Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, in order to continue with this tripartisan legislation which is agreed to by an Independent, Republican, and a Democrat, which will save the planet from the ravages of carbon pollution and global warming and make us energy independent, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the bill be dispensed with.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I was hoping that I could engage my friend the majority leader as the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee. He has entrusted me, and my colleagues have, and I do not think we should leave here without me asking you a couple of questions because I think people who were watching this debate were very confused. I wanted to make sure I ask a series of questions to my friend, and then we will all go home because it is time to go home. We expected to have a robust debate on the global warming bill and finally get this country off of fossil fuel, off of foreign oil, off of big oil. And we found that although my understanding was the majority leader had no idea about this, the Republican side, of course, forced the clerks to read the amendment, which took us 6 to 7 hours or so and took us all the way into the night; is that correct?

Mrs. BOXER. Isn't it true that as a result of these dilatory tactics and slowing us down and making us waste 30 hours to proceed, to get to a motion to proceed and then doing all this, isn't it true it puts us into a terrible bind here? We know the days have to be filled with legislative work. They have stopped work to fight for the status quo. They have stopped us in our tracks on this issue. I guess what I would like to say, yes, we will go to a vote. Because the Republicans don't seem--there is a few of them over there who help us, but most of them won't help us. We may not be able to move forward on this bill. At this late time of night, I ask the majority leader to comment, and that will be the end of my questions, I know there are a lot of people out there who are still up and watching, believe me, especially a lot of people in your home State and my home State. They understand this. They understand what is happening. Eighty-nine percent of the people polled said: Do something about global warming. The faith-based groups want it. The scientists are telling us this is right. Tomorrow or I should say later today, we will have an amazing press conference with John Warner, myself and others, with former military people testifying to the fact that global warming is one of the looming threats to our national security. Still, the other side would stop us from getting to energy independence, stopping us from getting off foreign oil, stopping us from getting off big oil and using these ludicrous arguments about gas prices when, under George Bush's watch and their watch, gas prices went up 250 percent in 7 years and, in less than 1 year, 82 cents. It is ridiculous. I hope the people hearing us tonight will pick up their phones and call their Senators first thing in the later hours of the morning and tell them to vote yes to allow this debate to move forward. I thank my leaders, my majority leader and the assistant majority leader, for their courage in scheduling this, for standing up for the American people, and for doing everything they could to get us to a full debate. If we don't have it now, we will have it when we have a President in the White House--and you know where I come down on that one--who is going to send over a bill here, and we will get started on this work and get it done. I guess, because I have to ask the question, I will ask you, my friend, if you look forward to that day.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I will reiterate it. It is that Senator Corker finish his 3\1/2\ minutes and do a colloquy back and forth with Senator Kerry; that immediately following that, I have some time to make some unanimous consent requests and have a minute to comment on what has transpired, and that be followed with 2 minutes for Senator Warner. So far we are 3 minutes delaying Senator Specter. Senator Domenici said he did want some time, or did not?

Mrs. BOXER. Yes.

Mrs. BOXER. And Senator Warner has 2 minutes.

Mrs. BOXER. Followed by Senator Kerry.

Mrs. BOXER. I thought you said it was OK.

Mrs. BOXER. I wish to have 2 minutes to do unanimous consent requests before my friend starts. I know Senator Warner wishes 2 minutes. The remaining time would be between the Senator from Tennessee and the Senator from Connecticut.

Mrs. BOXER. Yes, that is exactly what I said.

Mrs. BOXER. Happy to do that. And, Senator, I will add a Democrat before you, and you will be the next Republican after Senator Craig, for 15 minutes.

Mrs. BOXER. That is fine.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, to remind the first few speakers, what we have is Boxer for 20 minutes, and I plan to yield 5 of those minutes to Senator Durbin, then a rebuttal by Senator Inhofe or his designee, then Senator Inhofe for 30 minutes, then a rebuttal by our side, then Senator Kerry for 30 minutes. I have found this debate so far to be very interesting and very heartfelt. What I would like to do before I yield a few minutes of my time to Senator Durbin is kind of take it to where it has gone thus far. So far we have had a vote to proceed to this matter, a very strong vote to do that, 74 votes yes. That is good. What isn't so great is, we are kind of being slow-walked by the Republican leadership in such a way that we can't start the amendment process which, as we all know, is crucial on a bill of this nature. So that is disappointing. I think the debate has been very interesting, and I would like to relate where I think it is at this point. Those of us who believe the Boxer-Lieberman-Warner proposal makes sense believe it is time to change the status quo as it relates to our energy policy in this country. What we have now with our dependence on fossil fuels is an energy policy which is now getting very costly because of increased demand in the world, because of speculation, because of a lot of reasons, and it is also polluting the planet to the point where we see the global warming impacts already starting. My colleague, Senator Feinstein, was brilliant today, both at a press conference and on the floor, in talking about what is already happening in the West with our snow pack, with lakes that are disappearing, with the problems we are having. We know, if we listen to the scientists-- and the scientists are in agreement, and I am glad that my colleagues on the other side are not debating whether global warming is happening; they have, it seems to me, accepted that fact--that we have a choice. Either we continue what we are doing today with the same kind of energy sources we have, with the buildup of greenhouse gas emissions and carbon pollution or we move forward and say: How can we tackle this issue in a way that saves the planet, saves the species? By the way, 40 percent of God's creatures may be extinct if we don't act. How are we going to do this in such a way that our grandchildren and their children don't face a disastrous situation where the planet becomes inhospitable. We have the numbers, how many thousands more people will die of heat stroke. We have the numbers, and the numbers come from the Bush administration. So how do we do this in a way that saves the planet, cuts down on pollution and, by the way, gives us alternatives to energy we now have which, in the long run, will be cheaper, more reliable, and make us completely energy independent? I believe what our bill does is achieve those goals. We fight global warming. At the same time, we bring about an economic renaissance from investments in new technologies that will make us energy independent. To me, it is a pretty stark choice. Either you are for the status quo and you are going to find an excuse not to be for this bill or you are going to take a look at this bill, which is a tripartisan bill--a Democrat, an independent, a Republican bringing it to the Senate-- reflective of America, reflective of the span of our views in this Nation. The one thing I hear--again, it must be out of some talking point somebody wrote over there on the other side--is gas prices. Don't do this bill because of gas prices. I am going to show you what has happened to gas prices without this bill. I want you to look at this. This is what has happened under George Bush's watch. We have seen gas prices go all the way up to $3.94 from $1.50, and that, in 7\1/2\ years, is a 250-percent increase. That is what our people are upset about. My colleagues on the other side know this. They have done nothing about this. I am going to ask my assistant majority leader to talk about this. How many times we have begged them, do something about big oil. Return the money to the people. Investigate what is happening with speculation. No, they won't do anything. But what they are saying is, and what the Bush administration is saying is, if you pass this bill, this Climate Security Act, gas prices are going to go up. Folks, they are going to go down. Worst case scenario that the President picked up, they will go up 2 cents a year. That is the worst case scenario. But that is going to be offset by the fuel economy bill that the President himself signed. I am looking at Senator Carper, the Presiding Officer. He worked hard on that, with Senator Feinstein, Senator Inouye, and Senator Kerry, those of us on the Commerce Committee. That will be offset. The truth is, the stark truth is, you pass this bill, we are going to see a reduction in gas prices. We are going to have alternatives, and we are going to see jobs created. We are going to see new companies starting. We are going to see the genius of America take hold if only we have the courage--not to come on this floor and make a bogus argument about an issue they did nothing about, but if we have a real debate on what this bill means. So at this time, I reserve the remainder of my time. Mr. President, how much time do I have?

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes of those 13 minutes to the Senator from Illinois.

Mrs. BOXER. I did.

Mrs. BOXER. I understand Senator Whitehouse tried to reclaim his time, and he was not allowed to do it. Was he at the end of the day? It took a new consent agreement. Do we wish to now have a new consent agreement that people can do half their time and reclaim their time later? Is that something, I say to Senator Alexander, he wants to do? I don't mind it at all. I would like to have it in the agreement.

Mrs. BOXER. Why don't we formalize it?

Mrs. BOXER. As long as they use it immediately after the rebuttal, and does that mean you get another rebuttal? That is why this is a problem. The whole notion was for rebuttal after the individual finished speaking. If somebody withholds, it is very complicated.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. BOXER. I would like to keep it the way it is but make an exception now for Senator Enzi because I feel like he didn't know that rule. I would like to keep it the way it is and not be able to yield back time. You have your time, we have the rebuttal, we move on. I object to changing it, except in this circumstance, allowing Senator Enzi to have that 3 minutes.

Mrs. BOXER. Excuse me, if Senator Corker objects----

Mrs. BOXER. I am going to amend that.

Mrs. BOXER. Then he cannot speak.

Mrs. BOXER. That is not the order.