[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 11553-11575]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          CONSUMER-FIRST ENERGY ACT OF 2008--MOTION TO PROCEED

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 3044, which the 
clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to S. 3044, to provide energy price 
     relief and hold oil companies and other entities accountable 
     for their actions with regard to high energy prices, and for 
     other purposes.

  Mr. INHOFE. I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask this time be 
charged to both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Klobuchar be given 15 minutes to open the debate on our side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Minnesota is recognized for 15 minutes.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, the issue we are addressing this 
week, global climate change, is a challenge with so many dimensions. 
Some are moral, some are economic, and some are scientific. I want to 
spend my first few minutes today talking about the science because we 
cannot get the policy right unless we get the science right.
  I come from a State that believes in science. Minnesota is home to 
the Mayo Clinic and other great medical institutions. It helped launch 
the green revolution in agriculture half a century ago. Today it is 
home to a great research university in the University of Minnesota and 
high-tech companies such as 3M and Medtronic.
  We have brought the world everything from the pacemaker to the Post-
it notes. My State believes in science. Over the last few days, we have 
heard a great deal of debate about the science of climate change. I 
believe the debate should be over. The facts are in and the science is 
clear.
  The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has concluded that the 
evidence of global warming is now unequivocal and apparent on every 
continent of our planet. It is plain in erratic weather patterns, in 
shrinking wildlife habitat, and the melting of the permafrost.
  Just last week, a new report commissioned by the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture and written by some of our top environmental researchers 
reached the same conclusion. They wrote:

       There is robust scientific consensus that human-induced 
     climate change is occurring. Observations show that climate 
     change is impacting the nation's ecosystems in significant 
     ways, and those alterations are very likely to accelerate in 
     the future.

  The result? Ocean levels are rising, glaciers are melting, and 
violent weather events are increasing--we have seen some recent ones in 
my State--and soon entire species will be threatened.
  This is not just an environmental danger, it is also an economic 
danger.
  First, we can see what we would predict as we see increases in 
temperatures in this world. The estimates are that temperatures will go 
up somewhere from 3 to 8 degrees in the next 100 years. To put it in 
perspective, it went up 1 degree in the last 100 years. We have already 
started seeing changes. That doesn't sound like a lot. It has only gone 
up 5 degrees since the height of the ice age. And the prediction from 
our EPA is 3 to 8 degrees.
  Here we go when we look at the increasing of temperature: A 1-degree 
increase means increasing mortality from heat waves, floods, and 
droughts. This is predicted by 2020; a 2-degree increase, millions of 
people face flooding risk every year; a 3-degree increase, global food 
production decreases, and so on.
  I can tell you in my State people are already seeing these changes. 
They have seen the economic impacts of these changes. Lake Superior is 
near its lowest level in the last 80 years, and that is an average. It 
goes up and down a little. It went up a little, fortunately, this year. 
But overall, we have seen decreasing levels so that overall it is at 
its lowest level in 80 years. That has impacted our barges, it has 
impacted the economy because we need more barges because they are 
sinking lower.
  Why is that happening? The ice is melting quicker and so the water 
evaporates and we see lower levels in places such as Lake Superior.
  We also have seen changes for our ski resorts. Overall, when we look 
at the trends, we have seen decreasing snow which means less money for 
them. Those are just some small examples of the economic costs of 
climate change.
  We can see that the insured and uninsured costs of weather-related 
climate change events are going up and up, and we are all paying the 
price. A problem so serious demands a serious response.
  This is a chart showing the weather-related economic losses and how 
they have increased. Look at the decades from 1960 to 1969, 1970 to 
1979, 1980 to 1989, and then look at the last 10 years. These are 
economic losses. These are the amounts that are insured, and then this 
is the total of economic losses due to weather-related issues.
  A problem so serious as this demands a serious response. I believe 
that as a Nation, we are up to it. Look at a little history. In the 
1970s, after the first OPEC oil embargo caused world oil prices to 
quadruple, Congress passed the first CAFE standards, fuel economy 
standards for the Nation's cars and trucks. At first, the skeptics said 
Congress had overreached and the CAFE standards were unrealistic. Then 
business put its mind to the challenge. Auto companies developed more 
efficient engines and lighter automotive components, and they competed 
to meet customer demand for fuel-efficient cars.
  Recently, the National Academy of Sciences estimated that those CAFE 
standards have now saved our country 2.8 million barrels of oil a day 
and cut oil consumption by 14 percent annually. With the higher fuel 
economy standards we adopted last year after many years of inaction to 
build on that initial CAFE standard, estimates are for an average 
family, depending on the price of gas, they could save $1,000 a year. 
We will continue to save, but we must set those standards so we have an 
example where when those standards were set, business went to the 
challenge, and we actually saved money.
  That is not the only example. In 1987 and 1992, the Government 
adopted new energy-efficient standards for household appliances. Again, 
the American business community responded, competing to develop new 
technologies and energy-efficient products. I call it building a fridge 
to the next century. Soon you could walk into any appliance store and 
find efficient ENERGY STAR air-conditioners that give consumers even 
higher quality but at much lower energy consumption.
  Look at this chart on light bulbs. We can see, if every American home 
replaced just one light bulb with an ENERGY STAR qualified bulb, we 
could save more than $600 million in annual energy costs and prevent 
greenhouse gases equivalent to the emissions of more than 800,000 cars.
  Now we are starting to develop all kinds of technologies to save 
money for consumers and make big reductions in carbon emissions. The 
American Council for Energy Efficient Economy estimates these higher 
energy-efficient standards saved consumers $50 billion from 1990 to 
2000 and will cut U.S. electricity consumption by 6.5 percent within 
this decade.
  What did all of these examples have in common? The public sector and 
the private sector worked together in a partnership in which each 
performed at its best. The Government took leadership, set high 
standards, and provided a nationwide mandatory framework so everyone 
played by the same rules. Then the private sector responded to that 
signal using a classic American combination of technological innovation 
and market competition.
  The challenge of climate change presents us with the same 
opportunity--an opportunity for technology with wind,

[[Page 11554]]

with solar, with energy efficiency, with the potential of nuclear, and 
with the potential of clean coal technology. It is a long list with 
great potential. We must meet this challenge, and we can. If we set 
standards for the country, the investment, technology, and innovation 
will follow.
  On the Environment and Public Works Committee, my colleagues, Senator 
Boxer, Senator Warner, and Senator Lieberman have written landmark 
legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and I am proud to be a 
cosponsor. This measure establishes mandatory economy-wide, science-
based limits on carbon dioxide and other global warming gases so we can 
cut emissions 20 percent by the year 2020 and nearly 70 percent by the 
year 2050.
  To achieve those goals without disrupting our economy, it would 
establish a market-driven cap-and-trade system that provides economic 
incentives for reducing emissions. Now, we did the same thing with acid 
rain years ago and it worked well.
  To make this system work, however, we need to have full and accurate 
information about the sources and amounts of greenhouse gas pollution. 
That is what I want to take a few minutes to talk about today, because 
of the fact that this was in the first title of the bill, and one that 
I authored, along with Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine.
  The famous British scientist, Lord Kelvin, felt the same way about 
having to measure things before you do anything. He once observed:

       When you can measure what you are speaking about, and 
     express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when 
     you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, 
     your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind.

  Believe it or not, we don't have full, accurate information on 
greenhouse gas emissions right now. In fact, I was contacted a few 
months ago by a National Public Radio reporter who was trying to figure 
out who was the biggest greenhouse gas emitter in the United States. 
You would think that would be something that would be easy to find out, 
but in fact it is not because we don't have the kind of accurate 
information we need.
  The EPA collects a lot of data on energy production and consumption, 
but the quantity and quality of those data varies greatly across 
different fuels and different sectors. For example, data on crude oil 
and petroleum product stocks is collected weekly for selected oil 
companies, while data on energy use in the industrial sector are 
collected only once every 3 years through surveys. In some cases, the 
EPA itself collects the data, while in other cases the data are 
collected through State and other Federal agencies. Some industries 
report to the EPA and others report to the Energy Department. Some are 
reporting every year and some are reporting every 3 years. In short, it 
is a mishmash.
  Last week, the Brookings Institution here in Washington issued its 
own report on carbon emissions in different cities around the country. 
They too tried to make a comprehensive study, but they admitted they 
could only estimate emissions from homes to vehicles, not factories or 
planes or railroads or government buildings.
  Then there are State efforts. Thirty-one States, representing 70 
percent of the country's population, have formed a carbon registration 
system of their own. It is a bipartisan project with support from 
Governors such as Janet Napolitano of Arizona and Governor 
Schwarzenegger of California. Together, they recently issued a 
statement saying,

       The State climate registries are another example of how 
     States are taking the lead in the absence of Federal action 
     to address greenhouse gas emissions in this country.

  While these State projects are very well intentioned, they are a poor 
replacement for a national standard. Remember years ago how Justice 
Brandeis, in that famous decision, talked about how the States could be 
``laboratories of democracy''? He talked about how one State could have 
the courage to move ahead, but I don't think, when he said that, he 
ever meant inaction by the Federal Government. But that is what we have 
had in the area of climate change, and that is certainly what we have 
had in the area of trying to measure what is going on here.
  We are never going to make progress against global climate change 
unless we can answer the question of how much people are emitting with 
greenhouse gases, where they are emitting them, and until we can give 
an answer with accurate, complete information.
  This problem plagued the European Union 2 or 3 years ago. They 
actually beat us in establishing a comprehensive cap-and-trade system 
to cut greenhouse gas pollution. But because they didn't start with a 
good comprehensive registry of the sources and quantities of greenhouse 
gas emissions, they miscalculated their initial caps and permits and 
wound up wasting a lot of money and time before they got their cap-and-
trade system right.
  That is why Senator Snowe and I worked together last year to write 
this legislation, which is the first title of the bill, establishing a 
greenhouse gas registry. You can see what this means. It is accurate, 
comprehensive data on carbon emissions. It requires reporting of 
greenhouse gas emissions to the EPA, it requires third-party 
verification, it does have exemptions for small businesses--because we 
don't want to do anything that is too burdensome--and it also makes the 
data publicly available on the Internet. I think we know how much 
people are interested in this issue, and they have a right to know 
about it.
  In addition to setting the stage for cap-and-trade solutions to 
global climate change, one comprehensive national registry, instead of 
all the States doing their own, would help the States by streamlining 
administration costs. It would also help business. Before long, they 
are going to have to start cutting their own greenhouse gas emissions, 
and they can't make the right investments or adopt the right 
technologies without having good data on their own carbon emissions. In 
fact, some of the Nation's leading corporations have endorsed the 
national carbon registry. They include: Alcoa, Boston Scientific 
Corporation, General Electric, NRG Energy, Caterpillar, Johnson & 
Johnson, Pacific Gas and Electric, and many more. These executives have 
now teamed up with some of the country's leading environmental groups, 
including the Nature Conservancy, the National Wildlife Federation, and 
the National Defense Council, to form the U.S. Climate Action 
Partnership. They recently issued a statement calling on the Federal 
Government to quickly enact strong national legislation to require 
significant reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. They took this 
historic step because they understood the threat of climate change and 
they recognized the need for Federal action. These leaders are right. 
The time has come for us to act.
  As I close, I think about the complexities of this historic 
challenge, and I like to recall a prayer from the Ojibway people of 
Minnesota. Their philosophy told them that the decisions of great 
leaders are not made for today, not made for this generation, but for 
those who are seven generations from now.
  That is part of our burden and part of our challenge as we approach 
this climate change issue. That is why today I urge my colleagues to 
support cloture on this bill, to not only start measuring what the 
problem is, but to actually give this country and this world a 
solution.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. REED addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Would the Senator yield for a moment?
  Mr. REED. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that after the 
Senator from Rhode Island concludes his remarks I be recognized next.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, reclaiming my time, I am informed that we 
are attempting to alternate between the Republican and Democratic side, 
and so I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from New Jersey be the 
next Democrat to speak, because we are informed somebody is coming from 
the Republican side.

[[Page 11555]]


  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I didn't know we were alternating.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to Senator Menendez 
following Senator Reed?
  Mr. REED. Madam President, let me do this. I will accede my position 
to Senator Menendez to speak, and I ask unanimous consent that I follow 
the next Republican speaker.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I thank my distinguished colleague 
from Rhode Island. I have a time pressure, and so I appreciate his 
courtesy.
  I thought this debate would be a watershed moment, a moment when we 
would finally move beyond Republican attempts to deny that global 
warming exists. But as this debate has evolved, we see we have not 
gotten very far. Instead of deny, deny, deny, the Republican playbook 
has shifted to delay, delay, and delay.
  The time to act is actually now. We are not going to be able to 
transition from a fossil fuel-based economy to a green, renewable 
energy-based economy overnight, and therefore it is critical that we 
act as soon as possible to begin this transition.
  I thank my colleagues who have worked so hard to get this legislation 
at least to the floor. The mere fact that we are having this debate 
gets us closer to actually enacting a policy to cap greenhouse gas 
emissions.
  I do hope that in time we can support much stronger legislation. I 
have concerns about whether this bill speeds our transition to a 
carbon-free economy quickly enough because of the cost containment 
measures and the large numbers of offsets in the bill. I am worried 
some companies might be able to delay cutting back their emissions for 
over a decade. I also believe we can go even farther in supporting 
renewable sources and energy efficiency.
  I was hoping I would have the opportunity to offer a few amendments 
to improve upon this legislation. I certainly want to offer them--we 
have offered them--and I know we will probably not get to them under 
the procedures we are in the midst of pursuing, but I think they are 
markers for the future.
  The first amendment I had hoped to offer, along with Senators 
Lautenberg and Sanders, would have shifted transition assistance 
funding from big oil to renewable energy generators. At a time of 
record oil company profits, I do not think we need to allow oil 
companies to pollute for free, especially when that money could be used 
to help jump-start the development of clean, renewable, affordable 
American energy.
  The second amendment I offered, along with Senator Snowe, would have 
boosted funding to help developing nations to adapt to changes in the 
climate they had little to no part in creating in the first place. 
Making investments to help vulnerable nations isn't just a necessary 
step to secure an effective international climate treaty, or a way to 
advance U.S. national security interests, it is a moral imperative.
  The third amendment I filed with Senator Kerry would help nations 
with tropical forests lower their rates of deforestation, a cost-
effective way of keeping CO2 out of the atmosphere. 
Approximately 20 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions come from 
deforestation, and if we hope to secure an effective climate treaty, we 
must be willing to help forested nations create the tools they need to 
effectively address the problems.
  Finally, the fourth amendment I offered, also with Senator Kerry, 
would require the Government to calculate the cost of inaction on 
global warming, from the cost of drought to flooding to storm damage. 
Many of my friends on the other side of the aisle have spent a lot of 
time this week bemoaning the alleged cost of solving global warming, 
but they have completely ignored the horrendous cost of ignoring global 
warming. We need this study so we are not always looking at half the 
balance sheet on this issue.
  Many of my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle are 
rejecting out of hand any efforts we might propose. They argue that 
almost anything will cost too much. They suggest any effort to go green 
on the scale necessary would be too expensive. Saying we can't invest 
in renewable energy because there is a dollar figure attached sounds 
like telling someone with a fatal disease that the cure is too costly, 
or saying to a crime victim that we can't afford to put police on the 
streets because it has a cost.
  There were some who argued it would be too expensive to reinforce the 
levees in New Orleans, and when Hurricane Katrina hit, we found out 
what the true cost of that decision was. We can't fail again to be 
mindful of the words of John F. Kennedy, when he warned us that ``the 
time to repair the roof is when the sun is shining.''
  The question isn't whether an investment needs to be made. The 
question is whether we want to make that investment now, while we can 
do it safely, gradually, and inexpensively; or later, when we have to 
make wholesale changes to our economy in a matter of years rather than 
decades.
  In other words, what we are deciding is not whether to put a cap on 
carbon emissions. The question is whether we do it now or whether we 
wait. Do we do it now, when it is cheaper to do it and we can set 
ourselves up to compete with Europe and Japan in creating new 
technologies, when we can create jobs in the midst of an economic 
turndown; or do we do it when our hand is forced, when Americans have 
already felt the catastrophic effects of climate change, when our 
coasts are flooded, when storm surges damage our houses and droughts 
threaten our harvests, when the costs become enormous because we have 
to change so quickly?
  It is going to be far harder and far more expensive to have to stop 
carbon emissions overnight than to do it now. If we want to slash our 
carbon emissions 80 percent by 2050, we simply cannot wait until 2030 
to get started, unless we want to risk the economic and environmental 
future of this country.
  Today, with the rising price of gas we have to pay at the pump, we 
see the result of waiting to act until disaster strikes. In the 1970s, 
because of the Arab oil embargo, we drastically improved the fuel 
efficiency of our passenger vehicles. In 1976, our cars and trucks got 
13 miles per gallon. By 1981 our fleet had improved to 21 miles per 
gallon. From 1981 to 2006, the average fuel economy of our passenger 
vehicle fleet actually declined to 20 miles per gallon.
  If we had been gradually improving efficiency standards instead of 
waiting for high gas prices to force our hands, we would all be better 
off today. If we had increased fuel economy a modest 2 percent per 
year, our new fleet of vehicles would now average 34 miles per gallon.
  Astonishingly, if we had followed this course, our current demand for 
oil would be over one-third less than it is today, down over 2 billion 
barrels of oil per year. Cumulatively, we would have saved over 30 
billion barrels of oil, and 30 billion barrels of oil is more oil than 
the entire proven oil reserves remaining in the United States. With 
such a reduced demand for oil, imagine how much less we would be paying 
for gas today.
  Some of my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle have been 
suggesting that taxing carbon emissions would cause energy and gas 
prices to go up. The reality is, anyone can tell you that prices have 
been going up and that they will continue to go up under the present 
policy of this administration unless we end our dependence on oil. That 
means transitioning to free, renewable fuels, such as wind and solar. 
We do not have to pay Saudi Arabia for the rights to use the Sun to 
generate power. We don't have to send money to Nigeria for the right to 
harness the power of wind. The more we improve the technology that can 
run our renewable fuels, the cheaper every kind of fuel will be.
  Solving global warming is not just about protecting us from 
catastrophic weather and hostile foreign regimes, it is also about 
jobs. Renewable energy industries are perhaps the single greatest 
opportunity to create new, good-paying jobs this country has seen in a 
generation.
  If we want to put up millions of solar panels, it is going to take 
hundreds of

[[Page 11556]]

thousands of workers to install them, and those jobs are created at 
home, unlike what happens when we continue to rely on oil, which is 
that we create jobs in the Middle East, in Nigeria, and Venezuela, to 
name a few.
  I am proud in my home State of New Jersey we are No. 2 in the Nation 
in terms of solar capacity, behind only California. We have seen new 
jobs created because of it.
  Global warming is a challenge that faces us all. It is a challenge we 
must face together. It is not enough to sit back and watch as tragic 
stories unfold, as heat waves and wildfires strike, as we see floods 
and droughts more severe, hurricanes, species disappearing, ice caps 
melting, glaciers melting, sea levels rising. It is not enough to sit 
back and watch because we have a human moral imperative to take action. 
It is not enough because someday the door on which tragedy knocks could 
be our own.
  Great change always has its opponents. Instead of arguing that we 
should be innovative, they will argue that we should be afraid; we 
should do all we can to hold on to the ways of the past instead of 
having the courage to prepare for the future.
  The American people are tired of being told what they cannot achieve, 
and they are tired of being told they should be satisfied with the 
status quo. It is time to put aside our fears, unleash our powers of 
innovation, and rise to meet one of the defining challenges of our 
time. For this and future generations of Americans, what the Senate 
decides ultimately is going to determine the course of our country in 
ways that are so significant--from the course of the environment that 
we collectively share both in America and across the globe, from the 
question of economic opportunity, from the question of national 
security--not depending on the oil of countries that have totally 
different views and values than we have. That is all wrapped up in the 
debate and the votes we will be taking.
  I hope we have the courage to move in a direction that ultimately 
meets all of those challenges and that we act as good stewards for 
future generations of Americans so we can look at this moment and say 
history will judge us and ultimately will say we did what was our 
responsibility to do.
  I thank my colleague from Rhode Island for his courtesy.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Madam President, first of all, I note this legislation has 
nothing to do with ending our dependence on foreign oil. It does have 
something to do with ending our dependence on oil. In fact, what this 
legislation would do is make it much more difficult for Americans to 
enjoy the standard of living we do by making it much more costly to 
indulge in any consumption of energy in any form, including driving 
vehicles, including turning on the lights or the air-conditioning in a 
building. All of these things are deliberately made much more expensive 
in this legislation--deliberately because the point of it is to make 
energy consumption so expensive that we will not consume as much of it. 
That way the Earth will somehow not be warmed as much because we will 
not be consuming as much energy.
  That is the whole point here. It is not about ending our dependence 
on foreign oil. This legislation has nothing to do with that at all.
  People might ask, What is cap and trade? Why are we talking about 
cap-and-trade legislation? The cap and trade contemplated in this bill 
has the Federal Government creating something of value--carbon emission 
allowances--and they are equal to the cap on emissions set by the 
Federal Government each year. The Federal Government says: Americans, 
you can only drive so much or you can only consume so much electricity 
and the people who produce that product are going to have to pay for 
the right to produce the energy that you are consuming. Then, of 
course, they are going to pass that cost on to you.
  Some of these allocations are to favored groups. Others are auctioned 
off. But the cost of the allowances is passed on to the consumers, as I 
said. And these outstanding allowances can be traded. That is why it is 
called cap and trade. So you have a group of speculators, then, who are 
able to buy some of the allowances and sell them at a profit, even 
though they produce nothing of value in the meantime.
  While it is referred to as cap and trade, we should appreciate the 
fact that in reality it is very clearly nothing more than another tax 
on American consumers. A very good article in the Washington Post by 
Robert Samuelson points this out. He says:

       The chief political virtue of cap-and-trade . . . is its 
     complexity. This allows its environmental supporters to shape 
     public perceptions in essentially deceptive ways. Cap-and-
     trade would act as a tax, but it is not described as a tax. 
     It would regulate economic activity, but it is promoted as a 
     ``free market'' mechanism. Finally, it would trigger a tidal 
     wave of influence-peddling, as lobbyists scramble to exploit 
     the system for different industries and localities.

  The Congressional Budget Office itself, the nonpartisan group 
representing the Congress, acknowledges that businesses would pass on 
most of the costs imposed by a cap-and-trade system to American 
consumers. This would amount to a regressive stealth tax that would hit 
low- and middle-income families the hardest.
  What does the proposal cost? According to the Congressional Budget 
Office, the Boxer substitute amendment before us would take out of the 
private sector $902 billion between 2009 and 2019. Of that amount, the 
Boxer substitute manages to spend all but $66 billion--$836 billion of 
allowances are distributed not only to favored technologies and 
utilities but also to buy off interests that would use funds in ways 
that do not decrease carbon, such as for farming practices, endangered 
species, Indian tribes, State governments, and to other countries for 
their forests.
  The Congressional Budget Office considers the distribution of these 
free allowances the same as distributing cash, and indeed that is 
exactly what it is.
  Over the longer term, the Environmental Protection Agency projects 
the amendment would redistribute $6.2 trillion from the private sector 
to the Federal Government by the year 2050, through these allowance 
auctions that energy producers and manufacturers would be required to 
purchase in order to be able to continue their operations--meaning 
continue to provide energy for us. Another $3.2 trillion would be 
auctioned off by States and others.
  According to the administration, the nearly $10 trillion cost would 
make this bill the single most expensive regulation in the history of 
the United States of America.
  If a cap-and-trade system like the one in the Boxer substitute is 
implemented, a number of economists believe it would add significant 
costs to the production side of the economy and would likely have a 
severe negative impact on long-term U.S. economic growth, despite 
having a very modest impact on worldwide carbon levels. The cap-and-
trade system is intended by design to raise the cost of gas and 
electricity, as I said in the very beginning. Raising the cost of gas 
and electricity will change people's behavior. They will use less 
energy and, as a result, theoretically emit less carbon. The cap-and-
trade program cannot achieve its goals unless it increases the cost of 
energy, and the proponents do not deny this.
  So when you are thinking about the high cost of gasoline today, think 
about the additional cost that is going to be imposed by this 
legislation. The proponents say it is going up anyway. You do not have 
to make it go up more than it would otherwise, and that is what this 
legislation would do.
  The American Council for Capital Formation projects that under this 
cap-and-trade system, gasoline prices would rise from about $4 a gallon 
today to $5.33 a gallon by 2014 and $9.01 by the year 2030.
  As I noted, businesses would have to pass on most of the costs 
imposed by a cap-and-trade system to their consumers. One must 
recognize that the demand for energy is relatively inelastic. In other 
words, even as prices rise, individuals find it difficult to switch to 
alternatives. It is very hard to engage

[[Page 11557]]

in any activity that does not use energy. As a result, individuals 
would be forced to bear the cost increases imposed by the system. They 
might use less energy, drive less, live in colder homes during the 
winter, or turn off air conditioners in the summer. Those are the 
choices.
  When individuals use less energy, they buy less, travel less, and in 
effect curtail overall economic activity. The gross domestic product of 
this country would be roughly 1 percent lower at the end of 2014 and 
2.6 percent lower by 2030 under this legislation. That is a huge 
reduction in the economy of the United States and therefore the well-
being of the American people. As economic activity slows, employers are 
not going to hire as many workers. In fact, employers would create 
850,000 fewer jobs by 2014, and 3 million fewer jobs by 2030. My home 
State of Arizona would lose 63,500 jobs by 2023, roughly speaking. 
Ironically, this bill would become an economic stimulus for China and 
India, as they would meet the manufacturing demands that we could no 
longer produce competitively. Perhaps more striking is the cost on 
American household incomes.
  Cap-and-trade legislation would, on average, reduce income adjusted 
for inflation by $1,000 in 2014 and by $4,000 by 2030. My home State 
residents in Arizona would see their income fall by $3,400 by 2030.
  However, not everyone will bear the same burden. Cap and trade is 
incredibly regressive in its impact, since low-income households spend 
a higher fraction of their income on energy. According to the 
Congressional Budget Office, just a 15-percent cut in carbon emissions 
would cost low-income households almost twice as much as high-income 
households. Cap and trade reduces the after-tax income of those in the 
bottom fifth of the income distribution by 3.3 percent. The top 20 
percent of the income distribution would see their disposable income 
fall by 1.7 percent.
  It is important to note that the amendment of Senator Boxer claims 
that it would reduce carbon emissions by 66 percent by 2050 or more 
than four times the amount CBO estimated. Of course, we obviously 
believe that CBO is far more correct in its assessment. But assuming 
the Senator were correct, then one might expect the amendment to reduce 
individuals' incomes four times as much as CBO estimated as well.
  Think about that--$12,000 to $15,000 reductions in income.
  I mentioned before that this creates winners and losers. Part of this 
is based on the whims of Congress. We would have the authority to make 
the distinctions that would enable some people to be better off than 
others.
  The amendment before us would redistribute $836 billion of allowances 
over the 2009-to-2018 period to various special interest groups. Just 
imagine that, Congress being in charge of redistributing $836 billion. 
And we are going to do that without any influence of special interests? 
I think not.
  Robert Samuelson noted in the article I quoted from earlier:

       Beneficiaries of the free allowances would include farmers, 
     Indian tribes, new technology companies, utilities and 
     States. Call this environmental pork, and that would be just 
     a start. The program's potential to confer subsidies and 
     preferential treatment would stimulate a lobbying frenzy. 
     Think of today's farm programs and multiple by ten.

  The tax-and-spend system, in other words, would create arbitrary 
winners and losers. Over the life of the bill, it would give away 
allowances valued at approximately $3.2 trillion for auction by States 
and other entities.
  Let me conclude with this point. While having all of this dramatic 
negative impact, the benefits are questionable at best. They do not 
meet any rational cost-benefit analysis. A recent editorial in the Wall 
Street Journal aptly summed up cap and trade as follows:

       Trillions in assets and millions of jobs would be at the 
     mercy of Congress and the bureaucracy, all for greenhouse gas 
     reductions that would have a meaningless impact on global 
     carbon emissions if China and India don't participate. And 
     only somewhat less meaningless if they do.

  So it is doubtful that a cap-and-trade system would actually 
accomplish the goal of reducing emissions and decreasing global 
temperatures.
  A report released by the EPA indicates that even with a cap-and-trade 
system in place in the United States, there would still be a net 
increase in carbon emissions over the next several decades.
  Indeed, other cap-and-trade efforts have been unsuccessful. For 
example, the Kyoto Protocol, an international cap-and-trade system 
aimed at controlling and reducing greenhouse gases, has largely been 
considered a failure. The European trading system has not only failed 
to reduce emissions as contemplated, it has constrained growth in 
developed countries and has enhanced unrestricted development in 
countries such as China and India.
  So before we sacrifice the U.S. economy and American jobs, we need to 
quantify the benefits of having a relatively slight reduction in 
greenhouse gases, and compare it to the huge costs imposed on the U.S. 
economy and American families.
  In sum, the amendment before us would increase energy prices, harm 
American families, and likely have a negative impact on long-term U.S. 
growth. Moreover, it is questionable whether the legislation would even 
make a perceptible dent in carbon emissions and decreasing global 
temperatures.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Thank you, Madam President. We are engaged in an 
extraordinarily important debate here. It is somewhat disappointing 
that the debate has been shortchanged due to procedural maneuvers by 
the minority party, which forced the clerk to read the entire bill and 
forced the majority to file a cloture petition.
  I think what Senator Kyl and many others have said, I might not agree 
with, but it is important to have this vigorous debate. I am somewhat 
disappointed that it has been curtailed.
  But now we are engaged in something that will impact this country and 
generations to come in a significant way. Seldom have we debated such 
an issue with global ramifications over decades and decades and 
decades.
  We talk about many times the burden that our children and 
grandchildren will bear as a result of the Federal debt.
  But there is an equally daunting burden placed on generations to come 
if we fail to come to grips with carbon emissions.
  Each ton of heat-trapping carbon dioxide that human activity releases 
into the atmosphere remains there for 100 to 500 years, amplifying the 
warming effect on our planet, changing the climate, and fundamentally 
altering ecosystems, landscapes and public health.
  The more carbon that is piled onto this ecological debt today, the 
more drastic the consequences will be in the future. According to the 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC, the atmospheric 
concentration of greenhouse gases is now the highest it has been in 
650,000 years, and it continues to grow.
  With near scientific certainty, the IPCC tells us that the high level 
of greenhouse gases in the air has led to the increase in global 
temperatures that has occurred since the beginning of the 20th century. 
This increase has accelerated in the last 50 years, making the years 
1995-2006 the warmest on record. Indeed, global temperatures may now be 
the hottest observed in the last 1,300 years.
  The impacts of climate change are already observable:
  Higher ocean temperatures have led to an increase in the number of 
intense hurricanes in the North Atlantic over the last century.
  In Rhode Island's Narragansett Bay, the water temperature has climbed 
4 degrees Fahrenheit in the last 40 years, coinciding with declines of 
winter flounder and lobsters.
  Permafrost is thawing and becoming unstable, causing buildings to 
collapse in the Arctic region.
  In 2007, the extent of Arctic sea ice was 23 percent less than the 
previous all-time minimum observed in 2005.
  Snowpack and glaciers are diminishing and are melting earlier in the 
spring. This, in turn, is causing a decline in the health of rivers and 
lakes

[[Page 11558]]

and is threatening habitat for endangered species.
  There has been an effect on human health, with increased mortality 
from extreme heat and changes in infectious disease vectors. For 
instance, in Rhode Island this has meant an increase in the incidence 
of tick-borne disease.
  The best science tells us that we must begin to curb emissions within 
the next decade in order to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations and 
avoid the catastrophic effects of climate change. If we fail, 
temperatures will continue to rise with dramatic results:
  With an increase of 2 degrees Celsius, millions more people will 
experience coastal flooding each year.
  An increase of 3 degrees will result in the loss of 30 percent of the 
world's wetlands.
  An increase of 1-5 degrees will place 30 percent to 40 percent of 
species at risk of extinction.
  Hundreds of millions of people, including up to 250 million people in 
Africa, will lose access to reliable water supplies.
  But this is not a debate solely about plants and animals. It is not 
merely about feeling better about how we treat the Earth. At its heart 
this issue is tied to the fundamental national security challenge of 
this century, energy and our dependence on imported fossil fuels. 
Changes to the environment do not occur in a vacuum and will have far-
reaching impacts on our national interests and our national security.
  The U.S. intelligence community has recognized the threat and is in 
the midst of conducting a national intelligence assessment on the 
effect of climate change on our security.
  Last year, the CNA Corporation's Military Advisory Board, consisting 
of 11 former general and flag officers, led by former Army Chief of 
Staff, GEN Gordon Sullivan, called for action to stabilize global 
temperatures. They warned:

       Climate change acts as a threat multiplier for instability 
     in some of the most volatile regions of the world. Projected 
     climate change will seriously exacerbate already marginal 
     living standards in many Asian, African, and Middle Eastern 
     nations, causing widespread political instability and the 
     likelihood of failed states.

  Just this week, NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer 
reiterated that the alliance must prepare for new threats that stem 
from the impact of global warming, saying: ``climate change could 
confront us with a whole range of unpleasant developments--developments 
which no single nation-state has the power to contain.''
  Regrettably, we have already witnessed the political ramifications of 
climate change. In writing in the Washington Post last summer, U.N. 
Secretary General Ban Ki-moon noted that ``[a]mid the diverse social 
and political causes, the Darfur conflict began as an ecological 
crisis, arising at least in part from climate change.'' As Secretary 
General Ban notes, a protracted drought, likely brought on by climate 
change, served to spur conflicts over resources and fuel the hatreds 
that brought genocide to this region.
  With so much at stake, the United States cannot fail to lead. In 
fact, we have a special obligation. As noted NASA climate expert James 
Hansen recently wrote, carbon dioxide from the beginning of the 
Industrial Revolution is still present in the atmosphere today, 
contributing to the warming our planet is experiencing. He estimates 
that the responsibility of the U.S. for the level of greenhouse gases 
is three times greater than any other country.
  These are the imperatives that bring us to this debate.
  I commend Senator Boxer for her efforts to bring this legislation to 
the point where it is today. Certainly, there must be compromise on 
legislation of this magnitude. As we engage in this debate, I want to 
highlight some areas of concern.
  First, we should be setting more aggressive targets for emission 
reductions so temperature increases are contained within an acceptable 
range. In that regard, I'm concerned that the bill will reduce 
emissions, at most, by 63 percent by 2050. The IPCC has estimated that 
we may need to reduce emissions by as much as 85 percent in order 
stabilize carbon. Sixty-three percent leaves very little room for 
error. Given the stakes, I believe we should be setting a higher 
target. As a cosponsor of the Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act, 
S. 309, which sets a final reduction target of 80 percent, I believe 
this is the goal we should set in this legislation. I am pleased to 
join as a cosponsor of Senator Sanders' amendment to reach this goal. I 
am also pleased to join Senators Kerry and Feinstein in their amendment 
to require a scientific review by the National Academy of Sciences to 
ensure the goal we are pursuing is sufficient to stabilize carbon 
concentrations and to require new legislation to be proposed by the 
President if we are projected to fall short.
  Second, because we must ensure that emissions begin to decline no 
later than 2020, we must implement the carbon cap as quickly as 
possible. I think we should begin implementation in 2010. Equally 
important, I have serious concerns about the bill's cost-containment 
provisions which would allow the auction of allowances borrowed from 
future years in order to provide additional allowances in early years. 
Although unlikely, this mechanism creates the potential for a situation 
in which there could be almost no reduction in U.S. emissions through 
2028. Even if it is remote, it's not a possibility we should accept.
  Third, we should ensure that the needs of consumers, particularly 
low-income consumers are recognized in the policy that we enact. I was 
disappointed to see that auction proceeds that were dedicated to the 
Weatherization Assistance Program, WAP, and Low-Income Home Energy 
Assistance Program, LIHEAP, under the committee-reported bill were 
removed. As this debate progresses, I plan to offer an amendment that 
will again provide funding for these programs, which not only help 
consumers pay their energy bills but also make important strides in 
reducing energy consumption and carbon emissions.
  Fourth, I appreciate the steps that are taken to promote and 
coordinate market oversight among various regulatory agencies, but I am 
concerned about the capacity of the EPA to lead the effort to provide 
oversight to a market of this size.
  Fifth, we need to make sure that in any climate change bill we 
address the very real impacts that capping carbon will have on everyday 
Americans living paycheck to paycheck. That is no small task, but no 
climate change bill will be a success unless we find a way to provide 
help to middle class families already struggling in an ever more 
competitive global economy. They must be afforded the same kind of 
transition assistance that many on the other side want to provide to 
carbon emitters.
  Make no mistake, addressing climate change will not be easy. It will 
involve change and sacrifice, but it also offers opportunity and hope. 
We hold the power to unshackle ourselves from the dangerous energy 
resources of the fossil age and develop an economy based on new, clean 
energy sources and technologies. Instead of becoming increasingly 
beholden to foreign energy suppliers, we have the opportunity to become 
an exporter of energy technology and to bring light to the 2 billion 
people in the developing world who lack access to reliable energy. By 
making the choice to face the reality of climate change, we will help 
leave the world a better place for our children, grandchildren, and 
generations to come.
  While I hope that we can continue to make improvements to the bill, I 
believe that this is an essential debate to have.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, before my friend Senator Reed leaves the 
floor, if I can have his attention, this morning, Senators Warner, 
Lieberman, and I and Senator Kerry held a press conference with GEN 
Gordon Sullivan, whom you mentioned in your remarks, and ADM Joseph 
Lopez. We had the most extraordinary testimony from them in terms of 
having to act. It was chilling in a way because

[[Page 11559]]

they said: You never know something with 100 percent certainty.
  They said: But what we learned on the battlefield is if you wait 
until you have 100 percent certainty, horrible things can happen.
  It was chilling. They warned us to act. So I think my friend brought 
it home this morning with his remarks.
  I ask unanimous consent that Senator Allard speak off his side's 
time--how many minutes?
  Mr. ALLARD. For 10 minutes.
  Mrs. BOXER. This is up to you.
  Mr. ALLARD. For 10 minutes.
  Mrs. BOXER. And then Senator Sanders for 7, and then Senator Bennett 
for 5, and then Senator Baucus for 10. I know Senator Craig would like 
10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
  Mr. ALLARD. Madam President, thank you. I am prepared to discuss the 
Lieberman-Warner climate change bill that was amended by the Boxer 
amendment. In general terms, I wish to take a moment to discuss climate 
change because that is obviously the main topic on the floor today. I 
have concerns about the science that some people are claiming here on 
the floor of the Senate.
  I think that obviously if we are going to have good policy, we have 
to have good science. But let me say that from the reports I have seen, 
I think it is unclear as to what the long-range trend is as far as the 
temperature of the Earth is concerned. I admit that right now we are 
going through a warming period, but in the last few years we may have 
cooled a fraction of a degree.
  I am recalling when I was in high school in the late 1950s, that we 
had magazine articles, National Geographic and everyone were writing 
about how we were into a cold trend, and we were heading toward an ice 
age.
  Now we are heading toward the trend in the headlines where we have 
global warming. I have listened to some of the comments here on the 
floor. One comment was that: We are at the highest temperature on 
record--the problem is, the record we have of the Earth's warming and 
cooling is a relatively short period of time when you look at the total 
history of the Earth. If you go back to the year around 1,000, for 
example, measuring based on some scientific evidence that has been 
obtained from our polar caps, by going down through the depths of the 
ice and analyzing it, some scientists have come up with the conclusion 
that actually it was warmer in the year 1,000 than it is now. You 
cannot blame that on human action. So the question comes up whether 
this is a trend, a natural cycle, that happens, that is related to 
sunspots or volcanic activity or whatever natural phenomena might be 
happening.
  I happen to agree that we probably contribute some to global warming. 
The question is, how much? That has not been adequately identified 
either.
  I am here to raise some questions. Obviously, if we absolutely know 
we are headed for catastrophe, the sooner we act, the better. But on 
the other hand, we don't want to overreact. We could cause problems for 
the economy and for Mother Earth if we react in the wrong way without 
having good scientific evidence.
  I am rather disappointed we will not have an opportunity to debate 
and amend this legislation, as we should. No piece of legislation is 
perfect. Obviously, there needs to be an opportunity for bills to be 
amended when they come to the floor. I am disappointed the majority 
leader has filled the amendment tree and filed for cloture, rather than 
allowing for the full and healthy debate that is such a rich part of 
the Senate's history.
  Since this bill has been introduced, we have record-high gas prices. 
There is pain at the pump. The common solution we have heard time and 
time again, whenever we have high petroleum prices, is: You need to 
raise taxes. You need to limit supply. You need to blame corporations. 
You need to somehow control international cartels. You can't control 
what isn't part of America. We can't pass laws and tell them when they 
can form a cartel and what they can do. It is beyond our reach. But we 
can take care of corporate misbehavior. We have had hearings time and 
again trying to blame oil companies for overcharging. Over the years, 
the conclusion is, there has not been any misbehavior as far as 
corporations setting prices. They are responding to supply and demand. 
They are responding to the cost of the product, taking a reasonable 
profit and putting that product on the market. I happen to believe 
supply and demand has the greatest impact on our prices at the pump to 
date.
  Obviously, this is not a perfect process. It is not a perfect bill. 
We need to bring the bill to the floor, provide an opportunity for 
substitutes to be brought forward, and then an opportunity to amend 
those. I am disappointed we will not have an opportunity to do that. 
That seems to be the trend this year. Republicans are not having the 
opportunity to bring up issues they believe are important on 
legislation that comes to the floor. That has happened time and again. 
Then the other side blames Republicans for somehow blocking the 
process. If you don't have an opportunity to offer amendments to the 
legislation, that is a serious concern to those of us who have to work 
in the minority in an institution such as the Senate, where there are 
specific minority rights.
  I would like to address some of the concerns of the Boxer amendment 
to the Warner-Lieberman climate change bill. My foremost concern is the 
science on which the entire bill is based. But because the ranking 
member of the Environment and Public Works Committee has asked us to 
leave science aside and focus on the legislation itself, I will start 
there.
  Based on many reports I have seen, it is unclear what, if any, effect 
climate change legislation would have on global temperatures. However, 
its potential economic impacts are absolutely staggering. The primary 
tool this bill uses to reduce greenhouse gases is a cap-and-trade 
program. It should more accurately be called a cap-and-tax program 
because it is essentially a camouflaged energy tax increase.
  Many of the proponents of this bill have said it is just like the 
program the Government instituted to control acid rain. But unlike 
sulfur dioxide in the acid rain program, there is no widely deployable 
control system for CO2 removal, nor do we expect this 
equipment to exist in the reasonably foreseeable future. This will 
result in significant increased cost to electric utilities, their 
consumers, as well as affected industries and their customers. That is 
the taxpayers. Thus, the cost of compliance will have a significant 
negative economic impact on electric consumers statewide and Colorado's 
manufacturing industries.
  A recent study produced by the Heritage Foundation Center for Data 
Analysis found that enacting this bill would cost Colorado almost 7,000 
agriculture-based jobs and over 21,000 manufacturing jobs. That is over 
27,000 lost jobs in Colorado alone. The same study found that 
statewide, Colorado would have a personal income loss of around $2.162 
billion.
  This bill also contains a provision in section 201 which was 
originally formulated for the acid rain program. This provision 
specifically denies that emissions allowances, which will be given out 
by the Government, are to be considered a property right. The provision 
also allows the administrator to limit or revoke the allowances at any 
time. Specifying that allowances are not property is, therefore, the 
Government's way to avoid a ``taking'' in the inevitable instance that 
the administrator does revoke allowances.
  How do we justify this? Government enables itself to give a product, 
sets up a scheme for buying and trading that product but can, at any 
time and for any reason, revoke that product without compensation. 
While there is certainly legal precedent, that does not make it right. 
In my view, this challenges assertions the bill's sponsors are making 
that their cap-and-trade approach is a market-based one.
  I will propose an amendment, if given the opportunity--I filed it by 
the 1 o'clock deadline--to fix this by specifying that emissions 
allowances are

[[Page 11560]]

property rights, and while the Government could still limit or revoke 
allowances, it would have to compensate the owners of allowances in 
order to do so. It is only fair that the Government would have to 
follow the same rules it sets out for industry to follow when buying 
and selling allowances.
  If we allow this legislation to go forward in its current form, we 
will see energy prices go up. The national cost of gas today averages 
around $4 a gallon. This will only go up if we pass the climate change 
bill. Coloradans are currently feeling pain at the pump, but if we pass 
this bill, they will feel it in their homes also. One of Colorado's 
municipally owned utility providers has informed me that when this bill 
takes full effect in 2012, their customers will immediately see their 
utility bill jump above 25 percent.
  Another utility, Tri-State, which provides electric power for 1.2 
million rural electric customers in a 4-State area, has projected that 
their costs to comply with the requirements laid out in this bill will 
be $12.6 billion in 2012 to 2030. This is based on the assumption that 
carbon credits would cost $50 per ton.
  It is entirely possible that cost projection is very conservative, 
and these are just rural electric cooperative impacts.
  I also have very real concerns related to the fact that anyone--not 
just covered emitters--can buy, sell, hold, or retire emissions 
allowances. Anyone with a large enough pocketbook could purchase a 
significant share of allowances and hold them to push the allowance 
price up or retire them. That would put our Nation at risk of economic 
manipulation, should another nation decide to step in and buy those 
allowances. Additionally, if an investor wants to make a lot of money 
off of the carbon trading market, they could just purchase and hold 
those allowances until the price gets high enough to make them want to 
sell.
  In any of these scenarios, the end result will leave the consumers as 
the ones paying the price.
  In closing, I reiterate that this bill is, in my opinion, not the 
right way to approach the issue of climate change. A far more effective 
approach would be for the Federal Government to continue to provide 
incentives for the development of greenhouse gas neutral technologies 
and technologies that do not produce greenhouse gases. Incentivizing 
technology development would get us to the same place without the 
economic hardship that this bill would impose. A good example of doing 
this has been the significant increases in renewable energy production 
that have resulted from the production tax credit, clean renewable 
energy bonds--called CREBs--and with incentives for clean coal 
technology.
  There will, of course, be a need for a larger Federal incentive 
program in all these areas to move the ball forward, but this will 
still be at much less cost to consumers than the $325 increase in 
average annual household energy cost that the Energy Information 
Administration has projected this bill could bring about.
  This is a poorly thought-out piece of legislation. We need to have an 
opportunity to legislate, to offer amendments, and move forward with 
this important debate. This is a comprehensive piece of legislation. It 
is important. It involves lots of Americans. I am disappointed we will 
not have an opportunity, under the current process, to amend this 
legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized for 7 
minutes.
  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, today we are discussing two issues 
which, in fact, are related to each other. No. 1 is the outrageously 
high cost of oil and gas. The second is the planetary crisis we face as 
a result of global warming. There are some people who think we have to 
address the price of high oil prices today and not worry about global 
warming. Some people think we have to worry about global warming and 
ignore the reality facing millions of people who cannot afford oil and 
gas. I think we are actually smart enough to walk and chew gum at the 
same time. We can and must address both these important issues.
  My office has recently published a small book. It is called ``The 
Collapse of the Middle Class, Letters from Vermont and America.'' It 
talks about what is going on not only in my State but all over this 
country, where the middle class is declining, people are working longer 
hours for lower wages, losing health care, pensions, their good-paying 
jobs. After all that, when you have gas at $4 a gallon at the pump, 
home heating oil outrageously high, many people throughout the country 
have now fallen over the economic cliff.
  In terms of oil and gas prices, the time is now for the Congress to 
tell our friends at ExxonMobil and other oil companies enjoying 
recordbreaking profits--last year ExxonMobil earned more profits than 
any corporation in the history of the world; last year the head of 
Occidental Oil, a major oil company, had enough money to provide $400 
million in compensation for their CEO--to stop ripping off the American 
people. It is time for us to pass a windfall profits tax which says: 
Enough is enough.
  But it is not only the oil companies that are ripping off the 
American people. The other day at the Commerce Committee, there was an 
important hearing in which George Soros and major economists testified 
it is not only oil company greed but speculators on Wall Street who are 
driving prices up, which results, perhaps, in a 35-percent increase in 
what the price of a barrel of oil should be. We have to deal with that 
issue as well. This is the so-called Enron loophole. Right now, through 
hedge funds, through unregulated markets, there is a massive amount of 
trading on oil futures which is driving up oil prices. We should be 
regulating that speculation. It should be transparent. In the process, 
when we do that, as was the case with Enron and electricity, as was the 
case with propane gas, as was the case with natural gas, if we begin to 
address speculation in terms of oil futures, we can drive down oil 
prices.
  Bottom line: We have to do that. In my State, as in rural States all 
over this country, where people are traveling long distances to work, 
they cannot afford, on limited incomes, to pay $4 for a gallon of gas. 
When the weather gets 20 below zero in Vermont, people cannot afford to 
pay twice as much this year as they did a couple years ago for home 
heating oil. So let us have the courage to take on the speculators. Let 
us have the courage to take on the oil companies and fight to lower oil 
and gas prices.
  In addition, we can't ignore the crisis in global warming. My friends 
come to the floor and say: Well, the scientific evidence is not clear.
  That is not true. Virtually every leading scientist who knows 
something about the issue, including the Intergovernmental Panel on 
Climate Change, has said, with 100 percent certainty, global warming is 
a reality. In fact, what they have told us is the situation is more 
dire than they had previously predicted. If we are concerned about the 
drought we are seeing today which will only get worse, if we are 
concerned about the hunger we are seeing as a result of that drought 
which will only get worse, if we are worried about the severe weather 
disturbances we are seeing right now, if we are worried about flooding, 
about disease, it is absolutely imperative we address the crisis of 
global warming and address it now.
  Some people say: There may be economic dislocation if we do it. There 
may be, and we have to address that. But I believe there are enormous 
economic opportunities. I believe the evidence is clear we can create 
millions of good-paying jobs as we move toward energy efficiency, as we 
produce automobiles, not that get 15 miles per gallon but hybrid plug-
ins which get 150 miles per gallon, as we rebuild our deteriorating 
rail system so people do not have to get into a car to go where they 
want to go but can get on good rail, that we deliver cargo via rail.
  There is enormous opportunity not only in terms of energy efficiency, 
in saving huge amounts of fossil fuel, but also in sustainable energy. 
I have tremendous optimism in what we can do with the technology that 
is already on

[[Page 11561]]

the shelf, not to mention the technology that will be coming in the 
near future.
  In terms of solar thermal plants which are now being built in the 
southwestern part of this country, as well as all over the world, you 
have plants, solar thermal plants, that are being built which can 
provide as much electricity as small nuclear powerplants, with no, or 
virtually no, greenhouse gas emissions. We are talking about producing 
15, 20 or more percent of the electricity the United States needs right 
from solar thermal plants.
  In addition to that, as Germany is doing, as California is now doing, 
there is tremendous opportunity with photovoltaics. We can put 
photovoltaics on 10 million roofs in this country. The more we produce, 
the more the price goes down, and we create jobs in the process.
  Wind is the fastest growing source of new energy in the world and in 
the United States. It is also becoming less and less expensive. I am 
not just talking about large wind farms in Texas, in the Midwest. We 
are talking about small wind turbines that can be placed in people's 
backyards all over rural America.
  Geothermal, biomass--there is huge potential. We must go forward for 
the sake of our kids and our grandchildren.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 7 minutes.
  The Senator from Utah is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I thank the sponsors of this 
legislation and the leadership of the Senate for bringing this debate 
forward. I think it is warranted. I think the issues are serious. I am 
not a naysayer who would say that global warming is not taking place or 
that human beings are not contributing to it.
  However, when I start discussing this with my constituents with 
respect to the present bill, they hit me immediately with one single 
question: What is it going to cost me?
  So before I get into any of the aspects of global warming, I want to 
answer that question. We know we have had a wide range of costs cited 
on the Senate floor. They have said the increasing gasoline price will 
be anywhere from 11 percent to 140 percent. We have heard that the 
increase in cost to electricity will be anywhere from 44 percent to 500 
percent. We have heard that the increase in cost in natural gas as a 
result of this bill would be anywhere from 35 percent to 87 percent.
  I do not want to pick a number between those two wide ranges in each 
case. I went to Utah, and I went to the Utah Petroleum Association and 
said: All right, you have looked at this bill. What will this cost Utah 
motorists if this is passed? Do not give me 2030 estimates. Do not give 
me numbers that are in a wide range. Tell me, what will drivers in Utah 
have to pay at the pump if this bill passes?
  They gave me a range: somewhere between 32 and 34 additional cents 
price at the pump. How did they calculate that? They said the total 
cost to Utah's oil refineries of the bill would be $500 million in the 
first year of implementation. They can extrapolate that $500 million 
into the price at the pump.
  On electricity, I got a wider range. A Utah company estimated it 
would have to raise electricity rates somewhere between 100 percent and 
500 percent in order to cover the cost of their purchasing the carbon 
allowances.
  So we start with this debate answering the constituent question: What 
will it cost? These are what it would cost in Utahns approximately 32 
to 34 more cents at the pump and somewhere between 100 and 500 percent 
in their electricity bill.
  Now, let's get to the heart of the problem. I would like to make a 
point I think everybody ignores. This is a global problem, and the bill 
attempts to solve it with a national solution.
  On this chart I have in the Chamber I have two lines. The blue line 
is the projection of what is going to happen in carbon emissions 
globally. The red line is what is going to happen in carbon emissions 
in the United States. You can see, the blue line is going up 
dramatically, whereas the red line is virtually flat.
  Now, if the bill passes, and everything works as its sponsors say it 
will--everything comes to pass in the best possible way--what will be 
the impact? The dotted line in red shows what will be the impact in the 
United States. The dotted line in blue shows what will be the impact 
globally.
  The impact globally will be minimal because increasingly the U.S. 
share of global emissions is going down. So that is why I am opposed to 
this bill.
  I close with a comment from Daniel Botkin, Ph.D., professor emeritus 
of the University of California, Santa Barbara. He says in his 
statement:

       You may think I must be one of those know-nothing naysayers 
     who believes global warming is a liberal plot. On the 
     contrary, I am a biologist and ecologist who has worried 
     about global warming, and been concerned about its effects 
     since 1968. . . .

  Then he says:

       I'm not a naysayer. I'm a scientist who believes in the 
     scientific method and in what facts tell us. I have worked 
     for 40 years to try to improve our environment and improve 
     human life as well. . . .

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 5 minutes.
  Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for an 
additional 30 seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BENNETT. This is his summary:

       My concern is that we may be moving away from an irrational 
     lack of concern about climate change to an equally irrational 
     panic about it.
       Many of my colleagues ask, ``What's the problem? Hasn't it 
     been a good thing to raise public concern?'' The problem is 
     that in this panic we are going to spend our money unwisely, 
     we will take actions that are counterproductive, and we will 
     fail to do many of those things that will benefit the 
     environment and ourselves.

  That is the irrational panic I think we would move to if we do this 
bill without serious amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized for 10 
minutes.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, today, the Senate is addressing the most 
compelling environmental issue of our time--global warming.
  President Teddy Roosevelt once said:

       I recognize the right and duty of this generation to 
     develop and use our natural resources, but I do not recognize 
     the right to waste them, or to rob by wasteful use, the 
     generations that come after us.

  We all have a basic moral duty: a duty to leave this Earth to our 
children and our grandchildren in as good a shape or better shape than 
we found it. We should not rob future generations of a healthy climate 
and all the benefits that come from it. What will history say about us 
if we rob future generations of the chance to fish in cold water trout 
streams or see glaciers in Glacier National Park?
  By reasserting America's moral leadership and enacting a cap-and-
trade program, we can leave a different legacy. We can protect our 
outdoor heritage, make our economy more competitive, and create more 
good-paying jobs.
  In Montana, we are already transitioning to a new green economy. We 
have increased our wind-generating capacity more than seventyfold in 
the last 2 years. The potential for this clean energy is huge. We can 
replicate this success with solar, clean coal technology, with carbon 
capture and sequestration, and other clean forms of energy.
  We must begin the process of developing the next generation of energy 
technologies at home. A cap-and-trade program will spur cleaner 
technologies and create good-paying jobs.
  We already know that a cap-and-trade system can work. It is a market-
based solution that harnesses the power of America's ingenuity and 
entrepreneurship.
  In the year 1990, I chaired the conference committee that completed 
the Clean Air Act amendments designed to address acid rain. At the 
time, there were a lot of gloom-and-doom predictions about the costs 
that the Clean Air Act amendments would impose on the economy. Certain 
industry groups claimed that the Clean Air Act amendments would cost 
industry more than $5 billion every year. The actual cost to industry 
was less than one-third of that. And the public benefits of cleaner

[[Page 11562]]

air have amounted to more than $78 billion a year.
  A cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gases will be much more 
complicated, clearly. But I am confident that by using a market-based 
solution, we can stop global warming as well.
  We have a moral imperative to act. We have no choice. But we must 
also work to get the policy right. We have no choice there either. This 
means designing a cap-and-trade system that stops global warming. But 
it also means doing it in a way that enhances our economic 
competitiveness, creates good-paying green jobs, and avoids harm to 
working families.
  Setting the cap determines whether we meet our environmental goals. 
What we do with the money the cap-and-trade program raises will 
determine whether we enhance our American competitiveness and help 
working families.
  By establishing a cap-and-trade system, we are creating a market for 
greenhouse gas emissions. Under the cap-and-trade system, emitting 
greenhouse gases will come at a price. Allowances will govern the right 
to emit greenhouse gases. The bill before us gives away some of the 
allowances but auctions others in an auction system. The bill auctions 
fewer allowances in the earlier years and more in the later years of 
the program, through the year 2050.
  The auctioning of these allowances will generate receipts. According 
to the Congressional Budget Office, enacting this substitute will 
generate an additional $902 billion in receipts over the next 10 
years--close to $1 trillion.
  The bill we are considering allocates the money generated from the 
auction through a variety of trust funds. There are 15 of them in all. 
They are directed toward different needs anticipated from dealing with 
global warming. For example, the bill sets aside funding for such 
things as wildlife adaptation, creation of a new worker training 
program, and energy technology.
  All of these are worthy causes. But are they the best way to use the 
receipts in order to increase our competitiveness and help working 
families? Should we auction all of the allowances, more of the 
allowances, or fewer? Rather than spending the receipts through the 
various trust funds, should we return more of the money to the people 
in tax cuts?
  This bill also safeguards American economic competitiveness by 
requiring importers to buy carbon allowances for products imported from 
countries that have not made commitments to reduce greenhouse gases. 
This requirement can serve as an effective incentive for other 
countries, particularly the rapidly developing economies in China, 
India, and Brazil to join us in the fight against global warming.
  Of course, our trading partners will watch closely any proposal that 
imposes an assessment on imports. It is important we adopt such 
measures in a manner that respects international trade rules. The 
proposal before us has been carefully crafted to take these rules into 
account.
  As a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I 
supported the Lieberman-Warner bill in both the subcommittee and full 
committee. I believed it was very important to move forward on global 
warming.
  As chairman of the Finance Committee, I have additional 
responsibilities. Those include directing the revenues generated by the 
Federal Government, overseeing U.S. trade policy, and helping those 
displaced by trade to retool and retrain. The bill before us today 
involves these and many other matters. This is a complex and 
challenging issue involving many committees within the Congress.
  We in the Senate have finally woken up to the moral imperative of 
addressing global warming. Now we must acknowledge the imperative to 
get the policy right. I applaud Senator Lieberman, Senator Warner, and 
Senator Boxer for bringing this issue before the Senate so we can begin 
to debate and improve the policy.
  I want to continue to work with my colleagues to get it right, as 
chairman of the Finance Committee, as a member of the EPW Committee, 
and as a Montanan and a concerned American. We owe it to our children 
to act and to get it right.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized for 10 
minutes under the previous order.
  Mr. CRAIG. Thank you, Madam President.
  Let me recognize at the beginning of my comments that yesterday I was 
on the Senate floor to talk about the incorporation of good forest 
policy as it relates to rejuvenating America's forests to increase 
their capability of sequestration of carbon out of the atmosphere. I 
said at that time there would be an amendment. That amendment has the 
cosponsorship of Senators Domenici, Allard, Crapo, and Barrasso and has 
been filed. It is an important amendment, if we ever get to that phase 
of this debate, where we will be able to effectively craft and shape a 
policy for our country.
  We deal with striking the international intent within this bill to 
take our money to help others before we help ourselves. We define 
biological sequestration. We think that is extremely important because 
we know how to do that now at the Federal level. It is not the old 
business-as-usual model; it is establishing a baseline and being able 
to effectively measure from there. We allow forests to get credits from 
meaningful sequestration, and I think this is tremendously important to 
be able to do. It is not about the volume of a stand of timber; it is 
about the ability of that stand to sequester. If you have 400 trees per 
acre, you have overpopulated that area by as many as maybe 250 or 300 
trees per acre. But that is the measurement of the Boxer amendment. It 
is absolutely counterintuitive to modern forest science. We change it 
to where we are and to where we know our forest scientists are today.
  We use existing monitoring and measuring tools, which is very 
important. It is a product of 1992 legislation when we charged the U.S. 
Forest Service and their laboratories to get at the business of being 
able to effectively measure. We use internationally recognized 
sustainable forest management standards. We use RFS and productive tax 
credits for biomass and biomass removement, and of course we use 
stewardship contracting, which is critically important.
  Let me take the Presiding Officer and those who might be listening 
today on a very interesting journey that starts at America's gas pump. 
Let me assume that the Presiding Officer has just driven up to a gas 
pump somewhere in America. You stick the hose in your car, you activate 
the pump, you slide your credit card, and you begin to fill. Depending 
on the size of your vehicle and the price--anywhere from let's say 
$3.85 a gallon for regular to maybe $4.44 in California--you begin to 
grow annoyed as the calculator on the pump goes: 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 
60, 65--oops, you have maxed the pump and you have to get more by 
reactivating the pump to fill your SUV. Your anger is optimal now. You 
have just paid 100 bucks or somewhere near that, and you have never 
done that before. You move your view up to the pump and it says 
``Chevron.'' It says ``Shell.'' It says one of the major oil companies. 
You focus your anger on that company and you say: It has to be their 
fault. They are making record profits. Somehow, there ought to be a way 
to stop them from doing what they just did to me and my pocketbook and 
my family's budget.
  Let me take you, the consumer, then, a step further and suggest to 
you that you are part of a problem that has been growing in America for 
a long while. Your demand for the use of energy has gone nearly 
straight up over four decades as you have increased your consumption of 
it. Why? Because the price was reasonable and you enjoyed it. The price 
was reasonable and your demand went up dramatically, but while that was 
going on, there were interests at work in our country that said: We are 
not going to produce any more, we are going to produce less, and we 
did. So our overall supply began to drop at about the time that our 
demand began to go up catastrophically. What happened was an 
interesting scenario.
  So now you have hung your hose up from the gas pump, you have just 
paid

[[Page 11563]]

100 bucks, and you are angry as heck. You are part of the demand curve 
in our supply in our country that is dropping down, and you have just 
blamed Exxon or Chevron or Marathon or someone because you have spent 
100 bucks to fill your SUV and you are not happy.
  If you took all of these small companies and blamed them all and said 
they have to be the problem, they would only represent about 6 or 7 
percent of the problem. The problem these companies have is that they 
are buying a substantial amount of their oil from this side of the 
chart. They are buying their oil from countries--from countries that 
don't give a darn about our problems. We have grown so dependent on 
foreign countries that now some 55 to 60 percent of our consumption 
comes from them, and we pay a phenomenal amount for it, or should I say 
you--you, the consumer who has just put up the hose on the gas pump and 
who has grown angry, wanting to focus your anger on these companies.
  Is it Canada you want to blame? Well, let's see now, at $125 a 
barrel, we are paying Canada $280 million a day. Why should we blame 
them? They are supplying our needs. There are no gas lines today. There 
is no diminishment in supply. It is a price problem. Well, then let's 
blame Saudi Arabia. Oh, yes. They are over here. They are the big boys. 
The President just went over there, hat in hand, begging that they turn 
their valves on, and they said: No, Mr. President. Your problem, not 
ours. You are going to keep buying our oil. You need it. We are paying 
them $190 million a day. Maybe it is Venezuela, run by a little tinhorn 
dictator--$160 million a day flowing from our consumers' pocketbooks--
or it is Nigeria at $140 million or it is Algeria at $70 million.
  The bottom line is, well over $1 billion a day comes right out of the 
consumers' pocket and goes primarily to one of these companies that buy 
from one of these countries. They buy the oil at the current world 
price, and they are allowed to take some profit from it; sure they do. 
Their profits are record highs because the charges are record highs, 
and the story goes on and on.
  We search to blame. We have little alternative. The business of the 
oil economy has little elasticity to it. We can't switch over to 
something else unless we park the SUV and get a bicycle. But you can't 
haul your kids to the soccer game on a bicycle. You can't haul boxes of 
groceries home on a bicycle. So the American economy and its consumers 
are questioning themselves right now, saying: What do we do?
  Let me suggest there is somebody to blame besides ExxonMobil and 
Chevron and Marathon. Why don't you blame the Senate? Why don't you 
blame the Congress of the United States which, by being subject to 
environmental pressure over the last 30 years, has largely denied the 
right of this country to effectively develop its oil reserves and 
create a less dependent relationship with all of these countries? That 
is what we ought to be doing, but we are not doing that.
  Here is a map of the gulf region of Florida. In this region, we are 
developing this right now. We have just opened this area after we spent 
2 years trying to get it open because politics would not allow us to 
open it, and we think there are about 2.2 million barrels a day 
starting in 2012 down here. This is lease sale 181. But over here, 
there may be as much oil as there was or is here, but this is 
politically off limits. We can't do it. Why shouldn't the consumers 
say: Well, what is the politics of it? You are draining my pocketbook 
dry. Is there value in those politics? Why don't you develop your 
reserves? Well, Florida, Presidential politics--you name it. Floridians 
are awfully frustrated by the fact that you might be able to drill 
there.
  This area right down here is the Cuban basin, the northern Cuban 
basin. Cubans are letting leases out to drill there. The U.S. 
Geological Survey would suggest that there is some oil there--maybe 
quite a bit of oil--but we won't get it. It won't traffic through Exxon 
or Chevron because we have a policy that denies us access to that 
region of the world because, if you will, of the politics of Cuba, 
plain and simple.
  So here is our problem with that and here is our problem with this 
interesting picture. We have about 115 billion barrels of reserve in 
gas, about 29 billion known, about 5 billion undiscovered resources. In 
gas, we have about 633 trillion cubic feet, 213 trillion known, 419 
unknown. Now, that is information that is 20 years old because 
politically you dare not go out into any of these regions today with 
the new seismic technology and explore because if you did and you found 
oil, you might want to drill, and that would be environmentally 
unacceptable. Oh, how frightening.
  I remember a time--and not all do unless you are about my age--come 
1969 when there was an interesting oil spill off the coast of Santa 
Barbara in southern California. It made national headlines because it 
was one of the first major oil spills that did substantial 
environmental damage. I have oftentimes referred on the floor to our 
denial to access the Outer Continental Shelf as the ghosts of Santa 
Barbara that lurk in this Chamber and hide in the background of 
environmental arguments. That was Santa Barbara in 1969. But what is 
fascinating about Santa Barbara is that while we didn't drill offshore 
Santa Barbara because of a moratorium on the Federal waters, we 
continued to drill offshore Santa Barbara in the State waters. Today, 
offshore Santa Barbara, CA, is producing 731,000 barrels of oil a day. 
They just cut a new deal with some oil companies to drill in this area. 
Well, why aren't they allowing us to drill offshore further out in the 
Continental Shelf? Because California doesn't get the money. Oops. 
Sorry, folks. Money trumped the environment. Remember that. In Santa 
Barbara today, they are drilling for oil if it is within the 3-mile 
limit of the shoreline because that is State oil and that is State 
water. But out in the Federal reserve, Outer Continental Shelf, no, no, 
no, no, can't do, must not do that, something about a problem.
  Well, what the ghost of Santa Barbara and the 1969 oil spill did was 
shove us into a period of technology unprecedented. Today, we are 
drilling offshore in the gulf, and the water is so deep that we didn't 
even imagine a decade ago we could be there. We are doing it 
appropriately and in a very clean fashion.
  So here are the headlines in Los Angeles, April 20, 2008: Santa 
Barbara approves offshore drilling. Well, what happened to this picture 
here? What happened in 1969 with this oil rig spilling oil, sea lions 
dying, fish dying, muck, oily muck along the shoreline? That is Santa 
Barbara, 1969. We were led to believe they stopped drilling altogether, 
but they didn't. They just approved new drilling, but it is inside the 
3-mile zone.
  Now, Californians are selective, apparently, about their environment. 
If there is money tied to it, well, maybe we can drill, if we get all 
the money, but if we don't get as much of it, we won't drill offshore. 
That is the kind of politics that have gone on today.
  So remember how I started these comments a few moments ago? You have 
just driven up to a gas pump, you just stuck the nozzle into the tank 
of your SUV, you just cranked out 100 bucks of regular at about $4.40 a 
gallon--in California, because of the boutique fuels of the Clean Air 
Act--and you have grown angry because somebody was ripping you off, and 
that somebody had to be an Exxon or a Chevron or a Marathon or someone 
else. But I hope I have been able to suggest to you some additional 
knowledge: That they represent maybe 6 percent of world production. It 
is the petropolitics of the world today where nearly 90 percent of the 
known oil and the reserves are owned by foreign nations that are 
sticking it to us, and they are sticking it to us today because of our 
own interesting greed, because we grew luxuriously fat on cheap energy 
and we developed cars that take a lot. Now that we can't fill them for 
20 bucks and it is costing us 100 bucks, we are angry and we want to 
blame somebody. Blame Saudi Arabia, blame Venezuela. But how about 
blaming us here in the Congress, because some of us have tried, but the 
body politic of

[[Page 11564]]

America denied that we should touch our own reserves, develop our own 
oil, and that we should become dependent upon someone else.
  So we have legislation on the floor today that doesn't help that. It 
creates, in fact, greater dependency. It doesn't move us forward to 
develop those known reserves. It doesn't allow us to do the geological 
exploration in the deep waters of the Outer Continental Shelf with the 
new technologies, in which we will find much more oil than we know is 
there.
  America, blame your Congress--blame your friendly Congressman or your 
friendly Senator. Ask them how they voted. Ask them how they are going 
to vote on ANWR, on Outer Continental Shelf, on new development, on new 
refinery capacity. Oil is not the answer for 50 years from now, but oil 
is the bridge that gets us from where we are to where we need to be 
with new technologies. But our lack of foresight, our rush to be green, 
and our rush to deny the realities of the marketplace has produced the 
problems we have today, and there are people to blame. We ought to 
start right here with a Congress that would not listen.
  But year after year, while I and others brought ANWR to the floor for 
a vote, and while we tried to get into the Outer Continental Shelf, 
politically, it was simply an unpopular thing to do, because some would 
say this would be the picture. Fellow Senators, this picture I display 
on the Senate floor is a picture of the past. This is of 1969 Santa 
Barbara. From that day forward, we began to apply technology to drill 
heads, to drill rigs, through our capability and talent. When Katrina 
hit the gulf and hit the coastline of Louisiana, parts of Alabama, 
Mississippi, and Florida, offshore, not one drop was spilled. Thousands 
of wells were shut down. Rigs were sent adrift. But what is depicted in 
this picture did not occur. This will not occur again because of the 
triple safety devices and all of the kinds of things that have been 
incorporated as a result of this.
  So California today drills happily away within the 3-mile zone, 
because they get 100 percent. But outside the 3-mile zone, no, no, no, 
can't touch, might hurt the environment. Shame on us.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Salazar). The Senator from Missouri is 
recognized.


                 Intelligence Committee Phase Ii Report

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, with some reluctance, I come to the floor 
today to continue the discussions that were begun this morning about 
the Intelligence Committee's report that comes out today, called phase 
II.
  I am somewhat embarrassed to have to highlight the partisan divisions 
and sloppy work of the Intelligence Committee that was discussed here. 
Back in July of 2004, the Intelligence Committee completed an 
exhaustive 2-year study of the inadequacies of the intelligence pre-
Iraq war. We looked at it. We had hundreds of interviews, brought 
people in, and looked at all of the documents. Our staff analyzed all 
of these items and interviewed people. We came to the conclusion that, 
despite what some people had said, the intelligence prior to the Iraq 
war was flawed. It wasn't a question of the administration pressuring 
analysts or the administration misusing intelligence. Those charges 
were made and they were very volatile. They were all dismissed because 
the intelligence was bad. We passed the bill out of committee 
unanimously. It was a true bipartisan work. It stands as a monument to 
what effective oversight could and should be. It helped reform the 
intelligence community, to make it better and improve the tradecraft of 
the analysts, and to inspire more working together.
  But today we have regressed significantly. What came out today as the 
phase II reports were, regrettably, highly partisan. When I became vice 
chairman of the Intelligence Committee, I had hopes we would be able to 
put behind us the corrosive atmosphere of partisanship that had taken 
over in the committee in previous years. I recommended that we work 
together on phase II to bring it to an end, because most of the work 
had been done in 2006. The minority asked for extensive analysis and 
collation and collaboration, and they prepared that. But the offer was 
rejected by the chairman.
  Instead, two reports were written solely by Democratic staffers. No 
minority staffers participated in the writing of the report. They were 
shut out, unlike work on the phase I effort. It is an unfortunate 
example of partisanship being alive and well on the committee.
  The report released today is an attempt to score election year 
points. I would have thought we would quit fighting the 2004 election, 
but apparently we have not. It violates the committee's nonpartisan 
principles and rejects the conclusions unanimously reached in previous 
reports.
  I think it is ironic that the majority would knowingly distort and 
misrepresent the committee's prior phase I findings in an effort to 
prove that the administration distorted and mischaracterized the 
intelligence. In contrast, as I said, the phase I report of July 2004 
concluded that most of the key judgments in that NIE, National 
Intelligence Estimate, on Iraq's WMD programs either overstated or were 
not supported by the underlying intelligence. And the committee found 
that the Intelligence Committee failed to explain to policymakers the 
uncertainties behind the judgment. The report made it clear that flawed 
intelligence--not administration deception--was the basis for 
policymaker statements and decisions.
  Despite the Democrats' political theater on the floor today, none of 
the facts in the phase II majority reports released today change that 
conclusion. There is no evidence in the information brought up today 
that changes the conclusions of the phase I bipartisan 15-to-0 vote.
  Now, the reports that came out today ignore the fact that many in 
Congress--Republicans and Democrats--examined the same intelligence as 
the Bush administration, and they, too, characterized Iraq as a growing 
and dangerous threat to the United States.
  The public report is replete with examples of statements by the 
current chairman and by other Democrats. Let me report what was said by 
the current chairman.
  October 10, 2002:

       There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is 
     working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will 
     likely have nuclear weapons within the next 5 years. He could 
     have it earlier if he is able to obtain fissile materials on 
     the outside market, which is possible--difficult but 
     possible. We also should remember we have always 
     underestimated the progress that Saddam Hussein has been able 
     to make in the development of weapons of mass destruction.

  He said this also:

       Saddam Hussein represents a grave threat to the United 
     States.

  Further on in the statement, he said on October 10, 2002:

       The President has rightly called Saddam Hussein's efforts 
     to develop weapons of mass destruction a grave and gathering 
     threat to Americans. The global community has tried, but has 
     failed, to address that threat over the past decade. I have 
     come to the inescapable conclusion that the threat posed to 
     America by Saddam's weapons of mass destruction is so serious 
     that despite the risks--and we should not minimize the 
     risks--we must authorize the President to take the necessary 
     steps to deal with that threat. . . . There has been some 
     debate over how ``imminent'' a threat Iraq poses. I do 
     believe Iraq poses an imminent threat. I also believe after 
     September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. It is 
     in the nature of these weapons that he has and the way they 
     are targeted against civilian populations, that documented 
     capability and demonstrated intent may be the only warning we 
     get. To insist on further evidence could put some of our 
     fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? 
     I do not think we can.

  Those were the statements he made on the Senate floor. Frankly, I 
said many of the same things, because he was looking at the same 
intelligence I was, the majority of this body was looking at, and the 
executive branch was looking at when they made the distinction. We 
decided to support the President to move forward. The intelligence was 
often flawed, but that was the intelligence we had at the time.
  The report we have today was drafted entirely by the majority. The 
minority was entirely cut out of the process. Even with the majority-
only drafted report, the twisted statements of policymakers cherry-
picks intelligence

[[Page 11565]]

 and validates what we have been saying for years--that the 
intelligence was flawed.
  No. 2, the statements report excludes intelligence, including 
instances in which the committee knew that policymakers' statements 
were fact checked and approved by the IC. For example, the report does 
not explain that the speech of Secretary of State Powell was not only 
checked and rechecked by the IC, but that the first draft of the speech 
was actually written by the CIA. This original draft included text that 
the majority report claims was ``unsubstantiated.''
  The report does not review any statements of Democrats.
  The report distorts the words of policymakers to help make the 
majority's case.
  The majority didn't even seek to interview those whom they accuse of 
making unsubstantiated statements.
  There is a second report, the Rome report, which was totally outside 
the scope of the committee's authorization. The committee said we will 
look at the Office of Special Plans and the PCTEG in the Defense 
Department, with reference to Iraq. The report they put out today has 
nothing to do with Iraq. It is about an Iranian talking about Iran. The 
people whom they were talking to were not members of the Office of 
Special Plans or the PCTEG. It was not an intelligence operation. The 
United States had been contacted by somebody who wanted to speak to 
somebody other than the CIA about information he had in Iran. It was 
found not to be trustworthy or useful, and the National Security 
Adviser dismissed it and said it requires no further proceeding.
  We wasted time, we wasted valuable effort, and we got nothing for it.
  I regret to say this has injected partisan politics and does this 
committee and this body no useful purpose.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader is recognized.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 3036

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I notified the other side that I am 
going to propound a unanimous consent request to which I think they 
will object. I didn't want to blindside them. I don't know who on the 
other side is available.
  I see both leaders here. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Senate resume consideration of S. 3036, the Lieberman-Warner climate 
change bill; that the motion to commit be withdrawn and the pending 
amendment be temporarily set aside so that I may offer an amendment 
related to gas prices.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I think it is 
pretty clear what the picture is here. After trying everything that we 
could to have a regular debate on this bill, we were turned away at 
every point.
  My memory goes back to yesterday, with the unusual, untoward request 
and objection that we not be allowed to waive the reading of almost a 
500-page amendment. So we spent all day yesterday doing that. I think 
if my friend is interested in doing something about gas prices, that 
opportunity will come quickly, because we are going to have to vote 
Tuesday morning on gas prices. It is a very direct, concise debate on 
gas prices. I hope we will get support from the Republicans on that 
issue.
  It would seem to me, if they are interested in doing something about 
gas prices, they would vote cloture on that. If they wish to offer 
amendments, that is the fine. But with all due respect to my friend, 
who objected to even committees meeting today--committees meeting 
today--in addition to having the amendment read----
  Mr. McCONNELL. Parliamentary inquiry: Is this an objection or a 
speech?
  Mr. REID. It is both. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has reserved his right to object.
  Mr. REID. And I object, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator wish for the regular order?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I believe I have the floor, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader does have the floor.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I take no pleasure in cutting off my friend, the 
majority leader. I have the floor, and I propounded a unanimous consent 
request to which he objects, which is, of course, his right.
  Let me make some observations about the amendment I would have 
offered had I been permitted to.
  My good friend, the majority leader, was complaining about the 
reading of the amendment yesterday. I remind him it did not take nearly 
as much of the Senate's time as his reading passages from his own book 
back in 2003, which took up to 9 hours of the Senate's time, that, too, 
to make a point about the way judicial confirmations were being 
handled. So it is certainly not unprecedented for Members of the body--
not the majority leader, not myself--trying to make points with regard 
to the displeasure, if you will, in the handling of judicial 
appointments.
  With regard to the amendment I would like to have offered, I ask 
unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the amendment so people 
will know what I would have offered had I been allowed to.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       On page 161, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:

     SEC. 530. ACTION UPON HIGHER GASOLINE PRICES CAUSED BY THIS 
                   ACT.

       (a) Determination of Higher Gasoline Prices Caused by This 
     Act.--Not less than annually, the Secretary of Energy, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of Transportation and the 
     Administrator, shall determine whether implementation of this 
     Act has caused the average retail price of gasoline to 
     increase since the date of enactment of this Act.
       (b) Administrator Action.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of this Act, upon a determination under subsection 
     (a) of higher gasoline prices caused by this Act, the 
     Administrator shall suspend such provisions of this Act as 
     the Administrator determines are necessary until 
     implementation of the provisions no longer causes a gasoline 
     price increase.

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, obviously, I am disappointed that the 
majority has objected to allowing this amendment to become pending. 
Earlier today, the assistant majority leader said we should be voting 
on amendments. I actually couldn't agree more. In a week in which gas 
prices have climbed to an all-time high, the Democratic majority in the 
Senate is pushing legislation that would send them up, at the very 
least, another 53 cents a gallon.
  Since the majority took over Congress 17 months ago, gas prices have 
gone up $1.66 a gallon. Since the beginning of this year alone, gas 
prices have gone up nearly a dollar--82 cents. Today, AAA reported a 
new record-high average gas price nationwide of $3.99 a gallon. All of 
this is hurting families, workers, truckers, farmers--it is hurting 
literally everyone. Yet the majority has nothing to say about it. It 
has done nothing, actually worse than nothing. It has repeatedly 
blocked efforts to increase production of American energy at home, as 
recently as last month, when 48 Democratic Senators voted against the 
American Energy Production Act.
  Now, at the beginning of the summer driving season, it offers a bill 
that would send gas prices up another 53 cents a gallon, for goodness' 
sake. People in the Commonwealth of Kentucky are paying, on average, 
$3.92 a gallon this week. They want to know what in the world is going 
on around here. I am telling them to take a look at what is going on 
here this very week. I am asking the same question they are: Why on 
Earth are we considering a bill that would raise gas prices even 
higher--even higher--than they already are?
  Our friends on the other side have no serious plan for lowering gas 
prices. Indeed, they seem intent on raising them even higher, which is 
why I have tried offering this amendment as a sort of emergency brake 
on the majority.
  This amendment says that if the Boxer climate tax bill does, in 
effect, increase gas prices, its provisions shall be suspended.
  Let me say that again. This amendment I had hoped to be able to offer 
and get pending and voted on simply says, in fact, if the Boxer climate 
tax bill does, in fact, increase gas prices, its provisions shall be 
suspended. Turn them off and take a time out.

[[Page 11566]]

  Earlier this week, the junior Senator from Connecticut said the Boxer 
bill would reduce gas prices. His contention runs counter to every 
analysis of the bill of which I am aware. But if he is right--if he is 
right--if the Boxer climate tax bill actually reduces gas prices, then 
there is no reason not to support my amendment because my amendment 
would not go into effect--if, in fact, the underlying bill is going to 
reduce gas prices.
  If the Senator from Connecticut is right, then my amendment would not 
have any effect on the cap-and-trade system outlined in this bill 
because, of course, gas prices would not be increased by the operation 
of the bill. If he is wrong, my amendment will protect those who are 
suffering today from the high price of gasoline.
  We should have an opportunity to ask Senators where they stand. Do 
they believe, as I do, that gas prices are high enough already or do 
they believe, as the sponsors of this bill do, that gas prices should 
rise even higher? What are they afraid of? Let's have votes on these 
amendments. This is the kind of bill, as I have said repeatedly, 
normally in the Senate would have been on the floor for weeks. This is 
a big, complicated bill, described by my friend and colleague, the 
majority leader, as the most important matter for the planet. I think 
we would all agree that is a big deal.
  If this issue is the most important issue confronting the planet, 
then it is worth more than a few days. If we spent 5 weeks and 
considered 180 amendments and processed 130 of them on the clean air 
bill in 1990, this bill is certainly worth a multiweek, multifaceted 
debate and consideration of amendments without preclearance on both 
sides.
  What has evolved in the course of the last year and a half is the 
only way you get to offer an amendment around here is if the other side 
agrees to let you. The majority leader and I have been around the 
Senate long enough to remember when that was not the way you operated 
on major bills. We were both here in 1990, when Senator Mitchell was 
the majority leader. The Democrats controlled the House, controlled the 
Senate, and there was a Republican in the White House. We were trying 
to do a clean air bill. We spent 5 weeks on it, considered 180 
amendments, passed 130 of them. Nobody was asking permission to offer 
an amendment. It was a freewheeling, wide-ranging, wide-open debate on 
an important issue at that time.
  This strikes me as very similar in nature to that, and I don't know 
why we are afraid to spend time on this bill, why we are afraid to have 
amendments on it. My goodness, filling the tree, filing cloture--it 
strikes me my good friend, the majority leader, doesn't want anybody to 
vote on any of the amendments. We wish to go through a kind of 1-week, 
check-the-box exercise and move on. If this is, indeed, the most 
important issue confronting the planet, why are we not spending time on 
it?
  So I would have liked to have had a chance to vote on that amendment. 
It strikes me that if the position of the majority is this bill will 
not raise gas prices, there would be no particular reason not to adopt 
it because, at the end of the day, it wouldn't become operative unless 
gas prices went up. GAO thinks gas prices will go up 53 cents a gallon. 
I hope this bill doesn't pass, but if it does, I hope they are wrong 
and that the Senator from California is right. In any event, as a good 
hedge against further raising gas prices on American consumers, it 
struck me that the McConnell amendment would be a good way to go.
  I regret it will not be possible to offer that amendment. It would 
have been good for the Senate to have considered and to have voted on 
this amendment. But apparently that will not be the case today.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, look at this picture: My friend is 
complaining about judges. They did this yesterday because of judges. I 
gave a speech 7, 8 years ago that lasted 9 hours, so they can now say 
that is fine, these many years later, we are going to force them to 
read a bill.
  Keep in mind, all you people who are watching, we have the lowest 
rate in decades, some 30 years, of vacancies in the Federal judiciary. 
Is it an emergency? Of course not. These lifetime appointments make far 
more money than the average American.
  This judges issue they put into this global warming debate is a 
diversion. President Bush doesn't acknowledge global warming exists, so 
it is obvious he is not concerned about global warming.
  I so admire a few valiant souls, led by Senator Warner, on the other 
side who do believe it is a critical issue. I appreciate their 
vigilance and their courage for coming forward and supporting us in 
trying to do something about global warming.
  My friend, the Republican leader, is talking about gas prices having 
gone up while we have been in control of the Senate for less than 18 
months. The President of the United States has been in power for 7\1/2\ 
years. Gas prices have gone up 250 percent. Gas prices, since the first 
of the year, have gone up 82 cents.
  This whole argument objecting to committees meeting--when the 
Republicans were in power, there was not much going on with the 
committees, no oversight. We are having a little oversight. Maybe that 
is why they don't want us to do the committee hearings.
  This whole issue dealing with global warming--we have a memo of 
theirs saying they are going to play political games--the whole issue 
relating to this reminds me of the old-time story where a person kills 
his parents and then seeks the mercy of the court because he is an 
orphan. That is what they are doing.
  This argument is so transparent. After not having allowed us to do 
anything on this bill, they suddenly walk out here and say: We have 
something we would like to amend.
  We have tried. We have tried. We have a cloture vote set on this 
issue. We are going to do it in the morning, to allow us to go forward 
and debate some amendments. We will see what happens on that vote.
  The American people understand what the Republican minority has done 
to the Senate and to our country. It has even spilled over into the 
House of Representatives in three special elections. The former Speaker 
of the House of Representatives, the man Speaker Pelosi replaced, in a 
heavily Republican district in the State of Illinois, that district 
went Democratic. Why? Because of this going on.
  In Louisiana, a House seat that had been Republican for many years, 
the Democrats won that seat in a special election. In Mississippi, they 
appointed a Senator to take Senator Lott's spot. There was a vacancy. A 
Democrat won that. It is going to continue. The American people see 
this picture.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, with respect to the judges issue--we 
are getting things kind of mixed in together--with respect to the 
judges issue, it was viewed with incredulity the suggestion that 
somehow reading the amendment yesterday was without precedent. My good 
friend clearly remembers his reading his own book on the floor of the 
Senate. According to Senate records, it was nearly 9 straight hours, 
longer than it took to read the amendment yesterday. Interestingly 
enough, it had nothing to do with judges. At least reading the 
amendment yesterday was a way to learn about the Boxer substitute, 
since we had gotten it about 15 minutes before it was offered.
  The fundamental issue on judges is keeping your word around here. 
Let's not obscure the point. The fundamental issue about judges is, Are 
you going to keep your word?
  At the beginning of this Congress, the majority leader and I agreed 
we would achieve, working together, the average number of circuit 
judges of each of the last three Presidents, each of whom, to their 
regret, ended their

[[Page 11567]]

terms with the opposition party in the majority. It was not contingent 
on vacancy rate. There was no discussion of vacancy rate. It didn't 
have anything to do with anything other than a numerical measurement of 
success.
  When it became clear several months ago that there was no serious 
effort being made to keep that commitment, we had a conflict here on 
the floor about another bill. In connection with settling that dispute, 
the majority leader committed to me that we would do three circuit 
judges before Memorial Day toward the goal he and I had agreed on 
earlier. We did one. We did one.
  The only way this institution can function is that when we give our 
word, we ought to keep it.
  Now, on a separate track, last night, in connection with a 
nominations package, the commitment was made to do three district court 
judges within the next week who are on the calendar right now and have 
been on the calendar since late April.
  So now we have two commitments extant here. We have the commitment at 
the beginning--well, three actually: the commitment at the beginning of 
the Congress to reach the average for each of the last three 
Presidents, which would have been 17; then we had the commitment to do 
three prior to Memorial Day, only one of which was done; and now last 
night, in conjunction with a nominations package, we had a commitment 
to confirm three district court judges who have been on the calendar 
here in the Senate since late April. And these are typically not even 
controversial. The chair of the Judiciary Committee was on the floor at 
the time. So we will see if that commitment is to be kept.
  So that is what this is about, Mr. President. It is about keeping 
your word here in the Senate.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I understand that the order gave a period 
from 2 to 3 to the Senator from Virginia, the Senator from California, 
and the Senator from Connecticut. Am I correct on that?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. WARNER. Recognizing that our leadership had important matters to 
bring to the attention of the body and that 15 minutes of that time was 
consumed in that series of important messages, I ask unanimous consent 
now that the entire calendar of scheduled speeches and so forth be 
moved ahead 15 minutes to restore our time and thereby extend time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Presiding Officer, and I thank my colleagues.
  Mr. President, I wish once again to express my appreciation to the 
chairman, Chairman Boxer, and my colleague, Senator Lieberman, in the 
long voyage we have had. Senator Lieberman and I have been working on 
this for nearly a year, the climate change bill and the security bill, 
as we call it, and then our chairman eventually joined and the 
committee acted and the rest is history.
  I look upon this as being a very substantial contribution to this 
continuing debate on this very perplexing but essential subject to be 
continuously watched here in the United States of America, and the next 
Congress will take it up, and I think we will have laid a foundation 
for the future work of the next President and the next Congress--an 
important foundation. I wish we would have had more debate, but I will 
not get into the politics of what happened. It is clear to all. But I 
will say that in the brief period we were on the bill, for example, I 
did not hear any really substantial debate contesting the fundamental 
question: Is there adequate science to support--to support--the action 
by the Congress of the United States and then hopefully the President 
of the United States to address this issue? That seems to me to be put 
aside now.
  I think we can deduce from this limited debate we have had that each 
and every Member of this Chamber is genuinely concerned to some degree 
about the effects of the erratic changes in our climate, in our 
weather, with the droughts and the floods, the tornadoes, and these 
other unexplainable variations in the historical--I repeat, the 
historical--benchmarks of these weather occurrences. So we are moving 
forward, and that was a very important building stone.
  This morning, the chairman and the Senator from Connecticut and, 
indeed, the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kerry--the four of us 
joined to introduce two very fine, distinguished, retired four star 
officers--one a general and one an admiral. They are a part of a team 
of 11 members.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
the names of all the members of the Military Advisory Board to the 
Center for Naval Analysis, a national and internationally recognized 
organization which deals in a nonpolitical way on issues. They put 
together a very comprehensive report about the national security 
implications from global climate change.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                      The Military Advisory Board

       General Gordon R. Sullivan, USA (Ret.), Former Chief of 
     Staff, U.S. Army; Chairman, Military Advisory Board.

       Admiral Frank ``Skip'' Bowman, USN (Ret.), Former Director, 
     Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program; Former Deputy 
     Administrator-Naval Reactors, National Nuclear Security 
     Administration.
       Lieutenant General Lawrence P. Farrell Jr., USAF (Ret.), 
     Former Deputy Chief of Staff for Plans and Programs, 
     Headquarters U.S. Air Force.
       Vice Admiral Paul G. Gaffney II, USN (Ret.), Former 
     President, National Defense University; Former Chief of Naval 
     Research and Commander, Navy Meteorology and Oceanography 
     Command.
       General Paul J. Kern, USA (Ret.), Former Commanding 
     General, U.S. Army Materiel Command.
       Admiral T. Joseph Lopez, USN (Ret.), Former Commander-in-
     Chief, U.S. Naval Forces Europe and of Allied Forces, 
     Southern Europe.
       Admiral Donald L. ``Don'' Pilling, USN (Ret.), Former Vice 
     Chief of Naval Operations.
       Admiral Joseph W. Prueher, USN (Ret.), Former Commander-in-
     Chief of the U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM) and Former U.S. 
     Ambassador to China.
       Vice Admiral Richard H. Truly, USN (Ret.), Former NASA 
     Administrator, Shuttle Astronaut and the first Commander of 
     the Naval Space Command.
       General Charles F. ``Chuck'' Wald, USAF (Ret.), Former 
     Deputy Commander, Headquarters U.S. European Command 
     (USEUCOM).
       General Anthony C. ``Tony'' Zinni, USMC (Ret.), Former 
     Commander-in-Chief of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM).
       Sherri W. Goodman, Executive Director, Military Advisory 
     Board, The CNA Corporation.


                               Study Team

       David M. Catarious Jr.
       Ronald Filadelfo.
       Henry Gaffney.
       Sean Maybee.
       Thomas Morehouse.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I will read first from the statement, and 
then I will insert the full statement of General Sullivan in the 
Record.
  General Sullivan has had a 50-year career, in one way or another--on 
Active Duty or continuously working--with the U.S. Army. I have known 
him a long time. I remember him coming to testify before the Senate 
Armed Services Committee many times in his capacity as the Chief of 
Staff of the Army. He stated as follows:

       Having said this, I admit I came to the Advisory Board as a 
     skeptic and I'm not sure some of the others didn't as well. 
     After we listened to leaders of the scientific, business, and 
     governmental communities, both I and my colleagues came to 
     agree that global climate change is and will be a significant 
     threat to our national security. The potential destabilizing 
     impacts of global climate change include reduced access to 
     fresh water, impaired food production, health issues, 
     especially from vector and food-borne diseases, and land 
     loss, flooding and so forth, and the displacement of major 
     portions of populations. And overall, we view these phenomena 
     as related to failed states, growth of terrorism, mass 
     migrations, and greater regional and inter-regional 
     instability.

  This is a totally pure, nonpolitical assessment of this problem.
  How I wish we would have had the opportunity to have had further 
debate,

[[Page 11568]]

at which time we could have brought forth other testimony of members of 
this panel and addressed the security issues. Those were the issues 
that drew me, this humble Senator, to participate and to devote 
basically a year of my career with my good friend from Connecticut, 
both of us members of the Armed Services Committee. It is because of 
the national security implications.
  I would like to read a bit from the testimony of ADM Joe Lopez. Now, 
I have known Joe Lopez ever since he was a Navy captain, when I was the 
Secretary of the Navy. He has a remarkable career. He stated as 
follows:

       National security involves much more than just military 
     strength. National security is affected by political, 
     military, cultural, and economic elements. These elements 
     overlap, to one degree or another, and every major issue in 
     the international arena contains all of them. And climate 
     change has an impact on each of them. This will be 
     particularly more pronounced in the world's most volatile 
     regions, where environmental and natural resource challenges 
     have added greatly to the existing political, economic, and 
     cultural tensions. These instabilities that already exist 
     will create a fertile ground for extremism, and these 
     instabilities are likely to be exacerbated by global climate 
     change.

  Again, there is no politics in this. It is a clear statement from a 
man who has devoted over 40 years of his life to military service for 
our country, and there are nine others who participated in this panel.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
the statements of General Sullivan and Admiral Lopez.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                            General Sullivan

       My name is Gordon Sullivan. I have served America as a 
     soldier since 1955. My last duty position was as Army Chief 
     of Staff--1991 to 1995. I retired from active service in 1995 
     and have been president of the Association of the United 
     States Army--Army's professional association--since 1998. 
     Thus, I have been in or involved with the Army for over 50 
     years.
       I am here as the chairman of the Military Advisory Board 
     for CNA. The Military Advisory Board consists of retired 
     three- and four-star flag officers from the Army, Navy, Air 
     Force, and Marines.
       We were charged with looking at the emerging phenomenon 
     known as global climate change through the prism of our own 
     experience, and specifically looking at the national security 
     implications of global climate change.
       Having said this, I must admit I came to the Advisory Board 
     as a skeptic and I am not sure some of the others didn't as 
     well.
       After we listened to leaders of the scientific, business 
     and governmental communities, both I and my colleagues came 
     to agree that global climate change is and will be a 
     significant threat to our national security. The potential 
     destabilizing impacts of global climate change include 
     reduced access to fresh water, impaired food production, 
     health issues, especially from vector and food-borne 
     diseases, and land loss, flooding and so forth, and the 
     displacement of major populations. And overall, we view these 
     phenomena as related to failed states, growth of terrorism, 
     mass migrations, and greater regional and inter-regional 
     instability.
       The findings of the board are:
       First, projected climate change poses a serious threat to 
     America's national security. Potential national threats to 
     the Nation--potential threats to the Nation's security 
     require careful study and prudent planning.
       Second, climate change acts as a threat multiplier for 
     instability in some of the most volatile regions of the 
     world.
       Third, projected climate change will add to tensions even 
     in stable regions of the world.
       Fourth, climate change, national security and energy 
     dependence are a related set of global challenges.
       The recommendations of the board are, first, that we cannot 
     wait for certainty. In this issue, there maybe a lack of 
     certainty for some, but there is certainly no lack of 
     challenges. And in our view, failing to act because a warning 
     isn't precise would be imprudent.
       Second, the United States should commit to a stronger 
     national and international role to help stabilize climate 
     changes at levels which will avoid significant disruption to 
     global stability and security, and third, we should commit to 
     global partnerships to work in that regard.
       Climate change, national security, and energy dependence 
     are all inter-related. Simply hoping that these relationships 
     will remain static is simply not acceptable given our 
     training and experience as military leaders. I think hoping 
     that everything is going to be great probably won't work, at 
     least in our view.
       I would say that most of us on the Military Advisory Board 
     were in the military service of the United States of America 
     for over 30 years, most of it during the Cold War. High 
     levels of catastrophe could have occurred if we didn't invest 
     in military preparedness and awareness of the threats we 
     faced.
       In conclusion, you never have 100 percent certainty on the 
     battlefield. We never have it. If you wait until you have 100 
     percent certainty, something terrible is going to happen. As 
     such, now is the time to act on the critical issue of climate 
     change.

                             Admiral Lopez

       My name is ADM Joe Lopez and my naval career has included 
     tours as commander-in-chief of U.S. Naval Forces Europe and 
     commander-in-chief, Allied Forces, Southern Europe from 1996 
     to 1998. I commanded all U.S. and Allied Bosnia Peace Keeping 
     Forces in 1996; and served as deputy chief of naval 
     operations for resources, warfare requirements and 
     assessments in 1994 to 1996.
       National security involves much more than just military 
     strength. National security is affected by political, 
     military, cultural and economic elements. These elements 
     overlap, to one degree or another, and every major issue in 
     the international arena contains all of them. And climate 
     change has an impact on each of them. This will be 
     particularly more pronounced in the world's most volatile 
     regions, where environmental and natural resource challenges 
     have added greatly to the existing political, economic and 
     cultural tensions. The instabilities that already exist will 
     create a fertile ground for extremism--and these 
     instabilities are likely to be exacerbated by global climate 
     change.
       If you look at the Middle East, it has long been a tinder 
     box of conflict. The natural environment of this region is 
     dominated by two important natural resources--oil because of 
     its abundance, and water because of its scarcity. Climate 
     change has the potential to exacerbate tensions over water as 
     precipitation patterns decrease, projected to decline as much 
     60 percent in some areas. This suggests even more trouble in 
     a region of fragile governments and infrastructures and 
     historical animosities among countries and religious groups.
       Another challenge of climate change is projected sea level 
     rise. Couple this threat with a predicted increase in violent 
     storms and the threat to coastal regions is real. Not only is 
     this a threat to homeland security as a response mechanism, 
     but some of our most critical infrastructure for trade, 
     energy and defense are located on our coasts. A more concrete 
     example of expected sea level rise affecting national 
     security and our strategic military installations can be seen 
     in low-lying islands, such as Diego Garcia, which is a 
     critical base of support for our Middle East operations. 
     Climate change is a ``threat multiplier.''
       These are a few examples of how the expected effects of 
     climate change can lead to increased stress on populations 
     and increased strife among countries. We believe that climate 
     change, national security and energy dependence are a related 
     set of global challenges.
       With my remaining time, I'd like to make three 
     observations:
       The first is to highlight that link between climate change 
     and energy security. One can describe our current energy 
     supply as finite and foreign. Continued dependence on 
     overseas fossil fuel energy supplies, and our addiction to 
     them, cause a great loss of leverage in the international 
     arena. Ironically, a focus on climate change may actually 
     help us on this count. We should leverage technology and 
     extract and exploit our natural resources including coal to 
     make it safe and environmentally friendly. Nuclear power can 
     be exploited. The Navy has been safely doing this for years. 
     Key elements of the solution set for climate change are the 
     same ones we would use to gain energy security.
       Second, this issues is great and the U.S. alone cannot 
     solve it. If we in our Nation do everything right--assuming 
     we know what is right--the hazards of global climate change 
     would not be solved. China and India are integral to the 
     global solution. We must engage them.
       My third point: For military leaders, the first 
     responsibility is to fight and win. The highest and best form 
     of victory for one's nation involves meeting the objectives 
     without actually having to resort to conflict. It takes a 
     great deal of investment, planning, strategy, resources and 
     moral courage. But the prevention of conflict is the goal.
       Finally, our security revolves around issues that are 
     political, economic, cultural and military in nature. We have 
     concluded that the potential effects of climate change 
     warrant serious national attention. As General Sullivan has 
     mentioned, national security and the threat of climate change 
     is real, and we can either pay for it now, or pay even more 
     for it later.

  Mr. WARNER. So Mr. President, there again we have laid another 
building block, bringing to the attention of the American people their 
own security here at home, their own armed services who are called upon 
to address these problems now and in the coming years.
  Now, I have no basis and I will not state that the tragic weather 
change that hit Burma and is taking tens upon

[[Page 11569]]

tens of thousands of lives should be put in a category now of global 
climate change, but I do point out that, at this very moment, we still 
have ships and aircraft and men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces 
offshore ready to move in with food and supplies and other things.
  Our country, almost alone, is the one to which the world turns when 
there is some sort of a crisis, and it is clear from the statements of 
these two professionals that many of those crises can be generated by 
these erratic climate changes.
  Mr. President, I wish to yield the floor at this moment to my other 
colleagues, but I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a 
series of recognitions that the three of us want to state with regard 
to our staffs and to a number of organizations that have come forward, 
foremost among them the Pew Center--that was the one that provided us 
with magnificent books on this--and many others across America that 
came forward to participate in what we had hoped to be very extensive 
debate on this issue. Nevertheless, they have laid the foundation, and 
they will continue to lay a foundation upon which to build and build, 
until we finally come to grips with a framework of the solutions as to 
how this Nation is going to lead and deal with the inevitable 
consequences of these climate changes.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       Mr. President, my colleagues and I would not be here today 
     were it not for the incredible input and support from other 
     distinguished colleagues in the Senate, as well as a great 
     deal of organizations and companies that helped shape our 
     bill.
       First, I would like to thank our esteemed cosponsors of the 
     Climate Security Act: Senators Dole, Coleman, Collins, Casey, 
     Bill Nelson, Cardin, Klobuchar, and Harkin. Their critical 
     input made the bill what it was.
       I would like to thank all the members of the Environment 
     and Public Works Committee, but in particular, Senators 
     Baucus, Carper, Lautenberg, Barrasso and Isakson. Without 
     their help at critical junctures of the legislative process, 
     we would not have moved our bill to this point.
       I would be remiss if I did not recognize my dear friends, 
     Senators Bingaman and Specter, whose bill we borrowed heavily 
     from and who highlighted such important issues as cost 
     containment and international competitiveness.
       I thank our friends from the Northeast, Senators Kerry and 
     Snowe, who had their own bill that informed our process and 
     who adopted the substitute like it was their own, not only 
     cosponsoring the amendment, but drumming up support every 
     step of the way.
       I thank my dear friend, Senator Alexander. While he doesn't 
     support our bill, he has contributed eloquently to the 
     debate.
       Before I joined my partner Senator Lieberman, he had a 
     different partner. I must thank Senator McCain, who has been 
     a pioneer on this issue of global climate change.
       This effort would not have been possible without my partner 
     and dear friend, Senator Joe Lieberman, and his fine staff, 
     in particular: David McIntosh, Joe Goffman, and Alex Barron. 
     I must thank Rayanne Bostick, who along with Anna Reilly of 
     my staff, helped coordinate so many meetings between myself 
     and the Senator from Connecticut.
       I must thank our fearless chairman, Senator Boxer and her 
     staff: Bettina Poirier, Erik Olson, Eric Thu.
       I thank the members of my own staff who worked tirelessly 
     on this bill: Carter Cornick, Chris Yianilos, Chelsea 
     Maxwell, John Frierson, Shari Gruenwald, Sandra Luff, Tack 
     Richardson, Mary Holloway, Hughes Bates, Bronwyn Lance 
     Chester, and Jonathan Murphy.
       There were also a number of organizations and companies 
     whose input was invaluable to our work. The U.S. Climate 
     Action Partnership members were critical to our efforts. In 
     particular, I highlight: Alcoa, the Pew Center on Global 
     Climate Change, Exelon Corporation, Florida Power and Light, 
     General Electric, the National Wildlife Federation, NRG 
     Energy, BP America, DuPont, PG&E, and the Environmental 
     Defense Fund.
       In addition, we received valuable advice from the Nicholas 
     Institute at Duke University and the National Commission on 
     Energy Policy.
       If you were one of the numerous witnesses at one of our 
     full committee or subcommittee hearings, whatever your 
     perspective was, you informed the debate, and I thank you.
       Mr. President, the problem with naming those who have 
     helped is that you inadvertently leave someone out. I am 
     eternally grateful for all the input we received.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I wish to thank my friend and colleague 
from Virginia, Senator Warner. He is an extraordinary man and a great 
Senator, and we are going to miss him. I wish I could convince him to 
run again, but I think it is a little late, probably past the filing 
dates. But he has been an extraordinary leader in so many ways, 
particularly on matters of national security.
  We first worked together when we cosponsored the resolution 
authorizing President Bush 41 to go into the gulf war in 1991. We 
served together on the Armed Services Committee. I have never met a 
more patriotic American, a more honorable man, and it meant everything 
to this whole effort when Senator Warner decided he wanted to be part 
of the solution to the climate change problem.
  I often tease him--but it shows the strength of this man--that on the 
two times Senator McCain and I introduced an amendment on the floor to 
do something about global warming, Senator Warner voted against it. And 
I was with him one day when somebody in the media said: Why did you 
change your mind? And he said: Two words--science, grandchildren. That 
says it all about this great man.
  I appreciate what he has just said. Nothing has driven John Warner's 
career in the Senate and his service to America over decades more than 
his commitment to protect our national security. And maybe I should add 
a third word--science, grandchildren, national security--four words--
because it is his understanding that climate change, if we don't do 
something about it, is going to compromise and threaten the national 
security of the American people.
  This conference we did this morning with General Sullivan and Admiral 
Lopez I thought was stunning and stirring. These are two people who 
served their country in uniform for decades. There was not a lot of 
rhetoric there, just stating the facts. One of them said--I forget 
which one; it might have been Admiral Lopez--``The best thing you can 
do if you are a military person is to prevent conflict, prevent war.'' 
They see this legislation as a way to do that.
  I hope my colleagues consider that. There is so much on the line, 
with so much work that has been done by so many people. I am not just 
talking about Senator Warner and myself and Chairman Boxer, who made 
all the difference in her leadership. Our staffs, so many people 
outside the Senate--environmentalists, business leaders, labor leaders, 
hunters, anglers, leaders in the faith community--representing the 
public will of the American people, asking us to do something to 
protect them from global warming and its worst consequences.
  The bill we brought forth, the Climate Security Act, none of us will 
say it is perfect. Of course, it is not. I don't ever remember voting 
for a perfect piece of legislation. But it is very good. It creates a 
framework, a structure that will allow our country to begin a decades-
long effort. This will go decades and decades to solve this problem. 
Future Congresses will come back and fix this where it didn't quite 
work out the way we hoped. We have a lot of mechanisms in here, which 
we have described earlier, to create fail-safes to protect our economy, 
our environment, our national security.
  With all that on the line, I have to say it is disappointing and 
frustrating that parliamentary maneuvers and concerns about something 
totally irrelevant to this once-in-a-career, once-in-a-lifetime 
opportunity to do something to deal with this extraordinary challenge 
for our future--that those kinds of irrelevant issues are standing in 
the way, potentially, of a full debate on this matter.
  Tomorrow morning we come to a real turn in the road. I think the 
question is not whether you think this is a perfect bill but whether 
you think it is a real good-faith effort to deal with the problem of 
climate change and whether you want to say, by your vote, that you 
believe climate change is a real problem and a real threat to our 
future and you

[[Page 11570]]

want to be part of a solution to the problem.
  Some of my colleagues have said to me today, I wish to be part of the 
solution to the problem, but I am now blocked from offering amendments. 
I always said I would vote for the bill if certain amendments were 
adopted.
  That is not literally true. The fact is, as is the regular order in 
the Senate, if you filed your amendment, as everybody was duly 
notified, by 1 p.m. today, and cloture is granted tomorrow, that 
amendment will be fully debated next week and in the days ahead.
  But this is a moment to say the Senate is prepared, if not this year 
then soon, to deal with this very real threat to our environment, our 
economy, and our national security.
  What is the rush, some people may say. Let me quote first from a 
study by the Environmental Defense Fund that has found that each 2-year 
delay in starting emissions reductions doubles the annual rate at which 
we will need to reduce emissions by 2020 in order to ward off a global 
catastrophe. Because of the way the climate responds to the buildup of 
greenhouse gases, these gases stay trapped in the atmosphere. That is 
the whole problem. Then the heat from the Earth, as it bounces up, 
cannot go anywhere and it stays there and you have the greenhouse 
effect that is clearly warming the planet.
  The truth is, our children and our grandchildren are already going to 
face, inevitably, consequences of global warming. What we are talking 
about now is beginning to reduce the greenhouse gases, the carbon 
pollution that causes the globe to warm, so the consequences that we, 
our children, our grandchildren and succeeding generations of Americans 
and people all over the world face are not disastrous or catastrophic, 
because that is totally within the realm of the possible. Many 
scientists say it is not only possible, it is probable, if we do not do 
anything soon. So the longer we wait to start reducing this carbon 
pollution that is trapped up there, the more sharply we will need to 
reduce them in order to stay within our emissions budget, you might 
say.
  Let me add, we have received an analysis from an economic modeling 
firm called On Location. They used the model of the Energy Information 
Administration of the Department of Energy of the Bush administration 
on our Climate Security Act. Their analysis asks one simple question: 
What would happen if we wait 10 years to enact the exact same policies 
that are involved in the Climate Security Act, the exact same bill, to 
achieve the same cumulative emissions reductions scientists say are 
required to protect the climate? The results are striking, unsettling, 
and I hope motivating for quick action.
  Here is what this economic modeling firm found: That waiting 10 years 
to start on emissions reductions increases the cost of emissions 
allowances by 15 percent. Listen to this: It doubles the overall cost 
of global warming to our economy.
  Whatever my colleagues are trying to say about the cost of this 
innovation-driving, market-based entrepreneurial incentive policy, are 
they prepared to double that number through delay? Are they prepared to 
saddle the American economy and our progeny with the burden of 
increasingly severe and essentially irreversible climate impacts?
  Finally, I wish to draw the attention of my colleagues to this graph, 
this chart, this description of what is happening. In previous debates, 
we have referred to the summer Arctic ice, the polar icecap. When we 
started in our interest in whether there was global warming and what 
its consequences might be and whether we should do something about it, 
that was in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Then-Senator Al Gore, I 
think, held some of the first hearings on this subject in 1988. Senator 
Kerry was involved at the time and shortly thereafter. We had to use 
computer models of projections the way the weather was going to go to 
see what was happening and what might happen if we allowed the globe to 
warm. But we now have technology, satellite pictures, and real evidence 
to show us what impact global warming is having. It is not a theory 
anymore, it is not a computer model anymore.
  In earlier debates, these satellite pictures--this is from 2001--were 
used. Here is the North Pole at the green spot. The red line on the 
outside is where the polar icecap was in 1979. The white here is where 
the polar icecap was in satellite pictures taken in 2003. It is 20 
percent less than it was in 1979--20 percent of the polar icecaps in 
2003 had already melted away.
  If that doesn't begin to stir your concerns enough about what is 
happening, go over here to the 2007 satellite picture. Again, the 
exterior red line is where the polar icecaps were in 1979. Look at 
this. In 5--well, 4 years but let's say 5 because there are parts of 
those 2 years--in 5 years, the polar icecap has melted away to the 
point where it is 40 percent less now than what it was in 1979. In 
2003, it had lost 20 percent; in 2007, it has lost 40 percent.
  I asked the scientific fellow in my office, Alex Barron--I wish to 
give him credit. I said: So this is now raising the sea levels? He said 
no. He taught me a lesson. I was one of those who at college took a 
course called Science for Nonscience Majors, so I am still learning.
  He said: No, the ice melts as if it was ice in a glass--it sits as if 
it was ice in a glass. It has air in it, and when it ultimately melts, 
because the water is warming, the total amount of water will be about 
the same because this ice is all in the water, the polar icecap is in 
the water.
  But here are two things. One is, the fact that the icecap is melting 
obviously shows something is happening there, that the warmth is 
causing it to melt. But here is the danger. Here is Greenland. There 
the ice is on land, it is not in the water. I have now been taught, 
when the polar icecap diminishes by 40 percent, the capacity of the 
ice--just like wearing a white shirt--to reflect the sunlight and 
reduce the impact on the temperature diminishes. In other words, the 
water warms and warms the entire environment and the real danger there 
is that the ice on land, in Greenland, will begin to melt. When that 
begins to melt--which the scientists tell us will surely happen unless 
we reduce the amount of carbon pollution we are putting into the 
atmosphere--then we are in real danger because then sea levels will 
begin to rise--some scientists say with a suddenness that will create 
catastrophic results. I do not know that. But I can tell you some 
credible scientists have told us that.
  While the Senate fiddles, the globe warms. We can have these silly 
parliamentary debates, and we can get into side partisan fights about 
nominations, but this process is going on and getting worse, with 
potentially catastrophic consequences for the United States of America 
and particularly, of course, as Greenland would melt, to the enormous 
coastal regions of our country.
  There has been a pattern of human behavior in America over the last 
century. People are moving to the coasts. It is where they want to be. 
They and their lifestyles are going to be threatened in the most 
consequential way unless we do something about that.
  We have come a long way in this year. I am not ready to give up about 
the cloture vote tomorrow, but I understand the realities and I urge my 
colleagues, as they consider how to vote on it, to see this as your 
opportunity to say--not whether this Climate Security Act is a perfect 
bill but whether you, No. 1, accept the reality of global warming; No. 
2, want to do something about it and believe that a cap-and-trade 
system--nobody has come out in this debate and offered any other way to 
do it. As a matter of fact, a lot of our most severe critics have said 
cap and trade is actually the way to do it, but they don't like this 
part of the way we have done it or that part of the way we have done 
it. We welcome that debate. But this is a moment to say whether you 
want to do something to stop this clear and present danger to the 
security of the American people or whether you want to continue to 
fiddle while the globe burns.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska). The Senator from 
California.

[[Page 11571]]


  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 34 minutes remaining.
  Mrs. BOXER. I would like to speak for about 20 minutes, and then I 
would like to yield up to 10 minutes to Senator Salazar.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Colleagues, let me tell you where we are. Your 
Environment and Public Works Committee, for the first time, voted out a 
landmark bill, the Lieberman-Warner bill. We did that after 25 
hearings. We had everyone come before us. It was extraordinary. From 
the leading scientists, to State government officials, to mayors, to 
business leaders, to folks who run utilities, to religious leaders, it 
was extraordinary--environmental organizations.
  We listened and we asked questions and we voted. Now, the day that 
Senator Warner decided he believed part of his legacy on national 
security had to include global warming, he stepped out and he came to 
me, after he had already talked to Senator Lieberman, and said: I want 
to be on this team. He said: I will be with you through thick and thin.
  We have had thick and we have had thin. We have had great moments and 
tough moments. And we are kind of in a tough moment now because we so 
want to complete work on this bill. It is going to be a very tough road 
for us to be able to do that.
  I went over to my friend, Senator Warner, and I told him, first of 
all, what a joy it has been to work with him on this because our lives 
in the Senate have kind of taken us in different directions. But now, 
we finally had a chance to work together. You could not have a better 
colleague. You could not have a more loyal friend. When he says 
something, he sticks with it.
  We have created this troika, a tripartisan troika, which I think has 
been a very good experience for all of us. I told him, because he has 
several months remaining in the Senate, that when he leaves, I hope he 
will become a worldwide spokesperson for action in this area.
  There are very few people who bring to the table the national 
security experience and his new knowledge now that he has absorbed on 
this issue of global warming or climate change. I do not know if he 
will do that, but if he does it, I think it is going to make an 
enormous contribution as Senator Lieberman and I are here battling 
every day with a new President of the United States to try to get 
something done. So I hope he will consider that.
  So many people did help us. Senator Warner alluded to our staffs. I 
want to name a few names now. This is just a few of the people: Bettina 
and Erik of my staff, David and Joe of Senator Lieberman's staff, and 
Chelsea and Chris of Senator Warner's staff, and their staffs that 
report to them.
  There was extraordinary dedication, sleeplessness, early morning 
phone calls. To get to this point is so difficult. And not one second 
has been wasted because as we get this landmark bill in place, we will 
take off where we left, and where we left is just a tremendous amount 
of knowledge, so many of our Senators getting involved. It has really 
been a heart-warming experience.
  That is why it is tough to get to the point where we are now because 
we are ready, ready to finish this job, ready to work with our friends. 
But we are going to try to see how many votes we can get for cloture. 
We urge our friends and colleagues to please say yes to continuing this 
important topic.
  Senator Lieberman, I think by showing these maps and showing us the 
ice melt--by the way, many members of our committee, we led a trip to 
Greenland. Imagine. I say to my friends who might be listening to this, 
imagine this. An iceberg that is larger than the Senate Chamber, 
floating, floating toward the ocean. The average age of this iceberg, 
9,000 years old. Imagine this. Average age, 9,000 years old. Within 1 
year, that iceberg will be nothing but water. And we know what that 
means. Seas will rise. It is happening faster than we thought.
  When we have this debate, our opponents come down, and they do not 
talk about climate change. They do not talk about it. They haven't 
challenged us on our basic premise that we have a problem. They switch 
the topic to what I think is a made-up topic. And it is sad because the 
Senate deserves more than that.
  I don't know how many times I have said it, but I have to say it 
again because there is a big advertising campaign against what is 
called the Lieberman-Warner bill. I suppose I am lucky they did not put 
Boxer in that one. They have said gas prices, because of this bill, are 
going to go to $8 a gallon, and this morning, $28 a gallon. These 
people are making things up. These people are making things up. Even 
the Bush administration, who opposes us, said the worst case scenario 
is 2 cents a year on the pump for 20 years.
  We know because we have done the calculations that the fuel economy 
bill we passed will offset that increase. So this bill brings no 
increase. Indeed, this bill will get us off foreign oil, will get us 
away from big oil. We will have alternatives for once, and we will be 
free.
  We will not have to have our President go to Saudi Arabia and hold 
hands with the Prince and beg. This is not necessary if we allow 
technology to move forward. So I am going to show you again. This is 
annoying that I have to keep doing this, but I think it is important.
  In the last 7 years, we have seen gas prices go up 250 percent, 82 
cents since January--82 cents.
  My friends are coming down here, and suddenly the opponents of the 
bill are saying: Watch out, gas prices will rise. When truly, honestly, 
they have not offered anything, in my view, to try and resolve the 
terrible increases we have seen until now. So let's get rid of that 
bogus issue.
  We are on the precipice. We are on the moment. If we do this bill, we 
will finally have alternatives to oil, and we will get off our 
addiction to oil, as the President said we should. We will have 
cellulosic fuel. We will be able to see new kinds of automobiles. We 
are really there right now. Senator Sanders was eloquent today. There 
is a plug-in hybrid that can get 150 miles to the gallon. That is all 
going to happen with a bill like this one. I want to thank also the 
groups that have worked so hard to help us, the environmental groups, 
the faith-based groups.
  I thank right now GEN Gordon Sullivan who came to the press 
conference that both my colleagues alluded to this morning. I have a 
copy of his statement. Did you place it in the Record, Senator?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I have placed into the Record the 
statement of General Sullivan and Admiral Lopez.
  Mrs. BOXER. I would think that General Sullivan's credentials are 
impeccable. He said: Yes, climate change and national security and 
energy independence are all interrelated. Simply hoping that these 
relationships will remain static is not acceptable, given our training 
and experience as military leaders.
  And then he says: Because, as you know, we have been told that the 
scientists have 90 percent certainty. He addresses that at the end.
  He says:

       In conclusion, you never have 100 percent certainty on the 
     battlefield. We never have it. If you wait until you have 100 
     percent certainty, something terrible is going to happen. As 
     such, now is the time to act on the critical issue of climate 
     change.

  Now this did not come from Senator Warner, Senator Lieberman, Senator 
Boxer; it did not come from Al Gore; it did not come from Tony Blair--
all of whom are fighting hard. This came from a general with years of 
experience on the battlefield.
  We must act now. I think I would like to go to this chart. Waiting 2 
years to act will double the annual rate at which we must cut 
emissions. In other words, you have a problem, and the longer you wait, 
the harder it is because the carbon goes into the atmosphere and stays 
there.
  So we get further and further behind. Look at this. A May 2008 study 
by Tufts University economists found that the annual costs of not 
addressing global warming, not addressing it, by

[[Page 11572]]

2100, could be $422 billion in hurricane damage, $360 billion in real 
estate losses, $141 billion in increased energy costs.
  Let me say that again: $141 billion in increased energy costs if we 
do not do something about it; $950 billion in water costs.
  So if we do not act now, it is going to cost us. And we have to 
devise a way, through cap and trade, which I will not go into the 
details of, that essentially says: Those who are the biggest emitters 
will pay for permits to pollute.
  What do we do with those funds? I have a chart to show you what we 
will do with those funds. Most of it goes to the following: tax relief. 
In the early years, we are concerned that we may see energy, 
electricity costs go up before we get into the energy efficiency we 
want.
  The next big amount is consumer relief through utilities and State 
actions. That is second. So when our utility bills start going up, 
utility companies have the right to write on that bill ``credit'' so we 
stay whole.
  Deficit reduction, that is another big piece. We wanted it to be 
deficit neutral. I have to laugh--I think it was Senator Kyl and 
Senator McConnell who said this is a tax bill. Let me get this squared 
away. Our bill is a huge tax cut, huge consumer relief, not a penny of 
a tax increase.
  What else do we do? Workers assistance. We make sure our workers are 
trained for new jobs. Local government action, they are going to do 
something. For example, if they are going to take their offices and 
make them energy efficient, we want to help them.
  Low-carbon technology and efficiency, we know what that means. We 
know the low-carbon energy sources are going to get funds.
  Agricultural resources and forestry are going to get funds. National 
security and international are going to get funds. Transition 
assistance to emitters. In other words, we say to those who pollute, 
those who emit: You are going to have to buy permits. But in the 
beginning, we help them with that.
  So, look, about more than half of this goes straight back to the 
consumers and the other parts go to technology. That is what this bill 
does.
  Why are the opponents of this bill afraid to have a debate? I do not 
understand it. At first we heard they wanted the debate because they 
believed they could defeat us if they talked about how this bill would 
result in higher gas prices.
  Frankly, between Senator Warner, Senator Lieberman, Senator Snowe, 
myself, Senator Kerry, the Senators who have been on the floor, I think 
we definitely debunked that point. We said it is a humpty-dumpty 
argument. We are right on the precipice of getting off of foreign oil 
and big oil. We are on the precipice of these new technologies with 
this bill.
  We are on the precipice of moving toward energy independence finally. 
We have been talking about it since I was a much younger person, and 
now, finally, we can do it. And what happens. We have to cut the debate 
short when we are ready to get the job done.
  Well, this is a national security issue. It is a religious and moral 
issue. This is an issue of tremendous import for our grandchildren, for 
our children. This issue strikes me as one that is a win-win for 
everyone because when you address global warming and you save the 
planet, which is what we must do, we finally have the impetus to get to 
that energy independence. We finally have the impetus to say, you know, 
we can be controlling, we can be controlling of our own future. It is a 
great picture for our children to see.
  I honestly think if we do nothing, we will be on the wrong side of 
history. I want to say to my friends in State government, from the east 
coast to the west coast to the middle of America, keep up what you are 
doing. You are doing the right thing. You can't wait for us. It may not 
happen today, but we are catching up with you.
  I say to my friends at the Conference of Mayors, Republicans and 
Democrats and Independents who support this bill: Thank you for your 
support. Keep on doing what you are doing. You are in the leadership. 
You are on the ground. We are coming soon. We have two Presidential 
candidates who care about this issue. When one of them gets to the 
White House, they will be here negotiating with us. That is going to 
make a big difference, that is for sure.
  I want to close by showing a great chart that says ``Yes.'' This is 
the moment for us to say yes to energy independence, yes to our 
children, yes to the science, yes to a diversified energy future, yes 
to American manufacturing, yes to saving the planet, yes to consumer 
protection, yes to new technologies, yes to a strong economy, yes to 
State and local action, yes to public health, yes to tax relief, yes to 
transit, yes to a level playing field, and yes to American leadership--
there are a lot of yeses on here--and, of course, yes on the cloture 
petition which will allow us to get to the substitute and get to the 
bill.
  I reserve the remainder of my time and turn now to Senator Salazar. I 
thank my colleagues all.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Klobuchar). The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Madam President, let me acknowledge the great work of 
Chairman Boxer and my good friends and colleagues, Senators Warner and 
Lieberman. They were two members of the Gang of 14 who brought the 
Senate back from the brink of disaster, now almost 2 years ago. I 
admire them as good friends and as people who have helped lead us out 
of difficult times. Senator Boxer from California is unequaled in terms 
of her passion for our planet and environment. I appreciate the 
thoughtfulness, the bipartisan approach they have taken to deal with 
what is truly one of the central issues of our time.
  I want to spend a few minutes, as we come to the end of our debate on 
global warming, to say how important this issue is for me. When I get 
up in the morning and I think of my job as a Senator, I think about the 
major issues we face around the world. We face issues of war and peace 
and how we have to deal with terrorism. We face the issue of how we 
deal with energy independence. Many of us here have joined in a 
bipartisan effort, progressives and conservatives together, an effort 
we describe as ``setting America free.'' We know the huge issue of 
health care which confounds and confronts so many people. But among 
those issues, which are the greatest of our time, is the reality that 
we are frying our planet, as many people have said. We have not 
developed a framework to move forward to make sure we save our planet, 
that we save civilization for our children and grandchildren. The world 
they know, the planet they will know in 2050 and 2100, when none of us 
are here, will be the kind of planet where we have preserved what we 
know as God's creation on Earth.
  The importance of this issue is unparalleled. It is something I 
believe we should be able to move forward with.
  I want to illustrate this in a couple of different ways. First, with 
respect to water, for the State of Colorado and the arid West--and I 
know in the State of the former Presiding Officer, Nebraska, because we 
share the South Platte River and its waters--we know the importance of 
water. Water is the lifeblood of the West. Without water, we know 
communities and fields will dry up and die. We have seen that happen in 
many cases around the West.
  This is a picture of a place in eastern Colorado where we have had 
severe drought over the last 7 years. You see what happens to what 
would have been a great crop of corn which a farmer planted, knowing 
that he would harvest this crop of corn at some point in time. But 
because of severe droughts we have had on the eastern plains, this 
field died. There are so many places in the arid West where that same 
story could be told.
  There are seven States that share the water of the Colorado River. 
Much of that water is born in my State of Colorado, as the mother of 
many rivers, including the Colorado River, and places such as Wyoming 
and Utah. As those seven States, with a population of 30 million 
people, depend on the flow of

[[Page 11573]]

water on the Colorado River, we are seeing challenges there that we 
have never seen before. The flows in the Colorado River for the last 
several years have been at an all-time low over the last 100 years 
because of the record drought we are seeing on the Colorado River. Lake 
Mead, which is one of the controlling vessels on which we depend to 
regulate the flow of water on the Colorado River, will never fill 
again. That is what the scientists are telling us today.
  So as we look at the reality of water across the West, it is 
impressive that organizations that are not Democratic or left leaning 
or so-called environmental organizations are coming to me and saying: 
You need to do something about global warming. You and the Congress and 
the new President have to do something about the issue of global 
warming.
  The ski industry in Colorado, in places from Vail to Aspen to 
Steamboat, is saying: We are concerned about global warming because the 
snow that is the essence of our having the best ski programs in the 
entire world is in danger. The water users, the Denver Water Board, the 
Northern Water Conservancy District, the Southwest Water Conservancy 
District, are telling us we need to do something about water.
  I believe global warming has a lot of different consequences, if it 
goes unaddressed. I am hopeful this Senate will have the courage to 
move forward and address the reality of global warming. There is a 
connection here to our planetary security, but also to our national 
security in terms of energy. I agree there are some good things we have 
already done as a Senate in a bipartisan way, under the leadership of 
Senators Bingaman and Domenici, with passage of the 2005 act and the 
2006 Energy bill and, most recently, with passage of the 2007 Energy 
Independence and Security Act. The CAFE standards we included in that 
bill alone will save huge amounts of consumption of fossil fuels and 
will save us from emitting thousands upon thousands of tons of carbon 
into the atmosphere. Those are good things that we have done, but our 
work is far from finished. We must do more.
  The way of doing more is by making sure that we put a cap on carbon 
in the United States. Some people say: How can you do that in the 
United States, because you can't control China and the fact that they 
are building a coal-fired powerplant, one a week, or you can't control 
what is happening in India? But there is a reality for us as Americans: 
We must lead. We must have the courage to take the first steps so that 
then the rest of the world will be able to follow us, so we can address 
the issue of global warming in an effective way.
  I don't believe this bill is a perfect bill. I have four or five very 
important amendments I want to be considered. I could not vote for this 
bill as it is currently structured, because there are improvements that 
have to be made. But that is the nature of the legislative process. I 
would like to have the opportunity to have my colleagues join us in a 
debate so we could improve upon this bill and make it much better. I 
will cite three areas where I believe we need to make improvements on 
this legislation. I have others.
  The first is renewable energy. I do not believe the allocation tables 
included in the Boxer substitute are the allocation tables that are 
appropriately supportive of a renewable energy future. I have seen a 
renewable energy revolution taking place in Colorado over the last 3 
years, where we are now generating over 1,000 megawatts of electric 
power from wind, harnessing the power of the Sun, doing things with 
biofuels we have never done before. I am proud of what is going on in 
Colorado. I would like to see those allocation tables changed so we put 
a much greater emphasis on renewable energy.
  Secondly, coal for us, in many States, including the West, is very 
much what oil is to Saudi Arabia. We have vast amounts of coal, not 
only in my State but obviously to the north in Wyoming and Montana. I 
believe there is a future for clean coal technologies through the 
methods of carbon capture and sequestration. Yet it is money that has 
kept us from moving forward with a demonstration of those projects. 
That technology shows great promise. It is my hope that we could amend 
this legislation to move forward with carbon capture and sequestration 
in a more effective way.
  Finally, I do not agree that there is sufficient recognition of the 
contribution that farmers and ranchers can make with their bioproducts. 
It is those products that end up consuming the very carbon dioxide we 
are now emitting into the atmosphere. We need to offer amendments with 
respect to the agricultural offsets that are included in this bill to 
make them a much more effective way of helping us address the carbon 
problem we have.
  Let me conclude by saying to my colleagues once again: I have the 
utmost and greatest respect for my leaders and my role models--John 
Warner, Joe Lieberman, Barbara Boxer--for the work they have done, for 
having brought us to this point on this legislation. If given the 
opportunity, and if we can have a robust debate on the floor of the 
Senate on global warming, we can make this bill a much better bill. We 
can put the United States in a position of leadership where we address 
the issue of carbon, we address the issue of global warming, and we 
save our planet and civilization.
  I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 6 minutes remaining.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I wonder if I might take 3 and my 
distinguished colleague from Connecticut, the senior partner of this 
partnership, would have the final few words to say.
  I thank our colleague from Colorado. How much I have enjoyed, through 
the years he has been here, how he has stopped at every opportunity to 
talk about the land, the farm that is in his family, and his love for 
the land and the outdoors. He speaks from the standpoint that he has 
tended that land and loves it. He wants to preserve that land for 
future generations. I commend him.
  This debate has laid strong building blocks for the future. We have 
worked our way through the issues of the science. We have worked our 
way through how national security is linked to this subject. We have 
worked our way through the fact that technology must be encouraged in 
every possible way to accommodate the capture, transportation, and 
eventual sequestration of CO2, this greenhouse gas that is 
affecting the atmosphere. That technology needs a known, dedicated, 
constant--underline ``constant''--stream of funding. Whatever global 
climate exchange comes up, eventually the Congress of the United States 
must put in a clear understanding that we are going to fund and have 
that funding stream go to provide for the needs of the technology to 
come up with the answer to this question. Our several States--another 
building block--each of the States, in its own individual way, is doing 
things. We commend them. But the United States must step up and lead.
  Lastly, we must devise clearly a policy toward other nations in the 
world--nations we trade with, nations we otherwise have relationships 
with. We are all in this together. Sharing of the hardships must be 
common among those nations. We cannot ask the citizens of our Nation to 
accept a level of sacrifice greater than that which would be accepted 
by other leading nations of the world.
  I am very proud of what has been done. I am humble to have had a 
small part in laying this foundation.
  I yield the floor to my colleague.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, again, I thank my friend from 
Virginia. I get a kick out of him calling me his senior colleague on 
this matter. We are at least equal. I say to my colleague, I consider 
you to be the leader because without your decision to be part of the 
effort to come up with a solution to this problem, this bill would not 
have moved out of committee. It is the first time ever that has 
happened. So I thank you for your strong words. I thank you for 
everything you have done. We are going to keep you in this fight next 
year. We are going to figure out a way to do it.

[[Page 11574]]

  I also thank Senator Salazar.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I say to the Senator, you are the 
chairman of the subcommittee. Senator Boxer is chairman of the full 
committee.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Yes.
  Mr. WARNER. I am the ranking member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Only in name. I consider you to be the person who made 
it possible for us to get where we are.
  Madam President, I thank Senator Salazar for his statement. I think 
it perfectly summed up the decision that our colleagues in the Senate 
are going to have tomorrow on the vote on cloture, because Senator 
Salazar said it: This is a problem. He showed us the concerns he has 
about the land and water of his beloved State of Colorado and the 
impact of global warming on those necessary-to-life, fundamental-to-
life elements in Colorado.
  He also said he basically thinks this is a good-faith approach. He 
likes the basic architecture of our bill. But he has a lot of things he 
would like to change about it to make it better. But he is going to 
vote for cloture tomorrow because he does not want to end the debate. 
He knows all the amendments filed, as is our rule, prior to 1 p.m. 
today will come up for debate. They are presumably subject to second-
degree amendments as the debate goes on. He does not want the debate to 
end.
  If it ends tomorrow, he wants his last statement this year, by his 
vote tomorrow, to be that he wants to be part of a solution to the 
carbon pollution that is warming our globe and a lot of us believe is 
endangering the future of our country, our people, and the people of 
the world.
  So this is a big problem that requires a big solution. I hate to see 
it get stopped by small worries. We are here to legislate. We are here 
to debate. We are here to amend. The body can work its will. If you do 
not think this is a perfect measure, come on out and make it better. 
The only way you are going to be able to do that is by voting for 
cloture tomorrow.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. BUNNING. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
speakers during this hour controlled by Senator Inhofe be the 
following: Senator Bunning, Senator Vitter, Senator Corker, Senator 
Sessions, Senator Domenici, and Senator Inhofe.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, please, this is a parliamentary inquiry 
and not to be taken away from the time of my friends. I just found out 
when we did our unanimous consent request it was not clarified that 
following the Republican side, Senator Boxer or her designee would have 
5 minutes, followed by Senator Inhofe or his designee to have 5 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Thank you.
  Mr. INHOFE. Very good.
  Then, Madam President, one thing further: The Senator from Kentucky 
did not mention the times. I want to make sure all of our speakers on 
our side know we are going to hold them to the times because we have 
more speakers than we have time. Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request from the 
Senator from Kentucky?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. BUNNING. Thank you, Madam President.
  I am here on the floor today because this mandatory cap-and-trade 
bill represents the greatest threat to the American economy I have seen 
since my fellow Kentuckians first elected me to represent them in 1986. 
We have had 30 years to address the energy crisis in America. In 1974, 
we got the first shot across the bow, and the balance of power in the 
world shifted from the oil consumers to the oil producers. We looked at 
domestic production and alternative fuels. But when the crash in the 
1980s came, so did our investment in future sources.
  But what is the biggest achievement of this Congress? Stopping 70,000 
barrels of oil from going into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. We 
could have had a million barrels a day right now from Alaska if 
President Bill Clinton had signed our legislation to open ANWR in 1995.
  What about the need for clean nuclear energy? Thanks to the majority 
leader and environmental groups, we have spent decades working on Yucca 
Mountain and still do not have the waste reserve we need for a strong 
nuclear energy industry.
  The last thing America needs today is another energy mistake.
  The reason this climate change legislation is on the floor today is 
simple: It is fear. The Democrats in Congress want you to be afraid. 
They want you to be afraid that manmade emissions will cause massive 
hurricanes, raise sea levels, prolong droughts, and kill off endangered 
species.
  I am not standing here telling you we should not protect the 
environment or that manmade carbon emissions have not increased. I am 
telling you that carbon emissions are a function of economic growth and 
technology. It means jobs, cars, and energy. When I look at these 
emissions, I do not know what role they play in overall climate change 
relative to other natural effects such as solar radiation.
  For a minute, let's say the carbon issue needs immediate action. What 
will we get from passing this legislation? If all the world's 
industrial nations were to completely comply with familiar or similar 
ambitious goals, the climate change would be seven one-hundredths of 1 
degree Celsius cooler in 20 years. Such a small change occurs naturally 
all the time. From Sun spots to forest fires to volcanic activity, 
nature does much more on its own day to day.
  So what is the point of the climate change bill? The Democrats in 
Congress want you to pay more for energy so you drive less, buy smaller 
cars, and use less electricity. They are telling Americans they know 
better and want the Government to manage their money for the good of 
the environment.
  This bill would raise $5.6 trillion for the Government over the next 
40 years. Let me say that again: $5.6 trillion. This money does not 
magically appear in the Government coffers; it comes out of your 
pockets. The supporters of this bill will try to tell you it comes from 
oil companies, utilities, or any number of other people. But they are 
just straw men. That is not how our economy works. American consumers 
are going to get stuck with this bill. It means natural gas prices 
doubling. It means gasoline prices 30 to 40 percent higher--and it 
costs $4 a gallon for regular unleaded gasoline today--than they would 
have been. It means electric costs between 40 and 120 percent more.
  In my home State of Kentucky, the average family will spend $324 more 
for electricity every year, $133 more for natural gas, and $397 more 
for their gasoline. That is per year. So I want everyone in America to 
take a look at your last month's bills. Can you afford to double your 
natural gas bills, add a dollar for every gallon of gasoline you buy, 
and add $50 to the average electricity bill? Many of us cannot do it. 
Now, think about paying that money every month, every year, for the 
next 40 years. That is your share of the $5.6 trillion Uncle Sam will 
take because of this legislation.
  What will happen to all of the money you send to us here in 
Washington? Under this bill, there is a $5.6 trillion cost over 40 
years, and the Government will spend it on new programs, $566 billion 
to the States--back to all 50 States--$237 billion for wildlife, $342 
billion to foreign countries--figure that one out. I cannot.
  Let me make it clear: Democrats and the environmentalists are trying 
to scare Americans into adopting legislation that will take money out 
of their pockets to pay for new Government programs that could decrease 
global thermal temperatures by seven one-hundredths of 1 degree over 20 
years. And these changes are only estimates. They are not backed by 
conclusive evidence. Respected scientists disagree

[[Page 11575]]

about the true effect increased emissions will have in coming decades. 
Just 20 years ago, some of these same scientists came to the Capitol 
warning us of an ice age. Can you believe that? Twenty years ago.
  If this tax-and-spend plan based on incomplete science does not sound 
bad enough, it only gets worse. Based on several studies, nearly 4 
million Americans will lose their jobs because of this legislation. A 
cap-and-trade program would force many industries, such as steel, 
automotive, aluminum, cement, and others, to take their jobs to other 
countries where energy costs are lower and environmental regulations 
are looser.
  Let's look at the airlines as an example of what could happen to 
American jobs because of this bill. Based on current projections, the 
airline industry expects to pay $62 billion for jet fuel in 2008. That 
is $20 billion more than they paid last year, or about a 50-percent 
increase.
  Let's look at this chart I have in the Chamber. In response to this 
price shift, eight airlines have gone completely out of business in the 
last 6 months and another is operating in bankruptcy. Eight are out of 
business. Thirty cities lose service, and 9,000 jobs are eliminated. To 
make it worse, the Democrats in Congress have stopped efforts to 
address this crisis in the airline industry.
  I have proposed incentives for coal-to-jet-fuel facilities that would 
produce clean-burning aviation fuel with carbon capture technology at 
less than half of the current cost of oil: $65 a barrel. If we had 
invested in alternative jet fuel technology, maybe we could have saved 
the thousands of jobs that are now in jeopardy.
  Think about what you would feel if you were laid off because of high 
oil prices or if you had to choose between the grocery store and 
filling your truck with gasoline. Now imagine your congressional 
representative deliberately voted to make things worse. It is not just 
about American jobs and dollars and cents. America could bring its 
greenhouse gas emissions to zero and it would not reverse the growth in 
worldwide emissions, thanks to rapid expansion in China and India and 
other developing countries.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is notified that he has used 10 
minutes.
  Mr. BUNNING. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for 3 more 
minutes.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I have to object.
  I am going to object, as I said earlier, to any of our speakers going 
over because they would be doing that at the expense of those who have 
not had a chance to speak. So let me renew that unanimous consent 
request, that the times for the next speakers will be Senator Vitter 
for 10 minutes, Senator Corker for 10 minutes, Senator Sessions for 5 
minutes, Senator Domenici for 15 minutes, Senator Inhofe for 10 
minutes, then Senator Boxer for 5 minutes, and Senator Inhofe for 5 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Before the Senator from Louisiana speaks, the Chair wishes to make an 
announcement.

                          ____________________