Floor Statements

Mr. President, there have been several companies, organizations, unions, and environmental groups that have come out against this bill by sending letters urging Senators to vote no on the legislation. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record these letters signed by the following groups:

Duke Energy, National Association of Manufacturers, U.S.

Chamber of Commerce, United Auto Workers, Farm Bureau, and

the United Mine Workers of America.

Mr. President, let me first thank the Senator from Texas for allowing me to very briefly work in here.

It happens that I was elected to the House and then to the Senate at the same time as Craig and Susan Thomas. And you know, sometimes you see someone for the first time and they have, as Senator Enzi pointed out, that infectious smile, and that was Craig. That was Craig. Everyone had to love Craig.

I have thought of him so often during consideration of the bill that is on the floor now. Craig had such convictions, but he never quit smiling. What the guy could do is, he could say the same thing I would say and people would love him, but they wouldn't love me. I don't know how he got by with that, but he did.

I picture him and where he would be today if he were here while we have a bill on the floor that has an increase in gas taxes, $6.7 trillion of increases in taxes over the life of the bill, with job losses to China, and he wouldn't be sitting there, he would be up here. I applaud his replacement, the junior Senator from Wyoming, Senator Barrasso. Every time I turn around, he is coming down and saying exactly--exactly--what Craig would be saying.

I would say this about Craig Thomas: He was always there at our Senate prayer breakfast every Wednesday morning. He was a Jesus guy, like we are, and so I don't feel the sadness a lot of people do with Craig Thomas, because I can only say right now: Craig, I know you are here with us, and we are going to see you later.

I thank my colleague, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a quick question? I don't want to use the Senator's time.

I want it made clear today, as we go into the debate, that when we look back at the clean air amendments of the 1990s, we had something like 180 amendments considered at that time and we had it on the floor for 5 weeks. This goes much further than those amendments did, and yet they are cutting us off.

Let us make it very clear: The Republicans on this side of the aisle want to debate this bill, want to vote, we want recorded votes on amendments, and we want to vote on the bill itself.

Mr. President, how much time do we have on our side?

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I don't object. For clarification purposes, the 1 hour we have is between what hours?

And the Senator from California has between 2 and 3. Between now and 2 o'clock is equally divided.

Reserving the right to object, that wasn't quite my understanding. I thought we would have that 2-hour period equally divided but not necessarily--going back and forth would be my preference.

I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask this time be charged to both sides.

Very good.

Then, Madam President, one thing further: The Senator from Kentucky did not mention the times. I want to make sure all of our speakers on our side know we are going to hold them to the times because we have more speakers than we have time. Thank you.

Madam President, I have to object.

I am going to object, as I said earlier, to any of our speakers going over because they would be doing that at the expense of those who have not had a chance to speak. So let me renew that unanimous consent request, that the times for the next speakers will be Senator Vitter for 10 minutes, Senator Corker for 10 minutes, Senator Sessions for 5 minutes, Senator Domenici for 15 minutes, Senator Inhofe for 10 minutes, then Senator Boxer for 5 minutes, and Senator Inhofe for 5 minutes.

Madam President, I think it is very clear. Our speakers-- myself included--all we are asking for is to debate our amendments and get votes on our amendments.

I now yield to Senator Corker from Tennessee 10 minutes.

Madam President, it is my understanding that I have 10 minutes and then the distinguished junior Senator from California will have 5 minutes and then I will have 5 minutes in rebuttal.

Madam President, please tell me when I have 1 minute.

All Republicans want just one thing, and that is to debate this bill, bring it out in the open, let the light shine on it. Every Republican who has spoken has talked about the various amendments they want. All we want to do is discuss, debate amendments, have recorded votes on the amendments, and then have a recorded vote on final passage. That is a very reasonable request.

The Senator from New Mexico said on a couple of occasions that-- referring to the amendments of 1990--there were 180 amendments that were offered at that time in 5 weeks of debate. Now we are talking about 3 days. I don't want anyone walking away when they pull the bill and say the Republicans had anything to do with it because all we want to do is debate it.

One of the amendments I want is to set up a mechanism we put down in a very reasonable way that would protect truckers, small businesses, and farmers from higher diesel prices caused by the Lieberman-Warner bill. I still want that amendment, and I hope there is a change of heart someplace and we will be allowed to do it.

It is important in these last few minutes to talk a little bit about this 53 cents a gallon they have estimated. They have said it is not going to be 53 cents a gallon, but the EIA, the Energy

Information Agency, has estimated that it would be 53 cents. But they say we are underestimating. They said first they acknowledge their model does not take into account cost of allowances for refineries, it does not account for more production going overseas, and it does not account for supply-side changes in the market, which means as production costs go up, supply will get tighter. That is a conservative estimate.

Since our junior Senator from California has returned, let me one more time talk about the tax increase. This is a massive tax increase on the American people. At a press conference on June 2, Senator Boxer said this is tax relief. Later on, she said in the same press conference: We also have in this bill a very large piece, almost $1 trillion of tax relief. So when we see some increases in energy costs, we can have tax relief. Then she talks about tax relief.

What does the bill say? The bill says the tax relief referred to is nonbinding; it is sense of the Senate. That just means it is conversation. It says it should be used to protect consumers. It doesn't authorize it, it doesn't direct it, it doesn't provide anything is paid. So what we are talking about is that $800 billion is not going to happen. But assuming it did--that is after we have taxed the American people $6.7 trillion--then we might give them back $800 billion. That means that for every $8 we tax them, we give them back $1.

Next, nuclear. Certainly, the Senator from New Mexico has been a leader on this, and we have talked about trying to get more nuclear energy for quite some time. I will say this about the McCain-Lieberman bill. One of the reasons I don't believe Senator McCain is for this bill is that it doesn't have a nuclear component. His bill had a nuclear component, a recognition that we are not going to solve this problem in this country without a nuclear component. So this bill has no nuclear component.

When you look at other countries, such as France, they get 80 percent of their energy from nuclear energy. We are getting 20 percent. It is clean, abundant, cheap, and safe, and we ought to be doing more of that. I think we are on the road to start doing that, but not in this bill. It is not in this bill.

Next, the gas price, the 53 cents, I would suggest that is not just conservative, it is incredibly conservative because that is assuming 268 new nuclear electric powerplants by 2050. That is assuming we have 268 new nuclear plants. Well, according to the Electric Power Research Institute, and everybody else, the most we could have would be 64. So that is one-fourth the amount. That means the increase in the cost per gallon most likely would be closer to $2 a gallon instead of 53 cents a gallon.

On the $6.7 trillion tax increase, this is one where they say: Well, we are going to give part of this back. Even if they gave back $2.5 trillion over that period of time, this would still be a $4.2 trillion tax increase.

Now, you might say: What is all that money going for? Look behind me. There are 45 new or expanded bureaucracies that would be recorded or be established by this bill. In other words, if we do this bill, yes, we are going to be taxing the American people $6.7 trillion, and it is going to be going toward expanding and creating new bureaucracies--45 of them. I can assure you that none of that money would be returned to the people of Oklahoma.

Now, it is hard to explain what $6.7 trillion means. It has so many zeros, people's heads start to swim. The analysis by Charles Rivers Associates says that each family of four in my State of Oklahoma will have their taxes increased by $3,300 a year--$3,300 a year. That is a massive tax increase. If you go back and look at the last major tax increase we had in this country--it was the Clinton-Gore tax increase of 1993--where the taxes went up, Americans were taxed by some $32 billion. This would be closer to in the trillions. It would be 10 or 12 times more than that.

The last major thing to talk about is jobs. I don't know how anyone can look at this logically and come to the conclusion that this is not going to be the killer for jobs in America. I listened to my friends from Ohio and other States in the Midwest. We in Oklahoma don't really have that much of a problem, but in the manufacturing belt of the Midwest--Ohio, Michigan, Illinois--they are losing their manufacturing jobs. They have lost, by some estimates, up to 25 percent of their manufacturing jobs because we don't have adequate amounts of energy to take care of those things.

Well, this bill, according to the analysis that was done, would increase the loss of jobs in the manufacturing sector by 9.5 percent. In other words, it is not going to lose a few thousand jobs but many thousands. If the manufacturing sector is going to be dropping another 10 percent, it is devastating.

Now, where are these jobs going to go? They are going to go to Mexico and they are going to go to India and China. There are a number of different places they will go. This is the interesting thing--and I think the Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Enzi, gave a speech on this that I thought was very good. In the speech, he talked about what happens when jobs go to China. When jobs go to China, they do not have any emissions restrictions in China, so the problem we will have there is that it is going to increase the amount of CO2 in the air.

I have agreed going into this debate that we would assume that it is true that manmade gases--anthropogenic gases, CO2, methane-- are a major cause of climate change. I don't believe that is true, but we wanted to assume it because if we didn't do that, this debate would be all about science. We might end up winning the debate but not in the short time the leadership has given us for this bill. So if we were to have the time to do that and to talk about these losses and where these losses are coming from, it would be much more meaningful.

But the bottom line is this: You can't worry about what is going to happen if we lose the jobs without realizing that even if this bill were to pass, it will end up costing the atmosphere. We will end up with a lot more CO2 being emitted into the atmosphere. It is only logical we are going to lose these jobs to developing nations, some of which I have mentioned, and those developing nations don't have any restrictions on their emissions. So what happens? We pass the bill, emissions increase, and America goes through this economic disaster.

For those reasons, we can't do it, and for those reasons, we are getting all kinds of editorials all around the country saying we can't afford to do it and saying things such as:

This is easily the largest income redistribution scheme

since the income tax.

And saying things such as:

The only thing it will cool is the U.S. economy.

And saying things such as:

The Boxer climate tax bill would impose the most extensive

government reorganization of the American economy since the

1930s.

Our only request is to let us debate the bill, debate the amendments, vote on the amendments, and vote on the bill. It is a reasonable request.

Madam President, I have heard the same thing, and I have a great deal of respect for our chairman of the committee and her people's information. I used to chair that committee when the Republicans were in the majority. We are not a majority now, so it is Senator Boxer. But I wanted to cover the three things she covered.

First, gas prices, that somehow gas prices are not going to be going up as a result of this, and blaming that on the President, the administration, whether it is Cheney-Bush or whoever it is. Let's keep in mind that gas prices went up when the Democrats controlled the House and Democrats controlled the Senate.

Now, if anyone doubts who is at fault for this, go to the Web site for Environment and Public Works, epw.senate.gov, and look it up. What I have done is document the votes all the way back to 1995. Every time we tried to increase the supply of energy in America and every time we tried to increase our refining capacity, it was killed by the Democrats, right down party lines. Look it up. It is there. I have provided it for you so you don't have to find it yourself. It is there.

Now, I don't know how many times I can refute this; the distinguished Senator talks about the fact that she doesn't believe this is a tax increase and it is going to be a tax decrease by almost $1 trillion. It is $800 billion. But let us remember, as I said before, this bill takes $6.7 trillion from Americans in the form of a consumption tax on consumable goods and on energy. Now, the bill says we should give back $800 billion. That means for every $8 we are taxing the American people, we might be giving back $1.

The third thing is on jobs. You know, this is such a logical thing that I don't believe we should have to go into all this. If you do away with energy and dramatically cut energy in America, jobs have to go someplace. It is estimated that almost 10 percent of manufacturing jobs will go overseas. They will be gone.

She talks about the labor unions. Let me read what the labor unions say. The National Mining Association wrote:

Contrary to representations made of the Boxer substitute, S. 3036 does not provide sufficient funding or incentives for CCS and advanced coal technologies. Under the Boxer substitute, the advanced coal research program proposed is replaced with a kick-start program. In other words, they are opposed to it.

How about United Auto Workers? The last time I checked, that was a union. They said in a letter to her and to me:

The legislation still contains serious defects that would

undermine the environmental benefits while posing a threat to

economic growth and jobs. Accordingly, the UAW opposes this

bill in its current form. We urge you to insist that the

legislation must be modified to correct for these defects.

That is the UAW.

Again, the last thing the distinguished Senator said is we need to get to final passage, we need to pass this thing. I only hope that the Democratic majority of the Senate will let us vote on amendments and let us vote on final passage. If we take this bill down, I don't know who you want to point a finger at, but I am standing here right now begging with the leadership, let us debate the amendments and let us debate final passage, let us have public record votes on the amendments and votes on the bill so the light will shine brightly and everyone will know who is responsible if this bill goes down.

I yield the remainder of my time and yield the floor.

Mr. President, first of all, let me just speak as a conservative as we address the farm bill. First of all, I have been ranked as the most conservative Member, so I don't think I should have to prove my credentials.

Here is one of the things that people should understand: They should understand that the vote today on the farm bill was not a vote on this farm bill or another farm bill; it was a vote on this farm bill or reauthorizing the 2002 farm bill.

A couple of things that are in here that people should know in a conservative way are, No. 1, under the previous farm bill that would have been reauthorized, a farmer could be making up to $2.5 million and still get subsidies. This takes it down to a half million.

Secondly, the three-entity rule is out in this farm bill. Previously, someone could be claiming these benefits under three different farms; now they can't do that. So there are many reasons to vote for this bill other than those things that people have been talking about during the debate. I believe that is a conservative vote.

I yield the floor.

I think we are working on a unanimous consent request right now. Why don't you go ahead and use the remaining time in morning business, and then you will be the first speaker to use the remaining of that 21 minutes or whatever you want, and that 14 minutes will come out of the bill.

Reserving the right to object.

Reserving the right to object.

Mr. President, the understanding was that Senator Specter would be next for 15 minutes, and after that, the Senator from Massachusetts. If it is the Senator's preference to wait until afterwards, I have no objection to that.

I object.

Let's just try a new one. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Virginia be recognized for 3 minutes, followed by the Senator from Pennsylvania for 15 minutes.

All this takes place prior to the break for lunch.

My unanimous consent request, I say to the distinguished leader, would postpone the 12:30 recess for lunch for about 10 minutes.

Will the Senator yield?

Madam President, we have heard the same thing over and

over. This is only the second day. I guess we have maybe 10 days to go. The junior Senator from California is so interested in the fact that it is only up by 2 cents a year. Looking at the Energy Information Agency study, what is interesting about that is the Energy Information Agency study presumes that we would have an additional 260 nuclear plants on line. When the appropriate time comes I will be asking her that question, if she supports that.

We have several speakers coming down. Senator Grassley from Iowa is coming down, so I will visit a little bit until he gets here. Then we want to go on schedule, and I am hoping we will be able to go back and forth and hear from a number of these Members.

First, I thank my colleague from Wyoming. I don't know what he experienced this last winter. When the Senator from California talks about temperatures and all this, it happens that we in the State of Oklahoma have had the worst cold spell during this last winter than we have in 30 years. I find this to be true all over the country. You just can't have it both ways.

One of the good things about this discussion and this debate is we are not going to be discussing the science. I know the Senator from Massachusetts talked about the scientists in the IPCC. I have to remind my friends across America, really it was the IPCC. That is the United Nations, in case nobody knows who the IPCC is. They are the ones who started all this.

By the way, anytime there is a quote from the IPCC, it is a summary for policymakers. Those are not--

No, I will not.

That has nothing to do with scientists. We talked about 2,000 scientists. We have a list of 30,000 scientists who said: Yes, there can be a relationship between CO2 and a warming condition, but it is not major.

Let me use an example. This is the best example because it comes from someone we all love dearly, former Vice President Al Gore. Former Vice President Al Gore wanted to explain to us how serious it was way back when he was Vice President. This is in the middle 1990s. He said he hired a scientist. The scientist's name was Tom Wiggly. Tom Wiggly was a well-known scientist, one who was supposed to know what he was talking about. He was the choice of Vice President Al Gore.

When he did this, the Vice President said: Do a study and tell us what would happen, how much cooling would take place if all of the nations who were developed nations--not developing nations, not China, not India, not Mexico--just the developed nations were all to sign onto the Kyoto Treaty and live by the emissions requirements. How much would that reduce the temperature in 50 years?

Do you know what the answer was? Do you remember that? You remember that. It was seven one-hundreths of 1 degree Celsius. That is not even measurable.

Of course, that is not Senator Jim Inhofe; that was Vice President Al Gore. Al Gore has done his movie. Almost everything in his movie--in fact, everything has been refuted. Interestingly enough, the IPCC--on sea levels and other scare tactics used in that science fiction movie, it has been totally refuted, and refuted many times, by the IPCC.

On the conversation we have been having on gas prices, if you look at different studies--you don't want to believe studies. Look at some of the government studies. They have a responsibility to come out with something that is realistic. If you do not want to do that, just use logic. If you are to pass a bill that has a cap on the supply of oil and gas in this country, and that cap goes into effect, by mere supply and demand the price is going to go up. It has to go up. So the EPA estimates that this bill, the Lieberman-Warner bill, will increase fuel costs an additional 53 cents per gallon, and by $1.40 by 2050.

The Energy Information Agency weighed in on the same thing and estimated gas prices will increase anywhere from 41 cents a gallon to $1 a gallon by 2030. While the climate bill's proponents, as we heard just a few minutes ago from the distinguished junior Senator from California, argued that this shows the gas price numbers going up by only 2 cents a year, that is assuming we have 2\1/2\ times the nuclear plants we have today. That is all written in this report. Right now we have approximately 104. That would be 260 nuclear plants.

No, I will not. Not now.

Then, getting into the nuclear, it is one of the things I think no one is going to argue with. You are not going to resolve the energy crisis unless it has a strong nuclear component. I think you are going to have some amendments coming up on this bill that certainly are supported by Senator Warner, who is a cosponsor of the bill, that say we need to dramatically increase our nuclear capacity in America. I have been saying that for a long time.

If you look at European countries where there are not problems right now, in the European countries, actually 80 percent of their energy comes out of nuclear energy. In our country it is about 20 percent. I would say any kind of correction of this problem is not going to take place unless we have the nuclear plants.

The study that was referred to, the one that said only 2 cents a year, that is assuming we have an increase of 260 nuclear plants--it is wildly optimistic, impossible, can't be done. Nonetheless, that is what is being discussed. Nuclear energy is a very important part of our mix. It is going to have to be in the future.

I would say this: If I were on the other side of this bill, and I were trying to get this bill passed, I would welcome the opportunity to have that discussion on the nuclear amendment that will be offered by more than one person, but certainly offered by even the author of the bill, Senator Warner.

I see the Senator from Iowa has arrived, and I think he is scheduled to speak for up to 30 minutes.

The problem with that is, as you well know, it is not very reasonable because we are on a schedule to listen to other people, other than the distinguished junior Senator from Massachusetts.

I will be happy to do that after the remarks of the Senator from Iowa. Is that all right?

I don't think that is entirely accurate because I think the Senator who just spoke, Mr. Grassley, was on the list and was designated as the speaker with some time.

The UC that was passed allowed Senator Grassley to speak. He was out of order only by one. Senator Whitehouse was supposed to be first, and then he was supposed to speak. What is it you want? Maybe I can accommodate that.

That is fine.

According to the Chair, I have 4 minutes remaining.

First, let me repeat what I started out talking about in the opening discussion on this bill. We said we are going to go ahead and we will not talk about the science because the science is not in this bill. What we are going to talk about is the economics of this bill. That is what we have done. I have also said that if anyone wants to talk about science--I used the example of Vice President Gore's own scientist who said what a small, immeasurable impact it would be if we were to sign on to the Kyoto treaty which is cap and trade, very similar to what we are talking about today.

Then, in 2005, we went through the same thing with the McCain- Lieberman bill. That bill, I have to say to my good friend from Connecticut, was not nearly as bad as the Kyoto Treaty and far better than this bill today because the price tag on that was less than the Kyoto Treaty. The Kyoto Treaty would have been in the range of between $300 and $330 billion. That amount of money was a huge, very high amount. But the bill that came along in 2005 was the bill by McCain and Lieberman which is far less than that. Now, this is the one that is the big one. The range here in terms of the cost is about 20 percent, 25 percent higher than Kyoto would have been at that time.

We started talking about gas prices and the fact that the nuclear component is going to have to be necessary. But what we did not really get around to--and I think we need to do it over and over again in the next few days, until such time as we get onto the amendments--is the fact that the amount of money this is going to cost over a period of time, according to Senator Boxer in one of her early press releases, is $6.7 trillion. This would be in the form of higher gasoline or electric bills. A lot of people will make the statement that this really is not an accurate figure. Well, this is not my figure, this is her figure.

They have also said the bill provides that some of this money can be--or the amended bill, which we have not seen all that long a time, provides that some of this money can go back to poorer families. That amount in the maximum, as I calculate it, is $2.5 trillion, which leaves $4.2 trillion.

Now, you might wonder, what is all this going to go to? I found it very interesting, when the junior Senator from California was complimenting the senior Senator from New Hampshire, when Senator Gregg said: Well, we are in somewhat agreement, she said: The difference is, he wants to return that money to the people, that $4.2 trillion, instead of supporting this bureaucracy.

Well, as to the bureaucracy, we think it is going to be about 45 new bureaucracies, and it is going to take, over the 50-year life of this bill, I would suspect, right around $4.2 trillion to run that bureaucracy. I would conclude, though, by saying this country does not need 45 more bureaucracies.

Madam President, first, before the Senator from Rhode Island leaves, let me remind him he started the discussion by saying this is the first time we have been debating this. We have been debating this for years. I know the Senator from Rhode Island wasn't yet elected when we had the McCain-Lieberman bill on the floor and I remember that so well because I was down here for 6 solid days doing nothing but debating this.

One thing I wish to ask you to do is--we made the request when we first started--this is not a discussion on science. We are now talking about a bill. We want to talk about the bill. I am convinced that people coming down and talking about science are doing that because they don't want to talk about the bill, they don't want to talk about the tax ramifications of this bill.

Now, for the purpose of this discussion from now on, let's assume the science is there, that we don't have to worry about science. Let's talk about the bill.

I yield the rebuttal time to the fine Senator from Tennessee, Senator Corker.

Madam President, reserving the right to object.

Madam President, that was a 5-minute rebuttal. The question I will ask the Chair, has the 5-minute rebuttal time expired?

So it would take a unanimous consent request for him to have more time; is that correct?

OK. For 1 minute. After this I think we will try to stay on schedule.

Mr. President, I yield 20 minutes to the Senator from Wyoming.

He is asking for additional time.

Mr. President, can I make a parliamentary inquiry?

Is the time that was used by the Senator from Virginia going to be taken from his time?

The reason I ask is because we have a lot of people who have lined up afterwards who do not want to wait much longer.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, let me explain why. I know you are going to take it from your time, but the problem is, we have two speakers on this side who are pressed for time, and you are actually scheduled for after these two speakers. So if you could wait until your time, it would be----

Mr. President, I am going to just take a second on the rebuttal time, and then I am going to go ahead and yield to the Senator from New Hampshire. But my distinguished colleague, the junior Senator from California, several times talked about tax relief. I think it is time that we take this out, look at it, and put this issue to sleep.

At a press conference on June 2, the distinguished Senator said:

Today is the day to say yes to clean energy, yes to green

jobs, yes to science, yes to energy independence, yes to tax

relief.

Later on in the same news conference:

We also have in this bill a very large piece, almost $1

trillion of tax relief so that when we do see some energy

increases in energy costs in the early years, electricity,

for example, we can offset that.

In other words, send that back to those people as tax relief.

This bill has one of the largest tax cuts we have seen around this place in a long time. What does the bill say about this? It says the tax relief in the bill is a nonbinding sense of the Senate that says some funds ``should be'' used to protect consumers from the coming ``increases in energy and other costs.'' Here is the quote:

It is the sense of the Senate that funds deposited in the

Climate Change Consumer Assistance Fund under section 583

should be used to fund a tax initiative to protect consumers,

especially consumers in greatest need, from increases in

energy and other costs.

Now, I only say here that this does not direct any money to be paid. It doesn't authorize any money to be paid. Besides, if it did, it would have to go to the Finance Committee. So there is no tax relief in the bill.

I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from New Hampshire.

Yes.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my 5-minute rebuttal time I would normally use be added to my statement after the conclusion of the remarks of the Senator from Idaho since he has time allocated now.

Mr. President, first of all, let me comment that these things do not come without a cost. I am putting up some things that will happen in the State of Vermont. But I would also say this: It is so tempting to debate when he talks about the science here because the science is not settled.

But I stated--and I do not think the Senator from Vermont was on the floor when I opened the discussion yesterday, I guess it was--that for the purpose of this bill, so that there will not be Members coming down who do not want to talk about the bill and instead want to talk about the science, I said as far as the bill is concerned, let's assume the science is there so we do not have to put that on the table and use up the time. So that is what we have been doing. I hope we will be able to continue to do that. However, tomorrow, after the locked-in vote on the budget, I believe we are going to be going, hopefully, to some of these

amendments which I think are very significant.

Now, I had by unanimous consent asked to have, I think, locked in 30 minutes. I do not need that much time. I would like to repeat a couple of things.

I understand Senator Enzi is coming back to the floor. One of the things I think he stated earlier when he was speaking was something that somehow people have forgotten; that is, there can be no debate over whether jobs are going to be lost. Jobs have to be lost because we are talking about putting a cap on oil and gas, putting a cap on our energy supply. We are talking about doing what we can to reduce coal. There is no nuclear provision in this bill. So we are going to have a cutback in the ability to run this great machine we call America.

So what happens to manufacturing jobs in the State of Ohio and other States? They go south. Most of them will go probably to China, some down to Mexico. But already we have seen a huge migration of jobs, manufacturing jobs, and the estimate on this bill is that would be increased by 9.5 percent. We have the studies that show we would lose manufacturing jobs by another 9.5 percent over and above all of the manufacturing jobs that are gone.

Now, if you do not agree with these studies, use a little logic. If there is no energy to run these manufacturing jobs, they have to go where the energy is. It has been 30 years since we have had a new coal- fired generating plant in the United States. China is cranking one out every 3 days--every 3 days. And I know it is a mess over there. It is a polluted mess. We spent a lot of time talking about CO2. But I would state to the chairman of the committee that in China, it is SO2, CO2, it is mercury, it is everything else, because they do not really have the restrictions.

So the point Senator Enzi was making was that when these jobs go over there--let's say this bill passes, which it will not, but if it did pass, that it would have the effect of increasing CO2 in that respect. And it is very simple because it would go, as Senator Enzi said, to these countries where they have no controls. So that is very significant.

The third point I wish to make, because it has been made several times by my very close friend, the junior Senator from California, the chairman of the committee, that somehow the increase in gas has something to do with the Bush administration, when I would only remind you that during the period of time we have had the acceleration of the price of gas at the pump, it has been through the Congress, congressional acts. In fact, if anyone doubts that, they can go to our Web site. The chairman and I, as chairman and ranking member, have a Web site called EPW, Environment and Public Works, epw.senate.gov. When you go in, you will see I have documented the votes of every time we try to increase our capacity of energy, and it goes down on straight party-line votes. I am talking about increasing the exploration in ANWR, offshore, in all of the other areas, addressing the tar sands, trying to do something in expanding into the shale in western Colorado, the Western United States, trying to do something about tax incentives for marginal well production. You know I know about that because we are the largest State for marginal production in the country. That is wells of 15 barrels or fewer a day. So if we had all of the marginal wells producing today that we plugged in the last 10 years, it would amount to more than we are currently importing from Saudi Arabia.

So I have to get on record here to make sure everyone understands. And the documentation is there. Every time we have tried to either get nuclear or tried to do something about clean coal technology or something about oil and gas, to expand our supply of energy in America, it goes down right along party lines. That is the problem we have.

Now, I do have another area I wanted to talk about and maybe try to put it in a different context than it has been in the past, because the bill with all of these ramifications, with the 45 new bureaucracies, with all of the money, with the $6.7 trillion of additional money that is going to come into the system--that has to come from taxpayers, from consumers of energy. That is where it is going to come from.

When this all comes up, it is a shell game. It reminds me of the magician who takes a small object and he puts it under a shell, all under the watchful eyes of the public. Then he starts mixing them up in the shells. The problem is that the magician does such a good job of shuffling the shells around, no one can agree where the prize is, and sometimes the magician simply removes the prize in a slight-of-hand and all of the shells are empty. Well, this bill, the Lieberman-Warner bill, is much like a shell game. They promise everything to everyone.

There is one group--I do not think I will mention their name now--one of the big ag groups in this country has came out, and they were convinced they were going to get all of the credits and they would be able to control these credits and they were going to make all of this money. Now they realize that is not true, so they have taken their support away from this.

But the bill that promises everything to everyone showed the public a pile of money under one shell, and then they lead people to believe everyone is going to get that. The trouble is, there are more losers with the Lieberman-Warner bill than winners. What makes it worse is we are the ones choosing the losers and winners. We try very hard to make everyone think they will be better off under this redistribution of wealth, but, like most schemes, it does not work.

The first major shell game trick is the claim by the sponsors that the bill would generate $6.7 trillion of new revenue. The problem, of course, is that revenue comes from consumers and people in higher energy costs. It is a tax on everyone in this country who uses energy. It is a tax on energy, of course, either consumer products such as food, manufactured goods, or higher prices on anything made of concrete, steel, or chemicals. Now, you can bet that whenever the Government tells you they are going to redistribute money, the money they are distributing is coming from the U.S. taxpayers one way or another.

The next shell game trick is the promise of tax relief. We have heard this. We talk about tax relief. I hope everyone was listening when I read very carefully from the bill that there is no tax relief. They are merely talking about this, what they should do with all of this money after it has been redistributed back to people. But it doesn't say they will do it. It does not authorize it. It does not direct it. In fact, if it did happen, it still has to go to the Finance Committee, and they would have to make those decisions. But they are saying--the sponsors of the bill are promising Americans $800 billion in tax relief over the next 40 years. Now, the trouble is they are taking in $6.7 trillion. If they do redistribute the $800 billion, that is not a very good deal; that is $1 back for every $8 put in. Only in Washington, DC, does that sound like a good return on investment.

Now, how much tax relief will $800 billion provide? Let's break it down. Over 40 years, that is $20 billion a year. While that seems like a lot of money--and it is--this year's tax rebate cost the Government $150 billion. This means that for the U.S. taxpayer to play the Lieberman-Warner shell game, they have to fork over $8 for the chance of getting back $1.

The bill's sponsors also play the same shell game with different industries. They promise them that a small amount of money is hidden under one shell and hope they don't notice how much they will have to pay overall. They promise the auto industry less than $2 billion a year for research and development, when the industry already spends $75 billion a year. They promise $34 billion to help transition oil refineries over the life of the bill, when in the first year alone, 2012, they will have to purchase over $65 billion worth of credits based upon conservative estimates. This is actually written into the bill where you have the credits allocated by industry for the industrial base. Then they say: This is the amount that you get credit, but this is what you are going to have to eventually come up with. That is the difference, that is what they are going to have to pay. In the case of the auto industry, it will be $65 billion worth of credits. They offer fossil fuel-fired powerplants an average of $7 billion a year in assistance, ignoring the fact that in the first year alone they will have to

purchase over $20 billion in allocation credits.

Even worse, the sponsors play the same shell game with workers' jobs. They promise a whole host of new so-called green jobs in exchange for good paying manufacturing jobs. The problem is, the good jobs created under Lieberman-Warner are in developing countries such as China, India, and Mexico. The American worker is left with an empty shell.

Dr. Kenneth Green, with the American Enterprise Institute, stated in testimony before our committee, when I asked him if global warming initiatives create new green jobs:

The short answer, I would say, is that they might do so,

but only at the expense of other jobs that would otherwise

have been produced by the free market. Further, I would

suggest that the end result would be significantly less jobs

on net, less overall economic growth on the net, and most

likely, the loss of existing capital as a by-product.

That was in our committee. That was a testimonial from someone who is very knowledgeable. Even the so-called green jobs will be going overseas. Just last month the California-based SunPower Corporation, the second largest solar cell manufacturer in the world, announced it is building its new manufacturing plants in Malaysia. I am sure one of my colleagues might say the financial incentives in the bill for solar power will keep more of these jobs here in the future, but we already subsidize them by $24 dollars per megawatt hour compared to 44 cents for coal and 25 cents for natural gas. How many more subsidies do they think they need to keep the green jobs here?

Another victim of the shell game is the American farmer. They are promised funds for carbon offsets. Yet they aren't told of the increased prices they will be paying for everything from electricity to propane to natural gas to diesel fuel, fertilizer, chemicals, tires, batteries, belts, bearings, farm machinery, spare parts, and everything else they use. That is the reason you have all the farmers groups opposing this, saying: We can't be dealt one more bad hand.

I know my farmers in Oklahoma are having a problem, in addition to a lot of the overregulation they are suffering through. We have something that is probably not very prevalent in the State of California. It is called the burying beetle. It is about that big. That stops farmers from being able to cultivate their fields, and it is a serious problem. Now they look at this and say: Wait a minute. It is going to be even worse in the future.

Farmers have serious problems. In addition, this empty shell promise will come with increased regulations and inspections by the EPA as they set up, monitor, and then annually verify farmers' activities. My farmers always use the phrase, they don't want more bureaucrats crawling all over their farms. It is almost as if the sponsors are playing a shell game in hopes of distracting farmers with new regulatory programs and higher costs.

This is kind of funny. I happened to be chairman at the time, back when the Republicans were the majority, of the Environment and Public Works Committee, when there was an effort to make propane a hazardous material. I remember seeing a bunch of people wearing red coats walking in the back. They were young people. I didn't know who they were. I said: We can document that this will cost the average farmer in my State $700 a year more than they are paying now in excessive regulatory costs. We defeated that. When we defeated it, all these young kids stood and applauded. I didn't know it, but it was the ag youth committee of the State of Oklahoma. There must have been 40 of them there, bright young kids. Of course, every shell game someone comes out ahead. In this case, the magician is the Federal bureaucracy.

The bill creates a host of new Federal programs, boards and funds, all of which will require new regulations, staff and resources. To give you an idea, when people talk about the amount of money, this net amount of money is out there. We talk about the $6.7 trillion. We talk about a period of time that will extend 38 or 40 years out right now and some 45 bureaucracies. I want you to look and see. This is what we would be creating. People who vote for this bill are voting for all these bureaucracies: A Federal greenhouse gas registry, efficient buildings program, a super efficient equipment and appliances development program, a clean medium and heavy duty hybrid fleets program, research on the effect of climate change on drinking water utilities program, the Rocky Mountain center of the study of coal utilization, the Sun grant center for research on compliance with the Clean Air Act, the outreach initiative on revenue enhancement for agricultural producers, the agriculture and forestry emissions distribution program, the carbon market oversight and regulation working group. These are all going to be staffed with people. It is all going to be paid for by the results of this bill, if it should pass, which I am quite sure it will not. The carbon market efficiency board, the climate change technology board, the climate change worker training and assistance fund, the efficiency and renewable energy worker training program, the climate change worker assistance program, the multiagency steering committee, the national climate change advisory committee, the office of climate change adjustment assistance. I have to read these out so people know this monster we are talking about. The workforce training and safety program, the climate change consumer assistance fund, the transportation sector emission reduction fund, energy efficiency and conservation block grant program, tribal climate change assistance fund, State wildlife adoption fund.

People say: What are you going to do? Let's assume that all this stuff is supposed to go back to taxpayers which we have calculated to be something less than--at the very most it would be $2.5 trillion, that that would leave $4.2 trillion. This is where it is going, for all these bureaucracies: The early action program, the efficient manufacturing program, the low and zero carbon electricity technology fund, the carbon capture and sequestration technology fund, the liabilities for closed geological storage sites task force, the climate change transportation technology fund, the cellulosic biofuel program. This is kind of interesting because right now my State is a leader in the cellulosic biofuel programs. It is Oklahoma State University and the Noble Foundation. I would like to see this happen.

I stood on the floor of the Senate--I think this is one of the rare things we agreed with, I say to my good friend, the Senator from California. All these ethanol mandates that we went through, initially all the environmentalists were for these mandates. Now people realize that with the mandates and with the increase in the mandates in the energy bill of 2007 that we passed in December, now it has doubled or tripled the mandates that were already there. What is happening? They produce a dirtier fuel that is less efficient. It is not good for the engine. It takes the life of the engine down. But worst for me in my State of Oklahoma, it is competing with feedstocks. Our feedstocks in Oklahoma have tripled since all this stuff started because they are using this. The cellulosic biofuel program was a result of that because that is something that is not going to be used to compete with.

On with the list: The Bureau of Land Management emergency firefighting program, the Forest Service emergency firefighting program, the Federal wildlife adaptation program, the national wildlife adaptation program, the science advisory board, the climate change and natural resources science center, the international climate change commission, the international reserve allowance program. These are all bureaucracies, you guys. I hope somebody is watching. The capacity building program, the clean development technology deployment fund, the international clean development technology board, the international climate change adaptation and national security program, the interagency climate change task force, and finally, the Climate Security Act administrative fund.

Here we are with all 45 new bureaucracies, programs that are created. I guess we know who the winner is in the Lieberman-Warner shell game: The Federal Government, at the expense of families, workers, and taxpayers who are going to pay for all this fund we will be having.

I don't recall, in the years I have been here, seeing more interest from

more different areas in a piece of legislation. I would like to share some of the things that I thought were of interest. A lot of these are from, I think it was the senior Senator from Ohio, who was talking about one of the medias I will be quoting. I will get to it. I am not sure which one it is.

The Associated Press:

With gasoline at $4 a gallon and home heating and cooling

costs soaring, it is getting harder to sell a bill that would

transform the country's energy industries and, as critics

will argue, cause energy prices to rise even more.

That was from ``Economic Cost Drives Senate Climate Debate.''

The Wall Street Journal:

This is easily the largest income redistribution scheme

since the income tax.

The New York Post:

The only thing it will cool is the U.S. economy. In effect,

the bill would impose an average of more than $80 billion in

new energy taxes every year.

Robert Samuelson in the Washington Post:

Let's call it by its proper name: cap-and-tax.

George Will, a little more intellectual on this one:

Speaking of endless troubles, cap-and-trade comes cloaked

in reassuring rhetoric about the government merely creating a

market, but government actually would create a scarcity so

that government could sell what it had made scarce.

Charles Krauthammer, this is one that was a few days ago. There is another one in this morning. I would invite anyone out there who wants a lot of details on how bad this legislation is, I had an op-ed piece in this morning's Wall Street Journal. I covered all these things in much more detail with documentation, and you can only do it in print. So I did it.

Charles Krauthammer:

There's no greater social power than the power to ration.

Other than rationing food, there is no greater instrument of

social control than rationing energy, the currency of just

about everything one does and uses in an advanced society.

Human Events:

It will significantly increase the price Americans pay for

gasoline and electricity. Cap and trade is an economy-killer.

The Hill:

A bill that the senate will debate after Memorial Day could

add about 50 cents more to the price of a gallon of gasoline,

according to a study.

There are several studies in this area. It is far greater than that. I think the EPA actually had the study that said that it would be 53 cents a gallon increase.

The Wall Street Journal:

Boxer climate tax bill would impose the most extensive

government reorganization of the American economy since the

1930s.

Investor's Business Daily:

The bill essentially limits how much gasoline and other

fossil fuels Americans can use, as Klaus puts it . . .

Talking about one of my real heroes, he is the President of the Czech Republic. He said:

. . . in the name of the planet. A study by Charles Rivers

Associates puts the cost (in terms of reduced household

spending per year) of Senate bill 2191--

which is the present source on this--

to $1,300 per household by 2015, rising to $1,500 to $2,500

by 2050.

Electricity prices could jump by 36 percent to 65 percent

by 2015 and 80 percent to 125 percent by 2050.

By the way, we have another chart which I do not have with me which I will be showing tomorrow that has the breakdown by CRA, showing what each State has. It happens that the highest States in terms of the problems are the States of Oklahoma and Texas. The average cost for the average household in my State of Oklahoma and the State of Texas is $3,300 a year. So it is far greater than average, so naturally I am a little more concerned than some of the others are.

The Las Vegas Review Journal:

Consumers are already struggling with gasoline approaching

$5 a gallon and other utility costs that have been moving

steadily higher for the past few years. New mandates placed

on producers in the name of ``global warming'' will only make

matters worse.

The Plain Dealer--this is the one that is in Cleveland, OH, so I am sure the Chair knows a little bit about this newspaper. This is the one that was characterized by the senior Senator from Ohio as normally being moderate to liberal as opposed to being conservative. It says:

The bill, as conceived, will just bore new holes into an

already battered economy.

That was an editorial by the Plain Dealer of Cleveland, OH, called: ``Carbon Cap-And-Trade Bill Is Going Nowhere, For Good Reason.''

Mr. President, it is my understanding I have 30 minutes. How much time do I have remaining?

Yes, but I also had the 5 minutes in addition to rebut after the speech, which I acknowledged and asked for when I first started talking. Twenty-five plus 5 equals 30.

Pittsburgh Tribune-Review:

If there indeed is a second Great Depression to come, this

will be the government measure that guarantees it arrives

with a devastating gut punch.

San Francisco Chronicle. We have to have this one because generally they are on the other side of these issues.

The Senate debate on the climate bill probably will focus

on its impact on energy prices and the economy, which in the

short run could be considered significant.

Anyway, we have many, many more. So I guess to finalize what I have said, you have to repeat some of these things. First, we do have the problem of gas prices. You could argue it is not going to increase the price of gas. Every study we have, except one that presumes we are going to triple the number of nuclear plants, agrees with that.

In fact, the Energy Information Agency estimates that gas prices would increase from 41 cents somewhere to a dollar. When they talk about only 2 cents a year, that is on a study the EIA did that assumes that currently we have 104 nuclear plants and that would be increased by 260. Nuclear, we are going to have some amendments. There will be several amendments on that.

Let's remember now the other two major things that are worth repeating. You lose your jobs. The jobs are not going to be here. You are not going to have the energy. This bill puts caps on all the energy we produce today. They talk about the future. Yes, as the Senator from Vermont said, I want to have the renewables. I want to have solar energy that will work. I want to have wind energy. All of these we want to have. We need them all.

But what are we going to do today? That technology is not here. Today the technology on oil and gas is here. The technology is here on clean coal. We actually have, right now, 32 applications pending on new nuclear plants, a nuclear renaissance. That is what we need in this country.

Lastly, the tax and spend: $6.7 trillion, all going to be paid for by all these people out there. Maybe they may get back $1 out of every $8 they pay, but I doubt it. Because, as I said earlier, if you look and see clearly what it is that is in the bill, it says we should return some of this money to them, but it does not demand it. It does not authorize it. The Finance Committee would end up having to do it.

Now, with that, I will yield the floor for the response.

Yes. Mr. President, it is my understanding we have agreed to give Senator Enzi some time.

First, we will have the Senator from North Carolina. Then I will have 5 minutes of rebuttal.

Mr. President, it is my understanding that the junior Senator from California is going to want to yield back the morning business time, I suppose, and get on with the bill; is that correct?

Will the Senator yield for a question?

I assume the Senator has an opening statement to make, and I do, too, on this legislation we are going to be going to. If you have an opening statement, Senator Specter would like to follow you and I would follow him. Is that an order that would be acceptable to the Senator?

Twenty-five minutes.

Mr. President, what I would like to do, we do have it locked in right now in terms of a UC. It would be Senator Specter next for 5 minutes, me for 25 minutes, and Senator Lieberman for 20 minutes.

I will be managing the time in opposition. The time that has been requested from me is for Senator Bond to follow Senator Lieberman. Then I am sure you would be on there.

He is our time.

Mr. President, I am going to have an opening statement. Let me say that my good friend Senator Boxer and I, the last time we had a major bill on the floor, were in agreement with each other having to do with the Water Resources Development Act and, prior to that, transportation reauthorization. On this, we very much disagree. She has every right to be wrong. I wish to also mention, since she commented about the possibility that the cloture vote might be tough, I don't think it will be because there are a lot of people who very much oppose this legislation who are going to vote for cloture, including some of the leadership on our side that is opposed to this bill. Although the vast majority of the scientists do not believe that manmade anthropogenic gases, CO2, methane, are a major contributor to climate change, that is not a part of the debate of the Lieberman- Warner bill. If it were, it would take a lot more time than we will be able to devote. So we are not going to discuss that. That is for another day. As we begin the debate today, the climate legislation, I want to make a few points.

First, I wish to discuss what we as Republicans stand for, then talk briefly about the process of how we got to the debate and how we got the debate on the floor today, then, finally, discuss how we wish to see the floor debate progress over the coming days or perhaps the coming weeks, as some believe it might be.

First and foremost, we, as Republicans, believe any legislation that attempts to address climate change must protect American families and must protect U.S. workers. It has to maintain global fairness and, finally, offer clean energy solutions. Unfortunately, this bill, the Climate Security Act of 2008, which, it is my understanding, is what it is called now since this has been an amendment or a substitute that we are considering, fails on all of these counts.

We believe any climate legislation must offer clean energy solutions. Substantial investment must be made in new clean energy technologies which would generate more energy efficiently by producing less carbon without the Government picking winners and losers. It makes good business sense to produce energy more efficiently, and American companies are at the forefront of developing these new technologies. We support investments in solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, and other innovative technologies, but we must be careful not to interfere in the free market system or we might stifle new innovations. Any approach that addresses climate change must incorporate more emission-free nuclear power. We are on the verge of a nuclear renaissance in this country, and it is key to our long-term domestic energy independence. We have to address the remaining issues that hinder the construction of new nuclear plants such as loan guarantees, waste, and regulatory certainty. Senator Domenici, the greatest champion the nuclear industry has ever had, is retiring at the end of this year. I can think of no greater honor to him than to make his renaissance a reality, the renaissance of nuclear energy.

Coal is our most abundant energy source. It must be a part of any solution. We must invest in clean coal technologies in order to increase our energy security. While we are continuing to explore carbon capture and storage, we cannot hold the future use of coal hostage to this one technological feat. Senator Byrd has been a tireless advocate for greater use of coal, and I know Senator Voinovich and Senator Barrasso on the committee have been championing its use.

We need to promote natural gas. Increasing supplies of natural gas are needed in order to compensate for fuel switching which could harm America's industrial base and export jobs. We know that fuel switching is taking place right now. We have an almost limitless supply of natural gas available, and we have proven we can develop this important resource in an environmentally friendly way. I wish to see us build upon Senator Warner's past work and open up more of the offshore resources which would be absolutely necessary for us to capture this natural gas.

We must seriously consider how climate legislation will impact economic competitiveness. Emissions are a global issue which should be addressed globally, not unilaterally. All major emitting countries, including developing nations, must participate in order for any U.S. program to produce meaningful reductions in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. Today China emits more carbon dioxide than we do. That divide is only going to grow because 2 years ago we produced more than they did. China is increasing their number of coal-fired generating plants by two each week. The Kyoto treaty expires next year, and any future treaties should include developing nations. Any action has to provide real protections for the American economy and jobs. American jobs should not go overseas where environmental laws are less strict and emissions increase. If the United States were to act unilaterally, manufacturing facilities will go overseas, because they have to go where the energy is. We know that. That is where the energy regulations or emission regulations are more lax. This will result in more emissions at the industrial source and more emissions in transporting products back to the United States.

Let me repeat that. In the event we acted unilaterally and we had a cap-and-trade system that ended up reducing emissions of CO2, then companies that would be the losers in this program would merely move to China or India or down to Mexico. There they don't have any emission requirements. So it would actually have the effect of increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Any action has to provide real protections for the American economy and jobs. We must protect American families. Any action should not raise the cost of gasoline or energy to American families, particularly for the low income and elderly who are most susceptible to energy costs. Those who make $20,000 a year spend one-third or more of their income on energy. We can't turn our back on less fortunate people. We have to carefully consider the policy tools used to enact any climate legislation. Any solution must not include slush funds controlled by Federal bureaucracies used to reward political friends. The climate solution should not require an overhaul of our economy, and those decisions should not be made by nameless bureaucrats rewarding friends or pet projects.

Senator Corker has examined this legislation carefully and has outlined over 45 new programs created by this bill. As the Wall Street Journal said last week:

This bill would impose the most extensive government

reorganization of the American economy since the 1930s.

We can't afford any tax increases either directly or indirectly. We must recognize that true innovation comes from the private sector. This bill will raise over $6.7 trillion from carbon sales and auctions primarily coming from consumers. In other words, consumers are going to be paying the $6.7 trillion. But it does direct $2.45 trillion back to consumers. So if all the transition assistance funding goes directly to consumers without the businesses or States keeping any of the funds to run their transition programs, which they are allowed to do, this means that over $4.2 trillion will be used to fund new government programs. The Senator from California referred twice in her opening remarks to Senator Gregg, complimenting him, saying he believes the only difference between the two of them is he wishes to send this back to the taxpayers rather than to have $4.2 trillion of new bureaucracies in this country. I agree with that. Any solution has to be national in scope without States or regions imposing duplicative or additional requirements on top of a Federal system. It will be impossible for American industry to remain competitive if different regions or States have additional climate programs on top of a Federal program.

Finally, any national program must contain a transparent, effective cost-control mechanism to avoid harm to the economy and job losses. There are many ideas out there which might work, including ideas from Senators Bingaman and Specter. Senator Specter just spoke. Simply borrowing credits from future years will only create a larger problem later on.

How we got here: Unfortunately, the bill we are discussing today violates all of these principles. It ignores the needs of American families. It jeopardizes the jobs of American workers. It does not

offer a global solution and, in fact, will increase global emissions. It does not promote good, clean energy solutions and, in fact, will make us even more dependent upon foreign sources of energy.

One of the chief problems with this legislation is that it was hastily considered by the Environment and Public Works Committee without the benefit of the appropriate legislative process, and a new version is now being considered on the Senate floor that we have had no hearings on whatsoever.

The chairman of the Environment Committee has stated--and you are going to hear again and again today and in the next few days and maybe the next few weeks--that the committee held over 20 hearings last year before proceeding to a substitute and a full committee markup. However, you must take a look at the type of hearings we held. Most of the hearings examined the potential impact of climate change 50 years in the future. My favorite example is a hearing held on May 24 last year: ``The Issue of the Potential Impacts of Global Warming on Recreation and the Recreation Industry.'' That was the name of the hearing. The apparent point of this hearing was to show that if there is no snow in 50 years, the skiing industry might suffer. Well, I think that is probably a reasonable statement, and I think it would. But the thing is, that did not really address a cap-and-trade system that we needed to study before coming to the floor.

Unfortunately, the list of issues unaddressed by this committee is longer than the actual list of hearings the chairman did hold. These topics, which were never explored by the committee prior to crafting the legislation, include how to draft a cap-and-trade system--how do you do it--how to allocate credits; how to design an auction system; how many credits to assign each industrial sector; how to structure the Carbon Market Efficiency Board; how to create a domestic offset program; what to do with international offsets; what the impacts would be on fuel switching; whether carbon capture and storage technologies will be available by 2030; whether the number of nuclear powerplants can be built in time to provide the necessary electricity; how the impact on the natural gas supply will affect other industries; how many jobs will be sent overseas; how much worldwide emissions will increase when U.S. jobs will be sent overseas; what the international provisions' impacts will be on trade and particularly exports; how to effectively contain costs through a transparent mechanism. The list goes on and on and on.

Contrast this committee process with the process currently underway in the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Chairman Dingell's committee, which has jurisdiction over climate change and environmental issues in the House, is pursuing the issue under a much more methodical and deliberative process, as any legislation of this magnitude demands. Acknowledging the complexity of the issues surrounding any mandatory greenhouse gas reduction policy, the committee has held a series of hearings and has released several white papers. The topics have included the fundamental aspects of greenhouse gas cap-and-trade policy, including the point of regulation and the benefits of auction versus allocation schemes; the interaction of climate change policy with other environmental laws such as the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act; State and Federal preemption issues; international competitiveness and how to engage the developing world; and technology barriers. These are only threshold issues, as each one lends itself to further examination. Now, that is what has been done over in the House of Representatives in Chairman Dingell's committee, and he has made a lot of progress over there, and there are some things we should pay attention to. In fact, we plan to be using some of that on the floor here.

While the subcommittee did hold one legislative hearing prior to the markup and the full committee held three such hearings over a 2-week period before the full committee markup, all these hearings were held without the benefit of any economic or environmental analysis. The committee members had no idea what the impacts of this legislation would be when we considered the bill in December. We offered a number of amendments to protect workers, families, and to try to keep a check on energy prices. Almost all of them were defeated. But we were promised that our issues would be addressed before the bill reached the Senate floor. Well, that was last December.

On May 20, less than 2 weeks ago, the committee bill and report were finally filed after a more than 5-month delay. For a bill of this magnitude--and I remind my colleagues how the Wall Street Journal characterized it--I will repeat again--``this bill would impose the most extensive government reorganization of the American economy since the 1930s''--only allowing Senators to review the report for less than 2 weeks is highly troubling.

Even more troubling is that the same week, we all saw for the first time two more versions of the same bill. Later on May 20 a new version of the bill with a never before seen amendment was filed and held at the desk as a new bill, S. 3036, which is actually the version we will be voting on this evening.

Then finally, on Friday, May 23, a managers' substitute which completely rewrote the legislation was circulated to Members. I can only assume that once cloture is invoked--and it will be invoked--and we begin debating this bill, the substitute will be offered, which, of course, is something that has never been the subject of hearings, economic analysis, or an environmental benefits test.

Since the markup last December, we have had numerous economic modeling and analysis conducted by the EPA, the Energy Information Agency, and multiple private sector analyses. Unfortunately, the committee of jurisdiction, the Environment and Public Works Committee, never bothered to hold a single hearing on any of these economic reports.

I would like to point out that the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee held an economic hearing on our bill 2 weeks ago, and I applaud Chairman Bingaman for holding that important hearing. I will be quoting from that hearing from the Energy and Natural Resources Committee several times during the course of this debate.

So where are we today? We spent months holding impact hearings and then rushed through a few quickly scheduled legislative hearings and held a markup without any analysis of the bill. We then waited over 5 months before receiving yet two more drafts of the bill--the last version a mere 10 days ago. The Senate is now being asked to vote for cloture on a motion to proceed to a bill that was released 2 weeks ago.

Although I believe we really need to debate these issues on the Senate floor--and many of the Members who oppose the Lieberman-Warner bill are voting to proceed to it--I find it most difficult to vote to proceed to the largest tax increase in the history of America. The mechanics of this bill, the impacts, and the costs have never been fully debated, and they deserve to be. Proponents of this legislation have talked about how important this bill is and why we need to act. I believe this warrants a full debate.

In 1990, the Senate spent over 5 weeks debating the Clean Air Act amendments. I was serving in the House at that time. It went on and on and on. This bill goes much further than the Clean Air Act amendments in its impact on the American economy and jobs and our international competitiveness. It will do more to direct our energy policy for the next 50 years than either the Energy bill of 2007 or the Energy bill of 2005 combined. I hope the majority intends to provide enough time to fully debate this legislation and does not plan to rush it on and off the floor in an attempt to check a box.

Over the next few days, you will see a number of Republican amendments, which I believe will get bipartisan support, which will attempt to protect our workers, our families, our international competitiveness, and will promote clean energy solutions.

There have been many comments in the press, particularly from the chairman of the committee, that this bill will be pulled if any so- called weakening amendments are adopted. I hope we will have a constructive and open debate on this bill. There will be many amendments offered and, I hope, debated and voted upon.

This bill is the largest bill we will consider this Congress. In fact, it is probably the largest bill ever considered by the Senate in its impact on the economy and our entire way of life, and I hope the majority will give it the time it deserves.

But 2 weeks from now or whenever that vote does take place--keep in mind, tonight's vote at 5:30 is only a cloture vote on a motion to proceed. It is a procedural vote. It allows us to limit debate on the motion to proceed to the bill. But whenever the real vote comes or however long it takes to reach the final vote, it will be both interesting and informative to see how many Members of the Senate vote for the largest tax increase in the history of America.

Now, we will be talking about a number of things during the course of this debate. Some of this will be tonight, some of it will be over the next few days. We are anxious to do that. For our purposes today, we will be allocating time, and I would like to announce that after the time that is already under a unanimous consent agreement to go to Senators Lieberman and Warner, we will start going back and forth. I will be controlling the time for those who oppose the bill, and Senator Boxer or Senator Lieberman will be handling the time for those who support it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, that is all right so long as the allocation of time does not punish us.

I also ask unanimous consent to lock in, after your presentation, Senator Bond for 15 minutes.

Madam President, Senator Domenici is on his way, and I want to yield some time to him. He has been a real hero in our pursuing one of the forms we are going to have to have if we are ever going to run this great machine called America, and that is nuclear energy.

I was glad to hear the comments made by the Senator from Virginia who had complimentary things to say about nuclear energy and what is necessary if we are going to be able to continue to do this.

Before the Senator from Missouri leaves, he was referring to a chart that showed the increase in the price of gasoline. I don't know whether he still has that chart or if he has it in his notes. The Senator from Missouri went over it so fast. To me that is the focal point, at least in my State of Oklahoma.

One hundred forty percent.

Madam President, I ask the Senator from Missouri also to comment on the predictions as to what it would cost to the average household. In my presentation--and the Senator was in our caucus when we had a meeting--I had one chart that showed the United States. It showed how much it would cost an average household. My State, Oklahoma, and Texas were the largest hit. The increase for each family would be $3,300. Missouri was in the next tier down, which I think was around $2,800. That is something I think is very significant.

I suggest to my friend from Missouri that I am sure Missouri

is not that different from Oklahoma and it is the major concern people have. That is all, when I go around the State, people are talking about now.

Many different economic studies show gasoline prices rising significantly under this bill. Madam President, $1.50 is just an estimated range. One of the Government EPA studies shows gasoline prices going up by $1.40. Another independent agency study, the independent Energy Information Administration, predicts it will go up by 41 cents a gallon to $1 a gallon by 2030.

As gasoline prices continue to rise and set new record highs every day, this bill would only keep prices rising. The Energy Information Administration study predicts that gasoline prices will increase anywhere from 41 cents per gallon to $1 per gallon by 2030.

We are waiting for a Senator. How much more time on the opposing side do we have at this point?

That will be fine on the time on the other side.

No.

I am talking about by 2020 and some of the figures used are by 2030. An article in The Hill, just the other day--of course, that was before we had our recess--said that the Senate debate after Memorial Day could add up to 50 cents to the price of a gallon of gasoline, according to the study. They didn't say the timeframe. That was one of the more objective groups.

Here is another one that talks about that. Investors Business Daily says the bill essentially limits how much gasoline and other fossil fuels Americans use.

Madam President, I yield to the Senator from New Mexico whatever time he consumes.

Before I do that, I say to my good friend from New Mexico that I commented earlier on his being a real champion for nuclear energy, and the recognition that we can't resolve the process we have without a very bold nuclear program. And I would say this: We have over 30 applications now in the process, of people saying what they want to do. So I look at this, as I characterized it a few minutes ago, as a nuclear renaissance that is taking place, largely due to the efforts of the Senator from New Mexico.

Madam President, let me ask how much time is remaining on the opposing side?

Madam President, I think it is the wish of the majority to have us use our time so Senator Boxer will have the remaining time, which is fine. I invite any Members who are around--I know several will want to speak tomorrow, but we do have time right now if they want to come down.

As I said in my opening remarks, this is not a discussion about science. That is something for another day. We have been talking about that now, the lack of science, for a number of years. I have to go back to then-Vice President Gore, who had a study done by a very prominent scientist--his name was Tom Wiggly. In this study, back when he was Vice President, he said: If we were to have all of the developed nations--not developing, not China, not Mexico, not India, but the developed nations--to sign on to, to ratify the Kyoto treaty and live by its emission requirements--of course they wouldn't do that anyway because the emission requirements are not complied with in some 15 Western European countries; only 2 are living within their emission requirements, but he said assuming all developed nations did sign on to Kyoto and live with the requirements, how much would it reduce the temperature in 50 years?

Do you know what his answer was after he did this massive study? Tom Wiggly, the scientist for Al Gore, said it would reduce the temperature by 7/100th of 1 degree Celsius. This is after all the economic pain.

I think what I might do is use a little of the time, if no other Members come down, to talk about how other people are looking at this. The Las Vegas Review Journal--I am hoping the leader of the Senate would be reading the Las Vegas Review Journal--said:

Consumers are already struggling with gasoline approaching

$5 a gallon and other utility costs that have been moving

steadily higher for the past few years. New mandates placed

on producers in the name of ``global warming'' will only make

matters worse.

That was an editorial in the Las Vegas Review Journal a few days ago.

From the State of Ohio, The Plain Dealer--I know we are going to have Senator Voinovich taking a very active part in this debate. He is another one of the leaders bringing us into a renaissance for nuclear energy in America, which is desperately needed. I have to say, as we approach hopefully the solution--not having anything to do with this bill, but the energy crisis in America--I agree we need all sources. Oklahoma is very busy right now and very effective in their research on biomass--cellulosic biomass. Both the University of Oklahoma and Oklahoma State University, the Noble Foundation, are very active. We want that. It is not here now. That is better, to me, than the ethanol mandates that merely use up the market for corn to the extent that my livestock people in Oklahoma are paying a lot more now for feedstock

than they did. You won't have to do it with feedstock in the future because you will be able to do it with biomass and other forms. When it gets down to what the solution is to the energy crisis, we do need to have all these in the future: Wind, solar, and all that, when the technology is here. But right now we are 53 percent dependent on coal for our ability to run this machine called America.

As the Senator from Virginia stated, we will have to have coal as well as nuclear energy. Clean coal technology is out there. We have to keep that going. A lot of people fear this bill is going to put an end to coal.

The one ingredient we have to have, of course, is natural gas. That performs well. A lot comes from my State of Oklahoma. But one thing that will be necessary to pursue in the future is nuclear energy. Right now some countries such as France are 80 percent dependent upon nuclear energy. We are down around 20 percent. That is an area where we can do something.

Up in Ohio, The Plain Dealer newspaper, in their editorial, said:

The bill, as conceived, will just bore new holes into an

already battered economy.

In Pittsburgh, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review:

If there indeed is a second Great Depression to come, this

will be the government measure that guarantees it arrives

with a devastating gut punch.

That was an editorial called ``The Climate Security Act? Reject The Ignorami'' in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.

San Francisco Chronicle--this is kind of interesting--from the State of California:

The Senate debate on the climate bill probably will focus

on its impact on energy prices and the economy, which in the

short run could be considered significant.

The Associated Press recently said:

With gasoline at $4 a gallon and home heating and cooling

costs soaring, it is getting harder to sell a bill that would

transform the country's energy industries and--as critics

will argue--cause energy prices to rise even more.

The Wall Street Journal--there are a couple of them. I quoted already from the Wall Street Journal. This one was a few days ago.

This is easily the largest income redistribution scheme

since the income tax.

I think it is interesting when people realize what we are talking about here is redistributing the wealth from the people who are the poorest, very poorest people. A CBO report found recently, quoting from that report:

Most of the cost of meeting a cap on CO2

emissions would be borne by consumers who would face

persistently higher prices for products such as electricity

and gasoline. Those price increases would be regressive in

that poorer households would bear a larger burden relative to

their income than wealthier households.

We are going to hear from the chairman of the committee stating, I am sure, in the future: We are taking care of that because we are redistributing some of the $6.7 trillion, redistributing $800 billion of that to some of the poorer families.

Wait a minute, that is $1 out of $8. That is not a very good deal.

I think there are so many reports that talk about how devastating this is going to be to all of America but particularly those individuals, the elderly and poor people, because these are the ones who are spending a large portion of their spendable income on energy. It is very appropriate I think to say this is easily the largest income redistribution scheme since the income tax.

The New York Post:

The only thing that will cool is the United States economy.

Talking about this bill.

In effect, the bill would impose an average of more than

$80 billion in new energy taxes every year.

That is the New York Post, entitled ``Cap-&-Trade: Why It's Tax & Spend,'' of June 2.

Robert Samuelson:

. . . let's call it by its proper name: cap and tax.

George Will:

Speaking of endless troubles, ``cap-and-trade'' comes

cloaked in reassuring rhetoric about the government merely

creating a market, but the government would actually create a

scarcity so government could sell what it had made scarce.

This is a rather interesting thing. I recommend this. It was published in the Washington Post under ``Carbon's Power Brokers.''

Charles Krauthammer had several good editorials. He said:

There is no greater social power than the power to ration.

And other than rationing food, there is no greater instrument

of social control than rationing energy, the currency of just

about everything one does and uses in an advanced society.

That was Charles Krauthammer, ``Carbon Chastity,'' an editorial in the Washington Post on May 30.

There was a very good one, another from the Wall Street Journal that I have already quoted here. This is a different one than I quoted a minute ago. The Boxer climate tax bill:

. . . would impose the most extensive government

reorganization of the American economy since the 1930s.

Investors Business Daily--this is something in an op-ed piece, an editorial piece they had on May 29:

The bill essentially limits the amount of gasoline and

other fossil fuels Americans can use, as Klaus puts it--

referring to the President of the Czech Republic--

in the name of the planet. A study by Charles River

Associates puts the cost (in terms of reduced household

spending per year) of Senate bill 2191--

which is the Senate bill passed out of the committee

--at $800 to $1,300 per household by 2015, rising to $1500 to

$2,500 by 2050. Electricity prices could jump by 36 percent

to 65 percent by 2015 and 80 percent to 125 percent by 2050.

This was an editorial in Investors Business Daily.

It is interesting, I was noticing when Senator Bond from Missouri was making his very well-stated remarks, the study he had showed it would be closer to $6,000 a household. I do know in my State of Oklahoma and in the State of Texas, of all the States that will have the highest increase in taxes, it will amount to a minimum of $3,300 per family.

As I go around my State of Oklahoma--and I am back there every weekend; I am never here in Washington on weekends--I talk to people. They stop and think about what they do with $3,300 a year--it is not just a lot of them want to have another pickup truck or a bass boat or other things, but most of them are having real problems right now meeting expenses. This will be something they wouldn't want to have to try to endure.

We have had quite a few of the editorial writers around the country talking about it. Several have talked about the raising of gas prices and the effect that would have. I think we are all aware of that. I think probably the biggest issue should be the job-killer issue. The Independent Energy Information Administration says the bill would result in a 9.5-percent drop in manufacturing output, and even higher energy costs. The fact that it would grow Government--stop and think about it. This is interesting. The figure the other side uses, the promoters of the bill, is $6.7 trillion.

Then they say some of this is going to be going back into the economy. It comes down to about $4.2 trillion--$4.2 trillion, and one of the basic disagreements Senator Boxer had with the Senator from New Hampshire was that he wanted to return that to the taxpayers as opposed to having Government programs. It appears there will be, hopefully, not a majority--in fact I don't think there will be a majority of people in this body who are going to put themselves in a position where they say we want to have a $4.2 trillion increase in the bureaucracy.

If there is anything that does not need to be increased, it is the bureaucracy in America. It frightened me to think about what types of governmental agencies there are, what, 45 new entities and agencies that would be provided by this bill? Tomorrow we are going to parade before you some charts to show the various increases in the size of the bureaucracy. It is going to be something that will be frightening to most people.

However, there is a mentality of many people in the Senate--I respect every Member of the Senate--that somehow you must increase the size and the magnitude and the authority and the power of Government to make things happen. That is not the way our forefathers thought it would be.

I would suggest to you that we want to look at this increase in Government, $4.2 trillion over this period of time, as something that would be devastating to this country and its economy.

I see that my time has expired, and the remainder of the time will be used by my chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, the junior Senator from California.

I have 1 minute 50 seconds remaining?

I have to do this pretty fast. Let me respond to some of the things the majority stated.

First of all, when they make the statement that this, talking about the price of gas, all this happened during the Republican administration, let me assure you this happened because of the Democrats in the Senate voting against any increase in supply.

Now, if anyone has any doubt about that, go to our Web site www.epw-- that stands for Environment and Public Works--epw.senate.gov/minority. Look that up. You will see that I have documented the votes all the way back to the middle 1990s, when we have tried to increase our supply of energy or our refining capacity.

Secondly, the statements that this is not a tax bill, I would only read to you the total revenue generated through carbon sales auctions for consumers of power, heating, cooling, and gasoline: $6.7 trillion. That is their figure, not my figure.

The maximum potentially rebated to consumers would be $2.5 trillion. That leaves $4.2 trillion. If that is not a $4.2 trillion tax increase, I don't know what it is.

Thirdly, the fact that all labor seems to be for this. I suggest that Senators talk to the United Mine Workers, who are very much opposed to it, the United Auto Workers, who are opposed to it. As far as the various communities on the chart shown by the junior Senator from California, there are many of evangelical associations. We had a press conference. They all showed up. They are all very much opposed to this, and all these are Scripturally based.

Has all time expired?

Mr. President, I would like to congratulate Mr. Stephen Terry

on his retirement from the Oklahoma City Veterans Administration Medical Center. Mr. Terry retired as of June 2, 2008, after serving the Veterans Administration for 42 years. He has been the main individual within the Veterans Administration that my office has contacted over the past 14 years I have served in the U.S. Senate. Mr. Terry has consistently helped me better serve Oklahoma veterans and their families. Mr. Terry has recently been awarded the Unsung Heroes Award by the Veterans Administration which is only awarded to those demonstrating outstanding public service which is characteristic of the time and attention Mr. Terry has provided to my constituents.

Not only has Mr. Terry given so many years to the Veterans Administration, he has also served his country in the U.S. Navy from March 1967 though December 1970 as a Corpsman HM3 for the Marines.

Mr. Stephen Terry has ably served his country throughout his entire career both in the military and in his public service. I appreciate that service and congratulate him on his well deserved retirement.

I ask unanimous consent that T. J. Kim, a fellow with my committee office, be granted the privileges of the floor for the remainder of debate.