[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 11547-11549]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, the Senate is engaged this week in a great 
debate, an important debate, on the vital issue of global climate 
change. I join that debate in order to find the best and most practical 
ways to ease our dependence on foreign oil, reduce pollution, and 
encourage clean energy.
  Climate change is real. It is a problem, and it needs our response--
for the sake of our economy, our environment, and our national 
security. Our country's energy future is one of the greatest challenges 
we will face in the coming decades. Addressing climate change is about 
what is good and what is right for our country, for our future. It is 
about how we reduce our reliance on foreign oil, develop a new sector 
in the American economy that will spur domestic manufacturing, and 
create millions of new jobs, all while reducing harmful greenhouse gas 
emissions.
  These challenges are too great and the stakes are too high--America 
cannot take a backseat or sit on the sidelines. We simply must lead on 
this issue. We must make fundamental changes, and we must start now, 
today. We put a man on the Moon. We defeated communism. We even created 
an Internet world. Many thought the Internet was a fad, but look how it 
has changed our world in a decade. A renewable energy economy can and 
will do the same thing.
  America is an exporter of our thoughts, our ideas, our dreams, our 
ideals. On the great challenges facing us today, we must reach high, 
challenge our thinking, and deliver results such as only the American 
people can deliver.
  We are on an upward path with the emergence of green, renewable 
technologies in the State of Oregon--wind, solar, wave, and geothermal. 
Today, in Oregon, we are leading the way, from innovative biomass in 
Umatilla, to geothermal in Klamath Falls, to our long-lived hydropower 
dams and wind farms in eastern Oregon.
  Jobs are being created in Oregon by companies that research and 
manufacture these new energy sources, boosting our economy, addressing 
climate

[[Page 11548]]

change, and cutting our dependence on foreign oil.
  Oregon and the Northwest already enjoy one of the best sources of 
green energy--our hydroelectric dams--a source of 100-percent carbon-
free energy. These dams are not only critical to our economy but are a 
perfect example of existing sources of green energy.
  In Oregon, we are leading the way in training the next generation 
workforce for green-collar jobs. Schools across Oregon--Oregon State 
University, Oregon Institute of Technology, Lane Community College, and 
Columbia Gorge Community College--are creating programs that will help 
supply our State and Nation with a vibrant and skilled workforce to 
accommodate a future of renewable, independent, and clean energy 
facilities.
  Through a combination of Federal and State tax incentives, Oregon has 
been able to attract solar panel manufacturers, geothermal developers, 
fuel cell manufacturers, biomass facilities, and significant wind 
energy facilities.
  Oregon has become a hub of investment in solar facilities. For 
example, SolarWorld, one of the biggest solar manufacturers on Earth, 
is investing over $650 million in a manufacturing facility in 
Hillsboro, Oregon, that will employ over 1,000 people.
  As the lead sponsor of legislation to provide for the long-term 
extension of the investment tax credit for solar and fuel cell 
facilities, I am encouraged by the investments solar and fuel cell 
companies are making in Oregon and across the Nation.
  We must provide for the extension of these and other renewable energy 
tax incentives in order to avoid the boom-bust cycle we see in these 
emerging technologies every time the tax credit is allowed to expire. 
That is an action we can and should take now that will produce results 
now.
  We must set ourselves on a path to energy independence and reduce our 
oil consumption. That is why I fought successfully to increase our 
investment in renewable fuels such as those thriving back in Oregon. 
That is why Senator Obama and I passed a bill to raise the fuel 
efficiency standards for the first time in two decades for our 
automobiles in this country.
  We have been making small strides. Now we need to make big ones. 
Renewable energy sources and less oil consumption will benefit not only 
our environment but our economy and our national security--energy 
sources, clean ones, produced here at home instead of imported from the 
Middle East.
  The private sector in America is already visionary about a clean, 
strong economy. We in Congress must help and not hinder. This 
transformation will not happen overnight, but we can start now. We must 
start today. Right now, the sources of our fuel-efficient vehicles and 
renewable energy manufacturing too often come from foreign countries. 
If we do not take the lead going forward, these foreign countries will. 
To do so would put our country and our economy behind the eight ball, 
reliant upon others and not ourselves.
  Right now, the world's fossil fuel is controlled by countries such as 
Iran, Venezuela, and Russia. We cannot let our national security and 
our economic security be at risk to the whims of rogue governments. Our 
reliance on foreign oil has gotten us into the entanglements that many 
of us wish had not happened. By investing in a clean energy future--a 
skilled green workforce, investment in the next generation of biofuels, 
the promotion of fuel-efficient transportation--we will depend on 
ourselves, not on others.
  It is also time for America and this Congress to debate the merits of 
a new system to regulate carbon to reduce greenhouse gases and to 
reduce this country's carbon footprint. I know we can come together, in 
this Chamber and with the next President, to practically and 
effectively reduce the greenhouse gases we emit in this country.
  To truly reduce carbon, the response must be global. We have all the 
tools. We have the will, the technology, the raw resources. It is time 
to move forward for the sake of our environment, for the sake of our 
economy, and for the sake of our national security. Success will only 
be found in setting aside partisan agendas and focusing on common-
ground solutions.
  Our country can do this, and we must lead. I have great confidence in 
the will of the American people. They know this must be done. I will 
help to make sure it is done.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Kansas is recognized.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I thank the Presiding Officer for that 
recognition.
  I thank the Presiding Officer in this body for the chance to address 
an important topic. I am glad we are discussing important topics. It is 
important we get a chance to bring up these topics. I, similar to many 
people, have spent a lot of time with experts and a lot of time with 
people in my State talking about climate change issues and how we can 
address them. I do not know of any topic that I have actually probably 
met with more scientists on, more individuals about, than the climate 
change topic. It is enormous, it is important, and it is something we 
need to talk about and address.
  When traveling across Kansas--we have 105 counties in the State, and 
I have been to 57 of them now within the last 6 months, going to all 
105 of them. We talk a lot about clean energy, and I talk about 
balancing the three Es--the energy, the environment, and the economy. 
We have to get these three Es balanced. They are like a cardboard piece 
balanced on a pencil. You can kind of tilt them a little bit, you can 
move it a little bit, but you cannot tank it one way or another. You 
have to move these three together.
  Most people across Kansas looking at the issue generally agree with 
that. I want a clean environment. I want a healthy economy. I want 
energy sources here at home, and I do not want to pay too much for 
them. Most people are complaining bitterly today, as well they should 
be, about the high price of energy. It is way too high: $4-a-gallon 
gasoline that people are having to pay. It is directly out of their 
pocketbooks. It is directly impacting their economy.
  We are a big energy-using State. We have a lot of manufacturing, 
agriculture. Diesel fuel is very important to us. It is well over $4 a 
gallon, getting up to $5 a gallon in some places. This is a very high-
energy formula, and the last thing people want today is to increase the 
cost of energy. At the same time, they recognize we need to deal with 
the environment, and we have to grow this economy. So I wish to talk 
about this in the sense of those three Es, being able to balance those 
together. I think we can and we should do that.
  I read a paper recently that talked about the different waves of 
environmentalism. I thought it was quite good, and I think it is one 
this body should look at. The title of the paper was ``The End of 
Environmentalism.'' It was written by a couple of very strong 
environmentalists. They were talking about what needs to take place 
now. They were talking about the waves of environmentalism. They were 
saying the first wave of environmentalism, if I can paraphrase them 
appropriately, was a conservation wave. The second wave was a 
regulatory wave. The third wave, that we are in right now, is an 
investment wave. That is the way you move this forward, through 
investment and through technology and for us to invest heavily in that 
next wave of technology, to be able the balance these three Es I talked 
about--energy, the economy, and the environment. That is the real way 
forward.
  This bill does not get us going forward that way. The key for us to 
be able to do investment is to be able to have a very robust economy 
and for people to invest in these next-wave technologies, not to load 
additional costs onto the system. We can look at the cost of what they 
are today, and then you can look at the projected cost of what this 
bill would put on the American public and on the energy economy and, at 
the end of day, still not produce the sorts of results we need to have 
of strong key reductions in CO2 and, at the same time, 
maintaining the economy and giving us

[[Page 11549]]

enough energy to be able to move forward.
  I would like to point out--and a number of my colleagues have already 
done this--what this bill will do on driving up the price of 
electricity. The Energy Information Administration predicts electric 
prices will be 64 percent higher in 2030 as a result of the bill, fuel 
prices 53 cents higher by 2030. Actually, I do not think anybody knows, 
other than they know it will be higher.
  But I think the biggest stat came yesterday, for me, from Western 
Resources. It is a utility in my hometown of Topeka, KS, that provides 
electricity through much of the State. They are saying, at a $20-a-ton 
cost for CO2, that is going to raise their fuel costs. It is 
going to more than double the cost of their fuel as compared to what 
they are looking at presently. We are getting the actual statistics. We 
are going to put that, later, in the Record. But this is going to be a 
dramatic increase in the price of electricity for people in Topeka, KS, 
and across my State.
  We are a strong coal user, using coal out of the Powder River Basin. 
I think, as we look forward to the future, the answer is not: No, we 
are not going to use particular types of energy. It is how you use 
energy and you reduce your CO2, how you build the next 
generation of coal-fired plants and reduce the CO2 
footprint.
  A very innovative project is being put forward in the western part of 
my State. There is a coal-fired plant, where they take the C02 stream--
because we don't know how to do CO2 sequestration on a 
massive scale yet--they take that C02 stream and run it through algae 
reactors and have the algae harvest, of sorts, the CO2; and 
they are building in their biological photosynthesis process and then 
taking the algae and making biodiesel out of that.
  Yes, it is experimental, but it is on a large scale experimental, and 
it is the sort of thing we ought to be looking to for us to invest in 
that next wave of environmentalism, being an investment wave, to see if 
we can make these things work in the interim, where we do not know how 
we are going to be able to sequester, and we cannot drive up too fast 
the cost of energy because energy prices are so high right now and 
people are very sensitive to energy prices, as well they should be. We 
should be sensitive to their sensitivity of energy prices.
  I think the way we move this forward is with innovation and 
technology and investment rather than loading a lot of cost on a system 
that, at the end of the day, could well--and in all probability, from 
some of the projections, will have huge, substantial impacts and, 
indeed, may well have the adverse impact of driving things overseas. I 
think there is a lot in this bill that has unpredictable consequences 
other than, we know, an increased cost in the United States. That piece 
we do know about. But what will happen? How will industry react to 
this? Where will it go? We do know costs will go up for American 
consumers at a time when we can ill afford to do that; at a time when 
we would be better off taking those increased costs of investment and 
putting them into the next wave of technology. That is the route 
forward. That is the route to stabilize. That is the route to move us 
and to balance the three ``e''s in this process as we move forward.
  I am going to be putting forward different amendments and proposals 
to do just that; to see if we can put forward ideas, particularly in 
the agricultural sector, to help with carbon sequestration projects, to 
help with ethanol and biodiesel and wind and solar power, soybean and 
algae as an investment, as a way of storing it through a natural 
process, but not putting on a hard cap and trade that adds costs in the 
system. I think that is the sort of pioneering spirit--that is the sort 
of investment type of way--that we need to go forward.
  I am pleased that an amendment I am working on with Senators Stabenow 
and Crapo has the backing of the American Farm Bureau on a more robust 
effort on CO2 sequestration via agriculture. I think that is 
a key way we can move forward and have some success.
  Finally, I wish to note to my colleagues as well that we are woefully 
behind on getting judges approved for the circuit court. That was a 
subject that stalled this body yesterday and I predict to my colleagues 
that it is going to stall us a lot more if we don't start getting on 
track to increase the number and get to even a minimal number of 
circuit court nominees to be approved during the remainder of this 
Congress. We are at eight for this session of Congress. The low 
watermark was 15. We are not anywhere near close to getting that. It is 
a requirement of this body for us to be able to clear judges through 
who get nominated by the President, and then let's vote up or down one 
way or the other. Let's consider them and let's get a minimum number. 
We had an agreement for three by the Memorial Day break. One was 
approved. There are several highly qualified judges in the system. For 
us to be able to get our business done, if we are going to get it done, 
we have to get some of these circuit court judges approved. If we 
don't, it is going to stall the body and we are going to stall it a 
lot, until we can get circuit court judges approved in some minimal 
number.
  I know there is a lot of dispute about this. It is a need of this 
body. We need to do this and if we don't do it, things are going to 
slow down a lot. They are going to get jammed up a lot and it is going 
to be early and it is going to be very difficult for us to accomplish 
any other of our business.
  I urge the leadership to come together and let's say: Here is the 
number we can approve by this date, and let's get that done or there 
are going to be a lot of things that are going to stop happening in 
this body until we can get those approved.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, it is my understanding that we are in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. WARNER. And that we will go on the bill, I understand, around 
noon?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. It will be 
approximately noon.

                          ____________________