S202 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 8, 2009 

its climate agency ‘‘rife with bad practices.’’ Others like to note that the National Academy of Sciences and the 

American Meteorological Society have 

issued statements endorsing the socalled consensus view that man is driving global warming. But both the NAS 

and the AMS never allowed member 

scientists to directly vote on these climate statements. Essentially only two 

dozen or so members of the governing 

bodies of these institutions produced a 

consensus statement. This report gives 

a voice to the rank-and-file scientists 

who were shut out of the process. So 

they are very thankful. 

Many of these scientists are glad 

that we have this report so that they 

now have access to the truth and they 

can come out from hiding. 

The more than 650 scientists expressing skepticism comes after the U.N. 

IPCC Chairman Pachauri implied that 

there were only about a dozen skeptical scientists left in the world. 

Former Vice President Gore has 

claimed that scientists skeptical of climate change are akin to flat Earth society members and similar in number 

to those who believe that the moon 

landing was actually staged in a movie 

lot in Arizona. It is a shame that proponents have now been reduced to 

name calling. That is what we are getting now, name calling and insults. 

When you lose your logic, this is what 

happens. They start the name calling 

and insults because they don’t have 

logic. 

Examples of consensus claims made 

by promoters of manmade climate 

fears: The U.N. special climate envoy 

Dr. Gro Harmel Brundtland, on May 10, 

2007, declared that the debate is over 

and added that ‘‘it’s completely immoral, even, to question the U.N.’s scientific consensus.’’ 

The U.N. Framework Convention on 

Climate Change Executive Secretary 

said it was criminally irresponsible to 

ignore the urgency of global warming. 

This was on November 12, 2007. 

ABC News global warming reporter 

Bill Blakemore reported on August 30, 

2006: 

After extensive searches, ABC News has 

found no such [scientific] debate on global 

warming. 

While the dissenting scientists contained in the report hold a diverse 

range of views, they generally rally 

around four key points. No. 1, the 

Earth is currently well within national 

climate variability. We are talking 

about 650 of the top scientists in the 

world. No. 2, almost all climate fear is 

generated by unproven computer model 

predictions. No. 3, an abundance of 

peer-reviewed studies continues to debunk rising CO2 fears. No. 4, consensus 

has been manufactured for political 

and not scientific purposes. Those four 

things, all of these 650 top scientists in 

the world agree to. 

Since I released the report on December 11, other scientists have contacted 

us to be included. 

On December 22, 11 more scientists 

were added, including meteorologists 

from Germany, the Netherlands, and 

CNN. Even CNN, very much on the 

other side of this issue, two more of 

their meteorologists have come over 

and become skeptics, as well as professors from MIT, the University of Arizona, and other institutions. One 

prominent scientist added was awardwinning Princeton University physicist 

Will Happer, who was reportedly fired 

by former Vice President Al Gore in 

1993 for failing to adhere to Gore’s scientific views. Happer has now declared 

manmade global warming fears as mistaken. Happer is a professor in the Department of Physics at Princeton University and former director of energy 

research at the Department of Energy 

who has published over 200 scientific 

papers and is a fellow of the American 

Physical Society, the American Association for the Advancement of Scientists, and the National Academy of 

Sciences. Happer does not mince words 

when it comes to warming fears. He 

said: 

I am convinced that the current alarm 

over carbon dioxide is mistaken . . . Fears 

about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science. 

As we face a new administration and 

a U.N. eager to draw the U.S. into its 

climate policy, let’s not forget that 

this aspect of the debate is still alive 

and well and only growing. We should 

not become weary of calling into question policy choices when they are driven by still evolving scientific assessment, especially when the stakes are so 

high and the costs are so extraordinary. Let us hope this administration 

and our news media recognize this new 

reality as we move forward into this 

new Congress. 

On a personal note, it has been a 

lonely fight. For the last 6 years I have 

been talking about the Hollywood and 

media-driven fear that tries to convince us that those who are fueling this 

machine called America are somehow 

evil and fully responsible for global 

warming. This is absurd. We all know 

better. It does take power to run this 

machine we call America. In the past, 

the only argument that defeated all 

the cap-and-trade schemes was the economic argument. I think you can argue 

each one differently, saying no, this 

wouldn’t cost the same as adhering to 

emissions required by Kyoto back in 

the Kyoto treaty days. But any time 

you get into a cap and trade of CO2, it 

is going to cost about $300 billion annually in taxes. I was critical of my colleagues, the 75 Senators who voted to 

give an unelected bureaucrat, Secretary Paulson, $700 billion to do with 

as he wished with no oversight. I was 

critical of that. Of course, that is a 

one-shot deal. This was every year, a 

$300 billion annual tax increase. It was 

too much, even if the science was fully 

settled. 

Now the science is shifting dramatically to the other side. So I believe we 

need to be looking, even if we use their 

own figures of $6.7 trillion as the cost 

of the life of a similar bill to the 

Lieberman-Warner bill. 

I conclude by repeating something I 

have said many times: Even if you believe this, if you believe that manmade 

gas is a major cause of climate change, 

what good would it do for us unilaterally in the United States to impose a 

financial hardship, $300 billion a year, 

on people in the United States, when 

all that would do logically is cause our 

manufacturing base to further erode 

and to go to countries such as China 

and India and Mexico, other countries 

that have no emission restrictions at 

all. It would be a $300 billion tax on us 

every year, and it would have the effect 

of increasing the net amount of emissions worldwide. 

Last year I didn’t say very much 

about the science. In fact, when we had 

the Lieberman-Warner bill up, I made 

the statement: Let’s assume, for debate 

of this bill, that the science is all there 

and that it is settled. Then I pursued 

the economic argument. The other side 

didn’t like it because they wanted to 

debate the science. I said: Let’s assume 

you are right. You are not, but let’s assume you are. This is something that 

we could not afford, the cost. Sometimes we throw around big figures. I 

often have said about the $700 billion 

bailout that I opposed and that 75 Senators voted for, if you stopped and realized the number of taxpayers or families who file a tax return and do the 

math, this comes to $5,000 a family. If 

you look at this, this would be over 

$2,000 a family every year. We want to 

be sure we are right if we do something. Let’s go forward. Let’s look at 

it, but let’s pay attention more than 

anything else at this time not just to 

the economics but the fact that without doubt, the science is shifting. This 

report, 650 of the top scientists and 

growing every day, is conclusive in my 

mind that many of those individuals 

who were on the other side of this issue 

are now standing up to the intimidation and have become skeptics. 

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. 

WHITEHOUSE). The clerk will call the 

roll. 

The legislative clerk proceeded to 

call the roll. 

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the order for 

the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

f 

ECONOMIC CHALLENGES 

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I rise 

to discuss the urgent need to address 

our Nation’s economic challenges and 

to suggest that a major part of our approach should be to invest in clean alternative energy and energy efficiency. 

Before I get into my remarks, it has 

been a very exciting few days for me. 

Since being sworn in as the junior Senator from New Hampshire, and as this 

is my first speech on the Senate floor, 

I want to begin by thanking Majority 

Leader REID, Minority Leader MCCONNELL, our senior Senator from New 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with SENATE
January 8, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S203 

Hampshire JUDD GREGG, and the entire 

Senate leadership for their warm welcome and support. 

On November 4, voters in my State of 

New Hampshire went to the polls and 

demanded a new direction, just as voters did across the country. I am eager 

to work with my fellow Senators and 

with our next President, Barack 

Obama, to fulfill that promise of 

change. The challenges before us are 

great. For 11 months in a row, the 

number of jobs in our Nation has declined. More and more families across 

the country are losing their homes to 

foreclosure, and too many Americans 

watched their retirement savings evaporate last year. 

It is no exaggeration to say that this 

111th Congress and President-elect 

Obama will face some of the most difficult challenges in our country’s history. These problems were created over 

many years, and they will not be 

solved quickly. But Americans have always united to meet great challenges, 

and I have no doubt that we will do so 

once more. 

Our first task is to get our economy 

back on track by putting middle-class 

families first again and creating good 

jobs. As the recession continues, it has 

become clear that a bold economic recovery package is necessary. This 

package must focus investment in 

areas of the economy that will provide 

the recovery we need and lay the foundation for long-term economic growth. 

Investing in our Nation’s infrastructure will both create needed jobs in the 

short term and foster economic development in the long term. There are 

critical capital projects throughout the 

State of New Hampshire and the country—projects such as repairing and upgrading our roads and bridges, modernizing our public schools and higher education facilities, and replacing outdated water treatment plants, and 

other municipal projects. These investments will create jobs and lay the 

groundwork for sustained economic 

growth. 

We also need a bold investment in energy efficiency and clean alternative 

energy. These investments in new energy will create millions of 21st century green-collar jobs, begin to reverse 

global warming, and start on the path 

to energy independence. 

New Hampshire small businesses already are leaders in the new energy 

economy, making everything from 

wood pellets to ethanol, from forest byproducts to solar panels and biofuels. 

We have seen firsthand how investment 

in clean energy creates good jobs up 

and down the economic ladder—advanced manufacturing jobs, highly 

skilled construction jobs, jobs installing solar panels and energy-efficiency 

systems, jobs selling and delivering 

new fuels. These are good jobs. They 

are jobs that cannot be outsourced 

overseas. I am honored I will be joining 

the Senate Committee on Energy and 

Natural Resources to work on these 

very issues as we develop a real energy 

policy for the future of this country. 

These investments are necessary to 

get our economy moving again. But as 

we must invest, we also must develop a 

comprehensive plan to address the Nation’s ballooning budget deficit and the 

enormous national debt we have inherited. Our Nation’s financial strength 

tomorrow depends on our careful planning and prudent investments today. 

In November, Americans cried out for 

a new way of doing business in Washington. I applaud President-elect 

Obama for leading the way with the 

most open and transparent transition 

process in our Nation’s history and believe we must continue that transparency. We must recommit to accountability and oversight, and we 

must end the partisan gridlock that 

has stymied progress for too long. I am 

committed to working across the aisle 

to make Washington work again for 

middle-class American families. 

Tuesday, when I took the oath of office as a Senator, I made a commitment to embrace the opportunities 

that lie ahead and to help lead our Nation in a new direction. I am eager to 

begin. 

Thank you, Mr. President. 

I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum. 

Mr. REID addressed the Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized. 

Mr. REID. Mr. President, could I ask 

my friend from New Hampshire to 

withhold her request? 

Mrs. SHAHEEN. I say yes to the majority leader. I did not see the majority 

leader on the floor. I apologize for that. 

I withdraw my request. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The request is withdrawn. 

The majority leader is recognized. 

f 

CONGRATULATING SENATOR 

SHAHEEN 

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I wanted to 

be here to listen to JEANNE SHAHEEN

give her maiden speech. Of course, it 

brings back a flood of memories of my 

maiden speech. I was so fortunate, I 

tell everyone, on that initial speech. I 

had served a couple terms in the House, 

and I had been trying to get something 

called the Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights 

passed. The subcommittee chair in the 

House made fun of my legislation. I did 

not get anywhere with that. But I believed in it, so I marched over here— 

and I had the last seat way back in the 

corner over there—and I gave my first 

speech, and it was on the Taxpayers’ 

Bill of Rights. 

Fortunately, I say to the Presiding 

Officer, David Pryor—MARK PRYOR’s 

father—was presiding. He was a member of the Finance Committee and the 

chairman of the subcommittee that 

had jurisdiction over the IRS. CHARLES

GRASSLEY was listening to my speech. 

There were not many more people than 

there are right now on the floor. But 

David Pryor sent me a note saying: I 

like this. Let me help you. And CHUCK

GRASSLEY communicated with me saying he would help. 

That was a fortunate day in my life 

because even though I took credit for 

the Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights passing, 

it would never have happened if not for 

David Pryor. He worked the last night 

of this session—I was in Nevada—he 

was on that Finance Committee, and 

they were trying to complete the conference. Anyway, he got it done. 

These maiden speeches are meaningful because you will never forget the 

speech you have given. 

Now, for JEANNE SHAHEEN, I have had 

such admiration for her for such a long 

time. We all watched as she presided 

over the State of New Hampshire as 

Governor. She did a remarkably good 

job. When I learned she wanted to run 

for the Senate, I was excited because 

this great statesperson, with this engaging smile and her ability to work 

hard, which everyone knows about, is 

going to leave her in good standing 

here in the Senate. 

I say to my friend from New Hampshire, the junior Senator from New 

Hampshire, I appreciate the Senator 

running for the Senate. The people of 

the State of New Hampshire are going 

to reap benefits from that decision for 

many years to come. 

f 

TRIBUTE TO SENATOR ROBERT 

BYRD 

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I join 

Senators on both sides of the aisle in 

paying tribute to our dear colleague 

and dear friend from West Virginia on 

this historic occasion of his 50th anniversary in the Senate. On January 7, 

1959, ROBERT C. BYRD was sworn in as a 

Senator for the people of his beloved 

West Virginia, and in the years since 

then, he is become truly one of the 

greatest Senators ever to serve in this 

Chamber. 

I have served with BOB for 46 of those 

years. I have immense respect for him, 

and I am proud to say that we have become close friends. I love ROBERT C. 

BYRD. 

It wasn’t always this way. There was 

a time that Senator BYRD and I were 

rivals, each with eyes on the position 

of majority whip. I was elected to that 

position after the 1968 election, but as 

I have often said, BOB taught me how 

to count votes in 1970 when he defeated 

me for reelection. It turned out to be a 

blessing for both of us. 

BOB would go on to become one of the 

finest majority leaders in the history 

of the Senate, and the defeat freed me 

to concentrate on my legislative passions of health care, education, labor, 

and civil rights. In a very real sense 

BOB liberated me, and as our leader in 

many of those years he was especially 

helpful in accomplishing my goals. 

The BOB BYRD I have come to know is 

a patriot, a passionate defender of the 

Constitution and the special role of the 

Senate, and an eloquent historian of 

the Senate, who has brilliantly served 

the people of his State. 

I have so many wonderful memories 

of our relationship, but there are two 

recent ones I want to mention here. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with SENATE