Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time between 3 p.m. and 4 p.m. be under the control of Senator Inhofe or his designee, and that the order with respect to the farm bill be delayed until 4:10 p.m.

Mr. President, 3 and 4.

That is the first part. I further ask unanimous consent that the time until 2 p.m. be equally divided--Senator Inhofe between 12 to 1 and Senator Boxer between 1 and 2?

All right, I will say the time until 2 p.m. be equally divided between Senator Inhofe and myself.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Klobuchar be given 15 minutes to open the debate on our side.

Madam President, before my friend Senator Reed leaves the floor, if I can have his attention, this morning, Senators Warner, Lieberman, and I and Senator Kerry held a press conference with GEN Gordon Sullivan, whom you mentioned in your remarks, and ADM Joseph Lopez. We had the most extraordinary testimony from them in terms of having to act. It was chilling in a way because they said: You never know something with 100 percent certainty.

They said: But what we learned on the battlefield is if you wait until you have 100 percent certainty, horrible things can happen.

It was chilling. They warned us to act. So I think my friend brought it home this morning with his remarks.

I ask unanimous consent that Senator Allard speak off his side's time--how many minutes?

This is up to you.

And then Senator Sanders for 7, and then Senator Bennett for 5, and then Senator Baucus for 10. I know Senator Craig would like 10 minutes.

Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?

I would like to speak for about 20 minutes, and then I would like to yield up to 10 minutes to Senator Salazar.

Colleagues, let me tell you where we are. Your Environment and Public Works Committee, for the first time, voted out a landmark bill, the Lieberman-Warner bill. We did that after 25 hearings. We had everyone come before us. It was extraordinary. From the leading scientists, to State government officials, to mayors, to business leaders, to folks who run utilities, to religious leaders, it was extraordinary--environmental organizations.

We listened and we asked questions and we voted. Now, the day that Senator Warner decided he believed part of his legacy on national security had to include global warming, he stepped out and he came to me, after he had already talked to Senator Lieberman, and said: I want to be on this team. He said: I will be with you through thick and thin.

We have had thick and we have had thin. We have had great moments and tough moments. And we are kind of in a tough moment now because we so want to complete work on this bill. It is going to be a very tough road for us to be able to do that.

I went over to my friend, Senator Warner, and I told him, first of all, what a joy it has been to work with him on this because our lives in the Senate have kind of taken us in different directions. But now, we finally had a chance to work together. You could not have a better colleague. You could not have a more loyal friend.

When he says something, he sticks with it.

We have created this troika, a tripartisan troika, which I think has been a very good experience for all of us. I told him, because he has several months remaining in the Senate, that when he leaves, I hope he will become a worldwide spokesperson for action in this area.

There are very few people who bring to the table the national security experience and his new knowledge now that he has absorbed on this issue of global warming or climate change. I do not know if he will do that, but if he does it, I think it is going to make an enormous contribution as Senator Lieberman and I are here battling every day with a new President of the United States to try to get something done. So I hope he will consider that.

So many people did help us. Senator Warner alluded to our staffs. I want to name a few names now. This is just a few of the people: Bettina and Erik of my staff, David and Joe of Senator Lieberman's staff, and Chelsea and Chris of Senator Warner's staff, and their staffs that report to them.

There was extraordinary dedication, sleeplessness, early morning phone calls. To get to this point is so difficult. And not one second has been wasted because as we get this landmark bill in place, we will take off where we left, and where we left is just a tremendous amount of knowledge, so many of our Senators getting involved. It has really been a heart-warming experience.

That is why it is tough to get to the point where we are now because we are ready, ready to finish this job, ready to work with our friends. But we are going to try to see how many votes we can get for cloture. We urge our friends and colleagues to please say yes to continuing this important topic.

Senator Lieberman, I think by showing these maps and showing us the ice melt--by the way, many members of our committee, we led a trip to Greenland. Imagine. I say to my friends who might be listening to this, imagine this. An iceberg that is larger than the Senate Chamber, floating, floating toward the ocean. The average age of this iceberg, 9,000 years old. Imagine this. Average age, 9,000 years old. Within 1 year, that iceberg will be nothing but water. And we know what that means. Seas will rise. It is happening faster than we thought.

When we have this debate, our opponents come down, and they do not talk about climate change. They do not talk about it. They haven't challenged us on our basic premise that we have a problem. They switch the topic to what I think is a made-up topic. And it is sad because the Senate deserves more than that.

I don't know how many times I have said it, but I have to say it again because there is a big advertising campaign against what is called the Lieberman-Warner bill. I suppose I am lucky they did not put Boxer in that one. They have said gas prices, because of this bill, are going to go to $8 a gallon, and this morning, $28 a gallon. These people are making things up. These people are making things up. Even the Bush administration, who opposes us, said the worst case scenario is 2 cents a year on the pump for 20 years.

We know because we have done the calculations that the fuel economy bill we passed will offset that increase. So this bill brings no increase. Indeed, this bill will get us off foreign oil, will get us away from big oil. We will have alternatives for once, and we will be free.

We will not have to have our President go to Saudi Arabia and hold hands with the Prince and beg. This is not necessary if we allow technology to move forward. So I am going to show you again. This is annoying that I have to keep doing this, but I think it is important.

In the last 7 years, we have seen gas prices go up 250 percent, 82 cents since January--82 cents.

My friends are coming down here, and suddenly the opponents of the bill are saying: Watch out, gas prices will rise. When truly, honestly, they have not offered anything, in my view, to try and resolve the terrible increases we have seen until now. So let's get rid of that bogus issue.

We are on the precipice. We are on the moment. If we do this bill, we will finally have alternatives to oil, and we will get off our addiction to oil, as the President said we should. We will have cellulosic fuel. We will be able to see new kinds of automobiles. We are really there right now. Senator Sanders was eloquent today. There is a plug-in hybrid that can get 150 miles to the gallon. That is all going to happen with a bill like this one. I want to thank also the groups that have worked so hard to help us, the environmental groups, the faith-based groups.

I thank right now GEN Gordon Sullivan who came to the press conference that both my colleagues alluded to this morning. I have a copy of his statement. Did you place it in the Record, Senator?

I would think that General Sullivan's credentials are impeccable. He said: Yes, climate change and national security and energy independence are all interrelated. Simply hoping that these relationships will remain static is not acceptable, given our training and experience as military leaders.

And then he says: Because, as you know, we have been told that the scientists have 90 percent certainty. He addresses that at the end.

He says:

In conclusion, you never have 100 percent certainty on the

battlefield. We never have it. If you wait until you have 100

percent certainty, something terrible is going to happen. As

such, now is the time to act on the critical issue of climate

change.

Now this did not come from Senator Warner, Senator Lieberman, Senator Boxer; it did not come from Al Gore; it did not come from Tony Blair-- all of whom are fighting hard. This came from a general with years of experience on the battlefield.

We must act now. I think I would like to go to this chart. Waiting 2 years to act will double the annual rate at which we must cut emissions. In other words, you have a problem, and the longer you wait, the harder it is because the carbon goes into the atmosphere and stays there.

So we get further and further behind. Look at this. A May 2008 study by Tufts University economists found that the annual costs of not addressing global warming, not addressing it, by 2100, could be $422 billion in hurricane damage, $360 billion in real estate losses, $141 billion in increased energy costs.

Let me say that again: $141 billion in increased energy costs if we do not do something about it; $950 billion in water costs.

So if we do not act now, it is going to cost us. And we have to devise a way, through cap and trade, which I will not go into the details of, that essentially says: Those who are the biggest emitters will pay for permits to pollute.

What do we do with those funds? I have a chart to show you what we will do with those funds. Most of it goes to the following: tax relief. In the early years, we are concerned that we may see energy, electricity costs go up before we get into the energy efficiency we want.

The next big amount is consumer relief through utilities and State actions. That is second. So when our utility bills start going up, utility companies have the right to write on that bill ``credit'' so we stay whole.

Deficit reduction, that is another big piece. We wanted it to be deficit neutral. I have to laugh--I think it was Senator Kyl and Senator McConnell who said this is a tax bill. Let me get this squared away. Our bill is a huge tax cut, huge consumer relief, not a penny of a tax increase.

What else do we do? Workers assistance. We make sure our workers are trained for new jobs. Local government action, they are going to do something. For example, if they are going to take their offices and make them energy efficient, we want to help them.

Low-carbon technology and efficiency, we know what that means. We know the low-carbon energy sources are going to get funds.

Agricultural resources and forestry are going to get funds. National security and international are going to get funds. Transition assistance to emitters. In other words, we say to those who pollute, those who emit: You are going to have to buy permits. But in the beginning, we help them with that.

So, look, about more than half of this goes straight back to the consumers

and the other parts go to technology. That is what this bill does.

Why are the opponents of this bill afraid to have a debate? I do not understand it. At first we heard they wanted the debate because they believed they could defeat us if they talked about how this bill would result in higher gas prices.

Frankly, between Senator Warner, Senator Lieberman, Senator Snowe, myself, Senator Kerry, the Senators who have been on the floor, I think we definitely debunked that point. We said it is a humpty-dumpty argument. We are right on the precipice of getting off of foreign oil and big oil. We are on the precipice of these new technologies with this bill.

We are on the precipice of moving toward energy independence finally. We have been talking about it since I was a much younger person, and now, finally, we can do it. And what happens. We have to cut the debate short when we are ready to get the job done.

Well, this is a national security issue. It is a religious and moral issue. This is an issue of tremendous import for our grandchildren, for our children. This issue strikes me as one that is a win-win for everyone because when you address global warming and you save the planet, which is what we must do, we finally have the impetus to get to that energy independence. We finally have the impetus to say, you know, we can be controlling, we can be controlling of our own future. It is a great picture for our children to see.

I honestly think if we do nothing, we will be on the wrong side of history. I want to say to my friends in State government, from the east coast to the west coast to the middle of America, keep up what you are doing. You are doing the right thing. You can't wait for us. It may not happen today, but we are catching up with you.

I say to my friends at the Conference of Mayors, Republicans and Democrats and Independents who support this bill: Thank you for your support. Keep on doing what you are doing. You are in the leadership. You are on the ground. We are coming soon. We have two Presidential candidates who care about this issue. When one of them gets to the White House, they will be here negotiating with us. That is going to make a big difference, that is for sure.

I want to close by showing a great chart that says ``Yes.'' This is the moment for us to say yes to energy independence, yes to our children, yes to the science, yes to a diversified energy future, yes to American manufacturing, yes to saving the planet, yes to consumer protection, yes to new technologies, yes to a strong economy, yes to State and local action, yes to public health, yes to tax relief, yes to transit, yes to a level playing field, and yes to American leadership-- there are a lot of yeses on here--and, of course, yes on the cloture petition which will allow us to get to the substitute and get to the bill.

I reserve the remainder of my time and turn now to Senator Salazar. I thank my colleagues all.

Madam President, please, this is a parliamentary inquiry and not to be taken away from the time of my friends. I just found out when we did our unanimous consent request it was not clarified that following the Republican side, Senator

Boxer or her designee would have 5 minutes, followed by Senator Inhofe or his designee to have 5 minutes.

Thank you.

My Republican friends are fierce defenders of the status quo. They are desperate defenders of the status quo. They are clinging to the past and turning away from solving one of the major challenges of our time. All they say is no, no, no, for the status quo. And the reason is they know we are so close with this bill to finally getting us off foreign oil, finally getting us off big oil, and that is whom they defend here every single day.

They talk about working people. When is the last time they stood up and argued in favor of working people? Let me show you the working people who are supporting us.

They stand up: Oh, we are going to lose jobs, lose jobs, lose jobs. It simply isn't true. We have businesses, we have working people. Why don't they go and tell the people who are supporting the Boxer- Lieberman-Warner bill, from the International Union of Operating Engineers, from the building and construction trades, from the Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers, from the heat and frost insulators, to the plumbers, to the roofers, to the plasterers, to the painters and the allied trades, to the teamsters and truckdrivers, to the

brick layers. They stand here and scare people. These working people know where the jobs are. The jobs lie in the new economy, the new green economy, the economy that gets us off of foreign oil, that gets us off of big oil.

Then they have the nerve to talk about how we are going to raise gas prices. Take a look at what has happened to gas prices since George Bush became President. And what did they ever do about it, Bush and Cheney? Oh, they were the oilmen and they were going to be able to deal with the oil companies. I will never forget it. Under George Bush, a 250-percent increase, a 250-percent increase in a gallon of gas in the years he has been in office, and all he can do is go to Saudi Arabia and hold hands with the Saudi Prince and beg. It doesn't work. What is going to work is a climate security act such as the one we have before us, and this is the pie chart I can show you.

Look at this. My friend from Oklahoma, he makes up things about this bill. He says it is about raising taxes. That is false. We give back almost $1 trillion in taxes. We give back much more than $1 trillion in consumer relief. All of this yellow is what most of this bill does, and here we invest. We invest in low-carbon technologies so that we can get off oil.

They do not want to get off oil. They have friends in the oil industry. Who do you think is opposing us and making up untruths about our bill? That is what happens. We don't have any tax increases, we have tax cuts.

And then Senator Bunning says scientists disagree. Yes, there were a few people who still said the world was flat. There are a few people who still say cigarette smoking doesn't cause cancer. But the vast majority of scientists from the IPCC, the most brilliant scientists all over the world gathered, including our own here in America--11 American National Academies of Science say global warming is unequivocal.

You can put your head in the sand. You can divert attention by saying this is a tax when it is not. How do we get the funding? We get it from the largest emitters of greenhouse gas emissions.

I am looking at the Presiding Officer sitting in the chair. She wrote the first section of the bill that deals with a greenhouse gas registry so we can measure that. And what do we say to them? You are going to have to get permits to pollute. Polluters pay. And we help them with that in the early years, and we take that money and we give most of it back to the people, OK? Then the rest of it, the rest of it we put to deficit reduction and investments of technology.

We hear others get up and say: Drill, drill, drill. You can't drill your way out of this problem. I don't want to drill in a wildlife preserve that Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican President, set aside. That is ridiculous. It only has 6 months of oil. It is better to have a long-term solution where we have the alternatives ready, the cars ready, the different fuels ready.

Senator Corker complains about the process and he complains about the process. I say to Senator Corker: Vote for cloture. We will have amendments, we will debate the bill, and we will move forward.

So it seems to me we are hearing a lot of falsehoods here. Vote for cloture. Let's get off of big oil and foreign oil. Let's have a good economic future and solve the crisis of global warming.

Madam President, I have a unanimous consent request that I may have printed in the Record a statement of Senator Barack Obama which says if he were able to be present, he would vote to invoke cloture.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I am glad the Senator from Alaska came to speak because she is at ground zero, and she explained that what is happening in her State is very serious. She knows it. She is close to it. Where I simply don't agree with her is she says our bill is going to lead to higher gas prices. We are back to that same old-same old stuff. The fact is--I will reiterate it; I have said it so much, it is probably extremely boring to those who have listened to me, but I will say it again--President Bush sent down a veto promise on this bill, and in it he said gas prices are going to go up 50 cents over the 20-year period. That is 2 cents a year. That is 12 percent over 20 years. What he didn't say is that because we passed fuel economy standards, all that is offset for our people because the fuel economy standards are going to mean you actually can go farther on a gallon of gas. So there is no increase in gas prices.

As a matter of fact, what is going to happen is, we are going to get the alternatives we need. Senator Murkowski's people, my people, Senator Warner's people, Senator Reid's people, and Senator Schumer's people at the end of the day are going to say: Thank goodness, we are finally off foreign oil; we don't have to be dependent on a President-- this one or the next one--going to Saudi Arabia and begging. That is the whole point of the bill.

The whole point of the bill is to get those technologies, and the bill essentially does this. We say to the people who are emitting carbon: You have to buy permits to pollute. We take half that money-- more than half of it goes back to consumers through a tax cut or through the utility companies that give you credit right on your bill.

This is a good bill. This is a bill that will create jobs. This is a bill that will create the technologies.

Senator Warner got into this whole issue because his legacy is national security. Our leaders tell us we have to act now. To have people come to this floor with a bogus argument that makes no sense is unfortunate. If we vote cloture on this bill, we will be able to amend it and move forward.

I wish to show how many people are supporting us and the groups that are supporting us. We hear a lot of my Republican friends say: We are going to lose jobs. Yes, the miners came out with a statement. They said the bill needed work. So did the UAW, the bill needed work. And we are open to that. Senator Warner and I, Senator Lieberman, and Senator Kerry said we are ready to meet with our colleagues and fix the bill. But oh, no, all they want to do really is drive this bill off the floor.

I have a list of working people who endorse this bill. So don't come here, I say to my colleagues--Senator Murkowski didn't do this, but others have done it--and say, oh, we are going to lose jobs. You tell that to the International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers. Tell that to the insulators and the allied workers. Tell that to the shipbuilders. Tell that to the bricklayers. Tell that to the elevator constructors. Tell that to the painters. Tell that to the plasterers. Tell that to the journeymen. Tell that to the sheet metal workers, the teamsters, the operating engineers, and the building and construction trades. They all see what this bill will mean. It means building a new infrastructure for a new day with new energy.

The faith communities are supporting us. I am so grateful to them. It is as if I prayed for help and they came forward--the Evangelical Environmental Network and the Evangelical Climate Initiative, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, National Council of Churches, Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, Jewish Council of Public Affairs, the Interfaith Power and Light Campaign. Why? Because they feel so strongly that the planet is threatened and God's creation is threatened.

We cannot wait forever. We do not have a perfect bill. We want to get it started, and we cannot. It is a very sad state of affairs.

I will be happy to yield to my friend.

Mr. President, I reclaim my time. I thank my colleague. Yes, I have had wonderful conversations with the Senator from Alaska. The reason there is a bit of frustration in my voice is because I don't think we have much time to waste. I am very worried about delaying. I look forward to working with my colleague from Alaska.

I want to put into the Record also the businesses that support our bill just as it is: Alcoa, Avista, Calpine, Constellation Energy, E2, Entergy Corporation, Exelon Corporation, Florida Power and Light, General Electric, National Grid, NRG Energy, PG&E, Public Service Enterprise Group.

We have broad support of governments: the U.S. Conference of Mayors; the National Association of Clean Air Agencies; Climate Communities, which is a national coalition of cities, towns, counties, and other communities.

The people in the cities, the counties, and the States, I want to send them a message today: Don't lose heart if we don't win this vote tomorrow. We are building support. We are building support in the community, we are building support in the Senate, and the next President of the United States, regardless of whether it is Senator McCain or Senator Obama, supports global warming legislation.

So my friends on the other side of the aisle can say no, no, no, status quo, status quo, and they may win the day. But at the end of the day, they will not win because 89 percent of the people of America want us to tackle this problem.

Let's take a look at what the scientists are telling us. Eleven national academies of science, including the U.S. National Academies of Science, concluded that climate change is real. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities. The Nobel Prize-winning IPCC concluded in 2007 that global warming is unequivocal; there is a 90-percent certainty that humans have caused it.

Today, Senator Warner, Senator Lieberman, and I had an amazing press conference with a former general and a former admiral. It was really something to hear them. They said some chilling things in this global warming debate. When they ended it, they said: When we are out on the battlefield, we cannot wait for 100 percent certainty. The scientists have given us 90 percent certainty. You wait, you are going to face danger, trouble, horrible things can happen. They look at it as a campaign to stop something quite dangerous.

Let's look at the human health impacts, I thank my friend, Senator Nelson, who is in the chair, for all the work he has done on this issue. His magnificent State is another place which is ground zero. I flew with my friend--first of all, we went to the Everglades. It was an extraordinary experience and one which I shall never forget. We went with my spouse and Senator Nelson's spouse. We went through this gift from God, which is what the Everglades is. It is impossible to describe. It is like a river of grass. That is what it is called, a river of grass. A remarkable place. When we went up in our helicopter and flew over the State, I held my breath. This magnificent State. But if those sea levels rise? There cannot be enough protection. We couldn't do it. So we have to stop the problem, and that is what the Boxer-Lieberman-Warner bill does.

Look at the human health impacts of global warming in North America: increase in the frequency and duration of heat waves and heat-related illness; increase in waterborne disease from degraded water quality. Why? Because certain amoebas and bacteria can live in warmer waters. As a result, these are new kinds of creatures. We had a child in Lake Havasu get an infection in one of these warmer waters. The infection went to the brain. This is the kind of thing the Bush administration health officials are telling us.

Dr. Julie Gerberding came before our committee. It was mind boggling what she was telling us we can expect. By the way, unfortunately, a lot of her statement was redacted. Even though it was redacted, it was powerful. She basically was saying to us: Please act now.

Increased respiratory disease, including asthma and other lung diseases from increased ozone and smog, and the children and the elderly are especially vulnerable. I say to my brothers and sisters, men and women of the Senate, children and the elderly are vulnerable. This is America. We take care of the most vulnerable. They cannot do this.

We all believe in our great economic system, the free-enterprise system. There are certain things our Government has to do, which is to make sure people can have healthy lives. Part of it is that the planet be healthy. We have to act now.

I will conclude my remarks in the next 2 minutes and then will yield to my colleague for 2 minutes to do a quick Executive Calendar.

I want to talk about job growth because, again, we heard all along: Oh my goodness, this bill is going to kill job growth. In California, we have a law like this. It has done wonders. For example, we have 450 new solar energy companies. As we see a decline in the housing area-- and I know my friend in the chair has seen this in Florida--a lot of the workers who would have been laid off are being grabbed up and going to work in these solar energy companies. We are so fortunate we had that, in a way, a safety net. People are so excited.

If you come to California, if you go to the Silicon Valley, the entrepreneurs there want to invest in new technologies. They will not do it until there are laws in place because they need certainty.

I will close with this: A study of the impacts of my State's law says there will be 89,000 new jobs created by 2020. There are more than 450 solar companies--I mentioned that--hiring electricians, carpenters, and plumbers. And the top manufacturing States for solar are Ohio, Michigan, California, Tennessee, and Massachusetts. That is interesting because we are seeing these new manufacturing jobs being created across America.

In closing, I will show my favorite chart of all and the one I want to end with. Let's say yes for once around this place. Let's say yes to something good, to a clean energy future, to clean green jobs, to science, to clean air, to saving the planet, to consumer protection, to a big tax cut, to a strong economy, and to the Boxer-Lieberman-Warner bill.

I thank you so much, Mr. President, and I really do thank you for your leadership in Florida and here as well.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we now proceed to a period of morning business in which Senators may speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I listened to my friend from Wyoming, and I will tell anyone who was listening, first, he says the bill is not ready for debate. Now he wants to debate.

You know, my friend voted not to go to the bill in the first place. He does not want a global warming bill, neither do most of the people on that side of the aisle, with some exceptions.

Their answer is: No, no, no, no, status quo. That is why they keep losing seats all around the country. Now, 89 percent of the people want us to take up this legislation. Now, you can say you are against this for technical reasons and procedural reasons. I wish to talk about that, I do, because our leader went to the Republican side and said: We are ready to come up with a good plan to move forward on this bill. And he said to the other side: Let's start off with doing two amendments a side.

No, that wasn't good enough.

OK. Let's make an agreement for 3 amendments, 10 amendments, germane amendments. No. It was obvious from the start. No. Well, we think it is time to say yes, to stand and tackle the problem of global warming. They do not think it is time.

I don't think they will ever think it is time.

What is really remarkable is that the States out there have started. The western Governors have gotten together. They have signed a western climate initiative. Why? The American West is heating up more rapidly than the rest of the world. That is where my friend comes from. I didn't hear him talk about global warming. I heard him talk a lot about China. I don't know what he was saying, whether he is so happy that China keeps building these dirty coal plants. I will tell him, the people of China can't breathe. There was a whole series about this. We want to have a clean coal future. That is why the Boxer-Lieberman- Warner bill invests heavily in clean coal. We understand there is 200 years worth of coal in America, and we want to make sure we get the technologies moving. That is why we want this bill, so we get to the day where we can have clean coal.

I want to tell my friend, he got up and criticized the way this bill was handled and the rest. I wish to speak about what we have done on our committee.

The Presiding Officer serves on that committee and is an active member who has supported even stronger legislation than this. We are getting attacked because they say it is too strong. The bottom line is--my friend will attest because he was part of this--we had 25 hearings, one of which I remember well which he chaired, since the day I took the gavel, inclusive. The bill was written in the subcommittee. The bill was worked on. It got to the full committee. I remember my friend in the chair was not happy with the bill in the subcommittee. He worked very hard. We changed it. Yes, we changed it, because that is what legislating is about. There isn't one person in this Chamber who has all the answers. I certainly don't. This has to be a collaborative approach.

Then a wonderful thing happened. Senator John Warner said: I am breaking the stalemate. I have kids. I have grandkids. I am a national security expert. The national security people are saying we need to do something about global warming. It is going to be one of the biggest causes of wars in the future. This is a big issue. Senator Warner came and said he wanted to work with us. That meant we could get legislation out of the committee. Senator Baucus comes from a huge coal State. He took the lead in the coal provisions. We worked very hard.

When the bill came out of the full committee, we took it to our colleagues in the Senate. We did an unprecedented thing. We had open hearings for every Senator. I don't know if Senator Enzi came to any of those. Maybe he did. My staff is sitting here next to me. No, he didn't. I remember Senator Bennett came. I remember many Senators came. They asked the experts the questions. We had the IPPC, the leading experts. We had the Bush administration come to talk about public health problems. We opened a transparent process to all. We asked Senators: Can I come to your office? I went to probably 30 offices. Senator Lieberman did. Senator Warner did. Anyone who wanted it did. Transparent. What do you need? What do you think? How can we do this better? How can this work? That is the way legislation ought to be done. That is what leadership is.

This is a tripartisan piece of legislation--a Democrat, a Republican, and an Independent. I will say this: When you say no to this and when you divert attention to gas prices, which have gone up 250 percent under George Bush--250 percent--and when you say this bill is going to make it worse, you don't really know what you are talking about because if you look at the modeling that was done--and George Bush confirmed this--the modeling says under a worst-case scenario, gas will go up 2 cents a gallon per year for 20 years. It is a 12-percent increase attributable to this bill which we know will be entirely offset by the fuel economy. In other words, that 2 cents will be offset by the fuel economy bill. So this bill will lead to lower gas prices. Why? Because it will spur technology. That is the point of the bill.

If we could look at the pie chart, what you see is that most of the money that is generated in this bill from the permits bought by the 2,100 biggest emitters of carbon goes to tax relief for our people, consumer relief for people, deficit reduction, more than half, and the rest goes to investments. A little bit goes to help the emitters in the early years. The rest goes to national security, and international agricultural resources and forestry, low-carbon technology efficiency, and local government action. We want to help local governments. That is why the U.S. Conference of Mayors has endorsed this bill.

I have to say, what amazes me about what I hear from the other side is there is nothing about the issue of global warming or climate change. You don't hear anything, very little except from the supporters of our bill. Senator Snowe, Senator Warner, yes, we hear from them. But for the most part, we have heard no words that let us understand where we can sit down and talk.

As far as China is concerned, to hold them up as some kind of model, if that is what my friend was doing, let me say that I don't want to be a party to it. I want to be a party to leading China, leading India, leading the world, not following countries where the people are so sick they can't even breathe. That is not what we want. We heard the same thing when we passed the Clean Air Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act--this is the end of the world. They made all kinds of excuses why we should not act.

Tomorrow, we have a chance. I hope we will get a good vote. I don't know what we will get. But I do want to put into the Record some very important letters from our colleagues.

First, I am very touched to tell my colleagues that we have a letter from Senator Kennedy. I am so happy to say that. It reads:

Dear Chairman Boxer: I commend you and Senator Lieberman

and Senator Warner for your leadership on the Climate

Security Act. At long last, significant legislation long

needed to address this growing crisis is ready for Senate

action, and I wish very much that I could be there for this

landmark debate.

Regrettably, I'm unable to participate, but I hope my

colleagues will support the Act by voting for cloture, as I

would if I were able to do so.

With respect and appreciation and all great wishes,

Sincerely,

Edward M. Kennedy.

Ted, if you or your family is watching, we received this letter with such pride. We thank you so much, and we send you our heartfelt prayers and hopes for a speedy recovery. We miss you so much.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from Senator Biden:

We thank Senator Biden. I again thank Senator Obama. He sent a similar letter that he would, if he were here, vote for cloture. And a beautiful statement from Senator Clinton from which I will read in part:

. . . I would vote for cloture on this legislation if I

were able to be present in the Senate. . . .The time is now

to move forward and deal with global warming, and I urge my

colleagues to vote for cloture.

Continuing from her letter:

This bill makes steep reductions in emissions, encourages

the development and deployment of clean energy technology,

provides assistance for American families, training for

workers whom the clean energy industry will demand.

I ask unanimous consent to have the letter printed in the Record.

She congratulates us on the bill. It is with great pride that I add these letters to Senator Obama's letter.

I do hope my colleagues will give us a ``yea'' vote. We know that under the rule, we can have amendments. Absolutely, we can. We hope we will get a good cloture vote.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 5, 2008, at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed hearing.

Mr. President, I have a unanimous-consent request.

Mr. President, in order to debate global warming legislation to get us to lower gas prices, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with so we can get back to the business of the Senate.

I reiterate my request because the reason given by my friend is wrong. We have had a summary available for 2 weeks.

I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

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

I was hoping that I could engage my friend the majority leader as the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee. He has entrusted me, and my colleagues have, and I do not think we should leave here without me asking you a couple of questions because I think people who were watching this debate were very confused. I wanted to make sure I ask a series of questions to my friend, and then we will all go home because it is time to go home.

We expected to have a robust debate on the global warming bill and finally get this country off of fossil fuel, off of foreign oil, off of big oil. And we found that although my understanding was the majority leader had no idea about this, the Republican side, of course, forced the clerks to read the amendment, which took us 6 to 7 hours or so and took us all the way into the night; is that correct?

Isn't it true that as a result of these dilatory tactics and slowing us down and making us waste 30 hours to proceed, to get to a motion to proceed and then doing all this, isn't it true it puts us into a terrible bind here? We know the days have to be filled with legislative work. They have stopped work to fight for the status quo. They have stopped us in our tracks on this issue. I guess what I would like to say, yes, we will go to a vote. Because the Republicans don't seem--there is a few of them over there who help us, but most of them won't help us. We may not be able to move forward on this bill. At this late time of night, I ask the majority leader to comment, and that will be the end of my questions, I know there are a lot of people out there who are still up and watching, believe me, especially a lot of people in your home State and my home State. They understand this. They understand what is happening. Eighty-nine percent of the people polled said: Do something about global warming. The faith-based groups want it. The scientists are telling us this is right.

Tomorrow or I should say later today, we will have an amazing press conference with John Warner, myself and others, with former military people testifying to the fact that global warming is one of the looming threats to our national security. Still, the other side would stop us from getting to energy independence, stopping us from getting off foreign oil, stopping us from getting off big oil and using these ludicrous arguments about gas prices when, under George Bush's watch and their watch, gas prices went up 250 percent in 7 years and, in less than 1 year, 82 cents. It is ridiculous.

I hope the people hearing us tonight will pick up their phones and call their Senators first thing in the later hours of the morning and tell them to vote yes to allow this debate to move forward.

I thank my leaders, my majority leader and the assistant majority leader, for their courage in scheduling this, for standing up for the American people, and for doing everything they could to get us to a full debate. If we don't have it now, we will have it when we have a President in the White House--and you know where I come down on that one--who is going to send over a bill here, and we will get started on this work and get it done.

I guess, because I have to ask the question, I will ask you, my friend, if you look forward to that day.

Will the Senator yield?

Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator knows that Exelon has given its support to this bill and also NRG and they are coal and nuclear and Exelon is nuclear. So I wonder if my friend understands that Senator Warner is going to do an amendment, as he has said from day one, and I am sure you will help him with that amendment. The amendment probably has a very excellent chance of passing.

I wish to make sure my friend knows companies that build nuclear powerplants endorse this bill without any changes, although there are going to be more changes. Under some of the modeling, I wonder if my friend has looked at what the projections are for building nuclear powerplants without one amendment on this bill. Does my friend know the answer to my question? Has he looked at some of the modeling that we have gotten from this administration on this point?

Mr. President, if I might ask unanimous consent for 5 minutes so the three of us can engage because I think this is a very important point.

First of all, I think for my friend to say these two companies have no future plans to build powerplants or expand the plants, that makes no sense. I haven't read their annual report, but for him to say the only reason is because they are going to make some money off the allowances--I don't think he is looking at the plans for these companies, No. 1, but they can speak for themselves.

The second part, which my friend didn't answer, is that in the modeling we have seen, without one amendment, it looks as if there will be built, over the period of the lifetime of this bill, 150 nuclear plants. So without one amendment--and there are going to be amendments--and I have never been a great fan of nuclear energy. For one reason, I worry about the waste. I worry about the waste. I worry about having all this waste. So that is my issue. I have said many times there are a few of us who care about that, and there are others who seem to feel comfortable it is totally safe. We will have that debate.

But the fact is, when you pass legislation such as this, there is a winner. The winner goes to those energy sources that don't produce carbon just on its face. That is why we give so much for clean coal, because we are trying to make sure we keep going with coal and that it is clean coal.

So I would say to my friend, and then I will yield my time to Senator Warner to go back and forth--I am pleased he came over here. I love working with Senator Isakson. He is a friend. He is a pal. We don't see eye to eye on this particular issue because I believe that to have people who are nuclear powerplant proponents say this bill doesn't do enough, means they haven't looked at what the projections are ipso facto because it is a clean energy source, in terms of carbon. I wished to make that point. But I wish to thank my friend for the tenor and tone of his remarks.

I yield the remainder of my time to Senator Warner.

How much time does the Senator from Tennessee have remaining?

Mr. President, Senator Kerry wishes to question the Senator, if it is OK with the Senator from Tennessee. After that, I wish to be recognized for unanimous consent requests and perhaps an additional minute or two, to be followed by Senator Warner for 2 minutes and Senator Domenici for 2 minutes. And then----

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

Yes, that is exactly what I said.

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

Yes.

Mr. President, we all respect each other, but I have to say, I don't think my friend from Tennessee understands this bill at all. All I can say is, he couldn't understand it because the biggest piece of this bill, OK, is funds for the American people, a big tax cut. If my friend opposes a tax cut, he ought to say it. It is a huge tax cut for the American people to help them deal with the increases in gas prices.

Right now, under this President, we have seen a 250-percent increase in the cost of a gallon of gas, just in 7 years. We have no resources. This bill gives us the resources. It gives us consumer relief.

My friend from Tennessee used very harsh words, in my opinion, to attack a bill that really does address the issue of global warming, addresses the issue of energy independence. And for him to call it command and control is rather a joke since we specifically rejected a carbon tax and we allowed the free market to set a price on carbon.

As to Senator Domenici's statement, again, he says it will do nothing. Read the modeling. We do what we have to do in this country to exert the leadership to decrease these greenhouse gases, and we do it in a way that has won the support of business, labor, and huge numbers of people across this country, including the U.S. Conference of Mayors and Republican and Democratic Governors.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when we resume after lunch that I be recognized to speak for up to 30 minutes, followed by Senator Inhofe to speak for up to 30 minutes.

The Senator does.

If my colleague agrees.

And Senator Warner has 2 minutes.

Followed by Senator Kerry.

I thought you said it was OK.

Mr. President, I say that my friend from Pennsylvania has been a great leader on this, and I am ready right now, as is Senator Warner, as is Senator Lieberman, to start debating amendments. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership has said we need to run out 30 hours, so we are not going to be able to begin the amendment process. But it runs out tonight and, hopefully, first thing in the morning we will start with the amendment process.

Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent request, signed off on by Senator Inhofe and myself, and I ask unanimous consent that the order of speakers for this afternoon's debate on the motion to proceed to the climate bill be as follows: Boxer, 20 minutes; Inhofe, 30 minutes; Kerry, 20 minutes; Barrasso, 15 minutes; Whitehouse, 15 minutes; Grassley, 15 minutes; Casey, 15 minutes; Enzi, 20 minutes; Carper, 30 minutes; Alexander, 20 minutes; Warner, 20 minutes; Bond, 20 minutes; Lieberman, 30 minutes; Vitter, 15 minutes; Nelson of Florida, 15 minutes; and Craig, 15 minutes.

Further, I ask unanimous consent that following each speaker, the bill manager or their designee from the opposite side of the previous speaker have up to 5 minutes for a rebuttal statement prior to the next speaker listed above being recognized.

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

That is fine.

Mr. President, to remind the first few speakers, what we have is Boxer for 20 minutes, and I plan to yield 5 of those minutes to Senator Durbin, then a rebuttal by Senator Inhofe or his designee, then Senator Inhofe for 30 minutes, then a rebuttal by our side, then Senator Kerry for 30 minutes.

I have found this debate so far to be very interesting and very heartfelt. What I would like to do before I yield a few minutes of my time to Senator Durbin is kind of take it to where it has gone thus far. So far we have had a vote to proceed to this matter, a very strong vote to do that, 74 votes yes. That is good.

What isn't so great is, we are kind of being slow-walked by the Republican leadership in such a way that we can't start the amendment process which, as we all know, is crucial on a bill of this nature. So that is disappointing.

I think the debate has been very interesting, and I would like to relate where I think it is at this point.

Those of us who believe the Boxer-Lieberman-Warner proposal makes sense believe it is time to change the status quo as it relates to our energy policy in this country. What we have now with our dependence on fossil fuels is an energy policy which is now getting very costly because of increased demand in the world, because of speculation, because of a lot of reasons, and it is also polluting the planet to the point where we see the global warming impacts already starting.

My colleague, Senator Feinstein, was brilliant today, both at a press conference and on the floor, in talking about what is already happening in the West with our snow pack, with lakes that are disappearing, with the problems we are having. We know, if we listen to the scientists-- and the scientists are in agreement, and I am glad that my colleagues on the other side

are not debating whether global warming is happening; they have, it seems to me, accepted that fact--that we have a choice. Either we continue what we are doing today with the same kind of energy sources we have, with the buildup of greenhouse gas emissions and carbon pollution or we move forward and say: How can we tackle this issue in a way that saves the planet, saves the species?

By the way, 40 percent of God's creatures may be extinct if we don't act. How are we going to do this in such a way that our grandchildren and their children don't face a disastrous situation where the planet becomes inhospitable. We have the numbers, how many thousands more people will die of heat stroke. We have the numbers, and the numbers come from the Bush administration. So how do we do this in a way that saves the planet, cuts down on pollution and, by the way, gives us alternatives to energy we now have which, in the long run, will be cheaper, more reliable, and make us completely energy independent?

I believe what our bill does is achieve those goals. We fight global warming. At the same time, we bring about an economic renaissance from investments in new technologies that will make us energy independent. To me, it is a pretty stark choice. Either you are for the status quo and you are going to find an excuse not to be for this bill or you are going to take a look at this bill, which is a tripartisan bill--a Democrat, an independent, a Republican bringing it to the Senate-- reflective of America, reflective of the span of our views in this Nation.

The one thing I hear--again, it must be out of some talking point somebody wrote over there on the other side--is gas prices. Don't do this bill because of gas prices.

I am going to show you what has happened to gas prices without this bill. I want you to look at this. This is what has happened under George Bush's watch. We have seen gas prices go all the way up to $3.94 from $1.50, and that, in 7\1/2\ years, is a 250-percent increase. That is what our people are upset about.

My colleagues on the other side know this. They have done nothing about this. I am going to ask my assistant majority leader to talk about this. How many times we have begged them, do something about big oil. Return the money to the people. Investigate what is happening with speculation. No, they won't do anything. But what they are saying is, and what the Bush administration is saying is, if you pass this bill, this Climate Security Act, gas prices are going to go up.

Folks, they are going to go down. Worst case scenario that the President picked up, they will go up 2 cents a year. That is the worst case scenario. But that is going to be offset by the fuel economy bill that the President himself signed.

I am looking at Senator Carper, the Presiding Officer. He worked hard on that, with Senator Feinstein, Senator Inouye, and Senator Kerry, those of us on the Commerce Committee. That will be offset. The truth is, the stark truth is, you pass this bill, we are going to see a reduction in gas prices. We are going to have alternatives, and we are going to see jobs created. We are going to see new companies starting. We are going to see the genius of America take hold if only we have the courage--not to come on this floor and make a bogus argument about an issue they did nothing about, but if we have a real debate on what this bill means.

So at this time, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, how much time do I have?

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

I did.

He is going to speak.

Yes, I do.

Mr. President, I wonder how much time I have left of my time?

OK. Senator Warner is speaking on my time, then? Which is fine.

No, it is fine. I say to Senator Warner, I believed we were slow-walking it only because we are so anxious to get to the amendments. But I hear what you are saying--if this is real. We are going to have some good debate today. This is the list of Senators on both sides. This is good.

Well, let me say, I welcome everyone to the floor.

Let me conclude my little part today at this time by saying we have seen the faith communities come out very strongly for the Boxer- Lieberman-Warner bill--the Evangelical Environmental Network, the Evangelical Climate Initiative, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the National Council of Churches, the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, the Interfaith Power and Light Campaign. These are just some.

I think we have had some very wonderful meetings with them and press conferences with them. The way they look at the world is this: It is God's creation that is at stake, and they feel very moved and very bound to respond. It is rare you see this kind of coalition coming forward. But they look at God's creatures, and they say: We have a responsibility. They look at human beings all over the world who will suffer mightily if we do not get a grip on this global warming because we know, with rising sea levels, we will have refugees who will be stranded. We know in our own country we will have thousands die of heat strokes. We will have many thousands die from vectors and problems of new kinds of amoebas and so on that will now be present in the warmer waters.

We had an incident, and I believe it was at Lake Havasu, where we had some little child who went swimming and got a brain infection, who got that because the waters are getting warmer. So this is not theoretical. It is real.

Here, as shown in this picture, is a beautiful creature, the polar bear and people say: Oh, is this all about saving the polar bear? It is about saving us. It is about saving our future. It is about saving the life on planet Earth. And, yes, it is about saving God's creatures.

I remember sitting just a few feet away, at our hearings, from the scientists who said 40 to 50 percent of God's species could be extinct if we do not act. Now, that is not something we can turn away from, at least in my opinion. Here is this magnificent creature in peril because of the disappearing ice.

I also think we have to remind ourselves that global warming is a national security issue. I know when Senator Warner became involved in it, it was in great part because of this. A report conducted by the Center for Naval Analysis found that the United States could more frequently be drawn into situations of conflict to ``provide stability before conditions worsen and are exploited by extremists. . . . The U.S. will find itself in a world where Europe will be struggling internally, with large numbers of refugees washing up on its shores, and Asia in serious crisis over food and water. Disruptions and conflict will be endemic features of life.''

Look, this is not a quote from Senator Boxer or Senator Kerry or Senator Lieberman or Senator Warner, who care about this bill. This is a quote from the Center for Naval Analysis. This is very serious. This is, Implications for U.S. National Security, commissioned by the Department of Defense in October 2003. Here we are in 2008, and we have a long way to go to get this bill done.

So I would say in my remaining few minutes that you are going to hear people come to the Senate floor and say: If we do this bill, it is going to imperil jobs. Well, nothing could be further from the truth.

You look at Great Britain, where they have reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 15 percent since 1990, and their economy grew 40 percent. Mr. President, 500,000 new jobs were created.

The Apollo Alliance here at home said we are going to see thousands and thousands of new jobs created. We have a study of the impacts of California's global warming law: 89,000 new jobs projected. I can tell you right now, we are in a tough time in California because of the housing crisis, OK. A lot of folks being laid off are going to work for the 450 new solar companies that have sprung up in California.

If you look at the top manufacturing States for solar, it is Ohio, Michigan, California, Tennessee, and Massachusetts. So these jobs are going all over America.

Look at all of labor supporting our bill. It is remarkable: the Operating Engineers, the Building and Construction Trades, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. They understand we will be building a new infrastructure for our new energy which is going to result in lower energy prices.

Our local governments support action--the Conference of Mayors; the National Association of Clean Air Agencies; the Climate Communities, which is a coalition of cities, towns, counties, and other communities.

Not only will we see lower gas prices as a result of this legislation, but we are going to see amazing job growth. It occurred in Germany, just as it occurred in Great Britain.

Here we see this group that came together to support us saying: ``Prompt action on climate change is essential to protect America's economy, security, quality of life and natural environment.'' I want to reiterate this. You are going to hear predictions of gloom and doom.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 20 more seconds to close.

You are going to hear predictions of doom and gloom. But do you know what? Either these folks have not read the bill or they are reading off talking points that were made to start a political fight. We should come together across party lines. We should pass this bill.

I look forward to hearing from the rest of my colleagues.

Before I yield the floor, I ask the Presiding Officer, since we do not have anyone to rebut us, is it possible to go to Senator Kerry at this time? Would that be possible? I ask unanimous consent that we go to Senator Kerry, since we do not have the other side here. Or, actually, I ask unanimous consent to go to Senator Lieberman for 3 minutes, followed by Senator Kerry for 30 minutes.

Why don't you take 2 minutes.

Mr. President, I was hopeful to have 5 minutes, and I know Senator Inhofe is going to take a lot of time to rebut, so I ask unanimous consent to take 5 minutes now.

Mr. President, I have to say it is amazing to me how a Senator from a place that is almost ground zero on global warming could stand up here and be so negative, very unlike his Governor.

I ask unanimous consent to place in the Record the testimony of the Hon. David D. Freudenthal, Governor of the State of Wyoming, before the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming.

Mr. President, to quote part of what Governor Freudenthal said:

I am not urging continued inaction. The lack of a federal

plan essentially paralyzes the other players, both private

and public sector. The problem at hand is enormous. Climate

change does not wait for us and we cannot afford to delay.

I have had many conversations with the good Governor, and let me tell you why he is upset. The West has got problems. In my friend's own State, the average temperature rising in the Colorado River Basin, which stretches from Wyoming to Mexico, is more than double the average global increase. So his State is facing real problems, and essentially he gets up here, and has every right, and reads off the National Association of Manufacturers' talking points. I thought the West was independent. I am a little stunned.

We are hearing the same things now over and over: Raising gas prices. Let us look again. Under George W. Bush, we have had a 250-percent increase in gas prices. Where was my friend when we tried to do a windfall profits tax and give back the money to his poor working people he is crying about today? He wasn't with us on this. He has never been with us on this.

The fact is, we know if you look at this administration's own charts, not the National Association of Manufacturers', we will lower gas prices, because clearly we are going to have other technologies--other technologies. And the fuel economy standards that we passed here--and I don't know if my friend supported them; I hope he did--are going to make it cheaper for folks to drive because their cars will do better. So if there is a 2-cent-a-year increase--which is the outside limit, by the way--as Senator Lieberman says, at the end of the day it won't be an increase for our families.

Now, my friend talked a lot about working people, so let's talk about working people. Let's see the working people who support this bill. My friend says he talks for working people, so I will tell you who is supporting the Boxer-Lieberman-Warner bill. The International Union of Operating Engineers. They see jobs, jobs, jobs. The building and construction trades. They see jobs. The International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers; the International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators; the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron, Shipbuilders, Blacksmiths.

I don't have enough time. I don't have enough time. The Laborers International Union of North America. It goes on and on. So when folks on the other side get up and say they are crying for working people, why don't you listen to working people? Because they see what is happening.

Let me tell you, my friend, what is happening in California, where we have a cutting-edge global warming law, and whether this bill passes or not, they are moving forward. So are the western States, I say to my friend. The fact is, let me tell you what is happening. We have a terrible recession in my State because of the crash of the housing industry. We are hoping we come out of this, but in the meantime, I am told by my Governor, who is a Republican, Governor Schwarzenegger, who supported this bill, that 450 new companies, solar companies, have set up shop and they are hiring those workers.

Then my friend says: What are you doing for the workers? Take a look in this bill. We have worker training. My friend actually wrote one of the pieces of this part of the legislation. Universities have think tanks, and they have job training. We are very excited about the jobs that will come. We are excited about the fact that finally we will get energy independence.

Really, in a way, I smile. I am not happy about it, but I have to smile when my colleagues on the other side complain about gas prices when they stood there and supported George Bush through his whole term when gas prices have gone up 250 percent. What was his answer? He went across to the Middle East and held hands with a Saudi prince and begged. It did not work. Let's forget about these phony arguments and support this bill.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, if the Senator has completed, it is my understanding I will have a 5-minute rebuttal time; is that correct?

I am going to make a few comments and then turn to Senator Lieberman. Can you tell me when I have used 2\1/2\ minutes, please.

Let me say, new speaker, same talking points. Unbelievable. Not one of my friends on the other side, not one, in my opinion, has offered anything to combat global warming, to get us off foreign oil--not one. It is unbelievable.

I checked the record. Let's hold up these charts on oil. Here we go again. It has been 7 years since George Bush took office, and gas prices have gone up 250 percent. I did not hear my colleagues on the other side of the aisle saying: Oh, my people are hurting, let's go to the oil companies; we know the executives are earning many millions. Nothing.

Let's look at what happened in the past 9 months, since January 7: an 82-cent increase. My colleagues, silent. Now they are worried, just when we can get off foreign oil, just when we have a plan to do it, we can say goodbye to big oil, out of the stranglehold, oh, they are suddenly concerned because gas prices could go up 2 cents a year, which, by the way, is the outside limit and we know, because of fuel economy we passed, is not going to impact our people.

Let's look to June 2007. The Senate rejected an effort by Senator Baucus to provide tax credits to renewable energy by closing loopholes for the oil industry that is taking all the money from my people and your people and the hard workers of America: 47 Democrats said yes; 34 Republicans said no.

In November 2005, an amendment by Senator Cantwell to establish a national goal of reducing our dependence on foreign oil so the President does not have to go hold hands with a Saudi prince, let's see what happened then: 45 Democrats voted yes, but 52 Republicans said, no, they don't want to be energy independent. That is what this is about. All these crocodile tears, and you will hear it time and time again.

Where were they when we tried to do something about oil prices? How about in November 2005, an amendment by Senator Cantwell to create a new Federal ban on price gouging: 45 Democrats yes; 42 Republicans no.

Don't listen to this. This is a phony attack just when we are ready to get off foreign oil.

I yield to the Senator from Connecticut.

I have a parliamentary inquiry.

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

Why don't we formalize it?

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

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

Excuse me, if Senator Corker objects----

I am going to amend that.

Then he cannot speak.

That is not the order.

Mr. President, I wish to amend my UC to say that there be 2 minutes of rebuttal, after Senator Enzi completes his 7 minutes, to be controlled by myself.

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

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

Mr. President, I am thrilled to report the white smoke is coming out, and we have reached agreement on how to proceed. We are going to keep the order--and I hope everyone will make sure I am saying this right--keep the order the way it is. The only exception is, if a Senator wants to question another Senator, that Senator will do it off of the time they already have.

That is wonderful. Now I believe we go to Senator Casey for 15 minutes.

Mr. President, Senator Lieberman and I had planned to share this, but if Senator Warner wishes to jump in, we will try to yield him some time. Let me say this one more time: Every Republican speaker who has come to the floor has talked about a gas tax. It in a way is so ironic, because when they had a chance to help us deal with gas prices, where were they? My friend, Senator Alexander, says gas prices are going up 52 cents. He didn't tell you it is over 20 years, folks. He didn't tell you that, 2.5 cents a year, if he is right, and he is not right. That is the outer limit. The automobile fuel economy standard we passed will negate that, even if it is true. But where was he? Where were they?

We had three initiatives, we Democrats. They said nothing. Now, when we are on the brink of getting off foreign oil, getting off big oil, suddenly we can do nothing. It is sad, but that is the case.

What we are forgetting--and not one Republican has talked about this issue except for Senator Warner, and I am happy to say Senator Snowe is on her way to speak--the National Academy of Sciences concluded that climate change is real, attributed to human activities, and that global warming is unequivocal, and we need to do something about it.

The human health impacts, these come straight from the Bush administration people: Increase in the frequency and duration of heat waves and heat-related illness, increase in waterborne diseases, increased respiratory diseases. All they can talk about is 2 cents a year on gas prices, which isn't going to happen because we are going to get off foreign oil. Increased respiratory disease, lung disease, asthma, if we don't act. Children and the elderly are vulnerable. I don't hear any talk about that. All we hear about is 2 cents a year on gas, which we are not going to see either. The polar bears, we know they are in deep trouble. They are God's creatures, God's creatures. We have a responsibility to protect the 40 percent of the species that could be extinct.

Let me close my part by saying this. Evangelicals, the Conference of Catholic Bishops, the National Council of Churches, the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, the Interfaith Power and Light Campaign--these dedicated religious leaders have joined hands with us. Why? Because they feel this is a moral issue. We believe jobs will be created. Businesses will be created. Technologies will come to the fore and will solve the global warming problem.

I yield the remainder of my time to Senator Lieberman, if he wishes to share it.

Will the Senator yield for a question on his time?

I was asking if the Senator could use some of his own time.

It is the colloquy that I believe is important because my friend is so right. We approach the future with hope. We are not going to pull the covers over our heads. This is America. We need to lead, and we need to lead in technology. We know venture capitalists have told us they are waiting for this bill. They are going to invest more in new technologies than they ever did in biotech and high tech. I wish to ask my friend this question: It is true that we do have a very large tax cut in this bill; is that not so?

Is it not so that we have a large, almost a trillion dollars of consumer relief that goes through the utilities to help our consumers; is that not correct?

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

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

He is asking unanimous consent.

That is fine with me.

Yes.

I object.

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

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

Mr. President, before my friend leaves the floor, I thank him for a meeting in his office where he gave me this great idea. As a result of that meeting, I say to Senator Gregg, we took another look at the bill. Half of the bill is going back to consumers. Actually, a third of that--there are three pies: $800 billion goes into a tax cut. Senator Inhofe said it is not specific. We did it as far as we could. We know it is a fund for tax cuts. There is $900 billion for a deficit reduction trust fund, and $900 billion goes into a fund so that utilities can help our consumers. I thank him for that contribution.

When my friend came before the committee, I was so hopeful he would join with us because Senator Gregg made a beautiful statement. He said:

States alone can't solve the problem. I believe Congress

must take action to limit the

emissions of greenhouse gases from a variety of sources.

He talked about mandatory limits on greenhouse gases. I honestly thought this bill we worked on would be something my friend could support.

I will say, to talk about a consumption tax, you can make up anything and call it what you will. There is no consumption tax in this bill. This bill is modeled on the acid rain bill. The acid rain bill works the same way--cap and trade. No one ever called that a consumption tax.

Mr. President, I will just take a couple of minutes of rebuttal time. Of course, one of the purposes of our bill, in fighting global warming, is to save our environment. That is the whole point of the bill, and part of our precious environment certainly includes our forests. We actually do have a forest title in the bill. So I am looking forward to seeing my friend's amendment. I hope it works well with our bill.

We know, as the climate warms, our trees are now open to all kinds of pests that didn't really thrive in a cooler climate. If you look, for example, in Alaska--and, of course, we have this in California too--the bark beetle is thriving now because of warmer temperatures. So I certainly look forward to working with my friend on forests.

I am looking at the Presiding Officer sitting there now, and he and I are working on saving the rain forest. And I say to Senator Craig, he is absolutely right about the forests being a carbon sink, and that is why Senator Pryor and others are working very hard to save the rain forest. This is all part of what we do in this bill. So it is a little shocking for me to hear a colleague stand and say this bill doesn't do anything about forests, when the main purpose of this bill is to preserve and protect God's planet, and that includes our beautiful forests.

The Senator is right. I have been to those fires as they were raging and I have talked to those people and we have to do everything we can to be smart about protecting our lands.

I also want to address Senator Craig's point about India and China. He jokingly, I guess, said you should call it--I think he said the China-India----

--Economic stimulus blah blah. Ridiculous. Because the bottom line is, when anyone stands up and says India and China, it is because they do not want to do anything about global warming. They are code words. These are turned into code words, and what I want to say is, how far have we fallen as a nation when we sit back and wait for India and China to lead us on an issue as important as this? This is our turn.

I mean, we are going to hear in a minute from Senator Sanders, who is going to come at this and say this bill doesn't do nearly enough. Unfortunately, Senator Sanders, we have people here who think this bill does way too much, and they are fighting us every step of the way, which is very difficult for those of us who believe this is our challenge, this is our time, these are our grandchildren we have to protect, and this is our planet we have to protect.

So I want you to listen for a few key words in this debate. We will hear them more--India, China. When somebody says that, say: Senator, are you suggesting that America not lead and we turn over our leadership to those countries? That is wrong. America doesn't cower in the corner waiting for other nations to take on the great issues of the day. It is ridiculous. That is why our States, our Governors, our mayors, our conference of mayors support this bill. They are moving while the National Government is stuck in neutral.

Finally, we are moving. We are moving forward. We don't know how far we will get, but we are going to take this bill as far as we can. So keep your ear out for the words ``India'' and ``China,'' and ``gas price increases,'' which really is ironic since my friends on the other side of the aisle have done nothing but vote against us when we tried to push back against those super high prices--a 250-percent increase since George Bush came into office, and all he could do was go beg for oil from the Saudi prince. It is a pretty sad state of affairs.

So now I am done with my rebuttal, and I know Senator Sanders has been waiting and I look forward to his remarks.

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

Mr. President, in my rebuttal, I say to my good friend from Oklahoma that I truly believe one of the reasons his party is in trouble right now and his party is losing all these elections right now is because they do not have any answers to the problems that are facing us.

Whether it is high gas prices--and my friend can say Congress was responsible. Come on. I remember when George Bush ran with Dick Cheney, and they said: We are two oil men, and we are going to make sure--we are going to use the power of the Presidency and the Vice Presidency to bring down gas prices. What happened? We will show you the chart again: a 250-percent increase since George Bush came into power. You could try to blame that on the Congress.

That just does not wash because we Democrats have offered many ways to go after big oil. We have offered resolutions saying we should be free of foreign oil. Republicans, for the most part, do not vote for it. Democrats do. So that is a red herring.

To blame it on the Congress is kind of laughable, when George Bush was

complaining about the price of oil when he got into office--I remember that; it is not that much ancient history--and has been really unable to do anything about it. And just as we are on the brink of passing a very important bill to get us off foreign oil, get us off big oil, and all those programs my friend read from--and I will talk about them more tomorrow. Those are not bureaucracies. Those are actually investments we are going to make so we make sure we get off of oil so we make sure in the future our prices go down. That is what the Boxer-Lieberman- Warner bill will do.

So to sum up, what you are hearing--and I have listened all day to every speech. I am very pleased Senator Dole is here to speak in favor of the Boxer-Lieberman-Warner bill. I welcome her to this debate. We have had some great bipartisanship on our side today. We have heard from Senator Snowe. We have heard from Senator Warner. We are going to hear from Senator Dole. And, of course, we heard from Senator Lieberman, an Independent. So we have tripartisan support for our bill.

But on the other side, it is the same old, same old, same old-- attack, attack, attack. They say we have a tax increase when we have a huge tax cut. They ignore the fact that half of the bill's revenues go to the people--deficit reduction trust fund, tax cut, and consumer relief. They ignore the fact that what we do with the rest of the funds is invest them in our country, in our people. That is why many unions are supporting us, because they understand the jobs are going to be created, just as they are being created in California.

Right now we have a horrible problem in California with our housing industry, our construction industry. Those jobs are going, thank goodness, to the 450 new solar energy companies that are located there.

I know my friend who is sitting in the chair is grappling with all these issues. He is concerned about manufacturing. That is why some of the programs my friend from Oklahoma talked about are going straight into the economies of the coal States, to make sure we can find the answer.

Now, there is another Dayton Daily News editorial:

Cap-and-trade has two factors going for it--

I think this is good. Since you heard a negative editorial, here is a positive editorial.

Cap-and-trade has two factors going for it that one needn't

be an expert to understand. One, it is a new, inventive

approach, as opposed to government incentives. . . .

Second, the bipartisan appeal of cap-and-trade is itself a

case for adopting the idea. A way to actually get something

done. . . .

So I think in Ohio we have a mixed review. I wanted to put that into the Record. I also want to say to my friend, he is reading editorial after editorial. I will go with him toe to toe. I am going to read some editorials.

San Jose Mercury News:

The challenge of climate change is to avert disaster for

future generations. At least major legislation is now on the

table.

The Denver Post:

In a time of global economic competition, future prosperity

belongs to the quick. We urge the Senate to support

enlightened efforts to deal with the world's changing

physical and economic environment by passing the Climate

Security Act.

The Tallahassee Democrat:

Florida should support Climate Security Act.

The Orlando Sentinel:

Take [a] step forward. Climate-change bill being wrongly

targeted as bad for economy.

The Orlando Sentinel is very strong.

The Miami Herald:

U.S. Must Act Quickly to Slow Global Warming.

The Des Moines Register:

Congress Should Pass Climate Change Bill.

The Boston Globe:

Getting Warmer on Emissions.

Grand Rapids Press:

Seize the Chance to Address Global Warming.

. . . .the direction laid out in the bill represents the

best path for addressing climate change in the United States.

St. Louis Dispatch:

Serious for a Change.

The Climate Security Act is a good first step. . . .

And it goes on and on.

The Star Ledger:

Speed a Plan to Fight Global Warming.

It just goes on.

Newsday, the New York Times.

The Oregonian:

The legislation, called America's Climate Security Act,

would be the nation's first meaningful step. . . .

The Register Guard:

Time to Act. . . .

And this is to Senator Smith.

Harrisburg Patriot News:

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record proof that they are wrong. We will talk about them tomorrow.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

I assume that would happen after Senator Dole finishes her remarks; is that correct?

OK.

Then I ask unanimous consent that when Senator Enzi completes his remarks, the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the memory of a very special man, Sydney Pollack of Los Angeles County, who died May 26, 2008. He was 73 years old.

Sydney Pollack was a master filmmaker and will be fondly remembered for his over four decades of work in Hollywood as a director, producer, and actor.

Sydney Irwin Pollack was born to Rebecca and David Pollack on July 1, 1934, in Lafayette, IN. He was raised in South Bend and moved to New York City in 1952 to study at the Neighborhood Playhouse. While there, Sydney so impressed head acting teacher Sanford Meisner, that Mr. Meisner quickly made Sydney his assistant. Sydney went on to teach at the Neighborhood Playhouse from 1954-1959, guiding the talents of actors such as Robert Duvall, Rip Torn, Brenda Vaccaro, and Claire Griswold, whom he married in 1958.

At the urging of Director John Frankenheimer, Sydney left New York City in 1961 for Hollywood where he began work as a director of television shows. In 1965, Sydney made his movie-directing debut in the suicide help-line drama, ``The Slender Thread'' with Sidney Poitier and Anne Bancroft. In 1969, Sydney received his first Best Director nomination for an Academy Award for the film ``They Shoot Horses Don't They?''

As an actor, Sydney's key roles include Woody Allen's ``Husbands and Wives,'' 1992, Robert Altman's ``The Player,'' 1992, and Stanley Kubrick's ``Eyes Wide Shut,'' 1999. Sydney's most notable acting and directing role was in his 1982 comedy film ``Tootsie'' in which he played George Fields, agent to the main character played by Dustin Hoffman. His production company, Mirage, produced this film as well as many others, most recently ``Michael Clayton'' in which Sydney gave yet another memorable performance.

Perhaps Sydney Pollack's biggest directing triumph came in 1985 with ``Out of Africa.'' This landmark film received seven Academy Awards-- Best Picture, Director, Adapted Screenplay, Cinematography, Original Score, Art Direction, Sound--and three Golden Globe Awards--Best Picture, Supporting Actor, Original Score. ``Out of Africa'' was also an example of one of the great collaborations of all time between actor and director. Sydney Pollack and Robert Redford made seven classic films together that include ``This Property Is Condemned,'' ``Jeremiah Johnson,'' ``The Electric Horseman,'' ``3 Days of the Condor,'' ``The Way We Were,'' and ``Havana.''

Those who knew Sydney Pollack recognize him as a courageous, innovative and brilliant man. He took pride in tackling social issues through films which raise interesting and challenging

questions. His work as an ambassador of cinema will be remembered gratefully by all those whose lives he touched. He touched mine, and he will be deeply missed.

Sydney is survived by his wife Claire Griswold, and their two daughters, Rachel Pollack Sorman and Rebecca Pollack Parker.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 3, 2008, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 3, 2008, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 3, 2008, at 10 a.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 3, 2008, at 10 a.m., in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, on behalf of Senator Cardin, that Michael Morgan, a fellow from his office, be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of the debate on S. 3036.