbon are not addressed. I am 
concerned that we are looking at an issue of how the science is not up 
to speed with the requirements being put on the industries that must 
reduce their pollution, or NOX itself. There is a legitimate 
question of whether we are putting the cart before the horse relative 
to the science of the capacity to deliver these savings. For example, 
in the area of savings and the reduction of pollutants, I believe 
strongly that we need to pursue a much more aggressive policy in the 
area of nuclear. But the question of whether we can bring on line the 
nuclear generating capacity necessary to meet the requirements of this 
bill is very much an issue and very much in doubt, simply because of 
our permitting procedure in this country, coupled with the fact that 
the industrial complex in this country doesn't have the capacity to 
produce the nuclear plants in the timeframe necessary in order to 
comply with what would be the reduction necessary in this bill. Those 
are some of my concerns.
  Again, I come back to the fact that I think the concept of cap and 
trade, as proposed in the bill, is a path we need to seriously consider 
going down. However, on a parallel path, I have a very severe concern, 
serious concern, and that is that this bill, under its present 
structure, is going to generate value of approximately $6.7 trillion 
over its life. Over the next 10 years, it is estimated that the sale of 
these allowances will approximately be a billion dollars. Most of this 
will come into the Federal Treasury--not all of it--and then under this 
bill it gets spent, for the most part. There is $800 million set aside, 
theoretically, but it is done by a sense of the Senate, as was noted. 
The vast majority of the money gets spent by creating new programmatic 
activity and expanding the size of the Federal Government.
  Now, this $6.7 trillion is costs that will be passed on to the 
American consumer in the form of increased electrical bills. I think 
the American consumer is willing to pay a higher price for electricity 
if they feel they are significantly and positively impacting the 
reduction of the emission of greenhouse gases that are affecting our 
climate. I am willing to vote for putting that type of cost into place. 
But what I am not willing to vote for is taking that money and using it 
to radically expand the size of the Federal Government.
  If you look at the proposals in the bill, it essentially becomes the 
most massive exercise at earmarking we have ever seen. It dwarfs the 
farm bill, which is hard to do, when it comes to earmarks. As a very 
practical matter, that is not fair to working Americans. Working 
Americans, under this bill, are going to be hit with a new consumption 
tax. That is what this bill does. It creates a massive new consumption 
tax, called allowances, which get sold, but the price of paying for 
those allowances will go back into the rate base and will raise the 
cost of electricity and will be a consumption tax.
  Americans, working at their jobs and trying to make ends meet, trying 
to take care of their families, are going to see their energy bills go 
up because they will get hit with this new consumption tax. I believe 
very fervently that if we are going to go down this road of creating 
this massive new consumption tax, the purpose of which is to promote 
the reduction of greenhouse gases, which will reduce our negative 
impact on the global climate, we need, at the same time, to reduce for 
working Americans the burden of their taxation in other places. This 
should be a one-for-one trade, very simply. If we are going to say to 
working Americans that we are going to increase your consumption tax by 
$6.7 trillion, or if you take out the money that is under here and 
represented as a sense-of-the-Senate tax reduction, it will be around 
$4-plus trillion--if you are going to have that type of major tax 
impact and essentially shift the economy to a national consumption 
tax--and many States have those consumption taxes, but there is no 
national one. If you are to shift to a national consumption tax, then 
you need to take those dollars and reduce the burden on working 
Americans, one for one, so you mitigate the impact on their quality of 
life, on their ability to be productive citizens, and on their ability 
to pursue a lifestyle they can afford.
  There are a variety of ways to do this. You can reduce income taxes. 
You can take the consumption tax, which is going to flow into the 
Treasury, and move it to the reduction of income tax rates or you can 
take the consumption tax, which is going to fall under the Federal 
Treasury through these allowances, and you can use it to reduce the 
FICA tax, the Social Security tax, which is an across-the-board tax 
that all Americans pay or you can take the consumption tax, which is 
going to be generated by this bill, and you can use it under some sort 
of rebate proposal such as that which has been proposed by the Senator 
from Tennessee, where people making less than $150,000 would get a 
rebate reflecting the amount of money coming into the Treasury under 
the allowances.
  Have I used 10 minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for another 5 
minutes.
  Mrs. BOXER. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. GREGG. Then, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 more 
minutes.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I will yield my good friend a minute or 
two off my time. Several Senators, including myself, are waiting to 
talk. I yield him 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 2 more minutes.
  Mr. GREGG. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. President, what we should not do with this major new consumption 
tax is use it to expand the size of the Federal Government, to put in 
place a series of initiatives that are essentially

[[Page 11132]]

being used for the purpose of building constituencies that will support 
this bill. That is the way legislation passes here, but it is wrong--
wrong when we did it in agriculture and especially wrong when we do it 
in the energy production area.
  American consumers should not be hit with this tax and have no tax 
cut or rebate coming to them on the other side of the ledger to try to 
mitigate the impact of this consumption tax.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I know there is rebuttal time now. I 
intend only to speak for a short period of time.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I was going to answer the Senator's 
questions.
  Mrs. BOXER. I will yield 3 minutes of the rebuttal time to Senator 
Warner.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I was interested in the comments the 
Senator made. What the Senator has described--tomorrow, I will have a 
better pie chart for colleagues to look at. The money that comes in 
through the bill is to be distributed primarily to companies, entities 
developing new technology as to how to solve the very question the 
Senator raises; namely, will technology be available for the 
sequestration? So it is not as if it is going to be distributed similar 
to leaflets and dropped all over. This money is going for the purpose 
of trying to improve America's sources of energy.
  Mr. GREGG. According to the earmark list I have, $191 billion goes to 
worker training, $171 billion goes to mass transit projects, $237 
billion goes to natural resource and wildlife adaptation, $288 billion 
goes to Federal programs of natural resources, $342 billion goes to 
international climate change, $300 billion goes to agriculture and 
forestry, and $368 billion goes to reforestation. Under these numbers, 
only $136 billion out of the trillions of dollars goes to energy 
efficiency block grants, and that is for local governments.
  Mr. WARNER. I say to my good friend, give me until tomorrow. He reads 
off correctly some of the allocations, but each of them has some 
benefit to the problem of the CO2 and global climate change; 
each one is carefully thought through. So tomorrow I will be able to 
give this to you in greater detail, once we get before us the actual 
amendment or the bill that we are going to hopefully continue to debate 
with the amendment process.
  The second question the Senator asked about was the nuclear program. 
There is nothing in any of the bills that have been put into the record 
thus far, but I have the amendment here to initiate a very significant 
program to address what the distinguished Senator said is the need for 
nuclear power to begin to expand, using the current base, which, as he 
well knows, and I know, has been reduced in the last 12 to 14 years to 
where it is hardly in existence, either manufacturing or educational. 
But I have that handled.
  Lastly, I hope the Senator will spend a little time on a provision I 
have in this bill by which the President of the United States is given 
authority to at any time correct inequities or problems he thinks are 
incorrect.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 3 minutes.
  Mr. WARNER. Have I not 17 minutes also?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California has reserved 2 
minutes of her rebuttal time.
  Mr. WARNER. I can finish my 17 minutes and yield it back for the 
benefit of other colleagues because I have had my fair share talking 
about this bill.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, before my friend leaves the floor, I thank 
him for a meeting in his office where he gave me this great idea. As a 
result of that meeting, I say to Senator Gregg, we took another look at 
the bill. Half of the bill is going back to consumers. Actually, a 
third of that--there are three pies: $800 billion goes into a tax cut. 
Senator Inhofe said it is not specific. We did it as far as we could. 
We know it is a fund for tax cuts. There is $900 billion for a deficit 
reduction trust fund, and $900 billion goes into a fund so that 
utilities can help our consumers. I thank him for that contribution.
  When my friend came before the committee, I was so hopeful he would 
join with us because Senator Gregg made a beautiful statement. He said:

       States alone can't solve the problem. I believe Congress 
     must take action to limit the emissions of greenhouse gases 
     from a variety of sources.

  He talked about mandatory limits on greenhouse gases. I honestly 
thought this bill we worked on would be something my friend could 
support.
  I will say, to talk about a consumption tax, you can make up anything 
and call it what you will. There is no consumption tax in this bill. 
This bill is modeled on the acid rain bill. The acid rain bill works 
the same way--cap and trade. No one ever called that a consumption tax.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I may return to my allocation of 17 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia has 15 minutes.
  Mr. WARNER. I also say to my friend from New Hampshire, I call to his 
attention section 434, in which Congress has oversight on the use of 
these funds. Congress can change them.
  Mr. GREGG. That is what I worry about.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I recognize he has a point there.
  This situation, where I devised a provision to give the President the 
authority, in my view--in earlier days, I was in aviation. 
Unfortunately, I never fully succeeded to become an aviator. We used to 
have a stick in the old days, before all this other stuff, when we had 
tandem seats--believe it or not, I flew in those old planes--you pull 
the stick forward, pull it back, roll it. The President has the stick, 
and he can change this if this bill is wrong. But we have to get this 
train out of the station and start it rolling down the rails.
  Fifty States are trying to devise their own framework of laws now. 
That has to be a nightmare to industry and particularly the power 
companies that have to serve a multiple of States.
  We simply have to show the world this country can lead, and no one is 
a stronger leader than the Senator from New Hampshire in this body. He 
understands that.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield for a brief 
intercession.
  Mr. WARNER. Go ahead.
  Mr. GREGG. I agree. In fact, the Senator from California clearly 
states my position, which is I support initiatives in this area. I 
support mandatory initiatives in this area. What I am concerned about 
is that these allowances--which really are a consumption tax, in my 
opinion--will essentially be used to greatly expand the Government. If 
we were to take that section out of the bill and just basically take 
those dollars and give them back to the taxpayers without having this 
huge section which essentially creates huge new initiatives in all 
sorts of different areas, I think you would have a very workable bill.
  Mr. WARNER. I say to my good friend, where do we get the money to 
perfect sequestration? That troubles me the most. I do not think 
science has proven that we can actually capture the CO2, 
cost effectively transfer it, and put it safely into some type of 
repository, an old gas well.
  Mr. GREGG. If the Senator will yield further, Mr. President.
  Mr. WARNER. Yes.
  Mr. GREGG. If we are going to limit dollars spent to technology 
advancement, I guess I could be receptive to that, some percentage. But 
the vast majority of the dollars--that is not going to take that many 
dollars compared to the money we are dealing with here, $6.7 trillion. 
If you want to take some percentage of that and use it for expansion of 
technology purely on the technology side, that may make sense. This 
bill goes way beyond that. It has all sorts of initiatives in here 
which are only at the margin of the issue of technology, in my opinion. 
Where the dollars really should go is to reduce the tax burden for the 
people who are going to have the higher energy prices.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I simply say to my good friend, we have a 
difference of opinion.

[[Page 11133]]

  I will conclude my remarks. I congratulate the managers of this bill, 
the distinguished Senator from California and the distinguished Senator 
from Oklahoma. I have been here a few years. I know about managing 
bills. I have had that privilege many times. But it has been done 
fairly, equitably, and in a civil way on a highly controversial 
subject. May it remain for the balance of the time that this 
institution, I hope, votes for this bill and comes up with some 
solution to the problem. We simply cannot do nothing.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my 5-minute 
rebuttal time I would normally use be added to my statement after the 
conclusion of the remarks of the Senator from Idaho since he has time 
allocated now.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank the managers of the bill, the 
chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee for the debate 
that has gone on.
  The chairman was opining a few moments ago that the debate today had 
been focused on gas and high gas prices and that somehow her bill was 
going to push gas prices even higher. That may happen. I don't know 
that. What I do know today is that the American consumer is fed up with 
$4 gas, and anything we do that would even risk pushing gas prices 
higher ought to make the American consumer mighty unhappy.
  So I say to the chairman tonight, I am not going to talk gas prices, 
I am going to talk something different because I was convinced, based 
on my time on the Environment and Public Works Committee and having 
crafted a bill that got hearings, got a markup, and was ready to come 
to the floor when the chairman's staff took it, turned it inside out, 
and brought it back to the floor in an unheard document, I was 
convinced then gas prices were going to go up, and I think my 
colleagues this afternoon who have spoken openly in opposition to this 
bill have strongly made the case that the American consumer is going to 
pay mightily for this bill that is before us if, in fact, it becomes 
law.
  So I am a bit puzzled when I hear the title of ``Climate Security 
Act.'' I am confident that this might protect the environment, but what 
does it do for people? What does it do for the consumer who is going to 
be put through a financial wringer, not only with their home heating 
bill but continually at the gas pump, if the chairman of the 
Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Boxer, has her way?
  Why don't we call this bill the China-India Economic Stimulus Act of 
2008, because clearly those countries that are rapidly becoming the 
largest emitters of greenhouse gas are going to be allowed to run free 
in the world economy while we put the clamps on our economy. That is a 
reality we all know and to which the American consumer has already 
reacted. Fewer jobs in our country, more jobs in China--does that make 
economic sense at a time when our economy is struggling? We are just 
going to stick another hole in our economy and send those jobs to India 
or China? Or maybe we could call this the U.S. Recessions Act of 2008.
  I have said it, I believe it, I have been in this Congress 28 years, 
and I have never seen a piece of legislation to equal this one. It is 
the largest single redistribution of wealth in our country ever tried 
by the human mind through the public policy process. To me, that is 
frightening--frightening for my grandchildren and their future, 
frightening for the Idaho economy, frightening for the U.S. economy. 
And what are we going to do about it? We are going to stand here and 
say: But it saves the world. I am not going to argue that the world 
isn't worth saving because I want to spend a few more years in it, but 
I want to make darn sure the world in which I live and my children live 
is a world that is at least as good as the one we have today from the 
standpoint of the environment and from the standpoint of the economy 
and the economic opportunities that come from that economy for my 
children and my grandchildren.
  Is this micromanagement as I describe it? We just heard the Senator 
from New Hampshire begin to worry about $100 billion here, $100 billion 
there, and $100 billion over here, and the Senator from Virginia says: 
Well, we have to have some money. Yes, we do, but we are talking 
trillions of dollars. That is $6.7 trillion. And last I calculated it, 
that is a lot of money and it is going to be taken from the pockets of 
the American consumer, passed through Government, and handed out in a 
variety of ways yet to be determined by the bureaucracy.
  OK, that is all I am going to say about the economy of this bill.
  When we were marking up another bill that never made it to the floor, 
I wanted to talk about substantive efforts, such as sequestration and 
revitalizing the American landscape in a way where we truly could take 
carbon out of the atmosphere and put it into plants and put it in roots 
and put it in tree stumps and tree stems in a way that was true, vital, 
positive environmental sequestration of carbon. I was told: No, you 
couldn't do that. Oh, no, no. The chairman of the Environment and 
Public Works Committee said: No, you can't do that; we won't allow that 
kind of amendment. We are not going to have forestry in this bill. You 
bring your amendments to the floor, Senator Craig. And that was the way 
the bill was crafted.
  All of a sudden, we get to the floor, and guess what is in the bill: 
a 10-percent carbon credit for companies that invest in foreign 
forests--not U.S. forests, not the Payette National Forest in Idaho or 
the San Bernardino National Forest in California where 60 percent of it 
is dead and dying. No, we can't do that. It has to go to the Brazilian 
rain forest.
  I am not going to debate rain forest politics tonight, but I will 
tell you that if we are going to tax the American people to improve the 
forested landscape of America, then by darn we ought to invest it in 
our landscape and not in Brazil's landscape or China's landscape. But 
that is what this bill does.
  With that in mind, let me talk about forestry and forestry 
sequestration and what happens when you have a young, vital, growing 
forest across America and its ability to pull carbon down out of the 
atmosphere and store it in tree trunks, not just for a year or two or 
three but hundreds of years. It is the single greatest form of 
sequestering carbon from the environment that man ever thought about 
because Mother Nature was well ahead of the game before we came along 
and began to mess up the environment. Yet this bill does nothing about 
it.
  The reason I get a little excited about this idea is because of, in 
the year 2000, in Belgium, a climate change conference. It was the last 
year of the Clinton administration, and they were trying to give away 
our forest credits to the world to try to convince them we believed in 
Kyoto. I stayed up 24 hours straight to stop them from giving away our 
ability to use our forest to sequester carbon out of the atmosphere 
into foliage and trees. I won and they lost. Now the world has changed 
and we can measure the reality of forest sequestration and we are not 
allowed to do it in a comprehensive way? That is where we are in this 
debate.
  Fast forward with me, if you will, to where we are in the health of 
America's forests today. We have over 180 million acres of dead and 
dying forest in our country. They are no longer pulling carbon out of 
the atmosphere and bringing it down, they are doing what a tree does 
when it dies--they are releasing it back into the atmosphere.
  We have unprecedented rates of forest burn in America today that we 
haven't seen in 60 to 70 years. That is what is happening in American 
forests--last year, 9.2 million acres, 2 million of it right in my home 
State of Idaho. The beautiful, clear, blue skies of Idaho were full of 
smoke all summer. Why? Because of a forest management and policy that 
is now simply allowing that to happen and because of a forest whose 
health is in such a state of dying, decaying, bug-killed trees, our

[[Page 11134]]

great forests are now beginning to release carbon into the atmosphere 
at a higher rate.
  This year alone, you would say: Well, Senator, we are not in the 
forest fire season in the West. No, we are not. But since January 1 
through May 30, we have already burned 1.49 million acres of forested 
lands across our Nation. We have seen them burning in Florida and other 
places. What are they doing? They are releasing carbon into the 
atmosphere.
  The reason I bring this chart along tonight is because it tells the 
story of the tragedy of the American forest. See this line? This is a 
result of a history of our forests as they evolve and they grow and 
they live and they die. We went through a period in the late 1920s and 
early 1930s of climate change, where we weren't hustling around trying 
to change the world but Mother Nature was changing, and we had a dust 
bowl era and we began to learn about El Nino and La Nina and Pacific 
decibel oscillation and all the changes going on in our environment 
that created a tragedy in our forests as they grew dry. And we began to 
see phenomenal fire burns in the late 1800s through the early 1900s, up 
until about 1920, when our Forest Service decided to change policy and 
go after fires. Now, remember, fires are burning, releasing carbon into 
the atmosphere at a tonnage rate unprecedented, at least in man's 
history.
  Why did it plummet and why did forests become a sequesterer of carbon 
again instead of a releaser of carbon? Because we established a policy 
called 10 a.m. That is right, 10 a.m. in the morning. The U.S. Forest 
Service said that a fire that started the day before, we are going to 
have it out by 10 a.m. the next morning. And so we put phenomenal 
resources into putting out fires.
  After World War II, when all the young men came home who had been 
jumping out of airplanes in Europe, they became smoke jumpers and 
dropped down on small fires and put them out. And the era of the smoke 
jumper in the U.S. Forest Service was born.
  And what happened? It is right here on the chart. Forest fires 
plummeted, down to a period in 1945 on--1950s, 1960s--in which we 
simply weren't burning. We were putting out fires. And our forests 
became a net sequesterer of carbon.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, could I ask my friend to allow me to take 
the floor for a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. CRAIG. I would be happy to yield to the leader.
  Mr. REID. I apologize because you were really getting wound up.
  Mr. CRAIG. I will not lose my momentum. I will keep it right here, 
Mr. Leader.
  Mr. REID. We have been trying to get this done, and I have just 
spoken to the Republican leader. I have spoken to Chairman Judd Gregg 
and Chairman Kent Conrad, so we are ready to do a unanimous consent 
request regarding the budget.


               Unanimous Consent Request--S. Con. Res. 70

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the previous 
order with respect to the conference report to accompany S. Con. Res. 
70 be modified to provide that the Senate may utilize the available 
debate time, notwithstanding the absence of the official papers on the 
conference report filed in the House on May 20, 2008, and printed in 
the Congressional Record beginning on page 9997, and the Senate being 
in possession of the Senate official copy of the conference report; and 
that the Senate proceed to utilize the debate time on Wednesday, June 
4--that is tomorrow--at 11:30 a.m., following a period of morning 
business, and upon the use of the time specified in the previous order, 
the Senate proceed to vote on adoption of the conference report at 
11:45 a.m.; provided further that if the Senate fails to receive a 
message that the House has adopted the conference report by Tuesday, 
June 17, the Senate adoption of the conference report be vitiated; 
further, that if the vote is vitiated, then the previous order modified 
by this request remain in effect.
  Further, Mr. President, I will say that we will firmly adhere to the 
11:30 a.m. tomorrow morning, and 11:45 a.m., no matter what happens in 
morning business or extensions of time.
  I ask unanimous consent that this be approved. As I have said, I have 
just spoken to the majority leader and Mr. Schiappa, and this has all 
been cleared.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. I said the majority leader, but I meant the Republican 
leader, although I do talk to myself on occasion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, while the Senate majority leader is still 
on the floor, I want to talk about a fire that happened in his State 
just a few years ago because I was directly involved with that Senator 
in recognizing the dead and dying conditions of the Tahoe Basin in both 
Nevada and California. He came to the committee--the committee that I 
chaired at the time--and said: We have to fix this problem; a lot of 
people live in that area. And we did. We sent money out to the U.S. 
Forest Service to get in and change the character of that dead and 
dying forest. But the courts and the environmental groups would not 
allow it to happen. Lawsuit after lawsuit stopped it. And a year ago, 
the Tahoe Basin burned--3,100 acres, 250 homes, and what is more 
important, or as important, 140,000 tons of carbon released into the 
atmosphere.
  Do you know the second largest releaser of carbon into the 
atmosphere, after coal-fired utilities? Forest fires. The second 
largest releaser of carbon into the atmosphere. Yet this bill does 
nothing about it except give money to Brazil to save the rain forest 
because it is a popular environmental issue. That is what this bill is 
about, the politics of the environment, not the reality of the 
circumstance in which we all live, in which the Senator from California 
nearly saw the entire San Bernardino forest wiped out and a Governor of 
her State who had to declare a state of emergency and go in and try to 
stop it from burning.
  So if you are going to create a new world, a greener world, a cleaner 
world, one that has less carbon in it, you have to have a forest 
policy--a forest policy--that begins to revitalize our forests, to thin 
them, to clean them, to change the kind of ecosystem in them that 
doesn't tolerate 180 million acres of dead and dying trees that will 
release hundreds of millions of tons of carbon into the environment.
  So what do we do? Six tons of CO2 is released every time 
an acre burns. Six tons. Up to 100 tons of CO2 can be 
released per acre, depending on the number of trees within that 
acreage--300, 400, 500. So that is a reality. Last year, in the 9.2 to 
9.4 million acres that burned, we released the carbon equivalent 
emissions of 12 million passenger automobiles running for 1 year, or 
the entire passenger automobile fleet of the State of California, or 
somewhere close to that. Yet this bill doesn't address forestry? It 
doesn't address forest health? It doesn't address the kinds of things 
that we ought to be doing in an active management system to revitalize 
our forests? No, it doesn't. It is not environmentally popular to do. 
Environmentalists have spent the last 20 years shutting down our 
forests.
  So tomorrow I will bring a comprehensive amendment to the floor to 
attempt to add to this bill, to get us back into the business of forest 
management, healthy forests, revitalizing our forests, and, hopefully, 
over time changing the ecosystem of our forests in a way that we don't 
burn 10 million acres a year and release hundreds of thousands of tons 
of carbon into the atmosphere. And this can be done at very little 
cost. You don't have to have a cap-and-trade scheme that pours 
trillions of dollars into it.
  That is what we will talk about tomorrow. Gas is today. Let's talk 
about trees tomorrow, one of the greatest storers of carbon, one of the 
greatest sequesterers of carbon in the world today.
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I will just take a couple of minutes of 
rebuttal time. Of course, one of the purposes of our bill, in fighting 
global warming, is to save our environment. That is the whole point of 
the bill, and part of our precious environment certainly includes our 
forests. We actually do have

[[Page 11135]]

a forest title in the bill. So I am looking forward to seeing my 
friend's amendment. I hope it works well with our bill.
  We know, as the climate warms, our trees are now open to all kinds of 
pests that didn't really thrive in a cooler climate. If you look, for 
example, in Alaska--and, of course, we have this in California too--the 
bark beetle is thriving now because of warmer temperatures. So I 
certainly look forward to working with my friend on forests.
  I am looking at the Presiding Officer sitting there now, and he and I 
are working on saving the rain forest. And I say to Senator Craig, he 
is absolutely right about the forests being a carbon sink, and that is 
why Senator Pryor and others are working very hard to save the rain 
forest. This is all part of what we do in this bill. So it is a little 
shocking for me to hear a colleague stand and say this bill doesn't do 
anything about forests, when the main purpose of this bill is to 
preserve and protect God's planet, and that includes our beautiful 
forests.
  The Senator is right. I have been to those fires as they were raging 
and I have talked to those people and we have to do everything we can 
to be smart about protecting our lands.
  I also want to address Senator Craig's point about India and China. 
He jokingly, I guess, said you should call it--I think he said the 
China-India----
  Mr. CRAIG. Economic Stimulus Act.
  Mrs. BOXER.--Economic stimulus blah blah. Ridiculous. Because the 
bottom line is, when anyone stands up and says India and China, it is 
because they do not want to do anything about global warming. They are 
code words. These are turned into code words, and what I want to say 
is, how far have we fallen as a nation when we sit back and wait for 
India and China to lead us on an issue as important as this? This is 
our turn.
  I mean, we are going to hear in a minute from Senator Sanders, who is 
going to come at this and say this bill doesn't do nearly enough. 
Unfortunately, Senator Sanders, we have people here who think this bill 
does way too much, and they are fighting us every step of the way, 
which is very difficult for those of us who believe this is our 
challenge, this is our time, these are our grandchildren we have to 
protect, and this is our planet we have to protect.
  So I want you to listen for a few key words in this debate. We will 
hear them more--India, China. When somebody says that, say: Senator, 
are you suggesting that America not lead and we turn over our 
leadership to those countries? That is wrong. America doesn't cower in 
the corner waiting for other nations to take on the great issues of the 
day. It is ridiculous. That is why our States, our Governors, our 
mayors, our conference of mayors support this bill. They are moving 
while the National Government is stuck in neutral.
  Finally, we are moving. We are moving forward. We don't know how far 
we will get, but we are going to take this bill as far as we can. So 
keep your ear out for the words ``India'' and ``China,'' and ``gas 
price increases,'' which really is ironic since my friends on the other 
side of the aisle have done nothing but vote against us when we tried 
to push back against those super high prices--a 250-percent increase 
since George Bush came into office, and all he could do was go beg for 
oil from the Saudi prince. It is a pretty sad state of affairs.
  So now I am done with my rebuttal, and I know Senator Sanders has 
been waiting and I look forward to his remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, in the rebuttal scheme, is there an effort 
to make comments back? No?
  All right. I thank the chairman. And let's add one more word--
``forestry sequestration.'' That is another new buzzword added tonight.
  Mrs. BOXER. Well, since my colleague said that, we have $1 billion in 
the bill for forestry every year, so we will show it to the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). The Senator from Vermont is 
recognized.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, before I begin my remarks on this global 
warming legislation, I did want to say one word about gas prices, which 
are impacting my State of Vermont very heavily because workers in 
Vermont have to travel long distances to work, and the weather gets 
very cold and we spend a lot of money on home heating oil.
  What I say to my Republican friends is I am glad to hear they are 
concerned about these soaring oil and gas prices. In the coming days we 
are going to give them an opportunity to stand up to the big oil 
companies who are enjoying record-breaking profits as they rip off the 
American people. We are going to give our Republican colleagues the 
opportunity to stand up to the speculators who many experts believe are 
driving up the price of oil by 25 to 50 percent. And we are going to 
give them the opportunity to join with us to stand up to those people 
who are causing oil prices to be so high and are causing so many 
problems all over this country as a result. We look forward to working 
with them on that issue.
  As a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee and of the 
Energy and Natural Resources Committee, I want to say a few words in 
congratulating Senator Boxer, Senator Lieberman, and Senator Warner, 
and all of those who worked so hard to bring this historic legislation 
to the floor. This is a very important start in addressing one of the 
great crises facing our planet. But in my view, and I think in the view 
of many people in the scientific community, if we are going to respond 
in a serious way to what the best evidence out there is telling us, 
this bill must be strengthened in a number of ways.
  In the short time I have now, I wish to focus on four simple points. 
No. 1, what are the most knowledgable scientists in the world telling 
us about global warming and what will happen if we do not act boldly? 
No. 2, how can we reverse global warming through an aggressive path of 
energy efficiency and renewable energy? No. 3, how can transforming our 
energy system create millions of good-paying jobs here in the United 
States? And, No. 4, I want to mention some of the amendments I will be 
offering to strengthen the bill.
  Let me begin by mentioning that the International Panel on Climate 
Change, the IPCC, is made up of more than 2,500 scientific expert 
reviewers, some 800 contributing authors, and in excess of 450 lead 
authors representing 130 countries. Collectively, this group, the 
entire team, was jointly awarded the Nobel Peace Prize last December. 
Let me very briefly summarize the findings of the IPCC, and let me 
state very clearly that this, their work, constitutes the overwhelming 
position of the scientific community. That is why they received the 
Nobel Peace Prize. This is what they said.
  Warming of the climate system is unequivocal. With 90 percent 
certainty, most of the warming in the past 50 years is due to human 
activity. Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are higher than they 
have been in over the last 650,000 years. Eleven of the twelve years 
between 1995 and 2006 rank among the 12 warmest years since we have 
been keeping records--meaning since 1850. Without a major change, by 
2100, temperatures will likely increase between 3 and 7 degrees 
Fahrenheit. Further, with 90 percent certainty scientists expect that 
hot extremes, heat waves, and heavy precipitation events will continue 
to become more frequent, and the higher the temperatures become, the 
worse the effects of global warming will become. That is what the 
scientific community is telling us. There is not a lot of debate within 
the scientific community on these issues.
  But what does unchecked global warming actually mean for ordinary 
people, who are not Nobel Prize-winning scientists? It means there will 
be a significant increase in human misery and death for our children, 
our grandchildren, and future generations as we see a significant 
increase in drought, in flooding, in severe weather disturbances, in 
wars and political unrest as nations fight for limited resources. There 
will be an increase in all kinds of disease. There will be an increase 
in

[[Page 11136]]

malnutrition and starvation because of the loss of arable cropland and 
water. Those are some of the realities that will be seen in coming 
generations.
  Let me be even more specific about what the future will bring if we 
do not reduce global warming in a significant way. Many of our friends 
say: Oh, there are problems here, look at all the problems. Yes, there 
are problems, but think about the problems that will take place if we 
do not act. In this sense we have to not be selfish because we are 
talking about our kids, our grandchildren, and the future of this 
planet. This is what we will be seeing in the not too distant future.
  In the western United States, there will be a major crisis in terms 
of finding drinking water. There are great discussions taking place 
right now in California. While we have already seen major problems in 
terms of forest fires in recent years--and my colleague from Idaho was 
on the floor talking about forest fires--he ``ain't seen nothing yet,'' 
if this planet continues to warm.
  Furthermore, we will see heat waves, which will become more frequent, 
which will cause terrible health impacts, especially for the elderly.
  In Africa, by 2020, fresh water sources for between 75 and 250 
million people will be stressed. In Asia, fresh water availability will 
be decreased, potentially adversely affecting more than 1 billion 
people by the year 2050.
  In Latin America, by mid-century, tropical forests will be replaced 
by savanna, causing a significant loss of biodiversity and water 
availability.
  Finally, in the polar regions, the loss of ice in glaciers and ice 
sheets and changes in snow conditions will negatively affect wildlife 
and arctic communities. From this, sea level could rise up to 23 feet, 
with the complete melting of the Greenland ice sheet, which would take 
many centuries but would ultimately occur due to manmade emissions.
  When people say: My goodness, resolving global warming is a problem--
yes. But compared to what?
  Let us also be very clear that the horrific problems we are talking 
about for the future have already begun today. This is not saying, gee, 
it is all going to happen tomorrow. It is happening today, right now. 
Yesterday, one example of a million, the New York Times reported that 
large parts of Spain are turning into deserts and conflicts over water 
are increasing, in part because of global warming. A long-term drought 
in Australia, which many believe is related to global warming, has 
significantly reduced their food production, which some experts believe 
is one of the reasons international food prices are rising. That is 
today, not 10 years from now.
  The evidence is overwhelming. We are looking at one of the great 
crises facing our planet, as great as we have ever faced. If we do not 
act effectively, the results will be catastrophic. When people say it 
will be difficult to address the issues of global warming, they are 
right. It is not going to be easy. But it will be 100 times more 
difficult to address the disasters that will come if we do not act now. 
All over the world people of all political persuasions, of all 
religious persuasions, understand that simple reality. If you do not 
act now, it is not going away, it is only going to get worse.
  What the leading scientists are telling us is that not only is the 
situation dire, it is worse than they had predicted only a few years 
ago. I am a member of the Committee on Environment and Public Works. 
That is what these people do. They come and say: Yes, we told you the 
situation was bad. We were wrong. It is worse than we had told you only 
a few years ago.
  What the scientific community is now telling us, and why this 
particular bill is lacking, is that the United States must reduce its 
global warming emissions by at least 80 percent by 2050, and some say 
we should do more than that. Further, through its leadership--we are 
the most powerful Nation on Earth--through its political strength, its 
advanced technology, we must do everything we can to work with the 
international community so that as a planet we go forward together in 
substantially reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The world is crying 
out for America's leadership. We must give it.
  If we do all of these things, there is still a chance that we may not 
be successful in keeping the worst from happening. Those are the 
problems our planet is facing. What should we do to address them? What 
do we do? Frankly, I happen to believe that not only is the global 
warming crisis solvable, I happen to believe it is not quite as 
complicated as many others believe. The truth is that as a result of a 
lot of excellent scientific and technological work done here in the 
United States and all over the world, we know what has to be done. We 
know what has to be done. It is not a mystery.
  Frankly, if you compare for a moment the challenge that we face with 
global warming today compared to the challenge the Congress of 1941 
faced when we were attacked at Pearl Harbor, our job is much less 
difficult than their job was. They had to create armies to fight all 
over the world. They had to rebuild the civilian economy into a war 
economy. And they did all of that in a few years--and won, both in 
Europe and in Asia. That was a problem.
  This, frankly, in my view, is less of a problem. What do we have to 
do? In English? No. 1, we must move aggressively toward energy 
efficiency in every area of our lives, and the technology is here for 
us to do it. My own State of Vermont has been aggressive with regard to 
energy efficiency and the results are very promising. As a result of 
strong energy efficiency efforts, my State is using 5.3 percent less 
energy than it would have without those programs. These efforts have 
made Vermont the first State in the country to experience negative load 
growth while the population is increasing. Said another way, the State 
has actually reduced the amount of electricity it uses while still 
adding more users and experiencing economic growth. And Vermont has 
barely scratched the surface in terms of energy efficiency. I have no 
doubt, for example, that Vermont and the rest of the country can do 
much better in years to come, especially as new technology such as LED 
light bulbs are introduced into the economy. These bulbs will consume 
one-tenth of the electricity of an incandescent bulb. So the potential 
in terms of energy efficiency is extraordinary.
  But the issue is not only with electricity. The issue is also with 
transportation. Given the dismal situation in terms of efficiency in 
transportation today, we can't help but make enormous improvements in 
years to come. Automobiles, including hybrids and hybrid plug-ins, will 
get at least 50 miles per gallon and it should be commonplace within a 
few years. Forget about the cars that are getting 15 miles per gallon, 
we will get 50, 75 miles per gallon and even more. Electric cars will 
be on the market that will have a range of 200 to 300 miles. You go to 
work, you go on your trip, you come back, plug it in, and you are off 
and running the next day.
  Today, rural America is sorely lacking in public transportation. In 
Vermont and all over America, workers have no choice but to drive to 
work because we don't have the kind of bus system we have to have. 
Build that bus system. You are going to save an enormous amount of 
energy.
  In terms of our antiquated rail system, think of the potential we 
have there. Today we are far behind, both in passenger travel and in 
cargo travel. We are way behind Europe and Japan, other parts of the 
world. We can and must build a modern transportation system, a rail 
system. When we do that, we save unbelievable quantities of energy. In 
other words, what the scientific community has told us over and over 
again is that the cheapest energy is the energy we don't use. As a 
Nation we are going to make some progress in this area, but we have a 
long way to go.
  As we contemplate a strategy to reverse global warming, breaking our 
dependance on foreign oil and stimulating the economy, there is some 
very good news out there if we are smart enough to hear it, if we are 
prepared to take on powerful special interests, and if we are prepared 
to develop the political will to go forward.

[[Page 11137]]

  Despite the fact that the Federal Government has been very slow in 
moving in terms of sustainable energy, major breakthroughs are already 
taking place in our country and around the world in terms of such 
renewable energies as wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass. If we are 
smart and prepared to invest in a reasonably short period of time, we 
can move our country not only away from foreign oil but away from 
fossil fuel in general, the burning of which is the major cause of 
global warming. We now have the potential to produce an enormous amount 
of energy in a cost-effective way through sustainable approaches which 
not only do not emit greenhouse gases but produce virtually no 
pollution at all, clean up our environment, as well as cut back on 
greenhouse gas emissions.
  Let me give you a few examples of what I am talking about.
  Wind is the fastest growing source of energy in the world and the 
United States, but we have barely begun to tap its potential. Today, we 
are producing less than 1 percent of our electricity from wind, but 
even the Bush administration acknowledges that we can get as much as 20 
percent of our electricity from this valuable renewable resource. We 
should be supporting wind energy not only through the creation of large 
wind farms in the appropriate areas but through the production of 
small, inexpensive wind turbines which can be used in homes and farms 
throughout rural America.
  In terms of solar power, the potential is almost unlimited. Right 
now, as we speak, concentrating solar powerplants are being built and 
planned in the United States and throughout the world. These plants can 
produce as much electricity as a small nuclear powerplant. Let me 
repeat that. Plants are being constructed today which emit virtually no 
greenhouse gas emissions, which are cost effective, and which can 
produce almost as much electricity as a nuclear powerplant.
  It is estimated that this one solar technology which is beginning to 
explode in the southwest part of our country--in Nevada, southern 
California, New Mexico--this one technology can provide as much as 25 
percent of our Nation's electricity and maybe even more. It is there. 
It is happening now. The Federal Government, of course, has been very 
slow to respond or to help. It is happening even without our help.
  To offer another example, building just 80 gigawatts of concentrating 
solar power capacity--a target that is achievable by 2030--would 
produce enough electricity to power approximately 25 million homes, 
while helping to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This is there now. 
This is what we can be doing.
  Furthermore, the cost of concentrating solar powerplants has already 
begun to decline as production increases. In fact, concentrating solar 
power costs are projected to drop to 8 to 10 cents per kilowatt hour 
when capacity exceeds 3,000 megawatts, according to a 2008 Sandia 
National Laboratory presentation.
  There it is. It is happening. People are talking about all kinds of 
things, solar concentrating powerplants are taking place right now, 
increasingly cost effective, and no greenhouse gas emissions.
  One of the country's largest utilities, Pacific Gas and Electric, is 
working with Solel Solar Systems to build and operate a 553-megawatt 
concentrated solar powerplant in the Mojave Desert which would provide 
electricity for 400,000 homes. We can build dozens of those plants in 
the United States of America.
  Furthermore, in terms of solar technology, we are not only talking 
about solar powerplants, we are also talking about photovoltaic. And 
more and more Americans, in their homes, in their buildings, in public 
buildings, in businesses, are installing solar photovoltaics, the price 
of which should also come down significantly as production increases. 
Photovoltaics on the roofs of only 10 percent of the existing buildings 
in the United States could meet 70 percent of peak electric demand. 
Worldwide installations of solar PVs have increased by nearly 50 
percent last year. This is an exploding technology in the United States 
and all over the world. We have to do everything we can to increase and 
help out and make sure that technology continues to grow.
  The bottom line here is, as we move forward in all of these areas, we 
are going to create millions of good-paying jobs, transforming our 
energy system away from foreign oil and fossil fuels into energy 
efficiency and sustainable energy. The potential is extraordinary. This 
is a great country. We have faced challenges in the past. We can and 
must accept this challenge now.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The senior Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first of all, let me comment that these 
things do not come without a cost. I am putting up some things that 
will happen in the State of Vermont. But I would also say this: It is 
so tempting to debate when he talks about the science here because the 
science is not settled.
  But I stated--and I do not think the Senator from Vermont was on the 
floor when I opened the discussion yesterday, I guess it was--that for 
the purpose of this bill, so that there will not be Members coming down 
who do not want to talk about the bill and instead want to talk about 
the science, I said as far as the bill is concerned, let's assume the 
science is there so we do not have to put that on the table and use up 
the time. So that is what we have been doing. I hope we will be able to 
continue to do that. However, tomorrow, after the locked-in vote on the 
budget, I believe we are going to be going, hopefully, to some of these 
amendments which I think are very significant.
  Now, I had by unanimous consent asked to have, I think, locked in 30 
minutes. I do not need that much time. I would like to repeat a couple 
of things.
  I understand Senator Enzi is coming back to the floor. One of the 
things I think he stated earlier when he was speaking was something 
that somehow people have forgotten; that is, there can be no debate 
over whether jobs are going to be lost. Jobs have to be lost because we 
are talking about putting a cap on oil and gas, putting a cap on our 
energy supply. We are talking about doing what we can to reduce coal. 
There is no nuclear provision in this bill. So we are going to have a 
cutback in the ability to run this great machine we call America.
  So what happens to manufacturing jobs in the State of Ohio and other 
States? They go south. Most of them will go probably to China, some 
down to Mexico. But already we have seen a huge migration of jobs, 
manufacturing jobs, and the estimate on this bill is that would be 
increased by 9.5 percent. We have the studies that show we would lose 
manufacturing jobs by another 9.5 percent over and above all of the 
manufacturing jobs that are gone.
  Now, if you do not agree with these studies, use a little logic. If 
there is no energy to run these manufacturing jobs, they have to go 
where the energy is. It has been 30 years since we have had a new coal-
fired generating plant in the United States. China is cranking one out 
every 3 days--every 3 days. And I know it is a mess over there. It is a 
polluted mess. We spent a lot of time talking about CO2. But 
I would state to the chairman of the committee that in China, it is 
SO2, CO2, it is mercury, it is everything else, 
because they do not really have the restrictions.
  So the point Senator Enzi was making was that when these jobs go over 
there--let's say this bill passes, which it will not, but if it did 
pass, that it would have the effect of increasing CO2 in 
that respect. And it is very simple because it would go, as Senator 
Enzi said, to these countries where they have no controls. So that is 
very significant.
  The third point I wish to make, because it has been made several 
times by my very close friend, the junior Senator from California, the 
chairman of the committee, that somehow the increase in gas has 
something to do with the Bush administration, when I would only remind 
you that during the period of time we have had the acceleration of the 
price of gas at the pump,

[[Page 11138]]

it has been through the Congress, congressional acts. In fact, if 
anyone doubts that, they can go to our Web site. The chairman and I, as 
chairman and ranking member, have a Web site called EPW, Environment 
and Public Works, epw.senate.gov. When you go in, you will see I have 
documented the votes of every time we try to increase our capacity of 
energy, and it goes down on straight party-line votes. I am talking 
about increasing the exploration in ANWR, offshore, in all of the other 
areas, addressing the tar sands, trying to do something in expanding 
into the shale in western Colorado, the Western United States, trying 
to do something about tax incentives for marginal well production. You 
know I know about that because we are the largest State for marginal 
production in the country. That is wells of 15 barrels or fewer a day. 
So if we had all of the marginal wells producing today that we plugged 
in the last 10 years, it would amount to more than we are currently 
importing from Saudi Arabia.
  So I have to get on record here to make sure everyone understands. 
And the documentation is there. Every time we have tried to either get 
nuclear or tried to do something about clean coal technology or 
something about oil and gas, to expand our supply of energy in America, 
it goes down right along party lines. That is the problem we have.
  Now, I do have another area I wanted to talk about and maybe try to 
put it in a different context than it has been in the past, because the 
bill with all of these ramifications, with the 45 new bureaucracies, 
with all of the money, with the $6.7 trillion of additional money that 
is going to come into the system--that has to come from taxpayers, from 
consumers of energy. That is where it is going to come from.
  When this all comes up, it is a shell game. It reminds me of the 
magician who takes a small object and he puts it under a shell, all 
under the watchful eyes of the public. Then he starts mixing them up in 
the shells. The problem is that the magician does such a good job of 
shuffling the shells around, no one can agree where the prize is, and 
sometimes the magician simply removes the prize in a slight-of-hand and 
all of the shells are empty. Well, this bill, the Lieberman-Warner 
bill, is much like a shell game. They promise everything to everyone.
  There is one group--I do not think I will mention their name now--one 
of the big ag groups in this country has came out, and they were 
convinced they were going to get all of the credits and they would be 
able to control these credits and they were going to make all of this 
money. Now they realize that is not true, so they have taken their 
support away from this.
  But the bill that promises everything to everyone showed the public a 
pile of money under one shell, and then they lead people to believe 
everyone is going to get that. The trouble is, there are more losers 
with the Lieberman-Warner bill than winners. What makes it worse is we 
are the ones choosing the losers and winners. We try very hard to make 
everyone think they will be better off under this redistribution of 
wealth, but, like most schemes, it does not work.
  The first major shell game trick is the claim by the sponsors that 
the bill would generate $6.7 trillion of new revenue. The problem, of 
course, is that revenue comes from consumers and people in higher 
energy costs. It is a tax on everyone in this country who uses energy. 
It is a tax on energy, of course, either consumer products such as 
food, manufactured goods, or higher prices on anything made of 
concrete, steel, or chemicals. Now, you can bet that whenever the 
Government tells you they are going to redistribute money, the money 
they are distributing is coming from the U.S. taxpayers one way or 
another.
  The next shell game trick is the promise of tax relief. We have heard 
this. We talk about tax relief. I hope everyone was listening when I 
read very carefully from the bill that there is no tax relief. They are 
merely talking about this, what they should do with all of this money 
after it has been redistributed back to people. But it doesn't say they 
will do it. It does not authorize it. It does not direct it. In fact, 
if it did happen, it still has to go to the Finance Committee, and they 
would have to make those decisions. But they are saying--the sponsors 
of the bill are promising Americans $800 billion in tax relief over the 
next 40 years. Now, the trouble is they are taking in $6.7 trillion. If 
they do redistribute the $800 billion, that is not a very good deal; 
that is $1 back for every $8 put in. Only in Washington, DC, does that 
sound like a good return on investment.
  Now, how much tax relief will $800 billion provide? Let's break it 
down. Over 40 years, that is $20 billion a year. While that seems like 
a lot of money--and it is--this year's tax rebate cost the Government 
$150 billion. This means that for the U.S. taxpayer to play the 
Lieberman-Warner shell game, they have to fork over $8 for the chance 
of getting back $1.
  The bill's sponsors also play the same shell game with different 
industries. They promise them that a small amount of money is hidden 
under one shell and hope they don't notice how much they will have to 
pay overall. They promise the auto industry less than $2 billion a year 
for research and development, when the industry already spends $75 
billion a year. They promise $34 billion to help transition oil 
refineries over the life of the bill, when in the first year alone, 
2012, they will have to purchase over $65 billion worth of credits 
based upon conservative estimates. This is actually written into the 
bill where you have the credits allocated by industry for the 
industrial base. Then they say: This is the amount that you get credit, 
but this is what you are going to have to eventually come up with. That 
is the difference, that is what they are going to have to pay. In the 
case of the auto industry, it will be $65 billion worth of credits. 
They offer fossil fuel-fired powerplants an average of $7 billion a 
year in assistance, ignoring the fact that in the first year alone they 
will have to purchase over $20 billion in allocation credits.
  Even worse, the sponsors play the same shell game with workers' jobs. 
They promise a whole host of new so-called green jobs in exchange for 
good paying manufacturing jobs. The problem is, the good jobs created 
under Lieberman-Warner are in developing countries such as China, 
India, and Mexico. The American worker is left with an empty shell.
  Dr. Kenneth Green, with the American Enterprise Institute, stated in 
testimony before our committee, when I asked him if global warming 
initiatives create new green jobs:

       The short answer, I would say, is that they might do so, 
     but only at the expense of other jobs that would otherwise 
     have been produced by the free market. Further, I would 
     suggest that the end result would be significantly less jobs 
     on net, less overall economic growth on the net, and most 
     likely, the loss of existing capital as a by-product.

  That was in our committee. That was a testimonial from someone who is 
very knowledgeable. Even the so-called green jobs will be going 
overseas. Just last month the California-based SunPower Corporation, 
the second largest solar cell manufacturer in the world, announced it 
is building its new manufacturing plants in Malaysia. I am sure one of 
my colleagues might say the financial incentives in the bill for solar 
power will keep more of these jobs here in the future, but we already 
subsidize them by $24 dollars per megawatt hour compared to 44 cents 
for coal and 25 cents for natural gas. How many more subsidies do they 
think they need to keep the green jobs here?
  Another victim of the shell game is the American farmer. They are 
promised funds for carbon offsets. Yet they aren't told of the 
increased prices they will be paying for everything from electricity to 
propane to natural gas to diesel fuel, fertilizer, chemicals, tires, 
batteries, belts, bearings, farm machinery, spare parts, and everything 
else they use. That is the reason you have all the farmers groups 
opposing this, saying: We can't be dealt one more bad hand.
  I know my farmers in Oklahoma are having a problem, in addition to a 
lot of the overregulation they are suffering through. We have something 
that is

[[Page 11139]]

probably not very prevalent in the State of California. It is called 
the burying beetle. It is about that big. That stops farmers from being 
able to cultivate their fields, and it is a serious problem. Now they 
look at this and say: Wait a minute. It is going to be even worse in 
the future.
  Farmers have serious problems. In addition, this empty shell promise 
will come with increased regulations and inspections by the EPA as they 
set up, monitor, and then annually verify farmers' activities. My 
farmers always use the phrase, they don't want more bureaucrats 
crawling all over their farms. It is almost as if the sponsors are 
playing a shell game in hopes of distracting farmers with new 
regulatory programs and higher costs.
  This is kind of funny. I happened to be chairman at the time, back 
when the Republicans were the majority, of the Environment and Public 
Works Committee, when there was an effort to make propane a hazardous 
material. I remember seeing a bunch of people wearing red coats walking 
in the back. They were young people. I didn't know who they were. I 
said: We can document that this will cost the average farmer in my 
State $700 a year more than they are paying now in excessive regulatory 
costs. We defeated that. When we defeated it, all these young kids 
stood and applauded. I didn't know it, but it was the ag youth 
committee of the State of Oklahoma. There must have been 40 of them 
there, bright young kids. Of course, every shell game someone comes out 
ahead. In this case, the magician is the Federal bureaucracy.
  The bill creates a host of new Federal programs, boards and funds, 
all of which will require new regulations, staff and resources. To give 
you an idea, when people talk about the amount of money, this net 
amount of money is out there. We talk about the $6.7 trillion. We talk 
about a period of time that will extend 38 or 40 years out right now 
and some 45 bureaucracies. I want you to look and see. This is what we 
would be creating. People who vote for this bill are voting for all 
these bureaucracies: A Federal greenhouse gas registry, efficient 
buildings program, a super efficient equipment and appliances 
development program, a clean medium and heavy duty hybrid fleets 
program, research on the effect of climate change on drinking water 
utilities program, the Rocky Mountain center of the study of coal 
utilization, the Sun grant center for research on compliance with the 
Clean Air Act, the outreach initiative on revenue enhancement for 
agricultural producers, the agriculture and forestry emissions 
distribution program, the carbon market oversight and regulation 
working group. These are all going to be staffed with people. It is all 
going to be paid for by the results of this bill, if it should pass, 
which I am quite sure it will not. The carbon market efficiency board, 
the climate change technology board, the climate change worker training 
and assistance fund, the efficiency and renewable energy worker 
training program, the climate change worker assistance program, the 
multiagency steering committee, the national climate change advisory 
committee, the office of climate change adjustment assistance. I have 
to read these out so people know this monster we are talking about. The 
workforce training and safety program, the climate change consumer 
assistance fund, the transportation sector emission reduction fund, 
energy efficiency and conservation block grant program, tribal climate 
change assistance fund, State wildlife adoption fund.
  People say: What are you going to do? Let's assume that all this 
stuff is supposed to go back to taxpayers which we have calculated to 
be something less than--at the very most it would be $2.5 trillion, 
that that would leave $4.2 trillion. This is where it is going, for all 
these bureaucracies: The early action program, the efficient 
manufacturing program, the low and zero carbon electricity technology 
fund, the carbon capture and sequestration technology fund, the 
liabilities for closed geological storage sites task force, the climate 
change transportation technology fund, the cellulosic biofuel program. 
This is kind of interesting because right now my State is a leader in 
the cellulosic biofuel programs. It is Oklahoma State University and 
the Noble Foundation. I would like to see this happen.
  I stood on the floor of the Senate--I think this is one of the rare 
things we agreed with, I say to my good friend, the Senator from 
California. All these ethanol mandates that we went through, initially 
all the environmentalists were for these mandates. Now people realize 
that with the mandates and with the increase in the mandates in the 
energy bill of 2007 that we passed in December, now it has doubled or 
tripled the mandates that were already there. What is happening? They 
produce a dirtier fuel that is less efficient. It is not good for the 
engine. It takes the life of the engine down. But worst for me in my 
State of Oklahoma, it is competing with feedstocks. Our feedstocks in 
Oklahoma have tripled since all this stuff started because they are 
using this. The cellulosic biofuel program was a result of that because 
that is something that is not going to be used to compete with.
  On with the list: The Bureau of Land Management emergency 
firefighting program, the Forest Service emergency firefighting 
program, the Federal wildlife adaptation program, the national wildlife 
adaptation program, the science advisory board, the climate change and 
natural resources science center, the international climate change 
commission, the international reserve allowance program. These are all 
bureaucracies, you guys. I hope somebody is watching. The capacity 
building program, the clean development technology deployment fund, the 
international clean development technology board, the international 
climate change adaptation and national security program, the 
interagency climate change task force, and finally, the Climate 
Security Act administrative fund.
  Here we are with all 45 new bureaucracies, programs that are created. 
I guess we know who the winner is in the Lieberman-Warner shell game: 
The Federal Government, at the expense of families, workers, and 
taxpayers who are going to pay for all this fund we will be having.
  I don't recall, in the years I have been here, seeing more interest 
from more different areas in a piece of legislation. I would like to 
share some of the things that I thought were of interest. A lot of 
these are from, I think it was the senior Senator from Ohio, who was 
talking about one of the medias I will be quoting. I will get to it. I 
am not sure which one it is.
  The Associated Press:

       With gasoline at $4 a gallon and home heating and cooling 
     costs soaring, it is getting harder to sell a bill that would 
     transform the country's energy industries and, as critics 
     will argue, cause energy prices to rise even more.

  That was from ``Economic Cost Drives Senate Climate Debate.''
  The Wall Street Journal:

       This is easily the largest income redistribution scheme 
     since the income tax.

  The New York Post:

       The only thing it will cool is the U.S. economy. In effect, 
     the bill would impose an average of more than $80 billion in 
     new energy taxes every year.

  Robert Samuelson in the Washington Post:

       Let's call it by its proper name: cap-and-tax.

  George Will, a little more intellectual on this one:

       Speaking of endless troubles, cap-and-trade comes cloaked 
     in reassuring rhetoric about the government merely creating a 
     market, but government actually would create a scarcity so 
     that government could sell what it had made scarce.

  Charles Krauthammer, this is one that was a few days ago. There is 
another one in this morning. I would invite anyone out there who wants 
a lot of details on how bad this legislation is, I had an op-ed piece 
in this morning's Wall Street Journal. I covered all these things in 
much more detail with documentation, and you can only do it in print. 
So I did it.
  Charles Krauthammer:

       There's no greater social power than the power to ration. 
     Other than rationing food, there is no greater instrument of 
     social control than rationing energy, the currency of

[[Page 11140]]

     just about everything one does and uses in an advanced 
     society.

  Human Events:

       It will significantly increase the price Americans pay for 
     gasoline and electricity. Cap and trade is an economy-killer.

  The Hill:

       A bill that the senate will debate after Memorial Day could 
     add about 50 cents more to the price of a gallon of gasoline, 
     according to a study.

  There are several studies in this area. It is far greater than that. 
I think the EPA actually had the study that said that it would be 53 
cents a gallon increase.
  The Wall Street Journal:

       Boxer climate tax bill would impose the most extensive 
     government reorganization of the American economy since the 
     1930s.

  Investor's Business Daily:

       The bill essentially limits how much gasoline and other 
     fossil fuels Americans can use, as Klaus puts it . . .

  Talking about one of my real heroes, he is the President of the Czech 
Republic. He said:

       . . . in the name of the planet. A study by Charles Rivers 
     Associates puts the cost (in terms of reduced household 
     spending per year) of Senate bill 2191--

which is the present source on this--

       to $1,300 per household by 2015, rising to $1,500 to $2,500 
     by 2050.
       Electricity prices could jump by 36 percent to 65 percent 
     by 2015 and 80 percent to 125 percent by 2050.

  By the way, we have another chart which I do not have with me which I 
will be showing tomorrow that has the breakdown by CRA, showing what 
each State has. It happens that the highest States in terms of the 
problems are the States of Oklahoma and Texas. The average cost for the 
average household in my State of Oklahoma and the State of Texas is 
$3,300 a year. So it is far greater than average, so naturally I am a 
little more concerned than some of the others are.
  The Las Vegas Review Journal:

       Consumers are already struggling with gasoline approaching 
     $5 a gallon and other utility costs that have been moving 
     steadily higher for the past few years. New mandates placed 
     on producers in the name of ``global warming'' will only make 
     matters worse.

  The Plain Dealer--this is the one that is in Cleveland, OH, so I am 
sure the Chair knows a little bit about this newspaper. This is the one 
that was characterized by the senior Senator from Ohio as normally 
being moderate to liberal as opposed to being conservative. It says:

       The bill, as conceived, will just bore new holes into an 
     already battered economy.

  That was an editorial by the Plain Dealer of Cleveland, OH, called: 
``Carbon Cap-And-Trade Bill Is Going Nowhere, For Good Reason.''
  Mr. President, it is my understanding I have 30 minutes. How much 
time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair understood the Senator to have 25 
minutes.
  Mr. INHOFE. Yes, but I also had the 5 minutes in addition to rebut 
after the speech, which I acknowledged and asked for when I first 
started talking. Twenty-five plus 5 equals 30.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. Pittsburgh Tribune-Review:

       If there indeed is a second Great Depression to come, this 
     will be the government measure that guarantees it arrives 
     with a devastating gut punch.

  San Francisco Chronicle. We have to have this one because generally 
they are on the other side of these issues.

       The Senate debate on the climate bill probably will focus 
     on its impact on energy prices and the economy, which in the 
     short run could be considered significant.

  Anyway, we have many, many more. So I guess to finalize what I have 
said, you have to repeat some of these things. First, we do have the 
problem of gas prices. You could argue it is not going to increase the 
price of gas. Every study we have, except one that presumes we are 
going to triple the number of nuclear plants, agrees with that.
  In fact, the Energy Information Agency estimates that gas prices 
would increase from 41 cents somewhere to a dollar. When they talk 
about only 2 cents a year, that is on a study the EIA did that assumes 
that currently we have 104 nuclear plants and that would be increased 
by 260. Nuclear, we are going to have some amendments. There will be 
several amendments on that.
  Let's remember now the other two major things that are worth 
repeating. You lose your jobs. The jobs are not going to be here. You 
are not going to have the energy. This bill puts caps on all the energy 
we produce today. They talk about the future. Yes, as the Senator from 
Vermont said, I want to have the renewables. I want to have solar 
energy that will work. I want to have wind energy. All of these we want 
to have. We need them all.
  But what are we going to do today? That technology is not here. Today 
the technology on oil and gas is here. The technology is here on clean 
coal. We actually have, right now, 32 applications pending on new 
nuclear plants, a nuclear renaissance. That is what we need in this 
country.
  Lastly, the tax and spend: $6.7 trillion, all going to be paid for by 
all these people out there. Maybe they may get back $1 out of every $8 
they pay, but I doubt it. Because, as I said earlier, if you look and 
see clearly what it is that is in the bill, it says we should return 
some of this money to them, but it does not demand it. It does not 
authorize it. The Finance Committee would end up having to do it.
  Now, with that, I will yield the floor for the response.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, in my rebuttal, I say to my good friend 
from Oklahoma that I truly believe one of the reasons his party is in 
trouble right now and his party is losing all these elections right now 
is because they do not have any answers to the problems that are facing 
us.
  Whether it is high gas prices--and my friend can say Congress was 
responsible. Come on. I remember when George Bush ran with Dick Cheney, 
and they said: We are two oil men, and we are going to make sure--we 
are going to use the power of the Presidency and the Vice Presidency to 
bring down gas prices. What happened? We will show you the chart again: 
a 250-percent increase since George Bush came into power. You could try 
to blame that on the Congress.
  That just does not wash because we Democrats have offered many ways 
to go after big oil. We have offered resolutions saying we should be 
free of foreign oil. Republicans, for the most part, do not vote for 
it. Democrats do. So that is a red herring.
  To blame it on the Congress is kind of laughable, when George Bush 
was complaining about the price of oil when he got into office--I 
remember that; it is not that much ancient history--and has been really 
unable to do anything about it. And just as we are on the brink of 
passing a very important bill to get us off foreign oil, get us off big 
oil, and all those programs my friend read from--and I will talk about 
them more tomorrow. Those are not bureaucracies. Those are actually 
investments we are going to make so we make sure we get off of oil so 
we make sure in the future our prices go down. That is what the Boxer-
Lieberman-Warner bill will do.
  So to sum up, what you are hearing--and I have listened all day to 
every speech. I am very pleased Senator Dole is here to speak in favor 
of the Boxer-Lieberman-Warner bill. I welcome her to this debate. We 
have had some great bipartisanship on our side today. We have heard 
from Senator Snowe. We have heard from Senator Warner. We are going to 
hear from Senator Dole. And, of course, we heard from Senator 
Lieberman, an Independent. So we have tripartisan support for our bill.
  But on the other side, it is the same old, same old, same old--
attack, attack, attack. They say we have a tax increase when we have a 
huge tax cut. They ignore the fact that half of the bill's revenues go 
to the people--deficit reduction trust fund, tax cut, and consumer 
relief. They ignore the fact that what we do with the rest of the funds 
is invest them in our country, in our people. That is why many unions 
are supporting us, because they understand the jobs are going to be 
created, just as they are being created in California.
  Right now we have a horrible problem in California with our housing 
industry, our construction industry.

[[Page 11141]]

Those jobs are going, thank goodness, to the 450 new solar energy 
companies that are located there.
  I know my friend who is sitting in the chair is grappling with all 
these issues. He is concerned about manufacturing. That is why some of 
the programs my friend from Oklahoma talked about are going straight 
into the economies of the coal States, to make sure we can find the 
answer.
  Now, there is another Dayton Daily News editorial:

       Cap-and-trade has two factors going for it--

  I think this is good. Since you heard a negative editorial, here is a 
positive editorial.

       Cap-and-trade has two factors going for it that one needn't 
     be an expert to understand. One, it is a new, inventive 
     approach, as opposed to government incentives. . . .
       Second, the bipartisan appeal of cap-and-trade is itself a 
     case for adopting the idea. A way to actually get something 
     done. . . .

  So I think in Ohio we have a mixed review. I wanted to put that into 
the Record. I also want to say to my friend, he is reading editorial 
after editorial. I will go with him toe to toe. I am going to read some 
editorials.
  San Jose Mercury News:

       The challenge of climate change is to avert disaster for 
     future generations. At least major legislation is now on the 
     table.

  The Denver Post:

       In a time of global economic competition, future prosperity 
     belongs to the quick. We urge the Senate to support 
     enlightened efforts to deal with the world's changing 
     physical and economic environment by passing the Climate 
     Security Act.

  The Tallahassee Democrat:

       Florida should support Climate Security Act.

  The Orlando Sentinel:

       Take [a] step forward. Climate-change bill being wrongly 
     targeted as bad for economy.

  The Orlando Sentinel is very strong.
  The Miami Herald:

       U.S. Must Act Quickly to Slow Global Warming.

  The Des Moines Register:

       Congress Should Pass Climate Change Bill.

  The Boston Globe:

       Getting Warmer on Emissions.

  Grand Rapids Press:

       Seize the Chance to Address Global Warming.
       . . . the direction laid out in the bill represents the 
     best path for addressing climate change in the United States.

  St. Louis Dispatch:

       Serious for a Change.
       The Climate Security Act is a good first step. . . .

  And it goes on and on.
  The Star Ledger:

       Speed a Plan to Fight Global Warming.

  It just goes on.
  Newsday, the New York Times.
  The Oregonian:

       The legislation, called America's Climate Security Act, 
     would be the nation's first meaningful step. . . .

  The Register Guard:

       Time to Act. . . .

  And this is to Senator Smith.
  Harrisburg Patriot News:

       ACT NOW. . . .

  Salt Lake Tribune:

       . . . .Cost of doing nothing is too great.

  The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

       The consequences are too dire. . . .

  That is just a sample.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have this document printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

   America's Newspapers Support Action on the Boxer/Lieberman/Warner 
                          Climate Security Act

     San Jose Mercury News: Global Warming: Let's Set the Table 
         for post-Bush Era
       ``The challenge of climate change is to avert disaster for 
     future generations. At least major legislation is now on the 
     table.''
                               San Jose Mercury News (California),
     June 2, 2008.
                                  ____

     The Denver Post: Save the Earth--and the economy
       ``In a time of global economic competition, future 
     prosperity belongs to the quick. We urge the Senate to 
     support enlightened efforts to deal with the world's changing 
     physical and economic environment bypassing the Climate 
     Security Act. It will provide a good framework for the next 
     president.''
                                       The Denver Post (Colorado),
     May 30, 2008.
                                  ____

     Tallahassee Democrat: Our Opinion: Florida should support 
         Climate Security Act
       ``Still, it's time for the United States to make a strong 
     statement on global warming, and it's time for Florida's 
     business and political leaders to show the way on the issue 
     again.''
                                   Tallahassee Democrat (Florida),
     June 1, 2008.
                                  ____

     Orlando Sentinel: Take step forward. Our position: Climate-
         change bill being wrongly targeted as bad for economy
       ``. . . the U.S. Senate will vote to end America's 
     dangerous isolation on the issue of climate change by 
     embracing a cap and trade, carbon emissions-limiting system 
     honored by nations that long ago conceded the reality of 
     global warming.''
                                       Orlando Sentinel (Florida),
     May 31, 2008.
                                  ____

     Miami Herald: U.S. Must Act Quickly to Slow Global Warming
       ``The leading bill is sponsored by Sens. Joseph Lieberman, 
     I-Conn., and John W. Warner, R-Va. It sets a goal of stopping 
     emissions growth by 2012 and is set to be debated in June. 
     While President Bush might veto such a bill, all three 
     leading presidential candidates support the approach. So the 
     prospect of a cap-and-trade proposal passing is good, even if 
     it has to wait a year.''
       ``Not to act quickly to protect the planet would be far 
     more expensive.''
                                           Miami Herald (Florida),
     April 22, 2008.
                                  ____

     Des Moines Register: Congress Should Pass Climate Change Bill
       ``In the cost-benefit analysis of climate change, doing 
     nothing could carry a devastating potential cost in 
     everything from higher food prices to real estate lost to 
     rising sea levels. Acting now, however, means taking steps 
     toward a cleaner environment, exploring new energy sources, 
     less reliance on fossil fuels and at the very least a chance 
     to preserve the Earth as we know it for future generations.''
                                       Des Moines Register (Iowa),
     June 1, 2008.
                                  ____

     Boston Globe: Getting Warmer on Emissions
       ``With gasoline costing $4 a gallon and even the Bush 
     administration admitting that global warming is endangering 
     polar bears, the time is right for Congress to enact 
     reductions in the use of fossil fuels that are a principal 
     cause of global warming.''
       ``. . . the costs of both (gasoline and utility prices) 
     have skyrocketed, and the country is no closer to making a 
     substantial shift away from fossil fuels. Passage of this 
     bill with a filibuster proof majority would start that 
     historic change.''
                                     Boston Globe (Massachusetts),
     June 2, 2008.
                                  ____

     Grand Rapids Press: Seize the Chance to Address Global 
         Warming
       ``. . . the direction laid out in the bill represents the 
     best path for addressing climate change in the United 
     States.''
                                    Grand Rapids Press (Michigan),
     June 1, 2008.
                                  ____

     St. Louis Dispatch: Serious for a Change
       ``The Climate Security Act is a good first step toward 
     reducing greenhouse gas emissions. A cap-and-trade system for 
     carbon dioxide emissions would nudge American energy policy 
     toward a more sustainable future.''
       ``Waiting only will increase the impact and cost of global 
     climate change. The Senate should approve the bill quickly.''
                                    St. Louis Dispatch (Missouri),
     June 1, 2008.
                                  ____

     Concord Monitor: Alaskan Changes Show that Congress Must Act
       ``Significant steps to limit global warming and its often 
     devastating effects shouldn't wait for a new administration 
     to take power. The Lieberman-Warner bill would show the rest 
     of the world that the United States is finally making a 
     serious commitment to combating climate change. It deserves 
     the support of New Hampshire's congressional delegation.''
                                  Concord Monitor (New Hampshire),
     March 19, 2008.
                                  ____

     The Star Ledger: Speed a Plan to Fight Global Warming
       ``Senators must not fritter away the opportunity to end 
     eight years of Bush administration obstructionism and jump-
     start America's fight against climate change.''
                                         Star Ledger (New Jersey),
     June 2, 2008.
                                  ____

     Newsday: Time for Cap and Trade
       ``The longer we wait to take serious action, the more 
     painful will be the steps we'll have to take when we finally 
     start.''
                                               Newsday (New York),
     June 2, 2008.
                                  ____

     New York Times: The Senate's Chance on Warming
       ``Mr. Bush can no longer plausibly deny the science. What 
     he continues to resist is

[[Page 11142]]

     the need for a full-throated response. The Senate can usher 
     in a new era of American leadership when it convenes next 
     week.''
                                                   New York Times,
     May 28, 2008.
                                  ____

     The Oregonian: Finally, a path for America to battle climate 
         change
       ``The legislation, called America's Climate Security Act, 
     would be the nation's first meaningful step toward halting 
     and reversing the buildup of atmospheric gases that are 
     altering the Earth's climate in devastating ways. Congress, 
     after years of empty rhetoric on the subject, should pass 
     this legislation and quickly put the United States on the 
     right path to reducing the pollution that's causing this 
     crisis.''
                                           The Oregonian (Oregon),
     June 1, 2008.
                                  ____

     The Register Guard: Time to Act Senator Smith
       ``The Lieberman-Warner bill has impressive bipartisan 
     support, reflecting a growing conviction in Congress and the 
     American public that action is imperative.''
       ``The scientific case for action is beyond compelling.''
       ``It's the sort of leadership that Oregonians--and all 
     Americans--need and deserve to meet the formidable challenges 
     of climate change.''
                                      The Register-Guard (Oregon),
     June 1, 2008.
                                  ____

     Pocono Record: Don't follow, lead on energy and climate
       ``The United States can help safeguard its environment and 
     be out in front in the energy field. The Senate must lead the 
     way to an environmentally responsible, economically sound 
     energy future by passing the Climate Security Act.''
                                     Pocono Record (Pennsylvania),
     June 1, 2008.
                                  ____

     Harrisburg Patriot News: ACT NOW/Don't let uncertainty rule 
         out steps to meet climate challenge
       ``. . . to do nothing until the facts are inescapable to 
     even the most avowed critic would be reckless. Donald Brown, 
     associate professor of Environmental Ethics, Science and the 
     Law at Penn State, has written that `the nature of the risk 
     from climate change is enormous and using scientific 
     uncertainty as an excuse for doing nothing is ethically 
     intolerable.
       So we need to act.' ''
                           Harrisburg Patriot News (Pennsylvania),
     May 25, 2008.
                                  ____

     Salt Lake Tribune: Climate Security Act Cost of doing nothing 
         is too great
       ``Clearly, we cannot sit idly by as disasters worsen and 
     economic costs balloon. The Lieberman/Warner act is a 
     reasonable first step.''
                                         Salt Lake Tribune (Utah),
     May 31, 2008.
                                  ____

     Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Editorial: The consequences are 
         too dire to remain a bystander
       ``The science that all three reports looked to doesn't 
     offer much in the way of good news--which is why it's 
     essential for the Senate to provide some by taking the first 
     step this week on the Climate Security Act.''
                           Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (Wisconsin),
                                                     May 31, 2008.

  Mrs. BOXER. So my friends, the debate will go on. I think I am going 
to use the rest of my time to read the closing script for the day, but 
tomorrow, we go on. My friend, Senator Inhofe, is a terrific debater. 
Tomorrow, we are going to take that list he put up there behind himself 
and show how what he read off is not new bureaucracies but new 
investments. When he talked about adaptation and firefighting, of 
course we need to be sure we have the ability to do that. So we are 
going to show tomorrow how that chart is misleading. We are going to 
show tomorrow how the statistics that came from the National 
Association of Manufacturers are wrong.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
proof that they are wrong. We will talk about them tomorrow.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               The ACCF/NAM Modeling Analysis is Flawed:

       At a May 20 hearing before the Energy and Natural Resources 
     Committee, Deputy Administrator Howard Gruenspecht of the 
     Energy Information Agency said that ACCF/NAM wrongly 
     attributed costs due to rising world oil prices as impacts of 
     the Climate Security Act, rather than considering those costs 
     as part of the economic baseline for the study.
       In addition, ACCF/NAM is based on implausible 
     ``constraints''--it basically assumes that new technologies 
     and fuels will not be developed between now and 2030.
       Congressional Research Service says NAM ``assumes 
     substantial constraints on technology availability, and 
     higher costs than those embedded in EIA's NEMS model.''

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, now I am going to go to the script so it 
is a little less complicated.

                          ____________________