Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. And lastly, is it not true that we have a deficit reduction trust fund of about a trillion dollars as well?

Mrs. BOXER. I wish to make that point because I resent the Senator from Tennessee saying our bill is a slush fund.

Mrs. BOXER. He is asking unanimous consent.

Mrs. BOXER. Yes.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I know there is rebuttal time now. I intend only to speak for a short period of time.

Mrs. BOXER. I will yield 3 minutes of the rebuttal time to Senator Warner.

Mrs. BOXER. I object.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, before my friend leaves the floor, I thank him for a meeting in his office where he gave me this great idea. As a result of that meeting, I say to Senator Gregg, we took another look at the bill. Half of the bill is going back to consumers. Actually, a third of that--there are three pies: $800 billion goes into a tax cut. Senator Inhofe said it is not specific. We did it as far as we could. We know it is a fund for tax cuts. There is $900 billion for a deficit reduction trust fund, and $900 billion goes into a fund so that utilities can help our consumers. I thank him for that contribution. When my friend came before the committee, I was so hopeful he would join with us because Senator Gregg made a beautiful statement. He said: States alone can't solve the problem. I believe Congress must take action to limit the emissions of greenhouse gases from a variety of sources. He talked about mandatory limits on greenhouse gases. I honestly thought this bill we worked on would be something my friend could support. I will say, to talk about a consumption tax, you can make up anything and call it what you will. There is no consumption tax in this bill. This bill is modeled on the acid rain bill. The acid rain bill works the same way--cap and trade. No one ever called that a consumption tax.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I will just take a couple of minutes of rebuttal time. Of course, one of the purposes of our bill, in fighting global warming, is to save our environment. That is the whole point of the bill, and part of our precious environment certainly includes our forests. We actually do have a forest title in the bill. So I am looking forward to seeing my friend's amendment. I hope it works well with our bill. We know, as the climate warms, our trees are now open to all kinds of pests that didn't really thrive in a cooler climate. If you look, for example, in Alaska--and, of course, we have this in California too--the bark beetle is thriving now because of warmer temperatures. So I certainly look forward to working with my friend on forests. I am looking at the Presiding Officer sitting there now, and he and I are working on saving the rain forest. And I say to Senator Craig, he is absolutely right about the forests being a carbon sink, and that is why Senator Pryor and others are working very hard to save the rain forest. This is all part of what we do in this bill. So it is a little shocking for me to hear a colleague stand and say this bill doesn't do anything about forests, when the main purpose of this bill is to preserve and protect God's planet, and that includes our beautiful forests. The Senator is right. I have been to those fires as they were raging and I have talked to those people and we have to do everything we can to be smart about protecting our lands. I also want to address Senator Craig's point about India and China. He jokingly, I guess, said you should call it--I think he said the China-India----

Mrs. BOXER.--Economic stimulus blah blah. Ridiculous. Because the bottom line is, when anyone stands up and says India and China, it is because they do not want to do anything about global warming. They are code words. These are turned into code words, and what I want to say is, how far have we fallen as a nation when we sit back and wait for India and China to lead us on an issue as important as this? This is our turn. I mean, we are going to hear in a minute from Senator Sanders, who is going to come at this and say this bill doesn't do nearly enough. Unfortunately, Senator Sanders, we have people here who think this bill does way too much, and they are fighting us every step of the way, which is very difficult for those of us who believe this is our challenge, this is our time, these are our grandchildren we have to protect, and this is our planet we have to protect. So I want you to listen for a few key words in this debate. We will hear them more--India, China. When somebody says that, say: Senator, are you suggesting that America not lead and we turn over our leadership to those countries? That is wrong. America doesn't cower in the corner waiting for other nations to take on the great issues of the day. It is ridiculous. That is why our States, our Governors, our mayors, our conference of mayors support this bill. They are moving while the National Government is stuck in neutral. Finally, we are moving. We are moving forward. We don't know how far we will get, but we are going to take this bill as far as we can. So keep your ear out for the words ``India'' and ``China,'' and ``gas price increases,'' which really is ironic since my friends on the other side of the aisle have done nothing but vote against us when we tried to push back against those super high prices--a 250-percent increase since George Bush came into office, and all he could do was go beg for oil from the Saudi prince. It is a pretty sad state of affairs. So now I am done with my rebuttal, and I know Senator Sanders has been waiting and I look forward to his remarks.

Mrs. BOXER. Well, since my colleague said that, we have $1 billion in the bill for forestry every year, so we will show it to the Senator.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, in my rebuttal, I say to my good friend from Oklahoma that I truly believe one of the reasons his party is in trouble right now and his party is losing all these elections right now is because they do not have any answers to the problems that are facing us. Whether it is high gas prices--and my friend can say Congress was responsible. Come on. I remember when George Bush ran with Dick Cheney, and they said: We are two oil men, and we are going to make sure--we are going to use the power of the Presidency and the Vice Presidency to bring down gas prices. What happened? We will show you the chart again: a 250-percent increase since George Bush came into power. You could try to blame that on the Congress. That just does not wash because we Democrats have offered many ways to go after big oil. We have offered resolutions saying we should be free of foreign oil. Republicans, for the most part, do not vote for it. Democrats do. So that is a red herring. To blame it on the Congress is kind of laughable, when George Bush was complaining about the price of oil when he got into office--I remember that; it is not that much ancient history--and has been really unable to do anything about it. And just as we are on the brink of passing a very important bill to get us off foreign oil, get us off big oil, and all those programs my friend read from--and I will talk about them more tomorrow. Those are not bureaucracies. Those are actually investments we are going to make so we make sure we get off of oil so we make sure in the future our prices go down. That is what the Boxer-Lieberman- Warner bill will do. So to sum up, what you are hearing--and I have listened all day to every speech. I am very pleased Senator Dole is here to speak in favor of the Boxer-Lieberman-Warner bill. I welcome her to this debate. We have had some great bipartisanship on our side today. We have heard from Senator Snowe. We have heard from Senator Warner. We are going to hear from Senator Dole. And, of course, we heard from Senator Lieberman, an Independent. So we have tripartisan support for our bill. But on the other side, it is the same old, same old, same old-- attack, attack, attack. They say we have a tax increase when we have a huge tax cut. They ignore the fact that half of the bill's revenues go to the people--deficit reduction trust fund, tax cut, and consumer relief. They ignore the fact that what we do with the rest of the funds is invest them in our country, in our people. That is why many unions are supporting us, because they understand the jobs are going to be created, just as they are being created in California. Right now we have a horrible problem in California with our housing industry, our construction industry. Those jobs are going, thank goodness, to the 450 new solar energy companies that are located there. I know my friend who is sitting in the chair is grappling with all these issues. He is concerned about manufacturing. That is why some of the programs my friend from Oklahoma talked about are going straight into the economies of the coal States, to make sure we can find the answer. Now, there is another Dayton Daily News editorial: Cap-and-trade has two factors going for it-- I think this is good. Since you heard a negative editorial, here is a positive editorial. Cap-and-trade has two factors going for it that one needn't be an expert to understand. One, it is a new, inventive approach, as opposed to government incentives. . . . Second, the bipartisan appeal of cap-and-trade is itself a case for adopting the idea. A way to actually get something done. . . . So I think in Ohio we have a mixed review. I wanted to put that into the Record. I also want to say to my friend, he is reading editorial after editorial. I will go with him toe to toe. I am going to read some editorials. San Jose Mercury News: The challenge of climate change is to avert disaster for future generations. At least major legislation is now on the table. The Denver Post: In a time of global economic competition, future prosperity belongs to the quick. We urge the Senate to support enlightened efforts to deal with the world's changing physical and economic environment by passing the Climate Security Act. The Tallahassee Democrat: Florida should support Climate Security Act. The Orlando Sentinel: Take [a] step forward. Climate-change bill being wrongly targeted as bad for economy. The Orlando Sentinel is very strong. The Miami Herald: U.S. Must Act Quickly to Slow Global Warming. The Des Moines Register: Congress Should Pass Climate Change Bill. The Boston Globe: Getting Warmer on Emissions. Grand Rapids Press: Seize the Chance to Address Global Warming. . . . .the direction laid out in the bill represents the best path for addressing climate change in the United States. St. Louis Dispatch: Serious for a Change. The Climate Security Act is a good first step. . . . And it goes on and on. The Star Ledger: Speed a Plan to Fight Global Warming. It just goes on. Newsday, the New York Times. The Oregonian: The legislation, called America's Climate Security Act, would be the nation's first meaningful step. . . . The Register Guard: Time to Act. . . . And this is to Senator Smith. Harrisburg Patriot News:

Mrs. BOXER. So my friends, the debate will go on. I think I am going to use the rest of my time to read the closing script for the day, but tomorrow, we go on. My friend, Senator Inhofe, is a terrific debater. Tomorrow, we are going to take that list he put up there behind himself and show how what he read off is not new bureaucracies but new investments. When he talked about adaptation and firefighting, of course we need to be sure we have the ability to do that. So we are going to show tomorrow how that chart is misleading. We are going to show tomorrow how the statistics that came from the National Association of Manufacturers are wrong. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record proof that they are wrong. We will talk about them tomorrow.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, now I am going to go to the script so it is a little less complicated.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each. I assume that would happen after Senator Dole finishes her remarks; is that correct?

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the memory of a very special man, Sydney Pollack of Los Angeles County, who died May 26, 2008. He was 73 years old. Sydney Pollack was a master filmmaker and will be fondly remembered for his over four decades of work in Hollywood as a director, producer, and actor. Sydney Irwin Pollack was born to Rebecca and David Pollack on July 1, 1934, in Lafayette, IN. He was raised in South Bend and moved to New York City in 1952 to study at the Neighborhood Playhouse. While there, Sydney so impressed head acting teacher Sanford Meisner, that Mr. Meisner quickly made Sydney his assistant. Sydney went on to teach at the Neighborhood Playhouse from 1954-1959, guiding the talents of actors such as Robert Duvall, Rip Torn, Brenda Vaccaro, and Claire Griswold, whom he married in 1958. At the urging of Director John Frankenheimer, Sydney left New York City in 1961 for Hollywood where he began work as a director of television shows. In 1965, Sydney made his movie-directing debut in the suicide help-line drama, ``The Slender Thread'' with Sidney Poitier and Anne Bancroft. In 1969, Sydney received his first Best Director nomination for an Academy Award for the film ``They Shoot Horses Don't They?'' As an actor, Sydney's key roles include Woody Allen's ``Husbands and Wives,'' 1992, Robert Altman's ``The Player,'' 1992, and Stanley Kubrick's ``Eyes Wide Shut,'' 1999. Sydney's most notable acting and directing role was in his 1982 comedy film ``Tootsie'' in which he played George Fields, agent to the main character played by Dustin Hoffman. His production company, Mirage, produced this film as well as many others, most recently ``Michael Clayton'' in which Sydney gave yet another memorable performance. Perhaps Sydney Pollack's biggest directing triumph came in 1985 with ``Out of Africa.'' This landmark film received seven Academy Awards-- Best Picture, Director, Adapted Screenplay, Cinematography, Original Score, Art Direction, Sound--and three Golden Globe Awards--Best Picture, Supporting Actor, Original Score. ``Out of Africa'' was also an example of one of the great collaborations of all time between actor and director. Sydney Pollack and Robert Redford made seven classic films together that include ``This Property Is Condemned,'' ``Jeremiah Johnson,'' ``The Electric Horseman,'' ``3 Days of the Condor,'' ``The Way We Were,'' and ``Havana.'' Those who knew Sydney Pollack recognize him as a courageous, innovative and brilliant man. He took pride in tackling social issues through films which raise interesting and challenging questions. His work as an ambassador of cinema will be remembered gratefully by all those whose lives he touched. He touched mine, and he will be deeply missed. Sydney is survived by his wife Claire Griswold, and their two daughters, Rachel Pollack Sorman and Rebecca Pollack Parker.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 581, which was submitted earlier today.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 9:30 a.m. tomorrow, Wednesday, June 4; that following the prayer and the pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and there then be a period of morning business until 11:30 a.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the majority controlling the first 30 minutes, and the Republicans controlling the second 30 minutes; and that, at 11:30 a.m., the Senate consider the budget resolution conference report as under the previous order. I further ask unanimous consent that the time during any adjournment or morning business count against cloture.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, under a previous order, the Senate will proceed to a vote on adoption of the budget conference report at approximately 11:45 a.m. tomorrow morning. Following the vote on adoption of the budget conference report, I expect the Senate to begin consideration of the climate security legislation.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order, following the remarks of Senators Dole, Inhofe, and Enzi.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, if you will let me know when I have gone 20 minutes, I will greatly appreciate it.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, this is a historic day, not only for our country, but I think the world is watching us. It is because we have a pressing issue called global warming, climate change; you could call it either one. Scientists have told us that in fact we have a very small window right now within which to respond. But it is a historic day because for the first time we have what I call tripartisan legislation out of the Environment and Public Works Committee. It is the Boxer- Lieberman-Warner bill. It is a Democrat, it is an Independent, and it is a Republican. We have come together to say to our colleagues and to the American people: Finally, we are going to deal with this critical challenge. I wish to take a moment to thank Senator Reid for scheduling this matter. There were a lot of voices saying: Why do this now? Why do we have to do this now? I know, because I came to the Congress with Harry Reid, why he wants to do this now. Because it is, in fact, one of the greatest challenges of our generation and we have to respond with a landmark bill, it will take us a while. We must get started. We certainly hope our colleagues will vote to get started. If they do not vote to get started, they are going to have to explain why they have turned their backs on the world's leading scientists and on the Bush administration's own political appointees--such as the head of the CDC, who told us that we face real problems if we do not act, such as the vectors that will now live in warming waters. They will be turning their backs on the intelligence community and the military community, who have looked out in the future and have written papers--and this is the main reason John Warner is into this--telling us that if we do not act, we are going to see desperate refugees throughout the world. We are going to see droughts and floods worse than the ones we have seen. When refugees are moving because of rising waters, droughts, or floods, you are going to see wars develop in all parts of the world. That is why Senator Reid said yes. He said yes to American leadership. That is what we want to say by moving to this bill and supporting it. We say yes to green jobs. Because the President already said he is going to veto this bill if it passes, I have to say it is very interesting that one of the reasons he gave is that in one of the models, it shows that gas prices will go up 50 cents a gallon in 20 years. That would be 2 cents a year. In fact, if you look at the record of this administration--and they have done nothing to stop it--gas prices have gone up, under their watch, 250 percent. Just take a look at this chart--250 percent, from $1.47 to $3.94; 250 percent. This administration did nothing. Now when they come forward and they say we can't pass this bill because gas prices will go up, here is the truth. The truth is, because we are going to get better fuel economy-- because of a bill the President did sign, and we are glad he supported this part--you are going to be putting less fuel in your tank. So even if it is more per gallon, you are going to be getting better mileage, so you are not going to feel that 2 cents a year. And second, and this is key, it is fitting for this administration which has supported big oil and supported foreign oil and goes to the Middle East and holds hands with the leaders there and kisses them on the cheek and begs for oil--it is very fitting: They are still the voice of the status quo. They are still the voice for continuing our dependence on oil. This is what has happened without a climate change bill. This is what has happened without a bill to fight global warming. We see this ridiculously impossible increase in costs, and then the administration does nothing about this but is scaring the people and saying they are going to get hit with higher prices. Let me also address this. In this Boxer-Lieberman-Warner substitute that is before us, we have in there two things we didn't have in the Lieberman-Warner bill. One is a deficit reduction fund. You can take down the chart now. It is too ugly to look at. In the Boxer-Lieberman bill, we did not have a deficit reduction trust fund, and therefore people could have argued that this is going to be a terrible thing for us as we look out in the future. We put that in there, and CBO says our bill is deficit neutral. We also have in this bill a very large piece--almost $1 trillion--of tax relief. So when we do see some increases in energy costs in the early years--electricity, for example--we can offset that because there will be tax relief and then there will be this consumer relief that will go through the utilities. They will give rebates immediately. For those people who said: Oh, my goodness, we are moving forward with this and we need to make sure we can get off the track, I want to say thank you to Senators Bingaman and Specter who, in their bill, had created what I thought was a very important off-ramp. The one thing I didn't agree with them on was the price they pegged for the price of carbon because the business people I spoke to, including those in Silicon Valley, said: That is a mess. If the price is too low, then business will simply not invest. The Silicon Valley people and the investors from across this country--we had one at a press conference today who said he represented, I think, a $4 trillion fund, said they are waiting to invest in new green technologies, in new jobs. They are waiting to do it. They are waiting for this legislation. But they will not do it unless we don't have an easy off-ramp, we have an off-ramp that can be used in circumstances that warrant it. We have put the number between $22 and $30, which reflects the consensus of the labor groups as well as the environmental groups. We have tried to come together. We have tried to put this together in such a way that it essentially moves us forward, takes us where we have to go, and takes us there in a way that will mean the creation of millions of jobs. Some of our colleagues will say this: Why do this now? We are in a recession. Precisely because we are in a recession is why we should be doing this. This bill is the first thing that brings us hope. We sent a rebate check to people. I am really glad we did it. I voted for it. Guess what. We had no money to do that. We had to go into the red to do that. We had to go into deficit spending to send a rebate check. This bill gives us the funds to give relief to our consumers. This bill does that. I compliment Judd Gregg because I have had meetings with him, and this was his point. Mind you, he wants to give it all back to taxpayers. We use some of it for investments in these new technologies so we can swiftly move away from foreign oil and big oil, but it was Judd Gregg--who I know was not a fan of our bill, again because of what I said--who gave us this idea and this notion that we could have these funds to return to our consumers. I know Senator Warner, who is on the floor now, has many contributions he is going to talk about in this bill. I will not go into details. But he also said it was important that the President has an ability to say: Wait a minute, this bill goes a little too far. We have to take a pause, a timeout. He has written it in such a way that I am very supportive of it because it balances the powers of the President and Congress. He will talk more about it. Now that I see my two colleagues are on the floor--I have not had a chance to thank him on the Senate floor--I want to say to Senators Lieberman and Warner how much they mean to me--on this issue and also personally. I will not get overly emotional about it at all, but I will say this about Senator Warner: Senator Warner has a legacy that if he didn't do one more thing in the Senate, if he just decided to come by and say ``Hi'' to us for his last 6 or 8 months, it would have been enough. It would have been 10 times what most of us will achieve. His legacy on national security is unparalleled; you know that and I know that. You have spoken to me about it. But when Senator Warner came to me, since I am now chair of the EPW Committee--which is the deepest and greatest honor I have ever had--and he said: I have been doing a lot of thinking about this, Barbara, and I think we have to move; we have to get America back into a leadership position; I have told Joe Lieberman; he said he is going to work with us. I knew at that moment we would, in fact, reach this day. Now, even reaching this day was not easy. When you read ``How a Bill Becomes a Law,'' and it says, you take it to the subcommittee, and the subcommittee approves it; you take it to the full committee, the full committee approves it; then you take it to the floor and the floor approves it, this was difficult for us to get through subcommittee and then to get through the full committee and now to take it to the floor. We know this is not easy. We know this is difficult. All great matters of the day are not easy. They take time. They take effort. Landmark laws take effort. They do not happen overnight. But at moments such as these, when we are dealing with such a big issue, we should think back to our predecessors, when our predecessors in Congress saw rivers on fire from pollution or contaminated water that made us sick or filthy air that filled our lungs, and magnificent creatures such as the bald eagle close to extinction, Congress acted. We were not afraid. We were not afraid. We stepped to the plate and said: This is America, and our ingenuity can resolve these questions. We could have walked away. They could have walked away. But they did not walk away. Now we are going to find out who is going to walk away from this and who is going to step to the plate. I think it is that important. The American people deserve to know who is willing to step to the plate. Now, look, every bill means we have to compromise. Lord knows. I am looking at my friend, Senator Warner, and smiling because I am thinking of the many times he said to me: Senator, I do not think I can go there with you. Then he wanted something, and I said: Senator, I do not think I can go there with you. But we met halfway here. We met halfway. That is what we need to do in the Senate. I wish to say that my colleagues in the Senate, including Senator Webb, who is sitting in the chair, have allowed me into their lives, into their offices. We have talked for hours. I have heard their concerns. They have raised questions. In many cases, they have led us in a good direction to be stronger. For example, in the case of Senator Webb, he had many concerns. One of them happened to be what about the countries we trade with, are not they going to have an advantage? I cited the Bingaman-Specter bill again and said: We took something good from that bill. We took that part of Senator Specter that deals with saying, if countries come and want to bring in a lot of products into our Nation, and their countries are not doing anything about this, they are going to have buy allowances; they are going to have to do their part. These are the kinds of things we hope to strengthen in this bill. Look, we have clear evidence, evidence that greenhouse gas pollution will cause our planet to heat up well beyond what is safe. We have to act. I do not want to do more than is necessary; I do not want to do less than is necessary. I am trying to find that ``just right'' spot. I do agree with Senator Warner that because we are looking out into the future, we have to give the Presidents now and in the future the ability to say: Let's take another look. We also have to continue to look to the scientists. Therefore, in our bill we say, the scientists should submit a report every few years. We need to see if we are doing too little or is it just right and adjust to it. I think I mentioned this before. Senator Reid deserves a lot of credit for bringing this bill forward. We have wasted time. Look, I blame myself. I blame myself. I did not grab the reins of this thing early enough in my career. I have to say, Senator Lieberman did. Senator McCain raised the issue early on. I had some problems with their approach, and I did not engage. I admit this. This is the hardest thing for anyone to admit, for a Senator to say: I was wrong. I was wrong. I did not get it. I have to give Al Gore and all the people who came before the committee when I got the gavel a year ago, a year and a half by now-- and we said: You know, we are going to look at this thing. I did not have all the answers then. I had a lot of questions. We had the world's leading scientists, we had religious leaders, we had State leaders, we had Republicans, we had Democrats, we had businesses, we had mayors. We had 25 full-blown hearings on this. Plus we had lunches and we had dinners where we invited in the scientists, the experts, people from Europe who have taken the lead, to ask them questions. They made a lot of mistakes in the beginning. We were nervous about that. I remember one of the first times Senators Lieberman and Warner and I spoke was, we have to make sure that whatever bill we work on does not give rise to speculation and get-rich-quick schemes. So we have been very careful to learn from the mistakes Europe has made. But when you cut it all up and you look at Great Britain, for example, a very small country compared to us, they have cut back carbon by 15 percent. In the same time, they have raised their gross domestic product by 45 percent. They have created 500,000 new jobs. You do not have to go that far. Go to my State of California. We are in a terrible mess right now because of the housing crisis. We have so much of the foreclosure problem. We have a recession in housing and in construction. I was told unequivocally that because of our global warming legislation we have there, 450 new solar businesses--and I am not even looking at nuclear and I am not looking at wind, I am looking at solar--450 companies have formed. They are hiring many of the workers who are losing their jobs in the construction industry. So there are ways to do it that are wrong. There are ways to do it that are right. Now, today, you will hear from those who wish to kill this bill, kill it, kill it as dead as they can. They say it is too complicated, that we should do nothing and we should continue the status quo. Well, the status quo is devastating, my friends. The scientists have told us that. The price of gas is off the charts. My friend, Senator Lieberman, made this point beautifully at a press conference we had. The whole point of the bill is to get us off oil, is to unleash the genius of America so there are investments in alternatives, alternative fuel cars that get better fuel efficiency. I will tell you this, knowing what I know from California, it is going to have a positive and beneficial effect; whereas, if we turn away out of fear, out of fear mongering, out of scare tactics, out of saying global warming is a hoax, it does not exist, look at scientist X, look at scientist Y. You will hear it all on this floor. You will hear it all on this floor. But I remind you, there were people who said the world was flat, even when everyone knew it was not. There were people who said cigarettes did not cause cancer, when the rest of us knew they did. There are still people who say HIV does not cause AIDS. They are wrong. I can go on. Oh, airbags, they will not save lives. Wrong. When you stand on the Senate floor, whether you are a Democrat or Republican, an Independent, whether you are short or tall or medium, whenever you challenge the status quo, watch out, folks, because the slings and arrows are going to be at your back, at your front, at your side. I am ready. Why am I ready? I am ready because we have unbelievable bipartisanship on this bill. The quality of this partnership runs deep. Lieberman and Warner, Lieberman and Warner. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mrs. BOXER. Thank you very much. The bipartnership on this runs deep. I have mentioned Senators Lieberman and Warner. Every member of my committee on the Democratic side and even some on the Republican side who did not like the bill contributed to the debate. Colleagues all over the Senate helped us. The Energy Committee helped us. I will tell you, I went into member's offices, and I got great ideas from many offices. I mentioned Senator Gregg gave me a great idea. He does not like this bill because he wants to give all the money back. He does not want to invest any of the money, but he gave me a great idea on the tax cut. We had Senators Cantwell and Murray point out the importance of hydropower and how we could address that. I could name colleague after colleague. Senator John Warner, who will be here for a lot of this debate, is a magnificent voice on this subject. I put him in the category of Al Gore on this subject. He knows what he is talking about. He helped so much without any credit. He put together business meetings, he put together dinners. He had people come over. We studied together. We studied with scientists. It was like going to school. Senator Kerry, Senator Casey. And I could go on with other colleagues. The fact is, I am not fearful of what is going to come at us starting soon because we have the facts on our side. We have a deep well of support from colleagues who know their stuff. There are 11 National Academies of Science that concluded climate change is real. The Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Committee on Climate Change: Global warming is unequivocal. Human health impacts, children and the elderly vulnerable. I have lots of other information which I do not have the time to do. I mentioned national security. National security. A report by the Center for Naval Analysis found that the United States could more frequently be drawn into situations of conflict to help provide stability before conditions worsen and are exploited by extremists. This is what Senator Warner said so wisely. So in summing up at this point, I urge my colleagues to vote yes to proceed. I do not know whether there is going to be a deliberate effort to try to stop us on this motion to proceed because I have not been informed. I can only say to colleagues: Do not be fearful because you have nothing to be fearful about. I will tell you what there is to be fearful about: doing nothing, saying no, turning your back on the scientists, on the religious leaders who are with us, on the mayors, the Governors, on so many supporters who understand this. That would be dangerous because gas prices are shooting up to the sky. If we do not get off oil, that is our future. With that bill, that is not our future. So if you want to be afraid, and that is your motive, to be afraid, you want to be afraid, vote no. If you want to start to address energy independence, clean energy, if you want to address the threats science says we face, vote yes on the motion to proceed. Let's get down to this and have a great debate in the Senate tradition. Because this issue definitely deserves to have that kind of debate.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I think I can resolve this. If my colleagues will wait a minute, can you tell me how much time remains on our side after Senator Lieberman finishes?