"Mr. President, I rise in support of the McCain-Lieberman legislation. I would like to begin by thanking the distinguished Senators from Arizona and Connecticut for their work on this bill. Their efforts are moving the Senate and the country forward on this very important issue.

I strongly believe that it is time for the United States to take real action against climate change. The science is solid. It is time to stop debating whether to do something and start discussing how to do it. This modest bill is an affordable and crucial step forward. It is time to act.

The McCain-Lieberman amendment being considered today would create the infrastructure needed to track and trade greenhouse gas emissions and require the U.S. to return to year 2000 emissions levels by 2010.

The amendment would give us seven years to reach year 2000 level emissions. Because of the recession, our national emissions actually went down in 2001. So we are actually at about year 2000 levels right now. So we have seven years just to get back to our current level of emissions. This is a modest step but it is a step forward.

As the world's largest greenhouse gas emitter, the U.S. has a duty to act.

• With only 4 percent of the world's population, we produce 20 percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. Much of the world is already reducing their greenhouse gas emissions. The world is counting on us to do the same.

• If we continue to ignore the problem, it will only get worse. If we wait, we will need to make bigger cuts in our emissions and we will have less time. Action will become more expensive rather than less.

I understand that many people are concerned about the costs of any efforts to reduce emissions. I also want to make sure that whatever program we wind up with is a good deal for the American people. I strongly believe that the cap and trade program in this bill is a good deal for America.

Concerns about the cost of action are important. But I want to ask my colleagues to consider very carefully the cost of doing nothing. The evidence is getting stronger and stronger that climate change will be very expensive.

According to the best available research, not acting will cost my State dearly. Our large population, our geography, and especially our reliance on snow runoff for water make California extremely vulnerable to global warming. Frankly, the models predicting the impacts of global warming on California are frightening.

Climate change threatens the agricultural and natural resource industries that are central to California's economy and quality of life.

As the Senate knows, I am especially concerned about the future of California's water supply. More than 36 million people live in California right now, and we expect to have 50 million people by 2020.

Even without climate change, it would be a struggle to supply enough water for all of these people. But report after report indicates that climate change will further threaten a water supply that is already tight.

Models from NASA, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories, and the Union of Concerned Scientists all indicate that climate change is likely to increase winter rain and decrease snowfall in California. More winter rain means winter flooding. Less snow means less water for the rest of the year. But California's natural environment as we know it depends on gradual runoff from snow.

Furthermore, we have spent billions of dollars on water infrastructure in California that depends on this runoff. And yet we already struggle to provide enough water for our farms, our cities, and our fish and wildlife.

As my colleagues know, I have worked hard to plan for the future of California's water supply. Climate change threatens even to make even those plans insufficient.

We are already seeing alarming changes. According to scientists at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, the past century has seen a decline in spring and summer runoff in some California streams.

• In 1910, half of the Sacramento River's annual runoff took place between April and July.



• Today, that number is closer to 35% and is continuing to decline. We can no longer count on this runoff.



• We are also already seeing a rise in sea level. Average seal level has risen considerably in San Francisco since 1850, with the most marked increase occuring since 1925. My colleagues from coastal states understand the potential cost of rising sea levels to coastal communities.

We are seeing other effects of climate change throughout the world:

The Union of Concerned Scientists has found that the global sea level has risen about three times faster over the past 100 years than the previous 3,000 years.

In July, the World Meteorological Organization released an unprecedented warning about extreme weather events. According to the organization's press release, "recent scientific assessments indicate that, as the global temperatures continue to warm due to climate change, the number and intensity of extreme events might increase."

According to the World Meteorological Organization, the United States experienced 562 tornadoes in May of this year. The tornadoes killed 41 people. This was 163 more tornadoes than the United States had ever experienced in one month.

We are seeing similar record extremes around the world. These extreme weather events are a predicted result of climate change.

Climate change is also affecting some of our most treasured places. Last November, the Los Angeles Times published an article about the vanishing glaciers of Glacier National Park in Montana. Over a century ago, 150 of these magnificent glaciers could be seen on the high cliffs and jagged peaks of the surrounding mountains of the park. Today, there are only 35. And the 35 glaciers that remain today are disintegrating so quickly that scientists estimate the park will have no glaciers in 30 years.

Closer to home for me, on October 12 of this year, the Los Angeles Times reported that glaciers in the Sierra Nevada are disappearing. Many of these glaciers have been there for the last thousand years.

We are seeing similar melting around the world, from the snows of Mt. Kilimanjaro in Tanzania to the ice fields beneath Mt. Everest in the Himalayas.

Dwindling glaciers offer a clear and visible sign of climate change in America and the rest of the world.

We are already seeing some of these changes. The science tells us to expect even more. The evidence that climate change is real is overwhelming: including reports from the National Academies of Science, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and even the Congressional Budget Office.

To quote a CBO report released in May, "scientists generally agree that continued population growth and economic development over the next century will result in substantially more greenhouse gas emissions and further warming unless actions are taken to control those emissions."

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates that the Earth's average temperature could rise by as much as 10 degrees in the next 100 years -- the most rapid change in 10,000 years.

The latest evidence also indicates that climate change is likely to lead to more forest fires.

• Models indicate that warming will lead to dryer conditions in many places.
• Furthermore, warming is allowing bark beetles to spread farther north and to higher altitudes than ever before.
• In parts of Alaska, bark beetles now have two generations per year instead of one, leading to drastic increases in population and destruction of our forests.
  

As we know too well, dry conditions and insect kill makes our forests into tinder boxes. I strongly believe that we have the evidence that we need in order to act. Not addressing climate change will cost us dearly.

Yet, so far, the United States has not really taken action against climate change. Not only are we not part of the Kyoto Protocol, but the Administration refuses to take part in shaping another solution. This is a big mistake.

We emit more greenhouse gases than any nation on Earth. The world is counting on us, and we have a responsibility to help.

Mr. President, we should be a leader - not an obstacle - when it comes to combating global warming. In his speech to the joint session of Congress - which many of us cited as among the best we have ever heard - British Prime Minister Tony Blair challenged the U.S. to take action now. Mr Blair said:

"Climate change, deforestation, the voracious drain on natural resources cannot be ignored. Unchecked, these forces will hinder the economic development of the most vulnerable nations first and ultimately all nations."

Mr. Blair went on to say: "We must show the world that we are willing to step up to these challenges around the world and in our own backyards. If this seems a long way from the threat of terror and weapons of mass destruction, it is only to say again that the world security cannot be protected without the world's heart being won. So America must listen as well as lead."

Mr. President, Prime Minister Blair is right. If we fail to act now, we will face devastating consequences in the future. We will impose those same consequences on future Americans and the rest of the world.

Continued failure to act will also further strain our relationships with our allies. These relationships are already tense enough.

The Administration has said that we need more research before acting. I agree that we should continue to study climate change. But we also need to start reducing our emissions of greenhouse gases now.

Prime Minister Blair has committed to a 60 percent cut in Britain's emissions by 2050. We need to make sure the U.S. is not left behind."

Mr. President, the McCain-Lieberman amendment is the right place to start.

• This is a modest amendment. We would need to be back to our current level of emissions by 2010. In reality, much of the reduction in "net emissions" will come through increased carbon sequestration in forest and agricultural land. Emissions could actually increase as long as there is enough sequestration to offset the increases.



• The amendment is comprehensive. The amendment covers six greenhouse gases and the vast majority of our greenhouse gas emissions.

• The amendment is low cost. Repeated analyses have shown that cap-and-trade programs are the most cost effective way to reduce emissions. According to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, this amendment would cost less than $20 per household over the life of the program - we can afford this cost.
• The amendment would not lead to rapid fuel switching to natural gas. According to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, coal use would actually continue to increase under this amendment. Natural gas use would decrease from business as usual because the bill would spur conservation measures.



• During the latest energy crisis, California showed that conservation can make a huge difference. This bill will help us create better incentives for conservation.

• Mr. President, even the Energy Information Administration (EIA) says that this amendment would not result in fuel switching. EIA was concerned about the costs of the original Climate Stewardship Act. I believe that the agency's models are flawed and biased toward higher costs. But even those models indicate that this amendment will cost little and will not lead to price spikes.
  

Mr. President, there is a lot of misinformation floating around about this amendment. Some of the models were analyzing the Kyoto Protocol - which would have required a 20 percent emissions reduction by 2010. This amendment requires us to get back to our current emissions by 2010, an entirely different proposition.

Other models are based on an "energy shock." Coming from California, I am quite familiar with energy crises. Shocks happen when businesses do not have time to prepare. Mr. President, this amendment is not a shock. We are giving industry seven years warning. According to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, seven years is enough time for the economy to adjust without job losses.

Businesses throughout the country have shown that efforts to reduce emissions can increase efficiency and actually save companies money.

Mr. President, voluntary programs simply are not doing the job. We need to give incentives for all companies to increase efficiency and cut emissions.

Need for a National Solution

Mr. President, we need to move forward with a national solution to climate change. So far, we have placed all of the burden on the states.

I am proud to say that California has been a leader. California has created a registry of greenhouse gas emissions that will be a model for the nation. Several other states are already looking to adopt the California Climate Action Registry's standards.

Similarly, California has a groundbreaking regulation affecting greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles.

Many states are moving forward, and they are now pressing harder for Federal action.

Local officials are also pressing for a national plan. My colleagues know that I am partial to mayors. Recently, 155 mayors, including 38 from my State alone, signed a statement calling for national action.

Mr. President, State and local programs are important and I applaud these efforts. But we need national leadership on this issue.

The McCain-Lieberman approach has widespread public support. According to a recent national poll, three-fourths of Americans support this approach to global warming - including solid majorities from both parties.

We need to listen.

We know that agreement on climate change is possible in the Senate. The Senate has passed a modest provision in the Energy Bill two years in a row. The Foreign Relations Committee has recognized the urgency of the issue for our diplomatic relations.

It is time for the entire Senate to go on record on this important topic. We need to show Americans and the rest of the world that we are listening and that we are doing something about climate change.

Mr. President, I believe we can unite behind this bill and move the debate forward.

As Mr. Blair said, we have a responsibility to listen and to lead. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Thank you very much. I yield the floor.