[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 129 (Tuesday, July 30, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5173-S5177]
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.


                     Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019

  Madam President, I am here to speak about some other good news, which 
is that we have an opportunity with a vote that is coming up. Some 
people call it the budget vote or the budget agreement. I don't refer 
to it as such. I call it a defense agreement. I think everybody knows 
where I stand on this. This is a vote that is going to have to come up 
before too long, and there is a unique group of people in the U.S. 
Senate who know the reason that we have to pass the defense budget. 
They are the members of the Senate's Committee on Armed Services. It 
happens that I chair that committee and that we have done really great 
work.
  I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for such time 
as I may consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, we had a situation in which we went 
through an 8-year period of time when our military was somewhat 
devastated, and I want to share some of the specifics of that because 
it is a serious thing. We are going to be voting on the defense budget 
agreement, and I have already stated where I stand on it. I am here to 
outline why the budget agreement is necessary for our national defense.
  This defense budget agreement will be able to focus on the Senate's 
Armed Services' top priorities, one of which is to fix the on-base 
privatization of military housing.
  Remember that this happened about 6 months ago. We discovered, all of 
a sudden, that we were not doing a good job on our privatized housing. 
Hey, I have to admit that I am partly responsible for that because I 
was around here when we decided to privatize the housing. It did work 
for a while. I think, after a period of time, people got a little 
careless, and there was a little slack. Some of the contractors who 
made that commitment got a little bit greedy. This information as to 
how bad the conditions were came from a person at Tinker Air Force Base 
who was the spouse of a military person. When I first heard this, I 
thought there were bad conditions just in my State of Oklahoma, but 
there were not; they were all over the Nation.
  So we fixed that thing. We fixed it with our defense authorization 
bill, and we had a lot of provisions in there. We are now modernizing 
our military housing in a way that is going to be good for all of our 
spouses and others who are forced to live there. For some reason, if 
our defense budget agreement were to go down in flames and not be 
passed, there wouldn't be the modernizing of our military or the giving 
to our troops a well-deserved pay raise, and they have not had a pay 
raise in a long time. This is going to be the largest pay raise for our 
military people in the last 10 years. It is a good thing.
  By the way, people are always talking about how we can be so 
concerned about building our military when we have China and Russia 
that have passed us up in many areas and spend just a fraction of the 
amount. The reason is very simple, which is that China and Russia are 
countries that don't have to do anything for their soldiers. We take 
care of ours. We try to provide good housing. We provide the types of 
things that our all-volunteer force can be very proud of and are very 
proud of. That is something we have to incur. The largest single 
expenditure that we have in the military is end strength--the people 
out there. Communist countries--China, Russia--don't have to worry 
about that. ``Here is a gun. Go out and kill somebody.'' We don't have 
that luxury, and we wouldn't do that if we wanted to.
  If we don't pass this budget bill, the effects on the military will 
be devastating. Let me just share a couple of things that would happen.
  We would force the Department of Defense to operate under a 
continuing resolution, which would shortchange our troops and waste 
taxpayer dollars. We all know that. We would face destructive, 
haphazard cuts in sequestration. What is it we hear on our committee? 
The Presiding Officer is fully familiar, for she is one of the most 
loyal members of the Senate's Committee on Armed Services. We have 
posture hearings for about 6 months at the beginning of every year with 
the leaders of the various branches of the military--General Votel, 
Gen. Thomas Waldhauser, ADM Craig Faller, ADM Phil Davidson, all of 
these people.
  What do they tell us?
  They tell us, if we don't actually start funding our military again, 
we are going to have sequestration. Look, if we vote for this thing and 
pass it, we will end the sequestration problems and threats forever. It 
will not happen again.
  What else do they tell us?
  They tell us that a CR, which is a continuing resolution, would be an 
absolute disaster. A lot of people in this body don't know this, but 
every member of the Senate's Committee on Armed Services does know this 
because they were there.
  All of these people--16 leaders--come in for posture hearings each 
year, and we know the problems we are having and the problems we are 
confronted with. We would be faced with cuts in sequestration.
  This document right here is the ``Assessment and Recommendations of 
the National Defense Strategy Commission.'' Here it is right here. This 
is our blueprint of what we are doing to save America and to put us 
back on top in all of these areas in which we are deficient. If, for 
some reason, we don't pass this defense budget agreement, then we will 
not be able to continue the implementation of the national defense 
strategy, and we all know that. Certainly, we don't all know that, but 
the members of the Senate's Committee on Armed Services do know that.
  So that is what would happen. But what would this mean? The members 
of the Armed Services Committee know what it means, but for everybody 
else, the deficit budget deal would end the threat of sequestration 
forever. You don't need me to tell you that sequestration would be 
devastating.
  General Milley, just confirmed to be the Chairman of the Joints Chief 
of Staff, said that the levels of funding caused by sequestration would 
place America ``at great risk.''
  Remember, unfortunately, Heather Wilson, the former Air Force 
Secretary who had to leave her position. She said the cuts would be 
``absolutely devastating in scope and scale.''
  If we were hit by sequestration, there would be an across-the-board 
cut of $71 billion to the defense programs. That would halt our 
progress on the Space Command and developing crucial capabilities like 
hypersonic weapons and artificial intelligence. Those are two areas 
where we have actually been passed up by both Russia and China.
  Just yesterday, the DARPA announced that they have completed a 
successful design review of a hypersonic weapons program. Now, that is 
a good first step. I am really glad because we were way ahead of them 
back before the last administration came into office, and then, all of 
a sudden, over that period of time, we got behind. So, meanwhile, China 
and Russia are already testing their hypersonic weapons, and they are 
ahead of us. We are just trying to catch up, and that is what this 
budget vote is all about.
  The 2020 NDAA invests in hypersonic weapons, but we can't move 
forward if we are hit by sequestration. It would mean it would set us 
even further behind.

[[Page S5176]]

  By the way, the hypersonics that we are talking about are the state 
of the art. That is a new thing. That is a weaponry that moves at five 
times the speed of sound, and here we are, allowing our--I don't want 
to characterize China and Russia as enemies. They are not enemies, but 
they are certainly on the other side, and people are in shock when they 
find out that they have something that we don't have. We have to be 
competitive with them, and we are going to be if we pass this defense 
budget vote that we are going to have before us.
  So another example, in our NDAA that we passed overwhelmingly just 
last month, it authorized a 3.1-percent pay raise, or increase, for our 
troops. They deserve that pay raise, and under sequestration that pay 
raise is at risk.
  The ability for basing facilities to receive the next generation of 
aircraft is also at risk. If your State is like my State, your State is 
slated to house the F-35 or the T-X trainer or the KC-46. The KC-46 is 
a system that is going to replace the KC-135, which has been in place 
now for over 50 years and so is 50 years old. That is a system, and if 
you were going to have one of these systems in your State, you may not 
get it because of this deal. Without the budget vote that is going to 
take place, we wouldn't be able to move forward with our plan, and we 
would be hit by sequestration. It could all be over.
  I am talking about systems like the F-35, which we talk about every 
day, and the T-X trainer. We have had the trainers in existence now for 
some 50 years, and the KC-46, the same thing.
  So, anyway, that is what would happen if for some reason we vote 
against and don't pass the defense bill that we are going to be asked 
to vote on probably tomorrow.
  We have also made plans to continue increasing our end strength by 
17,000 troops from the Obama era to our current goal, and without this 
defense budget deal, that wouldn't be possible. I think we all know it.
  Now, maybe we don't all know it in this Chamber, but as for every 
member of the defense authorization committee, the Senate Armed 
Services Committee, they all know because they have been told over and 
over, and that is why it is so important that they be very responsible 
in their vote.
  It would be kind of hard to say that you are working for the defense 
of our Nation and then turn around and vote to gut their funding.
  Now, we have made remarkable gains in readiness over the past couple 
of years, thanks to President Trump's leadership and greater budgetary 
stability. For just one example, at the end of the Obama 
administration, only 5 percent of our brigade combat teams were ready 
to what they call ``fight tonight''--only 5 percent.
  Now, we have made a huge improvement. That is up to 50 percent now 
after just 2 years of this administration, but we have a lot more to 
do. All the improvements we have made in fiscal years 2018 and 2019 
would be at risk if we were not able to go forward and pass our defense 
budget act that we are going to be asked to support.
  Sequestration would undo what we have done and take us back where we 
were before. It would be abandoning our troops right when we said we 
would be there for them. A continuing resolution means funding will go 
to the wrong places--places that were important last year but don't 
need to be funded this year. That is just wasteful. We all understand 
that, but a continuing resolution would be especially devastating for 
the military.
  Every one of these military people whom I was just reading about came 
in for their annual meeting. They all said the same thing: It would be 
devastating if we had to go into a continuing resolution. We would be 
forced to do programs that otherwise we would not be doing.
  So General Dunford said it himself. He said: ``The fact that we have 
routinely not had a budget at the beginning of the year has delayed new 
starts, and it's been incredibly inefficient in how we prioritize and 
allocate resources throughout the year.'' That was General Dunford.
  A continuing resolution means that our military will lose key 
planning ability. David Norquist, nominated to be the Deputy Secretary 
of Defense, gave a great example to the Senate Armed Services Committee 
last week. He said: Let's say a unit is planning right now for some 
training in October, but we are operating under a continuing 
resolution. At that time, they will cancel training because they don't 
know how much money they would be getting in order to accomplish that. 
We may eventually get more money, but in the meantime we will have lost 
a month in the process.

  With sequestration off the table and with a stable 2-year budget deal 
in place, the Department of Defense can move forward with what is 
really important: implementing the National Defense Strategy. This is 
what my committee has been focusing on all year. We are facing a 
different, more dangerous world than we were 10 years ago.
  I look back wistfully. I have said this many times. I look back 
wistfully at the days of the Cold War. We had two super powers. We knew 
what they had, and they knew what we had--mutually assured destruction. 
It doesn't mean anything anymore. You have countries that are run by 
people that are mentally deficient having the capability of blowing up 
one of our American cities. It is a scary world out there. That is what 
we are doing. That is why it is so important that we pass this budget, 
because our defense is depending on it.
  Not everybody knows this, but the members of the Armed Services 
Committee do know it. We are falling behind China and Russia as they 
continue to build their militaries. We are seeing persistent threats 
from North Korea, from Iran, from the terrorist groups, and we no 
longer have the best of everything, and most people don't understand 
that. Of course the members of our committee do understand that.
  We have set clear priorities, and now we need to fund it. The future 
of our Nation is at stake. This is what it will take to regain the 
qualitative and quantitative advantages that we have lost.
  I would have liked to have seen even more funding provided to this. 
The National Defense Strategy Commission--by the way, they set up a 
system that they can use, and that system is that we should be putting 
together between a 3- and a 5-percent increase over inflation, but we 
have not done it. We have not done it even with the budget that we are 
working on now.
  The National Defense Strategy Commission, which is nonpartisan, has 
said that 3 to 5 percent growth is what is needed, and that is what we 
did not do.
  But at the end of the day, I am willing to take this smaller than 
ideal increase and give our military what it needs--predictability. It 
is also more than what the House passed in their Defense authorization 
bill, which was dangerously low.
  Every member of Armed Services Committee should vote for this defense 
budget because they know everything we have been talking about. They 
know that we are outranged and outgunned in artillery. They know that 
we are at a disadvantage in air defense, having only two Active-Duty 
battalions. Nuclear Triad modernization has not been taking place. We 
aren't there. China and Russia are.
  So, anyway, what I am trying to impress upon you is that those 
individuals who are members of the committee are fully aware of the 
problems we have had. They remember that under the Obama 
administration, at the end of the Obama administration, our Air Force 
was short 2,000 pilots, and 1,500 of them were fighter pilots. Only 
one-third of our brigade combat teams, one-fourth of our aviation 
brigades, and half of our divisions were ready. Also, 60 percent of our 
F-18s weren't flyable. This is what we are in the process of 
correcting, and it is all dependent upon the passage of this budget.
  So I would say to those individuals who are on the committee, I can't 
imagine that any of them would not be supporting this defense budget 
when it comes up, and I would hope that we don't have members of our 
committee who are anticipating doing things such as hearings back in 
their State or amendments to go as we put our Defense authorization 
bill through the next steps, because now is when our defense system 
needs to have this budget passed.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.

[[Page S5177]]

  

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.