[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 11590-11594]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          CLIMATE SECURITY ACT

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I stand this evening to speak about the 
Boxer substitute to the Warner-Lieberman carbon cap-and-trade bill. I 
have had an opportunity for several days now to hear discussion from 
both sides. I think coming from a State such as Alaska where we can see 
the effects of climate change on the ground in my home State, it is a 
very important issue for me, and so I feel compelled to share with my 
colleagues some of my thoughts about what we are seeing up north.
  We appreciate that there is not quite a consensus in Alaska about 
what is causing the change we are seeing. Most Alaskans, however, do 
seem to agree that something is happening. We are seeing a change in 
the north, and we have been seeing it for a period of decades. The 
results are having a significant impact on the lifestyle of Alaskans.
  One of the things we are seeing in a northern State, an arctic State 
such as Alaska is that our winters are warmer.

[[Page 11591]]

We are seeing breakup come earlier in the spring, although this spring 
it has been actually extra snowy, so it is tough to say that it is 
always that way, but we are seeing breakup coming earlier. Our summers 
seem to be hotter. The storms we are seeing, particularly along the 
coastline, are stronger. We are seeing a migration. We are seeing 
wildlife habitation and migration patterns that are different. The 
oceans, the lakes, the river ice--we are seeing this form later in the 
year. We are also seeing that it forms and it is weaker than we have 
seen. It is melting sooner in the spring. We are seeing permafrost 
thawing in some places. All of this has an impact on hunting, on 
fishing, on the roads as we travel, certainly, on the construction that 
is underway in the State, and sometimes on our very way of life.
  Last week, the National Science and Technology Council released its 
latest assessment of what has been happening due to climate change. 
While this report has already been mentioned by several on this floor 
already, I wish to concentrate on its findings for Alaska. In that 
report, it finds that temperatures in the State of Alaska have 
increased 3 to 5 degrees Fahrenheit on average, and in the winters, 
what we are seeing is that the winters are 7 to 10 degrees warmer over 
the past 50 years. That warming has a number of impacts.
  Mr. President, these are important for all Members to hear. When we 
talk about the ice in the Arctic sea icepack, the pack ice up north has 
shrunk by an area which is twice the size of Texas. This reduction in 
the ice has occurred since 1979. So within this time period, about 30 
years, we have seen an area shrunk that is twice the size of Texas. 
Between the years 2005 and 2007, 23 percent more of the ice has melted. 
More important, what we are seeing is that the thick, multiyear ice has 
been steadily thinning, having reduced by about 3 feet from 1987 to 
1997, which means more of the Beaufort Sea is open by late summer, 
which increases the danger of the coastal erosion from the storms. More 
troubling, it helps to warm the water and thus the environment even 
more.
  We have nearly a dozen coastal villages in the State of Alaska that 
need major assistance. In some cases, it is more than assistance in 
shoring up an eroding coastline, it is relocation of whole villages to 
higher ground. This is at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars per 
village. Ask the residents of villages such as Shishmaref, Kivalina, 
Unalakleet, and Newtok--to name four--about the changes they have 
witnessed in the climate over the past two decades. We are seeing that 
on the coastline.
  The report says the permafrost base in Alaska has been thawing at a 
rate of up to 1.6 inches a year since 1992. This thawing of the 
permafrost impacts the base for roads, pipelines, houses, sewer lines, 
and other surface features. We also know our lakes are drying up. This 
is probably because the permafrost that holds their water is melting.
  We know the Alaskan tree line is creeping northward, moving about 6 
miles over several decades. The Federal report, while it predicts more 
summer precipitation in Alaska, also predicts more summer heat. That is 
increasing the threat of Alaska wildfires, increasing the threat of 
high stream temperatures that could harm our salmon, and increasing the 
threat of new types of diseases entering Alaska.
  Scientists who have worked on the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on 
Climate Change believe the ultimate cause is an increase in manmade 
carbon dioxide and other so-called greenhouse gases added to the 
atmosphere since the dawn of the industrial revolution.
  Yet there is also a great deal of natural variation--Mother Nature at 
play here--which affects the Earth's climate. In April, the Journal of 
Nature printed a study suggesting that rising atmospheric temperatures 
are slowly, and perhaps have already stopped, rising--at least 
temporarily--and may remain that way for up to 7 more years as the 
natural variation cycle toward colder weather masks the heat.
  It may seem counterintuitive to be arguing that climate change is 
intensifying after a very cold and snowy winter in Alaska. But I look 
at climate change legislation as an insurance policy, as a policy to 
take action to cut carbon emissions where we can, without harmful costs 
to our economy and way of life.
  The fact that I am a cosponsor of the Bingaman-Specter carbon cap-
and-trade bill is proof that I am willing to take action but not 
necessarily action at any price. I am not afraid of a cap-and-trade 
system, but let's make sure we have it right.
  I do support the cap-and-trade concept because I believe it offers 
the opportunity to reduce carbon, at the least cost to society. The 
signal about future prices sent to electric powerplant operators will 
hopefully stimulate spending on low- and zero-carbon renewable energy 
plants now.
  A price signal will make gasification technology more attractive as a 
means of producing petrochemicals for the future. It will spur research 
and new technology to allow for the commercial-scale plants needed to 
capture and store carbon underground. I believe a price signal will 
also generate new technology and new jobs--hopefully, more than will be 
lost in fossil industries and from an overall slowdown in the economy 
caused by the potentially high cost of industry buying carbon emissions 
at auctions and passing the costs on to each one of us.
  When you listen to all the suggestions and ideas out there, you may 
think: What is it I am looking for in a perfect carbon bill? I guess my 
perfect bill would set a price signal only high enough to encourage 
technological change but without driving the poor and lower to middle-
income Americans into a state where they cannot afford to get to work 
or they have to make choices between paying the heating bill or setting 
food on the table.
  My perfect carbon bill would ``front-load'' the research and 
technology costs, with the Federal Government picking up a large share 
of that initial tab, until we perfect that new technology that permits 
the new energy sources to come on line at only slightly higher costs--
prices high enough to encourage energy efficiency and conservation but 
not so high as to fundamentally alter American society.
  My perfect carbon bill would set up clear procedures to help finance 
that new technology and development. Senator Domenici has proposed a 
clean energy bank concept. This is not included in this measure, but it 
helps to set up those procedures that can allow us to move this 
technology forward.
  It would encourage all low- and zero-carbon technology, especially 
nuclear power, which is the only technology we have today at scale that 
can provide baseload power economically without carbon.
  A perfect carbon bill, for me, would set the guidelines for carbon 
reductions but only standards that we have the technology to meet. It 
would not set unreasonable, early guidelines simply to punish the 
carbon emitters. It would have a workable ``safety valve'' to ease the 
regulations, if technology cannot come through quickly enough with 
means for our society to meet the lower carbon standards at a 
reasonable price. This is where--when you look at the Bingaman-Specter 
bill and the safety valve they have incorporated in that legislation--
it provides for a level of assurance in terms of how bad is the 
situation going to be in terms of the cost and the impact to the 
industry. You kind of want to know how bad the bad is going to be so 
you have a level of certainty.
  My perfect bill would generate enough revenue to help States and 
local governments deal with the costs of adaptation. If the scientists 
are right on this, the carbon that we have and are going to continue to 
release into the atmosphere until the new technology can come on line 
is going to continue to increase for a number of years. There will be 
costs that come with that.
  In Alaska, the University of Alaska's Institute of Social and 
Economic Research has estimated that Alaska's governmental 
infrastructure--the roads, villages, ports, runways, and the schools--
are already facing about $3

[[Page 11592]]

billion of damage due to coastal erosion and melting permafrost. They 
anticipate that tally, that cost, will rise to $80 billion by 2080, 
just for the governmental structures. Only the Federal Government has 
the resources to meet those types of costs.
  I believe the substitute we have before us is making a major mistake 
in cutting the funding for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance 
Program and in cutting funding for the State-Federal weatherization 
programs that promote energy conservation. When you look at the current 
substitute--and I have issues in many areas--these two are ones I am 
not able to reconcile why, as we are trying to help people around the 
country deal with high energy costs, we would remove funding for LIHEAP 
and the weatherization programs.
  I am also concerned that the substitute's cost-containment mechanisms 
are not flexible enough to keep companies from having to bid up the 
price of auction allowances. That will hurt average Americans who 
cannot afford the current price of energy, much less the future price 
of energy.
  People around the country are hurting when they go to the pump, when 
they heat their homes, when they have to fill up with home heating 
fuel. We don't need to be adding more to their costs unnecessarily.
  Regardless, for any climate bill we enact to make a difference, it is 
going to require that China, which has overtaken America as the world's 
leading carbon emitter, and India, along with the developing world, 
participate too. If they are not participating and working with us, the 
U.S. economy is going to become less competitive, and we will have 
spent money without any necessary benefits to the global environment. 
So we have to be in partnership on this initiative.
  Already on the floor, we have heard about the varying computer 
models. They are all over the board. They say the average American will 
pay either $446, $739 or $1,957 more per household for energy in 2020 
or $1,257, $4,377 or $6,750 more come 2030 or 2050. You look at it, and 
you are almost embarrassed to tell your constituent the range is 
somewhere between $446 per household by 2020 or close to $2,000 per 
household. We don't know. We simply don't know. My constituents say: 
Lisa, you have to do better than that. You have to give me some idea 
because, right now, in Aniak, that village's people are paying $5.53 
for their gasoline. It went up this week because the spring barge came 
in. I am going to say to them we have this legislation that will help 
reduce emissions in this country, we think, if other nations 
participate, but I don't know how much it will cost you or how high gas 
is going to go in Aniak. Right now, you are paying $6.50 for diesel. I 
have to be able to provide more to my constituents than that.
  What is important is for the Senate to take its time to understand 
what the Boxer substitute would do and, perhaps, think more about what 
would work at the least cost and would actually make a difference in 
the world's climate. The more I look at it, the more I think the 
original Bingaman-Specter bill, with changes, is worthy of renewed 
consideration.
  I said in a speech last week at home in Alaska that never before have 
Members of Congress been asked to take action on a bill that could have 
such a profound effect on our country, with so much difference of 
opinion about how much this bill is going to cost, and whether it will 
actually be worth the amount the American consumer will pay because of 
it. We have to be able to demonstrate that these are the ranges and 
this is the benefit so Americans can understand what we are doing.
  How much this bill will cost Americans is purely dependent upon the 
forecasts, and the Congressional Research Service said in testimony 
before the Energy Committee a couple weeks ago that all these forecasts 
should be viewed with ``attentive skepticism,'' especially in the 
outyears. That is an interesting way to put it. But whether this bill 
will cost $3.3 trillion until 2050, as the bill's sponsor said last 
week, or more than twice that amount that other models predict, we know 
this bill will be the most expensive and complex measure ever before 
considered by any government on the planet.
  I do know that, even though my constituents want us to do something 
in Congress, they are going to want it to be something that works. I 
don't want to support a bill until I am convinced that measure offers 
the best possible chance of protecting against climate change impacts 
but at the least possible cost, while still stimulating new 
technology--which will make the difference--that is the ultimate 
solution to carbon emission reductions.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Florida). The Senator from 
California is recognized.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am glad the Senator from Alaska came to 
speak because she is at ground zero, and she explained that what is 
happening in her State is very serious. She knows it. She is close to 
it. Where I simply don't agree with her is she says our bill is going 
to lead to higher gas prices. We are back to that same old-same old 
stuff. The fact is--I will reiterate it; I have said it so much, it is 
probably extremely boring to those who have listened to me, but I will 
say it again--President Bush sent down a veto promise on this bill, and 
in it he said gas prices are going to go up 50 cents over the 20-year 
period. That is 2 cents a year. That is 12 percent over 20 years. What 
he didn't say is that because we passed fuel economy standards, all 
that is offset for our people because the fuel economy standards are 
going to mean you actually can go farther on a gallon of gas. So there 
is no increase in gas prices.
  As a matter of fact, what is going to happen is, we are going to get 
the alternatives we need. Senator Murkowski's people, my people, 
Senator Warner's people, Senator Reid's people, and Senator Schumer's 
people at the end of the day are going to say: Thank goodness, we are 
finally off foreign oil; we don't have to be dependent on a President--
this one or the next one--going to Saudi Arabia and begging. That is 
the whole point of the bill.
  The whole point of the bill is to get those technologies, and the 
bill essentially does this. We say to the people who are emitting 
carbon: You have to buy permits to pollute. We take half that money--
more than half of it goes back to consumers through a tax cut or 
through the utility companies that give you credit right on your bill.
  This is a good bill. This is a bill that will create jobs. This is a 
bill that will create the technologies.
  Senator Warner got into this whole issue because his legacy is 
national security. Our leaders tell us we have to act now. To have 
people come to this floor with a bogus argument that makes no sense is 
unfortunate. If we vote cloture on this bill, we will be able to amend 
it and move forward.
  I wish to show how many people are supporting us and the groups that 
are supporting us. We hear a lot of my Republican friends say: We are 
going to lose jobs. Yes, the miners came out with a statement. They 
said the bill needed work. So did the UAW, the bill needed work. And we 
are open to that. Senator Warner and I, Senator Lieberman, and Senator 
Kerry said we are ready to meet with our colleagues and fix the bill. 
But oh, no, all they want to do really is drive this bill off the 
floor.
  I have a list of working people who endorse this bill. So don't come 
here, I say to my colleagues--Senator Murkowski didn't do this, but 
others have done it--and say, oh, we are going to lose jobs. You tell 
that to the International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental 
and Reinforcing Iron Workers. Tell that to the insulators and the 
allied workers. Tell that to the shipbuilders. Tell that to the 
bricklayers. Tell that to the elevator constructors. Tell that to the 
painters. Tell that to the plasterers. Tell that to the journeymen. 
Tell that to the sheet metal workers, the teamsters, the operating 
engineers, and the building and construction trades. They all see what 
this bill will mean. It means building a new infrastructure for a new 
day with new energy.
  The faith communities are supporting us. I am so grateful to them. It

[[Page 11593]]

is as if I prayed for help and they came forward--the Evangelical 
Environmental Network and the Evangelical Climate Initiative, U.S. 
Conference of Catholic Bishops, National Council of Churches, Religious 
Action Center of Reform Judaism, Jewish Council of Public Affairs, the 
Interfaith Power and Light Campaign. Why? Because they feel so strongly 
that the planet is threatened and God's creation is threatened.
  We cannot wait forever. We do not have a perfect bill. We want to get 
it started, and we cannot. It is a very sad state of affairs.
  I will be happy to yield to my friend.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator.
  I would just like to say to my distinguished colleague from Alaska, 
we had a number of conversations in the course of the deliberation on 
this bill. I first want to say this colleague worked very hard and very 
conscientiously. There are honest differences of opinion on this 
subject. Her State, which she is so proud to represent, is quite 
unique. It has been severely affected by what I believe are some 
manifestations of climate change that are somewhat unique and without 
precedent. But I think in this instance, I say on behalf of my 
colleague, this is a decision where people of good intentions can have 
different views.
  All I know is this colleague worked very hard to deliberate through 
her thinking process. I will be gone, but I will have to leave it to 
her, being in a leadership position next year one way or another, 
hopefully one of the most powerful Senate committees. I know she will 
apply the same amount of careful thought and consideration when that 
committee--I believe it is Energy; am I not correct? I am certain it 
will have a major role and voice in collaborating with the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works.
  I yield the floor. I wanted to make that observation.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I reclaim my time. I thank my colleague. 
Yes, I have had wonderful conversations with the Senator from Alaska. 
The reason there is a bit of frustration in my voice is because I don't 
think we have much time to waste. I am very worried about delaying. I 
look forward to working with my colleague from Alaska.
  I want to put into the Record also the businesses that support our 
bill just as it is: Alcoa, Avista, Calpine, Constellation Energy, E2, 
Entergy Corporation, Exelon Corporation, Florida Power and Light, 
General Electric, National Grid, NRG Energy, PG&E, Public Service 
Enterprise Group.
  We have broad support of governments: the U.S. Conference of Mayors; 
the National Association of Clean Air Agencies; Climate Communities, 
which is a national coalition of cities, towns, counties, and other 
communities.
  The people in the cities, the counties, and the States, I want to 
send them a message today: Don't lose heart if we don't win this vote 
tomorrow. We are building support. We are building support in the 
community, we are building support in the Senate, and the next 
President of the United States, regardless of whether it is Senator 
McCain or Senator Obama, supports global warming legislation.
  So my friends on the other side of the aisle can say no, no, no, 
status quo, status quo, and they may win the day. But at the end of the 
day, they will not win because 89 percent of the people of America want 
us to tackle this problem.
  Let's take a look at what the scientists are telling us. Eleven 
national academies of science, including the U.S. National Academies of 
Science, concluded that climate change is real. It is likely that most 
of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities. 
The Nobel Prize-winning IPCC concluded in 2007 that global warming is 
unequivocal; there is a 90-percent certainty that humans have caused 
it.
  Today, Senator Warner, Senator Lieberman, and I had an amazing press 
conference with a former general and a former admiral. It was really 
something to hear them. They said some chilling things in this global 
warming debate. When they ended it, they said: When we are out on the 
battlefield, we cannot wait for 100 percent certainty. The scientists 
have given us 90 percent certainty. You wait, you are going to face 
danger, trouble, horrible things can happen. They look at it as a 
campaign to stop something quite dangerous.
  Let's look at the human health impacts, I thank my friend, Senator 
Nelson, who is in the chair, for all the work he has done on this 
issue. His magnificent State is another place which is ground zero. I 
flew with my friend--first of all, we went to the Everglades. It was an 
extraordinary experience and one which I shall never forget. We went 
with my spouse and Senator Nelson's spouse. We went through this gift 
from God, which is what the Everglades is. It is impossible to 
describe. It is like a river of grass. That is what it is called, a 
river of grass. A remarkable place. When we went up in our helicopter 
and flew over the State, I held my breath. This magnificent State. But 
if those sea levels rise? There cannot be enough protection. We 
couldn't do it. So we have to stop the problem, and that is what the 
Boxer-Lieberman-Warner bill does.
  Look at the human health impacts of global warming in North America: 
increase in the frequency and duration of heat waves and heat-related 
illness; increase in waterborne disease from degraded water quality. 
Why? Because certain amoebas and bacteria can live in warmer waters. As 
a result, these are new kinds of creatures. We had a child in Lake 
Havasu get an infection in one of these warmer waters. The infection 
went to the brain. This is the kind of thing the Bush administration 
health officials are telling us.
  Dr. Julie Gerberding came before our committee. It was mind boggling 
what she was telling us we can expect. By the way, unfortunately, a lot 
of her statement was redacted. Even though it was redacted, it was 
powerful. She basically was saying to us: Please act now.
  Increased respiratory disease, including asthma and other lung 
diseases from increased ozone and smog, and the children and the 
elderly are especially vulnerable. I say to my brothers and sisters, 
men and women of the Senate, children and the elderly are vulnerable. 
This is America. We take care of the most vulnerable. They cannot do 
this.
  We all believe in our great economic system, the free-enterprise 
system. There are certain things our Government has to do, which is to 
make sure people can have healthy lives. Part of it is that the planet 
be healthy. We have to act now.
  I will conclude my remarks in the next 2 minutes and then will yield 
to my colleague for 2 minutes to do a quick Executive Calendar.
  I want to talk about job growth because, again, we heard all along: 
Oh my goodness, this bill is going to kill job growth. In California, 
we have a law like this. It has done wonders. For example, we have 450 
new solar energy companies. As we see a decline in the housing area--
and I know my friend in the chair has seen this in Florida--a lot of 
the workers who would have been laid off are being grabbed up and going 
to work in these solar energy companies. We are so fortunate we had 
that, in a way, a safety net. People are so excited.
  If you come to California, if you go to the Silicon Valley, the 
entrepreneurs there want to invest in new technologies. They will not 
do it until there are laws in place because they need certainty.
  I will close with this: A study of the impacts of my State's law says 
there will be 89,000 new jobs created by 2020. There are more than 450 
solar companies--I mentioned that--hiring electricians, carpenters, and 
plumbers. And the top manufacturing States for solar are Ohio, 
Michigan, California, Tennessee, and Massachusetts. That is interesting 
because we are seeing these new manufacturing jobs being created across 
America.
  In closing, I will show my favorite chart of all and the one I want 
to end with. Let's say yes for once around this place. Let's say yes to 
something good, to a clean energy future, to clean green jobs, to 
science, to clean air, to saving

[[Page 11594]]

the planet, to consumer protection, to a big tax cut, to a strong 
economy, and to the Boxer-Lieberman-Warner bill.
  I thank you so much, Mr. President, and I really do thank you for 
your leadership in Florida and here as well.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the distinguished presiding officer.
  Mr. President, I, once again, recognize the strong leadership given 
by the distinguished Senator from California on this legislation. It 
comes from the heart and a strong conviction that she thinks we are 
doing the right thing, and I am pleased to be a part of the team that 
helped engineer getting this bill prepared and to the committee and to 
the Senate floor.
  And I don't fear the consequences of the vote tomorrow. No one can 
predict what it will be, but I think both of us will walk out with a 
sense of satisfaction we did our best. It may well be we will go on 
next week. Time will tell, subject to this vote tomorrow. As we say in 
the Navy: Well done, sir.

                          ____________________