[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 88 (Monday, June 9, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3496-S3504]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                             Climate Change

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Mr. President.

[[Page S3497]]

  First, I thank Senator Sanders of Vermont, Senator Markey of 
Massachusetts, and Senator Heinrich of New Mexico for their remarks. I 
look forward to the remarks of Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma.
  Viewers may wonder what we are doing here. As some will recall, 
several weeks ago a number of Democratic Senators--I think we ended up 
being 31 in total--participated in an all-night event to raise the 
awareness of and the discussion of climate change in this body. At that 
time only one of our Republican colleagues appeared to join the 
discussion, and that was the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma, who 
is here again this evening.
  We heard some rumblings that some of our colleagues didn't feel they 
were included or wished they would have had the opportunity to 
participate. So taking them up on that offer, a number of us sent a 
letter on May 30 that says, in part:

       Dear Colleague . . . We would welcome an opportunity to 
     engage with our Republican colleagues in a discussion of how 
     to address the problems of climate change. Indeed, we think 
     our Republican colleagues could have a lot to offer if they 
     wished to join us in exploring solutions.
       Republican colleagues have co-authored bipartisan climate 
     legislation, voted for the comprehensive Waxman/Markey 
     climate legislation in the House, spoken out in favor of a 
     carbon fee, and campaigned for national office on climate 
     action. Republican senators represent states with great 
     coastal cities inundated by rising tides, states with 
     farmlands swept by unprecedented floods and droughts, states 
     with forests lost to encroaching pine beetles and wildfires 
     unprecedented in season and intensity, states with 
     disappearing glaciers and reduced snowpack, and states with 
     dying coral reefs and shifting habitats and fisheries. 
     Republican senators represent home-state corporations with 
     international brand names, corporations that urge action on 
     climate. Republican senators represent great universities 
     that contribute to the scientific understanding of climate 
     change and how human activities are changing it. We look 
     forward to the opportunity to discuss climate change and how 
     to respond to it with Republican senators.

  I ask unanimous consent the letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                     Washington, DC, May 30, 2014.
       Dear Colleague,  As you may know, thirty-one of us recently 
     took to the floor of the Senate for a ``climate all-nighter'' 
     to express our concern over Congress's inaction on carbon 
     pollution. We have heard some feedback expressing concerns 
     that Republican colleagues were not invited to join in. We 
     would welcome an opportunity to engage with our Republican 
     colleagues in a discussion of how to address the problems of 
     climate change. Indeed, we think our Republican colleagues 
     could have a lot to offer if they wish to join us in 
     exploring solutions.
       Republican colleagues have co-authored bipartisan climate 
     legislation, voted for the comprehensive Waxman/Markey 
     climate legislation in the House, spoken out in favor of a 
     carbon fee, and campaigned for national office on climate 
     action. Republican senators represent states with great 
     coastal cities inundated by rising tides, states with 
     farmlands swept by unprecedented floods and droughts, states 
     with forests lost to encroaching pine beetles and wildfires 
     unprecedented in season and intensity, states with 
     disappearing glaciers and reduced snowpack, and states with 
     dying coral reefs and shifting habitats and fisheries. 
     Republican senators represent home-state corporations with 
     international brand names, corporations that urge action on 
     climate. Republican senators represent great universities 
     that contribute to the scientific understanding of climate 
     change and how human activities are changing it. We look 
     forward to the opportunity to discuss climate change and how 
     to respond to it with Republican senators.
       For any colleague who felt left out of our climate all-
     nighter we invite you to come to the floor. We've requested 
     from leadership that time after votes on June 9th be reserved 
     to engage in a robust exchange of views.
       We earnestly believe that the stakes of failing to exercise 
     American leadership and solve this problem are very high, 
     with ramifications for our health and safety, our economic 
     well-being, our food and water supplies, and our national 
     security and standing. We hope you will join us in a sincere 
     discussion.
           Sincerely,
     Sheldon Whitehouse,
     Barbara Boxer,
     Bernard Sanders,
     Jeff Merkley,
     Edward J. Markey,
       U.S. Senators.

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. That sets the frame for what we are doing. We have 
had four Democratic Senators speak. We will be joined, I believe, by 
Chairman Boxer and perhaps others later on in the evening.
  Pursuant to the unanimous consent we have agreed to, I yield to the 
Senator from Oklahoma for his remarks and will seek recognition 
pursuant to the unanimous consent at the conclusion of his remarks.
  Pursuant to that understanding, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. First, I thank my good friend for yielding. I think we 
will have several people coming down and talking about this tonight.
  I want to say something about Senator Sanders from Vermont. I 
appreciate very much his comments. I think they were very appropriate.
  I remember one time when he and I had a difference of opinion on an 
amendment. It had to do with the amount of money one of the large oil 
companies made. He and I debated on floor for something like 3 hours. A 
vote was taken, and I did win the vote. Afterward, he came up to me and 
he said: I want you to know that since I have been here from the House, 
that was probably the most enlightened debate we have ever had, and you 
won and I lost, and I really do appreciate it.
  We have been very good friends since then.
  Well, the comments he made are real because I don't have any doubt in 
my mind that Senator Sanders and the rest of you have strong feelings 
about this.
  What I want to do is something a little bit different. I have heard 
several people talk, and they talk about what is the hottest year and 
the coldest year and all of that. I am very careful to document 
anything I say, and I will continue to do that tonight.
  Last Monday, the EPA released the long-awaited global warming 
regulations for the Nation's existing fleet of powerplants. We had 
already talked about the new powerplants and what we are going to do. 
We have seen the evidence of the increased pricing of energy in this 
country as a result of that. Now, of course, we are going to be talking 
about the existing program.
  The interesting thing about this--this is what they are talking about 
doing through regulation after they have lost every single issue on the 
floor of this Senate--and so trying to do it now by regulations.
  The EPA's proposed rule requires powerplants to reduce their 
CO2 emissions by 25 percent by 2020 and by 30 percent by 
2030. I do believe there will be major legal challenges facing this 
rule if it goes final, and I will talk about that in just a minute.
  Over the past decade the Senate has debated a number of cap-and-trade 
bills. The first one was the McCain-Lieberman bill of 2003--I am going 
from memory now. I think Republicans had a majority at that time. I 
think I chaired either the subcommittee or the committee of 
jurisdiction. We defeated the McCain-Lieberman bill. It came up again 
slightly changed in 2005. We defeated it at that time too. Then the 
Warner-Lieberman bill came up in 2008, and we defeated that even by a 
larger margin. The Waxman-Markey bill--and keep in mind that this was 
when the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts was in the House--
came up in 2009, but it never did reach the floor.
  All of these bills would have established greenhouse gas regulations 
for the Nation's largest manufacturing power-generation facilities, but 
once the American people learned how much these cost, Congress ran away 
from these bills and they were defeated.
  Each and every one of these bills would have cost the economy between 
$300 and $400 billion in lost GDP every year. These figures are not 
disputed. The first time they were calculated was back when the first 
bill came up. At that time everyone assumed that global warming was 
real, they assumed that the end of the world was coming and that 
manmade gases were responsible for it, and that was something which was 
kind of accepted.
  At that time, though--and I remember hearing the first speculation as 
to the cost--the Wharton Econometrics Forecasting Associates came out 
with the range of between $300 and $400 billion a year. Then the 
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, MIT, and Charles River 
Associates and others came out with the same range--between $300 and 
$400 billion a year.
  When you break this down to each household--every time there is some 
big regulation that comes along, I take

[[Page S3498]]

the number of people from my State of Oklahoma who filed a Federal tax 
return, number of families, and then I will calculate, do the math, and 
it turns out about $3,000 a family. That would make cap and trade the 
largest tax increase in American history.
  It is not surprising that these bills did not become law. They were 
defeated. The McCain-Lieberman bill of 2003 fell 43 to 55; then the 
McCain-Lieberman bill in 2005--an even wider margin--38 to 60; and the 
Waxman-Markey fell because they didn't have the votes to do it.
  What I am saying is that the trend is not going the way my good 
friend from Rhode Island would like to have it go. Instead, more and 
more people are opposing this.
  Part of what is motivating the EPA's rule is that they want to say 
they leveled the playing field between parts of the country that don't 
have cap-and-trade programs. I think one of the previous speakers 
talked about the fact that many places like--I see the Senator from 
California is here now--California and the Northeastern States have cap 
and trade. These regions are hurting economically in part because of 
the onerous environmental regulations, including cap-and-trade programs 
they have been working to implement for so many years.
  But the real result of this has been higher electricity prices. In 
fact, the average price of retail electricity in New England, according 
to the Energy Information Administration, is 17.67 cents per kilowatt 
hour. That is almost 18 cents a kilowatt hour. Compare that to 
Oklahoma. We are at 9 cents per kilowatt hour. We are one-half the cost 
in my State of Oklahoma for electricity. You see we have a real 
competitive advantage. There is nothing that keeps the Northeast from 
bringing their electricity costs down, but they are unwilling to do it. 
They are unwilling to do what we did; that is, utilize a diverse, 
inexpensive fuel supply we can source from right at home in Oklahoma.
  California implemented its own cap-and-trade program just over a year 
ago, and it applies to both heavy industry and power generation. The 
State boasts that its program is second in size only to the European 
cap-and-trade program. Today, however, California's electricity prices 
are 15.94 cents--in other words, 16 cents per kilowatt hour--a stunning 
70 percent more than they are in my State of Oklahoma.
  Knowing this, it isn't surprising we constantly hear about all the 
jobs and companies and manufacturing facilities that are moving from 
places such as California and New England to States such as Oklahoma 
and to the South where we don't have these same kinds of regulations. 
What we want to do in Oklahoma is develop a nurturing environment for 
business to thrive, and a big part of it is having inexpensive, 
reliable energy. That is what we have in Oklahoma. EPA's rule threatens 
all we have worked so hard to accomplish, and it is all because so many 
politicians are beholden to the radical environmentalists.
  What is interesting to me is the more and more the other side talks 
about global warming and all of the purported solutions here in 
Washington, the less and less people care.
  In March, when Senate Democrats hosted their first global warming 
slumber party, Gallup released the results of the poll I believe the 
same day, showing Americans rank global warming as the 14th most 
important issue out of 15. I believe this was on March 9 or 10 when 
they had their last slumber party. It used to be No. 1 or No. 2, and 
now it is nearly last. We can see on this chart Gallup's poll numbers 
over time showing Americans care less about environmental issues than 
they ever did before. We can see the changes that have taken place. 
What people really care about are the economy and government spending. 
Those are the top two issues across party lines.
  If enacted, this rule is going to cause serious damage to the 
economy. The Chamber of Commerce last week put out a study on 
regulations similar to the EPA's new greenhouse gas rules and found 
they will cost the economy $51 billion in lost GDP and 224,000 lost 
jobs each year--not just once but each year.
  The Heritage Foundation put out separate analysis calculating that 
the rule would enact a cumulative hit of $2.23 trillion in lost GDP and 
destroy 600,000 jobs. By their measure, the average income for a family 
of four would decrease by $1,200 a year. I believe it is actually 
closer to $3,000 a year. Nonetheless, there is the consistency.
  If we want to see where these regulations will ultimately lead, we 
need look no farther than the modeling President Obama uses. We need to 
be, as he says, more like Germany. Starting a few years ago, Germany 
began implementing an aggressive alternative energy agenda where they 
hiked subsidies and set a goal of generating 35 percent of their 
electricity from renewables by 2020. By 2050, this goal would increase 
to 80 percent. In doing this, the price of German retail electricity 
has doubled from where it was before. It is now 3 times--300 percent--
higher than ours.
  The next chart is Der Spiegel, a major publication in Germany. They 
recently had this on the cover of the magazine with the heading 
``Luxury Electricity: Why energy has become more expensive and what 
politicians must do about it.''
  In this, they talk about the politicians and others who are wishing 
Germany had not done what it was doing. And while industry, utilities, 
consumers, and some politicians are calling for reforms to the laws, it 
may be too late because everything is already on the books. This is 
what they are finding in Germany--and we all know how hard it is to 
repeal a law once it becomes implemented. So the Germans started this, 
and we are now emulating Germany, and their cost of electricity has 
doubled. When we talk about doubling, to a lot of people--maybe a lot 
of us who serve in this Chamber--that is not a big deal. But take a 
poor family that is spending 50 percent of their income on energy. It 
is something they can't handle.
  EPA's rules will push us in the same direction as Germany--which 
makes sense, when we consider the EPA's recent rules such as utility 
MACT and the 316(b) rule, and the NRC's incessant overregulation of the 
nuclear power industry. We have perfectly good powerplants being forced 
to shut down all over the country. Now we have this rule coming out of 
EPA that will force even more shutdowns and push the Nation to more 
aggressively adopt renewables, and over a very short period of time. 
This is going to cause reliability and affordability issues.
  We have been talking about affordability. Reliability is another 
thing too, because we have to have a reliable source that doesn't stop. 
There is no way around it. It is not just me saying this. FERC 
Commissioner Phil Moeller recently predicted that because of EPA's 
overregulation, the Nation could face rolling blackouts by next summer. 
Renewables will only make this risk more severe. If a substantial 
amount of electricity is being provided by renewables, then we will 
become vulnerable to reliability risks.
  What I mean by that is we don't always know when the Sun is going to 
be shining or when the wind is going to be blowing, but there is always 
a demand for power. The demand is always there, but the wind stops. I 
understand this. I am from Oklahoma. We can have a very windy day and 
all of a sudden it stops, and the Sun maybe stops shining. If the wind 
is blowing really hard one day and then stops the next, significant 
strains are put on the electricity grid.
  To compensate for that, we have to have backup power ready to come 
online at a moment's notice--where it is turned off 1 minute and then 
on the next. Having that kind of capacity sitting around waiting for 
the Sun to stop shining is incredibly expensive, which is one of the 
reasons Germany's power is so much more expensive than others.
  So when I hear the President and EPA saying this rule could actually 
lower electricity bills, it makes me wonder if they ever sit down in 
the same room with FERC and NERC and NRC to tell it like it is. 
Honestly, they are not telling the truth.
  The President and Administrator McCarthy have also been touting the 
human health benefits this rule will deliver. To help announce the new 
rule, President Obama did a conference call with the American Lung 
Association and said it would help reduce instances of childhood 
asthma. Gina McCarthy made the same point in her remarks about the 
rule. But this completely contradicts what EPA previously said.

[[Page S3499]]

  In this chart which the Agency has published, in official 
documentation, it says greenhouse gases ``do not cause direct adverse 
health effects such as respiratory or toxic effects.'' I know others 
will stand up to refute this, but this is what the EPA said.
  What is even worse is this rule will not have any impact on global 
CO2 emissions. We know this because of the President's first 
EPA Administrator, Lisa Jackson. This is kind of interesting. I asked 
her the question during the committee hearing, on live TV: If we were 
to do away, either pass cap-and-trade or by regulation, would this 
reduce the overall CO2 emissions worldwide?
  And she said: No, it wouldn't. Her quote is: ``U.S. action alone will 
not impact world CO2 levels.'' This is because the largest 
tax increase in history, without any benefits--because once you 
implement these regulations, our manufacturing base would go someplace 
where they can find it; maybe China, maybe India, maybe Mexico. But 
they will go places where they don't have the stringent emission 
requirements we have in this country. So in that case, emissions would 
actually go up instead of down.

  Add to all of this the fact that there has been no increase in global 
surface temperature between 1998 and 2013. This is according to the 
journal Nature, the Economist, and even the Intergovernmental Panel on 
Climate Change that is the United Nations. They are the ones who 
started this, and even they say there has not been any increase in 
global surface temperature between the years of 1998 and 2013.
  This pause was totally unexpected by the scientific community. After 
all, CO2 concentrations went up by 8 percent over the same 
period of time--which, according to the models, should have led to 
significant temperature increases. This chart shows the difference 
between actual temperatures--the blue and the green lines down here--
and the temperatures that were predicted by ``consensus'' scientific 
community--the red line. They said this is where the heat was coming, 
and it didn't happen. It is clear the scientific community, which 
everyone puts so much trust in, did not predict a pause would actually 
happen.
  Add to this the fact that the U.S. Historical Climatology Network is 
reporting that this is the coldest year so far on record for the United 
States. Others will say, no, that is not true. So I quoted this source, 
the U.S. Historical Climatology Network, that if things continue as 
they are so far, this will be the coldest year on record in the United 
States.
  Normally, putting all this together would make me wonder why the 
President is pushing these regulations. But then I remember Tom Steyer. 
Let me introduce him.
  This man, who made billions in the traditional energy industry, is 
the new poster child of the environmental left. He is the one who 
promised to direct $100 million to resurrect the dead issue of global 
warming. He has the President and others on board with his plan, and 
they are following through. Tonight's slumber party is proof enough.
  I can hear it now. A severe case of righteous indignation is going to 
show up, and they are going to say: Are you saying Tom Steyer is 
putting 100 million in these races?
  No, I am not saying that. That is what Tom Steyer is saying.
  I have a quote here from him: It is true that we expect to be heavily 
involved in the midterm elections. We are looking at a bunch of races. 
My guess is we will end up being involved in eight or more races. And 
that is with $100 million.
  But that is what this all comes down to--a key constituency of the 
Democratic Party wanting to see the Nation completely change the way we 
generate and consume energy--for no environmental benefit. The only 
benefit here is a political one.
  In closing, I wish to highlight a few of the legal issues I mentioned 
a minute ago that will likely come up once the rule is finalized. There 
are three main reasons why I do not believe this rule, from a legal 
perspective, is an appropriate construct of the Clean Air Act. I always 
supported the Clean Air Act amendments, and good things happened from 
them.
  The first is the Clean Air Act was never designed to handle 
greenhouse gas emissions. We know that. This is a bipartisan 
perspective. Congressman John Dingell, one of the principal architects 
of the Clean Air Act over in the House, said last week:

       I do not believe the Clean Air Act is intended, or is the 
     most effective way, to regulate greenhouse gases.

  The second legal reason is this rule relies on an outside-the-fence 
approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Section 111 of the Clean 
Air Act should only allow the EPA to establish a process where the 
States determine the most appropriate emission reductions on a 
facility-by-facility basis. Instead, the EPA has set statewide emission 
reduction mandates, without regard to the technical feasibility of 
actually accomplishing the goal.
  Cap-and-trade proposals will emerge under this, which will ultimately 
pit industries against one another. So the real impact of this rule 
could far exceed its advertised intent of targeting only powerplants.
  Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt has effectively made this case 
and will lead the charge challenging the legal authority of this rule, 
should it become final. I am very proud of the attorney general, 
because he has been very effective in leading other attorneys general 
around the country to join in this effort.
  The third reason this rule is inappropriate is because the Clean Air 
Act states that section 111(b) regulations cannot be pursued in the 
event the facilities are already regulated under section 112, which 
governs air toxins. Powerplants are already regulated under this 
section. So the fact they are trying to regulate them under 111(b) is 
inconsistent with the law, and that of course will be on our side on 
this.
  There are a number of major reasons why this rule may not stand up in 
the courts. But it is my expectation that it will not come to that 
point. The largest tax increase in history. The Earth's surface has not 
gotten warmer in 14 years. Polling shows Americans don't believe it is 
a huge problem. It is huge for job losses. Stopping CO2 in 
the United States won't affect world CO2 emissions. That is 
what we have from the Administrator of the EPA. So we will be hearing a 
lot of things tonight, all about what is going on, and they will be 
discreet with me. That is the reason I always document things.

  Let me predict what I think is going to happen. A lot of people are 
not aware that there is something called the CRA, the Congressional 
Review Act. The Congressional Review Act is something where people say: 
Yes, there is a crisis in this country. Don't blame me. I am a Member 
of Congress. I didn't vote for it, but the regulators did this. This 
puts them where they should be in having to take a position.
  The CRA is something introduced with 30 cosponsors. I already have 30 
cosponsors to file a CRA on every one of these regulations, if they do 
become final. You cannot do it until they become final. Then it is a 
simple majority. So people are going to have to get on record, and to 
me that is really all we really need to get people on record on this.
  I think you are probably going to hear some issues and people will 
assume that these are really happening. You will hear that extreme 
weather is increasing. The reinsurance company and global-related 
disaster losses have declined by 25 percent as a proportion of GDP. 
They will say that hurricanes are happening. Yet the Washington Post 
says the United States has not been witness to a category 3 or higher 
major hurricane landfall since October of 2005 when Wilma hit Southwest 
Florida as a Category 3 storm.
  They will be talking about drought, in spite of the fact that even 
the IPCC has stated that in the United States droughts have become less 
frequent, less continuous, or shorter in central North America. Nature, 
the well-respected publication, says drought for the most part has 
become shorter, less frequent, and covered a smaller portion of the 
United States over the last century.
  Flooding--the IPCC comes in again talking about this. The USGS says 
floods have not increased in the United States in frequency or 
intensity since at least 1950. NOAA says flood losses as a percentage 
of GDP have dropped by 75 percent since 1940. You are going to hear 
about flooding. That is why it is necessary to document these things.

[[Page S3500]]

  NOAA, talking about tornadoes, says: Tornadoes have not increased in 
frequency, intensity or normalized damage since 1950. Some data shows 
that there has been a decline. So we have all these issues that I am 
sure we will be discussing sooner or later.
  Polar bears--the chairman of the Environment and Public Works 
Committee gave me a polar bear coffee cup, which I use frequently, and 
we display that very prominently. But they say in the 1950s and 1960s 
there were between 5,000 and 10,000 polar bears. Today there are 
between 15,000 and 25,000.
  So we have all these issues that are a reality on the glaciers. You 
can record the hurricanes and all these other items, and, yes, they are 
going to be talking about them, I am sure, during the course of the 
evening.
  Let me just mention one other item from memory on this, but I know it 
is right because the I have said it so many times and it has recently 
been documented. We go through these 30-year cycles all the time. We 
have been going through them for a long time. If you take in 1895, all 
of a sudden everything started getting cooler, and that is when the 
term ice age first came along. They said another ice age is coming. 
That lasted until 1918. In 1918, all of a sudden it started getting 
warmer, and that was the first time you heard about global warming. 
That was 1918 to 1945. In 1945 it turned again--you see, every 30 
years--and all of a sudden it got cold. They talked about another ice 
age coming. I remember Time magazine had a cover talking about the ice 
age. Then in 1970 another warm period came along. That is the one that 
people have been talking about.
  Here is the thing. In 1945 we had the largest amount of increase in 
CO2 emissions of any time in the recorded history of this 
country, and that precipitated not a warming period but a cooling 
period. Now as they have said, we haven't been warming for the last 15 
years. So this is always a difficult issue to deal with. I know the 
effort is there. I know it is renewed now and people are excited about 
it, and I could assure you the trend is in the wrong direction, and it 
is not going to happen.
  With that, Mr. President, my time has expired, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Under the unanimous consent request, the floor 
reverts to me, but the distinguished Member from California, my 
chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, has joined us, 
and I will yield for the Senator from California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Presiding Officer, and I also want to thank 
my friend Senator Whitehouse, such a great leader on this issue.
  I am really glad that Senator Inhofe, my good friend, came down to 
the floor. He deserves a thank you because he has laid out why he 
denies the obvious, and that is that this planet is warming and it is 
due to human activity. Frankly, it is his right to turn his back on 97 
percent of the scientists just like the deniers did when we learned 
that it was, in fact, smoking that was causing an epidemic of lung 
cancer. I respect Senator Inhofe. I am glad he came. But I have to say, 
I am sad that we haven't seen any Republicans come here except for 
Senator Inhofe who has written a whole book on this--and we know his 
views--but we don't see anybody else.
  Let me tell you what we know from our other colleagues. Let's just 
take the Speaker--the Republican Speaker of the House, who said when 
asked about climate change--he kind of has a different view than 
Senator Inhofe, as does Senator Rubio. This is what they said when 
asked what they think about climate change. Their answer is: Well, I am 
not a scientist. What do I know?
  Well, right. They are not. Why don't you listen, then, to 97 percent 
of the scientists, if you admit that you are not a scientist?
  What are Speaker Boehner or Senator Rubio or the others who are these 
deniers saying? They are now saying they are not a scientist. Let's say 
they went to the doctor and the doctor said: Look, you have a serious 
liver condition, and I have a new drug that has been created to cure 
your disease. I don't think we should wait, and let's go.
  And you didn't say: Well, I want a second opinion; I want to go to 
another doctor. You said: You know what. I am not a doctor. I don't 
think so.
  Does that make sense?
  What if you went to a dentist and the dentist said: Senator, you have 
an abscess. It is pretty straightforward. I can fix it. If you let it 
go, you are going to get an infection. I don't know what can happen.
  Now, if I said to the dentist that I am going to check with a couple 
other people, then that is fine. But no, if I said: Oh, I am not a 
dentist, but I don't think so. As my friend told me before, you take 
your car in for repair, and they say: You know, there is something 
wrong with the brakes here, and we have to tighten those brakes. Can 
you leave the car here?
  Well, I am not a repairman.
  Ninety-seven percent of the scientists--they are all peer reviewed 
and are telling us what is happening to our planet.
  Here is the thing about these deniers. If they want to jump off the 
climate change cliff and just go by themselves, that is their choice, 
but they are going to take everybody with them; OK? My grandkids, your 
grandkids, and their kids--and we are not going to let it happen. 
Senator Whitehouse isn't going to let it happen. I am not going to let 
it happen. The President isn't going to let it happen.
  Climate change is all around us. We must take action to reduce 
harmful carbon pollution, which 97 percent of scientists agree is 
leading to dangerous climate change that threatens our families. We 
cannot be bullied by those who have their heads in the sand, and whose 
obstruction is leading us off the climate change cliff.
  One week ago the President released his new proposal to control 
dangerous carbon pollution from existing power plants, and it is a win-
win-win for the American people. Power plants are the largest source of 
the Nation's harmful carbon pollution accounting for nearly 40 percent 
of all carbon released into the air. Unlike other pollutants, right now 
there are no limits to the amount of carbon pollution that can be 
released into the air for power plants. The President's carbon 
pollution reduction plan will protect public health and save thousands 
of lives. It will avoid up to 6,600 premature deaths, 150,000 asthma 
attacks, 3,300 heart attacks, 2,800 hospital admissions, and 490,000 
missed days at school and work.
  The President's plan to reduce harmful carbon pollution will also 
create thousands of jobs. By reducing carbon pollution we can avert the 
most calamitous impacts of climate change--such as rising sea levels, 
dangerous heat waves, and economic disruption.
  As the recent Congressionally-required National Climate Assessment 
report tells us, we could see a 10 degree Fahrenheit rise in 
temperature if we do not act to limit dangerous carbon pollution now.
  The President's proposal is respectful of the States' roles and 
allows major flexibility, while ensuring that big polluters reduce 
their significant contributions to climate change. The plan will allow 
the States to work with the EPA to analyze costs, and ensure carbon 
pollution standards continue to promote innovation and continue 
America's leadership in pollution control technology.
  By cutting carbon emissions from power plants by 30 percent 
nationwide from 2005 levels, the President's plan will also help 
American families and businesses. The President's plan is projected to 
shrink electricity bills roughly 8 percent by increasing energy 
efficiency and reducing demand in the electricity system.
  The American public wants action. According to a Washington Post-ABC 
poll released today, a bipartisan majority of the American people want 
Federal limits on carbon pollution. Approximately 70 percent say the 
Federal Government should require limits to carbon pollution from 
existing power plans, and 70 percent--57 percent of Republicans, 76 
percent of Independents, and 79 percent of Democrats--support requiring 
States to limit the amount of carbon pollution within their borders.
  The President's proposed carbon pollution standards for existing 
power plants is supported by the Clean Air Act. Congress gave the 
President the ability to control air pollution in the Clean Air Act. In 
1990, revisions to the

[[Page S3501]]

Act overwhelming passed by a vote of 89-11 in the Senate and 401-21 in 
the House. In 2007, the Supreme Court confirmed in Massachusetts v. EPA 
that as passed by Congress, the Clean Air Act in no uncertain terms 
gave the Environmental Protection Agency authority to control carbon 
pollution. Four years later, the Supreme Court in American Electric 
Power v. Connecticut, specifically found that the Clean Air Act has 
provisions in place to limit carbon pollution from power plants--the 
very provisions the President is using in his proposed power plant 
carbon standards.
  We have long known that air pollution contributes to climate change. 
During the debate on the 1970 Clean Air Act Amendments, Senator Boggs 
introduced into the record a White House Report stating that: ``Air 
pollution alters climate and may produce global changes in temperature. 
. . . [T]he addition of particulates and carbon dioxide in the 
atmosphere could have dramatic and long-term effects on world 
climate.'' And the Clean Air Act has a proven track record.
  The U.S. has shown we can continue to protect the environment and 
grow the economy. Over the last 40 years since the passage of the Clean 
Air Act, air pollution has dropped 68 percent and America's GDP has 
grown 212 percent. Total private sector jobs increased by 88 percent. 
Between 1980 and 2012, gross domestic product increased 133 percent, 
vehicle miles traveled increased 92 percent, energy consumption 
increased 27 percent, and U.S. population grew by 38 percent. During 
the same time period, total emissions of the six principal air 
pollutants dropped by 67 percent.
  It is in America's DNA to turn a problem into an opportunity, and 
that is what we have done by being a pioneer in the green technology 
industry. These new carbon pollution standards are no different. 
Landmark environmental laws have bolstered an environmental technology 
and services sector that employs an estimated 3.4 million people, 
according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. And many of these jobs, 
like installing solar roofs and wind turbines cannot be outsourced.
  We must take action to protect families and communities from the 
mounting impacts of climate change. Just look at China, which has 
hazardous levels of air pollution and toxic emissions. According to a 
scientific study from the Health Effect Institute on leading causes of 
death worldwide, outdoor air pollution contributed to 1.2 million 
premature deaths in China in 2010, which is nearly 40 percent of the 
global total. Officials in China have recently suggested that they plan 
to take steps to address their carbon pollution, but the U.S. cannot 
wait for China to act. The President's new power plant standards are a 
major step forward. They show that America will finally lead on a path 
to averting the most dangerous impacts of climate change.
  On Friday the White House released a report on the harmful health 
impacts of climate change, especially on our most vulnerable 
populations like children, the elderly and low-income Americans. The 
report cited impacts like increased ground level ozone which could 
worsen respiratory illnesses like asthma, increased air pollutants from 
wildfires, and more heat-related and flood-related deaths. The first 
line in this new report sums up why we must take action to reduce 
carbon pollution:

       We have a moral obligation to leave our children a planet 
     that's not irrevocably polluted or damaged.

  The American people want us to protect their children and families 
from dangerous climate change. We must safeguard our children, our 
grandchildren, and generations to come.
  The people of my home State of California and the American people 
deserve these new protections, and the President should be lauded for 
moving forward and tackling one of our Nation's greatest challenges.
  I am going to spend the rest of my time summing it up by refuting 
some of the things Senator Inhofe said.
  I have to say the President deserves a lot of credit for his plan. 
What is really interesting is it is supported by 70 percent of the 
American people, who ``think the Federal Government should limit the 
release of greenhouse gasses from existing power plants in an effort to 
reduce global warming.''
  That includes amazingly 57 percent of Republicans, 79 percent of 
Democrats, and 76 percent of Independents who support the President's 
plan. They are not stupid. They are smart.
  Look what happens when you throw the environment under the bus. 
People walk around in air that you can see. You don't want to see the 
air. You don't want to wear a mask when you go outside. The American 
people get it.
  Then my colleague says: They are going to scare you. They are going 
to scare you. There is no problem with carbon in the air. There is no 
problem at all.
  Well, let me tell you who disagrees with Senator Inhofe, who 
disagrees with the Republicans: the American Medical Association, the 
American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Thoracic Society, the 
American Public Health Association, the American Lung Association, the 
National Nurses Union. They all have statements that say climate change 
is a threat to public health.
  Who are the people going to listen to? Us politicians or people who 
spend every day of their life waking up in the morning and thinking of 
ways to protect our health? Yes, if the deniers want to jump off the 
cliff and they only hurt themselves, I suppose that is their option. 
But they are taking my kids, and they are taking all the kids of our 
American families, and we are not going to let that happen.
  I will close with this. The Senator from Oklahoma started to say: 
This is going to kill you. It is going to raise your prices of 
electricity. Jobs are going to be lost. He cited a U.S. Chamber of 
Commerce study that has been so rebuffed that the Washington Post gave 
it their most Pinocchios--in other words, four Pinocchios for the U.S. 
Chamber of Commerce because they were responding to something that 
never came about.
  This plan of the President's makes a whole lot of sense. He has 
courage to do it. We are going to stand behind it. And, yes, the 
Republicans are going to try to repeal it. Let me give them the bad 
news from their perspective. They have sent over dozens and dozens of 
environmental riders. I want to say over 90--over 90--and we have 
beaten back every single one of them. For colleagues to stand there and 
say Senator Sheldon Whitehouse and I are doing this because it is an 
election year is a joke. We have been doing this for years.
  I daresay Senator Sheldon Whitehouse has made more speeches on the 
floor than anyone on this subject. When I had the gavel for the first 
time in 2007, I had to fight to keep it in my hand because, guess what. 
We had Al Gore before the committee. Remember? Senator Inhofe was so 
stressed he tried to grab the gavel. We have kind of a funny picture in 
our office in which I said: ``Elections have consequences.'' And they 
do. But to say that we are doing this because there is some donor is 
the most absurd thing I have ever heard.
  I will put in the record a statement by Lyndon Johnson. This shows 
how far back Democrats have warned about this. This is amazing. My 
staff discovered this. He said this in 1965.
  In his ``Special Message to the Congress on Conservation and 
Restoration of Natural Beauty'' President Lyndon B. Johnson stated 
that, ``The Clean Air Act should be improved to permit [EPA] to 
investigate potential air pollution problems before pollution happens, 
rather than having to wait until the damage occurs, as is now the case, 
and to make recommendations leading to the prevention of such 
pollution.''
  ``Air pollution is no longer confined to isolated places. This 
generation has altered the composition of the atmosphere on a global 
scale through radioactive materials and a steady increase in carbon 
dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.''
  So don't come on this floor and say suddenly the Democrats care about 
this because it is an election year. It is ridiculous. We have known 
about this for years. We have been trying to get the attention of our 
colleagues.
  I thank Senator Whitehouse. He and I signed a letter with several 
others inviting our colleagues to the floor. All we got was Senator 
Inhofe--not that we don't love him, and we appreciate he came over 
here, but we have to now assume he speaks for everybody on that side, 
which is scary, because they have turned their backs on the doctors.

[[Page S3502]]

They have turned their backs on the scientists, and they have turned 
their backs on the American people.
  Thank you, Senator Whitehouse, and I would yield back to the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, the hope for this evening was that by 
extending a formal invitation to our colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle, somebody would come to the floor who was not just outright 
denying that climate change is happening.
  For a while Senator Inhofe's was focused on the economics of various 
types of regulation during his remarks. At that point I thought maybe 
we could have a conversation about the best way to solve the climate 
change problem, but toward the end of his remarks, he got back to 
denying that it is happening at all, which makes a tough place to begin 
negotiations.
  There are plenty of other Republican Senators in this body, many of 
whom have worked on this issue in the past. I don't know whether it is 
a coincidence, but the level of activity by Republican Senators on 
climate change collapsed shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court's 
decision in Citizens United. As many of my Republican friends have 
pointed out to me on the floor, there have been times when the big, 
dark, anonymous election money that has been thrown around since that 
decision has been made has been spent against Republicans more than 
against Democrats.
  We hope that as we resolve that issue, some of our friends find a way 
back to the positions they have held in the past, back to campaigning 
nationally on climate issues, supporting bipartisan climate 
legislation, supporting a carbon fee, and voting for a cap-and-trade 
bill. That is where they had been before Citizens United, and we had 
hoped to bring them back. But the champion sent by the Republican side 
to represent their point of view tonight was Senator Inhofe, who has 
written a book that said this is all just a big hoax. In that sense it 
was disappointing.
  I have heard these arguments before, and as we go down the list, I 
think it is worth taking a moment to knock them aside. One of my 
personal favorites is that the EPA is doing this after the issue was 
repeatedly blocked in Congress. Well, yes, it has been blocked in 
Congress by coal and oil and polluter interests. So the interests that 
have blocked a highway don't get to complain when traffic has to take a 
detour.
  We would be delighted to work on serious climate legislation in this 
body. We would be delighted to have it here. For a lot of reasons, we 
would get a better result if we addressed climate change legislation 
here rather than through the EPA rule. This is where the conversation 
should take place, but when oil and coal and polluting industries take 
the position that this is not real and force the Republican Party into 
that position--that climate change is not real--then we are obviously 
not going to have a very meaningful discussion about solving a problem, 
and that is what forces it go to the EPA. It is a little rich for those 
who have shut down this forum for solving this problem to complain when 
it gets solved in another and less efficient way. They don't very well 
get to do that.
  The high cost of the solution is--I think Senator Inhofe said--$300 
to $400 billion and that it is not disputed. Well, yes, it is totally 
disputed. It is absolutely disputed. In fact, it is not even true.
  The best way to solve this problem is with a revenue-neutral carbon 
fee. What does revenue neutral mean? Revenue neutral means that for 
every dollar that comes in from the carbon pollution fee that the 
polluters have to pay, it goes right back out to the American people 
and straight back into the economy; 100 cents on the dollar goes back 
to the American people. That is what I would like to see. It can be 
done through tax deductions.
  A conservative organization, the American Enterprise Institute, has 
coauthored a report with the Brookings Institution on what they call a 
carbon tax. I call it a carbon pollution fee, because when we are 
giving all the money straight back to the American people, it is not 
truly a tax. It is not general revenue to the government. The money 
goes straight back out. When we do that, I think there is a case to be 
made that that actually propels the economy.
  Investing in innovation, supporting and creating different types of 
energy that we can build in America is inevitably going to be better 
for our economy than having to use fossil fuels, clean up after the 
pollution, and deal with the foreign countries that traffic in fossil 
fuels. It would all lead to a better circumstance for our country.
  The Senator from Oklahoma also said this is the product of what he 
called the radical environmental movement. One group that speaks very 
strongly on climate change is NASA. Right now NASA is driving around a 
Rover on the surface of Mars. They built a Rover that is about the size 
of an SUV, launched it into space, landed it successfully on the planet 
Mars, and they are now driving it around. Do you think these people 
know what they are talking about? Do you think NASA is a radical 
environmentalist movement? Really? That is a conspiracy theory that has 
run amok if you think NASA is part of a radical environmentalist 
movement.
  How about our military? ``National Security and the Accelerating 
Risks of Climate Change'' by the CNA Military Advisory Board. The CNA 
Corporation is a corporation largely comprised of retired military who 
are kept on in that role to advise the military on emerging issues. It 
is sort of a think tank for the U.S. military that has been there 
through Republican and Democratic administrations alike. This report, 
``National Security and the Accelerating Risks of Climate Change,'' was 
done by this military advisory board with some very interesting people.
  How about BG Gerald E. Galloway, Jr., the former dean at the U.S. 
Military Academy. Do you think the dean from West Point is part of a 
radical environmental movement?
  How about Lee Gunn, a former inspector general of the Department of 
the Navy. He doesn't seem like a very radical environmentalist to me.
  ADM Skip Bowman, former Director of the Naval Nuclear Propulsion 
Program; Gen. James Conway, former Commandant of the Marine Corps--now 
there are some radical leftwing environmentalists for you, the U.S. 
Marines.
  This is so far beyond that. Organizations such as Walmart, Coke and 
Pepsi, Ford and GM, UPS and FedEx, Target, Nike, VF Corporation, one of 
the biggest apparel manufacturers in the country located in North 
Carolina--all are totally on board with this.
  The military is totally on board with this. NASA is totally on board 
with this, as is the National Science Foundation and every major 
scientific organization in the country--every single one. So let's not 
pretend this is a fringe group of radical environmentalists trying to 
foist an idea on the country. This is a fringe residue of oil and coal 
and polluting interests trying to prevent the end of a long holiday 
they have had from any responsibility for all the harm their carbon 
pollution has caused.
  Let me tell you firsthand there is harm happening in my home State of 
Rhode Island, and it is not deniable. The deniers will never talk about 
the oceans. They will never talk about the oceans. They will talk about 
distant climate theory all day long, but when we go to the sea, the sea 
does not bear false witness.
  The sea level is rising, and we measure that with essentially a 
yardstick nailed to the end of a pier. A tide gauge is not a complex 
instrument, and off the Naval War College in Newport, RI, the seas are 
up 10 inches since the 1930s. Why is that? We have known since 
President Lincoln was President that when we add carbon dioxide into 
the atmosphere, it warms the planet. That is not a hypothesis. That 
science has been established since Abraham Lincoln in his stovepipe hat 
drove around Washington in a carriage.
  We know billions of tons of carbon dioxide have gone up there. We 
know further that virtually all the heat has gone into the oceans. 
Unless somebody wants to deny the law of thermal expansion--and I have 
not heard anybody willing to deny that yet--when we warm up the ocean, 
guess what. It expands and rises. We in Rhode Island have seen seas 10 
inches higher thrown at our shores by a big storm or hurricane. It 
makes a big difference.

[[Page S3503]]

  I challenge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to give me 
just 5 minutes of their time and go to Google and look up the images of 
the hurricane of 1938. Look at the pictures of what happened in my 
State when the sea level was 10 inches lower.
  Senator Inhofe mentioned the U.S. Chamber of Commerce study. I am a 
little surprised he did that because he is not the first Republican to 
mention the U.S. Chamber of Commerce study. Speaker Boehner mentioned 
the U.S. Chamber of Commerce study too. He earned a false from 
PolitiFact for referencing that study. The Washington Post gave it four 
Pinocchios. You know Pinocchio, his nose would grow longer when he 
would not tell the truth. So that was a strange place to go.
  He said there has been no temperature increase. He said: ``It didn't 
happen.'' It did happen. It absolutely did happen. It happened in the 
oceans where more than 90 percent of the heat goes. It happened in the 
oceans, and it can be measured with thermometers. It is not 
complicated.
  If you go to Narragansett Bay in Rhode Island, you will see that the 
mean winter water temperature is 3 to 4 degrees warmer, and it has a 
real effect on Rhode Islanders. Men used to go out on boats with trawls 
and catch winter flounder in Narragansett Bay, and it was a cash crop. 
It was a fishery that fed their families. It has crashed 90 percent, 
and a significant part of that is because the bay is no longer 
hospitable to winter flounder when it is 3 to 4 degrees warmer. It 
simply doesn't work.
  The public is with us, and we will get this done. Tonight we have 
seen what we are up against. Not one Republican in this building would 
come tonight at our invitation and say one word about climate change 
being real--not one Republican, not one word. So that is what we are up 
against. But they have lost the American public, and so the fall of the 
denial castle is inevitable. It is built on sand, and the sand is 
eroding. It is eroding.
  Even among young Republican voters--self-identified Republican voters 
under the age of 35--the hypothesis offered by the deniers that climate 
change is not real is viewed as--and these are the words from the poll, 
not my words--``ignorant, out of touch, or crazy.''
  I submit that a party whose own voters under the age of 35 view that 
party's position of denying climate change as ``ignorant, out of touch, 
or crazy'' is a party that needs a new position on climate change. They 
are not even selling their own young voters, and they are certainly not 
selling the general public, which wants the President to do something 
about this in enormous numbers--70 and 80 percent, depending on whether 
one is looking at Democrats, Independents or the full population.
  I will close with two specifics because we often have these debates 
sort of at the IPCC versus the Sierra Club level.
  I have been going around to different States, and I have been looking 
at what is going on State by State. I have been to seven States 
already. I wish to mention two tonight. I just got back from New 
Hampshire, the most recent trip. What is going on in New Hampshire? New 
Hampshire, as many people know, has a big ski industry. It is a winter 
holiday destination, a winter vacation and tourism destination, and 
skiing is a big part of that. I met with the guy who runs the Cranmore 
ski mountain. They have, I want to say, tripled, or thereabouts, the 
number of snowmaking guns they have on their slopes. They have gotten 
better at it. They have made it more efficient so they make more snow. 
So as there is less snowpack in the mountains, they are able to get 
around it by making more snow. But the reality of this is proven by the 
fact that they have to go out there and make more snow. As a New 
Hampshire official said, that is fine for the slopes. They can get out 
there, and they can roar those guns all night long and make snow on 
those mountain slopes. But if a person is a Nordic skier, they have to 
go out on trails, and there is no economic way to blow snow onto 
trails. If a person is a snowmobile enthusiast, they go out on snow 
trails, and there is no economic way to blow snow onto snowmobile 
trails. They are seeing a dramatic falling off in Nordic and snowmobile 
tourism as a result and of the availability of that important market 
for them.
  They talked about two animals. I will start with the moose. It is a 
pretty iconic species for New Hampshire, I was told. There are moose 
tours. Who knew? People go up to New Hampshire to look at moose. Moose 
touring is a multimillion-dollar industry. I learned something new on 
that trip. That industry is suffering from a couple of things. First of 
all, sometimes they do the moose tours on snowmobiles--no snow, no 
snowmobile moose tours. But worse--indeed, eerily, horrifyingly, 
creepily--the moose are dying off because they are being overwhelmed by 
ticks. Now, picking a tick off my dog is enough to give me the heebie-
jeebies, and if I find one myself, it is a little creepy. We are not 
talking about one tick on these moose. We are not talking about 100 
ticks. We are not even talking about 1,000 ticks on these moose. We are 
talking about 50,000 to 100,000 ticks per moose--so much that they 
can't keep themselves healthy. The blood is being sucked out of them by 
tens of thousands of ticks.
  So the expert in that area who spoke to me said the reaction from the 
mothers is to just have one calf instead of two. That keeps the 
population from growing, and the calves basically starve. They die of 
anemia. They can't feed themselves.
  They can't keep a blood system running that feeds themselves and the 
thousands of ticks. These things grow to be the size of a blueberry or 
a grape. It is really appalling. This is an emblematic mammal of New 
Hampshire, and this is what is befalling it.
  What do the New Hampshire folks say is causing it? The retreat of the 
snow. The ticks, when they are falling and breeding and laying their 
eggs--whatever the heck they do to reproduce; I am no tick expert. But 
they do it on Earth now, whereas when they fell on snow, boom, that was 
it. So the explosion in the tick population and the disgusting 
infestation on those poor animals is directly related to the retreat of 
the snow.
  The last point on New Hampshire, the State bird is evidently the 
purple finch. The purple finch has a very particular kind of habitat. 
Because of the way the climate is changing, that habitat is shrinking, 
and one of the bird experts I spoke to said they are looking at the 
prospect of the purple finch being a species that New Hampshire folks 
have to go to Canada to find. It is their State bird, but they have to 
go to Canada to find it.
  The other State I will close with is Florida. Florida is ground zero 
for climate change. In Florida, great cities are flooding at high tide. 
The systems that used to drain water out of the cities in a rain storm 
are now flooding salt water into the cities because of sea level rise 
at high tides. I have met with former mayors and county commissioners 
who have shown me pictures of people riding their bicycle hub deep 
through water, on a bright sunny day. It is not raining; it is salt 
water. It has come up. One picture was of a yard where the homeowner 
had hammered a sign into the yard, ``No wake zone,'' so that cars 
driving by on the flooded road wouldn't create a wake and wash more 
salt water into their yard. Some weren't so lucky, and the water was 
right through the front door and into the house.
  The Republican mayor of Monroe County has made climate change a 
priority. She has instructed her county government to do a climate 
change report, looking particularly at sea level rise--the Republican 
mayor of Monroe County. Yet, what do we hear from the Republican side 
here? Not a peep. Not a peep.
  She said something else that is interesting. I will close with this. 
I asked her how the coral reefs were doing. A lot of people go to 
Florida to snorkel and to scuba dive and to see the wonders of the 
world under the sea. I said: Mayor, how are your reefs doing? I have 
heard a lot about what acidification and warming temperatures are doing 
to reefs. She said: They are still beautiful. Then she paused and said: 
Unless you were here 10 or 20 years ago. Ten or 20 years, and we see 
that change.
  What is happening to the reefs is really catastrophic.
  My friends on the other side never want to talk about this. They want 
to talk about climate modeling. We don't need a model to go to the end 
of the dock at Fort Pulaski and see how much

[[Page S3504]]

the sea level has risen. We measure it. It is simple. It is the same 
thing at the Naval War College. We measure it. It is simple. We don't 
need complex computer models to go to Narragansett Bay and see it is 
nearly four degrees warmer mean water temperature and all the changes 
that happen as a result. We use a thermometer. It is not complicated. 
And the acidification of the oceans that is affecting the coral reefs 
and so many other creatures--it wiped out the northwest oyster spat. 
People grow oysters in the Pacific Northwest, and the sea water that 
came in was so acidic, it dissolved the shells of the baby oysters and 
wiped out a huge percentage of their crop. That we measure with the 
same kind of litmus tests kids do with their aquariums. It is not 
complicated. But they always want to talk about where it can be 
confusing. They never want to confront the problem.
  We are going to find ways to continue to insist on confronting this 
problem. They may not be here tonight, but as the old saying goes, you 
can run, but you can't hide. There are too many of my colleagues who 
have been helpful and good on this issue before--as I said, before 
Citizens United. If we look at the Republican Senate activity on 
climate change before Citizens United and after, it is like looking at 
a heart attack. We see steady activity until Citizens United, and then 
it is a flat line. Citizens United, dark money, polluter money has done 
as much damage polluting our democracy as they have done polluting our 
planet. But we are going to continue to do something about it, and the 
American public not only is with us, they are going to insist on it.
  I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.