[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 11173-11175]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          CLIMATE SECURITY ACT

  Mrs. DOLE. Mr. President, nearly a year ago, I began working on the 
Climate Security Act with two Senators, both of whom I also serve with 
on the Armed Services Committee. As members of that committee, we have 
worked together to write and pass defense authorization bills to 
strengthen our national security and support our military. Senators Joe 
Lieberman and John Warner have moved the issue of climate security 
forward in the American dialogue, and I join them in that effort.
  I understand this bill is viewed by most as an environmental bill--
which it is--but it is also essential to our national security. Just a 
few weeks ago, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates talked about the 
threats our Nation faces. He said, ``Rather than one, single entity--
the Soviet Union--and one, single animating ideology--communism--we are 
instead facing challenges from multiple sources: a new, more malignant 
form of terrorism inspired by jihadist extremism, ethnic strife, 
disease, poverty, climate change, failed and failing states, resurgent 
powers, and so on.'' Of the threats Secretary Gates articulated, we 
know the predicted negative ramifications of climate change could 
initiate a chain-reaction of events such as severe drought or floods 
that diminish food supply and displace millions of people.
  Additionally, last year 11 retired three-star and four-star admirals 
and

[[Page 11174]]

generals issued a report, National Security and the Threat of Climate 
Change. They had four primary findings: (1) Projected climate change 
poses a serious threat to America's national security; (2) Climate 
change acts as a threat multiplier for instability in some of the most 
volatile regions of the world; (3) Projected climate change will add to 
tensions even in stable regions of the world; and (4) Climate change, 
national security and energy dependence are a related set of global 
challenges. At the release of this report, retired General and former 
Army Chief of Staff Gordon Sullivan said, ``People are saying they want 
to be perfectly convinced about climate science projections, but 
speaking as a soldier, we never have 100 percent certainty. If you wait 
until you have 100 percent certainty, something bad is going to happen 
on the battlefield.''
  Adding to this concern, a joint report issued by the Center for 
Strategic and International Studies and Center for a New American 
Security, has made clear that we are now in the age of consequences 
regarding the foreign policy and national security implications of 
global climate change. The consequences range from expected to 
catastrophic, and a key finding is that the United States must come to 
terms with climate change. According to the report, we can expect 
strengthened geopolitical influence by fuel exporting countries, and a 
correlating weakened strategic and economic influence by importers of 
all fuels. We can expect many more consequences, but in short, the 
intersection of climate change and the security of nations will become 
a defining reality in the years ahead. We cannot ignore the costs of 
inaction and we cannot leave these massive security concerns to the 
next generation.
  This is not a perfect bill, and a perfect bill likely does not exist. 
However, the fundamental approach of this bill--providing a market 
driven system--is the right way to address climate change.
  I am disappointed that this bill fails to consider the need for more 
nuclear energy in the United States. Patrick Moore, co-founder of 
Greenpeace made the need for nuclear energy clear when he wrote, ``. . 
. my views have changed, and the rest of the environmental movement 
needs to update its views, too, because nuclear energy may just be the 
energy source that can save our planet from another possible disaster: 
catastrophic climate change.'' In order to meet all of the projected 
models for reducing our greenhouse gas emissions, we need a nuclear 
renaissance in this country, and this bill must be the vehicle by which 
we advance that renaissance. Nuclear energy, after decades of dormancy, 
must be given an opportunity to be an affordable and reliable energy 
choice for consumers. Wind and solar will play a role in our low-carbon 
energy needs, but as of now they are not reliable, and cannot provide 
the base load electricity generation that is needed, and that which 
nuclear energy, can provide. Nuclear is safe, reliable, low-cost energy 
and those who oppose it will find themselves in the precarious position 
of being unable to seriously confront climate change.
  We have a solution to low-cost electricity generation in nuclear 
energy, and we also have a solution to high fuel costs--the answer is 
more domestic exploration here at home. Americans are clearly aware 
that our dependence on foreign oil is far too dangerous and much too 
costly. A significant amount of our oil comes from the Middle East, 
Russia and Venezuela--three parts of the world that do not have U.S. 
interests in mind in their oil production. As former Director of 
Central Intelligence James Woolsey noted, ``we're paying for both sides 
in the war on terror.'' At approximately $130 per barrel of oil, we are 
enriching, by billions of dollars, the likes of Iran's Ahmadinejad, 
Russia's Putin, and Venezuela's Chavez. They are flush with oil cash 
and are leveraging their influence against ours with Beijing and New 
Delhi in a geopolitical chess match.
  We must shift away from our dependence on foreign oil, and this bill, 
probably more than any other the Congress has ever considered, provides 
the resources and framework to do just that. Under this bill, the 
Natural Resources Defense Council estimates oil imports to drop to 35 
percent of total U.S. oil supply by 2030, compared to the approximately 
60 percent of foreign oil imports we rely on today. In fact, by 2025 
oil imports are expected to drop to around 6 million barrels per day, 
the lowest point since 1986. That is a savings of more than 8 million 
barrels a day--more oil than the United States currently imports from 
OPEC. We achieve these reductions through an overall reduction in 
demand, and increased domestic oil production due to increased use of 
Enhanced Oil Recovery--a process by which we sequester carbon from 
power plants to derive more oil from the ground. What all this means 
for families is that under this bill, the average household will pay 13 
to 17 percent less for transportation fuels in 2020 than they did in 
2007. This is a savings of up to $530 a year at the pump for Americans.
  The long-term outlook is positive for weaning ourselves off of 
foreign oil, but there is a major flaw in this bill in that it does not 
address our near-term energy needs for more domestic oil and natural 
gas exploration and production. Increased oil and natural gas access 
here at home is essential to lowering the high fuel costs consumers are 
feeling today and for keeping them low in the early years of this bill. 
Lower fuel costs will get our economy back on track and increase our 
energy security. Unfortunately, efforts to allow that access to our 
American resources have been blocked for years by our friends across 
the aisle. The high cost of fuel is unsustainable, and we must take 
action to increase our domestic energy supply--this means we must 
explore and produce here at home. At a time when Americans are 
experiencing record high oil prices, we must begin exploration in areas 
such as the Gulf of Mexico and in remote areas of Alaska where the 
local population supports it. There is no silver bullet, but there are 
commonsense solutions that we must move forward, in the wake of $4 per 
gallon gasoline.
  It is time to put more dollars back in the hands of Americans instead 
of foreign dictators. Our energy independence will drive our economic 
success. In keeping our economy the envy of the world, it is important 
to note that not addressing climate change is a costly course of 
action. The Stern Review, the leading analysis of the economic aspects 
of climate change conducted by Sir Nicholas Stern, former chief 
economist at the World Bank, estimates that the monetary cost of 
inaction is equivalent to losing at least 5 percent, or $2.4 trillion, 
of global gross domestic product each year.
  Indeed, delaying action comes at a cost! Paul Volcker, former Federal 
Reserve Chairman under President Ronald Reagan stated, ``If we don't 
take action on climate change, you can be sure that our economies will 
go down the drain in the next 30 years.''
  The National Academy of Sciences stated this year that global warming 
threatens roads, rail lines, ports, and airports. America's global 
competitiveness is also at stake on this issue.
  We used to be the leader in wind, solar, nuclear, and other low-
carbon energy. Acting on climate change first puts the United States in 
a position to develop and own new technologies and all the jobs that 
come with them. We have never ceded ground on American competitiveness 
to China, India, and other developing countries, nor should we on this 
issue. We do not address climate change without the entire world 
playing a role, but we also do not address it by waiting for others to 
act. And we can take action in a way that continues to grow our 
economy.
  With the right policy that spurs investment and innovation, we can 
deploy new technologies that will cut our emissions and not change our 
lifestyles. We have an opportunity to seize these new technologies, or 
we can wait and cede ground to others.
  The status quo just will not work, not this time and not on this 
issue. The current path is untenable. It leaves the future of our 
economy in the hands of volatile and unfriendly nations from which we 
import oil. It allows the quiet growth of the predicted negative 
ramifications of climate change that national security experts have 
cautioned

[[Page 11175]]

us about. And it leaves us less competitive in new and green 
technologies.
  Cap and trade, first adopted for acid rain under the 1990 Clean Air 
Act amendments, is an American environmental and economic success 
story. There is no doubt that this is a much greater challenge and one 
that affects every sector of the economy. We have the ability to repeat 
that success. Our constituents do not send us to Washington to sit back 
and do the easy things. Rather, they send us here to have the courage 
to tackle the challenges.
  This may be one of the hardest things we do, but as American leaders, 
we have a responsibility to lead. We have a responsibility to find 
commonsense solutions to the hard problems and not be afraid of 
carrying out those solutions.
  A clean environment and economic and national security should not be 
Republican or Democratic issues. These are American issues. We have the 
opportunity to lead and to change the entire landscape of this dialog.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I get to change the dialog completely. I ask 
unanimous consent to share joy as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________