[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 11300-11313]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                            CLIMATE SECURITY

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, we will be once again taking up the 
pending bill dealing with global warming. It is a substantial piece of 
legislation. I am planning to speak later in the day as well, but I 
wish to take some time during morning business to talk about the 
overall bill as well as an amendment I may file later today on this 
legislation.
  In terms of the issue of global warming, first let me say that there 
is little question left that something significant is happening to our 
planet. There is something happening to our climate that sometimes we 
don't quite understand. But among almost all scientists, there is 
nearly universal consensus that in the last 100 years, the temperature 
of the Earth has slightly warmed by 1.1 to 1.6 degrees. Through 2050, 
we expect further temperature increases unless we begin to address the 
continued concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
  We are seeing evidence of these impacts. While no specific event is 
directly linked, we see droughts occurring more often, and this is 
certainly happening in my State of North Dakota. Heat waves are 
becoming more frequent, more intense, and more damaging. Further, the 
number of category 4 and 5 hurricanes has nearly doubled in the past 50 
years. It is quite clear something is happening that we have not seen 
before. I think the consensus of scientists now is at a point regarding 
this climate change that is beyond natural change, and we certainly 
ought to take some no-regret steps. At least at the very minimum, we 
should be taking more substantial steps to try to respond to it and 
deal with it.
  Now, one of the interesting things about this bill that is on the 
floor of the Senate is that it requires a commitment to emission 
reductions, technology investments and other actions through 2050. It 
is sometimes hard to see ahead 5 years or 10 years, let alone 30 or 40 
or 50 years. We have economists who can't remember their own phone 
numbers who make predictions 10 and 15 years into the future. At the 
same time, we still have to be seriously thinking about our future 
pathway for action. What is our destination? What do we aspire to 
achieve for this country? What do we want to have happen as we move 
ahead?
  Let me say that almost everyone believes that our present energy 
course is unsustainable. Energy use primarily from fossil fuel 
combustion in the U.S. and around the world is a significant 
contributor to climate change, according to most energy and climate 
change experts. We cannot maintain the current path.
  So what do we have to do? Well, the legislation in front of us is 
significant. It says that we ought to do a lot of things. Yes, some of 
the proposals here are controversial. Some will likely be changed 
during this debate or future deliberations, but the reality is that a 
debate on mandatory emissions cuts must occur.
  I will offer an amendment I will describe a little later, but chief 
among the things we need to do are the more rapid development of new 
sources of

[[Page 11301]]

energy, especially with advanced technology. There are renewable 
sources of energy that do not emit greenhouse gases or other 
pollutants. They produce no effluents or no carbon dioxide. This 
includes wind, geothermal, and solar energy, and we ought to be moving 
much more aggressively on these and other opportunities. This has not 
been what the U.S. has done historically though. We have initially been 
early leaders in cutting edge energy technologies and then fallen 
behind.
  Let me give an example of how pathetic this country's response has 
been in recent years and how much more aggressive it must be in future 
years. When the U.S. started exploring for oil and natural gas at the 
start of the last century, this Congress adopted, in 1916, long-term, 
permanent, very substantial tax incentives to encourage that 
development.
  It gave a clear signal that, if you go out and discover oil and gas, 
then we have big tax incentives for you. Industry understood that it 
was beneficial to find oil and gas through these long-term, permanent 
tax incentives.
  What do we do for wind energy, solar and other renewable energy 
technologies? The Congress put in place a production tax credit in 
1992. These ended up being very short term and rather shallow. It has 
been extended for the short term, in many cases by 1 year, five times 
since we first passed it. It is a stutter step approach--start, stop; 
start, stop. It has been a pathetic, anemic, and weak response by a 
country that should be much more aggressive and bold in providing a 
direction to develop our renewable energy resources.
  There are substantial renewable energy resources available in this 
country, and we need to get about the business of providing the funding 
for research and the aggressive incentives for a long-term 
determination of where we are going to head with renewables.
  In 2007, I introduced legislation to encourage a broad range of 
renewable and clean energy approaches as well as additional 
infrastructure. That legislation signaled that our country should be on 
a course to say to the investors in the U.S. and around the world, 
where we are headed for a decade. Count on it. Believe in it. The 
production tax credit which will expire at the end of this year should 
be extended not for 1 year, it ought to be extended for a full decade 
to let America know where we are headed. We want more renewable energy 
that is not polluting.
  Now, having said all of that, there are so many things we can do. We 
need much more extensive deployment of conservation and efficiency, 
including more efficient vehicles and buildings. We are going to 
increase fuel economy standards with a 10-mile-per-gallon increase in 
10 years that we required with the Energy Independence and Security Act 
passed by Congress in December 2007. I was proud to be a part of that 
effort to increase fuel economy standards. We are doing a lot of things 
that make it easier to move forward with efficiency and conservation 
measures. Further, I wish to talk for a moment about an amendment that 
I am going to offer with respect to the advancement of clean coal 
technologies.
  Now, I understand some say that, in order to deal with climate 
change, you are going to have to find a way to wean yourself off of 
fossil fuels. I understand they say that, but I also understand that is 
not going to happen in the very near term. Let me tell my colleagues 
what is happening with respect to energy use in this country. Almost 50 
percent of our electricity comes from coal. Without questioning it, we 
get up in the morning, flick on a switch, turn a knob, and turn a dial. 
We do all of these things with our hands, and energy flows. One-half of 
those activities are made possible because of the electricity that 
comes from coal. Does anybody really think we are not going to use coal 
in the future? The problem is, when we use coal, we have CO2 
that is emitted into the air. This CO2 and other greenhouse 
gases contribute significantly to cause global climate change. So we 
need to find a way to capture that CO2 and to store or 
sequester CO2 in geological formations or other means.
  How do we use coal in the future? We use coal in the future by being 
able to capture this emitted CO2. So how do we do that? The 
question isn't whether we are going to use coal. The question is how 
are we going to use coal in the future.
  There are some who say: Well, it is not possible to capture 
CO2. It is possible. Of course it is possible. At this point 
the technology isn't fully proven, and it is expensive. Yet, we can see 
several technology options ahead.
  Let me describe to my colleagues a plant in North Dakota, the only 
one of its kind in North America. It produces synthetic gasoline from 
lignite coal. Let me tell my colleagues what we do with the 
CO2 in that plant. We capture the CO2 and use it 
for enhanced oil recovery. It is one of the world's largest examples of 
CO2 capture at an industrial facility. Half of the 
CO2 produced at this facility is now captured. This 
CO2 is put in a pipeline under pressure and sent to 
Saskatchewan, Canada. Oil industry interests there pump it underground 
to enhance oil recovery. We are successfully using CO2 by 
capturing it, keeping it out of the atmosphere, investing it 
underground in Canada, and enhancing their oil recovery. That makes a 
lot of sense, and we need more of these types of projects. Is it 
possible? It is very possible. That one of the world's largest 
applications is being demonstrated in Beulah, North Dakota.
  Now, what else can we do dealing with carbon and the capturing of 
CO2? If you are going to unlock the mystery of how you 
continue to use fossil fuels that we must use without impacting our 
environment and our planet, we need to have kind of a moonshot 
approach. We can't just tiptoe around the issue. We have to decide we 
are going to significantly commit funding--billions of dollars--to the 
research and demonstrations in science and technology.
  Let me give you some examples. I was in Phoenix, Arizona recently, 
and I toured an electric utility called the Arizona Public Service. The 
organization in Arizona is producing CO2 at a coal-fired 
electric generating plant. What they are doing with it is very 
interesting. They are taking a stream of CO2 off their stack 
in a coal-fired electric generating plant and putting it in very long 
greenhouses, and they are producing algae. This pictures shows one 
example of greenhouses where they are doing it in tubes.
  Most of us know what algae is. Algae is single-cell pond scum. Every 
kid knows what that is. You have been to a little pond where stagnant 
water has hung around for a while and you see green slime or single-
cell pond scum called algae. Algae grows in water. What does it need to 
grow? It needs two things--sunlight and CO2.
  When I became chairman of the Energy and Water Appropriations 
Subcommittee on the Senate side, I discovered that the research that 
used to go on with respect to algae was discontinued nearly 15 years 
ago. Last year, for the first time, I reestablished funding to continue 
algae research.
  Let me tell you what they are doing in Arizona. In Arizona, they are 
trying to demonstrate growing algae in these greenhouses which are next 
to a coal-fired electric generating plant. They take the CO2 
from the plant and use it to grow this pond scum. In these very long 
greenhouses where they are producing algae from the plant's 
CO2, they harvest the algae and produce diesel fuel. So what 
they are doing is taking something that we want to get rid of to grow 
single-cell pond scum called algae, which increases its bulk in hours.
  By the way, an equivalent acre of corn produces, in terms of ethanol 
fuel, about 300 or 400 gallons. An equivalent acre of soybeans I 
believe is around 80 to 100 gallons.
  An equivalent acre of algae harvested for diesel fuel produces 3,000 
to 4,000 gallons. Think of this. We use much coal to produce 
electricity and that increased manmade CO2 is destructive to 
the atmosphere. Yet capturing the CO2 and producing fuel is 
very beneficial.
  An Austin, TX, company came to see me. They have two demonstration 
projects in Texas. They are taking flue gas off a coal plant, and they 
are producing several byproducts hydrogen,

[[Page 11302]]

chloride, and baking soda. Isn't that interesting? These small 
demonstration projects take the flue gas from a coal electric 
generating plant, chemically treat it, and then produce these 
byproducts.
  Take a look at this chart. Here is the baking soda, and it contains 
the CO2. Instead of emitting it into the atmosphere, it is 
embedded in the CO2. It can be put in a landfill, but you 
can also make cookies. I happen to like the idea of eating cookies from 
this process. They said: Do you want to have some cookies produced from 
coal? It tasted pretty good because it was produced with, among other 
things, the baking soda which was a byproduct from coal.
  Here is another example of what we can do. I have in my hand some 
sandstone. You can find this in many geologic formations, including 
10,000 to 15,000 feet underground in North Dakota. There also might be 
a very viable way to capture and store the CO2 underground. 
The carbon dioxide under pressure is pumped underground, attaches 
itself to sandstone and is therefore sequestered. We have examples, as 
I said previously, of CO2 being used in marginal oil wells.
  We suck out oil all across the planet every single day. We stick 
straws into the Earth, and we suck out 85 million barrels a day. We use 
one-fourth of that oil produced every day in the United States. We have 
a prodigious appetite for this energy. When you stick a drilling rig 
into the ground and find oil, in many cases, you are only getting about 
30 percent of the oil pool pumped up. At that point, it is difficult to 
produce any more without some extra help or advanced technology. If you 
pump CO2 down into that ground under pressure, you enhance 
oil recovery. You have a way to get rid of the CO2 by 
putting pressure on the oil to bring it up. You have gotten rid of the 
CO2, protected the environment, are still able to use coal 
and have enhanced the recovery of oil from domestic sources.
  Why do I tell you all this? I think we need to produce substantial 
wind and other forms of renewable energy. We also have all kinds of 
needs for efficiency and conservation opportunities. But, if we don't 
find a way to unlock the opportunities to continue to use our fossil 
fuels, especially coal, we will not solve the problem that is brought 
to us with this piece of legislation on the Senate floor. How do we 
solve the problem of being able to use coal in a carbon constrained 
future? Perhaps by producing baking soda or algae, we can end up 
producing more cookies or biodiesel. Perhaps it's a dozen other 
innovative approaches.
  How do you do that? By investing in research and technological 
capability. This will require substantially more funding. I was visited 
by Craig Venter, who is one of the two fathers of the Human Genome 
Project and an unbelievable American. He has now turned his attention 
to energy. They are working on sophisticated things that I have a 
difficult time fully describing in simple terms. They are working on 
creating new kinds of organisms and bacteria that could eat coal in 
underground seams and produce liquid fuels. The Department of Energy's 
Office of Science is also studying the gut system of termites with our 
scientists because we know there are 200 microbes in the intestinal 
tract of a termite. When they eat your house, and they love to eat 
wood, it produces methane. Most living things do. But termites are able 
to break down cellulose. If we are going to have a revolution in the 
use of biofuels, we need to understand what these termites accomplish 
naturally. We are trying to figure out what is it in the gut system of 
termites that allows this insect to eat wood and break down cellulosic 
materials. If we can figure that out, we unlock another part of the 
mystery of how to produce more non-oil based fuels.
  So here is the proposal I will offer today. It is an amendment that 
would shift a substantial amount of money and dramatically increase the 
amount of money available for research and technology for advancing 
coal research. We would unlock the mysteries of going from research to 
demonstration to commercial application of carbon capture and storage 
or other beneficial uses. If they don't do that, the goals of this bill 
will fail. If we don't solve the problem without solving how to expand 
technology to use coal in a near zero emissions way, we can not meet 
the goals outlined in this bill.
  We have to make substantial investments in technology, science, and 
research. I was part of six of us in the Senate who said, some years 
ago, pushed to double the amount of money we spend at the National 
Institutes of Health because it is not spending, it is an investment in 
the future. If we invest in cures for cancer, ALS, Parkinson's, 
diabetes, heart disease, and so many more diseases, it will be 
beneficial to generations around the world. We made the commitment and 
doubled the amount of funding at the NIH.
  We need the same kind of commitment with respect to our energy 
future. We need to decide we are going to make a commitment. Just as 
NIH deals with the health of people. This bill and the technology we 
need to develop relates to the health of our economy, of our country, 
and of the expanded opportunities in this country. We need to make a 
similar commitment right now.
  I propose an amendment that would take the underlying bill which has 
about $17 billion for advancing coal research in the first 12 to 14 
years. This is a good start but is not enough. I propose to shift about 
$20 billion to that $17 billion and try to provide about $37 billion in 
total. That $37 billion in this cap and trade bill would be coupled 
with the $500 million that I have each year through appropriations for 
clean coal research. By the way, this President's funding 
recommendation on research in fossil fuels has largely been largely 
flat and very inadequate to our needs. He has mostly paid lip service 
to our tremendous needs. There is no evidence the White House is very 
interested in this. Through such an amendment I propose to create a 
fund of at least about $3.5 billion a year, starting in 2009, because 
these can start with the first auctions and the funding can be 
available on the first opportunity after passage of a piece of 
legislation. If this could be accomplished, we would have about $3.5 
billion a year for 12 to 14 years.
  I am convinced we can do this. I am convinced that investments in 
these technology opportunities allow us to address the climate change 
challenge and still continue to use the most abundant source of energy 
in this country without injuring our environment. There are people out 
there who are some of the best and the brightest scientists and 
engineers in our country. We need these people working on this issue. 
There are many technological leaps that need to be made. The best minds 
should be working on ways to take CO2, produce baking soda, 
and make cookies. They should be working on ways to have beneficial use 
of carbon, which is destructive to our environment, but can be 
constructive if you invest it in algae and harvest the algae for diesel 
fuel.
  Frankly, the amount of money that has been committed to research and 
technology and development has been pathetic, just pathetic. It is not 
just this, it is also solar, wind, and other technologies. But Jeffrey 
Sachs, a professor at Columbia University, has written a wonderful 
essay in Time Magazine this week. I commend him for saying we need a 
moonshot here. My amendment is going to give us that opportunity--$37 
billion invested in the opportunity to unlock the mysteries of how we 
use our most abundant resource and still protect our environment.
  We can do this, but we cannot move forward and will not move forward 
in a way that says to our country we need to make investments. I 
believe we can produce a number of zero-emission, coal-fired electric 
generating facilities. It will not happen by accident. I chair the 
Committee on Appropriations that funds all our national laboratories. 
The thousands and thousands of the best scientists in this country are 
a national treasure. We are now seeing many of them being furloughed 
and leaving our Federal payroll. We have so much to do, in such a short 
time, to unlock the opportunities to address this issue I have 
described. I hope we can move forward very aggressively.

[[Page 11303]]

  Finally, in closing, I will speak at greater length on the floor 
today on this subject, and I may file an amendment today. But this, it 
seems to me, is the first key to unlock the opportunities that will 
give us a future in which we can protect our environment and continue 
to use the resources we must use. This must be part of the step if the 
promise of not only this bill but future bills dealing with the great 
challenge of global warming are to be fulfilled.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Florida is 
recognized.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I will speak on the climate 
change bill. How much time do we have under this order?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has 8\1/2\ minutes 
remaining on the Democratic side.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Is this in morning business?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. We are in morning business.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, what I wished to share with the 
Senate is how I come to the table on the question of the climate change 
bill.
  We clearly understand something is happening to the Earth. The Earth 
is heating up. Obviously, there are interests that are going to be 
affected--special interests--if we go about changing the way we are 
doing business, the kinds of pollutants we are putting in the air, and 
those business interests will claim that, in fact, they are being 
harmed. I understand that. That is part of the body politic we have to 
come together and find a solution on what will be the least detrimental 
to folks as we are trying to change the Government policy of all this 
stuff we are putting in the air. Indeed, we have been putting this in 
the air ever since we started changing our society in the Industrial 
Revolution because the burning of fossil fuels is starting to 
accumulate carbon in the air. That carbon is acting as a shield in the 
upper atmosphere, creating a greenhouse effect, that when the Sun's 
rays come in and hit the Earth, and they reflect off; normally, they 
would radiate out into space. But the fact that we are creating a cap, 
similar to a greenhouse, with these gases--primarily carbon dioxide--
they are trapping that heat and, as a result, the Earth is heating up.
  In the course of this debate, we will have a lot more scientific 
evidence that will come forth and tell us how many parts per million of 
carbon in the air you can get before it becomes almost irreversible. We 
certainly wish to avoid that. But that means we have to come back to 
the political policy and make the decisions that will prevent us from 
ever getting to that concentration of carbon in the atmosphere that 
becomes the point of no return, that at that point the Earth continues 
to heat up to the point that it has all the consequences--the 
consequences of the ice sheet in Greenland, which I have been on, which 
is melting, and that in itself is 2 miles thick. It is freshwater 
because of the hundreds of thousands of years of the rain coming and 
the rain turning into snow and the snow packing and, year after year, 
the same thing happening. It is 2 miles thick in the center of 
Greenland. It is all freshwater.
  If that melts, the seas are going to rise somewhere between 10 and 15 
feet--the entire seas of planet Earth are going to rise. What happens 
to Antarctica and the icecaps there? We will have testimony, and we 
will have scientific evidence on all this. We cannot let that happen. 
So we are going to have to make the policy changes; that is, we are 
going to have to have the political will in order to make the policy 
changes, and the tough thing about this is that it is not just this 
country. We have to get the rest of the countries to do it. But America 
is the one that has to lead, and in the last decade, America has not 
led.
  Let me just show this chart. This is my State. What would happen if 
the seas rise? If they rise 10 feet, which is the red--here is the 
State of Florida. We are familiar with it, the peninsula with the 
Florida Keys. If the seas rise 10 to 20 feet, Florida is going to look 
like this, just the gray. All of this red and blue is going to be 
underwater.
  Mr. President, I say to my colleagues, most of the population of 
Florida is along the coast. I don't want that to happen to my State. My 
State has more coastline than any other State in the continental United 
States. Only Alaska has more coastline than our State. That is in 
excess of 1,500 miles of coastline. That is where the population lives 
in Florida. I don't want that to happen to our State.
  In the closing minutes that I have--Mr. President, will you tell me 
how many minutes I have.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Florida has 2\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I wish to share with the Senate 
what I saw from the window of a spacecraft. It is very typical that 
space fliers, on the first day in space, will be looking for things. On 
the 24th flight of the space shuttle over two decades ago, I was at 
that window--when you can get time and you don't have much time because 
every minute is planned--and I was looking for things. I was looking 
for the cape where we were launched.
  By the second day in space, your perspective has broadened and you 
are looking at continents. And by the third day in space, you are 
looking back at home, and home is the planet. It is so beautiful, it is 
so colorful, it is such an alive creation suspended in the middle of 
nothing, and space is nothing. It is an airless vacuum that goes on and 
on for billions of light years--and there is home. It is so beautiful.
  Yet when you look at it, it is so fragile. You look at the rim of the 
Earth. There is a bright blue color right at the rim that fades off 
into the blackness of outer space. And right at the rim of the Earth, 
you can see the thin little film that sustains all of life, the 
atmosphere. Even from that altitude, with the naked eye you can see how 
we are messing it up. Coming across Brazil in the upper Amazon region, 
the color contrast will show you where they are destroying the 
rainforests.
  I came away from that profound experience of seeing home from a 
different perspective, with a new feeling that I needed to be a better 
steward of what God has given us--our home, the planet. If we continue 
to abuse the planet, Mother Nature will not work in syncopation and in 
balance.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. For that reason, I am supporting this 
Lieberman-Warner bill.
  I thank the Chair.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas is 
recognized.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the first 
half of our morning business time, the 30 minutes, be divided equally 
among myself, Senator Chambliss, and Senator Sessions.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I first wish to raise the concern I have 
that this extraordinarily complex piece of legislation, I have been 
advised that this 342-page bill we have on our desks that we all 
assumed was the working document to which we have been drafting 
amendments, is actually not going to be the document we are going to be 
working from as early as this afternoon. I have been informed--and I 
ask colleagues whether this is, in fact, the case--that there is 
actually another bill, not 342 pages long but 491 pages long, that will 
be laid down this afternoon by Senator Boxer.
  It is very difficult for any of us to be prepared when the target 
continues to move. To those who are concerned, as the Senator from 
California and the majority leader have been about the speed with which 
we address this bit of legislation, this does nothing but slow us down 
and make our job harder. I hope that is not the case, but that is what 
I am reliably informed.
  To me, it is counterintuitive to say the least that we would 
undertake to pass legislation with a pricetag of $6.7 trillion that 
will actually raise gas

[[Page 11304]]

prices by 147 percent when families in my State and across the country 
are already paying an extra $1,400 a year for gas prices as a result of 
congressional inaction. Actually, I guess it is wrong to say 
congressional inaction because Congress has actually acted to impose a 
barrier to developing America's natural resources right here at home to 
the tune of roughly 3 million barrels of oil a day which, if it was 
made available and Congress would simply get out of the way, that would 
be additional supply which would bring down the price of oil which 
would give us some temporary relief as we transition to a clean energy 
future for our country and for the world.
  By that I mean by developing things such as greater use of nuclear 
power, using good old-fashioned American ingenuity, research and 
development to develop clean coal technology and the like.
  In the near term, I think we all have to acknowledge the obvious fact 
that oil is going to continue to be part of our future, but hopefully 
it will be a bridge to a future of clean energy independence, but not 
unless Congress acts. Congress is the problem.
  I suggest when we look around for the causes of our current energy 
crisis that Congress simply look in the mirror because we are the 
problem. It is unfortunate that when the Senate had an opportunity 
recently to vote on the American Energy Production Act that only 42 
Senators voted for it. That was when gas was about $3.73 a gallon. 
Today the average price of a gallon of gas is $3.98 a gallon.
  I asked the question then, and I will ask it again today: Is the 
Senate going to reject an opportunity to develop America's natural 
resources and bring down the price of gasoline at the pump when 
gasoline is at $3.98 a gallon? How about when it is at $5 a gallon or 
$6 a gallon? Where is the tipping point at which Congress is finally 
going to wake up and realize it is the reason Americans are paying too 
much at the pump?
  Instead of dealing with that urgent need that affects every man, 
woman, and child in this country, this Congress has decided to head 
down another path, and that path is bigger Government, more taxes, 
higher energy costs for electricity and gasoline, and with the 
uncertainty that any of this will actually have an impact on climate, 
especially given the fact that countries such as China and India, of a 
billion people each, are not going to agree to impose this on 
themselves. So America is going to do this, presumably, while our major 
global competitors are not, and we are going to suffer not only those 
higher prices but job losses, reduction in our gross domestic product, 
and a competitive disadvantage with the rest of the world. Why would we 
do that to ourselves?
  At the same time, we see this Rube Goldberg bureaucracy that would be 
created. Yesterday, Senator Dorgan said this bureaucracy would make 
HillaryCare pale in comparison with its complexity as reflected on this 
chart. This is the kind of huge expansion in Government power over our 
lives and over the economy that is unprecedented in our country, and I 
suggest is the wrong solution, is the wrong answer to what confronts us 
today.
  In my State in Texas, it has been estimated under that Boxer climate 
tax legislation that as many as 334,000 jobs would be lost as a result 
of the increased costs and taxes associated with this bill, with a 
$52.2 billion loss to the Texas economy, and an $8,000 additional 
surcharge on each Texas household. That is over and above the $1,400 
that each Texas family is already paying because of congressional 
inaction on oil and gas prices. Electricity costs, 145 percent higher; 
gasoline, 147 percent higher.
  I don't know why, at a time when the American people and the American 
economy are already struggling with a soft economy in many parts of the 
country, why we would do this to ourselves. It simply does not make any 
sense to me.
  I would like to have an explanation from our colleagues who are 
advocating this particular legislation how they can possibly justify 
this bill. What could be the possible rationale for legislation that 
would do this to my State and have this sort of Draconian impact on the 
economy of our country?
  I have heard some talk that said that gas prices have increased 
during the time President Bush has been in office. This is what has 
happened since our friends on the other side of the aisle have 
controlled both the House of Representatives and the Senate. We see 
there is a huge spike in gas prices during a Democratic-controlled 
Congress. But this should not be a partisan issue. This is a matter of 
the welfare of the American family and of the American economy. Why in 
the world would we not want to work together to try to develop the 
natural resources that God has given us to create that additional 3-
million-barrel supply of oil so we can reduce our dependence on 
imported oil from foreign sources?
  The alternative proposed by our colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle is, OK, we are going to impose higher taxes on the oil industry 
which, of course, would be passed along to consumers and raise the 
price of gasoline even more or they say we are going to have another 
investigation into price gouging when the Federal Trade Commission has 
investigated time and time again and found no evidence to justify a 
charge of price gouging when it comes to gasoline prices or they say we 
are going to sue OPEC, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting 
Countries, which has to be the most boneheaded suggestion I have heard 
because, of course, what in the world would you ask the judge to order 
if you were successful in suing OPEC? I presume to open the spigot even 
wider so we would be more dependent on foreign oil and not less.
  It is time for a real solution. This bill is not it. I call on my 
colleagues to do what we can to open America's natural resources to 
development and bring down the price of gasoline at the pump.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, what is the time agreement at this 
stage?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is allocated 10 
minutes.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, our Nation wants progress toward energy 
security, affordable energy. It wants to reduce pollution and it wants 
to fight global warming. There is no doubt about that. It wants us, 
this Congress, to do something. But it wants us to do the right things, 
wise things, prudent things, not wrong things.
  I traveled my State this past week, all week, from every corner of 
it. My wife and I traveled around and we talked to a lot of people. One 
thing that is absolutely clear to anybody who has eyes to see and ears 
to hear is that the American people are terribly concerned about 
surging gasoline and electricity prices that are rising, and this is 
hurting them. This is not an academic matter we are talking about. 
Average families, carpooling and driving to work, are going to the gas 
pump and finding that when the month is over, their bill is now $50, 
$75, or $100 more for the same amount of gasoline that they bought 2 or 
3 years ago, and it impacts their budget. They have less money to pay 
other bills with, to fix the brakes on the car, or purchase a set of 
tires, or take a trip, or have a medical expense, or buy a new suit of 
clothes. These things are reduced when we have now added to their 
normal expenses $50, $75, or $100 a month for fuel.
  Some of that, I believe, we can do something about; some of that we 
may not. We have to be honest with our constituents. But they want us 
to do something. They are not happy, and they should not be, that we 
are importing 60 percent of the gasoline and oil that we will need to 
run our country from foreign countries, many of which are hostile to 
us. We are transferring out of our country $500 billion to purchase 
that oil. It is the greatest wealth transfer in the history of the 
world. No one has ever seen anything like it before, and it is, in my 
opinion, without any doubt a factor--a major factor; perhaps the major 
factor--in the economic slowdown we are seeing today and making us less 
competitive, and it is reducing and threatening the health of our 
economy.
  Now, when you talk to people in my State, and I think any State that 
you

[[Page 11305]]

would consider, and you tell them: Well, we are going to be talking 
about energy matters next week, and we have a cap-and-trade bill that 
is on the Senate floor, our good and decent and trustworthy citizens, 
the ones who still have a modicum of confidence in Congress, you know 
what they think? You know what they think? They think we are going to 
set about in Congress to do something about surging energy prices, to 
contain the increase in gasoline prices, to reduce our dependence on 
foreign oil and this incredible wealth transfer leaving our Nation's 
security at risk. They think we are going to take steps to strengthen 
the American economy.
  Why shouldn't they? Isn't that what they pay us to do? But, oh, no, 
they would be shocked to learn that the Democratic leadership, the 
leadership of that great Democratic party which claims to represent 
middle-class Americans, is uninterested in these matters but is now 
attempting to pass legislation that will raise taxes, substantially 
raise energy costs, gasoline prices, by 50 cents plus a gallon, will 
cause worker layoffs, and will hurt our economy and leave us less 
competitive in the world marketplace. That is what this bill will do. 
It is the opposite of what the American people, our dutiful citizens 
who send us here, would expect us to be doing at this time.
  On Monday, my good friend, Senator Reid, the Democratic leader--and I 
do admire him, and he has a tough job, there is no doubt about it. I 
know he can't make everybody happy--seemed hurt Monday that the 
Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said bringing this bill up 
demonstrated he was out of touch. Well, I say that is maybe too nice a 
term. Maybe ``clueless'' would have been a legitimate term. Senator 
Reid is such a wonderful guy. He comes from Searchlight, NV. I suggest 
he go back to Searchlight and talk to real people. What are they going 
to say, that they want us to raise prices of gasoline? Give me a break. 
They are not going to tell him that in Searchlight, just as they didn't 
tell me in Alabama to come here and pass higher taxes on gasoline, to 
create bureaucracies the likes of which we have never seen, to create 
high energy prices, to drive up the price of energy by this complex, 
sneaky cap-and-trade tax system that the Wall Street Journal calls the 
greatest wealth transfer since the income tax, or to create a 
bureaucracy that is going to monitor this complexity throughout the 
country.
  It is an unbelievable 342 pages, this bill that is now before us, and 
it is not the right thing. It would represent an injection of 
Washington into the most marvelous thing we have, in many ways, in our 
country--the free American economy. It would be an injection of 
Washington into that economy of unprecedented proportions.
  The goal of this legislation is to reduce CO2 emissions in 
our country, they say, by 71 percent by 2050. That means to reduce the 
amount of carbon fuels we use by 71 percent by 2050. But the population 
is increasing in our country during this time significantly, by every 
poll that I think is accurate, and when you calculate that, it means we 
are going to reduce carbon emissions per American--per capita--by 90 
percent. It means virtually the elimination of coal, natural gas, and 
gasoline and oil--eliminate those from the American economy. We do not 
have the science and the technology to get us there as of now, yet this 
bill would put us on a direct glidepath toward that direction.
  So the fact that this is a tax, that it would drive up energy costs--
indeed is a sneaky tax on the American people--is indisputable. Nobody 
disputes that. To borrow a phrase from former Vice President Gore, the 
debate is over on that question. This bill will increase the cost of 
energy, and high energy prices will reduce economic output, reduce our 
purchasing power, lower the demand for goods and services, make us less 
competitive in the world, and ultimately cost American jobs. That is a 
fact. Supporters will argue that it creates a fund to alleviate high 
energy costs for low-income Americans by reallocating some of the 
trillions of dollars to people, according to the political whims of, I 
guess, this Congress, to decide who will win and who will get money 
back and who won't get money back. The current increase in gasoline 
prices alone amounts to about 50 cents a gallon, as I indicated, under 
this legislation. And, amazingly, it does nothing, zero, to produce any 
more clean American energy and to lower the price of gasoline to 
produce our energy here at home. I worry about that.
  In the years to come, we are going to be using a lot of oil and gas 
and coal. We could use clean coal to create liquid fuels that we could 
burn in our automobiles. All of that absolutely can be done to reduce 
our dependence on foreign oil. Let me tell you, there is a big 
difference economically, if you take a moment to think about it, in 
sending $500 billion to Venezuela and Saudi Arabia and UAE to buy oil 
with than if we spent that money at home creating American jobs for 
American workers.
  I tell my colleagues that this is a bill that is unjustified and 
unwise. It is change, but change in the wrong direction, and I urge its 
defeat.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Georgia is 
recognized.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I first of all commend my colleague 
from Alabama, and I associate myself with his remarks because he is 
dead on target.
  I also rise today to discuss the Climate Security Act that is before 
the Senate. First, I thank all of our colleagues who have been 
responsible for bringing this bill to the floor because we need to 
debate this issue. It is a critical issue that is important to all 
Americans, not only this generation but future generations. I have two 
grandchildren, and I want to make sure we leave our grandchildren an 
America better than we inherited it. So it is a critically important 
debate.
  The Climate Security Act will require the transformation of the U.S. 
economy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in an attempt to lower the 
average world temperature in 2050 and beyond. I note, however, that in 
a study done by the University of Georgia, released last year, it was 
determined that over the past 100 years the actual temperature in 
America had been reduced by 1 degree, not raised any at all but 
actually reduced.
  It is estimated the Climate Security Act will generate increased 
revenues of $6.7 trillion using allowances and auctions. A large 
portion is given directly to various Federal and State programs outside 
of the normal budget and appropriations process. However, this amount 
of revenue must come from somewhere, and unfortunately, under this 
bill, it is going to come from you, me, and from American individuals 
and families who will pay higher costs for the energy we use to live.
  Economic models have overwhelmingly shown this bill will affect 
consumers directly through higher gasoline and electricity prices, 
resulting in lower household incomes and millions of jobs being lost in 
America. Moreover, the national economy will be harmed as gross 
domestic product is expected to drop considerably over the next 40 
years, should this bill be enacted.
  We also know this bill will constrain the supply and significantly 
raise the cost of transportation fuel. Like many of my colleagues, I 
spent the Memorial Day recess traveling around my home State. The 
average price of a gallon of diesel was $4.77 per gallon, and regular 
gasoline averaged $3.98 per gallon. These are the highest prices ever 
recorded in my home State of Georgia, and this is my constituents' No. 
1 issue.
  So it troubles me, as we are seeing almost $4 per gallon gasoline in 
my home State, that some in this body want to enact legislation that 
would further increase the price of a gallon of gas. I hear from 
hundreds of Georgians every day who are struggling to fill their tanks 
to get to work or to take their kids to school or to run their 
necessary errands.
  I will be honest, I don't know how the average American, the average 
Georgian in particular, is coping with this issue--with the rapid 
increase in the price of a gallon of gas.
  EPA models show that the gasoline prices will rise by a minimum of 53

[[Page 11306]]

cents per gallon if this bill were implemented. Why would we do that to 
the American people, who are already hurting at the pump?
  Regrettably, the legislation before this body would do nothing to 
increase our domestic supply of oil and help alleviate the lack of 
supply of gas that is driving the prices up.
  Instead, this bill will only keep prices rising. The Energy 
Information Agency study predicts that gasoline prices will increase 
anywhere from 41 cents per gallon to $1 per gallon by 2030 due to this 
legislation. Some estimates have gasoline prices rising by as much as 
145 percent in my home State of Georgia. This is unacceptable to the 
people of my State and unacceptable to the people of this country.
  Nobody disputes the fact that the United States is dependent on 
foreign sources of oil. We currently import 60 percent of our oil--
actually a little greater than 60 percent--and nobody disputes that 
this problem has been in the making for decades. Over the past 30 
years, the United States has reduced our domestic exploration options 
and left our refining capacity stagnant.
  The rising cost of fuel requires a multi-pronged strategy to respond. 
That is why we must take commonsense action and increase our domestic 
supply of oil by exploring where we know there are resources available 
and encouraging the development of alternative fuels, such as 
cellulosic ethanol, to decrease our reliance on foreign oil.
  We must find both short-term and long-term solutions to provide 
energy security for our Nation and give relief to Americans.
  This bill will attack citizens at the pump and increase their 
electricity costs, thus exacerbating job losses to overseas markets.
  Higher energy costs to businesses and the necessity to invest in 
expensive low carbon technologies will force companies to raise the 
prices of their products, opening the market up to low-cost 
international competition, or move businesses to China or Mexico, where 
environmental regulations are lacking. Millions more jobs will be lost 
in America as a result. One study estimates that between 1.1 and 1.8 
million jobs will be lost by 2020 as U.S. companies close or move 
overseas. Another study shows that up to 4 million jobs will be lost by 
2030 inside the United States if this legislation becomes law. It has 
been estimated that in Georgia alone we may lose as many as 155,400 
jobs, should this legislation be enacted.
  Manufacturing jobs will be one of the hardest hit sectors as the 
Energy Information Administration projects that manufacturing output 
will decline by up to 9.5 percent in 2030. This country has already 
lost 19 percent of its manufacturing jobs since 2000. This legislation 
will only help push those jobs outside of our borders.
  The cost to American families will be too much for many to bear. An 
EPA study estimates that the cost per household in Georgia will be as 
much as $608 in 2020, and nearly $4,400 per year in 2050. The median 
household income in Georgia is $64,000. CRA International states that 
the average increased cost to families is $1,740 per family in 2020.
  Workers keeping their jobs would be subject to much lower wages, due 
to increased competition and increased costs. Even with lower incomes, 
families would be expected to pay more to heat their homes and fill up 
their cars. The Environmental Protection Agency has stated that 
electricity prices will increase an additional 44 percent by 2030. In 
Georgia, the estimated cost will be 135 percent higher if this 
legislation is enacted.
  This will be devastating to families across the country.
  According to Housing and Urban Development, poor families spend 
almost five times as much of their monthly budget in meeting their 
energy needs--19 percent--as wealthier Americans, who spend 
approximately 4 percent.
  Increases in energy prices due to carbon limits would hit the poor 
five times harder, which certainly will be unsustainable. This bill, by 
some estimates, will hit the average Georgia household in an amount 
equal to $7,231.
  The effects this legislation will have on consumers is outrageous: 
higher gasoline prices, higher electricity prices, lower household 
incomes, and job losses.
  In closing, let me touch on some specific aspects of the bill. While 
the bill includes a market-based cap-and-trade system----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska). The Senator has 1 
minute remaining.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. I believe this bill could be more fair and equitable. 
We also should work to make it more predictable for businesses and 
understandable to taxpayers and consumers. One of the greatest 
challenges to any climate bill will be to ensure that it does not 
stymie economic growth and protects American jobs. We need to continue 
to seek the best way to generate the greatest benefits for the lowest 
cost. We cannot burden our children and our grandchildren with 
increased energy costs.
  A climate bill must be flexible to adjust to changing science, 
economic conditions, and the actions of other countries. The Climate 
Security Act attempts to encourage other countries to reduce emissions, 
but does not appear to be flexible enough to ensure Americans are not 
disadvantaged because of the inaction of other nations.
  The details of the Climate Security Act will greatly affect every 
American and are extremely important. Have no doubt about it, a vote 
for cloture on this bill is a vote to increase gas prices by a minimum 
of 53 cents per gallon.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the remainder of 
time for our business for the next 27 minutes be allotted to me.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I want to take a moment on the heels of 
the comments of my friend and colleague from Georgia to look at some of 
the hard and fast numbers. We can conjecture here all we want about 
what is going to happen to the price of gasoline going forward. He 
suggested it is going up by 100 percent or 150 percent--who knows? Here 
is what happened. This we do know. We do know the price of gasoline 
starting back here in 2001 was at about $1.50 a gallon and has risen 
today to almost $4 a gallon. We do know that. We can conjecture until 
the cows come home about what might happen in the future, but we do 
know what happened in the past under the watch of the current 
administration. It is not pretty. If we want to make sure this trend 
continues, we will not come up with ways to reduce our consumption of 
oil; we will not produce more energy-efficient cars, trucks, and vans; 
we will not reduce the amount of miles we travel in our communities and 
our States; we will not find a whole host of ways to conserve energy; 
we will not come up with ways to conserve energy through renewables. If 
we don't do any of those things, this kind of thing will continue. Our 
challenge here today and the way to make sure this doesn't continue is 
to pursue legislation along the tracks of that which is before us today 
and this week.
  I begin today by commending the work of Senator Boxer, Senator 
Lieberman, Senator Warner, and others in developing this global warming 
legislation. Let me say to my colleagues, your initial bill was a good 
start. I believe the version that has been brought before the Senate 
this week represents a significant improvement over that original 
proposal. The leadership of this troika--it is actually tripartisan 
leadership--a Democrat, a Republican, and an Independent--your 
leadership gives me hope we will pass landmark legislation on this 
front, not this week, not this month, probably not this year, but in 
the not too distant future when hopefully we have a new administration, 
regardless of who is President, who is more amenable, more supportive, 
more understanding of addressing global warming. I plan to do all I can 
in the meantime to make sure we do not lose that opportunity.
  As a lot of my colleagues may know, addressing global warming has 
been an important issue for me since my early days in the Senate. I 
think the facts

[[Page 11307]]

are indisputable today. Our planet is growing warmer. We human beings 
are a major contributor to that.
  My passion on this issue began about a dozen or so years ago when I 
first met two doctors, Dr. Lonnie Thompson and Dr. Ellen Mosley-
Thompson, as they received something called the Commonwealth Award for 
Science in Wilmington, DE for their pioneering work on global warming. 
The Thompsons are natives of West Virginia, as am I, and they are both 
professors at Ohio State University, where I received my undergraduate 
degree, and both are world renowned for their research on the effects 
global climate change is having on glaciers and ice fields throughout 
the world. Measuring levels of carbon from ice core samples that go 
back nearly 1 million years in time, they focused on glaciers and ice 
caps atop mountains in Africa and South America. They have concluded 
that many of them--that being the mountains and glaciers, the ice caps 
on the mountains and glaciers--will probably melt within the next 15 
years or so because of global warming. They fear little can be done to 
save them. It is up to us in this body to prove the skeptics wrong, to 
show we can do something, we can pull together and we can address this 
threat to our planet.
  Three years ago during our Senate debate on this same issue, I 
stressed that the Arctic sea ice had shrunk by 250 million acres over 
the past 30 years, an area about the size of California, Maryland, 
Texas--and maybe Delaware--combined.
  Today, I am sad to say, the Arctic sea ice has shrunk by not 250 
million acres but 650 million acres, an area the size of Alaska and 
Texas combined or the size of 10 United Kingdoms combined. If we 
continue down this path on which we have started, the consequences for 
our planet and our country and our people will be catastrophic. It is 
up to us to ensure that America leads the world down a different path. 
We must and we should.
  The EPA estimates that unless global warming is controlled, sea 
levels will rise by as much as 2 feet over the next 50 years. I have 
heard even greater amounts over the next 100 years. For island nations 
and coastlines, that could mean entire cities and beaches are wiped 
out. It is up to us in this body to ensure that those beaches and those 
cities, those coastlines, are preserved.
  I have a chart here I want to share with my friends. For those of you 
who have not been to Delaware, this is Delaware: About 100 miles end to 
end, and from east to west, maybe 50 miles here. This is the outline of 
our coast. This is Lewes. This is Cape Henlopen. This is Rehoboth 
Beach, Dewey Beach, Bethany Beach, Fenwick Island, the Nation's summer 
capital. This is where the beach is today. Fifty years from now, if we 
don't do anything about global warming, sea level rises will have been 
2 feet and this will be the beach in Delaware. This is Dover, DE, our 
State capital. This past Sunday we hosted 150,000 people from all over 
the country--NASCAR race. In 50 years from now, if we are not careful, 
this will not be Dover, it will be Dover Beach. We won't be having 
NASCAR races at Dover Beach. We may be having sailing regattas, we may 
have motorboat races, but we will not be having stock car races unless 
we do something about it, so this is imperative for a lot of reasons, 
including some that are close to my heart.
  Since our last Senate debate on this issue we have seen the 
scientific community come together on this issue. The Intergovernmental 
Panel on Climate Change has undeniably affirmed that the warming of our 
climate system is linked to us, human activity. We also know the United 
States is one of the world's two largest emitters of greenhouse gases, 
along with the Chinese. In fact, they may have overtaken us by now. We 
account, in this country, for almost 20 percent of the world's 
greenhouse gas emissions and for almost one-quarter of the world's 
economic output. I believe our Nation has a responsibility to reduce 
our emissions of CO2. In short, we have a responsibility to 
lead.
  Unfortunately, we have not seen a whole lot of leadership coming from 
the White House or enough from the Congress on this front. At least not 
yet. That has to change and that change is starting, I hope, this week. 
Others, in the meantime, have begun filling the void. We have another 
chart here. This is a chart of our country. There is a lot of green, 
light green, dark green, and blue. The light green areas are the areas 
where the States are actually developing their own climate action 
plans. They have been waiting for us. They have given up on that. They 
started to take the bull by the horns. Light green is where States have 
something in progress in terms of developing their climate action 
plans. The dark greens are the States where they completed action. The 
blues are where they have revisions in progress--about 38 States. They 
have been waiting for us. They are tired of waiting for us, and I don't 
blame them. One of those States is Delaware. We have a plan in my State 
and a lot of other States will soon have plans to reduce their own 
carbon emissions.
  The States are not the only ones filling the void of Federal 
inaction. Fortunately, our Nation's businesses, a number of them, are 
doing the same thing. Companies such as DuPont, a global manufacturer 
headquartered in my home State of Delaware, have taken steps to reduce 
their own carbon emissions.
  DuPont CEO Chet Holliday has said:

       As a company, DuPont believes that action is warranted, not 
     further debate. We also believe the best approach is for 
     business to lead, not to wait for public outcry or government 
     mandates.

  Contrary to concerns that combating global warming will hurt American 
businesses, DuPont's actions have had major positive impacts on its 
bottom line. In the mid-1990s, as part of a climate change initiative, 
DuPont began aggressively maximizing energy efficiency. That initiative 
has allowed DuPont to hold its energy use flat while increasing 
production. As a result, DuPont reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 
more than 70 percent. By doing so, the company actually saved $3 
billion--billion, with a ``b.'' But a patchwork of State initiatives 
combined with good corporate stewardship, however welcome, is not 
enough. We must have a comprehensive national approach, not only to 
give a signal to corporate America that this is a priority, but to the 
world, the United States is prepared at long last to be a leader on 
this front as well.
  I have enough faith in American technology, American ingenuity and 
know-how, to believe we can provide that leadership without endangering 
our Nation's economic growth.
  In fact, if we are smart about it, we will end up strengthening our 
Nation's economy, we will end up creating hundreds of thousands of new 
green jobs and we will end up creating products and technologies we can 
sell and export around the world.
  I would quote Thomas Edison on opportunity. This is what Thomas 
Edison loved to say about opportunity: A lot of people miss out on 
opportunity because opportunity comes along wearing overalls and is 
disguised and looks a lot like work.
  You know, some people look at global warming, our dependence on 
foreign oil or emissions or bad stuff in the air, and they see a 
problem. I see an opportunity. It is an opportunity that brings with it 
economic advantages and the possibility of creating jobs and products 
that flow from that, including technology and jobs and products.
  Well, that is one of the big reasons I support the approach of the 
Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act, to provide a solid framework for 
creating a national, mandatory program to dramatically reduce 
greenhouse gas over the next 40 years or so.
  I am pleased to see Chairwoman Boxer's substitute makes several 
improvements over the bill we passed in the committee last year. 
Specifically, I applaud the chairwoman's efforts in strengthening the 
recycling and cost-containment sections of the bill.
  Let me take a minute here, if I can, colleagues, to focus on the 
importance of recycling and combating global warming.
  A lot of times people say: What can I do as an individual to help on 
global

[[Page 11308]]

warming? As it turns out, everybody can recycle. Everybody can do that. 
Here are a couple of reasons why.
  In 2006, the United States threw away literally, in cans of trash, 
some 82 million tons of material, with a recycling rate of about one-
third--we recycled about a third of that stuff. Let me back up. Let me 
say that again. In 2006, the United States recycled about 80 million 
tons of materials. That is about one- third of all that we would 
otherwise throw away, offsetting the release of some 50 million tons of 
carbon. That is equivalent to the emissions we save by recycling some 
39 million cars each year, because we recycle. However, we only recycle 
about one-third of what we could. However, each year Americans discard 
enough aluminum to rebuild our entire domestic airline fleet every 3 
months.
  Put simply, increasing recycling cuts greenhouse gas emissions. To 
encourage recycling, the bill compels States to bolster recycling 
programs by requiring that no less than 5 percent of carbon credit 
revenues allocated to States must be used for improving recycling 
infrastructure to help States and local communities recycle more. I 
wish to thank the chairwoman again for working with me on this 
important issue.
  Let me talk about cost containment next. I am also pleased with the 
cost-containment provisions Senator Boxer included in the substitute, 
such as the extra pool of allowances available in the early years to 
help contain high prices and the allowances that are returned to 
customers to keep energy prices down. I believe these provisions are 
moving us in the right direction to address any runaway costs that 
might occur in a new market.
  Although this bill is a good start, I believe we can make some 
significant improvements in it, particularly in the area of pollution 
control, in the areas of output allocations and transit, encouraging 
people to get out of their cars and take a bus, take a train to get 
where they need to go.
  Let me start off by addressing the four p's. It stands for the four 
pollutants. I appreciate that this bill acknowledges that dangerous air 
pollutants, including sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and mercury, are 
emitted by the power sector in this country. However, acknowledging a 
problem is not the same as solving that problem. I believe that in 
addition to reducing greenhouse gases, we must additionally pass a 
comprehensive bill that also reduces these other three harmful 
pollutants.
  As some of my colleagues know because I have driven you crazy over 
the last 5 or 6 years on this, visiting many of your offices, 12 of my 
colleagues and I introduced the Clean Air Planning Act of 2007, or 
CAPA. We believe CAPA provides an aggressive, yet achievable, schedule 
for powerplants to reduce emissions and alleviate some of our worst 
air-related health and environmental problems, such as ozone, acid 
rain, mercury contamination, and, of course, global warming. This 
multipollutant approach fits perfectly within the framework of this 
comprehensive global warming bill. I believe we would be foolish to 
address only one pollutant coming out of our Nation's smokestacks, 
however important it is--carbon dioxide--while others--sulfur dioxide, 
nitrogen oxide, and mercury--threaten our health and our environment 
too.
  My State of Delaware, along with the States around us--Maryland, 
Virginia, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey--we are at the end of the 
Nation's tailpipe. We continue to breathe dirty air. During the summer 
months, when ozone pollution is at its worse, more than 10,000 
Delawareans cannot work or carry out daily activities. Nationally, some 
27 million children age 13 and younger are being exposed to unhealthy 
levels of ozone.
  We have another chart here. Not only do we have problems with folks 
breathing bad air, which is harming their lungs and their respiratory 
systems, for young children being carried in the mother's womb, mothers 
ingest large amounts of fish that contain mercury. This year some 
630,000 infants will be born with high levels of mercury exposure. As a 
result, they could have brain damage. A number of them will have 
developmental delays, some will have mental retardation, and some of 
them will have blindness.
  Sulfur dioxide emissions, meanwhile, from powerplants will cause 
24,000 Americans to die this year--24,000 this year, 462 this week, 66 
today, and 1 or 2 during the time I am speaking here will die because 
of exposure to sulfur dioxide emissions from powerplants. I do not know 
how many people are going to die from climate change, from global 
warming, from CO2 emissions in this country in this year. I 
can tell you how many will die from sulfur dioxide--24,000. Twenty-four 
thousand. That is almost as many people who live in Dover, DE--24,000 
people. Fossil fuel-fired powerplants are the single largest source of 
pollution that is causing these health problems.
  If we do not act to tighten our emissions of these pollutants, too 
many communities will continue to live with the air that is unhealthy 
to breathe and mercury will continue to pollute our communities and 
bring harm to pregnant women and to children.
  I believe it is not only the right thing to do but also the economic 
thing to do. Strict caps for all four pollutants, not just carbon 
dioxide, can help drive technology toward a comprehensive mitigation 
rather than a piecemeal approach. That is why I am introducing an 
amendment, along with Senator  Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, that 
achieves similar reductions for sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and 
mercury that are in CAPA but are adjusted to fit the Lieberman-Warner 
timetable.
  The bottom line is, as we develop an economywide solution to global 
warming, we cannot lose sight of the simultaneous need to enact 
stricter caps on mercury, nitrogen oxide, and sulfur dioxide from 
powerplants.
  Next, let me turn to something called output allocations, the way we 
allocate the credits to polluters that emit carbon dioxide. I applaud 
this bill's provisions that provide important funding for zero- and 
low-carbon technology as well as funding to encourage the 
commercialization of carbon capture and sequestration for coal-fired 
generation of electricity.
  However, I believe we are going to use coal for a long time. We have 
to figure out how to capture the other major pollutants as well, and 
the sooner the better. I believe the Boxer substitute can do better to 
support clean and efficient power generation. I am concerned this 
legislation still provides too many subsidies to dirty, less-efficient 
power generation at the expense of new, clean technologies.
  Global warming legislation should make wind and other renewable 
energy products more economically viable. Affordable clean energy 
should be one of our main goals.
  Unfortunately, this bill still continues on the same old paradigm of 
rewarding the historical polluters by distributing pollution allowances 
on an ``input'' basis. This means allowances to emit CO2 in 
this bill are allocated based on historic emissions and the fuel being 
used rather than with respect to the efficiency with which power is 
generated.
  Output-based allocation is an important policy tool to ensure that 
existing powerplants--particularly coal-fired plants--are made far more 
efficient and clean within a reasonable period of time. That is why I 
am planning on offering an amendment to change the distribution of 
allowances in the fossil fuel-powered sector from an input allocation 
to an output allocation.
  It seems to me, colleagues, here we are trying to figure out how to 
apportion those allowances to emit CO2. Why not provide more 
allowances to those utilities that create more electricity by using 
less energy? That is what we should be doing. Unfortunately, what we do 
in this bill is we provide more allocation to emit CO2 to 
powerplants that use more energy rather than less energy. We should 
really provide the allocation and distribution of allowances--to some 
extent, at least--to reward those that provide a lot of electricity 
without using a lot of energy.
  In addition to providing allowances to efficient fossil fuel 
facilities, my amendment--our amendment--would

[[Page 11309]]

also provide allowances for new entrants generating electricity from 
other renewable forms of energy.
  I have a couple of thoughts on this one. I and some of my colleagues 
are strong supporters of safe--underline ``safe''--and secure--
underline ``secure''--nuclear power and believe it must be a prominent 
part of any global warming solution.
  The resurgence of nuclear power in the United States gives us a 
unique opportunity to rebuild a carbon-free energy industry and create, 
in doing so, tens of thousands of highly skilled jobs for building the 
plants and operating them in the future. But to do this, we must 
provide support and incentives to the nuclear manufacturers to 
redevelop the workforce--especially facilities--and capacity to 
participate and ultimately lead the world in quality nuclear 
manufacturing. That is why I have joined Senator Warner and Senator 
Lieberman in an amendment we will offer that provides a sense of the 
Senate that supports workforce training for the nuclear industry.
  Next, transit. Finally, I wish to discuss a very important provision 
in the Boxer substitute that funds transportation alternatives.
  I talked to you earlier about the importance of getting us out of our 
cars, trucks, and vans and getting us to take alternative forms of 
transportation that use less energy and produce less pollution. The 
transportation sector is responsible for about 30 percent of our 
Nation's carbon dioxide emissions, almost one-third. That is why 
Congress passed legislation that I coauthored with a number of my 
colleagues last year--Senator Feinstein and others--to increase auto 
fuel economy from an average of 25 miles per gallon to 35 miles a 
gallon by 2020. The bill before us today also includes a low-carbon 
fuel standard and funding for alternative fuels.
  Let's look at this chart here on my left. This line right here shows 
what CO2 emissions are from our car, truck, and van fleet 
starting in 2005 by incorporating the new CAFE standards for 35 miles 
per gallon by 2020. Here is where we end up in CO2 emissions 
for cars, trucks, and vans. Great progress. Unfortunately, if we keep 
driving more and more every year, the great reductions in 
CO2 which could be recognized here are going to end up with 
no reduction at all unless we do something about vehicle miles traveled 
and reduce the amount of time we spend in our cars, trucks, and vans 
rather than continue to see that grow as we have over the last decades.
  Living in sprawling areas without transit literally can double a 
family's greenhouse gas emissions. The negative consequences go beyond 
impacting our environment. With gas prices approaching $4 a gallon, 
longer commutes and increased distances required for errands costs 
money too.
  Public transportation has saved Americans from an additional 286 
million hours of sitting in traffic. So we included a provision in this 
bill--Senator Cardin was very active on this--to use some of the 
auction proceeds to provide people with an alternative to driving, 
additional alternatives to people to driving. This provision in the 
bill would provide transit to more communities and would also expand 
transit where it already exists. That is good for our environment, it 
is good for our pocketbooks, and it is good for our peace of mind.
  While this provision is important, we need to find a way to give 
communities a greater say in how they can spend their transit dollars. 
Transit is needed across our Nation. However, many communities would 
benefit from improved bike and pedestrian infrastructure, be they 
sidewalks, crosswalks, traffic calming, bike lanes--you name it. In 
rural areas, increasing freight rail capacity might be the most 
effective way to reduce vehicle pollution. Ideally, I think we ought to 
leave it to the local communities to determine which strategy works 
best for them and therefore allow all communities to take steps to 
address this portion of transportation pollution. Having said that, the 
provisions in this bill are a good first attempt to address this 
problem. We ought to do those, but we can do more and should do more.
  As the only Member of the Senate who serves on all three 
transportation-related committees, I look forward to attempting to 
bring those three committees together and agree on a comprehensive 
approach to reducing carbon emissions from the transportation sector 
before we address climate change next year.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. CARPER. I thank the Chair.
  In closing, I appreciate the significant progress that has been made 
already to improve this legislation. I applaud the efforts of my 
colleagues, Senators Boxer, Lieberman, and Warner, for the work they 
and their staffs and our staffs have done. The authors of the bill can 
be proud and their staffs should be commended, our staff should be 
commended.
  We have seen forward-looking companies such as DuPont show leadership 
and vision to develop a business plan for operating in a carbon-
constrained economy. We have seen States such as California, Delaware, 
and a few others take action to reduce our carbon emissions.
  What we have not seen yet is leadership from our Federal Government. 
While we continue to do nothing, or too little, our international 
competitors are already developing new technologies and preparing for 
the future.
  President John Kennedy once said:

       There are risks and costs to a program of action. But they 
     are far less than the long-range risks and costs of 
     comfortable inaction.

  I recognize that despite the hard work of our staffs, Members, and 
leaders on this issue, there is a good chance this conversation will 
need to continue next year. It will and it should. I believe we must 
act on this issue next year, if we ultimately are unable to find common 
ground this year. That is why I am committed to joining Senators Boxer, 
Lieberman, and Warner in leading discussions today and throughout the 
year and bringing together all involved interests and parties to forge 
a path forward toward a solution that can pass the Congress early in 
the next administration. As Members of the Senate, we have a 
responsibility to ensure that our country provides leadership for the 
world in which we live on any number of fronts. The time has come for 
us to fulfill that responsibility with respect to global warming.
  For some people, this is a political exercise. They will offer 
amendments to try to embarrass one side or the other, maybe embarrass 
the authors of the legislation, to basically ensure we don't get 
anything done, to tie us in knots and walk off and leave this 
legislation behind at the end of this week or sometime next week. That 
would be unfortunate. The American people know we have a problem. The 
problem is, the planet is getting warmer. If we don't do something 
about it eventually, we will not be able to turn it around. It is 
important for us to get serious. The American people want us to figure 
out how to work together. Our next President, whoever she or he might 
be, is going to provide us with much stronger, more positive leadership 
on this front. It is incumbent on all of us--Republicans, Democrats, 
and one Independent--to figure out how we can work with that next 
President and with ourselves, with folks in the business community, the 
environmental community, to come up with a plan of action to reduce and 
eventually eliminate the threat that global warming poses to our planet 
but to do so in a way that seizes on what Tom Edison said: Some people 
do actually miss out on opportunity because it comes along wearing 
overalls and looks a lot like work. This is one of those opportunities. 
We should seize the day--as we say in our State, carpe diem--not 
squander the opportunity but make the most of it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, good morning. Let's be clear as we begin 
this discussion. I, along with a vast majority of my colleagues, 
support cutting carbon emissions. We want to cut down on

[[Page 11310]]

any kind of air pollution we have. We have done a great job over the 
years in improving our air, and we need to do more. But we must cut 
carbon without raising prices on gasoline, diesel, electricity, all the 
things that drive our economy. When American families are suffering 
record pain at the pump, a home mortgage crisis, and a soft economy, 
this is not the time to put the Government in a position of raising 
energy prices far higher than anything we have ever seen.
  How much would Lieberman-Warner raise energy prices? We can quote 
from the sponsors of the legislation themselves. This is what the 
junior Senator from California has said Lieberman-Warner would raise: 
$6.735 trillion. It takes two charts to put up all the zeroes that this 
would increase energy prices and, thus, tax American consumers. As we 
can see, too big to fit on any one board.
  The bill's sponsors claim they are trying to hit energy companies 
with the cost of this program. Does anybody doubt what will happen when 
we increase taxes on producers? That has to be passed on. It will be 
passed on to families, workers, farmers, truckers in the form of higher 
energy bills and more pain at the pump. The bill's sponsors point to 
the customer relief they intend in the form of $800 billion over 40 
years for tax relief and $900 billion to utilities to help consumers. 
That would still mean only $1.7 trillion was returned to an American 
public paying $6.7 trillion in higher energy costs. That is a $5 
trillion loss. That complicated Soviet-style scheme would be based on 
the wisdom of some small group of bureaucratic czars who would decide 
who gets the money. It seems they are writing Congress out of the 
responsibility of handling the Treasury. They want to go around and 
turn a small group of wise men into the ones who decide who gets the 
allowances, who gets the relief, and where any relief will go.
  The problem with the $6.7 trillion in higher energy prices is gas 
prices are already at record levels. Gas prices topped $4 in many parts 
of the country and are approaching that in the rest. Drivers are 
suffering at the pump. I was back in Missouri and traveled all over the 
State, from one corner to the other, over the Memorial Day recess. I 
heard firsthand from commuters, farmers, average citizens, businesses 
looking at absolute catastrophe from these higher energy prices. They 
are all fed up with higher gas prices. Regrettably, higher gas prices, 
higher diesel prices are the result of Congress's action or inaction in 
blocking for 30 years the production of new energy in the United 
States.
  I visited truck stops in Joplin in southwestern Missouri and Palmyra 
in the northeast part of the State. I heard from truckers about the 
record diesel prices. Things are getting so bad that many are laying 
off drivers. Some are even going out of business. This is a real 
problem for our country. When truckers suffer, we all suffer. If they 
go out of business, we will not have trucks to deliver the goods. 
Transportation costs make up a significant part of the cost of almost 
every consumer item. When diesel prices go up, prices go up, and 
families will pay. In many areas, we may not have the trucking 
infrastructure to deliver the goods we need.
  How much will Lieberman-Warner increase our pain at the pump? The 
Environmental Protection Agency estimates Lieberman-Warner will 
increase gas prices by 53 cents per gallon by 2030 and by $1.40 per 
gallon by 2050. Supporters of this bill tell us this is no big deal; it 
only represents 2 cents a year. A good statistician can try and make 
any number look not quite so bad. I can't speak for folks in other 
States, but I can tell you the folks back home have a minimum amount of 
high enthusiasm for Congress taking more action to raise prices.
  Mr. President, $1.40 is $1.40. That increase in the price of gasoline 
is totally unacceptable, particularly when it comes with increases in 
prices in all other forms of energy. Yet that is the path the 
supporters of this legislation want us to trod.
  Some Senators say that since gasoline prices have risen 82 cents 
since the beginning of the year, it is OK that Lieberman-Warner will 
only raise prices another 53 cents to $1.40. Does anybody ever stop and 
think that we are going in the wrong direction? We ought to be talking 
about what we can do to increase supply, to bring prices down, not 
figuring out how to come up with a cockamamie scheme that is going to 
increase prices even more. I find the logic a little bit disturbing, if 
you can call it that. The 82-cent rise in gas prices over the last year 
has not been OK with the people in my State. A further 53-cent increase 
by 2030 in gas prices is not OK. A further $1.40-increase in gas prices 
is not OK with the people in Missouri. I can tell you that if we don't 
change the path we are on now, the increase in prices will be even 
greater.
  The bill's sponsors say the demand for oil will go down under 
Lieberman-Warner. Such a claim seems fantastical, until you examine the 
source of the study. It is a study by the International Resources 
Group. That name seems normal enough. But then looking at a copy of the 
study, it shows it was guided by the close involvement of the Natural 
Resources Defense Council. They are the ones who are behind it. The 
NRDC study used by the other side assumes we will get 50 or 60 percent 
of our energy by 2050 from renewable sources such as wind and solar. I 
am all for clean wind and solar power. But nobody in their right mind 
will believe we will go to generating 50 percent of our power from wind 
and solar. That isn't going to happen. You talk to the experts. I have 
listened to experts, experts who are very knowledgeable about biofuels 
and others. They say biofuels can help. Wind and solar can help at the 
margin. But we are still going to depend upon fossil fuel for most of 
our energy costs, particularly our transportation costs.
  On oil demand, the NRDC study makes more outlandish assumptions. They 
predict the fleet efficiency for cars and light trucks will go up to 52 
miles per gallon. Congress just finished raising CAFE standards to 35 
miles per gallon. Now the NRDC says: No problem, we will move it up to 
52 miles per gallon. That would mean we would have a fleet of golf 
carts hauling our produce. I wonder how many golf carts it would take a 
farmer to deliver the hay to cattle in the field, how many golf carts 
to pull a wagon full of corn, how many golf carts to take a large 
family to school. A fleet of golf carts is a wonderful thing.
  The NRDC says we will get 52 miles per gallon by moving the vehicle 
fleet to hybrid and plug-in vehicles. That is another startling 
assumption, 100 percent hybrids and plug-ins. Don't get me wrong. I am 
a big fan of the potential of hybrid cars using advanced vehicle 
battery technology. These are things we ought to be working for.
  Over the recess, as part of my six-city tour of Missouri I mentioned 
earlier, I visited the Ford assembly plant in Kansas City, where they 
make the hybrid Escape SUV. Kansas City is a national leader in hybrids 
and battery technology. We have the Ford hybrid SUV plant. We have a GM 
plant assembling hybrid sedans and SUVs, and we are an international 
leader in all kinds of battery technology, starting from the original 
lead batteries to lithium-ion batteries to lithium-ion polymer 
batteries.
  All these things will help. But Ford is only making about 20,000 of 
these cars a year. They don't have enough batteries to meet the needs. 
I wish to expand on the use of advanced vehicle batteries for hybrids 
and plug-ins. I believe we need to jump start it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. BOND. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If it comes out of the Republican time.
  Mr. BOND. How much time remains on the Republican side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 17 minutes.
  Mr. BOND. I ask my colleague how much time he needs.
  Mr. VITTER. I need about 8 minutes.
  Mr. BOND. I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page 11311]]


  Mr. BOND. If we can get a domestic manufacturing supply base for 
hybrid batteries to get the volume up and the prices down, that would 
be good. Right now we are all depending upon a Japanese battery 
manufacturer. We need to have those batteries manufactured in the 
United States and not be dependent solely on an external source. That 
is a twofer. We could expend the use of clean cars, burning gasoline 
only occasionally, expand the number of blue-collar manufacturing 
jobs--good for the environment and good for workers. But I do not think 
we can rely on the idea that we will achieve 100 percent hybrid and 
plug-in use during this bill. The NRDC study also assumes massive new 
production from carbon captured from powerplants and used for enhanced 
oil recovery. I support this too. But to think we can cut oil imports 
by 58 percent because we are expanding domestic production from burned-
out wells through enhanced oil recovery is beyond the possible.
  So if we set studies aside by environmental groups supporting the 
bill and manufacturing groups such as NAM opposing the bill, that leads 
us to the mainstream Government agencies such as EPA. They say gasoline 
prices will rise 53 cents per gallon by 2030, $1.40 by 2050. If you add 
a $1.40-per-gallon Lieberman carbon surcharge to the current price of 
$4-a-gallon gasoline, you get gas prices at $5.50 a gallon.
  I can tell folks back home right now there is no way I can accept the 
Lieberman-Warner offer of $5.50-a-gallon gasoline. When I tell my 
Missouri constituents we are on the floor debating a bill, when we have 
$4-a-gallon gasoline, and the bill would significantly increase energy 
costs rather than increasing supply that would reduce the price of oil, 
they cannot believe it.
  We are on the wrong track. We need to cut carbon. We do not need to 
increase energy prices on the American public.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time is expired.
  Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I have been allotted 8 minutes, and I ask 
the Chair to notify me when 6 minutes of that 8 have expired.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will so notify the Senator.
  Mr. VITTER. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, like my colleague from Missouri, last week I traveled 
all around my home State. I had about nine townhall meetings and many 
other meetings of all kinds in every part of the State.
  In these townhall meetings, gas prices--the price at the pump--was 
not the first question that always came up. It was the first eight 
questions that always came up. In fact, of all of the discussion I had 
in all of these townhall meetings put together, about two-thirds of 
that entire discussion--that entire time--was about rising gasoline 
prices and energy prices. It is obviously affecting folks all across 
the country, certainly including in my home State of Louisiana.
  In early 2006, when this new Democratic Congress was sworn into 
office and came into power, the average price at the pump was $2.33 a 
gallon. The new leadership vowed they would do something about those 
sky-high prices. Well, apparently they did because now the average 
price at the pump is $3.98 a gallon--a staggering increase in a 
relatively short amount of time.
  So in this context, when Americans all over our country, certainly 
including Louisiana, are suffering from these sky-high prices that 
continue to rise--as they go into the summer driving season, many 
hoping to take family vacations, realizing they cannot this summer 
because of these costs--I think a very reasonable question to ask is, 
What is this Lieberman-Warner climate change bill going to do to an 
already dire situation with regard to energy prices?
  Unfortunately, I have concluded it is going to make that already dire 
situation much worse. It is going to add on to gasoline prices, as my 
colleague from Missouri has stated. It is going to add on to 
electricity and other energy prices significantly.
  On the job site, it is going to also encourage and exacerbate a very 
worrisome trend of exporting jobs to other countries. After all of 
that, it will do little or nothing with regard to the fundamental 
climate change challenge because it mandates nothing on the part of 
other industrialized powers such as China and India.
  Several economic studies have specifically examined these questions. 
Let's start with the price at the pump.
  The Energy Information Administration estimates that this bill will 
cause gasoline prices to increase--in addition to everything that is 
going on now--between 41 cents a gallon to $1.01 a gallon by 2030. Now, 
again, we are facing dramatically rising prices at the pump now, and 
there seems to be no end in sight, in large part because we in Congress 
have not acted in a bold manner to increase supply and do other things 
to help ourselves at home. Yet this bill would move us even further in 
the wrong direction: between 41 cents and $1.01 more per gallon by 
2030.
  According to the EIA, the average American uses 500 gallons of 
gasoline every year. The average vehicle is driven more than 12,000 
miles per year. So even now, at $4 a gallon, a 12-gallon gas tank costs 
over $50 to fill, and we are going to increase that significantly? That 
is moving in the wrong direction.
  What about electricity and other important sources of energy? 
According to the Environmental Protection Agency, this bill will 
increase those prices--electricity prices--by 44 percent by 2030. 
Again, our consumers are struggling under energy prices right now, 
including electricity.
  Winters are a tough time for folks in the Northeast. In my part of 
the world, summer is the time of peak electricity load, and that is a 
real price burden right now. Yet we are considering a bill that is 
going to increase that, an already challenging and dire situation, by 
44 percent?
  Then, what about the jobs picture. We debate in this body all the 
time how we can keep and expand and grow manufacturing jobs in this 
country, how we can get away from the trend of exporting those jobs 
overseas. Yet this bill will only make that problem worse as well.
  The higher energy prices caused by the bill will force U.S. 
manufacturers to compete unfavorably with lower cost countries 
overseas. Realistically, companies will move their manufacturing base 
out of the United States to an even greater extent, and many American 
jobs will leave with them.
  This country has already lost 3 million manufacturing jobs since 
2000. We cannot afford to lose more. But what does the rigorous 
analysis of this bill's impact show? Well, the National Association of 
Manufacturers says up to 1.8 million jobs additionally--in addition to 
all of those figures I have already quoted--could be lost by 2020 and 4 
million jobs additionally could be lost by 2030.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). The Senator has 2 more minutes.
  Mr. VITTER. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Switching from coal plants to natural gas will drive job loss, 
particularly in the chemical and fertilizer industries. The chemical 
industry is extremely important to my State. Over 100,000 chemical jobs 
have already been lost in the last 5 years due to the high price of 
natural gas. Out of 120 new chemical plants under worldwide 
construction, only one is being constructed in the United States.
  So like the price of gasoline, like the price of electricity, on the 
jobs front we have a very dire, challenging situation already, and this 
bill would make it far worse.
  The real kicker to all of this is that after all of that damage to 
Americans, to their lifestyles, to our economy, what would this bill do 
in terms of climate change?
  I am very concerned it would do little or nothing because, of course, 
it mandates no action on the part of other major powers and energy 
consumers around the world, specifically China and India. Think about 
it. As we push these jobs overseas, out of our country, where are those 
jobs going?

[[Page 11312]]

They are going to countries such as China and India that would not be 
taking similar action, that would be continuing to build coal-fired 
powerplants and use outdated technology, that would contribute to the 
climate change problem. So much higher gasoline prices, much higher 
electricity and other energy prices, significant job loss--and what 
impact on the problem are we trying to address? In my opinion, little 
or none.
  Mr. President, I hope all of our colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle hear from the American people, hear from them about the 
challenges they face right now as they fill up their automobiles, as 
they try to take summer vacations, as they struggle with other energy 
prices, as they hope to keep their jobs right here in America.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 8 minutes.
  Mr. VITTER. If our colleagues hear that message, I am confident they 
will vote down this dangerous bill.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Does the Senator 
from New Mexico have time under the regular order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 5 minutes remaining under morning 
business.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, on Monday, I came to the Senate floor 
and discussed the rising price of gasoline and the additional increases 
that will result from the Boxer bill. These are not talking points. 
They are facts from several economic studies done by the EIA, the EPA, 
and many other groups.
  Later today I will speak on the accomplishments we have already had 
in working together to advance policies that will strengthen our energy 
security and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. We have not been 
asleep. We have done quite a bit. I will also speak about the bill 
before us and the many concerns I have about its effectiveness, or lack 
thereof.
  Right now, I want to speak on the impact this bill will have on the 
American economy. Like many Senators, I believe global climate change 
is a great challenge that our Nation should address. I joined Senator 
Bingaman in expressing that sentiment in a bipartisan Senate resolution 
3 years ago. That does not mean anybody has produced a bill or 
legislation that matched up, in my opinion, with the concerns. The way 
we are doing it in this bill is one way. It has never worked any place 
it has been tried. I do not know why it should be expected to work in 
America.
  I have great respect for the Senators who have drafted cap-and-trade 
legislation, but I remain deeply concerned about the steep costs and 
dire consequences this bill will have on our Nation's economy. I am 
troubled it will have very little, if any, environmental benefit.
  To those who are continuing to say this is an absolute environmental 
necessity, I hope they will try to gather from the experts who have 
looked at it just how much environmental benefit we will get from this 
bill.
  The EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, has concluded this bill 
would reduce global greenhouse gas by just over 1 percent by 2050. 
According to the IPCC's own benchmark, such a reduction would reduce 
average temperatures by one-tenth of 1 degree Celsius in 2050. These 
rates of reduction are far below the levels needed to mitigate the most 
serious effects of global climate change.
  Now, again, Mr. President, fellow Senators, I am not here just giving 
a speech. I am trying to give you facts. If facts are the things that 
come from studies by experts, we have facts on this bill. I repeat, the 
rates of reduction are far below the levels needed to mitigate the most 
serious effects of global climate change.
  I am troubled by the various studies on this bill. Everyone has 
concluded it will increase energy prices and decrease economic growth. 
Especially in a time of record energy prices and economic slowdown, our 
Nation simply cannot afford this bill. That is not just speculation or 
clamor. It is a true probability that we cannot afford it.
  While these studies confirm that the bill will have a negative impact 
on our economy, they also reveal significant uncertainty as to what 
that impact will be. According to CRA International, the only group 
that included the low carbon fuel standard in its study, motor fuel 
prices could increase by more than 140 percent by 2015. The EIA 
projects that the bill could reduce industrial activity by up to 7.4 
percent by 2030. The Heritage Foundation estimates that 600,000 jobs 
could be lost by 2026.
  Another cause for concern on the economic side is the estimate of the 
impact on gross domestic product. While all studies project a negative 
impact on GDP, estimates vary from a low of $444 billion, I say to my 
friend, the occupant of the chair, to a high of $4.8 trillion. That 
range of $4.5 trillion is as massive as it is inconclusive. It is 
equivalent to $15,000 for every American. A careful review of these 
studies should shake everyone inside of this Chamber.
  We must realize that cap and trade is neither our best option nor the 
only option for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, the 
Congressional Budget Office Director recently testified that a rigid 
cap-and-trade program is up to five times less efficient than a carbon 
tax.
  The experience of the European Union, which instituted an emissions 
trading scheme in 2005, should be highly instructive in this debate.
  The EU's emissions have continued to rise under cap and trade, by 
about 1 percent per year. While the EU's system has failed to reduce 
emissions, it is having an adverse economic impact with energy prices 
rising and other carbon intensive businesses fleeing to the developing 
world.
  Europe's difficulties are not the only example of the shortcomings of 
cap and trade. Last December, it caught my attention when, during an 
interview on the Charlie Rose Show, former President Clinton lamented 
the fate of the Kyoto Protocol, saying: 170 countries signed that 
treaty and only 6--6 of 170--reduced their greenhouse gases to the 1990 
level, and only 6 will do so by 2012 at the deadline.
  Our best projections, combined with the precedent of failing cap and 
trade regimes already in place, show that America should take a 
different path. We have been told that this bill is a market-based 
approach, but then we read a section that says, ``an emission allowance 
shall not be a property right'' and, ``nothing in this Act or any other 
provision of law shall limit the authority of the Administrator to 
terminate or limit an emission allowance.''
  Let me explain. These are allowances that are being paid for, in most 
cases, and the CBO treats them as revenues and outlays. And, the 
proponents of the bill expect these allowances to be traded like stock 
and other securities. However, the bill fails to even provide a 
property right for allowances and permits the EPA Administrator to take 
allowances or limit them at any time, and in any way. This is the very 
opposite of a market-based approach, and I will have an amendment in 
the coming days to remedy this problem.
  Furthermore, this bill allows nonemitters to hold possession and 
trade these allowances. Presumably they will enter into contracts, 
derivatives, swaps, and other complicated arrangements that may 
undermine the oversight, transparency, and integrity of the market. 
This is precisely one of the factors that led us to today's mortgage 
crisis, and maybe this bill creates that blueprint for carbon.
  My concerns with this bill are no different today than those that 
were shared by the full Senate in 1997, when we passed a resolution 
expressing our opposition to the Kyoto Protocol if brought to the 
Senate for ratification. Our economy expanded by 5 percent in the 
quarter before that vote. In the midst of robust growth, the Senate 
overwhelmingly rejected the idea of a treaty that did not include 
developing nations or ``could result in serious harm to the United 
States economy.''
  With many factors now limiting our economy, and with China's 
emissions today much greater than in 1997, our

[[Page 11313]]

resolve should be stronger. High energy prices, a housing crisis, and a 
credit crunch limited our growth to 0.9 percent last quarter. Clearly, 
we have plenty of challenges to overcome. Our dependence on foreign 
energy is great, our trade deficit is high, our national debt continues 
to rise, and our dollar is weak.
  As we debate this Boxer bill, we should ask ourselves two questions: 
What will it achieve, and at what cost? I believe the answer to the 
first question is very little--even by 2050, this bill will not provide 
meaningful global environmental benefit. The answer to the second 
question, however, is too much--this bill will disrupt our economy, add 
to consumers' pain at the pump, and weaken our Nation's ability to 
compete in the global marketplace.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________