Joseph Lieberman

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to respond to a statement that Senator Pryor made on Friday, June 6. On that day, Senator Pryor rose to express his support for the basic approach that the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act takes to reducing emissions of certain greenhouse gases called hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs. Senator Pryor praised our decision, in crafting the Climate Security Act, to subject HFCs to a separate cap-and-trade system rather than including them under the same cap with less potent greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. He expressed his hope that the initial level and reduction rate of the HFC cap could be revised before the bill becomes law. I welcome Senator Pryor's focus on the Climate Security Act's HFC provisions, and I would like to work with him on that portion of the bill as it moves through the legislative process. I remain interested in increasing the specificity of those provisions while simultaneously expanding the area of consensus among manufacturers of HFCs, distributors of HFCs, manufacturers of equipment that uses HFCs, and the environmental community.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, but I will not object, I ask to have printed in the Record a statement by Senator McCain. If he were here, he would have voted for cloture. Mr. McCain. Mr. President, today, Senator John McCain released the following statement on S. 3036, the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2008: Global climate change is the most important environmental challenge facing not only our nation, but the entire world. I am confident that given the will, the federal government can be a lead advocate for ensuring that America is doing its part to reduce global warming, and join in the global effort that is needed to address this world-wide environmental issue. Like many of my colleagues, I believe this legislation needs to be debated, amended, improved, and ultimately, enacted. While my schedule precludes me from being in Washington, DC, tomorrow to cast my vote, if I were able, I would vote to invoke cloture on the substitute amendment. That does not mean I believe the pending bill is perfect, and in fact, it is far from it. For example, the provisions to impose Davis Bacon mandates should be removed. Most importantly, it must include provisions championed by Senator Graham and myself that would ensure that nuclear power, a proven and clean energy source, is included among the technologies supported in our efforts to address global warming. Nuclear energy is an emission-free source of electricity for the nation, which is why it simply must be part of the comprehensive solution to addressing climate change, and if it is not, I could not support the legislation's final passage. Unfortunately, despite the commitment and tireless efforts of the bill sponsors, Senators Lieberman and Warner, it appears that for now, the Senate, at the direction of the Majority Leader, will choose to put politics above policy, and Congress will fail to act yet again on this critical issue. But rest assured, we will not give up until we finally succeed in enacting needed, comprehensive cap and trade legislation to address this urgent problem.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I wish to thank my friend and colleague from Virginia, Senator Warner. He is an extraordinary man and a great Senator, and we are going to miss him. I wish I could convince him to run again, but I think it is a little late, probably past the filing dates. But he has been an extraordinary leader in so many ways, particularly on matters of national security. We first worked together when we cosponsored the resolution authorizing President Bush 41 to go into the gulf war in 1991. We served together on the Armed Services Committee. I have never met a more patriotic American, a more honorable man, and it meant everything to this whole effort when Senator Warner decided he wanted to be part of the solution to the climate change problem. I often tease him--but it shows the strength of this man--that on the two times Senator McCain and I introduced an amendment on the floor to do something about global warming, Senator Warner voted against it. And I was with him one day when somebody in the media said: Why did you change your mind? And he said: Two words--science, grandchildren. That says it all about this great man. I appreciate what he has just said. Nothing has driven John Warner's career in the Senate and his service to America over decades more than his commitment to protect our national security. And maybe I should add a third word--science, grandchildren, national security--four words-- because it is his understanding that climate change, if we don't do something about it, is going to compromise and threaten the national security of the American people. This conference we did this morning with General Sullivan and Admiral Lopez I thought was stunning and stirring. These are two people who served their country in uniform for decades. There was not a lot of rhetoric there, just stating the facts. One of them said--I forget which one; it might have been Admiral Lopez--``The best thing you can do if you are a military person is to prevent conflict, prevent war.'' They see this legislation as a way to do that. I hope my colleagues consider that. There is so much on the line, with so much work that has been done by so many people. I am not just talking about Senator Warner and myself and Chairman Boxer, who made all the difference in her leadership. Our staffs, so many people outside the Senate--environmentalists, business leaders, labor leaders, hunters, anglers, leaders in the faith community--representing the public will of the American people, asking us to do something to protect them from global warming and its worst consequences. The bill we brought forth, the Climate Security Act, none of us will say it is perfect. Of course, it is not. I don't ever remember voting for a perfect piece of legislation. But it is very good. It creates a framework, a structure that will allow our country to begin a decades- long effort. This will go decades and decades to solve this problem. Future Congresses will come back and fix this where it didn't quite work out the way we hoped. We have a lot of mechanisms in here, which we have described earlier, to create fail-safes to protect our economy, our environment, our national security. With all that on the line, I have to say it is disappointing and frustrating that parliamentary maneuvers and concerns about something totally irrelevant to this once-in-a-career, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to do something to deal with this extraordinary challenge for our future--that those kinds of irrelevant issues are standing in the way, potentially, of a full debate on this matter. Tomorrow morning we come to a real turn in the road. I think the question is not whether you think this is a perfect bill but whether you think it is a real good-faith effort to deal with the problem of climate change and whether you want to say, by your vote, that you believe climate change is a real problem and a real threat to our future and you want to be part of a solution to the problem. Some of my colleagues have said to me today, I wish to be part of the solution to the problem, but I am now blocked from offering amendments. I always said I would vote for the bill if certain amendments were adopted. That is not literally true. The fact is, as is the regular order in the Senate, if you filed your amendment, as everybody was duly notified, by 1 p.m. today, and cloture is granted tomorrow, that amendment will be fully debated next week and in the days ahead. But this is a moment to say the Senate is prepared, if not this year then soon, to deal with this very real threat to our environment, our economy, and our national security. What is the rush, some people may say. Let me quote first from a study by the Environmental Defense Fund that has found that each 2-year delay in starting emissions reductions doubles the annual rate at which we will need to reduce emissions by 2020 in order to ward off a global catastrophe. Because of the way the climate responds to the buildup of greenhouse gases, these gases stay trapped in the atmosphere. That is the whole problem. Then the heat from the Earth, as it bounces up, cannot go anywhere and it stays there and you have the greenhouse effect that is clearly warming the planet. The truth is, our children and our grandchildren are already going to face, inevitably, consequences of global warming. What we are talking about now is beginning to reduce the greenhouse gases, the carbon pollution that causes the globe to warm, so the consequences that we, our children, our grandchildren and succeeding generations of Americans and people all over the world face are not disastrous or catastrophic, because that is totally within the realm of the possible. Many scientists say it is not only possible, it is probable, if we do not do anything soon. So the longer we wait to start reducing this carbon pollution that is trapped up there, the more sharply we will need to reduce them in order to stay within our emissions budget, you might say. Let me add, we have received an analysis from an economic modeling firm called On Location. They used the model of the Energy Information Administration of the Department of Energy of the Bush administration on our Climate Security Act. Their analysis asks one simple question: What would happen if we wait 10 years to enact the exact same policies that are involved in the Climate Security Act, the exact same bill, to achieve the same cumulative emissions reductions scientists say are required to protect the climate? The results are striking, unsettling, and I hope motivating for quick action. Here is what this economic modeling firm found: That waiting 10 years to start on emissions reductions increases the cost of emissions allowances by 15 percent. Listen to this: It doubles the overall cost of global warming to our economy. Whatever my colleagues are trying to say about the cost of this innovation-driving, market-based entrepreneurial incentive policy, are they prepared to double that number through delay? Are they prepared to saddle the American economy and our progeny with the burden of increasingly severe and essentially irreversible climate impacts? Finally, I wish to draw the attention of my colleagues to this graph, this chart, this description of what is happening. In previous debates, we have referred to the summer Arctic ice, the polar icecap. When we started in our interest in whether there was global warming and what its consequences might be and whether we should do something about it, that was in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Then-Senator Al Gore, I think, held some of the first hearings on this subject in 1988. Senator Kerry was involved at the time and shortly thereafter. We had to use computer models of projections the way the weather was going to go to see what was happening and what might happen if we allowed the globe to warm. But we now have technology, satellite pictures, and real evidence to show us what impact global warming is having. It is not a theory anymore, it is not a computer model anymore. In earlier debates, these satellite pictures--this is from 2001--were used. Here is the North Pole at the green spot. The red line on the outside is where the polar icecap was in 1979. The white here is where the polar icecap was in satellite pictures taken in 2003. It is 20 percent less than it was in 1979--20 percent of the polar icecaps in 2003 had already melted away. If that doesn't begin to stir your concerns enough about what is happening, go over here to the 2007 satellite picture. Again, the exterior red line is where the polar icecaps were in 1979. Look at this. In 5--well, 4 years but let's say 5 because there are parts of those 2 years--in 5 years, the polar icecap has melted away to the point where it is 40 percent less now than what it was in 1979. In 2003, it had lost 20 percent; in 2007, it has lost 40 percent. I asked the scientific fellow in my office, Alex Barron--I wish to give him credit. I said: So this is now raising the sea levels? He said no. He taught me a lesson. I was one of those who at college took a course called Science for Nonscience Majors, so I am still learning. He said: No, the ice melts as if it was ice in a glass--it sits as if it was ice in a glass. It has air in it, and when it ultimately melts, because the water is warming, the total amount of water will be about the same because this ice is all in the water, the polar icecap is in the water. But here are two things. One is, the fact that the icecap is melting obviously shows something is happening there, that the warmth is causing it to melt. But here is the danger. Here is Greenland. There the ice is on land, it is not in the water. I have now been taught, when the polar icecap diminishes by 40 percent, the capacity of the ice--just like wearing a white shirt--to reflect the sunlight and reduce the impact on the temperature diminishes. In other words, the water warms and warms the entire environment and the real danger there is that the ice on land, in Greenland, will begin to melt. When that begins to melt--which the scientists tell us will surely happen unless we reduce the amount of carbon pollution we are putting into the atmosphere--then we are in real danger because then sea levels will begin to rise--some scientists say with a suddenness that will create catastrophic results. I do not know that. But I can tell you some credible scientists have told us that. While the Senate fiddles, the globe warms. We can have these silly parliamentary debates, and we can get into side partisan fights about nominations, but this process is going on and getting worse, with potentially catastrophic consequences for the United States of America and particularly, of course, as Greenland would melt, to the enormous coastal regions of our country. There has been a pattern of human behavior in America over the last century. People are moving to the coasts. It is where they want to be. They and their lifestyles are going to be threatened in the most consequential way unless we do something about that. We have come a long way in this year. I am not ready to give up about the cloture vote tomorrow, but I understand the realities and I urge my colleagues, as they consider how to vote on it, to see this as your opportunity to say--not whether this Climate Security Act is a perfect bill but whether you, No. 1, accept the reality of global warming; No. 2, want to do something about it and believe that a cap-and-trade system--nobody has come out in this debate and offered any other way to do it. As a matter of fact, a lot of our most severe critics have said cap and trade is actually the way to do it, but they don't like this part of the way we have done it or that part of the way we have done it. We welcome that debate. But this is a moment to say whether you want to do something to stop this clear and present danger to the security of the American people or whether you want to continue to fiddle while the globe burns. I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, again, I thank my friend from Virginia. I get a kick out of him calling me his senior colleague on this matter. We are at least equal. I say to my colleague, I consider you to be the leader because without your decision to be part of the effort to come up with a solution to this problem, this bill would not have moved out of committee. It is the first time ever that has happened. So I thank you for your strong words. I thank you for everything you have done. We are going to keep you in this fight next year. We are going to figure out a way to do it. I also thank Senator Salazar.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Yes.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Only in name. I consider you to be the person who made it possible for us to get where we are. Madam President, I thank Senator Salazar for his statement. I think it perfectly summed up the decision that our colleagues in the Senate are going to have tomorrow on the vote on cloture, because Senator Salazar said it: This is a problem. He showed us the concerns he has about the land and water of his beloved State of Colorado and the impact of global warming on those necessary-to-life, fundamental-to- life elements in Colorado. He also said he basically thinks this is a good-faith approach. He likes the basic architecture of our bill. But he has a lot of things he would like to change about it to make it better. But he is going to vote for cloture tomorrow because he does not want to end the debate. He knows all the amendments filed, as is our rule, prior to 1 p.m. today will come up for debate. They are presumably subject to second- degree amendments as the debate goes on. He does not want the debate to end. If it ends tomorrow, he wants his last statement this year, by his vote tomorrow, to be that he wants to be part of a solution to the carbon pollution that is warming our globe and a lot of us believe is endangering the future of our country, our people, and the people of the world. So this is a big problem that requires a big solution. I hate to see it get stopped by small worries. We are here to legislate. We are here to debate. We are here to amend. The body can work its will. If you do not think this is a perfect measure, come on out and make it better. The only way you are going to be able to do that is by voting for cloture tomorrow. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, in order to proceed with this piece of legislation which would reduce carbon pollution that causes global warming, I ask unanimous consent to dispense with further reading of the bill.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank my friend, the senior Senator from Florida, for his question. I would be glad to address the concern that rural electric cooperatives in Florida have brought to him. Let me reassure him, and them, that the substitute amendment does include rural electric cooperatives among the local distribution companies that receive free emission allowances over the entire 42-year life of the program. And let me reassure him, and them, that the substitute amendment does include rural electric cooperatives among the fossil fuel-fired powerplant owners that receive free emission allowances over a transitional period that lasts from 2012 through 2030. As in the committee-reported version of the bill, the separate allocation of free emission allowances that is exclusive to rural electric cooperatives in the substitute amendment is additional to the free emission allowances that rural electric cooperatives receive as local distribution companies and as fossil-fuel-powerplant owners. Under the substitute amendment, as under the committee-reported bill, rural electric cooperatives in Montana and Virginia are the only rural electric cooperatives in the country that receive free emission allowances solely from an exclusive allocation and not also from the bill's local- distribution-company and fossil-fuel-powerplant allocations. Indeed, there is a provision in the substitute amendment, section 552(c)(2)(C) that would be mere surplussage if the case were otherwise.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I believe Senator Inhofe may have some time left--4 minutes--on his 30 minutes, then I would have 5 minutes to rebut, and then we would go to Senator Whitehouse.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I was going to suggest that you controlled 30 minutes. You had 4 minutes remaining. If you wanted to use that, then I would take the 5 minutes under the order we have for rebuttal, and then we would go to Senator Whitehouse.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Good.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, let me respond to some of the things that have been said in the last half hour. But let me come back to why we are here and why the Environment Committee reported this bill. This bill has a purpose, and the purpose is to reduce the carbon pollution that causes global warming. Why are we doing it? We are doing it because we want to turn this country and this planet over to our children and grandchildren and those who follow them in a better, safer condition than it will be if we just let global warming go unchecked. There have been a lot of things that have been blamed on this bill today: Gas prices, which got pretty high without this bill being adopted because it has not been adopted. The response has been given to that. Tax increases. These are not tax increases. We rejected a carbon tax. This is the result of a market where businesses exercise choice. They can either reduce their carbon emissions below the cap, in which case they have some credits to sell or, if they cannot do it, they will go back out in the market, of their own choice, and buy some at auction, and that creates the revenue which we then refunnel. In the last block of time, what seemed to be suggested was that the passage of this bill would gravely hurt the American economy. In the first place, my friend from Wyoming, Senator Barrasso, cited a study by the National Association of Manufacturers and the American Council for Capital Formation. I believe the underpinnings of this study have been undercut by independent authorities. At a May 20 hearing before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, the Deputy Administrator of the Energy Information Agency-- part of the Department of Energy, part of the Bush administration--Mr. Howard Gruenspecht said that this NAM, National Association of Manufacturers, modeling mistakenly attributes costs due to rising world oil prices as impacts of the Climate Security Act, which will reduce world oil prices because it will reduce demand for oil, rather than considering those costs as part of the economic baseline for the study. The fact is--and here again I cite two studies done by agencies of this administration, the EPA and the EIA--both predict continued strong growth for the U.S. economy under this Climate Security Act. The modeling of the Environmental Protection Agency found that under this bill, gross domestic product would grow by 80 percent between 2010 and 2030. Here is the slight impact of the Climate Security Act. Incidentally, these studies all do not account for the costs of doing nothing, which we believe would be many billions of dollars. Look at it this way: If we do not pass this act--and this does not count for the cost of hurricanes and other extreme effects of global warming--the total output of the American economy is projected to reach $26 trillion--that is a great number--in June of 2030. With the passage of the bill, the economy will reach $26 trillion in April of 2030. So is it worth that few months' delay to get to the $26 trillion to avoid the cost of doing nothing and the harm global warming will do to our country and our planet, affecting our children and our grandchildren? My answer is yes. Let me suggest this too. There is a cost of the status quo for industry. My friend from Wyoming, Senator Barrasso, comes from a great coal-producing State. Coal is America's most abundant natural energy resource. America has the largest coal reserves in the world. This bill aims to continue to allow American industry, power companies, to use coal--in fact, to use it more. But let me suggest this: Under the status quo, without this bill, coal and those manufacturers who rely on it are in trouble. Fifty-four percent of the new coal-fired electric power capacity ordered in this country since 2000 has been canceled. Why? Because companies cannot get affordable financing to build the plants. And why not? Because investors have 100 percent certainty that a climate law is going to be enacted in this country within the next few years, certainly within the lifetime of a coal plant.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. The bottom line is, coal and the manufacturers who depend on it need this bill to raise the money they need to build additional coal plants to provide energy for American industry. That would be great for our economy. Madam President, I yield the floor to my friend from Rhode Island, who I might say played a very important and constructive and creative role in the work the Environment Committee did in bringing S. 2191 to the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, as Mr. Alexander, the Senator from Tennessee, did, I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes from my time to respond to something the Senator from Tennessee said.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank the Chair, and I thank my colleagues. I rise to build on something that Chairman Boxer just said about the national security implications of the global warming problem. Last week I had the privilege to attend an Asian-Pacific Security Conference in Singapore, which is called the ``Shangri-la Dialogue.'' At that conference, there were high-ranking defense officials from just about every country in the Asian-Pacific region, large or small. I noticed on the schedule of meetings there was a session on climate change. So this intrigued me because, again, this was a defense group, an international security group. I went to the conference, and it was quite something. Our friends in the Asian-Pacific region are deeply concerned about the possible consequences of global warming and anxious that the world unite to protect them and us from the worst of it. A gentleman leader in the Defense Department of Singapore said they have begun to negotiate with European experts in the construction of dikes, because they think if they can build adequate dikes, they can probably withstand a rising sea level which they believe will happen--probably will happen, according to the best science--of a meter. But if the water rises above a meter, their leaders have concluded that as much as a third of Singapore could be under water. There was a gentleman there from the Defense Department of Bangladesh who said they are beginning to try to make plans for confronting a migration of as many as 5 million people in Bangladesh who will be forced by rising tides to leave their homes--5 million people. Now, I say by reference, we don't think about those extraordinary effects of global warming, but if seas rise--to say the obvious, the United States has enormous coastlines and our low-lying areas will be subject to consequences that could be severe to the way of life of the people there. There has been a trend in our country of people moving to the coast, millions and millions and millions. If we don't do something about global warming soon, the life they lead will be severely compromised, and that is what this bill is all about--trying to avoid that. I thank the chairman, Senator Boxer, for stressing that this is not only an environmental protection bill, this is not only an economic growth bill; this is a national security bill. I thank the Chair, I thank my colleague, and I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from California. In the midst of all the attacks being made against the Climate Security Act, something may be missed by those who are listening or watching. We have a problem. It is called global warming. This bill, according to the Environmental Protection Agency of the Bush administration, solves that problem, protects us from the worst consequences of global warming. I presume, because my friends on the other side are opposed to the bill, they don't deal with either the reality of global warming or the fact that our bill solves it. They are blaming just about everything but the common cold on our bill. One of the biggest deceptions is this business that this bill will increase gasoline prices. I presume that argument is being made because all of us and the American people are angry about the increase in gasoline prices. The truth is the Climate Security Act will not increase gasoline prices, it will decrease gasoline prices because it will decrease our reliance on oil. In reducing carbon emissions, we have to stop using oil and use other ways to power our vehicles and that reduces the demand for oil. Look at this chart. This is a study done by the International Resources Group, an economic consulting firm. This is the line for what oil imports will be in 2015 if we do not pass this bill: about 15 million barrels a day. Here is the line for 2191 if the Climate Security Act passes: down 58 percent, 6.4 million barrels a day, the lowest amount of imported oil in this country since 1986. That is 8.4 million barrels per day less imported into the United States. We know there is speculation in the oil market, but the laws of supply and demand still have some effect. If we can reduce demand for oil that much, we are going to reduce the cost of gasoline. That is what this bill is all about. It is going to take that money and invest it in the kind of new technologies America has been waiting for, and they exist. So let's go from the attack to something positive. Let's protect our children and grandchildren from global warming caused by carbon pollution. I thank the Chair.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Is there time remaining?

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I yield to Senator Warner.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I yield myself some time from the 20 minutes I have allotted on the list.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, two points. One is on the discussion of an increase in the cost of gasoline. There was a lot of citing from Senator Alexander and others about the projection of a 53-cent increase per gallon of gasoline. Again, it is over 22 years, made by EPA, 2008 to 2030. That is about a 2-cent-plus, at the outside, per year increase in a gallon of gasoline. I tell you, look at what it has done this year. Just this year, in 8 months: January 7, $3.11; May 26, $3.93--an 82-cent increase since the beginning of this year--compared to about a 2-cent a year, outside, increase projected to do something, which is to help us achieve the purpose of this bill, which is to reduce carbon pollution that causes global warming. That is the point. The second point, and we are going to come back to this, Senator Alexander--and we agree--sees there is a problem. He wants to deal with it in a mandatory way and agrees on cap and trade. But he only wants to do it for the powerplant sector. We think if you do that, and eliminate the oil and fuel sector, eliminate the industrial sector, you are simply not going to get the reductions in carbon pollution we need to reduce global warming, and you are going to diminish the marketplace. A lot of the companies that want to come in are going to be deprived of the kind of broad marketplace we believe will work best to stimulate innovation and to reduce the carbon pollution that causes global warming. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I propose that Senator Warner and I divide the 20 minutes I have. I will take 10 and Senator Warner can take 10. Then we will fill in after that. We have been in this together from the beginning and we are going to be on the boat at the end as well.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I refuse the offer.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair. For the first time in the history of the Senate or of the House, a comprehensive bill to curb global warming has reached the floor after having been reported favorably by the committee of jurisdiction. This has happened, in my opinion, because of two people. One is Senator Warner, who joined the fight early on with me, to my great pleasure, and made this a bipartisan piece of legislation and was responsible for helping us get it out of the subcommittee and the full committee. The second person is Chairman Boxer, whose drive and persistence and legislative skill fashioned a majority within the committee and brings this bill to the floor with some momentum behind it. The fact is, twice in the past--in 2003 and 2005--Senator McCain and I brought a comprehensive climate measure to a vote in the full Senate, but we had to do it by amendment because in neither case did the Environment Committee report it out favorably. I will say that the amendment, as it is known, lost twice with a high vote total of 44. I am confident we are going to do a lot better than that in this consideration. So the bottom line is, this Climate Security Act has reached this point through the regular order, as we say in the Senate, having earned increasing and diverse political support along the way. I think that represents a tremendous step forward. The Climate Security Act has a bipartisan list of cosponsors in addition to Senator Warner and myself, including Senators Coleman, Collins, and Dole, Senators Cardin, Casey, Harkin, Klobuchar, Nelson of Florida, Schumer, and Wyden. Each of those Members contributed substantially to the bill while also helping garner support for it among other Senators and key constituencies. I cannot thank them enough for their help and for the trust they have placed in Senators Warner, Boxer, and myself. Senator Warner and I introduced the Climate Security Act for a very simple but serious reason. It was to protect the environment, economy, and national security of the United States of America from the worst effects of manmade climate change. Is it a problem, climate change? Well, just last week the Bush administration itself released a scientific report confirming that if we as a nation fail to take strong action now to cut our emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, then the resulting climate change will impose severe hardship on the American people. The administration's Climate Change Science Report finds that over the next 25 to 50 years increased temperatures will result in slower economic growth and lower yields for staple crops such as corn, soybeans, wheat, and rice. That is slower growth of those crops and lower yields. Arid regions of the United States will face more frequent wildfires, which will be made worse as fire-resistant plants are replaced in the natural order by more combustible grasses. In the American West, the mountain snows that provide a steady flow of water for irrigation and reservoirs will dwindle. Rainfall will come at times in amounts that will make it hard to manage. The sustained temperature increases will stress livestock, slowing their reproduction and growth rates, thereby decreasing their milk production and increasing the time to market for animal products. Across the Nation, an increased frequency and severity of heat waves will lead to more illness and death, particularly among the young, the elderly, the frail, and the poor. The climactic changes will allow animal, water, and food-borne diseases to spread in the Nation or to emerge in areas where they have been limited or had not existed. These are the findings of a report of the Bush administration. Unfortunately, our failure to take any action to reduce or even stabilize our greenhouse gas emissions since the 1980s, when scientists first began to warn us about it, means that some part of the negative impacts described by this administration's Science Report are now inevitable. That is the reality. Greenhouse gases don't go up and dissipate; they accumulate. They are there now, and some consequences are inevitable. The scientific community tells us that we can still prevent the situation from reaching much worse, even catastrophic proportions, if we take the lead now in reducing emissions of greenhouse gases. That is what this Climate Security Act would do. The bill, beginning in 2012--remember, that is not now, in 2012. So if we begin by passing this legislation now, we are going to have some time to work with it if people find reasons to fix it as we go along before it goes into effect. So beginning in 2012, this legislation would place a cap on the aggregate greenhouse gas emissions of the 2,100 facilities in America that are responsible for 85 percent of those emissions in this country. This is a very important point. People out there may wonder: Oh, my God. Does this mean in my little business, in my factory, on my farm--am I going to have to start to fill out a lot of paperwork and get involved in this cap-and-trade business? No. This is an upstream piece of legislation. Only 2,100 facilities in America will be part of this cap-and-trade proposal. The bill would tighten the caps slowly and steadily, such that the aggregate emissions of those sources of greenhouse gases would be down to about 30 percent of the current level by 2050. That would be a substantial accomplishment. Making conservative assumptions about actions by other nations; that is, assuming other nations, including the rising great economic powers such as China and India--frankly, don't do much. The administration, through another agency, has determined that the emissions reductions achieved by the Climate Security Act would prevent atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations from reaching the level to which scientists ascribe a high risk of catastrophic impacts. In other words, assuming that a lot of the other big nations don't do much of anything, this bill will make sure we fulfill our responsibility to protect our citizens. In fact, it would keep global emissions below the catastrophic level. Now, some say it will cost money. It will cost money. But what is the cost? Remember, this sets up a system where money is raised through the auctioning of allowances. But that money, a lot of it--that is, a lot of the money that will be raised--is immediately reinvested in research and development of new energy technologies, in subsidies to protect people and businesses that are going to be most likely affected. We have to understand as we consider this bill that it will not only deal with the problem of global warming; this bill is the energy independence, energy security act that America, in its right mind, should have adopted 30 years ago. People have said we need a Manhattan Project; we need an Apollo Moon shot project to make America energy independent, to break our dependence on foreign oil. This legislation will invest more than six times the amount of money that the Apollo project and the Manhattan Project combined spent. We need to do it to free ourselves--free America--from dependence on foreign oil, from tyrants in places such as Iran and Venezuela. Senator Warner and I asked the Energy Information Agency--a section of the Department of Energy of this administration--what would be the cost of our legislation. They responded that the Climate Security Act's impact on the Nation's economic growth would be negligible. The fact is, under our bill they say America would continue to grow robustly until 2030, which is the period they measured, and would hit a level just 0.3 percent lower than under a business-as-usual scenario. Mr. President, those are my opening comments. With great honor and gratitude, I yield to my friend and partner and cosponsor from Virginia.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at this point Senator Cardin be recognized for up to 5 minutes. The reason for this request is Senator Cardin has to preside at 4 o'clock. Then we would go back to the 20 minutes divided between Senator Warner and myself. Then presumably there would be somebody the Senator from Oklahoma would designate to speak. We are happy to add 5 minutes to the Senator's time to make it equal.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Senator.