[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 182 (Tuesday, December 15, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8661-S8663]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             CLIMATE CHANGE

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, one of the brightest bright spots at 
the Paris climate talks last week was the robust corporate presence. 
Leading businesses and executives from around the world were there in 
Paris to voice their support for a strong international climate 
agreement. That brings me here today for the now 122nd time to say that 
it is time for America's leading corporations and their lobbyists to 
bring that same message here to Washington to help Congress wake up.
  Let me use an example of two of the good guys. The two biggest drinks 
companies in America are Coca-Cola and PepsiCo. Coke and Pepsi both 
signed this public letter urging strong climate action in Paris:

       Dear U.S. and global leaders:
       Now is the time to meaningfully address the reality of 
     climate change. We are asking you to embrace the opportunity 
     presented to you in Paris. . . . We are ready to meet the 
     climate challenges that face our businesses. Please join us 
     in meeting the climate challenges that face the world.

  And it is not just that public letter; Coca-Cola's Web site says it 
will reduce CO2 emissions by 25 percent and that to do so, 
``Coca-Cola will work to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions across its 
value chain, making comprehensive carbon footprint reductions across 
its manufacturing processes, packaging formats, delivery fleet, 
refrigeration equipment and ingredient sourcing.''
  Coca-Cola also says: ``We continue to partner with peer companies, 
bottling partners, NGOs, governments and others in addressing our 
greenhouse gas emissions and encouraging progress in response to 
climate change.''
  Pepsi's Web site heralds what it calls ``its commitment to action on 
climate change'' and announces that it has signed both the Ceres BICEP 
Climate Declaration in the United States and the Prince of Wales's 
Corporate Leaders Group Trillion Tonne Communique in the UK. These 
commitments, they say, ``are part of PepsiCo's overall strategy to 
address climate change by working across its business and with global 
leaders.''
  Here is Indra Nooyi, chairman and CEO of PepsiCo:

       Combating climate change is absolutely critical to the 
     future of our company, customers, consumers--and our world. I 
     believe all of us need to take action now.

  I have corresponded with these companies about climate change, and 
here is what they have said in their letters to me.
  In March 2013, Coke said:

       We recognize that climate change is a critical challenge 
     facing our planet, with potential impacts on biodiversity, 
     water resources, public health, and agriculture. Beyond the 
     effects on the communities we serve, we view climate change 
     as a potential business risk, understanding that it could 
     likely have direct and indirect effects on our business.
       As a responsible global company, with operations in more 
     than 200 countries, we have a role to play in climate 
     protection. . . .

  Then in May 2014:

       The Coca-Cola Company has strongly stated that climate 
     change is happening and the implications of climate change 
     for our planet are profound and wide-ranging. It is our 
     belief that climate change may have long-term direct and 
     indirect implications for our business and supply chain and 
     we recognize that sustainability is core to our long-term 
     value. . . . Climate protection is a key component of our 
     business strategy.

  In August of this year:

       Coca-Cola joined twelve other corporations at the White 
     House pledging our support for the American Business Act on 
     Climate [Pledge]. Climate protection has been a key focus of 
     Coca-Cola for decades.

  In a letter of February 2013, Pepsi said:

       PepsiCo applauds your efforts to address climate change by 
     focusing Congressional attention on the issue. . . . At 
     PepsiCo, we recognize the adverse impacts that greenhouse gas 
     emissions have on global temperatures, weather patterns, and 
     the frequency and severity of extreme weather and natural 
     disasters. These impacts may have significant implications 
     for our company. . . . Accordingly, responding to climate 
     change is integrated into PepsiCo's business strategy.

  In September of this year, Pepsi wrote:

       We look forward to providing further support on the ``Road 
     to Paris''--demonstrating that actions by business in climate 
     are not only good for the environment, but good for business.

  That is all great stuff. Here is where it gets a little strange. Coke 
and Pepsi have a trade association, the American Beverage Association, 
that lobbies for the soft drink industry, and they also support the 
business lobbying group, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Indeed, the 
American Beverage Association sits on the board of the U.S. Chamber of 
Commerce and contributes to it a lot of money.

[[Page S8662]]

  Here is the official position of the American Beverage Association on 
climate change from its Web site:

       Each of America's beverage companies has set goals to lower 
     our emissions over time while continually improving 
     efficiency. And our companies have pledged to work with 
     government leaders, environmental organizations, and other 
     businesses to ensure these emission reductions are happening 
     throughout the United States.

  They even have the Beverage Industry Environmental Roundtable. But do 
they lobby us about this in Congress? I have never seen any sign of it. 
When the American Beverage Association thought Congress might impose a 
soda tax to fund health care, then they lobbied like crazy--nearly $30 
million worth of lobbying expenditure. They know how to lobby when they 
want to. But on climate, I have never seen it.
  As for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, everyone in Congress knows that 
the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is dead set against Congress doing 
anything serious about climate change. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is 
a very powerful lobby group, and its power in Congress is fully 
dedicated to stopping any serious climate legislation. They are 
implacable adversaries of climate action, and we see their hostility 
everywhere.
  At one point, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce wrote to me to say I 
mischaracterized its position on climate change. ``Even a cursory 
review of our stated views on climate change,'' wrote Chamber of 
Commerce President and CEO Tom Donahue, ``shows that the Chamber is not 
debating the existence of climate change or that human activity plays a 
role.''
  Well and good, but here is what I wrote back.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
my full letter at the end of my remarks.
  I wrote back:

       I am in politics in Washington, and I see the behavior of 
     your organization firsthand. There is no way to reconcile 
     what I see in real life around me with the assurances in your 
     letter that you treat the climate problem in any way 
     seriously.

  I then offered a list of the many ways the U.S. Chamber of Commerce 
actively opposes climate legislation and concluded:

       In every practical way in which your organization brings 
     pressure to bear on the American political process, I see you 
     bringing it to bear in line with the big carbon polluters and 
     the climate denial industry. And given the powerful and 
     relentless way in which you bring that pressure to bear on 
     our system in the service of your own First Amendment rights, 
     I hope you will accept that I have the right to express my 
     own views under that same First Amendment.

  In sum, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has a terrible record on climate 
change. It is Coke and Pepsi's adversary on getting anything done. So 
why is Coke and Pepsi's American Beverage Association on the board of 
the U.S. Chamber of Commerce?
  The result is that Coke and Pepsi take one position on climate change 
in their public materials and in Paris and throughout their internal 
corporate effort, but here in Congress, where the rubber meets the road 
on legislating and where the lobbying meets our legislative efforts, 
their lobbying agencies don't support their position. I actually wonder 
how well they know in the executive suites of Coke and Pepsi that their 
position is not supported by the lobbying effort they support.
  Let me be clear. I am not here to ask that companies such as Coke and 
Pepsi take a different position on climate change than what they 
believe. I am here to ask companies to line up their advocacy in 
Congress with what they believe. My ask is simple: Match your advocacy 
in Congress with your policy. Don't outsource your advocacy to entities 
that take the opposite position from you--not on an issue of this 
magnitude. This is too important an issue for great American companies 
to say one thing when they are talking to the public and have their 
lobbying agencies say something completely different when they come to 
Congress.
  I have asked Coke and Pepsi about this discrepancy between their 
policy and these organizations' advocacy, and here is what they say. 
From Pepsi:

       The Chamber is an important partner for PepsiCo on critical 
     tax and trade matters. However, our positions on climate 
     change have diverged.

  From Coke:

       The Coca-Cola Company belongs to a wide range of 
     organizations through which we gain different perspectives on 
     global and national issues; however these groups do not speak 
     on our behalf.

  Well, if their positions have diverged and these organizations don't 
speak for them on this issue, why keep supporting one of the leading 
political opponents of meaningful climate action? If you insist on 
supporting the entities that lobby against you on climate change, then 
the question becomes this: What are you doing in Congress to lobby 
back? What are your countermeasures to dispel the voice of these 
agencies that you are supporting?
  Climate change is not just any other issue. It is so big an issue 
that the world's leaders just gathered in Paris to address it in the 
largest gathering of world leaders in history. It is so big an issue 
that it has its own page on Coke's and Pepsi's Web sites and, indeed, 
on the Web sites of most major American corporations. It is so big an 
issue that our former Pacific commander, Admiral Locklear, said it was 
the biggest national security threat we face in the Pacific theater. To 
use Admiral Locklear's exact words, climate change ``is probably the 
most likely thing that is going to happen . . . that will cripple the 
security environment, probably more likely than the other scenarios we 
all often talk about.''
  Around here in Congress, the bullying menace of the fossil fuel 
industry is everywhere. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is their vocal 
advocate. If companies such as Coke and Pepsi don't push back against 
this group that they fund, that choice has real consequences here. That 
choice says to Congress: ``This issue isn't really serious to us.'' 
That choice says to the individual Members over here: ``If you cross 
the fossil fuel boys, don't count on us to have your back.''
  I recently received a letter from ExxonMobil. It says:

       ExxonMobil has for a number of years held the view that a 
     ``revenue-neutral carbon tax'' is the best option. . . . [A] 
     carbon tax could help create the conditions to reduce 
     greenhouse emissions in a way that spurs new efficiencies and 
     new technologies.

  This is ExxonMobil.

       The revenue-neutral carbon tax could be a workable policy 
     framework for countries around the world--and the policy most 
     likely to preserve the ability of every sector of society to 
     seek out new efficiencies and new technologies.

  ExxonMobil may say that in their letter, but let me say as the author 
of the Senate's revenue-neutral carbon-fee bill, I can assure you that 
bill is getting zero support from ExxonMobil. ExxonMobil is playing a 
double game, with statements such as they made in the letter to me on 
the one hand, but on the other hand all of its massive lobbying clout 
directed against doing anything serious on climate.
  I suggest that it is the same with the other companies. They may have 
enough happy talk about climate change being serious to get them 
through a cocktail party at Davos, but the full weight of their 
industry lobbying leverage, through the Chamber and the American 
Petroleum Institute and a slew of other front groups, is leaned in hard 
against climate legislation, including revenue-neutral carbon fees. We 
should perhaps expect better of them. But we should certainly expect 
better of other companies that don't have ExxonMobil's massive conflict 
of interest.
  To be fair to Coke and Pepsi, they are not alone. Congress is heavily 
influenced by corporations. That is no news flash. What my colleagues 
here all know is that virtually zero of that corporate influence is 
brought to bear in support of climate action. Even companies with good 
internal climate policies, even companies that are leaders in what they 
are doing within their companies and within their supply chains on 
climate change shy away from this issue in Congress.
  The result is that, on one side, the fossil fuel industry maintains a 
desperate grip on Congress to stop any climate action. They lean on 
Congress hard to get their way. On the other side, the rest of 
corporate America has virtually nothing to say in Congress on climate 
change. Maybe they do on their Web sites, maybe in their public 
relations, certainly through their sustainability departments, and in 
some cases from their CEOs. But from their lobbyists and from the trade 
associations and the lobbying organizations that represent them here in 
Congress, the silence is deafening.

[[Page S8663]]

  The corporate effort in Congress to get something done on climate 
change rounds to zero. I am in Congress, and I am here to say we need 
you guys to show up. I get that it is never convenient to stand up to 
bullies. It is always easier if they just go away, but the fossil fuel 
bullies are not going away. So it is either stand up to them or keep 
letting them roll Congress.
  If what Coke and Pepsi and other corporations say publicly are the 
things they really believe, then it should be important to them that 
Congress not get rolled by the guys who are working against what they 
believe. This should not be too big an ask for the corporations that 
stood up in Paris: Do the same thing in Congress. Do the same thing in 
Congress. Do the simplest and truest of things: Stand up for what you 
believe.
  It is time to wake up, but it is also time to stand up, and what a 
difference you will make.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                       ExxonMobil Corporation,

                                 Washington, DC, December 2, 2015.
     Hon. Edward J. Markey,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Richard Blumenthal,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Sheldon Whitehouse,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Elizabeth Warren,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators: As to your question about Donors Trust and 
     Donors Capital, we had never heard of these organizations 
     until you brought them to our attention. We do not provide 
     funding to them.
       At ExxonMobil we too have been following the deliberately 
     misleading stories regarding our company published by the 
     climate activist organization InsideClimate News and by 
     various media outlets. If you are interested in our response, 
     please visit our corporate blog: http://
www.exxonmobilperspectives
.com.
 From the very beginning of concern about climate change, 
     ExxonMobil scientists and engineers have been involved in 
     discussions and analysis of climate change. These efforts 
     started internally as early as the 1970s. They led to work 
     with the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and 
     collaboration with academic institutions and to reaching out 
     to policymakers and others, who sought to advance scientific 
     understanding and policy dialogue.
       We believe the risks of climate change are serious and 
     warrant thoughtful action. We also believe that by taking 
     sound and wise actions now we can better mitigate and manage 
     those risks. But as policymakers work to reduce emissions, it 
     is critical to recognize the importance of reliable and 
     affordable energy in supporting human progress across society 
     and the economy.
       Sound tax, legal, and regulatory frameworks are essential. 
     With sound policies enacted, investment, innovation, and 
     cooperation can flourish. In our view, policy works best when 
     it maintains a level playing field; opens the doors for 
     competition; and refrains from picking winners and losers.
       When considering policy options to address the risks of 
     climate change, we urge you to draw from the best insights 
     from economics, science, and engineering. The U.S. has 
     achieved remarkable reductions in not just greenhouse gas 
     intensity measures, but in absolute levels of carbon dioxide 
     emissions as a result of large-scale fuel switching from coal 
     to natural gas for electricity generation. Thoughtful 
     regulatory initiatives directed to both energy and building 
     efficiency standards, as well as continued improvements in 
     emissions levels related to industrial processes, have also 
     contributed to the reduction in the nation's greenhouse gas 
     emissions.
       As you consider additional policy options, such as putting 
     a more direct cost on carbon to incentivize different 
     choices, we suggest that these policies ensure a uniform and 
     predictable carbon cost across the economy and allow 
     competitive market forces to drive solutions. We believe this 
     approach will maximize transparency, reduce complexity, and 
     promote global participation.
       You are probably aware that ExxonMobil has for a number of 
     years held the view that a ``revenue-neutral carbon tax'' is 
     the best option to fulfill these key principles. Instead of 
     subsidies and mandates that distort markets, stifle 
     innovation, and raise energy costs, such a carbon tax could 
     help create the conditions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 
     in a way that spurs new efficiencies and new technologies. 
     The revenue-neutral carbon tax could be a workable policy 
     framework for countries around the world--and the policy most 
     likely to preserve the ability of every sector of society to 
     seek out new efficiencies and new technologies.
           Sincerely,
                                              Theresa M. Fariello,
                                Vice President, Washington Office.

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lankford). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________