[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 129 (Tuesday, July 30, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5173-S5175]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                             Climate Change

  Madam President, tomorrow, about 2\1/2\ miles from here, executives 
from some of the biggest fossil fuel companies in the world will be 
meeting at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. It is a power-packed event. 
The chamber is the most powerful lobbying force here in Washington and 
a fierce political operator. The fossil fuel industry runs remorseless 
and often covert political operations. They are defending a $650 
billion annual subsidy, as the International Monetary Fund estimates, 
so hundreds of millions spent on lobbying and election mischief is 
money well spent: The Chamber and Big Oil together have stopped climate 
progress here.
  For the member companies of the chamber, including companies that say 
they support climate action, it is time to confront the relationship 
between the chamber and the fossil fuel industry. The Earth is spinning 
toward climate catastrophe. Action in Congress to limit carbon 
pollution is essential to averting this catastrophe. Yet the chamber, 
according to the watchdog InfluenceMap, is in a virtual tie as the most 
obstructive group on climate change, blocking legislation, opposing 
Executive action, and even seeking to undermine climate science. The 
chamber is so obstructive, it would be better called the Chamber of 
Carbon.
  The chamber has opposed one comprehensive climate bill after 
another--

[[Page S5174]]

first, the bipartisan cap-and-trade bill in 2005, the Energy Policy 
Act. The chamber helped defeat it with a Key Vote Alert--a signal that 
whoever voted in favor of the bill could face an onslaught of Chamber 
political attacks in the next election.
  In 2007, the chamber ran political TV ads against climate 
legislation, claiming that it would prevent people from heating their 
homes or that they wouldn't be able to drive to work any longer. Here 
is somebody cooking an egg over candles.
  In 2009, the chamber led the charge against the Waxman-Markey bill. 
For that legislation, the chamber pulled out all the stops--haranguing 
Members, more ``vote alerts'' and ``how they voted'' scorecards, 
sending more messages of election doom if they dared to support Waxman-
Markey. Since the U.S. Chamber tanked Waxman-Markey, Republicans in 
Congress have refused to hold hearings on, mark up, debate, or vote on 
any legislation proposing a policy framework for economy-wide 
reductions in carbon pollution.
  It is not just in Congress that the chamber wields its baleful 
influence; the chamber also fought climate action in the courts and at 
the executive branch. In fact, in 2010, the chamber sued the EPA to 
overturn the finding that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public 
health and welfare. You would think it would be obvious that they do. 
Look around, and you will see that they do. Disabling the endangerment 
finding would cripple the Agency's ability to regulate carbon pollution 
under the Clean Air Act, so off went the chamber.
  When the courts rejected this lawsuit on the endangerment finding, 
then the chamber became central command for corporate lawyers, coal 
lobbyists, and Republican political strategists to devise legal schemes 
to fight climate regulations. This produced another chamber lawsuit to 
block the Clean Power Plan reducing carbon pollution from powerplants.
  Of course, once President Trump took office, the chamber went from 
defense to offense and attacked many Obama administration rules 
limiting carbon pollution. The chamber even funded the phony report the 
Trump administration used to justify leaving the Paris accord.
  Perhaps, worst of all, the Chamber has fought against science itself. 
It has proposed putting the evidence--the scientific evidence--of 
climate change on trial in what its own officials have branded the 
``Scopes monkey trial of the 21st century.'' That is what this crowd 
was for. Indeed, the Chamber has said the trial ``would be evolution 
versus creationism.'' Guess what side it would be on.
  This is not your hometown Chamber, folks.
  The Chamber has even tried to limit the scientific studies that 
regulators could consider. The Chamber's evident target was public 
health studies that demonstrate just how dangerous burning fossil fuels 
is to public health. The Chamber is an electioneering force, not just a 
lobbying force, and it spends massive sums in politics to shore up its 
control in Congress. Since the 2010 Citizens United decision has 
allowed outside groups to spend unlimited sums on electioneering 
activities, the Chamber has funneled, roughly, $150 million into 
congressional races, which has made the Chamber the largest distributor 
of undisclosed donations--dark money, we call it--in congressional 
races.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I ask unanimous consent to speak for an additional 5 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I thank the Presiding Officer. I appreciate that 
courtesy.
  Blocking action on climate has been the central focus of the 
Chamber's campaign spending. It ran this ad in Pennsylvania in 2016. 
Two moms watch their children on a playground. One comments on how much 
energy the children have. The other says: Oh, don't say that. The 
candidate wants to tax that energy. The ad gets even weirder when a 
faceless woman arrives in a car and steps out toward the children. 
Alarmed, one of the mothers yells the ad's punch line: ``Run, Jimmy. 
Run.'' Classy stuff. I wonder who the Chamber was fronting for.
  So how does the Chamber's anti-climate crusade square with its big 
corporate members?
  It has members like Coke and Pepsi, which have good internal climate 
policies and websites that are full of commitments to reduce corporate 
carbon footprints, and they have signed letters on climate action.
  Pepsi signed the Ceres BICEP Climate Declaration. Coke plans to 
reduce CO2 emissions by 25 percent. It says it ``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.''
  Yet both Coke and Pepsi fund the Chamber of Commerce, and they fund 
the American Beverage Association, which, in turn, runs more money to 
the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The end result? Two companies that are 
actively reducing their carbon emissions and that enthusiastically 
support good climate policy have the position in Congress, via their 
funding of the Chamber, of opposing climate action here in Washington--
the place where it really counts.
  Verizon has reduced its carbon intensity by 28 percent since 2016, 
and its CEO has publicly stated Verizon's commitment to combat climate 
change. Yet Verizon, too, funds the Chamber's obstruction.
  Then there is Google with its motto: ``Don't be evil.'' Google is 
warning its investors that climate change threatens its systems. It 
says that it is vulnerable to damage or interruption from natural 
disasters and to the effects of climate change, such as sea level rise, 
drought, flooding, wildfires, and increased storm severity. Google has 
signed pledges to fight climate change; yet Google, too, funds the 
Chamber's anti-climate crusade.
  Coke, Pepsi, Verizon, and Google are just four examples among many. 
These companies say they support climate action but fund one of climate 
action's worst opponents.
  Why does the Chamber put these members in this position? The best 
explanation I have is that the fossil fuel industry is secretly calling 
the shots at the Chamber; that is, it is secretly funding the Chamber. 
That would explain the Chamber's refusal to disclose its funders.
  I think this is a governance issue now for these companies, 
particularly for those members who serve on the Chamber's board. Board 
members of nonprofit organizations have a common law duty of care. Not 
knowing who is funding your organization looks like a breach of that 
duty of care.
  The Chamber's member companies need to ask themselves: Do we know who 
is funding the Chamber? Do we know how much each donor is giving? Do 
those donations explain the Chamber's years of obstruction?
  The Chamber holds itself out as a business association. Another 
question: Why is it accepting money from nonbusinesses?
  In 2012 and 2014, the Chamber took at least $5.5 million from front 
groups that have been backed by the Koch brothers. In 2014, it took 
$5.25 million from a front group that was affiliated with Karl Rove.
  Did the Chamber's board members know this? Did they exercise the 
proper duty of care? Do they know what nonbusiness money is funding the 
Chamber these days? Do they know what percentage of the Chamber's 
funding comes secretly from fossil fuel interests?
  I don't think the Chamber's board members know the answers to any of 
these questions.
  Here is a question for the general counsel of these board member 
corporations: Should they know or are you going to go with willful 
ignorance? Good luck with that.
  The bottom line is simple. Chamber board members with good climate 
policies are supporting one of the worst climate obstructors in 
America. Indeed, they are writing big checks to do so. This, I believe, 
is not just a moral problem but a governance problem. If these 
companies aren't asking these tough questions and if they are not 
pushing the Chamber to be transparent about its funding sources, they 
are answerable. Until this mess gets sorted out, in spite of all of 
corporate America's efforts to reduce emissions, its

[[Page S5175]]

funding of the ``U.S. Chamber of Carbon'' means that corporate America 
is doing more harm than good for our climate.
  Again, I thank the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma for his 
courtesy in allowing me the extra time.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, first of all, despite what some people 
might think, I have the highest regard for the Senator from Rhode 
Island.
  It is very interesting in that the climate is changing, and the 
climate has always changed. All evidence out there--all historical 
evidence, all scriptural evidence--tells us over and over again that 
the climate is changing. It always has been changing, and it always 
will change.
  The good news is that the world is not coming to an end because of 
climate change. That is because the climate is always changing. So, for 
those people who believe the world is coming to an end because of 
greenhouse gas emissions, the good news is it is not. I am happy to 
share that good news with you.