A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that the President should designate the week of October 12, 2003, through October 18, 2003, as "National Cystic Fibrosis Awareness Week".

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

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

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 CO2 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 CO2 emissions from powerplants is to reduce the amount of coal, oil or natural gas consumed at the power plant.

Placing a cap on CO2 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 CO2.

Capping CO2 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 SO2, NOX, and CO2 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 CO2 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.

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.

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 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.

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

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 CO2 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 CO2. In fact, because of the age of many of our forests they are now CO2 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

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. 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

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.

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. 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.

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 (CO2) 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.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator. I thank our colleagues for the work they have done. I, again, thank Senator Inhofe.

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.

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

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.