what does that tell you? it tells you they're not willing to pay anything. let me get this straight. china opposes any emission limits by itself. and also emission reduction targets that will continue to cripple the united states economy. and on top of that, cheap wants the united states to subsidize its economy with billions of dollars in foreign aid. in the final analysis, one must give china credit for seeking its economic self-interest. i sure hope that the obama administration will do the same for america. despite this reality, some here in the senate will continue to tout the fact that china's new self-imposed emissions intensity -- intensive reductions which do not pose any type of binding reduction requirements will somehow miraculously appear. will somehow suffice for binding requirements. i believe, however, that that position will fail to satisfy

the american people as acceptable justifications for passage of a bill that will result in higher united states energy taxes and no -- no change in the -- in the climate. so i -- i don't blame you. if i were in china, i'd be trying to do the same thing, mr. president. i'd be over there saying we want the united states to increase their energy taxes, we want a cap-and-trade bill, an aggressive one that's going to impose a tax. now it's -- it's expected to be m.i.t. had some figures far above the $350 billion a year. that's not a one-shot deal. i stood here on the senate floor objecting last october when we were voting on a $700 billion bailout. and i can't believe, you know, some of our republicans along with all the democrats, virtually most of them, anyway, voted for this thing, and i talked about how much $700 billion is. and if you do your math and take all the families that file tax returns, it comes out $5,000 a family. now, at least that's a one-shot

deal. what we're talking about here is a tax of somewhere around $350 billion every year on the american people. and the bottom line is, china wants no restrictions for theirs. they want the highest reductions for the united states and they want foreign aid on top of that. and so for these reasons, mr. president, i have very little doubt -- oh, i wanted to mention one other thing that just came up today. this is in today's chicago tribe biewn. i read this because the "chicago tribune" has editorialized in favor of the notion that anthropogenic gases cause global warming. but they came up, and i don't very often cite the "chicago tribune" but i will in this case. i want to read this. editorial says, "democratic leaders need to slow down. this proposed legislation would affect every american individual and company for generations. there's a huge amount of money at stake. $845 billion for the federal government in the first ten years, untold thousands of jobs created or lost. this requires careful study, not a springfield-style, here's the

bill, let's vote, rush job. the bill's sponsors are still trying to resolve questions over whether and how to impose sanctions on countries that do not limit emissions. that's crucial." that's exactly what we've been saying. the chicago -- even the "chicago tribune" agrees with that. "that's crucial. those foreign countries would enjoy a cost advantage in manufacturing if their industries were free to pollute while americans -- american industries picked up the tab for controlling emissions. the democrats need to delay a vote. otherwise, the house members should vote "no." well, that came out today, the "chicago tribune." and even the "chicago tribune" says there shouldn't be a vote. but there's going to be a vote tomorrow, and i -- i -- i -- i can't imagine that speaker pelosi would bring this up for a vote unless she the votes. and what's the motivation of this knowing full well that it will not pass the senate, will not become law, but there's something that they can take -- i mentioned copenhagen a minute ago. big meeting in copenhagen, the

united nations, all of these people saying america should pass these tax increases. they have to take something up there that will make it look like america is going to be taking some kind of a leadership role. well, they're not going to do it. so if they take the bill that's passed out of the house, perha perhaps -- and i expect that one will be passed out of the senate committee because that committee will pass about anything. and they'll take that to copenhagen. everyone will rejoice up there and come back only to find out that we're not going to join in. and i'm sure that there's going to be some type of a -- a -- a treaty that's given to this -- given to the united states senate to ratify and we'll all have to remember what happened in 1997. we voted 95-0 against ratifying any treaty that is either harmful to us economically or is not going to impose the same hardship and taxes on developing companies -- countries like china as it does on the united states. mr. president, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a

quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mrs. boxer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of s. 1358, introduced earlier today. the presiding officer: he would note for the senator from california, we are in a quorum call. mrs. boxer: i would ask that that quorum be dispensed with.

the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mrs. bomrs. boxer: so i will rey unanimous consent request, that the senate proceed to immediate consideration to s. 1358, which was introduced earlier today. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 1358, a bill to authorize the director of the united states patent and trademark office to use funds made available under the trademark act of 946 for patent operations in order to order furloughs and reduction in forces. mrs. boxer: and, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the bill be read three times and passed, that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the bill be placed in the record at the appropriate place as if read. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mrs. boxer: thank you very much, mr. president. and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

mrs. boxer: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be dispensed. .the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mrs. boxer: i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mrs. boxer: mr. president, i didn't plan to come to the floor to speak about global warming legislation but i heard bits and pieces of my friend, senator inhofe's speech about, essentially, why we'll never approve global warming legislation and why it's a bad idea and the usual horribles about what will happen. you know, my friend, senator inhofe and i work together well on both issues that come before our committee when it comes to building infrastructure, the state resolving fund. we've been a team. the highway trust fund, we've been a team. he has been very helpful on most of our nominees and, if not all.

so i'm very grateful to him. but i couldn't allow his words to be the last word here on global warming legislation as we get ready to leave for a week to go home and work. so i disagree very strongly with those who say if we attack the problem of global warming head on we're moving into territory where we're going to regret the fact we did it because it's going to hurt our people, it's going to lose jobs, it's going to increase energy costs when, in fact, we know the opposite is true. it's not just me saying it. i come from a state, california, are we've taken the lead in addressing the environment. we always have. since the very early days. and what we have proven is that when you do it you have a much healthier basis for economic

growth. if you look at the per capita use of energy in my home state, mr. president, over the last 20 years, it has stayed absolutely flat if you were to look at a graph. the rest of the country's gone up like this so the difference between remaining on a flat line -- in other words, keeping your per capita energy use staple -- even with the creation in that time of computers, bigger tvs and the rest, and a lot of other comforts, i might add, including bigger homes, we have been able to do it. the rest of the country has gone this way with their per capita use. the difference between energy efficiency and the rest of the country, we have a lot of room for improvement and it's been tried and proven and it makes a lot of sense whether it's better energy efficiency standards, which has been absolutely key to us or better fuel economy, which has been key to us, we are the

state that happens to buy the most, for example, hybrid cars. we have shown that we can keep per capita energy use down. we've, a lot of us in our state, have changed to the light bulbs that make sense. we know that we have laws that will move that even faster. and we haven't given up one ounce of quality of life. we have a very good quality of life. so by addressing the issue of global warming and getting the carbon out of the the way, the first way to do it is through energy efficiency. that's what i call the low-hanging fruit. renewable standards for our utilities very important. we've done it in california and i know my friend whose in the chair is on the energy and natural resources committee and i'm very grateful they did renewable portfolio standards although i'd like to see it a little tougher. be that as it may, we're on the

road. these are the things we can do that actually will tackle the problem of global warming but that's so much more that we can do through a system where we expect our industries who are emitting the most carbon to gradually bring it down so that we make sure we don't suffer the ravages of increased temperatures and the science is so clear. my friend, senator inhofe and i, we've disputed this for a long time. he insists that the science is not clear. well, he's not a scientist and i'm not a scientist. so i think the best way to go is to look at the most qualified scientists in the world. and we are very fortunate that we've had those scientists working at the united nations. the intergovernmental panel on

climate change has come out with a series of reports all of which tell us temperatures are going up more rapidly than we thought, thetithe ice in the arctic is mg faster than we thought. we all saw the picture of the poe all right bears. and that picture is worth so much to us. we can see what is happening to the habitat there. i will lead a trip to alaska for a couple of days at the invitation of senator mark begich who wants to show me and a group of senators and also senator murkowski has been gracious enough to say that she will join us in this. we're going to see ground zero for global warming in alaska. i know greenland where i went is -- you can see thetic melt. you can sit and actually see thetic break off if thes off frt icebergs and watch them go to

sea. so the scientists have proven it and we know it's absolutely true. so when senator inhofe comes down here and he flies in the face of science, those of us who have been working on this -- and i see one of our great leaders not only, i say this in the senate, but, frankly, in the country, and even in the world community, john kerry, who has joined us. just for his information i will speak for about another continue manipulates and i'll be so happy to sit and hear him because he's got such an important vision on this. but here is the good news. the good news is that this is an enormous opportunity to move our country forward. and again i could quote thomas freidman who did an extraordinary job of writing books and articles and he testified before committee on environment and public works very clearly on this, that the

country that does this now and does it right and sets up a price on carbon and, i'm sure he now knows a cap and trade system is a good way to do that, is going to be a leader in the world. not just an environmental leader which will be important for our kids and grandchildrens. we don't want to turn over a planet to them where tens are so high we see people dying in the summer from the high temperatures. or see our kids swimming in rivers that have turned so warm that organisms now live in those rivers. wwe've seen some of that happening already where toxins twist that couldn't exist before. where they can be harmed because of the kind of life that lives in these warmer waters that can, in fact, harm our children. so we don't want to know those

stories. we don't want to see hoards of refugees coming to our -- hordes of refugees coming to our shores because countries are inundated with rising seas. the department of defense, the c.i.a., all those who worry about national security, have told us and senator kerry has the quotes, chapter and verse, this is a national security issue. when my friend from oklahoma comes down here and says "don't worry about it, don't worry at all, the science is divided," it's just not so. just not so. i guess there were always people who said that smoking don't cause cancer. i guess there still are. i guess there are somee who say h.i.v. doesn't cause aids. you know, i know there were people when i was a kid who said forget about polio there's

nothing you can do about it but dr. salk figured we could do something about it. the science is clear. the world is getting warmer. and, yes, to a certain degree, we can handle it. but above that, it gets very, very dangerous. none other than the bush administration's c.d.c. said it is unequivocal that our people are in danger if we don't act. and now president obama sees it clearly and his e.p.a. has picked up the ball and issued a draft finding that we are in danger. so senator inhofe and other senators can stand up and say that we're not. but this work started in the bush administration. and bush administration

officials participated in a lot of these u.n. meeting. so it is clear now. we have a good recession we're dealing with. and we have this great challenge of global warming. the great news is, when we act to solve global warming, we act to solve the problems of this great recession. why do i say that? because we necessit know from te capitalists many of whom live in the silicone valley, from the private sector, the money that will flow into clean energy, is going to dwarf that, that went into the computer industry; this went into high-tech and biotech. this is testimony from those who are venture capitalists. and that, matched with the

cap-and-trade system which will have the ability to really help agriculture, which will have the ability to help our manufacturers, which will have the ability to make sure we have fair trade at the border when products come in, it means we will see technologies invented, clean ups start to happen, we will stop the ravages of global warming and eventually when all this technology kicks in, the average family's going to pay less for their electricity. in the short run, if you have to pay just a little more -- and i mean a little more, like 50 cents a day more, maybe, probably less -- we have the wherewithal to give you a credit for that funding. i think the house of representatives has worked very, very hard, to make sure they have a bill