[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 1690-1696]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                             GLOBAL WARMING

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I fear one of the major issues that not 
only faces our country but faces our planet is not getting the kind of 
serious debate and discussion it needs in the Senate; that is, the 
planetary crisis of global warming, what its impact is having now in 
our country and in other countries throughout the world and how, in 
fact, we can address this enormous crisis.
  I understand politically some of my colleagues do not believe global 
warming is real and they do not think there is much our country should 
or can do to address this crisis. I understand that. But with all due 
respect, I strongly disagree with that position and believe, in terms 
of the future of our planet, the lives of our kids and our 
grandchildren, that is a very wrongheaded position and could lead to 
enormous problems for our country and for the rest of the world.
  But the truth is, the real debate about global warming is not whether 
other Members of the Senate disagree with me or Senator Udall, the 
issue is what the scientific community, the people who have studied 
this issue for years, in fact, believes. As I think the

[[Page 1691]]

Presiding Officer understands, the overwhelming consensus in our 
country and around the world from the scientific community is, A, 
global warming is real, and, B, to a very significant degree global 
warming is manmade.
  That is not just my position, not just what I say or what other 
Members of the Senate say. Far more important, it is what leading 
scientists all over the world are saying.
  The National Academy of Sciences in this country, joined by academies 
of science in the United Kingdom, Italy, Mexico, Canada, France, Japan, 
Russia, Germany, China, India, Brazil, and South Africa, has said--this 
is their statement, the National Academy of Sciences-- ``. . . climate 
change is happening even faster than previously estimated'' and the 
``need for urgent action to address climate change is now 
indisputable.''
  It is fine for radio talk show hosts to have their view. Frankly, I 
think it is more significant that the scientific community from all 
over the world is in agreement. Let me repeat what they say: ``. . . 
climate change is happening even faster than previously estimated'' and 
the ``need for urgent action to address climate change is now 
indisputable.''
  Mr. President, 18 scientific societies, including the American 
Geophysical Union and the American Association for the Advancement of 
Science, said:

       Observations throughout the world make it clear that 
     climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research 
     demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human 
     activities are the primary driver.

  That is not I; that is 18 scientific societies, including the 
American Geophysical Union and the American Association for the 
Advancement of Science.
  They continue:

       These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines 
     of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an 
     objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed 
     science.

  But it is not only the scientific community. It is agencies of the 
U.S. Government that have to deal or worry about the impact of global 
warming.
  The Department of Defense says:

       Climate change is an accelerant of instability.

  What they worry about is, as the planet warms, as floods occur, as 
drought occurs, we are going to see migrations of people, we are going 
to see countries fighting over limited natural resources, whether it is 
farmland or whether it is water. From the Department of Defense 
perspective, they say, and I repeat:

       Climate change is an accelerant of instability.

  That is the U.S. Department of Defense--not Bernie Sanders.
  The CIA--our intelligence agency--says: `` . . . climate change could 
have significant geopolitical impacts around the world, contributing to 
poverty, environmental degradation, and the further weakening of 
fragile governments,'' as well as ``food and water scarcity.''
  That is not a Senator on the floor. That is the Central Intelligence 
Agency, the business of which is to gather and assess threats to our 
country.
  Interestingly enough, there are segments of the business community 
that are also speaking out on climate change and global warming for 
their own reasons.
  The insurance industry, in a report from the National Association of 
Insurance Commissioners, found there is ``broad consensus among 
insurers that climate change will have an effect on extreme weather 
events.''
  What we are seeing is that scientists all over the world, academic 
institutions all over the world, governmental agencies right here in 
the United States of America--including the Department of Defense and 
the CIA--and the insurance industry saying global warming is real, it 
is a real threat to our planet, and it is imperative we address it.
  I have more to say on this issue, and some of us will be on the floor 
for an hour, but I want to give the floor over to Senator Tom Udall 
from New Mexico, who has certainly been a leading advocate in the fight 
for policies that will reverse global warming and move us in another 
direction.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, thank you so very much.
  I first wish to ask my colleague from Vermont a little bit about some 
of the things he said that I find remarkable.
  We are still in a very fragile recession. The economy is starting to 
grow, but it is not strong enough, and we could slip back. So what has 
happened is, we have these--what we call in this language--tax 
extenders. What we are talking about is jobs, isn't it? We are talking 
about the idea that we can have a clean energy economy; that over the 
last couple years this has been the fastest growing sector, and we have 
a production tax credit for wind, we have a section in the Treasury 
Department's 603, and those provisions create jobs.
  I just wish to ask the Senator, it seems to me, at this particular 
time, we have the potential to grow the American economy, but we have 
to get off the dime because these things expire on February 29--in less 
than 2 weeks.
  Mr. SANDERS. I say to my friend, he is absolutely right. The issue we 
are talking about now is not only trying to reverse global warming and 
save the planet, what we are talking about is creating, over a period 
of years, millions of good-paying jobs.
  We may not know it from some media reports, but the fact is the solar 
industry in this country is exploding. All over this country, we are 
seeing more and more installations of solar panels, we are seeing the 
production of solar. One of the issues I think Senator Udall is 
referring to is whether the United States of America will be a leader 
in sustainable energy or are we going to give that whole enormous 
economic area over to China.
  I know the Senator and I are in agreement that we believe American 
workers can manufacture those panels. We think American workers can 
install those panels.
  We also understand it is not just solar, it is wind; that these 
industries need some of the help that the fossil fuel industry has been 
receiving for years. I think we will also be talking about the whole 
issue of energy efficiency and weatherization, which in my State is 
enormously important. We are creating jobs, saving consumers money, as 
we retrofit their homes and cut back on their use of fuel.
  So, yes, I say to the Senator, we are talking about a major jobs 
issue.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. I say to Senator Sanders, the thing we 
should focus on, when it comes to wind farms, is how much these wind 
farms can be expanded in terms of jobs. The average wind farm in 
America built today has 50 large wind turbines. Each turbine can 
produce electricity to power roughly 500 homes, even accounting for the 
variability of the winds. So the average wind farm can power about 
25,000 homes.
  The average wind farm, then, produces many other benefits. This is 
what is remarkable to me: There is $20 million in construction payroll 
in a year from an average wind farm; $875,000 per year to rural local 
school districts; and also $280,000 per year to rural county 
governments; $150,000 per year in ongoing direct payroll for employees; 
$1.5 million in contract labor payroll; and $300,000 to $600,000 per 
year in royalties to land owners, farmers, and ranchers.
  So when we talk about wind--wind power--what we are talking about is 
American jobs, clean energy jobs, growing the economy, and it mystifies 
me that our friends on the Republican side and in the House are saying: 
These things are going to expire in 2 weeks, and there is no hurry to 
push them, to put them in place, and to move it. Is that the Senator's 
understanding, that they are saying we are going to let them expire?
  Mr. SANDERS. Absolutely. It is incomprehensible. Here we have 
technologies that are incredibly successful. They are producing 
substantial amounts of energy, without pollution, without greenhouse 
gases. They are creating jobs. Of course, we should continue these tax 
credits, these extenders

[[Page 1692]]

to make sure these industries can flourish.
  Some people may think when Senator Udall and I talk about wind and 
solar, we are talking about some kind of fringe idea. Let's be clear; 
in the State of Texas today they are producing 10,000 megawatts of 
electricity through wind. That is the equivalent of 10 average-sized 
nuclear powerplants. That is not insignificant. In Iowa, as I 
understand it, about 20 percent of the electricity in that State is 
generated from wind.
  So we are in the beginning, in the first stages of a real revolution 
to transform our energy system to clean, safe energy which, in the 
process, can create, over a period of years, millions of good-paying 
jobs.
  So I would certainly agree with the Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. I say to Senator Sanders, one of the things 
that I think is very instructive is that the history of the wind 
production tax credit has been completely bipartisan. I would like to 
lay out a little bit of that history.
  The production tax credit began in a bipartisan energy policy in 
1992, signed by then-President George H.W. Bush. It was extended in 
December 1999 by a Republican Congress and signed into law by President 
Clinton. It was extended again in 2002 and in 2004, this time signed 
into law by President George W. Bush. In 2005, it was extended again as 
a part of bipartisan energy legislation, the 2005 Energy Policy Act. 
The Senator and I, I think, were both in the House at that time, and we 
voted for that in the House. In December 2006, it was extended again. 
Most recently, it was extended in the 2009 Recovery Act, which was 
signed by President Obama.
  So Congress should continue this bipartisan tradition and extend the 
wind production tax credit, these other tax credits that create clean 
energy jobs, and stay focused on the good job we have been doing that 
has been bipartisan. That is why I do not understand the House, the 
chairman of the Ways and Means Committee saying: Oh, we can do these 
later. We need to do this work today. We need to put that in place now 
so that we can grow these clean energy jobs. Is that the Senator's 
understanding?
  Mr. SANDERS. Well, the Senator is absolutely right. Everybody 
understands that if you are in business, if you are in wind or in 
solar, you have to be planning for the future. And if you do not 
believe or you are uncertain about whether these tax credits are going 
to be available, what is going to happen is you are not going to go 
forward. We know there are examples right now of major projects that 
have already been canceled.
  Furthermore, we are not talking--given the context of U.S. Government 
expenditures--about a huge amount of money, but it is money that I 
think is very well spent, protects our environment, and creates jobs.
  I see the Senator from Rhode Island has joined us. Senator Whitehouse 
has surely been one of the strongest advocates for our environment and 
the need to address global warming.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I am glad to have a chance to join with you today. I 
appreciate very much Senator Sanders convening us on this day when we 
have agreed, it appears, to extend the payroll tax; we have agreed, it 
appears, to extend unemployment insurance; and we have agreed, it 
appears, to extend the payments for doctors under Medicare, under the 
so-called doc fix. And the one piece that has fallen out was the tax 
extenders that support our clean energy industry.
  Our clean energy industry has more employees than Big Oil, and there 
are well-paying jobs. It is a growing industry, and it creates American 
manufacturing and American installation.
  Senator Udall was talking about the economic value of these wind 
farms. I know that in his home State, there are plenty of wind farms 
that are built on the land. In my home State, we are working toward 
having wind farms that are built offshore. And the ability to construct 
those giant turbines at Quonset Point in Rhode Island, in order to 
install them offshore and enjoy the power and the jobs that result, is 
something that is really important to us.
  So I am glad the Senator has called us together to focus on this 
question of the tax extenders and also to focus on the environmental 
harm of climate change. I will turn it back to the Senator, but I wish 
to make one last point before I do, which is that there is a certain 
amount of sort of snickering around Washington about climate change, 
which is a unique feature to Washington. If you go out in the 
scientific community, nobody is laughing. They are very anxious. They 
are worried.
  The major scientific organizations have all signed off on public 
letters urging us to do something about this because it is so 
significant. We have looked out at the first dozen billion-dollar 
storms year that we have had. Wherever you look around the world, we 
are seeing extreme weather. And the notion that when the scientists 
predicted extreme weather and now we are seeing it--if that should not 
be cause for additional concern, that really flies in the face of both 
prudence and reality.
  The last area where we are really getting clobbered is with our 
oceans. As we pump, in human time, unprecedented amounts of carbon into 
our atmosphere, it is taken up by the oceans. It is absorbed by the 
oceans. During the course of the Industrial Revolution and to now, the 
oceans have absorbed enormous amounts of carbon. It is changing the 
oceans. It is killing off coral reefs in the tropical areas. It is 
making the oceans so acidic that the little organisms that are at the 
base of the food chain are having trouble growing to their proper size. 
It is becoming a hostile environment. Creatures do not live well in an 
environment in which they are increasingly soluble.
  These are not theories, these are measurements by scientists who go 
out and actually measure what is happening. The blindness in Washington 
to this problem is something that is not only a cause for concern now 
but is going to be a cause for harsh judgment in history's eyes.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, may I just ask the Senator--
and I know he may have other places to go, but he mentioned offshore 
wind on the Atlantic coast, and the study out of the University of 
Delaware indicated that off of the Atlantic coast there is the 
potential in wind to generate enough electricity to power the entire 
east coast group of cities--very large cities, as you know--from 
Providence, to New York, to Boston. And Google is already out there 
starting to lay the grid with some other partners. So we have huge 
potential to move forward, and basically what we are being told at this 
point is, oh, let these things expire.
  That is a very shortsighted position. But that study about the coast 
is an eye-opener because it tells the American people: Look, here is 
clean energy. We do not have to import oil anymore. We do not have to 
bring in energy from outside. Just off our coast, we can go out there 
and put a grid in place and generate wind energy. I know the Senator 
has probably heard about this study.
  Mr. SANDERS. If I can, let me just jump in to ask unanimous consent 
that Senators Whitehouse, Udall, and I be permitted to engage in a 
colloquy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SANDERS. If I could ask Senator Whitehouse and Senator Udall a 
simple question--and Senator Whitehouse raised this issue--all over the 
world, there really is no debate within the scientific community about 
the reality of global warming, the basic causes of global warming, the 
severity of global warming. Yet suddenly here in this Congress it 
becomes a major political issue. We fund the National Institutes of 
Health. We fund scientific organizations. They do research on cancer. 
They do research on heart disease. They do all kinds of research. I 
don't see great political debate about what this says. And suddenly, 
when you have almost unanimity within the scientific community, this 
becomes this great dividing political issue. How did it happen that 
where there is so much unanimity among the scientific community in this 
country and around the

[[Page 1693]]

world, this has become such a hot-potato political issue?
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Special interests would be my answer. We have seen it 
before. We saw the science mocked that tobacco was injurious to human 
health. We saw the science mocked that the lead in paint was injurious 
to children. And now we have seen mockery of the science that shows 
that when you put unprecedented amounts of carbon into the atmosphere, 
it changes things.
  The science is actually not new. The scientist who created the global 
warming theory was a scientist named Tindall who published his work 
around the time of the American Civil War, and it has never been 
controversial. The idea that when you put enormous amounts of carbon 
into the atmosphere, it creates a warming effect, a blanketing effect, 
we have known this literally since the horse-and-buggy era. The 
difference is that there are now powerful special interests that are 
involved.
  To Senator Udall's points, we are at a point of choice. We can choose 
to go toward having the environmental needs of the country met and the 
energy needs of the country met with clean, American-made, manufactured 
power that is renewable. The Senator is right about the capabilities of 
offshore wind on the east coast, but that is not the only road we can 
take. We can continue to support multinational mega-corporations that 
have no loyalty to any flag or nation, that traffic internationally in 
oil, and that want to make sure that we stay, as President Bush said, 
addicted to oil. There is a choice, and I think those special interests 
have a clear desire as to what choice this country should make. I 
happen to believe it is contrary to this country's national interests, 
so that is why we are here fighting to try to steer in the other 
direction.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Just to the point of why we aren't able to 
move--and I agree with Senator Whitehouse, and I think Senator Sanders 
has seen this also--when you get into energy, there are huge, powerful 
special interests--especially those special interests that are 
representing fossil fuels--and they would love nothing better than to 
just have the status quo. What we have seen is they are relying--and 
this is amazing to me, and the Senator has been one of the leaders on 
this issue where Big Oil is getting subsidies today from the Federal 
Government, and we have tried to take those Big Oil subsidies and move 
them over into the clean energy area. They resist that even though 
President Bush and the leaders of their industry say: We don't need 
these subsidies.
  Mr. SANDERS. If I could just point out, picking up on Senator Udall's 
point, in recent years we have seen, as everybody in America knows--not 
only are we paying outrageously high prices at the pump, but we are 
seeing oil companies making huge profits. My recollection is that in 
the last 10 years the oil companies have made about $1 trillion in 
profits. ExxonMobil has made more money than any corporation in 
history. Yet, over the last 10 years, there have been examples, there 
have been cases in a given year where a major oil company--ExxonMobil 
being one--made huge profits, billions in profits, and ended up paying 
zero in Federal income taxes and, in fact, got a rebate. So you have 
this absurd situation where hugely profitable oil companies are paying 
nothing in taxes, and some of us think that does not make any sense at 
all. We think they should pay their fair share and that to a 
significant degree that money should go into sustainable energy so that 
we can break our addiction to oil.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. And the results are really profound.
  I will close with this point in this discussion. For as long 
essentially as mankind has been on this Earth, for 800,000 years--to 
put 800,000 years in scale, we have probably been engaged in 
agriculture as a species for 10,000 or 15,000 years. Before that we 
were pure hunter-gatherers. So 800,000 years--8,000 centuries--is an 
enormous period of time in human history. It is essentially the entire 
sweep of the human species on the face of the Earth. Throughout that 
period, we have existed within an atmosphere that stayed within a range 
of carbon concentration. For the first time in 8,000 centuries, we have 
now rocketed outside of that range. That ought to be a pretty 
significant warning to us that we are in new and untested territory in 
terms of the basic conditions of the environment that supports our 
species. And because the concentrations in the atmosphere have grown so 
greatly, so has the acidity of our oceans. If you go back into 
geological time to look at what changes such as these can potentially 
lead to, you see really massive adverse events such as catastrophic 
die-offs of species.
  So we are playing with potentially very big consequences. We are 
playing outside of the boundaries that have governed our planet for 
800,000 years, and we are refusing to correct what is going on, I 
believe, as both of you have pointed out, because of one predominant 
reason; that is, the power of special interests to phony-up a debate in 
this town.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Two weeks from today, the payroll tax cut 
championed by the President and extended by Congress in December will 
expire.
  Congress should renew this financial relief to American working 
families while our economy is still recovering.
  For a family making $50,000 a year, the payroll tax cut means about 
$1,000 a year, or about $40 in every paycheck.
  I'm encouraged by recent progress that Congress will resolve this 
issue, but the payroll tax cut is not the only tax provision that can 
create jobs in New Mexico, and across the Nation.
  The production tax credit for wind is set to expire at the end of 
this year. The Treasury Grant Program for renewable energy tax credits 
expired this past December.
  One of the best things we can do to help our economy recover is 
invest in the clean energy economy. It has created the jobs of the 
future while the broader economy was struggling. According to the 
Brookings Institute, the clean energy economy grew twice as fast as the 
broader economy during the recession.
  To maintain the growth of wind energy jobs, Congress should renew the 
production tax credit as part of the payroll tax cut. If we wait until 
the end of the year, or delay until 2013, many projects will be delayed 
and thousands of jobs will be lost. The production tax credit has, by 
any measure, been extraordinarily successful. It was first used in 1992 
and has led to the installation of wind energy capacity in America 
equivalent to 75 average coal-fired power plants, and it is rapidly 
growing.
  We added the equivalent of 10 large power plants worth of wind power 
in 2011, and are on track to do even more in 2012. In New Mexico, we 
have enough wind power either already built, or currently under 
construction to power 200,000 homes. New Mexico has tremendous wind 
capacity, with 20 times more capacity in the planning stages. Those 
plans depend in large part on Congress continuing to support the 
American wind industry. The tax credit has been extended seven times by 
Presidents and Congresses of both parties.
  Wind is becoming cost-competitive with fossil fuels. A 4-year tax 
credit extension would allow the industry to thrive long term. With 60 
percent of wind turbines made in America, the beneficiaries of the wind 
production tax credit are legion, including: U.S. iron and steel 
producers, over 400 U.S. manufacturing facilities in 43 States, 85,000 
employees in well-paid engineering and technical jobs, thousands of 
farmers and ranchers who lease their land, rural school districts that 
receive tax payments, and rural local governments.
  The future is wide open. The Department of Energy estimates the U.S. 
could receive 20 percent of its power from wind by 2030. Wind is not 
just in the west and midwest. The east coast can be powered by huge 
offshore wind resources in the Atlantic Ocean.
  If the wind production tax credit is the engine for the clean energy 
economy, the Treasury grant program is the turbo boost. Enacted as Sec. 
1603 of the Recovery Act, this program allows renewable energy tax 
credit earners to

[[Page 1694]]

receive the value of the tax credit as a grant.
  This eliminates the need for complex financing arrangements and 
finding other parties who are able to use the tax credits. Typically 
financial institutions will receive 10 or 15 percent of the value of 
renewable tax credits in return for financing a project.
  The Treasury grant program removes the middle man, and has led to the 
rapid expansion of renewable energy in the last 2 to 3 years, 
especially with solar energy. Until it expired in December, the program 
awarded over 4,000 grants worth $1.75 billion for 22,000 solar projects 
in 47 States.
  This innovative financing then supported over $4 billion in private 
sector investment. One report found that an extension of the program 
would create an additional 37,000 jobs in 2012 in the solar industry 
alone. China, the EU, India, Japan, and other nations are acting 
aggressively to take leadership of the clean energy economy. They want 
the job growth and the energy security that results.
  I am confident that our workers and entrepreneurs can compete with 
anyone.
  But if we do counterproductive things, and pull the rug out from 
underneath our fastest growing clean energy industries, our economy and 
our energy security will fall behind. The payroll tax extension is a 
logical vehicle for extending other expiring tax provisions that 
benefit the economy.
  On the other hand, the payroll tax extension is a terrible place to 
make unrelated policy that subverts Congressional process on behalf of 
special interests. The Environmental Protection Agency is, by and 
large, following the Nation's long-standing environmental laws and 
court orders when it updates standards to reduce pollution.
  If Members are opposed to the Clean Air Act or the Clean Water Act, 
then they can propose bills to change those laws. Pollution does not 
create jobs. In fact, reducing pollution saves money for business and 
reduces health care costs for citizens. I am personally opposed to 
wholesale rollbacks of long-standing, bipartisan environmental laws.
  But I am even more strongly and passionately opposed to backdoor 
attempts to undermine those laws on unrelated legislation.
  Congress has voted down several resolutions of disapproval for EPA 
updated standards.
  While I have opposed those efforts in the past, at least that is a 
legitimate process under the Congressional Review Act.
  Holding much needed tax relief hostage for anti-environmental policy 
riders will not stand up to public scrutiny.
  We must remain vigilant and keep upcoming legislation focused on tax 
relief that will benefit working families and invest in clean energy 
jobs.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record.
  The material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

               Facts About an Average American Wind Farm

       An average wind farm in America built today has about 50 
     large wind turbines.
       Each turbine can produce electricity to power roughly 500 
     homes, even accounting for variability of wind.
       So the average wind farm can power around 25,000 homes.
       That average wind farm then produces many other benefits: 
     $20 million in construction payroll in the year of 
     construction, $875,000 per year to rural local school 
     districts, $280,000 per year to rural county governments, 
     $150,000 per year in ongoing direct payroll for employees, 
     $1.5 million per year in contract labor payroll, $300,000 to 
     $600,000 per year in royalties to landowners, farmers, and 
     ranchers.

  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, as to the history of the wind 
production tax credit, the production tax credit began in the 
bipartisan Energy Policy Act of 1992, signed by President George H.W. 
Bush.
  It was extended in Dec. 1999, by a Republican Congress and signed 
into law by President Clinton.
  It was extended again in 2002 and 2004, this time signed into law by 
President George W. Bush.
  In 2005, it was extended again as part of bipartisan energy 
legislation, the 2005 Energy Policy Act.
  I voted for that legislation when I served in the House.
  In December 2006, it was extended again.
  Most recently, it was extended in the 2009 Recovery Act, which was 
signed by President Obama.
  Congress should continue this bipartisan tradition, and extend the 
wind production tax credit very soon.
  We should avoid the mistakes of the past, where last minute 
extensions led to uncertainty and job losses.
  I would like to thank the Senator for asking us to come to the floor, 
for leading this debate. This is a debate we need to carry on until we 
get the production tax credits and other tax extenders in place and 
move our clean energy industry forward.
  I thank the Senator for that.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SANDERS. I thank the Senator for the good work he is doing. What 
I would like to do is just pick up on a point Senator Whitehouse just 
raised; that is, the record of history shows us that we cannot take the 
climate for granted. Our relatively limited experience of advancement 
over the last 10,000 years, during the time of stable climate on a 
planet that is billions of years old, has distorted our view of the 
Earth's complex climate system.
  A recent National Academy of Sciences report stated:

       . . . it seems clear that the Earth's future will be unlike 
     the climate that ecosystems and human societies have been 
     accustomed to during the last 10,000 years. . . .

  That is the point Senator Whitehouse just made, and that is according 
to the National Academy of Sciences.
  The reason is that human activities--primarily the burning of fossil 
fuels--are increasing greenhouse gas emissions and causing global 
warming. According to the U.S. Global Change Research Program, ``global 
warming is unequivocal and primarily human induced.''
  We have altered the climate that has sustained humanity for the last 
10,000 years. We are now at 392 parts per million of carbon dioxide, up 
from 280 parts per million in the 18th century. What an extraordinary 
increase in carbon dioxide in that short period of time. And greenhouse 
gas levels are rising steadily. In fact, carbon dioxide levels are 
increasing faster than at any time on record, according to our EPA.
  Maybe that 392 parts per million seems like an abstract number, so 
let me put it into context. According to UCLA researchers, the last 
time carbon dioxide levels were consistently this high--the last time--
was 15 million years ago--15 million years ago. The Earth, at that 
time, was warmer by 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit than it is today. At 
that level of warmth, there is no permanent sea ice in the Arctic and 
little, if any, ice on Antarctica and Greenland.
  That explains, in part, why sea levels at that time were 75 to 120 
feet higher than today. If sea levels today even approached half that 
level, we would inundate--inundate--major coastal cities around the 
world and create hundreds of millions of displaced refugees. And that 
is what we are talking about.
  So let me repeat: The last time carbon dioxide levels were 
consistently this high was 15 million years ago, at which time the 
Earth was warmer by 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit than it is today.
  There is no doubt, if we do nothing to reverse global warming, we are 
doing more than just threatening harm to the environment. We are 
jeopardizing the future of our planet and much of humanity. All too 
often we talk about global warming as if the impact will be somewhere 
down the line--maybe in 100 years, maybe in 200 years, and isn't it too 
bad those polar bears are trying to get by on that little block of ice. 
The reality is that global warming is impacting our planet today, and 
the impact is devastating.
  Mr. President, I see the Senator from Minnesota is here. He has been 
very active on this issue, and I know he has some important points to 
be made, so I yield the floor for Senator Franken of Minnesota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of New Mexico). The Senator from 
Minnesota.
  Mr. FRANKEN. I thank the Senator from Vermont and also the Presiding

[[Page 1695]]

Officer and the Senator from Rhode Island for engaging in this colloquy 
that is so important.
  Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues in the Senate to 
support an extension of the renewable energy production tax credit. 
This tax credit, slated to expire at the end of this year, has created 
thousands of jobs for the wind industry, has reduced our dependence on 
foreign oil, and is hugely important to Minnesota and to the Nation. 
But because it takes a lot of time to order and manufacture new wind 
turbines, investors need to know the credit will exist in 2013 or else 
they will not invest. That is why the credit must be extended now, 
along with the payroll tax extension and unemployment benefits.
  If Congress lets the renewable energy production tax credit expire, 
we will let down the 80,000 people working on wind farms and 
manufacturing facilities across the Nation, and we may cost this 
country $10 billion in lost investment. Already, because of uncertainty 
about the fate of the production tax credit, investment in the wind 
industry is drying up. America cannot afford to wait any longer. 
Congress must act now to extend this important measure for American 
business and manufacturing and, indeed, for the future of our planet.
  Just a few weeks ago, I received a letter from Terry and Janet 
Carlson, who run a family farm in Parkers Prairie, MN, and are 
developing a wind project in their community. They write:

       Our family believes in renewable energy and the benefits it 
     can provide to our local community. Besides being 
     environmentally friendly, wind energy has proved to be a 
     great economic benefit to the State of Minnesota and small 
     communities such as ours. But the 2012 expiration of the 
     production tax credit has created a high level of uncertainty 
     in the wind industry. . . . We have a significant amount of 
     time and money invested in this project and the production 
     tax credit expiration has a significant impact on our project 
     moving forward. It also has a significant impact on the 
     thousands of renewable energy related jobs in America and the 
     economic boon it would provide to our community.

  Terry and Janet have good reasons to be concerned. A Navigant 
Consulting study found that if the tax production credit is not 
extended, construction of wind turbines will drop by 75 percent in 
2013. That means a lot fewer manufacturing jobs and construction jobs. 
And, in fact, if Congress fails to extend the production tax credit, 
the wind industry will lose half of its jobs, dropping from 80,000 in 
2012 to 41,000 in 2013. That means 39,000 well-paying construction and 
manufacturing jobs will evaporate if Congress fails to extend this tax 
credit.
  What a shame that would be. We have had this discussion. We have had 
a colloquy before on global warming. As the Senator from Vermont said 
in his opening remarks, the world community knows this exists. The 
world scientific community knows where this is going. And so China is 
doing wind, Germany is doing wind, and Denmark is doing wind. This is 
the future of our energy. If we stop producing wind energy, we are 
going to cede this to the rest of the world. If we don't act now, and 
renew the production tax credit, we are going to lose 40,000 jobs right 
now, but we are also going to lose the future.
  On the other hand, this tax policy has major potential for the 
American economy now and in the future. With a 4-year extension, the 
production tax credit will continue to support growth in the wind 
industry, boosting construction of wind farms by 25 percent, and 
instead of losing 39,000 jobs, an extension of the wind production 
credit will create 15,000 additional well-paying construction and 
manufacturing jobs.
  With the help of the renewable energy production tax credit, the wind 
industry has been a bright spot in these tough economic times. There 
are over 400 facilities across 43 States manufacturing for the wind 
energy industry. Sixteen of these facilities are in Minnesota and 
support about 3,000 jobs. Currently, a majority of wind industry parts 
are produced here in America.
  I think that is so important. We talk about the future of our 
economy. We talk about all the time here, or at least should be talking 
about all the time here, the future of our economy. Think about that. 
Over half of wind energy parts are now produced here in America, 
whereas in 2005, a quarter of components were made in this country. 
That is what we have to continue to do. That is the story we want to 
hear.
  Instead of exporting manufacturing jobs to other countries, the wind 
industry has been bringing well-paying, high-tech jobs back to America, 
where the technology was first invented, and that is thanks to the 
renewable energy tax credit. If we don't extend this tax credit, we 
will fail these facilities and the people whose jobs are at stake. As 
uncertainty about the tax credit deepens, we have already seen that 
orders to wind manufacturing facilities are slowing down and companies 
are making layoffs.
  This is our fault, here in Congress, and it is unacceptable. The 
longer we wait, the worse the layoffs and shutdowns will become. In 
fact, if we don't extend the tax credit this month, it will be too late 
for the wind industry to build any turbines in 2013. Wind turbines are 
big, and wind farms need to plan and order parts a year in advance. If 
the wind farms can't depend on the tax credit of 2013, they can't make 
plans to build for the next year, which means they can't make orders to 
400 manufacturing facilities across the country for parts.
  Because of the uncertainty of the tax credit in 2013, production now 
in 2012 has already come to a halt. That is why we need to extend this 
tax credit now, immediately, in the payroll tax package.
  For the past several months, we have been celebrating reports that 
the unemployment rate is improving. This is fantastic news. But we 
can't rest on our laurels yet. We must be sure to enact smart policies 
that promote businesses and job growth in the parts of the economy that 
need it most and which are the future. The renewable energy tax credit 
does just that. It will promote growth in manufacturing and 
construction--industries that deserve our help the most.
  America has tremendous wind resources, most of which are still 
untapped. Take Minnesota, for example. We are ranked fifth in the 
country for the most installed wind capacity. Yet our wind resources 
could still provide 25 times more energy. This is a huge opportunity 
for this country--an opportunity that we can't afford to dismiss.
  Wind blows all over this Nation. It blows in red States and in blue 
States alike. It is an abundant, cheap, clean energy resource that is 
proving to be a boon to our economy. We cannot stop developing it now. 
I urge my colleagues to extend the renewable energy production tax 
credit immediately, at the same time we extend the payroll tax cut and 
unemployment benefits.
  I want to thank the Presiding Officer for his leadership, and I want 
to thank the Senator from Vermont and the Senator from Rhode Island, 
and so many others, who are leading this fight. This is smart on an 
economic basis, but we are facing a crisis that scientists around the 
world agree on.
  I yield to the Senator from Vermont. I have said what I wanted to say 
about the wind production tax credit and the other renewable energy tax 
credits. I thank the Senator from Vermont for his leadership.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Minnesota.
  The point that he makes is indisputable; that is, if we are serious 
about creating decent-paying, meaningful jobs in this country, why in 
God's name are we not extending 1603 for solar and wind and the 
renewable energy tax credit? This will enable us to create good-paying 
jobs, make sure sustainable energy is an important part of our economy, 
and allow this country to play a leadership role in reversing 
greenhouse gas emissions and combating global warming.
  I think there are some people who say: Well, maybe global warming 
might be real, but we don't have to worry about it today. Its impact 
will not be seen for decades or centuries to

[[Page 1696]]

come. I would suggest that is not quite correct. We are seeing the 
impact of global warming climate change right now. Let me give an 
example.
  According to studies, in my own State of Vermont in northern New 
England, if we fail to reverse global warming we will see continued 
temperature increases. Vermont's climate, by 2080, is projected to be 
similar to Georgia's climate today. Mr. President, 2080, in the great 
scheme of things, is not all that far away. To think that Vermont, 
northern New England, will have a climate similar to Georgia's today is 
rather extraordinary if that takes place by the year 2080. Clearly, if 
that trend takes place, it would be devastating in many respects for 
Vermont, including our winter tourism and our sugar maple producers, 
among other aspects of our economy.
  Lake Champlain, our beautiful lake which borders New York State and 
Vermont, which used to freeze for 9 out of every 10 years in the early 
20th century, froze over just three times in the 1990s and has not 
fully frozen over since 2007. So in my small State, the State of 
Vermont, northern New England, we are seeing the impact of climate 
change today. The idea that by the year 2080 Vermont's climate will be 
similar to the State of Georgia's climate today is just unthinkable and 
extraordinary and tells us the impact that global warming is having.
  According to NASA, 2010 tied 2005 for the warmest year since records 
began in 1880. Nine of the ten warmest years on record have occurred 
since the year 2000. The last decade was the warmest on record.
  We have seen temperature records being recorded all over the planet 
in the year 2010. During that year, Pakistan set a record for recording 
the highest temperature ever in Asia, hitting 129 degrees Fahrenheit. 
Iraq set its own record for high temperatures at over 125 degrees. 
Sudan reached a record 121 degrees. Los Angeles, right here in our 
country, had a record 113-degree day. Houston, TX, set a record for its 
highest monthly average temperature.
  In the United States, according to a New York Times article, two 
record-high temperatures are now set for every one record low. The 
National Climatic Data Center shows that 26,500 record-high 
temperatures were recorded in weather stations across the United States 
in the summer of 2011. Texas set the record for the warmest summer of 
any State since instrument records began. Oklahoma set a record for its 
warmest summer, exceeding the record set during the Dust Bowl era in 
the 1930s.
  But we are not just looking at hot temperatures and hot days. What 
are the impacts of those kinds of weather changes? What does it mean to 
people's lives? Scientists used to say they could not tie a particular 
event to climate change. That is no longer true. Our understanding of 
climate and extreme weather has advanced.
  NASA's James Hansen and his colleagues can say that some of the 
extreme heat waves we have seen, such as those in Russia and Texas and 
Oklahoma, over the past several years were caused by global warming 
because their likelihood would be negligible if not for global warming.
  Let me give some other examples of what global warming is doing in 
terms of heat waves and its horrendous impact on the lives of people.
  Some of us remember Europe in 2003. During that period in Europe, 
2003, a heat wave caused temperatures to reach or exceed 100 degrees 
Fahrenheit in the United Kingdom and France and led to high 
temperatures throughout Europe for weeks which killed 70,000 people, 
according to the World Health Organization. Many older people, people 
with respiratory problems, people who were fragile in health died 
during that period. In the heat wave in Europe in 2003, 70,000 people 
died.
  In Russia in 2010, a week-long heat wave sent temperatures soaring 
above 100 degrees Fahrenheit in areas where the average temperature 
that time of year is 67 degrees. Mr. President, 56,000 people died 
during that period as a result of that heat wave, and wildfires created 
a smoke plume nearly 2,000 miles wide, which was visible from space.
  So this is not some kind of abstract issue: Oh, my goodness; isn't it 
too bad it is really hot today. What we are talking about are prolonged 
heat waves that kill substantial numbers of people.
  In India in 2010, they recorded temperatures of over 100 degrees that 
killed hundreds of people; Chile in 2011, a heat wave, drought, and 
wildfire destroyed 57,000 acres of forest and land and forced 500 
people to evacuate; Australia in 2012, the start of 2012 was the 
hottest start of any year for Australia in the century, according to 
ABC News, with temperatures exceeding 104 degrees and electricity cut 
off in some areas to prevent the igniting of fires.
  Prolonged and more severe drought is likely to increase as global 
warming continues, according to the National Center for Atmospheric 
Research in Colorado. This means increased risk of crop failure, 
wildfires, and water scarcity. A recent study published in Scientific 
American found that climate change has cut production of cereal crops--
wheat, rice, corn, soybeans--causing these crops to be nearly 19 
percent more expensive than if global warming was not occurring.
  I could go on and on about this issue. But the main point I want to 
make is the following, and let me summarize it here. According to 
virtually the entire scientific community in the United States of 
America and around the world, according to virtually every agency of 
the United States Government, global warming is real, and it is 
significantly caused by human activity. People are mistaken if they 
believe the impact of global warming will just be in decades to come. 
We are seeing very negative impacts today. The scientific community 
tells us if we do not begin to reverse greenhouse gas emissions, those 
problems in America and around the world will only get worse.
  If there is a silver lining in all of that, it is that right now we 
know how to cut greenhouse gas emissions. We know how to move to energy 
efficiency, mass transportation, and automobiles that get 50, 60, 100 
miles per gallon. We know how to weatherize our homes so we can cut 
significantly the use of fuel. What we also know is that in the middle 
of this recession, if we move in that direction--energy efficiency and 
sustainable energy--we can create over a period of years millions of 
good-paying jobs.
  Let me conclude by saying: we now have the opportunity to be in a 
win-win-win situation. We can save consumers money, we can 
significantly reduce greenhouse gases and protect our planet, and we 
can create substantial numbers of jobs that we desperately need in the 
midst of this terrible recession.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________