[Pages S13572-S13600]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

CLIMATE STEWARDSHIP ACT OF 2003

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of S. 139, which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (S. 139) to provide for a program of scientific
research on abrupt bankrupt climate change, to accelerate the
reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States by
establishing a market-driven system of greenhouse gas
tradeable allowances that could be used interchangeably with
passenger vehicle fuel economy standard credits, to limit
greenhouse gas emissions in the United States and reduce
dependence upon foreign oil, and ensure benefits to consumers
from the trading in such allowances.

Pending:

Lieberman/McCain amendment No. 2028, in the nature of a
substitute.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant Democratic leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, we are now on global warming. Because of
scheduling problems, the managers of the bill, Senator Inhofe, Senator
McCain, and Senator Lieberman, have agreed to each give up 15 minutes
on their side. Therefore, the vote will occur at 12:45. I ask unanimous
consent that be the case--that the vote occur at 12:45.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Under the previous order, there are 90 minutes equally divided for
debate between the chairman and the Senator from Connecticut, or their
designees.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished
Senator from Washington.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise to support the Climate Stewardship
Act offered by Senators Lieberman and McCain and to cosponsor this
aggressive plan to fight global warming.
When President Bush walked away from the Kyoto Protocol negotiations
in March 2001, he promised the American people he would come up with an
alternative. More than 2 years later, the President has yet to deliver
on his promise and we simply cannot wait any longer to start making
progress.
Here in the Senate we have a worthy plan that will cut greenhouse gas
emissions. I want to applaud Senators Lieberman and McCain for
presenting this meaningful and comprehensive plan.
The McCain-Lieberman bill will require mandatory greenhouse gas
emissions reductions in the United States from broad sectors of our
economy. Rather than just aiming to limit industrial emissions--as
other plans have done--this legislation will require emissions
reductions from four major sectors of the economy: electric utilities;
industrial plans; transportation; and large commercial facilities.
These four sectors contribute 85 percent of the greenhouse gases
produced in America.
The McCain-Lieberman legislation relies on a national ``cap and
trade'' system to reduce the air pollutants that contribute to climate
change. Many of my colleagues are familiar with this approach. It was
first used on a national scale to combat acid rain under Title IV of
the Clean Air Act

[[Page S13573]]

Amendments of 1990. A cap and trade system establishes an overall total
limit on emissions and then allows pollution sources to trade emissions
allowances. It gives participants the flexibility of the marketplace,
and it works.
In fact, the acid rain program has reduced sulfur dioxide emissions
from power plants--and it has done it at less than a quarter of the
predicted cost to industry.
The McCain-Lieberman program will mandate that by 2010, the four
sectors involved must reduce their emissions to 2000 levels. This is a
meaningful and substantial reduction in emissions--a 5 percent
reduction over the next 7 years.
Some critics suggest that you can't ``grow the economy'' without
emitting more greenhouse gases. We know that is not true. As the acid
rain program proved, the cap and trade system works well.
There were nay-sayers in 1990, and they were proven wrong. There are
nay-sayers now, and we must prove them wrong again.
This is also an opportunity for American companies to get ahead of
trends that we know are coming. We know that the future of energy
production lies in renewable energy and in alternatives to fossil
fuels. I want American workers to lead the way, and I want American
companies to share in the benefits.
It is projected that over the next 20 years, $10-$20 trillion will be
spent globally on new energy technologies. This is an enormous market,
and much of the investment will take place outside of the U.S., in
places such as China. I want American companies to sell the
technologies that will be needed and used throughout the world. By
passing this legislation, we will give American companies incentives to
pursue new, clean energy technologies. And new technologies mean new
jobs--especially compared to older energy sources.
Today, for every 1 percent of market share, renewable energy
technologies generate 12,500 jobs. By the same measure, the coal
industry only generates 3,000 jobs.
So this new technology holds a lot of promise in helping American
companies and the American economy.
Let me mention briefly the President's so-called clear skies plan.
This administration's approach to global climate change has been to
focus on reducing greenhouse gas intensity. That is the ratio of carbon
emission to gross domestic product. What most people do not know is
greenhouse intensity is already declining. As the economy modernizes,
it naturally becomes more efficient in terms of energy use, so when the
President says he wants to reduce greenhouse gas intensity by 18
percent over the next 10 years with his Clear Skies Initiative, we
should ask how much would the intensity decrease over the next 10 years
without the Clear Skies Initiative.
The answer is stunning and underscores how little this administration
really wants to do to reverse global warming. According to CRS,
greenhouse gas intensity is projected to fall by over 14 percent over
the next 10 years under current environmental regulations. The
President's proposal is nearly as weak as existing law. President Bush
thinks the Federal Government's primary climate change goal should be
to encourage voluntary measures to reduce greenhouse gas intensity by
only 4 percent over the next decade.
That is an utterly irresponsible approach to global warming. Our
country should be taking an aggressive lead on reducing pollution. I am
confident by using market-oriented strategies and new technologies,
American ingenuity can find ways to reduce emissions without harming
the economy. As I mentioned earlier, it will help our economy.
The threat of global warming is real. The Pacific Northwest stands to
lose much from climate change from increasing severe storms to rising
sea levels to negative impacts on our forests, our coasts, our salmon,
and our agriculture. Those resources define the quality of life where I
live.
In Washington State, increasing temperatures over the next decades
could cause salmon in Puget Sound to migrate north. It could cause some
crops to shift their natural habitats into Canada.
The western governors understand this. In September, the governors of
California, Oregon, and my home State of Washington got together to
curb greenhouse gas emissions by promoting tougher emissions standards
for new power plants.
Governors and legislatures in the Northeast have taken similar
measures.
Soon the Nation will face a patchwork of regional regulations, making
it costly and cumbersome for industries to comply.
We in Congress need to take action since this White House has failed
to act. It's time for a real policy to reduce our impacts on the global
climate.
We know that a clean environment contributes to the health and
quality of life for every Washingtonian and for every American. The
McCain-Lieberman bill is an important first step.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote for this
legislation.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed a New York Times article that
reported on the regional regulations.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the New York Times, Oct. 29, 2003]

The Warming Is Global but the Legislating, in the U.S., Is All Local

(By Jennifer 8. Lee)

Washington, Oct. 28--Motivated by environmental and
economic concerns, States have become the driving force in
efforts to combat global warming even as mandatory programs
on the Federal level have largely stalled.
At least half of the States are addressing global warming,
whether through legislation, lawsuits against the Bush
administration or programs initiated by governors.
In the last three years, State legislatures have passed at
least 29 bills, usually with bipartisan support. The most
contentious is California's 2002 law to set strict limits for
new cars on emissions of carbon dioxide, the gas that
scientists say has the greatest role in global warming.
While few of the State laws will have as much impact as
California's, they are not merely symbolic. In addition to
caps on emissions of gases like carbon dioxide that can cause
the atmosphere to heat up like a greenhouse, they include
registries to track such emissions, efforts to diversify fuel
sources and the use of crops to capture carbon dioxide by
taking it out of the atmosphere and into the ground.
Aside from their practical effects, supporters say, these
efforts will put pressure on Congress and the administration
to enact Federal legislation, if only to bring order to a
patchwork of State laws.
States are moving ahead in large part to fill the vacuum
that has been left by the Federal Government, said David
Danner, the energy adviser for Gov. Gary Locke of Washington.
``We hope to see the problem addressed at the Federal
level,'' Mr. Danner said, ``but we're not waiting around.''
There are some initiatives in Congress, but for the moment
even their backers acknowledge that they are doomed, given
strong opposition from industry, the Bush administration--
which favors voluntary controls--and most Congressional
Republicans.
This week, the Senate is scheduled to vote on a proposal to
create a national regulatory structure for carbon dioxide.
This would be the first vote for either house on a measure to
restrict the gas.
The proposal's primary sponsors, Senator John McCain,
Republican of Arizona, and Senator Joseph I. Lieberman,
Democrat of Connecticut, see it mainly as a way to force
senators to take a position on the issue, given the measure's
slim prospects.
States are acting partly because of predictions that global
warming could damage local economies by harming agriculture,
eroding shorelines and hurting tourism.
``We're already seeing things which may be linked to global
warming here in the state,'' Mr. Danner said. ``We have low
snowpack, increased forest fire danger.''
Environmental groups and officials in state governments say
that energy initiatives are easier to move forward on the
local level because they span constituents--industrial and
service sectors, Democrat and Republican, urban and rural.
While the coal, oil and automobile industries have big
lobbies in Washington, the industry presence is diluted on
the state level. Environmental groups say this was crucial to
winning a legislative battle over automobile emissions in
California, where the automobile industry did not have a long
history of large campaign donations and instead had to rely
on a six-month advertising campaign to make its case.
Local businesses are also interested in policy decisions
because of concerns about long-term energy costs, said
Christopher James, director of air planning and standards for
the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection. As a
result, environmental groups are shifting their efforts to
focus outside Washington.
Five years ago the assumption was that the climate treaty
known as the Kyoto Protocol was the only effort, in town,
said Rhys

[[Page S13574]]

Roth, the executive director of Climate Solutions, which
works on global warming issues in the Pacific Northwest
states. But since President Bush rejected the Kyoto pact in
2001, local groups have been emerging on the regional, state
and municipal levels.
The Climate Action Network, a worldwide conglomeration of
nongovernment organizations working on global warming,
doubled its membership of state and local groups in the last
two years.
The burst of activity is not limited to the states with a
traditional environmental bent.
At least 15 states, including Texas and Nevada, are forcing
their state electric utilities to diversify beyond coal and
oil to energy sources like wind and solar power.
Even rural states are linking their agricultural practices
to global warming. Nebraska, Oklahoma and Wyoming have all
passed initiatives in anticipation of future greenhouse-gas
emission trading, hoping they can capitalize on their forests
and crops to capture carbon dioxide during photosynthesis.
Cities are also adopting new energy policies. San
Franciscans approved a $100 million bond initiative in 2001
to pay for solar panels for municipal buildings, including
the San Francisco convention center.
The rising level of state activity is causing concern among
those who oppose carbon dioxide regulation.
``I believe the states are being used to force a federal
mandate,'' said Sandy Liddy Bourne, who does research on
global warming for the American Legislative Exchange Council,
a group contending that carbon dioxide should not be
regulated because it is not a pollutant. ``Rarely do you see
so many bills in one subject area introduced across the
country.''
The council started tracking state legislation, which they
call son-of-Kyoto bills, weekly after they noticed a
significant rise in greenhouse-gas-related legislation two
years ago. This year, the council says, 24 states have
introduced 90 bills that would build frameworks for
regulating carbon dioxide. Sixty-six such bills were
introduced in all of 2001 and 2002.
Some of the activity has graduated to a regional level.
Last summer, Gov. George E. Pataki of New York invited 10
Northeastern states to set up a regional trading network
where power plants could buy and sell carbon dioxide credits
in an effort to lower overall emissions. In 2001, six New
England states entered into an agreement with Canadian
provinces to cap overall emissions by 2010. Last month,
California, Washington and Oregon announced that they would
start looking at shared strategies to address global warming.
To be sure, some states have decided not to embrace
policies to combat global warming. Six--Alabama, Illinois,
Kentucky, Oklahoma, West Virginia and Wyoming--have
explicitly passed laws against any mandatory reductions in
greenhouse gas emissions.
``My concern,'' said Ms. Bourne, ``is that members of
industry and environment groups will go to the federal
government to say: `There is a patchwork quilt of greenhouse-
gas regulations across the country. We cannot deal with the
50 monkeys. We must have one 800-pound gorilla. Please give
us a federal mandate.' '' Indeed, some environmentalists say
this is precisely their strategy.
States developed their own air toxics pollution programs in
the 1980's, which resulted in different regulations and
standards across the country. Industry groups, including the
American Chemistry Council, eventually lobbied Congress for
federal standards, which were incorporated into the 1990
Clean Air Act amendments.
A number of states are trying to compel the federal
government to move sooner rather than later. On Thursday, 12
states, including New York, with its Republican governor, and
three cities sued the Environmental Protection Agency for its
recent decision not to regulate greenhouse-gas pollutants
under the Clean Air Act, a reversal of the agency's previous
stance under the Clinton administration.
``Global warming cannot be solely addressed at the state
level,'' said Tom Reilly, the Massachusetts attorney general.
``It's a problem that requires a federal approach.''

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the McCain-
Lieberman amendment. I would like to begin by thanking the
distinguished Senators from Arizona and Connecticut for their work on
this bill. Their efforts are moving the Senate and the country forward
on this very important issue.
I strongly believe that it is time for the United States to take real
action against climate change. The science is solid. It is time to stop
debating whether to do something and start discussing how to do it.
This modest bill is an affordable and crucial step forward. It is
time to act.
The McCain-Lieberman amendment would create the infrastructure needed
to track and trade greenhouse gas emissions and require the U.S. to
return to year 2000 emissions levels by 2010.
The amendment would give us 7 years to reach year 2000 level
emissions. Because of the recession, our national emissions actually
went down in 2001. So we are actually at about year 2000 levels right
now.
So we have 7 years just to get back to our current level of
emissions. This is a modest step but it is a step forward.
As the world's largest greenhouse gas emitter, the U.S. has a duty to
act.
With only 4 percent of the world's population, we produce 20 percent
of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. Much of the world is already
reducing their greenhouse gas emissions. The world is counting on us to
do the same.
If we continue to ignore the problem, it will only get worse. If we
wait, we will need to make bigger cuts in our emissions and we will
have less time. Action will become more expensive rather than less.
I understand that many people are concerned about the costs of any
efforts to reduce emissions. I also want to make sure that whatever
program we wind up with is a good deal for the American people.
I strongly believe that the cap and trade program in this bill is a
good deal for America.
Concerns about the cost of action are important.
But I want to ask my colleagues to consider very carefully the cost
of doing nothing. The evidence is getting stronger and stronger that
climate change will be very expensive.
According to the best available research, not acting will cost my
State dearly. Our large population, our geography, and especially our
reliance on snow runoff for water make California extremely vulnerable
to global warming.
Frankly, the models predicting the impacts of global warming on
California are frightening.
Climate change threatens the agricultural and natural resource
industries that are central to California's economy and quality of
life.
As the Senate knows, I am especially concerned about the future of
California's water supply. More than 36 million people live in
California right now, and we expect to have 50 million people by 2020.
Even without climate change, it would be a struggle to supply enough
water for all of these people. But report after report indicates that
climate change will further threaten a water supply that is already
tight.
Models from NASA, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories, and the
Union of Concerned Scientists all indicate that climate change is
likely to increase winter rain and decrease snowfall in California.
More winter rain means winter flooding. Less snow means less water
for the rest of the year.
But California's natural environment as we know it depends on gradual
runoff from snow.
Furthermore, we have spent billions of dollars on water
infrastructure in California that depends on this runoff. And yet we
already struggle to provide enough water for our farms, our cities, and
our fish and wildlife.
As my colleagues know, I have worked hard to plan for the future of
California's water supply. Climate change threatens even to make those
plans insufficient.
We are already seeing alarming changes. According to scientists at
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, the past century has seen a
decline in spring and summer runoff in some California streams.
In 1910, half of the Sacramento River's annual runoff took place
between April and July.
Today, that number is closer to 35 percent and is continuing to
decline. We can no longer count on this runoff.
We are also already seeing a rise in sea level. Average sea level has
risen considerably in San Francisco since 1850, with the most marked
increase occuring since 1925. My colleagues from coastal states
understand the potential cost of rising sea levels to coastal
communities.
We are seeing other effects of climate change throughout the world:
The Union of Concerned Scientists has found that the global sea level
has risen about three times faster over the past 100 years than the
previous 3,000 years.
In July, the World Meteorological Organization released an
unprecedented warning about extreme weather events. According to the
organization's press release, ``recent scientific assessments

[[Page S13575]]

indicate that, as the global temperatures continue to warm due to
climate change, the number and intensity of extreme events might
increase.''
According to the World Meteorological Organization, the United States
experienced 562 tornadoes in May of this year. The tornadoes killed 41
people. This was 163 more tornadoes than the United States had ever
experienced in one month.
We are seeing similar record extremes around the world. These extreme
weather events are a predicted result of climate change.
Climate change is also affecting some of our most treasured places.
Last November, the Los Angeles Times published an article about the
vanishing glaciers of Glacier National Park in Montana. Over a century
ago, 150 of these magnificent glaciers could be seen on the high cliffs
and jagged peaks of the surrounding mountains of the park. Today, there
are only 35. And the 35 glaciers that remain today are disintegrating
so quickly that scientists estimate the park will have no glaciers in
30 years.
Closer to home for me, on October 12 of this year, the Los Angeles
Times reported that glaciers in the Sierra Nevada are disappearing.
Many of these glaciers have been there for the last thousand years.
We are seeing similar melting around the world, from the snows of Mt.
Kilimanjaro in Tanzania to the ice fields beneath Mt. Everest in the
Himalayas.
Dwindling glaciers offer a clear and visible sign of climate change
in America and the rest of the world.
We are already seeing some of these changes. The science tells us to
expect even more. The evidence that climate change is real is
overwhelming: including reports from the National Academies of Science,
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and even the
Congressional Budget Office.
To quote a CBO report released in May, ``scientists generally agree
that continued population growth and economic development over the next
century will result in substantially more greenhouse gas emissions and
further warming unless actions are taken to control those emissions.''
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates that the
Earth's average temperature could rise by as much as 10 degrees in the
next 100 years--the most rapid change in 10,000 years.
The latest evidence also indicates that climate change is likely to
lead to more forest fires. Models indicate that warming will lead to
dryer conditions in many places. Furthermore, warming is allowing bark
beetles to spread farther north and to higher altitudes than ever
before.
In parts of Alaska, bark beetles now have two generations per year
instead of one, leading to drastic increases in population and
destruction of our forests.
As we know too well, dry conditions and insect kill makes our forests
into tinder boxes.
I strongly believe that we have the evidence that we need in order to
act. Not addressing climate change will cost us dearly.
Yet, so far, the United States has not really taken action against
climate change. Not only are we not part of the Kyoto Protocol, but the
administration refuses to take part in shaping another solution. This
is a big mistake.
We emit more greenhouse gases than any nation on Earth. The world is
counting on us, and we have a responsibility to help.
We should be a leader--not an obstacle--when it comes to combating
global warming. In his speech to the joint session of Congress--which
many of us cited as among the best we have ever heard--British Prime
Minister Tony Blair challenged the U.S. to take action now. Mr Blair
said:

Climate change, deforestation, the voracious drain on
natural resources cannot be ignored. Unchecked, these forces
will hinder the economic development of the most vulnerable
nations first and ultimately all nations.

Mr. Blair went on to say:

We must show the world that we are willing to step up to
these challenges around the world and in our own backyards.
If this seems a long way from the threat of terror and
weapons of mass destruction, it is only to say again that the
world security cannot be protected without the world's heart
being won. So America must listen as well as lead.

Prime Minister Blair is right. If we fail to act now, we will face
devastating consequences in the future. We will impose those same
consequences on future Americans and the rest of the world.
Continued failure to act will also further strain our relationships
with our allies. These relationships are already tense enough.
The administration has said that we need more research before acting.
I agree that we should continue to study climate change. But we also
need to start reducing our emissions of greenhouse gases now.
Prime Minister Blair has committed to a 60 percent cut in Britain's
emissions by 2050. We need to make sure the U.S. is not left behind.
The McCain-Lieberman amendment is the right place to start.
This is a modest amendment. We would need to be back to our current
level of emissions by 2010. In reality, much of the reduction in ``net
emissions'' will come through increased carbon sequestration in forest
and agricultural land. Emissions could actually increase as long as
there is enough sequestration to offset the increases.
The amendment is comprehensive. The amendment covers six greenhouse
gases and the vast majority of our greenhouse gas emissions.
The amendment is low cost. Repeated analyses have shown that cap-and-
trade programs are the most cost effective way to reduce emissions.
According to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, this amendment
would cost less than $20 per household over the life of the program--we
can afford this cost.
The amendment would not lead to rapid fuel switching to natural gas.
According to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, coal use would
actually continue to increase under this amendment. Natural gas use
would decrease from business as usual because the bill would spur
conservation measures.
During the latest energy crisis, California showed that conservation
can make a huge difference. This bill will help us create better
incentives for conservation.
Even the Energy Information Administration, EIA, says that this
amendment would not result in fuel switching. EIA was concerned about
the costs of the original Climate Stewardship Act. I believe that the
agency's models are flawed and biased toward higher costs. But even
those models indicate that this amendment will cost little and will not
lead to price spikes.
There is a lot of misinformation floating around about this
amendment. Some of the models were analyzing the Kyoto Protocol, which
would have required a 20 percent emissions reduction by 2010. This
amendment requires us to get back to our current emissions by 2010, an
entirely different proposition.
Other models are based on an ``energy shock.'' Coming from
California, I am quite familiar with energy crises. Shocks happen when
businesses do not have time to prepare. This amendment is not a shock.
We are giving industry 7 years' warning. According to the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, 7 years is enough time for the economy to
adjust without job losses.
Businesses throughout the country have shown that efforts to reduce
emissions can increase efficiency and actually save companies money.
Voluntary programs simply are not doing the job. We need to give
incentives for all companies to increase efficiency and cut emissions.
We need to move forward with a national solution to climate change.
So far, we have placed all of the burden on the states.
I am proud to say that California has been a leader. California has
created a registry of greenhouse gas emissions that will be a model for
the nation. Several other states are already looking to adopt the
California Climate Action Registry's standards.
Similarly, California has a groundbreaking regulation affecting
greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles.
Many states are moving forward, and they are now pressing harder for
Federal action.
Local officials are also pressing for a national plan. My colleagues
know that I am partial to mayors. Recently, 155 mayors, including 38
from my State alone, signed a statement calling for national action.
State and local programs are important and I applaud these efforts.
But we need national leadership on this issue.

[[Page S13576]]

The McCain-Lieberman approach has widespread public support.
According to a recent national poll, three-fourths of Americans support
this approach to global warming--including solid majorities from both
parties. We need to listen.
We know that agreement on climate change is possible in the Senate.
The Senate has passed a modest provision in the Energy Bill 2 years in
a row. The Foreign Relations Committee has recognized the urgency of
the issue for our diplomatic relations.
It is time for the entire Senate to go on record on this important
topic. We need to show Americans and the rest of the world that we are
listening and that we are doing something about climate change.
I believe we can unite behind this bill and move the debate forward.
As Mr. Blair said, we have a responsibility to listen and to lead. I
urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I will yield in a minute to the Senator
from Nebraska.
Last night we went into a lot of detail in this debate and I used
three groups of scientists, numbering over 20,000, who refute the
science on which global warming is based. Only two criticisms did I get
from the other side. One was comments I made about supposedly
misquoting Professor Schneider. After looking at this, I find I did not
misquote him at all. He is one who adheres to the MIT study that says
there is far less than 1 percent chance temperatures would rise to 5.18
degrees or higher, while there is a 17 percent chance that temperatures
would rise lower than 1.4 degrees. These are the guys who are for this.
More significant--and this is setting the framework for this debate
today. This is not about a pared-down bill McCain-Lieberman are coming
up with now. They have both said this is just a start.
I will quote Professor Wigley, one I was criticized for misquoting.
We find out I did not. He said:

Senator Inhofe quotes my 1998 publication . . . where I
pointed out that adhering to the emissions reductions
outlined in the Kyoto Protocol would have only a small effect
on the system. What he fails to point out is this analysis
assumed that Kyoto was followed to 2010, and there were no
subsequent system climate mitigation policies. The point of
the paper was to show that Kyoto was to be considered only
the first step of a long and complex process of reducing our
dependency on fossil fuels as a primary energy source.

The chart of Senator Sununu shows how little change would be possible
under this.
I yield to the Senator from Nebraska for 8 minutes.
Mr. HAGEL. I very much appreciate the leadership of the chairman on
this issue and on this important debate.
I am here this morning to discuss the United States response to
global climate change. How our Nation addresses global climate change
may prove to be one of the most important economic and environmental
decisions of our time. As we debate the McCain-Lieberman Climate
Stewardship Act of 2003, it is important to keep in mind this is not a
debate about who is for or against the environment. There is no Member
of Congress who wants dirty air, dirty water, a dirty environment, or
declining standards of living for their children and grandchildren. We
all agree on the need for a clean environment. We all want to leave our
children a better, cleaner, more prosperous world.
The debate on climate change, however, has moved beyond the Kyoto
protocol. In 1997, by a 95-0 vote, this body, the Senate, adopted the
Byrd-Hagel resolution which stated the United States would not sign any
international treaty that excluded action on the part of developing
nations or that would cause serious economic harm to the United States.
However, the concerns about our climate have not abated. We should
recognize the efforts of Senators McCain and Lieberman and others on
this particular issue. Although I disagree with the approach they have
proposed, I understand and share their concerns. It is important to
keep the debate moving forward in order to develop and implement
practical policies to deal with climate change.
The McCain-Lieberman bill would create mandatory emissions reductions
for greenhouse gasses here in this country. The consequences of such
mandates are severe. This bill would raise energy prices for consumers,
agricultural producers, business, and industry, and have a very
negative impact on our economy. The mandates would also be very
difficult to reach.

The Department of Energy's own independent Energy Information
Administration projects the greenhouse gas emission levels in 2010
would have to be reduced by 14 percent in order to achieve the 2000
emission level quota set by this bill, not the 1.5 percent reduction
that supporters of this bill are claiming.
This means utilities and manufacturers will have to find alternatives
to coal, the predominant fuel used in this country. In most cases, this
means switching to natural gas. That would mean higher costs for
homeowners, businesses, industry, and farmers, as well as possible
natural gas shortages.
A fuel shift of this magnitude demanded by this bill for the utility
industry would require natural gas production and pipeline capacity
this country simply does not have nor will have in 2010.
We have recently seen the effects of high natural gas prices in this
country. A recent GAO report concluded the natural gas price fight in
the years 2000 to 2002 led to a 25 percent reduction in domestic
production of nitrogen fertilizer and a 43 percent in nitrogen imports.
This was a significant blow to this country, especially to our
agricultural producers.
Record demands and higher prices for natural gas caused America's
farmers and ranchers to spend an additional $1.5 billion just to plant
and fertilize their crops this past spring.
The question we are faced with is not whether we should take action
but what kind of action would best address the climate change challenge
we face now and into the future. Our actions should be focused on
incentivizing and achieving voluntary emissions reductions in
developing and disseminating clear technologies.
I supported such actions in the past in addressing our national
climate change policy: The establishment of a voluntary registry for
carbon emissions reductions; tax credits for emissions reductions; and
research into climate change science and carbon sequestration. Closing
the gaps in our knowledge, our science, our industry, and our
technology builds a solid foundation for a wise climate policy for the
future.
Although there are inconsistencies in the science, there has been a
human impact on the Earth's atmosphere--we all accept that--and we
should consider steps to mitigate that impact. The sooner we begin, the
smaller and less painful the changes will have to be in the future.
Global warming does not recognize national borders. The changes under
consideration today are proposed solely for the United States, but our
global warming policy must be broader. The United States alone cannot
improve the Earth's climate. The only way forward is through
international cooperation and collaboration--engaging, helping,
partnering with all nations, especially developing nations. Developing
nations are quickly becoming the major emitters of greenhouse gasses,
but they are exempted from international agreements to reduce these
emissions. There are some good reasons for this. These nations cannot
achieve greenhouse gas reductions until they achieve higher standards
of living. They lack clean energy technology, and they cannot absorb
the economic impact of the changes necessary for emissions reductions.
Our partnerships with developing nations can help increase the
efficiency of their energy use and reduce their greenhouse gas
emissions. Industrialized nations must help less developed nations by
sharing cleaner technology so developing countries can leapfrog over
the highly polluting stages of development that the United States and
other countries have already been through. The Bush administration has
taken the initiative in developing these public-private partnerships
and projects with all developing nations.
The United States Chamber of Commerce has called for a Marshall plan
for developing emissions-free technologies. Part of that plan includes
the dissemination of those technologies to developing nations. This
will take time. We should be thinking and planning 20 to 50 years out.

[[Page S13577]]

By partnering with developing nations, we will export American
technology and expertise, and improve all economies along the way.
These are the types of plans the U.S. should be reviewing.
Investments can be spread over time and gradual and effective change is
the least painful to individuals, industries and nations--and it is the
most lasting. It also allows all nations to participate in workable
climate change policies. It is the only way to ensure both global
climate change success and global prosperity.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. NELSON of Florida addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I yield my friend and colleague from
Florida 6 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized for 6
minutes.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, thank you. And in 6 short
minutes I want to give you my observations of why this is an extremely
critical piece of legislation to the future of Planet Earth.
I bring back to my mind's eye a picture that is embedded in my
memory, looking out the window of our spacecraft 17 years ago back at
Planet Earth. It is such a beautiful creation, suspended in the middle
of nothing. It is a blue and white ball--blue from the oceans and white
from the clouds--suspended in the middle of this black backdrop of
space that goes on and on for billions of light years--an airless
vacuum. And there, suspended in the midst of it is life. It is our
home.
When you look at the rim of the Earth from space, you see a thin
little film, and that is the atmosphere that sustains all of life. From
space, the Earth looks so beautiful and yet it looks so fragile. From
that experience of 17 years ago, it made me want to be all the more a
better steward of this planet, particularly when, with the naked eye,
from that altitude I could actually see, for example, coming across
South America--with the color contrast--the destruction of the rain
forest in the upper Amazon region and, from the same window of the
spacecraft, see the results of that destruction. Looking to the east,
to the mouth of the Amazon River, I could see the silt that discolored
the waters of the Atlantic for hundreds of miles.
I give you that backdrop purely as an intro to tell you that when we
face a major change in climate, it is going to have devastating effects
on the very delicate ecological balance that we have on this Earth.
Clearly, one of the places that would be most devastated would be my
own State of Florida, which has more coastline than any other State.
The rising of the temperatures would cause the rising of the oceans.
The scientific community, that has been fairly unanimous on this--
despite what you hear in this debate, that there is this disagreement
in the scientific community--it is overwhelming in the scientific
community that what is going to happen is that the oceans are going to
rise.
Can you imagine what that is going to do to a place such as my State
of Florida, where most of the development in the State is along the
coastline? With the rise of the temperatures, that means the storms are
going to be more ferocious and frequent.
Florida is this land we know as paradise, that is a peninsula that
sticks down in the middle of something we know as ``Hurricane
Highway.'' The storms are going to become more ferocious and frequent,
and the plagues are going to be more intense.
If that is not enough for passing this legislation and blunting the
critics of this legislation--you would think that argument would stand
on its own, but there is even more. And I must say, I was delighted, in
the hearing we had in our Commerce Committee on this issue, to see, for
the first time, some American insurance companies step up and say this
is going to be a problem.
In the past, European companies have stepped up. But now subsidiaries
of those companies, doing business in America, are acknowledging the
same thing, that it will have devastating effects upon our business
climate here in this country.
For example, the reinsurance company, Swiss Re--this is their quote
from our Commerce Committee hearing:

Swiss Re believes the best way to lessen potential loss is
through sound public policy, utilizing market mechanisms
which strike the right balance between environmental
precaution and societal policy objectives.

Because the person testifying for Swiss Re said, ``Climate change
driven natural disasters are forecasted to cost the world's financial
centers as much as $150 billion per year over the next 10 years,'' that
should be sufficient reason for us to stop putting our heads in the
sand and saying global warming is not a problem. We know it is a
problem environmentally. Now we have to recognize that it is going to
be a major problem with regard to American business and all of the
investments we have, particularly since so much of our urbanized area
is along the coast of the United States.
So, Mr. President, I wanted, as one voice, who strongly supports the
McCain-Lieberman legislation, to speak in favor of it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Who yields time?
Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I yield up to 10 minutes to Senator Craig.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 10 minutes.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, as many of my colleagues in the Senate
know, I have been fascinated and awed by the complexity of the climate
change issue for quite some time.
Certainly, being born and raised in the high desert region of the
State of Idaho located in the rugged and majestic Pacific Northwest, I
grew up with reverence for the natural beauty of our world and a deep
respect for the awesome power of nature.
I have stated several times on the floor of the Senate that climate
change is one of the most significant issues of our time. I have not
changed my view.
I come to the floor of the Senate today to both compliment my
colleagues, Senators McCain and Lieberman, for their determination to
legislatively address the issue of climate change and to object to the
manner in which they have chosen to do so.
Their proposal, S. 139, The Climate Stewardship Act, is portrayed by
its proponents to be a modest legislative attempt to reduce emissions
of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
It is hard for me accept the word ``modest'' as an accurate
descriptive term for the legislation when I measure the bill by what it
does--it regulates carbon dioxide--a gas that is not a criteria
pollutant under the Clean Air Act is not a poisonous gas or toxic
substance, and does not represent a direct threat to public health.
When I decided to enter politics, I was guided by a deep belief in
personal freedom--the maximum amount possible for the citizens of our
Nation that is consistent with an orderly society.
By freedom I mean the opportunity to achieve one's true potential,
whether as an individual, a community, or a business. Freedom spawns
discovery and innovation and in turn discovery and innovation solve
problems and create opportunities. Regulation is the antithesis of
freedom. It certainly retards, if not completely extinguishes our
natural desire to discover and be innovative, and yet, we, as a Nation,
seem more and more inclined to willingly accept the form of a
regulatory state.
I am periodically awed by the prescience of Alexis de Tocqueville's
1839 work--``Democracy in America.'' In Part II of Chapter 6,
Tocqueville voiced perhaps his greatest concern for the future
conditions of American democracy.
In general terms, he said that democracies have a sort of soft
``despotism'' to fear. That is, conditions of democracy include toward
men's equality, and in that equality, the government takes care of all
of man's necessities, needs, and desires, in order to maintain this
patterned equality among men. Tocqueville's description of this ``soft
despotism'' aptly describes the modern regulatory state.
I note that there are 2,620 pages in the 1936 Federal Register, a
year after the Federal Register Act was passed in 1935. In the Federal
Register for the year 2000, there are 74,258.
A quote from Chapter 6 of Tocqueville's work is quite pertinent

[[Page S13578]]

to our discussion here. In discussing the regulatory threat, he states:

That power is absolute, thoughtful of detail, orderly,
provident, and gentle . . . It provides for their security,
foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their
pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their
industry, makes rules for their testaments, and divides their
inheritances . . . Thus it makes the exercise of free choice
less useful and rare, restricts the activity of free will
within a narrower compass, and little by little robs
each citizen of the proper use of his own faculties.

Tocqueville goes on to note that regulation:

is not at all tyrannical, but it hinders, restrains,
enervates, stifles, and stultifies so much that in the end
each nation is no more than a flock of timid and hardworking
animals with the government as its shepherd.

Now, let me be clear, regulation, indeed, has its place. But this
extremely powerful Government tool should be employed only as a last
resort after facts developed by a comprehensive and systematic analysis
clearly indicate that it is necessary to protect the public welfare.
It is with this analytical perspective that I have reviewed carefully
the underlying scientific and economic support for this bill, S. 139.
The bill assumes that there is currently a definitive scientific
basis for imposing a regulatory structure on industry. I am unable to
agree with that basic assumption. There is no definitive evidence
supporting regulation. Surface temperatures have warmed. We are not
sure why. Since the mid-1990s, I have paid close attention to the
developing science on global warming.
Indeed, I have organized and attended meetings at scientific research
venues, set-up and participated in numerous conference calls with
scientists from the National Academy of Sciences, and, along with the
Board of the NAS convened a high level conference at the Academy's
headquarters in Washington, DC to discuss the state of the science on
global warming.
That conference, held on June 6, 2001, was a marvelous opportunity to
talk with eleven scientists that included several Nobel Laureates who
just finished responding to the now well publicized ``Key Questions''
request of President Bush.
We couldn't have had better timing for such a conference and the
conference was set up solely to address concerns of the U.S. Senate.
Yet there were only two other Senators besides myself who made the
effort to attend. Senators Bingaman and Sessions joined me, former
Treasury Secretary O'Neill and former Chairman of the President's
Council of Economic Advisors, Glenn Hubbard.
I can say to all in the Chamber today that the forum was a veritable
feast for the mind and wonderfully successful in explaining matters of
extraordinary scientific complexity. But it had to be quite a
disappointment for the Academy. Only three U.S. Senators took the time
to attend.
The National Academy made extraordinary efforts to get Members of the
Senate to attend its intensive Climate Science Forum, including sending
a letter one month in advance of the forum to each Member of the
Senate, followed by a personal phone call to each Senate office.
What more could the Academy have done to encourage attendance? I
don't think much else could have been done.
For some, it appears contentment on the science issue comes from
simply learning about it from media reports contained in newspapers and
popular magazines. Is that a fair knowledge base for regulation?
Indeed, a little over a year before the NAS conference I organized
and attended, with Senator Lincoln Chafee and former Senator Bob Smith,
a meeting of over 30 scientists working at the Woods Hole Oceanographic
Institute in Woods Hole, MA, to discuss the state of science on climate
change.
Again, I could tweak the interest of only a handful of Members to
join me at that excellent scientific conference held exclusively for
members of the United States Senate. This issue is too economically and
environmentally important for Congress to continue to have only casual
interest in its scientific complexity.
Sure, there have been several congressional hearings during the last
year debating different views of the science. But how much do we really
learn in a couple of hours under restrictive time limits for questions,
particularly when we invite mostly ``advocates'' of a particular
position, instead of objective scientists? Not much. Surely, not as
much as we learned at reputable scientific forums.
So, today, the Senate is asked to pass legislation that will regulate
carbon dioxide, an emission that has no health impacts--we humans
exhale it with every breath--and heretofore has never been listed as an
``air pollutant.'' Stated simply, the scientific case for regulation is
unpersuasive.
Those Senators who assert that the science is settled are, in my
opinion, simply wrong.
The 2001 NAS Report on the ``Analysis of Some Key Questions,'' often
quoted to establish the basis for regulatory action, contains a
sentence that is often half-quoted, and I will read it here in its
entirety:

The changes observed over the last several decades are
likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out
that some significant part of these changes is also a
reflection of natural variability.

This is the third sentence in the summary at the very beginning of
the report.
Even a cursory reading of the report indicates that the uncertainties
are real and they are significant. Indeed, the report uses the words
``uncertain'' and ``uncertainty'' 43 times in its 28 pages.
Some press accounts have said that this report acknowledged a dire,
near term threat to the environment from climate change. This is not
true.
One of the conclusions of the Report was that:

[a] causal linkage between the buildup of greenhouse gases
in the atmosphere and the observed climate changes during the
20th Century cannot be unequivocally established.

Natural variations in climate that occur over decades and even
centuries have been identified by the NAS as also playing a role in
climate change, and so it is not correct to say that this problem
results only from human activities, or that reduction of emissions of
heat-trapping gases will entirely solve it.
Mr. President, 2 years before the NAS prepared its 2001 ``Analysis of
Some Key Questions'' it issued one of this country's most comprehensive
reports on climate change science entitled: ``Research Pathways for the
Next Decade.''
The Pathways report is short on creative literature and long on
technical issue framing--not particularly suitable for catchy media
headlines, which may explain why many newspapers showed little interest
in its existence or import. But its critical and thorough scientific
analysis of the current state of our climate change knowledge is what
makes the Pathways report so important to policy makers.
Now, if you are like me and you find out that America's National
Research Council has just published the most comprehensive report in
history on the state of Climate Science, you don't want to read all 550
pages!
You want to cut to the chase and read the report's bottom line
conclusion. And the last thing you want is a report that provides more
questions than answers.
But the Pathways Report authors are brutally honest. To best explain
the current state of climate science they had no choice but to lay out
a whole series of potentially show-stopping questions.
Let me stop for a moment and reflect on my trip to Woods Hole, MA,
that I mentioned earlier. I spent a day at the Oceanographic Institute
exploring these questions with over 30 scientists. It was a real eye-
opening experience.
Dr. Berrien Moore, who coordinated the publication of the Pathways
Report, helped lead a discussion on where science and public policy
intersect.
Two themes came through clearly in those discussions:
No. 1, there are significant gaps in scientific understanding of the
way oceans and the atmosphere interact to affect climate; and
No. 2, scientists need more data, especially from the oceans to
better understand and predict possible changes.
It was humbling to get a glimpse of how much we don't know.
You need to know what is in the ``Pathways Report'' in order to fully
understand the Research Council's ``Analysis of Some Key Questions''--
if

[[Page S13579]]

read objectively, I think you will find that both Reports are
consistent--both highlight the uncertainty of our current understanding
of climate science.
Another important point to highlight is that the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change does not define what is meant by
``dangerous interference with the climate system'' nor does it specify
a ``dangerous'' level of greenhouse gas concentrations.
To my knowledge, no Federal or federally supported scientific entity
has firmly established what is a ``dangerous'' level of greenhouse gas.
We simply don't know!
Recently, James Schlesinger, a former Secretary of Energy under
President Jimmy Carter stated in the Washington Post:

We cannot tell how much of the recent warming trend can be
attributed to the greenhouse effect and how much to other
factors. In climate change, we have only a limited grasp of
the overall forces at work. Uncertainties have continued to
abound--and must be reduced. Any approach to policy formation
under conditions of such uncertainty should be taken only on
an exploratory and sequential basis. A premature commitment
to a fixed policy can only proceed with fear and trembling.

The President understands that reality.
The administration's Scientific Strategic Plan for climate change
research is a valuable effort to develop a framework for acquiring and
applying knowledge of the Earth's global environment through research
and observations. It is a long overdue decision and should be welcomed
by all.
The President's approach is most prudent. At this time, it is my
preferred option over regulation. Despite claims to the contrary, no
government administration has aggressively pursued a voluntary action
program. The President's plan is well conceived and deserves a chance.
The simply truth is that any cap-and-trade scheme is a hidden tax on
consumption. Like a tax, it would raise the cost of production.
Moreover, a cap-and-trade on CO<inf>2</inf> emissions will be a
regressive tax which will hurt those on low or fixed income--that is
the poor and elderly--disproportionately. I will submit for the record
a letter sent to me as Chairman of the Aging Committee from ``The 60
Plus Association'' with membership of 4.5 million senior citizens
including 10,000 in Idaho, asking me to oppose S. 139.

A quote from a June, 2001 CBO study entitled ``An Evaluation of Cap-
and-Trade Programs for Reducing U.S. Carbon Emissions'' is revealing on
this subject:

This analysis does not address the issue of taxing carbon
emissions. However, the economic impacts of cap-and-trade
programs would be similar to those of a carbon tax: both
would raise the cost of using carbon-based fuels, lead to
higher energy prices, and impose costs on users and some
suppliers of energy.

Another instructive quote from that study states:

The higher prices for energy and energy-intensive products
that would result from a cap-and-trade program would reduce
the real income that people received from working and
investing, thus tending to discourage them from productive
activity. That would compound the fact that existing taxes on
capital and labor already discourage economic activity.

The only way to reduce CO<inf>2</inf> emissions from powerplants is
to reduce the amount of coal, oil or natural gas consumed at the power
plant.
Placing a cap on CO<inf>2</inf> emissions from powerplants means
those plants simply will not be able to generate any significant
amounts of new electricity. There are no control technologies like
selective catalytic reduction or scrubbers for CO<inf>2</inf>.
Capping CO<inf>2</inf> emissions from power plants will make the
current crisis in electricity markets permanent. It will force
shuttering of most of U.S. coal fired steam electric generation
prematurely and will essentially mandate reliance on new natural gas
fired power plants without any assurance that adequate gas supplies
will be available.
Further, a report by the U.S. Energy Information Administration found
that reductions of SO<inf>2</inf>, NO<inf>X</inf>, and CO<inf>2</inf>
at levels consistent with the current proposal drives up electricity
costs substantially. The report shows that electricity prices would
rise by 21 percent by 2005 and 55 percent by 2010.
The report goes on to attribute most of the rise in prices to
controlling CO<inf>2</inf> emissions.
The report, Mr. President, also was prepared when natural gas prices
were a third of what they are today which means that future electricity
prices likely would be much higher because the report assumes that most
new generating capacity would be gas fired.
The last point that must be addressed is the assertion that the
United States is somehow out of step with the rest of the world on this
issue. Climate change is as much an economic issue as it is an
environmental issue. We must ensure that our global competitiveness is
not compromised. Let's not allow our nation to be duped into assisting
our competitors in the global market to achieve competitive advantage
under the subterfuge of environmental policy. When viewed in
comparative perspective, the process by which environmental policy is
developed and implemented has been far more ``conflictual and
adversarial'' in the United States than in Europe or Japan. In the
U.S., while fines for violations have grown larger, numerous violations
of environmental laws have been reclassified as ``felonies'' and many
now carry prison sentences.

Contrast this with Europe and Japan. Japan implements its policies
without resorting to legal coercion or overt enforcement. Japanese MUST
negotiate and compromise to ensure compliance. Europe emphasizes mutual
problem-solving rather than arm's length enforcement and punishment.
Our legal system allows Third Party lawsuits. Europe and Asian
countries do not. In a 2003 study on the direct costs of the U.S. Tort
system, it was estimated that costs equal 2.2 percent of our nations
GDP. Europe and Asian countries give no standing to Third Parties in
environmental compliance and enforcement cases.
Perhaps, if we were a less litigious nation, we could accomplish more
in environmental compliance, and be less fearful of international
environmental treaties becoming law. However, for better or worse, when
our nation commits to a particular environmental policy, we enforce
that commitment with the heavy hammer of civil penalties and criminal
prosecution. Europe, Japan, and other nations do not. Our global
competitiveness and economic security is ``in the balance.''
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from a large
senior citizen organization expressing their fear about high costs of
energy based on S. 139 be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

The 60 Plus Association,

Arlington, VA, October 28, 2003.
Hon. Larry E. Craig,
Chairman, Senate Special Committee on Aging,
Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Craig: As Chairman of the Senate Special
Committee on Aging, you are a proven fighter for seniors.
Accordingly, I'd like to bring to your attention legislation
that, if enacted, would be very detrimental to the elderly.
We are very much opposed to S 139, the Climate Stewardship
Act, which seeks to do by statute much of what the
discredited Kyoto Protocol would have done by treaty. (The
Kyoto Protocol was rejected by you and your Senate colleagues
in 1997 by a 95-0 vote.) S 139 would seriously adds to the
costs of both electricity and gasoline for seniors and others
on a fixed income.
According to a June 2003 report by the Energy Information
Administration at the U.S. Department of Energy, this
legislation would increase electricity rates by 46%, natural
gas prices by 79%, and the cost of gasoline by as much as 40
cents a gallon.
Seniors on a fixed income are least able to afford these
higher prices.
During the cold winter months, many seniors must choose
between staying warm and having enough food to eat and
medicine to stay healthy. And in the heat of the summer, an
inability to cool a home can be a death sentence to the
elderly.
The very last thing public policies should do is to add to
the costs of electricity and natural gas for the elderly.
Likewise, many seniors and their families must be able to
afford gasoline to be able to get to their doctor's office,
grocery store, and pharmacy.
Government mandates which increase the costs of
electricity, natural gas, and gasoline are tantamount to a
tax on those least able to pay it.
On behalf of 4.5 million seniors, including nearly 10,000
in Idaho, please do everything you can to prevent S. 139 from
being passed.
Cordially,
James L. Martin,
President.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I have come to the floor on more than one
occasion over the last 5 years to discuss and debate the issue of
climate change.

[[Page S13580]]

Many of us engaged in this issue believe it to be a serious and
important issue. That I cannot deny. The Senator from Florida talked
about it being of critical character. I do not dispute that. The
question is, Can we do anything about it and are we the cause of it?
And I am speaking ``we'' as mankind. That is the essence of the debate
today.
Also, S. 139, the Climate Stewardship Act, would portray, in part,
that we are the cause and, therefore, let us make some moderate
adjustment changes in our regulatory structure in this country to begin
to mitigate greenhouse gases.
Let me suggest that the word ``modest'' has been used, but I would
guess if you read the legislation, and then you downstreamed it through
the regulatory process, it might be anything less than modest.
Here is what is most important about regulating carbon dioxide. It is
a gas. It is not a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. It is not a
poisonous gas or a toxic substance. It does not represent a direct
threat to public health. That is what scientists tell us. Yet somehow
we are going to be able to regulate and shape it in a way that controls
what we believe to be the cause of producing greenhouse gas.
I suggest that probably the most invasive process we are going
through right here with this legislation is the regulatory process that
will ultimately come.
The Senator from Arizona and I, more often than not, are critics of
big government and the regulatory process. What De Tocqueville said a
good number of years ago--in fact, well over a century ago--was about
the great democracy of America and the despotism of fear that is
produced in the regulatory process that limits freedom.
He talks about the regulatory process as being soft despotism.
I note that in 1936, there were about 2,600 pages of the Federal
Register. In the year 2000, there were 74,258 pages of the Federal
Register. We have become a phenomenally regulated and controlled
economy and country. In so doing, de Tocqueville would note very
clearly, as we all understand and as the Senator from Arizona
understands as well as anyone, we begin to shape our freedoms, control
our freedoms in a very interesting way. That is what this bill is all
about, a massive new regulatory process to reshape certain utilizations
of energy in a way that will have a significant impact on our economy.
And we would be led to believe that somehow it is going to improve the
environment in which we live.
That is the issue at hand. That is the one that we now need to
discuss. That is, does scientific evidence support what S. 139 is all
about.
I have spent a good deal of time on the science. You have to. That is
probably the greatest frustration that all of us have, is trying to
comprehend this massive body of science that is assembling out there
and what it means and is it valid and, from it, should we begin to
reshape our economy; if it is invalid or inaccurate, what would be the
impact of the reshaping that S. 139 might accomplish.
Organized meetings have been held all over. I organized one with the
assistance of the National Academy of Sciences in June 2001. It was a
high-level conference meeting here in our Nation's Capital. Every
Senator was invited to come. Three showed up. Only three showed up to
listen. Senator Bingaman and Senator Sessions attended, along with
Secretary O'Neill, to listen to the President and the President's
Council of Economic Advisers, to listen to some of our noted scientists
from all over the world. No one else came. O'Neill at that time was
serving as Secretary of the Treasury and was a somewhat outspoken
advocate of changing our economy for the sake of climate change. He
went away from that meeting not confused but recognizing that there was
a broad field of science out there that he had not yet explored and
that scientists had not, in fact, come together in a way to understand.
We worked with a variety of scientists from the National Academy of
Scientists. In 2000, I went up to Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute.
Senator Chafee and Senator Bob Smith went along at that time. We
listened to the best scientists out there, scientists who have studied
this for decades. They cannot in any absolute way suggest that
greenhouse gases are the creator of a heating trend or a warming trend
that does exist and most agree does exist.
The Senator from Arizona, the authors of S. 139, would suggest that
this is the definitive document, the ``Analysis of Some Key
Questions,'' of climate change science by the National Research
Council. This is a total of 27, 28 pages. I am not saying this document
is wrong, but I am saying, to understand this document, you better read
this document: ``Pathways Study,'' 550 pages. Now, it is not a hot
topic, and it will put you to sleep. It is all science. From this
document, they concluded this document.
And what does this document conclude? That the science today is not
yet assembled that can in any definitive way argue that greenhouse
gases and man's presence in the production of those greenhouse gases is
creating the heating trend in our global environment at this time.

There are not many sound bites here. The press did ignore this. Those
who want the politics of this issue largely ignored this document. But
they must go hand in glove. I am not a critic of this document at all.
I have not read all of them, not all 550 pages. But I have thumbed
through a lot of it. I have read a good deal of it. Anyone who wants to
be the advocate of climate change darn well better read the bible on it
first before they conclude that all of the world's scientists have come
together with a single statement to suggest that the global warming we
are experiencing can be in any way clearly the product of the
production of greenhouse gas around this globe and as a part of it.
Because we have not totally understood it yet, there is no question
that we ought to try to understand it before we begin to craft a
massive body of regulation to reshape the economy, all in the name of
climate change. That is what the President understood. That is why the
President denounced Kyoto.
The administration's strategic scientific plan for climate change
research is a valuable effort to build the body of science that can
truly allow those of us as policymakers a foundation from which to make
the right choices. If we fail to make the right choices, if we head
this massive regulatory effort in the wrong direction without
question--and many have spoken to it over the last few hours--we could
badly damage, if not curtail, much of the growth in our economy.
I think the effort that is underway ought to be the preferred option
over regulation. Voluntary action based on clear evidence is a much
preferred way to go.
Let me talk for a moment about economic impact because that
ultimately is the issue. S. 139 wants to change our country, wants to
change the utilization of carbon and the emission of gases. You do it
through a regulatory process. Between 1990 and the year 2000,
industrial GDP increased 35 percent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. CRAIG. The reality is, our industrial growth is climbing. Its
emissions have rapidly dropped. The emission today of greenhouse-like
gases, as we would argue, do not come from our industrial base. Yet
this is where we send our regulatory effort.
I oppose the legislation. I hope the Senate will vote against it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished
Senator from New Jersey.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank Senators Lieberman and McCain
for developing this amendment. It makes sense. Mr. President, I rise to
speak in support of the Lieberman/McCain bill. This bill offers a
reasonable, proven, market-based approach to addressing the problem of
global warming. It establishes a greenhouse gas ``cap and trade''
system which is modeled on the most successful pollution reduction
program ever--enacted the Acid Rain Program.
Since 1980, that program has reduced sulfur dioxide emissions by 40
percent--despite significant economic growth during that period. I say,
it's about time.
A few years ago I traveled to Antarctica and I saw the effects of
global

[[Page S13581]]

warming firsthand. The Antarctic Peninsula ice shelves are melting.
Over 1,250 square miles of ice have broken off and melted in just the
last few years. Scientists believe these massive ice shelves have stood
undisturbed for 12,000 years. Now they are gone. Many of us were
dismayed but not surprised by the report last month of the breakup of
the Arctic's largest ice shelf.
It is stunning that some of the world's glaciers have lost as much as
70 percent of their ice. Why is all this ice melting? Because, as
literally thousands of climate scientists have reported--the earth is
heating up! Yes, global warming is real and America should be leading
the international community in addressing it--not lagging behind. The
scientific discoveries on climate change are nothing short of
astonishing. Ice core samples from Greenland and the Antarctica show
that atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide are at their highest
level in the last one million years. In the Arctic, the permafrost is
melting. The average thickness of the arctic ice shelf has decreased by
a staggering 40 percent, just since 1950.
All that melting ice is steadily raising sea levels. Globally, the
sea has risen between 4 and 8 inches. This impact is particularly
damaging to flat coastlines like in Texas where the relative sea level
has already risen from 8 to 10 inches. From primitive thermometer
readings to the analysis of tree rings and coral reefs, the evidence is
clear: this last century has been the hottest in the last 1,000 years.
The evidence of profound climactic change continues to mount. A study
published last January in Nature--probably the most respected
scientific journal in the world--reported some remarkable discoveries.
It reported that of 1,700 habitats studied, 370 are moving northward.
The habitat of the Red Fox has moved 600 miles to the north in the last
30 years. Frightening disease vectors, such as the mosquito which
carries the deadly West Nile Virus, are pushing into North America.
Perhaps most ominous of all, night time temperatures are rising.
Medical authorities tell us that this lack of relief from elevated
temperatures at nighttime is a chief reason that 500 to 700 people died
in Chicago during the 1995 heat wave.
While the Federal Government sits fiddling, States are not waiting
for Rome to burn. At least 27 States--more than half--have started
their own programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. According to
David Danner, the energy adviser for the State of Washington, States
are moving ahead to fill the vacuum left by the Federal Government.
Danner said, ``We hope to see the problem addressed at the federal
level, but we're not waiting around.'' A number of those States have
initiated reasonable regulatory programs that will soon begin to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions. The Federal Government should be leading this
effort, but isn't. At the very least, we should start catching up.
Surely, none of us here doubt the United States possesses the capacity
and the skill to confront global warming? I for one, do not.
Now is the time to harness America's ingenuity and skills and tackle
global climate change. I have to ask: What is there about the facts of
global warming that makes the administration duck for cover?
We cannot ``spin'' our way out of the impacts of global warming. But
that is the strategy the opponents of this bill are pursuing. Look at
this chart: Republican pollster Frank Luntz is urging his side to call
it ``climate change'' not global warming, because ``climate change'' is
``less frightening.'' The implication here is that people won't demand
immediate action on something that is ``less frightening'' and ``more
controllable.'' How irresponsible. No matter how much word-smithing
that's done, no matter how much faux science the other side uses--that
will not change the true, consensus, peer-reviewed science that has
accumulated for 30 years.

The ominous impacts of Global Warming affect our health, affect our
safety, and effect our economy. These impacts will not simply go away
because we turn a blind eye to the facts and pretend the climate is not
changing. In 2002, the National Research Council reported on the
science of global warming. It said:

Greenhouse gases are accumulating in earth's atmosphere as
a result of human activities. National policy decisions made
now and in the longer-term will influence the extent of the
damage suffered by vulnerable human populations and
ecosystems later in this century.

Clearly, the decisions we make here and now will determine how much
``damage'' is inflicted on our children and our grandchildren. The
National Research Council represents the brain trust of the most
educated country in the world. If we cannot believe the Council, who
can we believe?
Global warming poses a clear and present danger to us all. The global
warming bandwagon is getting full--and the President would be smart to
get on it. A partial list of those who urge market-based action now,
includes: 2,500 eminent economists from MIT, Yale, Harvard, Stanford
and other top universities, including eight Nobel Laureates who said,
``a market-based policy could achieve its climatic objectives at
minimum cost.''
Major corporations, including the petroleum giant BP--which has
already reduced its greenhouse gas emissions 10 percent below its 1990
levels--and saved $600 million in energy costs doing it.
Last night we heard from Senators who were repeating the scare
propaganda that is circulating about higher fuel prices. But what is
more reliable, guesses about the future or a record of the past? If BP,
DuPont and other major corporations can save money by reducing their
greenhouse gases--surely they rest of the country can also. Other
supporters of a market-based approach include Silicon Valley investors,
multi-religion interfaith groups, the world's largest re-insurance
company, a bipartisan group of 155 mayors--the list goes on and on.
I urge my colleagues: let's be the leaders we were elected to be.
Let's act now and vote for the Lieberman/McCain bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I yield 7 minutes to probably the best
informed Senator who was the chairman of the Governor's clean air
committee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I wish to comment on some of the
statements made by my distinguished colleague, Senator Lieberman,
during the debate last night.
Senator Lieberman was correct when he said concerns about climate
change and atmospheric concentrations of carbon are widespread and
bipartisan. He was also right when he said that support for increasing
our scientific understanding of this issue and reducing atmospheric
concentration of carbon is widespread and bipartisan.
However, I note that opposition to the language offered by Senator
Lieberman and Senator McCain is both widespread and bipartisan,
including labor and management.
The bill is opposed by a large number of stakeholders, including the
Chemistry Council, the American Farm Bureau, the American Health Care
Association, the American Highway Uses Alliance, the American Iron and
Steel Institute, the National Association of Corn Growers, and the
National Association of Wheat Growers, and the list goes on of the
organizations opposed to this legislation.
The legislation is also opposed by a large number of labor unions,
including the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers; the International
Brotherhood of Boilermakers; the Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths,
Forgers, and Helpers; the International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers; the International Brotherhood of Teamsters; the Marine
Engineers Beneficial Association; the United Food and Commercial
Workers International Union; the United Mine Workers of America; the
United Transportation Union; the Utility Workers Union of America; and
several locals of the United Steelworkers of America.
I also note that Senator Lieberman stated that over 75 percent of
people in a recent poll support this language. I would argue if these
people had been told of the negative effects of this legislation on
heating and electrical costs and the loss of jobs, the results of that
poll would have been much different.
As I discussed last night, Thomas Mullen of Catholic Charities
testified last year against the Lieberman-Jeffords bill saying it would
have a devastating impact in significantly higher

[[Page S13582]]

heating prices on the poor and elderly. I also point out that the
Department of Energy has stated that high energy costs consume a
disproportionately large share of the income of the poor and elderly on
fixed incomes. They are left out of this debate.
I would also like to address statements by Senator McCain and Senator
Lieberman that because they offered a substitute to their original
version of S. 139, all the comments and analyses cited by opponents of
this bill, including myself, are irrelevant. That statement could not
be further from the truth.
I refer to a letter I recently received from many of the stakeholders
against S. 139:

The undersigned commercial, industrial, small business and
agricultural organizations strongly urge you to oppose S.
139, the Climate Stewardship Act, or any substitute that may
be offered by its sponsors, Senators Joe Lieberman and John
McCain, when this measure comes before the Senate. As they
proclaimed, the vote on S. 139 (or its substitute) will be a
test vote on the most appropriate response to concerns about
our changing climate.
Among all the policy options available to the Congress to
improve our understanding of climate systems, the arbitrary
imposition of energy rationing as embodied in S. 139 is one
of the worst possible options the Senate could choose for
farmers, industry, the poorest of Americans, and the economy
as a whole.

I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

October 22, 2003.
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator: The undersigned commercial, industrial, small
business and agricultural organizations strongly urge you to
oppose S. 139, the Climate Stewardship Act, or any substitute
that may be offered by its sponsors, Senators Joe Lieberman
and John McCain, when this measure comes before the Senate.
As they have proclaimed, the vote on S. 139 (or its
substitute) will be a test vote on the most appropriate
response to concerns about our changing climate.
Among all the policy options available to the Congress to
improve our understanding of climate systems, the arbitrary
imposition of energy rationing as embodied in S. 139 is one
of the worst possible options the Senate could choose for
farmers, industry, the poorest of Americans and the economy
as a whole. The Energy Information Administration projects
that electricity prices alone would increase 46 percent and
the price of gasoline would rise by 40 cents per gallon if
this legislation were adopted.
When S. 139 is brought up in the Senate under the July 31
unanimous consent agreement, the sponsors of S. 139 will be
permitted to offer an amendment in the nature of a
substitute. They have announced that, in order to increase
votes for their proposal, this substitute will eliminate the
bill's unrealistic second phase objective of limiting
greenhouse gas emissions in 2016 to 1990 emissions levels.
However, make no mistake about it; the equally unrealistic
first phase of S. 139's reduction mandate of limiting 2010
emission levels to levels of 2000 will, by itself, highly
destructive to jobs and prosperity.
The sponsors of S. 139 have stated that the first phase of
greenhouse gas reductions in their bill would ``only require
a 1\1/2\ percent reduction from today's greenhouse gas
levels.'' However, the Energy Information Administration
projects that emissions levels in 2010 would have to be
reduced by 14 percent in order to achieve the 2000 emission
levels quota set by S. 139's first deadline of 2010.
Moreover, S. 139's first phase of reductions would require
the economy to have to make additional cuts in fossil energy
use every year following 2010, simply to stay under the 2000
emissions cap in the face of increasing demand for more
energy from a growing population and economy. Thus, meeting
S. 139's first emissions cap would cause increasing, major
economic disruptions for farmers, businesses, industry and
the poorest Americans who can least afford higher electricity
and natural gas price increases in the future. The modified
bill will also result in the export of countless additional
manufacturing jobs; a unbearable prospect in light of the
more than 2.8 million jobs the manufacturing sector has
already lost since the summer of 2000.
Addressing the climate change issue does not have to come
at the expense of the American economy. Voluntary emissions
reduction measures and innovative ideas for market-based
incentive programs are needed in the near-term, while
progress continues to be made in perfecting new technologies
to improve efficiency and sequester greenhouse gases. The
Senate/House energy conference report on H.R. 6 is
expected to contain many provisions to increase energy
efficiency; provide incentives for renewable fuel use,
nuclear energy and clean coal technologies; and expand
energy research and development programs. The Senate does
not need to resort to S. 139's command-and-control
rationing program to address energy policy.
Finally, S. 139 or its substitute would force electric
generators to switch from coal to natural gas in order to
meet the limits of the bill. The repercussions of a Senate
vote to support S. 139 or its substitute cannot be
understated. Any indication that the Senate favors coal-
switching to natural gas will immediately influence many
investment decisions that will affect, not just the future of
natural gas prices for all consumers, but the very
availability of natural gas for industry in the future. A
vote for S. 139 or its substitute would contribute to the
current natural gas supply/demand imbalance and almost
immediately exacerbate the high natural gas prices and
occasional shortages that are already plaguing the economy.
On behalf of the men and women in large and small
businesses in agriculture, commerce and industry who depend
on reasonably priced energy for a prosperous future for this
country, we urge you to oppose S. 139 and the sponsors'
substitute when this legislation is concerned by the Senate.
Sincerely,
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers.
American Boiler Manufacturers Association.
American Coke and Coal Chemicals Institute.
American Farm Bureau Federation.
American Iron and Steel Institute.
Coalition for Affordable and Reliable Energy (CARE).
Council of Industrial Boiler Owners.
Edison Electric Institute.
IPC--The Association Connecting Electronics Industries.
National Association of Manufacturers
National Corn Growers Association.
National Electrical Manufacturers Association.
National Mining Association.
National Oilseed Processors Association.
National Petrochemical & Refiners Association.
Portland Cement Association.
Small Business Survival Committee.
Society of Glass and Ceramic Decorators.
The Fertilizer Institute.
The Industrial Energy Consumers of America.
The Salt Institute.
Toy Industry Association.
U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, this legislation is the first step in
our country toward participating in the Kyoto protocol at a time when
Russia and Australia have indicated they will not ratify the treaty,
and when China, India, Brazil, and South Korea are exempt because they
are ``developing countries.''
Our trade deficit with China alone is $103 billion. Yet supporters of
this legislation want to shut down American plants and send American
jobs overseas to these ``developing countries'' that do not have the
environmental safeguards that we have in America. I can hear the giant
sucking sound of jobs leaving our country every time I return to Ohio.
Let me be perfectly clear, carbon caps are lethal to our economy.
Carbon caps--any carbon caps--will cause a switch to burning coal with
clean coal technology. That will cause fuel switching to natural gas.
It will mean the end of manufacturing jobs in my State. It will send
thousands of American jobs overseas and will significantly drive up
natural gas and electricity prices and put millions of Americans out of
work.
Too many Americans have lost their jobs because we have not
harmonized our energy and environmental policy in this country. We need
a truly comprehensive energy policy that protects our environment while
also protecting our energy security and our economy. We do not need
legislation such as S. 139 that attempts to protect the environment
while completely disregarding negative impacts on our energy security
and economy.
As I stated last night, I strongly oppose any legislation that will
exacerbate the loss of jobs in my State and drive up the cost of energy
for the least of our brethren, the poor and the elderly. I urge my
colleagues to vote no on this legislation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I thank Senator Voinovich for making his
statement. I will be specific. The amount of jobs in his State alone,
if this passes, would be 178,000.
For any other Members who want to know how their States will be
affected, we have that breakdown. It is a study by Penn State
University. I thank the Senator for his comments.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from
New Mexico.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized for
5 minutes.

[[Page S13583]]

Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I thank my colleague,
Senator Lieberman, for yielding me time.
Mr. President, I have heard three arguments against this legislation
since I have been privileged to hear this debate. The first argument is
there is no such thing as climate change. Climate change is a reality
if we are to believe the scientists we hire or who are willing to
advise us.
A clear consensus of the scientific community is there is a change
going on. The global climate is warming, and that is a fact.
The second argument I have heard is, OK, even if there is such a
thing as climate change, there is no real proof human activity is the
cause of that climate change. Again, I point out the scientific
community believes it. The scientific community says human activity
over the last 150 years has been a major contributor to the problem.
Most of these human activities that contribute to this problem relate
to energy production and use. Carbon dioxide emissions account for 84
percent of the annual emissions of greenhouse gases in the United
States and 98 percent of the carbon dioxide emissions are associated
with energy production or use.
The third argument which I have heard this morning is we do not
totally understand this issue and, therefore, the Congress should not
be legislating. If we use that standard, we will not legislate on
virtually any subject in this body. Clearly, we have to take the best
information we have, make the best judgments we can, and then if we
find we are in error, we can adjust our policies as we move forward.
As the ranking member of the Energy Committee, I have argued
repeatedly for the last several years that part of our national energy
policy and part of the energy legislation we were trying to craft
should be a recognition of the importance of climate change, and we
should include in a bill some provision for dealing with climate change
issues. Unfortunately, I am informed the energy conference that is
still in existence, although it does not meet, will not include any
language related to climate change, even though the bill the Senate
produced does contain some provisions in that regard.
This is an issue of global concern. It is sad that the United States
is not leading this debate. We should have a leadership role, both
because we have the capability to understand the science and to do the
science, and the technology. We also have the capability to come up
with an appropriate response. It is sad we are not doing that.
This administration has totally failed to lead with regard to this
issue. The President's plan to deal with the greenhouse gases has been
little more than a business-as-usual approach. The President's
voluntary target of an 18 percent reduction in greenhouse gas intensity
over the next decade sounds impressive until one looks at the data. The
approach will allow climate-altering pollution to continue to climb as
long as it increases more slowly than our economy grows.
The voluntary commitments would meet a goal that are no more
aggressive than business as usual. Greenhouse gas pollution intensity
in the United States has been declining because the part of our economy
that is growing the fastest is the service sector, which produces fewer
greenhouse gases than manufacturing for certain. President Bush's
voluntary approach will not change the trend in greenhouse gas
emissions over what is likely to happen anyway, and it certainly does
not put us on a path to reductions in the future.
We have been trying a voluntary approach to reducing greenhouse
pollution for almost a decade, and greenhouse gas emissions have
actually increased 14 percent. Many of the commitments industry is
making today are the same or similar to what these companies promised
nearly a decade ago.
While negotiations on an international framework to address global
warming continue for the next several years, our domestic industry will
have to make significant investment decisions on new energy
infrastructure. We have no domestic framework on greenhouse gas
emissions that would guide or even inform these investment decisions.
Addressing these issues up front would reduce business costs and risks.
Maintaining our present course will increase the probability of future
economic losses and waste in the energy sector.
This Climate Stewardship Act is a modest first step in trying to deal
with this important issue. Senator Lieberman and Senator McCain deserve
great credit for forcing this issue to be considered in the Senate
today and to be voted on. They have put together an innovative
framework that deserves our attention. It is unfortunate, frankly, that
this bill was not able to receive the hearings in committee it
deserves. The debate should be no longer about whether climate change
is a reality, which is what we have been talking about on the Senate
floor, but instead on how we can deal with it. Ideally, the debate we
would be having on the Senate floor would be to consider amendments, to
consider alternatives to this proposal, so we could come to grips with
this very difficult issue. I would prefer to be offering amendments on
ways in which the framework could be improved, but given the
politicizing that has surrounded this scientific and environmental
issue, I am left with only one option, and that is to vote for the bill
and send a signal that the Senate must show leadership on climate
change.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Who yields time?
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the Senator from
New Hampshire, Mr. Sununu. I hope we will look very carefully at the
chart he has. It is probably the most significant chart, other than the
jobs chart we have.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, we have heard a number of speakers who I
think have raised a number of important points. We have heard questions
and discussions about the science of climate change. The science is
important, and over time we hope to better understand the Earth's
climate. I hope this is an area where we do research, where we can
develop better models. It is one of the most complex areas of
investigation.
We have heard about the costs, both direct costs of this legislation
that will increase energy costs for everyone in America, but also
indirect costs, because other countries that have been mentioned by
Senator Voinovich, for example, such as China, India, Brazil, Russia,
or Australia, do not adopt such stringent controls on emissions, and
they will benefit by American jobs moving overseas.
In particular, it stands to reason in those areas of our economy that
are most dependent on energy as an import, energy incentive industries
like manufacturing, steel, smelting, and the like, those are the jobs
that will be the first to go overseas.
I want to speak about the environmental issue because if we look
closely at the environmental impact of this legislation, it actually
undermines the legislation. It shows its weakness and it illustrates
why it should not be adopted. If we were to agree on the increase in
temperature of the last 50 or 100 years, agree there was some
relationship between manmade emissions of CO2 and that increase, and
assume the full impact of the Climate Change Commission, the IPCC and
the Kyoto protocols, let us look at what the environmental impact might
be. This is a forecast of increasing temperatures over the next 50
years, a forecast projected increase of up to 1.2 degrees Celsius,
maybe 2 degrees Fahrenheit. The benefits of Kyoto are enormously small,
perhaps one or two-tenths of a degree Celsius. Over 100 years, if the
projected change is 4 or 5 degrees Fahrenheit, the impact of Kyoto
might be four or five-tenths of one degree.
The question is: What benefit would that provide at the significant
economic costs that are not likely but certain? Supporters have pointed
out their legislation, but our legislation is not as dramatic as Kyoto.
It is not as harsh as Kyoto, and that means the environmental benefit
will be even less.
Questionable environmental benefit, enormous cost. I certainly urge
my colleagues to vote no.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham of South Carolina). The Senator's
time has expired. Who yields time?
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, how much time remains on each side?

[[Page S13584]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twenty minutes 59 seconds on the minority
side; 17 minutes 11 seconds on the majority side.
Mr. McCAIN. Who is the minority side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Well, I do not know. That is a good question.
Mr. McCAIN. How much time is controlled by Senator Inhofe and how
much time is controlled by Senator Lieberman?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Lieberman has 20 minutes 59 seconds.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I yield however much of the 10 minutes
Senator McCain will eventually have as he wishes to consume now.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to use 8 minutes of my 10
minutes.
My favorite author is Ernest Hemingway, as he is of many millions of
people throughout the world. One of his most famous short stories is
entitled ``The Snows Of Kilimanjaro.'' At the beginning of the short
story he says:

Kilimanjaro is a snow covered mountain 19,710 feet high,
and is said to be the highest mountain in Africa. Its western
summit is called by the Masai ``Ngaje Ngaje,'' the House of
God. Close to the western summit there is the dried and
frozen carcass of a leopard. No one has explained what the
leopard was seeking at that attitude.

As the photograph shows here, the snows of Kilimanjaro may soon exist
only in literature.
There has been a lot of debate here about the scientific evidence--
17,000 scientists say this, 10,000 scientists say that, my scientist
says this--although clearly the National Academy of Sciences and other
organizations including the World Meteorological Organization, I think,
and others, should have some weight with my colleagues.
If I might quote the punch line from an old joke, ``You can believe
me or your lyin' eyes.''
These are facts. These are facts that cannot be refuted by any
scientist or any union or any special interest that is weighing in more
heavily on this issue than any issue since we got into campaign finance
reform.
That is the Arctic Sea. That is the Arctic Sea. If you look at the
red line, that is the boundary of it in 1979. Look at it now. You can
believe me or your lyin' eyes.
Look at Mount Kilimanjaro. That picture was taken in 1993. That
picture was taken in February of the year 2000.
All of us cherish our national parks. Have a look at the Glacier
National Park, which will have to have its name changed. The picture
above was taken in 1932. That is a glacier ice cake. This picture is
from the Glacier National Park archives. That is from 1932. Look at it
50 years later. It is not there. There will be no more glaciers in
Glacier National Park, so we may have to give it a different name.
We see devastating fires across California. It is very interesting
that we have this debate while devastating fires, unprecedented in
nature, are sweeping across California, fueled by unusual drought
conditions. I don't have to tell people what the consequences of that
are.
An ice dam lake drained recently when the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf, which
a century ago rimmed the coast, broke up along the coast of northeast
Canada. NASA has confirmed that part of the Arctic Ocean that remains
frozen year round has been shrinking at a rate of 10 percent per decade
since 1980. At a conference in Iceland in August, scientists told
senior government officials the Arctic is heating up fast, disclosing
disturbing figures from a massive study of polar climate change.
Dr. Robert Corell, who heads the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment
Team, said:

If you want to see what will be happening in the rest of
the world 25 years from now, look at what is happening in the
Arctic.
Destruction of 70 percent of heat-sensitive coral reefs, in the
world--70 percent of the heat-sensitive coral reefs in the world due to
increases in water temperatures--places reef fisheries in jeopardy. I
don't know what happens when the beginning of the food chain
disappears.
There is increasing coastal damage from hurricanes. Researchers at
the University of Texas, Wesleyan University, and Stanford University
earlier this year reported in the journal Nature that global warming is
forcing species around the world, from California starfish to alpine
herbs, to move into new ranges or altered habitats that could disrupt
ecosystems.
In an article in the July 3 Journal of Hydrology, ``Winters In New
England Are Getting Shorter,'' according to the USGS scientists,
northern New England winters have receded by 1 to 2 weeks during the
past 30 years.
Paul Eckstine, Harvard Medical School:

Concerns about climate change are often mistakenly placed
into the distant future but as the rate of climate change
increases, so do the biological responses and costs
associated with warming and unstable weather. The influence
of intensifying drought on the spread of west Nile virus in
the U.S., and the impacts of rising carbon dioxide levels on
allergies and asthma, demonstrate that global warming has
come into our backyards.

Finally, Dr. Adare of the Climate Research Committee of the National
Academy of Sciences, says:

The planet has a fever and it is time to take action.

Mr. President, I ask my colleagues not to listen so much to the
opinions of labor unions, business special interests, or even
scientists. Look at what is happening around the world. Use your eyes
to see what is happening. The devastation wrought by climate change so
far has been remarkable.
There is a long series of happenings around the world. Key reports
have been issued in the last few years by a number of bodies composed
of the world's most eminent climate scientists, including the United
Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the National Academy
of Sciences, U.S. Global Change Research Program, and these experts all
reached the same conclusions:
No. 1. Greenhouse gasses are increasing in the atmosphere because of
human activities and they are trapping increasingly more heat.
No. 2. Increased amounts of greenhouse gases are projected to cause
irreparable harm as they lead to increased global temperatures and
higher sea levels.
No. 3. The gases we emit to the atmosphere today will remain for
decades or longer. Every time we emit now will require greater
reductions later, making it more difficult to protect the environment.
It is interesting to me that in July of the year 2003, Governor
Pataki of New York announced that 9 States had formally agreed to join
New York in developing a regional strategy in the Northeast to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions--10 States. The States agreeing to participate
are Connecticut, New Jersey, Vermont, New Hampshire, Delaware, Maine,
Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island. The cap-and-trade
initiative recommended by Governor Pataki would include developing a
market-based emissions trading system that would apply to power
generators emitting carbon dioxide, and it is modeled after the highly
successful acid rain program of the 1990 Clean Air Act.
This amendment is modeled on the highly successful acid rain program
of the 1990 Clean Air Act. It is modest in its proportions.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has consumed 8 minutes.
Mr. McCAIN. I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, while I appreciate the comments made by my
good friend from Arizona, I would only say some of the things there--I
know he doesn't intend to say things that aren't true. I would like to
quote an article that was in this morning's USA Today. James Morison,
who is a scientist with the University of Washington--this is a front
page article in USA Today--said the temperature increases and the
shifts in winds and ocean currents occurred early in the 1990s and have
since ``relaxed.'' This is a recent discovery.

These big changes ``are not related to (global) climate
change.''

This was just in this morning's paper, speaking of the Arctic Circle.
So if we have time, when I have a chance to wind up, I want to repeat
some of the things I said about the flawed science on which all these
things are based. Until then, I recognize the Senator from West
Virginia, Mr. Byrd, for a time not to exceed 12 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.

[[Page S13585]]

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to discuss the
very critical issue of global warming and to summarize events of recent
years that have led us to this point. We are discussing the paramount
energy and environmental challenge of our time; namely, the inexorable
increase in greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere that will lead to
changes in the global climate.
The primary contributor to global warming is the burning of fossil
fuels that create carbon dioxide, and it remains in the atmosphere for
over a century. These human-produced emissions are adding to a growing
concentration in the global atmosphere that is expected to more than
double by the end of this century. Therefore, we are bequeathing this
problem and its consequences to our children, our grandchildren, and
our great grandchildren.
While I am very concerned about the challenge posed by global
warming, let me state at the outset that I have long been a strong
critic of climate change policies that are not in the national interest
of the United States. I will yield to no one on that point. I have
insisted on a rational and cost-effective approach to dealing with
climate change.
As the coauthor, along with Senator Hagel, of S. Res. 98, that passed
95 to zero in 1997, during the 105th Congress, I sought at that time to
express the sense of the Senate regarding the provisions of any future
binding, international agreement that would be acceptable to the
Senate. The Kyoto protocol, in its current form, does not comply with
the requirements of S. Res. 98. That resolution was supported by many
industrial trade associations and opposed by many environmental
organizations.
While those on both sides of the issue have attributed many
interpretations and misinterpretations to S. Res. 98, no one has
misrepresented and misconstrued S. Res. 98 more so than this present
administration.
S. Res. 98 was intended to provide the sense of the Senate on what
should be included in any future binding international treaty. The
resolution laid out the conditions under which the Senate could agree
to a new binding treaty that would subsequently be considered at the
Kyoto conference. S. Res. 98 directed that any such treaty must include
new scheduled commitments for the developing world in addition to any
such requirements for industrialized nations but requirements that
would be binding and mandatory and lead to real reductions in the
emissions of greenhouse gases over time. This is clearly different than
the minimal, vague, and voluntary commitments that we are currently
pursuing.
As I explained in 1997, a voluntary approach had already been tried
and had already failed. The United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change, also known as the Rio Convention, failed to reduce
emissions largely because it was voluntary. That is why Kyoto concerned
binding commitments, and S. Res. 98 was intended to guide that effort
rather than kill that effort.
The administration's climate team has merely returned to the
voluntary approach of Rio, despite a complete lack of evidence that
this so-called plan will ever succeed. Industrial nations have never
initiated significant reductions in pollution of any type on a strictly
voluntary basis. This administration must finally come to terms with
taking action toward globally binding commitments.
As well, developing nations, especially the largest emitters, need to
be a part of any binding global climate change treaty. Another point
that has been misunderstood is what S. Res. 98 would require of
developing countries. An international treaty with binding commitments
can and should provide for the continued growth of the world's
developing nations. Unrealistically stringent emissions targets need
not choke off their economic growth. The initial commitments could be
relatively modest, pacing upwards depending on various factors, with a
specific goal to be achieved. Today, however, the world is even further
away from a credible, workable global strategy to deal on climate
change than we were in 1997.
The blame for this circumstance can be laid squarely at the feet of
this administration which abandoned international negotiations in which
it could have kept pressure on developing nations to agree to some
level of mandatory emissions reductions. Moreover, developing nations
should be a prime market for clean energy technology projects. But,
with little pressure on those nations to reduce or contain the growth
of emissions, a huge and fruitful market for those types of
technologies--technologies that are being developed in the U.S.--is
likely to dry up. In other words, while this nation has been making
great strides in developing technologies to use our own energy
resources more efficiently and more cleanly, significant efforts to
help deploy these technologies overseas have been undercut by this
administration's unilateral approach to climate change.
Thus, S. Res. 98 was an effort to strengthen the hand of the
administration as it undertook international negotiations. It enabled
our negotiators to walk into talks and point to the ever-present
Congress, looking over their shoulders, to ensure that the interests of
the U.S. would be protected in any agreement that eventually came to
fruition.
The Bush administration has never understood the value of S. Res 98.
Rather than employing that tool to positively influence international
negotiations, it used the resolution as cover to simply walk away from
the table. Having abandoned a constructive role in the global
negotiations on climate change, this administration has left the U.S.
in a much weaker position globally.
The Bush administration must be challenged on its environmental,
economic, and energy responsibilities, both domestically and
internationally. The U.S. is in the best position of any nation to
positively influence an international response to global climate
change. Yet, we will all suffer from the consequences of global warming
in the long run because we are all in the same global boat.
This administration has attempted to hide behind S. Res. 98 to defend
its current do-nothing and know-nothing policies on climate change, and
I strongly object to that. The difference between my view and that of
this administration is simple. I believe the problem is real and
demands action. The administration does not. The President also claimed
early in his administration that his goal was to oppose Kyoto. If the
President's representatives had stayed at the table and negotiated in
good faith on a treaty to comply with S. Res. 98, then the
administration could have guided the world toward a new binding treaty
with mandatory requirements to reduce emissions that would correct the
deficiencies of Kyoto.
The reality is quite different. Our nation has been represented at
the international negotiations in name only. We would be better
represented at the international negotiations by a row of empty chairs.
That would at least accurately represent the vacuous nature of our
current policies. For President Bush not only disavowed the Kyoto
Protocol; he also turned his back on any negotiations because they
concern a binding treaty that includes mandatory commitments. The rest
of the world was outraged by this unilateral rejection of a decade of
negotiations and of the new American isolationist approach to deal with
climate change.
And what will happen in one year or five years when a new
administration enters office? What will happen if Russia does decide to
ratify the Kyoto Protocol, and it enters into force? Will the
administration be able to go back to the table and demand changes to
binding international law that will have been in force for perhaps many
years? The President's industry supporters may one day wake up and
realize that they live in a partially Kyoto-controlled world where
there is no turning back.
One senses confusion and a lack of direction in the administration.
It seems that the administration's right hand does not know what the
far right hand is doing regarding its climate change policies. The
White House does not know whether to believe the science or not, and
they have certainly not articulated a plan of action.
Finally, I am compelled to observe that it is the height of hypocrisy
for this administration or its supporters in industry to claim that
they are defending the goals and provisions of S. Res.

[[Page S13586]]

98. They cannot make such a claim in the debate today or in any
international forum. Nothing could be further from the truth. This
administration can no longer hide behind the mantle of that resolution.
It is this administration that undermined the tenets of that
resolution. They now support only vague, voluntary measures. That is
true both domestically and internationally. The evidence suggests that
the President's negotiators have even formed an alliance with the key
emitters in the developing world, and together they oppose any
additional discussion during the international negotiations of binding
commitments for the developing world as called for under S. Res. 98.
That is of course a logical result of the administration's policies,
since it is impossible to apply binding commitments to China if we
refuse to apply such standards to ourselves. We now have little hope of
seeing an effort made to produce a treaty that will comply with S. Res.
98--at least not during the tenure of this President.
If there is no prospect for a binding international treaty, then how
can we deal with the enormous challenge posed by global warming? The
critics of the amendment before us argue that we should stay the course
and support the President's policies. If I may ask--what are those
policies? What concrete programs have been put in place? In point
of fact, the administration has asked the industry trade associations
to develop their own voluntary reduction programs. The proposals are
vague and actually allow emissions to continue to increase. Taken
together, none of these programs is expected to result in any serious
decrease in emissions.

These events over the last three years have led me to conclude that
we must look elsewhere for effective action on global warming. The
Senate should not be put in the position in which it now stands. It
should not be faced, as we are now, with the prospect of considering an
energy bill devoid of provisions to address climate change. The Senate
should be considering our nation's energy security from a broad view
that includes a global response to climate change and the international
politics of energy.
Proponents of the amendment now before us argue that it sends the
clear message to the White House: If President Bush rejects the advice
of this body, then he is refusing to negotiate in good faith toward a
binding international treaty and is only offering hollow domestic
programs. The Senate has little choice but to consider further steps,
including modest mandatory approaches, that would apply to our domestic
economy.
The amended version of S. 139 freezes emissions at their current
levels rather than seeking a sharp reduction as has been the case in
other approaches. The McCain-Lieberman bill also allows companies to
offset their emissions, for example by planting trees that absorb and
sequester carbon dioxide (CO<inf>2</inf>) or by constructing more
efficient power plants in the developing world than what those nations
would otherwise build--and claim the difference as an earned offset or
credit.
I would prefer not to be faced with a measure like this today. I note
that this bill has not had committee consideration. That said, it is
very much the case that several key chairmen with jurisdiction over
energy or environmental policy have shown very little interest in
seriously dealing with climate change. We have certainly witnessed this
in the energy bill. I want to further commend Senators McCain and
Lieberman for their diligence and hard work to find a middle ground.
They have come a long way on this proposal. If the principles of their
proposal were combined with those of other Members like mine, then the
Senate could have a strong package to offer the American people. While
I will not be able to vote for the amendment today, I want to make it
very clear that I will work with the sponsors of this bill and other
Republican and Democratic Senators who want to go beyond this
administration's empty-headed approach.
In closing, I want to express my own growing frustration for our
seeming inability to deal with the problem at hand. I have been
troubled by this for a long time. I do not believe I need any more
scientific evidence to show that we have seen these changes. I have
seen the changes in weather patterns, and those changes that I have
personally seen during my nearly 86 years lead me to believe that there
is something happening. We need to do something about it. What we do
may be painful in some respects, but we owe it to our children and
grandchildren to have the foresight to see that something is happening
and to understand that we ought to do something about it soon. If not,
we may be going beyond retrieval.
So, I would say again that the two Senators are to be very much
complimented. I will vote with Mr. Inhofe, for the reasons I have
stated. I yield back the balance of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Byrd for his statement.
Obviously, I regret that he is not going to support the McCain-
Lieberman proposal today. But I appreciate very much this fact: He
recognizes that there is a problem here. I don't know how some of our
distinguished colleagues can say there is not a problem. The science is
there. The facts are there. We see it with our own eyes. We can
disagree on what to do about the problem.
But Senator Byrd, with his characteristic directness and honesty and
sense of history, has recognized that there is a problem. I look
forward to working with him in the months ahead to see that we can
fashion together a common ground response that will deal with the
problem that he quite honestly has recognized. I thank the Senator.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator. I thank
our colleagues for the work they have done. I, again, thank Senator
Inhofe.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from
Delaware who has been an active, helpful, and constructive supporter of
this proposal, for which I thank him.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I thank Senator Lieberman and Senator
McCain and others who brought this legislation to the floor. I stand
today as a cosponsor of the amended version of the McCain-Lieberman
Climate Stewardship Act and I will vote for it today. I do so because I
believe it is a sensible first step toward addressing the real problem
of increasing levels of greenhouse gas emissions and global warming
about which Senator Byrd and others have spoken.
Senator Byrd, Senator McCain, and others have spoken about the
convincing science which shows that not only greenhouse gas emissions
are increasing but also that those emissions are linked to human
activity and are having a negative impact on the climate in which we
live.
Ten years ago I would not have stood here. Ten years ago I would not
have been arguing that we should take mandatory steps toward addressing
greenhouse gas emissions. But over the past decade or so as I learned
more about the issue and had the opportunity to speak with people on
both sides of this debate, and as Senator McCain said, to see with my
own eyes the changes that are occurring in this world, I have become
convinced there is a real problem. It is not going away. We can do
something about it. We can do something about it now. We should.
Senator Lieberman and Senator McCain should be commended for their
work on this bill and for their willingness to make a significant
modification to their original proposal. I don't know that I would have
been so supportive of the original bill because of reductions that were
required in that bill. Having said that, the modified version before
the Senate today which seeks to turn over the balance of this decade
greenhouse emissions to levels of the year 2000 has my strong support.
The fact is, if the Federal Government does not act in a meaningful
way, and do so soon, the problem will get worse and the solution, when
it comes, will be even more difficult and more disruptive of our
economy and our way of living.
Addressing greenhouse gasses is a proper role for the Federal
Government. In yesterday's New York Times, a reporter, Jennifer Lee,
wrote about the increasing number of States fed up with a lack of
certainty from the Federal Government with regard to climate change
policy. Half the States, according to the article, have taken steps to
address global warming.

[[Page S13587]]

On the one hand, I view the States' efforts as a positive
development. However, regulating greenhouse gasses via 50 different
laws is not, my friends, the best way to proceed on this issue. It is
best for both the industries that will have to comply with these laws
and the ecological benefits we expect from the passage that we adopt a
uniform Federal standard. The Climate Stewardship Act does just that.
My own State of Delaware is proud to be the home of the DuPont
Company, a global company with products touching each of us every day.
DuPont is a major producer of greenhouse gasses. One might think they
would be opposed to this legislation, but as it turns out they are not.
They view this bill as a significant and serious contribution to the
congressional debate on how to address climate change.
They think it is particularly noteworthy for three reasons, and I
will mention those: No. 1, the measure includes market-based systems to
achieve reductions efficiency; No. 2, it covers more than one sector of
the economy; No. 3, it provides credit incentives for early action and
includes flexibility mechanisms to allow companies to seek lower cost
solutions that achieve the desired results.
DuPont is just one example of a company that has stepped forward and
taken steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions not because they have to
but because they believe it is the right thing to do.
DuPont kept its energy use flat between 1990 and 2000, while at the
same time increasing production by 35 percent. That means they found
ways to become more efficient and thereby avoid increasing greenhouse
gas emissions. If a company such as DuPont can find a way to meet the
requirements of this bill, I suspect that just about any company can do
the same.
In closing, today's vote is one of the more important votes we will
take during our time in the Senate, certainly one of the more important
votes of this year. In my mind, the issue it addresses is as important
as the vote to authorize the President to use force in Iraq or whether
we will make major changes in Medicare prescription drugs.
What we decide today will have a significant impact for our future.
While we will not see noticeable, positive or negative effects before
next year's Presidential election, or before next year's Senate
elections, within our lifetime, as sure as we are gathered here today,
it will be clear that we have made the right choice or, I might add, if
we have made the wrong one.
I urge my colleagues to join me in what I believe is the right choice
and that is a ``yes'' vote for the Climate Stewardship Act.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I would like to take a few moments to
discuss S. 139, the Climate Stewardship Act and lay out the reasons I
am supporting this bill.
The chief reason I support this bill is that I believe, as do the
majority of scientists, that global climate change is occurring, and is
due in part to human activities. I also believe that the U.S. has a
responsibility to provide international and domestic leadership on this
issue, and to begin to take action. This body, the U.S. Senate, has now
passed three separate Sense of Congress Resolutions, this year and last
year, urging U.S. leadership and reengagement in the international
process to address global warming, and meaningful U.S. domestic action
to begin to reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases that cause climate
change. Two of these resolutions were included in the comprehensive
energy bills passed by this body this year and last. Despite these
resolutions, the United States remains inactive on these issues. We are
not displaying enough leadership on combating global warming, either
domestically or abroad. And we are beginning to see some early warning
signals about the consequences if we persist in our inaction.
The World Meteorological Organization, WMO, in July of this year
issued an unprecedented alert, saying: ``Record extremes in weather and
climate events continue to occur around the world. Recent scientific
assessments indicate that, as the global temperatures continue to warm
due to climate change, the number and intensity of extreme events might
increase.'' They go on to say that: ``New record extreme events occur
every year somewhere in the globe, but in recent years the number of
such extremes has been increasing.'' And, ``(w)hile the trend towards
warmer globally averaged surface temperatures has been uneven over the
course of the last century, the trend for the period since 1976 is
roughly three times that for the past 100 years as a whole.''
In the United States, the WMO cited record-breaking statistics in a
particularly dangerous category of extreme weather events: nationwide,
562 tornadoes occurred in May, 2003, resulting in 41 deaths--a record
for the number of tornadoes in any month, far surpassing the June, 1992
U.S. record of 399 tornadoes.
In Iowa, as in much of the midwest, we have been experiencing a
drought--a drought that is hurting my states' farmers, and farmers
across the midwest and west. These dramatic weather events that we are
experiencing--the tornadoes, the drought, the warming--these are
exactly what scientists have been predicting would occur with
unmitigated global warming. These events should not come as a surprise
to any of us, they have been predicted for some years now.
The bill we are debating, the Climate Stewardship Act, will take the
first, modest steps to put into place a U.S. system to begin to reduce
our greenhouse gas emissions, to begin to take action. It will respond
to the science, and it will do it in a manner that this administration
has failed to do--with meaningful policies that will not harm the U.S.
economy, but will at least put us on the right path.
Now I know some Members of this body and of some organizations and
industries have expressed concerns that taking action will harm the
U.S. economy, and will impact energy supplies. While their concerns are
legitimate, they are misplaced, because scientists, economists and
analysts in this administration and in the private sector agree that
this bill that we are debating will not be onerous for the overall
economy or for the various industries it impacts. The Energy
Information Agency in the Department of Energy and the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, in separate assessments of the bill, indicate
it will have minimal impacts on fuel prices and will even lower fuel
prices in the case of natural gas, for instance, by generating
efficiencies and providing market signals to drive efficiency.
Furthermore, the bill has specific provisions to encourage clean,
renewable fuel production from the agricultural sector and other
sectors, which would not only reduce our reliance on imports of oil,
but would also benefit the agricultural economy and the environment by
reducing greenhouse gas emissions. I support those provisions.
Some critics have said that this bill would prevent the burning of
coal, and would force coal-burning utilities to switch to using only
natural gas. That is simply not true. Under this bill, coal use will
actually increase, and financial incentives for clean coal technologies
are also provided.
According to the MIT analysis of the bill, coal use will continue to
expand 12 percent over current usage levels, out to 2025, which is the
time frame that MIT looked at. Additionally, coal prices per metric ton
are expected to drop 4 percent by 2015, and 5 percent by 2020.
A portion of the proceeds from the auctioning or sale of allowances
in the bill will go to technology deployment programs. Specifically,
integrated coal gasification systems will receive significant financial
incentives. Such clean coal technologies are not only beneficial to the
environment, but will ensure continued usage of this valuable fuel
source well into the future, in an environmentally benign manner.
The agricultural sector and rural areas will continue to bear the
brunt of severe weather events that can devastate farmers and rural
economies as long as our inaction continues. However, U.S. agriculture
can also make important, cost-effective contributions to offset a
portion of U.S. emissions of greenhouse gasses in the near- and medium-
term. With the proper incentives, agriculture can provide a low-cost
bridge to a less fossil-fuel and greenhouse gas intensive future, while
improving the sustainability and perhaps the profitability of this
vital economic sector. The Climate Stewardship Act,

[[Page S13588]]

provides some of these incentives. A provision in the bill that I
particularly support is financial incentives, through the auctioning of
permits to capped sectors, to agricultural practices to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions, including clean, renewable energy sources,
such as wind power.
Agriculture can play an important role in mitigating global warming,
and can provide valuable benefits to society. Carbon is a commodity
already being traded and sold in this country and others, and farmers
can not only ``farm'' for carbon, they can reap the rewards under this
bill, and help keep costs of action down.
To make sure farmers can take advantage of this opportunity, I have
negotiated with Senators McCain and Lieberman to guarantee that a
specific portion of the credits that can be sold into this cap-and-
trade system in the bill will be set aside for soil carbon
sequestration. Soil carbon sequestration reduces U.S. net emissions of
greenhouse gasses but also improves air and water quality by reducing
run-off, and improves soil moisture retention. Soil carbon
sequestration occurs through improved management practices such as no-
till or reduced-till farming, the use of shelterbelts, grass waterways,
wetland restoration, and improved irrigation systems, to name but a
few. But most importantly for the farm sector, soil carbon enhances
agricultural sustainability and profitability. We know this because
agricultural and soil scientists have studied this issue for years--not
because of global warming, but because of the associated environmental
improvements and the improved crop productivity associated with greater
soil carbon. These are complementary objectives with nice overlap. As a
key benefit soil carbon sequestration has the potential to offset fully
10 percent of U.S. annual carbon emissions.
To help ensure that farmers and others in the agricultural sector
thoroughly understand the issue of climate change, and that they can
benefit from an emerging carbon market, we have negotiated additional
language to institute an education and outreach initiative within USDA.
The program would provide detailed information as well as technical
assistance to these individuals and groups, as well as allow for the
creation or utilization of existing centers on climate change.
This is a win-win policy for agriculture, for our citizens, and of
course for our environment. That is why I support this bill.
Mr. LEAHY. I rise today in support of S. 139, the Climate Stewardship
Act. I am pleased that the Senate is finally going to have an open and
honest discussion about climate change, greenhouse emissions, global
warming and their effects on the Nation and the world. It is clear that
it is time for the Senate to act and pass this important legislation.
Climate change and global warming could cause grave problems to our
Nation's economy, especially the economy of the Northeast. The economy
of my home State of Vermont relies heavily on the revenue brought in
from the maple, forest and ski industries. Maple syrup production is a
major source of revenue in Vermont and there could be a dramatic loss
of maple production in Vermont and the rest of the Northeast if fuel
emissions continue to go unchecked.
There are about 2,000 maple farms in my home State, and most of them
are family-owned businesses. Many if not all of these farms could
suffer from a decrease in maple sugar income, and eventually they could
lose their farms altogether. I have heard from many maple producers
from my State who say they are tapping trees earlier every year. It
used to be that Vermonters were tapping their trees around Town Meeting
Day, the first Tuesday in March. Now, some are forced to tap a month
earlier, during the first week in February. According to a report done
by U.S. Office of Science and Technology Policy, sugar maple could
eventually recede from all U.S. regions but the northern tip of Maine
by 2100. This is unacceptable, but it is also preventable, and that is
why the Senate should pass the Climate Stewardship Act of 2003.
One maple syrup producer from Vermont has become so concerned about
the negative effects of global warming that he has joined a lawsuit
against the Export Import Bank and the Overseas Private Investment
Corporation. The plaintiffs in this case claim that these companies
have illegally provided more than $32 billion for overseas oil fields,
pipelines, and coal-fired power plants over the past 10 years without
assessing their impact on global warming as required by law. The
plaintiffs are not seeking financial compensation, only compliance with
the National Environment Policy Act, which requires all Federal
agencies to assess their programs' contributions to global warming.
Vermont also relies on revenue from the ski industry. Vermonters and
others from all over the country enjoy the ski resorts in Vermont.
There is a strong relationship between winter skiing conditions, the
number of customers, and whether a ski resort has a successful or
unsuccessful ski season. Vermont resort operators have already had to
make improvements to snowmaking technology to ensure there is enough
snow for the entire ski season. This can cost resorts hundreds of
thousands of dollars. Warmer weather also means the resorts open later.
In 2001, Killington Ski Resort, the largest ski resort in Vermont
recorded its latest opening date in more than 15 years.
Many ski resorts across the country are doing their part to slow
global warming. Four ski resorts in Vermont: Haystack Ski Area,
Killington and Pico Resorts, Mad River Glen, and Mount Snow Resort have
all adopted a policy on climate change to address the problem of global
warming. Mount Snow Resort has cut energy consumption in half at the
Main Base Lodge and Snow Lake Lodge by replacing hundreds of
conventional light bulbs with compact fluorescents. They have also
installed dozens of energy-efficient snowmaking tower guns, which
reduce the energy needed to pump water and compressed air. I commend
the efforts of these ski lodges and I believe that we should act today
and do our part to reduce global warming.
I have two grandchildren a 5-year-old grandson and a granddaughter
who is not quite a year old. I want them to be able to enjoy Vermont as
I have: snow-covered Green Mountains in the winter, beautiful foliage
in the fall, and Vermont maple syrup on pancakes as often as they
please. It is time the U.S. took action to curb our greenhouse gas
emissions. We can no longer look the other way as the rest of the world
moves ahead while the current administration ignores global warming.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I stand to applaud the efforts of
Senators Lieberman and McCain for pushing forward with a sensible and
modest plan to address the threat of global warming.
I would prefer that we were debating a bill reported by the
Environment and Public Works Committee, but the chairman of the
committee has made it clear that he will never act on such legislation.
That is unfortunate, since the evidence presented to our committee of
jurisdiction is more than sufficient to justify taking prudent actions
now to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
There are those who say that climate change is a hoax, a concoction
of radical environmentalists and a liberal media. That is simply
hogwash or maybe the whitehouse effect. Global warming has been
documented by hundreds and hundreds of credible scientific studies,
including many world class institutions such as the National Academy of
Science, the American Geophysical Union, and the International Panel on
Climate Change. To ignore and dismiss the threat of climate change to
the economy and the environment is like insisting the earth is flat. It
flies in the face of reality.
The Climate Stewardship Act uses the same type of efficient cap-and-
trade system that Congress established in the 1990 Clean Air Act
amendments to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions and acid rain.
My bill, S.366, the Clean Power Act, uses that system to reduce
carbon dioxide pollution from power plants to 1990 levels. That carbon
cap and the cap in the bill before the Senate would stimulate the
development of domestic technologies, like gasification and renewables.
That would allow our Nation to continue burning coal, but more
efficiently, cleanly and safely and with fewer carbon emissions.
Without some kind of carbon cap to drive technology, utilities and
investors will continue turning away from

[[Page S13589]]

coal and toward natural gas. Without clear action by Congress on this
matter, utilities and investors fear the uncertain timing of the
inevitable carbon controls that are coming.
I will not go into great detail about the need to act now. Our
committee's hearing record is replete with peer-reviewed scientific
evidence that demonstrates that need and refutes the Senator from
Oklahoma's statements.
But, I would like to note that the average global temperature in
September 2003 was the hottest on record, and 1998 and 2002 were the
first and second hottest years on record. That should concern us all.
It is urgent that we take action soon. The Senate's decision today
will affect the atmosphere and climate for the next 100 years if not
longer. Experts have advised us that we and the world must radically
change the use of fossil fuels in the next 10 to 15 years or the
consequences could be quite severe.
The need for the Senate to move this bill is tremendous. The United
States emits approximately 25 percent of the world's carbon pollution.
We are responsible for approximately 40 percent of the carbon
concentrations now in the atmosphere. We have a moral obligation and an
economic opportunity in leading the development of technologies and
systems that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
This legislation gives businesses and Government a great opportunity
to promote solar, wind, fuel cells and other sustainable energy sources
as ``the next high tech revolution'' to meet our growing energy needs.
It can also stimulate rural communities by making carbon sequestration
economically attractive.
Twice now, in the energy bills, the Senate has passed resolutions
asking the President to enter into negotiations with all nations to
obtain a binding treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We have
been ignored. The administration has taken no action to accomplish such
a treaty or adopted any policy that will result in real and tangible
reductions.
Senators should not take this vote lightly. This is the first time
that the Senate will vote to control emissions that cause global
warming. Senators can lead now and contribute to sustainable
development and job creation or they can hide their heads in the sand
and be blamed further for the climate change that is already occurring
and for the chaos that warming is likely to bring.
I urge Senators to support the Lieberman-McCain bill.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I will be supporting the McCain-
Lieberman climate change legislation, and I want to detail the reasons
for my support. At the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, the United
States agreed to a goal of reducing emissions to 1990 levels by the
year 2000, and we became a party to the Framework Convention on Climate
Change. As a Member of the Senate, I have supported this agreement. In
order to meet this commitment, our Government has engaged in a wide
range of voluntary programs. But, despite these efforts, U.S.
greenhouse gas emissions have increased by 14 percent between 1990 and
2000. We should take additional nationwide steps to meet this goal, and
I believe this legislation is an appropriate first step.
In this legislation, my colleague from Connecticut, Senator
Lieberman, and my colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain, would
implement Phase I only of their broader bill on greenhouse gases, S.
139, the Climate Stewardship Act of 2003. This legislation will return
the Nation's emissions to 2000 levels by 2010. It will do so by
reducing emissions in the short term while providing market-based
flexibility to minimize the cost to industry.
I continue to believe that we must take action on the national level
now to slow the progression of climatic change. The costs of inaction
are prohibitive across the country and in my home State of Wisconsin.
Wisconsin's top officials acknowledged that climate change was a
concern years ago. Nat Robinson, administrator of the State
government's Energy Division in the administration of Governor
Thompson, stated back in September of 1997, ``There was a time when the
possible human influence on the atmosphere was hotly debated by
scientists and lay persons alike. That time is past.'' In response, my
home State has become one of the first with a statewide plan to address
global warming.
Numerous signs suggest that the climate in Wisconsin may already be
changing, and that the actions that the State of Wisconsin has taken
are justified. UW-Madison scientist John Magnuson led a dozen other
scientists in examining actual climate data recorded by a wide variety
of sources around the world over the past 550 years. These data
documented a steady 150-year warming trend in global temperatures. For
example, the ``ice season'' of Dane County's Lake Mendota has decreased
22 percent since the mid-1800s. Similarly, the Aldo Leopold Foundation
in Baraboo concluded that spring is arriving a week earlier than it did
62 years ago based on when various plants are flowering.
The Union of Concerned Scientists released a series of studies in
April 2003 on climate change in the Great Lakes Region. That report
states that by 2030 Wisconsin summers will feel like southern
Illinois', and by the end of the century, Wisconsin's summer climate
will resemble that of current-day Arkansas, with our winters like
current day Iowa. This will cause a huge change in our life in
Wisconsin, in our climate and ecosystems, in our ability to grow crops,
in our need for additional summertime cooling for our residents. These
are huge and costly challenges, and Wisconsin can't solve them alone.
The pollutants emitted to the air know no political boundaries, and the
effects are global, as well as local, in scope.
Unfortunately, this administration has chosen to step away from our
current commitments on climate change and has not recognized state
efforts on climate change. I too shared concerns about the Kyoto
protocol, and joined with the Senate in support of a 98 to 0 vote on
the Byrd resolution. That resolution called upon the State Department
to seek meaningful commitments during the Kyoto negotiation process to
reduce climate change from developing countries such as China and India
that have the potential to develop using significant amounts of fossil
fuels. I supported that resolution because I wanted any additional U.S.
commitments to be to an agreement that addressed all current and future
sources of climate change worldwide. That vote was not a repudiation of
my belief that the U.S. must meet its current commitments.
Meeting our international commitment is important, especially at a
time of strong anti-American sentiment abroad and challenges to U.S.
leadership. Some of that sentiment and some of those challenges are a
direct response to the Bush administration's misguided policies. Even
our staunchest friends are troubled by the administration's inclination
for unilateral action, its inconsistent words and deeds, and its
dismissive response to their legitimate concerns.
Being part of the international community means engaging
constructively with like-minded nations to build strong, sustaining
institutions and alliances--and bringing emerging powers into this
community so future conflict becomes less likely. The Bush
Administration has demonstrated an unhealthy disregard for the opinions
of fellow nations--a disregard that has squandered some of the support
we received after the September 11, 2001, attacks and diminished our
influence around the world.
The administration's approach to global warming is one such area.
Though the United States produces about a quarter of the world's
greenhouse gases and will be affected badly by climate change, the Bush
Administration has shown no interest in doing anything about the
problem. That undermines our stature and credibility and it causes an
unnecessary rift with our allies. Constituents have approached me again
and again at the town hall meetings I hold all over Wisconsin every
year to share their concerns when the U.S. pulled out of the Kyoto
negotiations, and I believe that they make a very strong point.
The most powerful Nation in the world must speak with a clear and
consistent voice and lead all nations to face major global challenges
together. The U.S. Government has paid dearly for pulling out of the
Kyoto protocol and rejecting the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.
Although each

[[Page S13590]]

of these agreements was imperfect, each became more so when the United
States moved to the sidelines. Helping to shape credible international
institutions is not a sign of weakness; it is a sign of confidence in
U.S. strength and ideals. By disengaging, this administration has
marginalized U.S. policies, interests, and values.
For these reasons, I support the McCain-Lieberman legislation. The
U.S. should proceed to implement the Framework Convention on Climate
Change, and we need legislation to do just that.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, today the Senate took an important step
toward expanding the debate on global warming. Greenhouse gasses and
global warming are a real threat to our environment and our way of
life. The National Academy of Sciences has verified the scientific
evidence backing global warming. And the private sector is facing the
real world impact of global warming as they contemplate the insurance
costs of rising sea levels and more destructive storms. A decade ago,
debate ranged within and without the ivory towers of academia over the
hazy science backing claims of global warming. Today, the fog has
lifted and we can see the impact that burning fossil fuels has had on
the climate.
The changes to our environment are real. Our job now is to decide
what to do about it. The approach set out by this version of the
McCain-Lieberman bill is a reasonable first step. It is not perfect,
and if we would have been able to take up and debate amendments there
are several, significant changes I would have supported.
My biggest concern is that this bill would have us move toward
reducing emissions without requiring the rest of the world to join us.
While we have a responsibility to reduce our own emissions, we need to
work with the international community. China, for example, is
approaching the United States as a producer of green house gasses and
must be a part of any practical effort to reverse global warming. If
our unilateral efforts convince China they have no need to act, than
our approach could do more harm than good. I vote for this bill today
as a message to the administration that it is time to redouble efforts
to spark a world effort to address global warning. I do not vote to
commit the United States as the sole participant in that effort.
I strongly support including environmental standards as part of our
trade agreements. Clean air and water issues should be discussed with
our international trade partners during trade negotiations. Letting our
competitors avoid environmental issues that impact everyone around the
world is shortsighted. It hurts our environment and our business
community.
The bill before us has other problems that could be addressed with a
longer debate time and the opportunity to offer amendments. The Senate
should carefully scrutinize the legislation's timetable and should
consider giving industry more flexibility in earning credits. But while
these issues need to be addressed, every journey starts with a single
step, and this vote is that first step. We have begun seriously to
struggle with climate change. And ultimately, inevitably, we need to
make some tough decisions about climate change. We must reduce
greenhouse gasses to protect our environment and our way of life for
generations to come. A yes vote today sets us on the path to confront
this issue head on.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the
Climate Stewardship Act. I hope the Senate will seize the historic
opportunity before it today and vote to begin seriously dealing with
this worldwide threat.
Unfortunately, I am afraid Congress is not very good at passing laws
that will only benefit future generations, especially when there might
be a cost--no matter how small--for our constituents today. But I hope
that this vote will be different and that my colleagues will join me in
passing this sensible legislation to prevent a costly, and potentially
catastrophic, rise in global temperatures.
As Senators John McCain, Joe Lieberman, and others have already
articulated, the scientific conclusion that greenhouse gas emissions
are contributing to an accelerated rate of climate warming is beyond
debate. Thousands of climate scientists convened under the United
Nations and our own National Academy of Sciences have stated
definitively that human activities--primarily the burning of fossil
fuels--have contributed and will continue to contribute to rising
atmospheric temperatures. I am not an atmospheric scientist, and I
don't believe any of my colleagues are, so I hope everyone here will
defer to their expertise on this matter.
Climate change is an existing and scientifically supported phenomenon
which human beings have a responsibility to mitigate. And since the
U.S. has the highest per capita greenhouse gas emissions in the world
and one of the highest emissions rates per dollar of gross domestic
product, we have a particular duty to lead the world on this critical
issue.
Even the Bush administration, whose sincerity in dealing with this
issue is suspect, acknowledges the reality that human activities cause
climate change. Last year, in its United States Climate Report for
2002, the administration outlined a vast array of consequences climate
change would inflict across our country. I would like to highlight some
of the ``likely'' effects mentioned in that report that would have a
particularly harsh impact on my home State of Washington.

The resulting changes in the amount and timing of runoff
are very likely to have significant implications in some
basins for water management, flood protection, power
production, water quality, and the availability of water
resources for irrigations, hydro power, communities,
industry, and the sustainability of natural habitats and
species.
Reduced snow-pack is very likely to alter the timing and
amount of water supplies, potentially exacerbating water
shortages, particularly through the western United States.
The projected increase in the current rate of sea level
rise is very likely to exacerbate the nationwide loss of
existing coastal wetlands.
Habitats of alpine and sub-alpine spruce-fir in the
contiguous United States are likely to be reduced and,
possibly in the long-term, eliminated as their mountain
habitats warm.
Rising temperatures are likely to force out some cold-water
fish species (such as salmon and trout) that are already near
the threshold of their viable habitat . . . .
These conditions would also increase stresses on sea
grasses, fish, shellfish, and other organisms living in
lakes, streams, and oceans.

The non-profit group Environmental Defense compiled research that
shows that the winter snow pack in the Cascades could decline by 50
percent within 50 years. A reduction even a fraction of that size would
have a devastating impact on runoff that is vital for hydropower,
agriculture, salmon habitat, and drinking water supplies. And I am sure
many of my Western colleagues would be similarly alarmed by potential
reductions in their scarce water resources.
Just the damages from decreased runoff would cost my State billions
of dollars annually, dwarfing even the most pessimistic costs that some
opponents contend may result from this bill. But besides the costs this
legislation can help avoid, I think it is critical that we consider the
tremendous benefits this bill would initiate.
Today, we know that the tired mantra that ``protecting the
environment costs jobs'' is no longer true. In fact, the market-based
mechanisms used in this bill would unleash unprecedented productivity
and efficiency gains in our energy sector, as well as catalyze
countless new environmental technology industries. That translates into
many new high paying engineering and manufacturing jobs and tremendous
new export opportunities.
A recent report by the U.S. Department of Energy, which included
contributions from Washington State's Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory, forecast significant job growth for jobs in a range of
emerging ``green'' industries, such as wind power, biomass energy
production, and other energy efficiency specialties.
I am proud that my State hosts one of the largest wind farms in the
United States. I visited our Stateline project and saw first hand one
of the many solutions that the market will find to meet the goals of
this legislation.
These conclusions were confirmed by a 2001 study carried out in
collaboration with public and private partners in the Pacific Northwest
that found that the global market for clean energy technologies is
expected to reach $180 billion a year--about twice the size

[[Page S13591]]

of the passenger and cargo aircraft industries--within the next two
decades. Already, in Washington, Oregon, and British Columbia this
sector is a $1.4 billion per year industry.
Despite the potential of these new markets, some of my colleagues
have argued that the costs of addressing this problem are too high,
because they believe this bill might raise energy costs. While that is
highly disputable, I am curious if opponents of this measure also
support lifting controls on other pollutants? I'm sure we could make
coal-generated electricity even cheaper if we did not require pollution
scrubbers. We could allow millions of tons of sulfur dioxide, mercury,
and other toxins to flood our nation's air in the name of cheap energy.
But of course we wouldn't do that because we know that true costs of
such a policy--whether it be the health of our children, the effects of
acid rain, or even the visibility at our national parks--would far
outweigh any short-term financial gains we may achieve by removing
emission controls.
The same principle is true of climate change. We may save some money
now by ignoring this problem, but entire industries like timber and
fishing--key sectors of my State's economy--would be dramatically
impacted by climate change. There is no way to deny that greenhouse
gases, including carbon dioxide, are pollutants and need to be
monitored and controlled as such.
As I have listened to this historic debate, I have been frustrated by
the dueling charts and reports which have been used to support one
position or another. While I, along with many of our Nation's Governors
and world leaders, believe that the scientific evidence is
indisputable, there may be another important way to view this issue: as
an insurance policy.
I am confident that even the most vocal opponents of this bill would
be reluctant to say that there is absolutely no chance that the vast
majority of climate scientists are right about this issue and that
greenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming. Perhaps the
climate skeptics would change their position if they realized that this
legislation is really an insurance policy for our children, one that
guarantees they will be able to enjoy the same natural world that
benefits us today.
I believe that is how the American people instinctively understand
this issue. This is borne out by a recent nationwide survey that showed
that three-quarters of Americans support the McCain-Lieberman climate
change bill and two-thirds agree that we can control greenhouse gases
without harming our economy.
We are a problem-solving nation. When we are faced with a grave
threat, we roll up our sleeves, put our heads together, and fix our
problems; we don't push them off on our children and future
generations. Like the threat of terrorism, climate change is too
alarming and disturbing a problem to ignore.
The risks of ignoring this problem heavily outweigh the benefits of
preserving the status quo. Allowing rapid changes in the temperature of
the earth's surface and shifts in worldwide weather patterns that
result from global warming would be devastating to the economies of my
state, this nation, and the world. Let's make sure this problem gets
the serious action it deserves. I urge my colleagues to support this
critical bill.
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to this legislation,
S. 139.
We have disputes over the scientific evidence on global climate
change. And we can debate that science all day and never agree.
I believe the science we have seen does not support the need to
engage in questionable policies to control so-called ``global
warming''.
We need more evidence that the climate is actually affected by
emissions, especially carbon emissions, before we act too quickly.
Let's make sure we really look before we leap.
Instead of arguing over scientific data, we should examine the impact
S. 139 could have on American jobs and the economy.
This bill limits emissions of greenhouse gases to 2000 levels by
2010. This includes regulation of carbon dioxide emissions.
I am proud to be from a coal state. Generations of Kentuckians from
Pike County to Crittenden County have worked in the coal fields and
mines.
Coal plays an important role in our economy. More than half of our
nation's electricity is generated from low-cost domestic coal.
We have over 275 billion tons of recoverable coal reserves. This is
about 30 percent of the world's coal supply.
That's enough to supply us with energy for more than 250 years.
But this bill places caps on carbon. This has a negative affect on
energy production because it affects the amount of coal we can use.
This will mean loss of jobs, particularly for workers in Kentucky and
other coal states.
It also increases energy prices. Just as our economy is starting to
turn around. We just don't need this.
I hope the energy bill encourages renewable fuels as well as clean
coal so that we are not relying so much on foreign oil.
S. 139 goes in the other direction of the energy bill. It drives the
use of natural gas instead of coal.
Placing caps on carbon means coal production will be 100 million tons
lower in 2010 than what we expect to produce in 2003.
That is 25 percent below our expected 2003 level of coal production.
I have heard from coal operators in Kentucky who are on the verge of
closing their doors because of natural gas prices.
But S. 139 causes an even worse situation. According to one analysis,
it increases natural gas prices by 79 percent.
By forcing reliance on natural gas and a reduction in coal
production, this bill results in a loss of 460,000 jobs through 2025
and electricity bills will increase 46 percent.
We already have a natural gas shortage. And for a decade coal was on
the downturn because of governmental policies.
These policies have caused our demand for natural gas to exceed the
supply.
High gas prices cause Americans to experience difficulties. With the
winter coming, prices are expected to go up and put a noose on the
American pocketbook.
We must focus on increasing production and using a variety of energy
sources. Failing to do this puts our energy independence and national
security at stake.
We are turning the corner on the economy and job growth. The last
quarter grew by 7.2 percent. We do not need to be losing jobs or
causing more companies to shut down business because of increased
energy prices caused by the government.
The climate issue is being addressed in other ways that are more
conducive to job creation and economic growth.
We are becoming more energy efficient. Energy efficiency has improved
20 percent since 1990. This means that emissions have declined.
In fact, we are expected to reduce emissions by 14 percent by 2012
without any new emission regulations.
Our automobiles are more efficient and running at a higher fuel
efficiency than they did just a few a years go.
However, S. 139 ignores the strides we have made and could bring us
back to 1970s gas rationing.
As a consequence of this rationing, the cost of gasoline is expected
to increase 27 percent.
This increases fuel costs, and further slows our recovery, and takes
money out of the pockets of Americans.
I don't see why we should vote to increase energy costs and
unemployment. Voting for this bill does that.
It may make us feel better to support this bill because of its
environmental symbolism.
But I will choose substance over symbolism any day.
American jobs are of substance. Getting a green star by your name on
an environmental group's web site is symbolic.
And while that may make one feel good, watching Americans lose jobs
from this kind of legislation won't.
I urge my colleagues to defeat this bill.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I would like to discuss the Climate
Stewardship Act, which the Senate will vote on later today. Although I
recognize the challenge of global climate change, I must oppose this
legislation because of the drastic negative effect it would have on our
national economy.

[[Page S13592]]

Our economy depends on affordable, reliable, and abundant sources of
energy. Whether that means natural gas, petroleum, or coal, we have a
responsibility to ensure that our businesses, manufacturers, and
households have access to energy sources at reasonable costs. We depend
on energy in almost everything we do in our lives, from turning on the
light in the morning, to driving our cars to work, to cooking our
dinner at the end of the day. We need access to these sources of
energy, and we need access in a way that doesn't force us to choose
between paying our power bill, buying gas at the pump, or buying
essentials like groceries and medicine. During my time in the Senate, I
have remained committed to keeping energy costs affordable for all
North Dakotans and all Americans.
The bill before us would threaten the affordability of these sources
of energy. It will require companies that produce and use natural gas,
petroleum, and coal to acquire credits for each ton of greenhouse gas
emissions for which they are responsible. These credits will have a
value of anywhere from $8 to $13 for each ton of emissions. Our
emissions levels are in the many millions of tons per year. This means
dramatic cost increases ranging in the many millions of dollars for the
energy industry, costs that will inevitably be passed on to the
consumer.
According to a recent MIT study--the same study, by the way, that the
sponsors of this bill cite in making their arguments--national demand
for coal would increase much more slowly under the legislation.
Petroleum and natural gas demand will also increase at slower rates.
This is because the costs of these fuels will dramatically increase
under the bill. It will mean higher gas prices, higher electricity
bills, and higher home heating costs.
I am particularly concerned about the effects of these cost increases
on our international competitiveness. The Kyoto Treaty has not yet
taken effect, and it now appears that Russia may be backing away from
ratification. In the absence of the Kyoto treaty, other nations across
the globe will not be subject to strict greenhouse gas emissions
controls. Moreover, even if the Kyoto Treaty does enter into force,
there has been bipartisan agreement that the Kyoto treaty contains
unbalanced provisions that would require disproportionate carbon
dioxide reductions in this country while other countries would have to
make much less significant changes.
If we were to adopt the bill before us at this time, we would risk
putting U.S. manufacturing--which relies on affordable energy--at a
significant competitive disadvantage with the rest of the world.
Already, we are losing jobs to manufacturers in Mexico and China. If
our energy costs were to increase because of this bill, our job loss to
foreign countries would accelerate. With record Federal deficits and
debt, our economy is already in trouble; now is not the time to be
making our economic problems worse.
Let me be clear that I am fully aware of and fully acknowledge the
reality of global climate change. We need only to look to the droughts
in my part of the country over the last few years to see the very real
effects of global climate change. Human activity since the industrial
revolution is warming the planet, melting the polar ice caps, and
causing severe weather events across the globe. These developments have
very serious implications for this country, and for the world.
I do not dispute this ecological situation and I do not dispute the
need to do something about it. Let me also state that I very much
appreciate the efforts of Senator Lieberman and Senator McCain to try
to address this issue. They have done so in a way that genuinely
attempts to address a variety of constituent issues. However, I still
do not think the legislation we are considering today is the right
approach at the right time.
We need to continue working for a solution that carefully balances
this need for action with the concerns about the impact on our economy
and our competitiveness, and I hope to be a part of finding innovative
and creative solutions to global climate change. We need to carefully
consider impacts on States with energy dependent economies, such as
North Dakota. We need to carefully consider the impact on different
types of energy and make sure we do not put some forms of energy at an
unfair disadvantage. For example, to have my support any legislation on
this topic must address the unique circumstances of lignite coal, which
is the primary source of electricity in North Dakota. And we need to
carefully weigh the impacts that any plan will have on energy
consumers. This will require an enormous amount of careful work, and I
look forward to being part of the effort to address this very real
problem.
These are enormously complex issues that will require very careful
study and an opportunity for extensive public review and comment.
Because of the circumstances under which we are considering this
legislation, we have not had that opportunity for extensive review.
Without that careful study and review to ensure that we understand in
detail the impacts on energy production in my State, on our national
economy, and on our international competitiveness, I cannot vote for
this legislation. For that reason, I must vote against the bill today.
Mr. DORGAN. My colleagues, Senator McCain and Senator Lieberman, have
brought to the Senate floor a serious proposal dealing with an
important issue. The issue of climate change and global warming demands
our attention. We live in this fragile spaceship called Earth, and we
have but one environment to sustain us. We ignore the health of our
environment at our peril.
So the question is not whether but rather how we address these
questions that are being raised about our environment, about climate
change and global warming.
The proposal we are voting on today is one that I think requires some
additional work and some additional thought.
We now live in a global economy and these issues must be addressed
globally.
We cannot create emissions caps and targets that we enforce
unilaterally in a manner that encourages American companies to move
overseas and avoid these restrictions. If we do that, we will end up
doing little or nothing to protect our environment while harming our
economy.
In this global economy, where companies can move from one country to
another with ease, it seems to me the only way to achieve the goals of
reducing emissions of greenhouse gases is to engage with all other
countries in a global strategy for these reductions. Otherwise, these
global companies will simply move their plants and their jobs to areas
where they are not impeded by emission caps and other restrictions.
When a global agreement is negotiated, it cannot be an agreement that
allows some countries to avoid emission caps while others embrace them.
For example, if we through an international agreement will embrace
emission caps for our country but allow the Chinese or the Indian
governments to avoid them, we will simply be developing a strategy for
companies to move out of the United States and move their plants and
jobs to countries where they will not face such restrictions.
That approach would represent the worst of all worlds. There would be
no environmental benefit but we in the U.S. would suffer a heavy
economic penalty from plant flight and job loss.
I do not think the McCain-Lieberman proposal is the right way to
address these issues, but my vote in opposition should not be seen as a
denial that these are serious issues that do need to be addressed.
This amendment and today's debate and vote will be a constructive
start of a healthy debate about what we do to provide leadership on
these issues. While I think this proposal today falls short, I intend
to be a constructive part of future proposals that can and will offer
leadership in the right direction.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I cannot support the Climate Stewardship
Act of 2003 since its effect, if enacted, will be the loss of more
manufacturing jobs to countries which have few, if any, environmental
standards. That won't help the environment, and it will hurt our
economy. Climate change is not something we can tackle by shifting
industries and their emissions to other countries, or by shifting
manufacturing jobs to China or other countries which have no limits on
emissions of greenhouse gases. The bill before us reflects a unilateral
approach to a problem which can only be solved globally.

[[Page S13593]]

Let me give one example of how this bill would promote job loss in
the U.S. with no benefit to the global environment. In the past decade,
a large number of companies have moved their manufacturing plants
overseas. Take, for example, a U.S. manufacturing company that had
seven plants in the U.S. in the 1990s. Today it has only five left,
because two moved to countries with cheaper labor. Assume that those
five remaining domestic plants each emit 20,000 metric tons of carbon
dioxide for a total of 100,000 metric tons. Under this legislation,
reasonable estimates are that the company's cap could be placed at
around 90,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide credits. The company,
already under heavy competition because of cheap labor costs overseas,
faces a choice: pay to reduce emissions at its five plants by 10
percent, or move another one of its plants overseas, say to China. If
the company moves one of its five plants abroad, it has 10,000 credits
remaining to play with which it can use to actually increase emissions
at its four remaining plants, or it can sell them. So this bill adds to
existing incentives, such as lower labor costs and no safety standards,
to move manufacturing plants overseas, and the result is that we lose
jobs and the environment gains nothing. In other words, when this
bill's mandates are imposed on sectors of the economy that can pick up
and move overseas, it adds another incentive to do just that.
The United States must take a leadership role in addressing climate
change, but that leadership must move us in the right direction. It is
not sound leadership to give additional incentives to U.S. businesses
to move their facilities, and the jobs that go with them, to other
countries that don't have the costly environmental standards which this
bill would impose on U.S. businesses. It is not sound leadership to
simply shift industrial emissions from American soil to countries which
have no emissions standards. And it is certainly not sound leadership
to act unilaterally in a way that puts U.S. manufacturers at a
competitive disadvantage when there is no built-in incentive for other
countries to follow. In fact, the opposite is true: the unilateral
approach in this bill provides an economic incentive for countries who
are picking up our manufacturing jobs not to follow our lead.
Effective and sound leadership would be to tell competing countries
that we are going to adopt high environmental standards if they will
join us, or, in the alternative, leadership is getting countries to
agree (1) to the adoption of tough environmental standards, and (2) to
refuse to purchase products from countries which won't adopt those
environmental standards. Sound leadership, in other words, is working
to create an international agreement where all countries take steps to
reduce global warming, so that there is no incentive to move jobs and
emissions from a country with high environmental standards to one with
low environmental standards.
Climate change cannot be addressed unilaterally. It must be addressed
multilaterally. It doesn't help the global environment to push down
greenhouse gas emissions in one country only to have them pop up in
others. We need a Kyoto-type treaty which binds all countries.
Otherwise, there is a perverse incentive to move more and more jobs to
countries with lower environmental standards. That does nothing to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions and does damage to U.S. jobs.
To achieve a global agreement will require our putting maximum
pressure on all countries to join it, so that the emissions of
greenhouse gases can be reduced, not just shifted. Shifting
manufacturing jobs and the production of greenhouses gases from here to
other countries is not a solution to climate change. It would just be
another economic blow to America at a time when our economy is already
losing jobs at an historic and alarming rate.
We have already lost enough American jobs to countries with cheap
labor, no safety standards and no environmental standards. To add more
incentives for companies to move overseas to countries with no limits
on greenhouse gas emissions, as this bill would promote, is not sound
policy. Global climate change is just that: global and it needs to be
dealt with globally, not unilaterally.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, anyone who has picked up a copy of this
legislation and read it has to be forgiven if he or she was soon
reminded of the words of Yogi Berra, ``It's deja vu all over again.''
After all, it is not as if this topic is unfamiliar to us. When the
debate first began on the Kyoto talks, the U.S. Senate made a clear and
direct statement of principle on the subject. We drew a line that was
not to be crossed by the president and his negotiators in their effort
to reach an international climate change agreement. By a vote of 95 to
0 the Senate passed Senate Resolution 98, also known as the Byrd-Hagel
resolution, that sent a clear message to the world that the Senate
would not support any climate change agreement that did not include all
nations equally. We also said we would not support an agreement that
would cause serious harm to our economy.
We crafted our message to the administration to counter the concerns
that had been raised that a global climate change policy could be
imposed on the United States that would ``result in serious harm to the
United States economy, including significant job loss, trade
disadvantages, and increased energy and consumer costs.'' The Senate
was also concerned that efforts to reduce global emissions would be
imposed only on developed nations, where the best emissions controls
and most advances in emissions reductions already exist, and not on
underdeveloped nations where emissions would continue without any
effective controls.
What has changed since then?
Nothing.
We still need the benefits of a strong economy. We still need to
protect American jobs. And we still need to avoid trade deficits and
ensure consumers are not forced to choose between paying their energy
bills and buying food.
We still need to protect American jobs, and global climate change is
still a global issue.
Unfortunately, this reality contradicts the language of the proposal
we are debating today just as surely as it contradicts the message we
sent the administration with the Byrd-Hagel language.
The proposal before us, which is clearly an energy tax, would force
the United States to unilaterally disarm its economy and force American
jobs overseas without providing any environmental benefit. An energy
tax, like the one proposed by Senators Lieberman and McCain would, in
fact, be an environmental nightmare. Any loss of jobs in the United
States would shift production to other parts of the world where there
are no controls over the manufacturing process.
The best way to help the environment around the world is to ensure we
have a strong economy here at home.
If we, as a Senate, really want to stand for improving global
conditions then we should stand behind the principles of Byrd-Hagel and
insist our global climate change policy does not harm America's
workers. If we want to improve global conditions we must insist that
all nations responsible for emitting greenhouse gasses participate and
reduce their own emissions.
Just in case anyone is not clear about what is going on and what this
legislation really does, I want to take a moment and explain how it
would slow down our economy and force jobs out of the country.
To begin with, the bill establishes a requirement for registering all
industrial emissions, and it requires the officials in charge to make
assumptions about the level of total emissions that are due to
transportation.
We can only assume that these assumptions are made for one of two
reasons.
We want to know the transportation emissions level so we can blame
the rest on industry, or, we want to know the transportation emissions
level so we can start to apply limits and regulate family cars. I have
had the opportunity to visit California and noticed a remarkable thing
about this State that has done so much on its own to regulate and
control private vehicles. While the rest of the highway was packed with
cars, the HOV lanes were wide open and very poorly utilized. And yet
this bill does nothing to account for private vehicles which is a major
source of greenhouse gas emissions. I wonder, if this bill was so
serious about

[[Page S13594]]

improving the environment, why would it leave out such a major source
of emissions?
Don't be fooled. If this program is passed then that will be the next
step. Why would we put in place such an ineffective control if we
didn't intend to take it to the next step and regulate private
transportation? We don't want to, they do.
This proposal would hold industry responsible for all other,
nonindustrial or transportation emissions, emissions including human
beings, who breathe out CO<inf>2</inf> on a regular basis, animals,
plants, volcanoes, forest fires, and private homes that burn natural
gas, fuel, coal or wood. Keep in mind that one natural cataclysmic
event, such as a volcanic eruption or a catastrophic wildfire eclipses
anything, by way of emissions, that all of mankind can produce together
on an annual basis.
We also have a situation where our trees that once could have served
as sponges to soak up greenhouse gasses, are now older and absorb less
CO<inf>2</inf>. In fact, because of the age of many of our forests they
are now CO<inf>2</inf> emitters.
The bill also completely neglects the most common and prevalent
greenhouse gas of all. Of all the gasses found in our atmosphere, this
particular gas is the most insidious. It contributes to more
fluctuations in temperature than any other gas. It has the greatest
impact on local and global climate, and it too is emitted by industry
and by numerous natural sources and yet it is not included anywhere in
this bill.
What is this gas? It is water vapor, of course. Why, if we are really
serious about using this legislation to control temperatures and
climate, don't we include water? Because this effort is not about
environmental protection. It is about imposing an energy tax and
controlling the economy.
The next thing the bill does is impose a cap or limit on otherwise
unregulated emissions by industry. Once again, this cap does not take
into account the emissions generated by other sources. The result is
that we would force industry to assume all responsibility and pay for
all emissions, regardless of where they come from. Whether the
emissions came from individuals or nature, we would still hold industry
responsible. There is a new discovery that was recently made in Wyoming
that illustrates the lunacy of holding man responsible for something
that nature releases on its own in an abundance that man never has.
I will read from an AP article that ran in a Wyoming newspaper on
October 27 of this year. ``Scientists measuring mercury levels made a
startling discovery at the base of Roaring Mountain [in Yellowstone
National Park]: possibly the highest levels of mercury ever recorded at
an undisturbed natural area.'' According to their measurements, the
scientists found that Yellowstone is a potentially big source of our
nation's mercury. ``It is conceivable . . . that Yellowstone could emit
as much mercury as all the coal-fired power plants in Wyoming. . . .
`That's not a real estimate but something based on just a few
measurements,' [one of the scientists said] `It could be even bigger
than that, we just don't know.' ''
It would be intellectually dishonest, for us to assume that, given
all of the uncertainty in these issues, that industry will sit back and
quietly assume the cost and burden of emissions reductions without
either passing them on to consumers or finding a way to excuse itself
from the limits altogether. The cost of the tax will either be paid by
consumers who can barely afford their own energy costs today, or we
will force jobs offshore and into areas where there are no limits on
energy consumption and pollution.
There should be no doubt in anyone's mind that this bill is all about
economics, particularly because that's what the entire global warming
debate is about. Kyoto was an economic conference disguised as an
environmental conference.
EU Commissioner for the Environment Margot Wallstrom once said,
``This is not a simple environmental issue where you can say it is an
issue where the scientists are not unanimous. This is about
international relations, this is about economy, about trying to create
a level playing field for big businesses throughout the world. You have
to understand what is at stake and that is why it is serious.''
I had the opportunity to attend the meetings at Kyoto, and while I
was there I met with the Chinese and discussed the role that they
thought they should play in meeting the demands of global climate
change. They, and all other developing nations have no obligation to
participate in any climate change agreement. They don't even agree to
voluntary participation at a future unspecified date. You can't be more
open ended than that. Incidentally, they intend to be a developing
nation forever, even after 2010 when they will be the world's biggest
polluter.
Should we just sell out to the Chinese?
If we were to adjust global emissions and measure them on a per gross
domestic product basis, or in other words, measure the efficiencies and
end product gained for each energy unit consumed, the United States
would come out, once again, as the most efficient and most productive
nation on earth. Europe, on the other hand, come out on the other end
of the spectrum.
Why?
There are a number of factors that contribute to this imbalance but
the biggest reason has to do with the efficiency of the American
worker. We produce more goods using less energy than any other nation
in the history of the world. We are already milking our industrial
output to a point where any additional efficiencies will result in
dramatic increases in costs. We have already made the easy adjustments
and reduced those emissions that are easiest and cheapest to reduce.
The rest of the world is still catching up to us on those respects and
it would be easy and cheap for Europe then to reach some of its targets
and reduce emissions. All they have to do is use some of the technology
we have already invented.

For the United States, however, to make the incremental gains it
needs to make to comply with the limits that this bill would impose
would require us to either assume costs that would be exponentially
greater than those assumed by an other nation, or to push those gains
off onto another sector, more specifically the transportation sector,
and require us to impose costs on consumers and taxpayers that they
clearly cannot afford.
It is a matter of economies of scale and Europe knows it.
The United States is much physically larger than any other nation
that we compete against economically. Europe, as a whole, is much
smaller, much more densely populated and uses much more efficient
transportation. In the United States, we use our trains primarily to
carry manufactured goods, as well as clean burning, low sulfur Wyoming
coal, while Europe's trains, on the other hand, are used almost
exclusively to carry people. It is much more practical for us to fly
from Washington, DC to Los Angeles, CA and arrive in a matter of hours
instead of wasting days on a train. But airplanes burn fuel in great
amounts and with much less efficiency than other forms of
transportation. The logical and most cost efficient controls then are
not to limit emissions on industry but to convert those controls into
limitations on transportation.
I was at the first Kyoto conference, and incidentally, the US was the
only country that thought that conference was an environmental
conference. Everyone else saw it as an economic conference.
You can understand why I am greatly disturbed when I see a cap
proposal like the one put forward in this bill, especially when it
includes calculations on transportation emissions. There is no reason
to pass a bill like this, to create the kinds of agencies and offices
that the bill creates and not expect it to lead to the next step where
its controls over industry emissions-i.e., an energy tax, are converted
into controls over transportation in other words a transportation tax.
Our Nation's massive transportation needs will never go away. Nor
will Europe ever get bigger. As a result of size, then, the energy, or
rather transportation, taxes required by this bill will put the United
States at a tremendous economic disadvantage with regard to its
competitors.
Fortunately, we are not the only ones to recognize this imbalance.
Russia recently joined the United States in rejecting a proposal that
would limit its emissions and put a similar damper

[[Page S13595]]

on its economy. In making a basic cost/benefit analysis, President
Putin's chief economic advisor, Andrei Illarinov declared, ``If we are
to double GDP within the next ten years, this will require an average
economic growth rate of 7.2 percent. No country in the world can double
its GDP with a lower increase in carbon dioxide omissions or with no
increase at all.''
The great baseball philosopher, Yogi Berra, was right. It is deja vu
all over again. These are issues we have considered before and we
already have a clear statement of policy in place in the Byrd-Hagel
resolution that says, in responding to global climate change concerns,
we cannot agree to any proposal that would result in serious harm to
the United States economy. It already says we must work to avoid
significant job loss, trade disadvantages, and increased energy and
consumer costs. It also makes it clear that this is a global issue, one
we can't tackle alone. If we, as a Senate, really want to stand for
improving global conditions then we should stand behind the principles
of Byrd-Hagel and insist our global climate change policy does not harm
America's workers and that all nations responsible for emitting
greenhouse gasses participate in emissions reductions.
This proposal would clearly cause serious harm to our Nation's
economy, cost us American jobs, and result in a tax on our nation's
energy and transportation systems. These taxes would put our nation at
a serious disadvantage with our competitors and do nothing to improve
our environment.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, fellow colleagues, please do not overreact
by the claim that the climate is changing. The climate has always
changed naturally. Thanks in large part to scientific research carried
out in the United States, we know much more about our climate than we
did a mere quarter-century ago. More than anything else, we now know
that climate never has been, and never will be, constant.
When our civilization arose with the flowering of agriculture, some
5,000 years ago, climate scientists tell us the earth was a few degrees
warmer than it is today. At one time, what is now the dry desert
southwest was a much wetter tropical environment. Climate scientists
also tell us that 300 years ago it was a few degrees colder, Europe
suffered through the Plagues, ice skaters graced the Thames River in
London. Mr. President, 150 years ago, when that ``Little Ice Age''
ended, America embarked upon its manifest destiny.
In the last 100 years, the Earth has warmed an additional degree,
American crop yields quintupled, life span doubled, wealth became
democratized beyond the wildest dreams of even the most optimistic. In
that 100 years, our free economy was powered largely by fuels extracted
from the earth. Some of these produce carbon dioxide, which scientists
have known, since 1872, can slightly warm the surface of the earth.
At the same time, our competitive economy forced increased
efficiency. The family car now uses half as much fuel as it once did.
Hybrid automobiles achieve as much as seventy miles to the gallon. All
in all, we produce a dollar's worth of goods and services with 40
percent less energy than we did a mere 30 years ago.
This remarkable change, where the freest society on Earth became the
most capable large economy, did not happen because of massive taxation
in misguided attempts to direct the lives of free people. No, it
happened because people were free--free to buy the most proficient
technology, and, above all, free to invest in corporations who
understand what people want. And one of those desires is abundant
energy, used efficiently. As has been said, over and over, the future
belongs to the efficient.
And what of the warming of the planet? In the blazing summer of 1988,
in this Senate Chamber, NASA first raised the spectre of global warming
caused by carbon dioxide. The alarm was sounded, even as others argued
that the gloom-and-doom forecasts were overwrought and could lead to
disastrous policies.
Fifteen years later, thanks in large part to research fostered by
this body's committees on science, we know that the calm scientific
heads were right.
NASA scientist James Hansen, who first sounded the alarm, now agrees
with those who were once his critics. Writing in the Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, he recently stated that we know how much
the planet will warm in the next 50 years to a very small margin of
error. That amount is precisely the small warming that the calmer heads
had forecast some 15 years earlier.
This same scientist has recently stated that some may have
exaggerated the threat of global warming for political science
purposes. Just last month, he wrote in the online journal ``Natural
Science'': ``Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at
one time, when the public and policymakers were relatively unaware of
the global warming issue.'' Moreover, according to a report issued by
the Global Climate Coalition, mandatory emissions goals could result in
a loss of gross domestic product equal to $300 billion in 2010 alone,
assuming that 2010 emissions are held at 1990 levels.
How many American jobs would be lost as a result? How many companies
will have to close their doors? I would like to read to you, part of a
letter from the Secretary of Commerce, Don Evans, Secretary of Labor,
Elaine Chao, and Acting Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency, Marianne Horinko:

According to an analysis conducted by the independent
Energy Information Administration, S. 139 would cause an
estimated average loss of 460,000 American jobs through 2025.

It goes on to say,

Instead of improving our economic security through economic
growth and job creation, the job losses resulting from S. 139
would place an unacceptable burden on American workers and
the American people.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the entire text of this
letter be printed in the Record immediately following my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. ALLEN. It is not right for any scientist or any other person to
exaggerate for political effect. But even as much has been made of the
vociferous debates before the Senate about past climate change, little
has been said about the remarkable scientific agreement about the
future.
Scientists all agree that human affect on any climate change would
warm the coldest air of winter much more than the heat of the summer.
When Russia's Prime Minister Putin rejected the Kyoto Protocol last
week, he noted that, more than anything else, humans have made Siberia
more habitable, according to Dr. Pat Michaels, State Climatologist at
The University of Virginia.
The most recent consensus of scientists is that the rate of any
warming over a long period of time is very small. And, the slight
warming trend is much lower than the alarmist projections of the United
Nations, or those who may have touted ``extreme scenarios,'' or those
who strive to profit politically from climate change scare tactics.
Then, one may ask, what is to be done? After all, we cannot go on
adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere forever. We won't. If history
is any guide, our technology will continue to evolve toward increased
efficiency, new materials and new propulsion methods in the next 100
years.
In 1800, we were a Nation and world moved by animals and wind on
water. In the next 100 years, the locomotive transformed our economy
and our Nation. In 1900, the automobile had just been invented. In the
next 100 years, transportation and energy fueled the great
democratization of wealth and the spread of culture.
In 1900, 7,000 people died in the Galveston Hurricane. Mr. President,
100 years later a similar storm hit Texas and killed no one, thanks to
advances in meteorology and satellite technology. Could anyone have
imagined this in 1900, as we buried the dead from the largest natural
disaster in American history? Hardly. But this is how a free, creative
world develops if the governments allow ingenuity to thrive to improve
our lives.
What will be the technology of the future? No one can say for
certain. But we all can spur its development by encouraging the
marketplace in the vast, diverse fields of nanotechnology or
aeronautics, for prime examples.
And that is the state of our climate. Climate will continue to
change. That cannot be stopped. But so will technology change, unless
the Government

[[Page S13596]]

chooses to hinder new investment in better materials, fuels and
systems. Fortunately, now sound science, rather than political science,
shows warming is a much slower process than was once feared.
My bottom line is that I cannot countenance the loss of tens of
thousands of American jobs based upon the scientific factual evidence
surrounding this measure.

Exhibit 1

October 28, 2003.
Hon. Bill Frist,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Frist: We are writing to state our serious
concerns about S. 139, ``The Climate Stewardship Act of
2003,'' and to strongly urge that you vote against this bill
to avoid the significant job losses and economic harm that it
would inflict on our economy, without necessarily achieving
any reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions.
According to an analysis conducted by the independent
Energy Information Administration (EIA), S. 139 would cause
an estimated average loss of 460,000 American jobs through
2025, with estimated job losses reaching 600,000 by 2012.
Instead of improving our economic security through economic
growth and job creation, the job losses resulting from S. 139
would place an unacceptable burden on American workers and
the American people. EIA's analysis further reveals the
higher energy costs the legislation would impose on American
energy consumers: once fully implemented, S. 139 would
require a 40 cent per gallon increase in gasoline prices and
cause nearly a 50% increase in natural gas and electricity
bills.
As a result of these higher energy costs, EIA projects a
net loss of $507 billion (1996 dollars) in Gross Domestic
Product over the next two decades. These higher energy costs
and reduced economic growth would likely lead American
businesses to move overseas, taking jobs with them. As a
result, S. 139 may actually lead to an increase in global
greenhouse gas emissions as companies formerly in the U.S.
move their operations (and emissions) overseas to countries
that do not require similar emissions reductions. To
compensate for the economic dislocation that S. 139 would
cause, the legislation establishes a ``Climate Change Credit
Corporation'' for ``transition assistance to dislocated
workers and communities.'' However, we believe that the
Senate should instead reject this legislation and avoid
inflicting the harm that would create the need for such
``transition assistance'' in the first place.
President Bush has committed the U.S. to an ambitious and
comprehensive strategy to address the issue of global climate
change. It is based on the recognition that only a growing
American economy can make possible the sustained investments
in energy and carbon sequestration technologies needed to
reduce the projected long-term growth in global greenhouse
gas emissions. Because of its negative impacts on jobs and
economic growth, we call upon the Senate to reject S. 139 as
a misguided means of achieving our international
environmental goals.
Donald L. Evans,
Secretary of Commerce.
Elaine L. Chao,
Secretary of Labor.
Marianne Horinko,
Acting Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, to draw to conclusion this debate, let me
repeat a couple of things we did last night. I will briefly address the
science issue. I know there are people out there thinking the science
is settled. The science is not settled. Last night I went into detail
and I will repeat a couple of significant points.
First, Frederick Seitz, the past president of the National Academy of
Sciences, compiled the Oregon petition which had 17,800 independently
verified signatures--most of those holding degrees of Ph.D. They came
to this conclusion: There is no convincing scientific evidence that the
human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gasses is
causing or will in the foreseeable future cause catastrophic heating of
the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate.
Again, the Heidelberg Appeal, over 4,000 scientists, 70 of whom are
Nobel Prize winners, signed this Heidelberg Appeal that says there is
no compelling evidence that is existing today to justify controls of
anthropogenic--man made--greenhouse gas emissions.
Dr. Richard Lindzen, MIT scientist and member of the National Academy
of Sciences, said--and I don't think anyone would question his
credentials--said there is a definite disconnect between Kyoto and
science. Should a catastrophic scenario prove correct, Kyoto would not
prevent it.
Lastly, the Harvard-Smithsonian study, the most exhaustive study out
there, 240 peer-reviewed papers published by thousands of researchers
over the last four decades, says the science is flawed. It is important
people realize that is the situation.
Probably the most significant item we should have been talking about
all the time instead of this science--since it is a fact now, I think
people understand there are scientists on both sides of this issue--is
what is the effect.
Last night we had a chance to talk about the National Black Chamber
of Commerce and the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, how it would
disproportionately hurt them in losing jobs. A study that no one has
challenged concluded that Kyoto would cost 511,000 jobs of Hispanic
workers and 864,000 jobs held by Black workers. Is this something we
all understand?
My chart is revealing if Members need statistics for their own State.
The State of Illinois is losing 159,000 jobs; the State of Indiana
loses 194,000. This is a study done by Penn State University.
The other significant point is that we are voting on an amendment.
This amendment is somewhat pared down. Everyone realizes that this
amendment, as has been stated many times by the distinguished Senator
from Connecticut as well as the Senator from Arizona, is just a first
step. So everyone has to look at this. This is the Kyoto Treaty. It
needs to be looked at in that respect.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I yield to Senator McCain the remaining
2 minutes.
Mr. McCAIN. I thank my friend. Since I will not speak again, I thank
the Senator from Oklahoma for engaging in a spirited and, I hope,
informative debate. I thank, of course, my friend from Connecticut,
Senator Lieberman.
Briefly, as to this petition that keeps being referred to--the
petition was led by Frederick Seitz, former president of the National
Academy of Sciences--an article in the New York Times on April 22,
1998, entitled ``Science Academy Disputes Attack On Global Warms,''
states:

The National Academy of Sciences has disassociated itself
from a statement and petition circulated by one of its former
presidents which disagrees with the scientific conclusions
underlying international efforts to control greenhouse gas
emissions.

By the way, Virginia Spice of the Spice Girls, BJ Hunnicutt of
``Mash,'' and Perry Mason were among the signatories to that. They are
all respected in their individual fields.

I do not believe that 10 States in the Northeast would agree to a
proposal that this is exactly modeled on, if there was going to be some
devastating effect on the economies of 10 Northeastern States.
Let's get real. This is a very minimal proposal, one that is a first
step. I agree with the Senator from Oklahoma because it does not begin
to comprehensively address the problem, but we have to start somewhere.
We have to start somewhere. We have to begin to address this issue.
This debate is important. I assure my colleagues, we will be back
because those pictures that I showed are going to get worse and worse
until we begin to address this issue.
I thank my colleagues and yield the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I inquire as to how much time is remaining
on both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two minutes thirty seconds for the Senator
from Oklahoma. The Senator from Connecticut has 3 minutes 45 seconds.
Mr. INHOFE. All right. I say to the Senator from Connecticut, if it
is your wish, I will be very glad to defer to you to conclude debate on
this matter.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. No thank you.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, let me get back to something the Senator
from Arizona said. He is not on the floor now. He mentioned some of the
signatures were not verified. They keep using this same argument, which
has been refuted over and over again. The Perry Mason he refers to
happens to be a Ph.D. chemist. It is documented. Again, we are talking
about some 17,000 scientists there. There are 4,000 scientists on the
Heidelberg Petition.

[[Page S13597]]

Of course, Richard Lindzen, I don't think anyone is going to question
his credibility. These studies--particularly the Harvard-Smithsonian
study--is a very significant one.
I think the debate has been good. I do not question it when the
Senator from Arizona--who I respect immensely--says we will be back. I
am hoping it will be necessary to come back because I am hoping we will
defeat this amendment. But it is very significant.
Lastly, let me mention I do not know how so many of these groups
could be wrong. We have almost every union in the country--the
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, the United Mine Workers, the United Steel
Workers. We have all these jobs shown up here, some 3.6 million jobs,
that would be lost. This analysis was done by a credible organization,
Penn State University.

I cannot imagine that any Member of this Senate would come up here
and look at this chart and not realize that here we are--we have been
going through a recession that began in March of 2000, and we are now
pulling out of this recession. The jobs are looking good right now. For
something such as this to pass would push us right back in a
devastating position.
So when you look at what we are talking about today, we are talking
about something that would pass in America and that would not have
anything to do with Mexico, anything to do with China, anything to do
with India. I can assure you, right now people from those countries are
sitting back with their fingers crossed, hoping this passes, because
this would be the biggest jobs bill for Mexico and India and the other
developing nations that we could pass.
I say to Senator Lieberman, thank you very much for the spirited
debate, as I also thank the Senator from Arizona.
Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time, if there is any.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. You have 1 second.
Mr. INHOFE. I reserve that.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma as
well. It has been a spirited debate. It has been an important and
historic debate, but it is the first, I would guess, of many on this
critical subject.
I must say, it has been a disappointing debate in one regard for me;
that is, we are still disagreeing about whether global warming is a
problem. The fact is, the overwhelming evidence, upheld by scientists
around the world and in America--the National Academy of Sciences, et
cetera--says that the planet is warming, and it is happening because of
human activity.
You cannot look at this picture, a satellite picture--seeing the
reduction of the white part from where it was; and the red lines show
what it was in 1979, 24 years ago--and not say it is real.
Senator Akaka from Hawaii told us last night that the sea level is
rising around Hawaii. Senator Snowe of Maine told us that the sugar
maples are dying because it is getting warmer. I myself reported on a
story from Inupiat Indians in Alaska saying they had seen robins for
the first time in their village because it is getting warmer.
This is real. I wish we could agree on the reality and then argue
about what we should do about it. As I hear the science--so-called--
cited on the other side, I want to predict, respectfully, that we are
going to look back at those scientific testaments and put them in the
same category as the scientific studies that were introduced by the
tobacco industry years ago, saying that tobacco did not harm health or
cause cancer, or the studies that were introduced by the chemical
industry that said chlorofluorocarbons did not put a hole in the ozone
layer, all of which we know now were just plain bunk. I am afraid that
is the way we are going to look back at this evidence offered in this
debate.
Secondly, a lot of the argument about the impact of our proposal on
costs and cost of living and jobs is not related to our proposal. It is
about the Kyoto protocol. It is about earlier legislation. It is not
about the McCain-Lieberman amendment before the Senate for a vote.
The one study on our amendment, the MIT independent study, says, in
fact, costs will go down in the energy field, that the average cost per
household will be $20 a year--well worth what we are going to get in
return for a safer, better life for our children and grandchildren.
They say there is no job loss that can be expected. In fact, a lot of
major entrepreneurs and investors--and I put a letter in the Record to
Senator Snowe from 60 leading entrepreneurs from Silicon Valley, who
say our amendment will create hundreds of thousands of jobs. I ask
unanimous consent that letter be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Silver Lake Partners,

Menlo Park, CA, October 17, 2004.
Senator Olympia Snowe,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Snowe; I am pleased to enclose a letter from
60 Silicon Valley business leaders concerned about the
growing threat of global warming. This group comprises CEOs
and successful entrepreneurs, distinguished engineers,
scientists, and investors. Together, we manage companies with
total revenues of $70 billion and over 300,000 employees
around the world. Our firms have an aggregate market value of
over $160 billion. The venture capitalists and private equity
investors among us, primarily focused on commercializing new
technology, manage over $44 billion in risk capital.
Operating at the core of our modern economy, we recognize
the role science and industry play in keeping our country
vital. While we are Democrats, Republicans and Independents
with often contrasting political views, we share a deep
concern about the specter of global warming and potentially
devastating effects of climate change. We urge you to take
appropriate measures to address this critically important
issue.
Thank you for your consideration.
Kind regards,
David Roux,
Managing Director.
____

Open Letter From Business Leaders,

October 17, 2003.
Senator Olympia Snowe,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Snowe: We are business leaders and scientists
alarmed by the reality of global warming.
Schooled in science and innovation, we recognize that the
risks and complexities of climate change are significant, but
strongly believe that drive and ingenuity can manage those
risks and solve those complexities. While any response that
is sufficient to avert dangerous climate change will be long
term, the nature of the problem requires action now. The
required response--global and domestic--must be equitable and
support economic growth based on free market principles.
As entrepreneurs who co-exist with government policies, we
know that truly effective policies set clear goals and leave
businesses free to decide how to meet those goals at lowest
cost. We trust any policies you propose have serious
environmental goals and encourage the prudent use of market
forces to achieve them.
Policies employing strict goals and flexible means unleash
the power of competition and spur innovation to protect the
environment. A healthy economy and a healthy environment go
hand in hand. American business has the ingenuity to solve
the problem of global warming while continuing to prosper.
Indeed, businesses that find ways to lead in solving this
problem will prosper even more.
While there is still debate about the levels of greenhouse
gas reductions necessary to stabilize the climate and protect
the United States economy, several things are clear:
Reductions must begin immediately;
Voluntary efforts alone won't do the job; and
Any mandatory restrictions must employ market incentives.
We congratulate you for recognizing these needs and for
your efforts to see that the Senate addresses them.
Sincerely,
Business Leaders Taking Action
on Climate Change.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, this is a call to responsibility. It is
a call to leadership.
I remember last year, as we were coming close to the vote on the Iraq
resolution, I met with a group of officials from the administration and
Congress--members of both parties--with the Minister of Defense from an
allied government. Somebody from the administration said: How can we
get the Europeans to support us more on the potential of a war against
Saddam?
The European Minister said: Get the administration to do something
about global warming.
This inaction, lack of leadership, debunking by the administration of
the problem, failure to accept responsibility is part of the reason we
are so deeply divided from some of our closest allies.
Senator McCain and I and our cosponsors on both sides of the aisle
have

[[Page S13598]]

put ourselves on a course. History calls us to action. We will not
leave this course until the day--may it come sooner than later--when we
adopt this amendment or something very much like it.
I thank the Chair. I thank my colleagues and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
Mr. INHOFE. I believe, Mr. President, I have 1 second remaining.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, in my last second, I ask unanimous consent
that the list of labor unions, agricultural organizations, and other
organizations opposing S. 139 be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the materials was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

What Do All These Groups Agree On? Lieberman-McCain is Bad for America

The 60 Plus Association, Aluminum Association, American
Association of Port Authorities, American Bakers Association,
American Boiler Manufacturers Association, American Chemistry
Council, American Health Care Association, American Highway
Users Alliance, American Iron and Steel Institute, American
Public Power Association, American Road and Transportation
Builders Association, American Sheep Industry Association,
American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association,
American Trucking Association, American Waterways Operators,
Americans for Tax Reform, Association of Equipment
Manufacturers, Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers,
Brotherhood of Railroad Signalman, Center for Energy and
Economic Development, Council of Industrial Boiler Owners,
Edison Electric Institute, Federation of American Hospitals,
Frontiers of Freedom, General Mills, Goodman Manufacturing
Corporation, Institute of Makers of Explosives, Intermodal
Association of North America, International Brotherhood of
Boilermakers, International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, International Dairy Foods Association, Motor Freight
Carriers Association, National Association of Manufacturers,
National Association of Wheat Growers, National Cattleman's
Beef Association, National Food Processors Association,
National Grange, National Mining Association, National
Restaurant Association, National Retail Federation, National
Rural Electric Cooperative Association, National Waterways
Conference, Inc., Portland Cement Association, Railway Supply
Institute, The Salt Institute, The Seniors Coalition, Small
Business Survival Committee, Snack Food Association, US
Chamber of Commerce, United Mine Workers of America, United
Seniors Association, United Transportation Union.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, thank you very much.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have not spoken to the two managers, but I
feel confident it would be OK with them. This is not in the form of a
unanimous consent request.
Following the vote, Senator Boxer wishes to speak for 10 minutes.
Following that, Senator Bingaman is ready to offer his amendment. He
will take a limited period of time. Following that, Senator Leahy has
an amendment. He has asked for 30 minutes.
So that is just general information we are going to try to move on as
quickly as possible on the Healthy Forests matter.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Lieberman-
McCain amendment.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second. The clerk will call the
roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Edwards) is necessarily absent.
I also announce that the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Nelson) is
attending a family funeral.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Nebraska (Mr. Nelson) would vote ``nay.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bunning). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 43, nays 55, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 420 Leg.]

YEAS--43

Akaka
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Clinton
Collins
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham (FL)
Gregg
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Lieberman
Lugar
McCain
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Snowe
Stabenow
Wyden

NAYS--55

Alexander
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bennett
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chambliss
Cochran
Coleman
Conrad
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Ensign
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham (SC)
Grassley
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kyl
Landrieu
Levin
Lincoln
Lott
McConnell
Miller
Murkowski
Nickles
Pryor
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Specter
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Voinovich
Warner

NOT VOTING--2

Edwards
Nelson (NE)

The amendment (No. 2028) was rejected.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent request. We
have just voted on the amendment. I ask unanimous consent that the
underlying bill be referred back to the Committee on Environment and
Public Works.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, after extensive consideration of the
views of many constituents who have contacted me on this very important
bill, I decided to vote against it because of the open questions on the
impact on climate and the consequences for the national and State
economies, which are very fragile at the moment.
It is always a difficult matter to balance environmental protection
and the need for economic development and jobs. I believe that global
warming is a matter of great international importance and the 43 votes
in favor of this bill puts the administration and others on notice that
there is considerable sentiment for stronger action to address this
problem.
I have voted for environmental protection for renewable energy and
conservation measures, and I have initiated legislation to limit the
amount of oil which will be consumed at various intervals in the
future.
As a Pennsylvania Senator, I have a particular interest in the
continued use of coal, our Nation's most abundant energy supply,
especially in the context of the billions of tons of bituminous coal in
the western part of Pennsylvania and anthracite coal in the eastern
part of Pennsylvania. This bill would have a serious impact on our
steel industry, our chemical industry, and manufacturing.
In this context, it is very difficult to adopt a limit by the year
2010 since we cannot predict at this time what the situation will be
with our national and State economies.
In addition, it is very difficult to limit industry in the United
States when we do not have a plan for the rest of the world in curbing
green house gas emissions. That would have a harmful effect on the
competitiveness of the United States. An international plan is
necessary. Unilateral action by the United States would not solve the
problem. I have, with other Senators, urged the President to work
through international means to address global climate change. I support
his efforts and those of the individual companies to curb voluntarily
domestic emissions, but it is likely that stronger action will have to
be taken in the future on a multilateral basis.
These questions remain: What would the reductions under this
legislation do to climate change? What are the anticipated costs? Who
would pay the costs? What are particularly vulnerable industries that
could not, for instance, pass on any increased energy costs? What is
the expected impact on fuel supply and demand, particularly with regard
to fuel-switching and natural gas prices? What will happen to economic
growth and overall competitiveness in a global economy if only U.S.
emissions are reduced?

[[Page S13599]]

While I was unable to support this particular bill, I believe it will
give impetus to action to deal with global warming. I look forward to
working with my colleagues in the Senate on this important issue in the
hopes of finding common ground and a sensible balance between the goals
of environmental protection and economic development. I encourage
supporters and opponents of this bill to consider the concerns of each
other and work in earnest to bridge the many differences in support of
the common good.
Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, although I am extremely concerned about
global warming, I voted in opposition to Senator McCain and Senator
Lieberman's Climate Stewardship Act. My chief concern was that this
bill would raise gas and electric prices at a time when Arkansas'
economy is struggling to recover and many residents from my state are
finding it difficult to make ends meet.
I firmly believe that we have a responsibility to seek a solution to
global warming. But at this time, when our economy is struggling and
our federal deficit is at record levels, I can not support a measure
which in all likelihood will result in higher energy prices for
consumers in Arkansas and a loss of jobs in my state. If the United
States stands alone on this issue, I fear other countries will be able
to take businesses away from our country with the lure of weaker
environmental regulations. A comprehensive global solution must be
developed that includes all nations. I do believe we must continue to
work toward initiatives to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and
encourage cleaner sources of energy, such as the numerous biodiesel
measures I have fought to include in the Energy bill.
I would like to take this opportunity to voice my opposition to the
Bush administration's view on this subject. The indifferent and callous
approach taken to global climate change sent a message to the world
that this issue is not a priority. President Bush has stated that
compelling evidence of global warming does not exist. I disagree. It is
time for the administration to change its policy. It is only through
cooperation with the global community that we can see these warming
trends reversed. I applaud the efforts of Senators McCain and Lieberman
in bringing this bill before the Senate when few committee chairmen
showed interest in it. While I was not able to support them today for
the reasons I have stated, I am eager to work with them in the future
to find a solution to this important issue.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to
explain why I had to oppose the McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship
Act.
First, let me say that my vote does not reflect a change my belief
that global climate change is a serious problem, perhaps one of the
most serious long-term environmental and public health problems facing
the world over the next century. I am deeply disappointed that this
administration has decided not to actively engage the world on this
issue and has in fact disengaged itself from the world on global
climate change. I echo the concerns of the distinguished Senator from
West Virginia, Senator Byrd, that the administration's approach is
short-sighted, and that it is no longer constructive to argue that
human-caused emissions are not contributing to the warming of the
earth. The science is just too strong to believe otherwise.
The administration's approach is frustrating because engaging the
world particularly the developing world--is the only way we will ever
get a handle on rising greenhouse gas emissions. Small reductions in
emissions made by the U.S. will be meaningless if those reductions are
made unilaterally. We must have assurances that the world is moving
hand in hand with us--and is making similar sacrifices--before we
handicap our own economy.
This will take time, but solving the problem of global warming is a
life-time endeavor by any estimate, for our generation, and the next.
Part of this effort will include massive investments in new energy
technologies, in renewables, in alternative energy, in hybrid cars and
fuel cells, and in making our economy and the world's economy more
energy efficient. It will likely, if and when the United States takes
the leadership roll on this issue that it should, involve mandatory
greenhouse gas reductions by all nations.
I would like to compliment Senators McCain and Lieberman for working
so hard on this proposal, and for attempting to find a balanced
solution. If we had more time, and more attention from the
administration, I am confident that we could work together on a common
sense bill that would achieve meaningful reductions in U.S. greenhouse
gas emissions without threatening the U.S. economy or our global
competitiveness. Such a bill would hopefully complement a meaningful
and real global consensus on how to address human-caused climate
change.
I voted against McCain-Lieberman today because I don't think the
country is ready to take the steps outlined in their bill and because I
was concerned about the impacts on my state, particularly agriculture,
from increased natural gas prices. But I agree that we must move
forward aggressively to put the United States and the world on track to
significantly reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. It will only get
harder the longer we continue to ignore the problem.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleagues, Senators
McCain and Lieberman, for all their hard work on S. 139, the Climate
Stewardship Act, and express my full support for this legislation.
Unfortunately, this bill did not pass the Senate. This bipartisan
legislation would have been a meaningful step in the right direction
toward reducing our Nation's greenhouse gas emissions and would have
helped address the problem of global warming.
There is no question that climate change is one of the most serious
environmental challenges facing this nation and the world. We know that
climate change is real. The overwhelming weight of scientific opinion
supports the idea that climate change is occurring, that it is human-
induced, that it will have significant and harmful consequences, and
that we need to do something about it.
California has a great deal to lose if we do not take steps to halt
and reverse climate change. My State enjoys tremendous ecological
diversity ranging from our cool and wet redwood forests of the North
Coast, to the hot Mojave and Colorado deserts in the southeast, to the
vast fertile agricultural stretches in the Central Valley. Climate
change is a very real threat to those natural ecosystems.
Scientific predictions indicate that human-induced global warming may
produce a 3- to 10-degree rise in temperature over the next 97 years.
That may not initially sound dramatic. But it would be enough to change
the timing and amount of precipitation in my State. This could, for
instance, lead to decreased summer stream flows, which would intensify
the already significant controversy over the allocation of water for
urban, agricultural and environmental needs.
Scientists also predict that by the year 2050, California will face
higher average temperatures every month of the year in every part of
the State. The average temperature in June in the Sierra Nevada
Mountains, for instance, could increase by 11 degrees Fahrenheit. The
snowpack in the Sierra, which is a vital source of water in the State,
is expected to drop by 13 feet and to have melted entirely nearly 2
months earlier than it does now. This means that the precious water on
which we now rely for agriculture, drinking water, and other purposes.
In light of the threat global warming poses to my State, the Nation,
and the world, I believe we must take steps to reduce our greenhouse
gas emissions.
The Climate Stewardship Act would have required companies in the
energy, transportation and manufacturing sectors to reduce their
greenhouse gas emissions to 2000 levels by 2010. The bill would have
provided tax incentives for the development of energy-efficient
technology. The Climate Stewardship Act would have also encouraged the
use of environmentally-friendly manufacturing technology.
This bill would have provided a reasonable approach to help us
achieve the goal of reducing greenhouse gases and addressing global
warming. I am extremely disappointed that the Senate did not pass this
legislation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.

[[Page S13600]]

Mr. REID. Mr. President, what is the regular order?

____________________