[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 42 (Tuesday, March 3, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1280-S1292]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   ADVANCED GEOTHERMAL INNOVATION LEADERSHIP ACT OF 2019--Motion to 
                           Proceed--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, the bill before us supports clean 
energy and emerging technologies, so this is the perfect opportunity to 
update an outdated aspect related to a legacy energy source.
  Senator Udall of New Mexico and I have an amendment that will close a 
loophole in Federal energy policy. I want my colleagues to know--and I 
think they do--of my long support for renewable and alternative sources 
of energy, and so I agree with the aims of the Murkowski-Manchin Energy 
bill.
  The amendment Senator Udall and I have introduced is the same as the 
bipartisan bill we introduced last week. The title of that bill is the 
Fair Return for Public Lands Act. This bill was introduced 100 years to 
the date of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920.
  This amendment would increase the royalty rates on Federal lands from 
12.5 percent to 18.75 percent. Everybody here knows that a royalty is 
what the oil company will pay to a mineral owner--in this case, the 
mineral owner is the American taxpayer--and that royalty is paid for 
the right to extract oil and natural gas from the lands of the United 
States. The legislation modernizes the public lands leasing system, and 
it does this for the first time since royalty rates were set in 1920.
  The legislation increases both the share of royalties taxpayers 
receive from public lands leasing as well as the rental rates. The new 
rental rate we are offering in this amendment reflects the current fair 
market value, while the bill also establishes minimum bidding standards 
to lease public lands that will stay in line with inflation. This bill 
is a simple fix by making Federal leasing rates the same whether you 
are on land or offshore.
  The royalty rate the bill offers is very comparable to what current 
leases are for oil-producing States on their State-owned land. We use 
the State of Texas as an example. Texas charges a 25-percent royalty on 
its State lands, while States in the Rocky Mountain West charge 
royalties that are somewhere between 16-\2/3\ percent and 18\3/4\ 
percent. The royalty rate on Federal public lands is more than one-
third lower, at 12\1/2\ percent; hence our amendment--the same as our 
bill--updating this and bringing more parity between State rates and 
Federal rates and, of course, absolute parity with offshore drilling.
  The current regulatory system allows companies to get a sweetheart 
deal on Federal public lands. Senator Udall and I are asking our 
colleagues to fix this for the American people.
  According to studies done by the Congressional Budget Office and the 
Government Accountability Office, modernizing public lands royalty 
rates for oil and gas could increase Federal revenues by as much as 
$200 million over the next decade and do it with little to no impact on 
production.
  It is time--hence our amendment--for my colleagues in Congress to end 
this oil company loophole and bring oil leasing into the 21st century.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              Coronavirus

  Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I come to the floor today as a Senator 
as well as a physician. I want to do this to reassure the American 
people that we are doing everything possible to combat and contain the 
coronavirus. According to Johns Hopkins University, a well-known 
medical institution, we here in the United States are the most prepared 
Nation on the face of the Earth to protect ourselves in terms of 
preparation for an infectious disease like the coronavirus.
  Nevertheless, this virus is a global concern and is a problem with 
pandemic potential. We know the outbreak started in China. It goes 
without saying that we are deeply saddened by the loss of life there, 
as well as here and around the world. We are concerned about those 
currently suffering from the virus. Our focus continues to be on 
protecting the health and the well-being and the safety of the American 
people. That is where we need to focus.
  Notably, President Trump's early travel restrictions on China have 
actually helped slow the spread of the virus. He has since expanded 
these restrictions. The President, I believe, has acted swiftly, 
boldly, and decisively to contain the virus and to keep Americans safe. 
Still, this country is not a hermetically sealed bubble. It will never 
be--can't be. We are likely to see more cases here in the days and 
weeks ahead.

[[Page S1281]]

  We all must be prepared, and we must stay vigilant. Be assured, the 
Trump administration is fully engaged in responding to this virus. The 
United States has the best public health system in the world, and we 
have a plan in place to combat the coronavirus. Our public health 
experts are working to identify and isolate the virus, as well as to 
produce a vaccine.
  The fastest you can ever produce a vaccine is several years. We seem 
to be moving faster than that with regard to coronavirus. We have seen 
development, but even though it is moving faster than ever, it will 
still take a minimum of a year and 6 months to have a vaccine available 
and produced at a level that could actually impact the population of 
the country. Since it is a new virus, a new vaccine needs to be 
developed. The Vice President said over the weekend that we expect to 
have a vaccine available sometime next year, and I agree.
  Meanwhile, our strategy for testing, for isolation, and for 
quarantines right now is helping to lower the risks. Years ago, we 
created an infectious disease rapid response team. The goal was to make 
sure that we were ready if the time would come, and the time has now 
come. Test kits are becoming more widely available for States and 
communities. We heard today over the noon hour that they are expecting 
to have enough test kits available around the country so that, over the 
next week, we can test a million people. We are going to continue to 
use every available tool we can in this fight.
  The White House has created a Coronavirus Task Force led by Vice 
President Pence. The effort is headed by top officials at the Centers 
for Disease Control and the National Institutes of Health. I had a 
chance to visit with a number of them today, specifically the 
infectious disease group through the NIH. We have had a number of 
briefings through the Centers for Disease Control. We recently had a 
briefing by Dr. Anne Schuchat, the head of the Centers for Disease 
Control in the area helping with our efforts on coronavirus. As she has 
said, ``Our aggressive containment strategy here in the United States 
has been working and is responsible for the low level of cases that we 
have so far.'' Officials at the CDC and the National Institutes of 
Health are coordinating with other Federal officials, and they tend to 
be working around the clock.
  The administration is making sure that State and local officials have 
all of the resources they need to respond. Dr. Schuchat said that our 
healthcare system, our businesses, our communities, and our schools all 
have action plans.
  Senators have had a number of briefings from officials at the Centers 
for Disease Control and the National Institutes of Health. They are 
working on ways to identify the virus and test for the virus and ways 
to treat people who are infected by the virus. They are working on 
quarantines and on a vaccine. That is what they should be doing. This 
is a massive, nationwide undertaking.
  At every meeting--and I have been going to meetings on this since it 
was first noted around the beginning of the year. We know about the 
issue in China. People now know about the doctor who tried to get the 
word out to the world--who was the first to notice this specific new 
virus, the coronavirus. He was reprimanded by the Chinese for trying to 
do what he learned to do as a doctor, which was to share medical 
knowledge and information to try to get ahead of a disease that is 
progressing. He was reprimanded by the Chinese Government, and he has 
subsequently died of the disease.
  There are a number of us--and it is bipartisan--who would go as 
Senators to briefings. We have been going to briefings since the time 
of the impeachment. We would have impeachment in the afternoon and 
discussions about coronavirus in the morning. There has been a focus on 
this probably longer than most members around the country had been 
focused on it. At every meeting, we would ask the members of the 
Centers for Disease Control and National Institutes of Health: Do you 
have the funds you need for the things you need to do right now? At all 
of those meetings, they said: Yes, we have all we need.
  Now things have changed. They say they need additional funds, and 
they are right. We agree they need more funds for testing, treatment, 
and vaccine development. It is appropriate that Congress appropriate 
that money. Congress must act quickly and decisively in passing a 
bipartisan emergency funding bill. Both parties agree this effort has 
to be fully funded. We know the initial numbers discussed were only a 
starting point. We don't know what the total number is going to be, but 
the team is going to continue to have all the funds they need to deal 
with this disease.
  I find it very disturbing to see Democrats, especially those running 
for President, politicizing the issue. This is a headline in 
yesterday's New York Times: ``Democrats Hit Trump On Virus.'' They are 
talking about the Presidential candidates running for President, 
attacking President Trump on the virus.
  The coronavirus is a deadly disease. It is not a political tool to 
try to tar and feather President Trump. We need to be working on this 
together. This should not be about Democratic candidates trying to 
defeat President Trump but about defeating the coronavirus. That is 
what we ought to be focusing on.
  As a doctor, my focus is on the health of the American people. My 
advice for those who may be watching is the same commonsense advice you 
would take if you were saying ``I want to avoid getting the flu during 
flu season,'' and it is flu season as well. Cover your mouth when you 
cough. Wash your hands frequently. If you are sick, stay home. Those 
are the kinds of commonsense things people can do at home, not just to 
prevent the flu but also to protect themselves against the coronavirus.
  There is no reason for lots of anxiety or for panic. As a nation, we 
are in the right position to deal with the challenge we face. This 
administration will continue to do everything in its power to keep 
America and Americans safe. Now it is time for Congress to do its 
part--to pass the emergency legislation and get it to the President's 
desk.
  Thankfully, we are the most prepared Nation to face this challenge. 
We have harnessed all of the American energy and ingenuity and 
expertise we need for this fight. The key is for all of us to remain 
engaged and to remain vigilant. As a doctor, I am confident that we 
will be able to succeed together.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. RISCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cramer). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                                S. 2657

  Mr. RISCH. Mr. President and fellow colleagues, I come to the floor 
today to talk about the American Energy Innovation Act, which is here 
before the Senate and which we are considering this week.
  America's energy landscape has changed dramatically since the last 
major Energy bill was enacted by Congress more than a decade ago. It is 
time to update our outdated energy policy to reflect today's realities, 
goals, and challenges in the energy sector.
  The American Energy Innovation Act--the business before the Senate 
today--is the cumulation of more than a year of hearings, business 
meetings, and negotiations in the Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee. I commend Chairman Murkowski and Ranking Member Manchin for 
their leadership and all of us on the committee in bringing this 
strong, bipartisan, ``all of the above'' energy package to the floor.
  Included in this legislation are a number of provisions I have 
proposed that will benefit Idaho and the Nation.
  First, the bill appropriately recognizes the importance of having a 
strong domestic nuclear industry. I represent not just one of the 
Department of Energy's National Laboratories, but I represent the 
Nation's flagship nuclear energy laboratory, the Idaho National Lab.
  Nuclear power is the Nation's largest source of reliable, carbon-free 
energy. To date, nuclear powerplants have primarily served one 
purpose--to produce electricity--but we are discovering

[[Page S1282]]

through the work at the Idaho National Lab that this is only the tip of 
the iceberg as far as the work a nuclear reactor could do.
  The INL and the Department of Energy are currently working to 
demonstrate that nuclear reactors can be adapted to produce other 
products like hydrogen, steam, and, importantly, heat. To accelerate 
this research, Ranking Member Manchin and I introduced the Integrated 
Energy Systems Act to help improve the long-term competitiveness of our 
current fleet of nuclear reactors. That bill is included in the larger 
bill we have before us.
  While we must keep our existing fleet of reactors online, we must 
also usher in the next generation of advanced nuclear reactor designs. 
This is particularly exciting at this point in time. The bipartisan 
Nuclear Energy Leadership Act will address key supply chain and other 
challenges associated with developing small, modular, micro, and other 
advanced designs. This act is also included in the larger bill before 
us today. That bill, NELA, will enable the Federal Government to 
partner with the private sector to demonstrate and commercialize these 
technologies, and the INL's National Reactor Innovation Center will 
play a key role in making these designs a reality.
  When looking toward a clean, reliable, and secure energy future, the 
importance of rare-earth minerals cannot be overstated. In Idaho, we 
have the Nation's only significant domestic deposit of cobalt--a 
mineral that is vital for electric vehicles, wind turbines, and 
military hardware. Yet, instead of mining and processing this mineral 
in the United States, we import our supply from China.
  Cobalt is just one of many minerals the United States relies on 
imports for. We need to start prioritizing domestic supply and 
processing our critical minerals for our energy and domestic security 
future. I appreciate that we have also included this act in the big 
bill that is in front of us. This is the American Mineral Security Act, 
and it prioritizes our energy independence.
  I am also pleased that the key provisions of my bill, the Enhancing 
Geothermal Production on Federal Lands Act, were also included. That 
act is included in the larger bill.
  Idaho has long been a world leader in the development of geothermal 
technologies. In fact, the Idaho State Capital Building is the only 
State capital in the United States that is heated solely with 
geothermal energy.
  There is significant potential to expand this renewable energy in 
Idaho and indeed across the Western United States, and most of this 
potential exists on federally managed lands. Unfortunately, developers 
looking to harness this resource on Federal lands must navigate a 
labyrinth of regulations. The provisions in this bill will unleash our 
Nation's vast geothermal resources by making the current permitting 
review process more efficient, cost-effective, predictable, and, 
importantly, take a shorter period of time.
  Lastly, I am proud that this legislation contains language from the 
PROTECT Act that will modernize our electric grid and enhance cyber 
security efforts. I don't need to spend any time on cyber security. It 
is important for our electric grid. It is one of the favorite targets 
of terrorists around the world. They usually go through cyber security.
  The worldwide adoption of digital automation technology has created 
great benefits, but it also introduces significant cyber 
vulnerabilities to critical energy infrastructure. I am proud that the 
solutions to many of these challenges are being developed at the Idaho 
National Laboratory, which is the world leader in critical 
infrastructure, control systems, and security research in those areas.
  Protecting our electric grid is one of the most pressing security 
challenges, and we must incentivize the energy sector to deploy the 
most advanced cyber security technologies.
  The additional authorities and tools in these bills are critical to 
both our energy and national security, and I am committed--hopefully 
along with all of my colleagues here in the Senate--to seeing those 
matters cross the finish line in this important act, which finally 
reaches us at this critical time.
  With that, I will yield the floor to my distinguished colleague from 
New Mexico.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, thank you for the recognition.
  Let me begin today by commending the efforts of Senators Murkowski 
and Manchin for working across the aisle to bring an energy bill to the 
floor.
  This bill has positive initiatives--promoting energy efficiency, 
modernizing the electric grid, and research funding for clean energy--
but the full Senate deserves a chance to be heard on the important 
issues at stake with this bill; namely, energy.
  Most importantly, we must take real action on climate change and 
address a problematic provision in this bill to limit environmental 
reviews of massive and potentially toxic mining projects.
  Everywhere we look, we are experiencing the devastating effects of 
climate change--whether they are hurricanes along the southeastern 
coasts, flooding in the Midwest, drought in the Southwest, or out-of-
control wildfires in California--and we are careening too close to 
climate change tipping points that scientists warn will doom the 
planet.
  The bill before us does not set targets to reduce greenhouse gas 
emissions to the levels required to meet global targets or transition 
us to a clean energy economy, which is where we need to head, and we 
need to be heading there fast. A few things would dramatically improve 
this bill's climate impact.
  First, we need to add clean energy tax incentives. Clean energy tax 
incentives are one of the most effective tools we have in our toolbox 
to increase renewable power sources like wind and solar and the energy 
storage technology that enables them to work as a baseload power.
  Second, we should put commonsense limits on one of the worst 
greenhouse gases--methane. The U.S. oil and gas boom means that we are 
emitting 13 million metric tons of methane every year. That is 60 
percent more than EPA estimates. Methane is 84 times more powerful than 
CO2 as a greenhouse gas in the short term.
  Industry says they want to control methane pollution. They were 
prepared to live with limits on public lands in a 2016 rule from the 
Bureau of Land Management. In 2017, the Senate rejected an attempt to 
repeal that rule on a bipartisan basis. But the Trump administration 
eliminated the rule due to lobbying by the worst polluters in the 
industry. We should restore that rule, and I have filed an amendment to 
do so immediately.
  We should also act to phase out HFCs and include a strong energy 
efficiency program for buildings. Then this bill could make a small but 
meaningful contribution to the climate change fight.
  Within the confines of this bill, there is a problematic and anti-
environmental section that deserves serious scrutiny. I am talking 
about the controversial American Mineral Security Act--a bill that saw 
significant opposition in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee. Including this bill in this package is problematic because 
it would ``streamline'' the Federal permitting process for hard rock 
mining. Streamlining the approval process means arbitrary deadlines and 
reducing public input on massive mining projects that could cause 
further environmental destruction on public lands.
  Mining is a messy business. Surface mining ravages the earth. Heap 
leach mining produces what is called acid mine drainage that spews a 
mix of acidic water and heavy metals into streams and contaminates 
groundwater. An astounding 40 percent of western headwaters are 
contaminated by mine runoff. Those headwaters are where we get our 
drinking water.
  There are two controversial mine proposals in New Mexico right now--
the Terrero Mine in the Pecos and the Copper Flat Mine near Hillsboro, 
NM. Both of these mines are of significant concern to local farmers, 
ranchers, Tribes, and residents who are worried about water pollution.
  Under this provision, almost anything could be labeled a ``critical 
mineral.'' Mining permits will get pushed through, while limiting local 
community input. I am strongly supporting an amendment from Senator 
Stabenow to strike this provision.
  The proponents of this critical minerals bill have some valid points. 
Of course we need certain metals for our

[[Page S1283]]

economy, including a clean energy economy, but we cannot forget that 
the mining industry has gotten one of the biggest free rides on the 
back of the taxpayer in American history, all the while leaving the 
taxpayer holding the bag for their toxic legacy.
  Hard rock mining on Federal lands is governed by the General Mining 
Act of 1872--that is right, 1872--a 148-year-old law. President Ulysses 
S. Grant signed it to help settle the West and to spur economic 
development. Still in effect today, the act allows mining companies to 
mine gold, silver, copper, uranium, and other precious metals on 
Federal lands without paying one dime in royalties--not one dime. That 
is in sharp contrast to coal and oil and gas companies that pay 
billions in royalties every year for the right to extract resources--
resources owned by the public and which are coming off public 
lands. The current rate paid by coal, oil, and gas is 12.5 percent. 
These same mining companies often pay royalties of similar payments 
when they operate overseas but not here in the United States.

  Since 1872, mining companies have taken $300 billion--that is billion 
with a ``b''--from public lands. The U.S. Government Accountability 
Office estimated that in 2010 alone hardrock mining earned $6.4 billion 
from public lands. That would have yielded $800 million per year for 
the American taxpayer if mining were treated the same as coal, oil, and 
gas.
  The shocking fact is, foreign-owned companies are often the 
beneficiaries. For example, 83 percent of the companies that mine or 
explore for uranium in the United States are foreign owned; 64 percent 
of the companies that produce gold are foreign owned.
  The out-of-date mining law not only shortchanges taxpayers; it 
shortchanges the environment. The same industry that seeks permitting 
relief from Congress today does nothing to pay for cleanup at the tens 
of thousands of abandoned mines scarring our public lands. The GAO 
estimates that there are 33,000 abandoned mines across the West that 
are degrading the environment. One study found that 20,000 gallons per 
day of toxic water from 43 abandoned mine sites are polluting streams, 
ponds, and groundwater.
  What is wrong with these numbers? The American taxpayer is stuck with 
the bill, and the local and regional communities are stuck with the 
devastating environmental and public health impacts.
  Now, witness this: the Gold King Mine that gushed 3 million gallons--
3 million gallons--of this toxic yellow stew into the Animas and San 
Juan Rivers and across my home State of New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, 
Arizona, and the Navajo Nation. It has been 4 years since this spill, 
and the States, Tribes, and local communities have still not been fully 
reimbursed. This was a normal river in the West that looked clean and 
pristine. Here it is, this toxic stew--this yellowish, toxic stew--that 
ran for a number of days.
  The right to mine on Federal lands royalty-free maybe made sense 150 
years ago. A free ride makes no sense now. It is a sweetheart deal for 
the mining companies that can't be justified by today's fiscal or 
environmental realities. The old joke in the West is that the mining 
company gets the gold, and the American people get the shaft--and that 
is literally true.
  My amendment to reform the 1872 mining law that Senators Heinrich and 
Bennet are cosponsoring ends this free ride by doing two simple things: 
It sets a royalty rate between 5 and 8 percent on mining on Federal 
lands, the public lands, and provides for cleanup of abandoned mines 
paid for by royalties and an abandoned mine reclamation fee of 1 to 3 
percent.
  The House Committee on Natural Resources approved broad mining reform 
legislation last year. This bill could be coming to the House floor 
soon and is probably headed in our direction over here at the Senate. 
Mining reform is decades and decades overdue. It is only fair to 
address this injustice before we give mining companies new perks, even 
if they can be justified, and enacting a royalty and reclamation fee is 
a healthy start on that process.
  I thank, again, Senators Murkowski and Manchin for their work. I hope 
we can return to the regular order, to the idea that we are going to 
have a bill on the floor and that we can have amendments and have the 
process work as it normally does and improve the bill on these 
important points. If we cannot, I think the path for this bill becomes 
much harder.
  Now, on another subject before I conclude, I want to voice my support 
for the remarks Senator Grassley gave earlier today on the oil and gas 
royalties. We filed an amendment together, based on our bill, to update 
those royalties and other leasing items for the first time in 100 
years. It is a long overdue topic, and I hope to see increasing 
bipartisan support in the near future.
  We have a historic oil boom in this country, much of which is using 
public lands, and the public has a right to see a fair value for those 
resources.
  We also have a large and growing budget deficit and a major climate 
change problem. Bringing oil and gas royalties into the 21st century 
would be a bipartisan win on all of those fronts.
  I yield the floor. I see my good friend, the Senator from Tennessee, 
is here.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.


                               Tennessee

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I am on the floor to speak about the 
coronavirus, but first let me express to the families in Tennessee my 
heartfelt concern for them as the result of a tornado that swept 
through Middle Tennessee last night while people were sleeping.
  The number of deaths is 22 so far in Nashville, and in Wilson, 
Putnam, and Benton Counties. I have seen floods, and I have seen fires. 
The damage they cause is terrible, but there is nothing quite like 
seeing what a tornado can do. It can arrive in 30 seconds or 1 minute 
and be gone and leave behind it death and buildings laid flat to the 
ground. I can't imagine what it must be like for that to happen at 1 in 
the morning when nobody knows it is coming.
  I will be in Tennessee on Friday when the Senate concludes its 
business this week and will be visiting those areas. Our office has 
been in touch with mayors in all of the counties and communities 
affected. Senator Blackburn and I are working together, along with the 
rest of the Tennessee delegation in the House, to make certain that we 
give full Federal support to Governor Lee. The President talked to 
Governor Lee today, and, as a result of that call, the White House put 
out a statement indicating the President may be in Tennessee on Friday. 
That would be welcomed as well.


                              Coronavirus

  Mr. President, let me speak for a moment about the coronavirus. The 
country was transfixed by the impeachment process for about a month, 
and now they are transfixed by the coronavirus, but this is different. 
This is personal. This could affect each of us. When I am home--and I 
am sure when the Presiding Officer is home--there are lots of questions 
about the coronavirus.
  I want to speak this morning about a hearing that we had in the 
Senate's Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee that was 
reassuring to me and, I think, to the Democrats as well as the 
Republicans there. It was reassuring because we had four respected 
professionals from the government with broad experience in dealing with 
public health crises--whether it is anthrax, Ebola, or other 
coronaviruses. We have had all of that in the United States in the last 
25 years, and we have dealt with that.
  At the end of the hearing, Senator Murray, the ranking Democrat on 
the committee, and I, and the Democrats on committee who aren't 
bashful, and the Republicans on committee who aren't bashful, but I 
think I can speak for them in saying those four professionals, many of 
whom have worked for 25 or 30 years in terms of helping our country 
deal with health crises, continue to earn our respect. We believe what 
they tell us, and they promised to tell us the truth.
  When I saw the Vice President earlier today, I said to him: Mr. Vice 
President, I am glad that you have been placed in charge of this. As a 
former Governor, I think it makes sense to place a Vice President--that 
indicates the highest level of attention--and a former Governor, 
someone who is accustomed to working with States and local governments, 
in charge of a problem that is going to be solved primarily by our 
exceptional State and local public health systems. So I think

[[Page S1284]]

you are exactly the right person to be in charge.
  My advice to him was to let the professionals do the talking because 
people believe them. If the President and the Vice President give their 
view, they are entitled to do it, but someone will think they are 
simply justifying what they are doing. If the Democrats, on the other 
hand, say something about the coronavirus response, someone will think, 
well, they are just criticizing President Trump.
  But if Dr. Fauci, for example, who for over 35 years--since 1984, 
which is a long time, working for President Reagan, President H. W. 
Bush, President Clinton, President George W. Bush, President Obama, and 
President Trump; working on HIV/AIDS; working on anthrax; working on 
two Ebola epidemics--if Dr. Fauci answers a question and tells us 
something, we believe that. What we need is accurate information for 
the American people about exactly where we stand with this crisis and 
what we need to do in Congress that we have not already done.
  So, in the next few minutes, I would like to talk about what we heard 
this morning and to compliment those four professionals who were there:
  Dr. Anne Schuchat, is the Principal Deputy Director of the Centers 
for Disease Control. She has had 30 years working with infectious 
diseases, most of that time with the CDC.
  Dr. Fauci I just described, working with six Presidents. I believe he 
has virtually universal respect here for truth-telling and competence.
  Dr. Robert Kadlec. He is the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and 
Response at the Department of Health and Human Services. He used to 
advise the Department of Defense, and then he helped Senator Burr to 
write the legislation that set up the agency that helps us be better 
prepared to deal with such health crises as we might experience here.
  Then Dr. Stephen Hahn. He is the newest one of the four in terms of 
coming to the government, but he has been the head of the MD Anderson 
Cancer Center in Texas, one of the most respected institutions in the 
world.
  So those are the professionals that we heard this morning.
  Now, what did we hear? We heard that the coronavirus is alarming in 
terms of what is happening around the world. There are 90,000 cases or 
more and 3,000 deaths. All of this has happened in the last 2, 2\1/2\ 
months, so far as we know.
  What has happened at home? What has happened at home here in the 
United States is that we have slightly more than 100 cases that are 
detected. About half of those are Americans who were traveling and had 
to be brought home and were repatriated, as we say, and the other half 
have been detected here. Unfortunately, we have had six deaths.
  It is fair to say that citizens in the United States are at low risk 
for infection from the coronavirus, but you don't have to take my word 
for it. Take the word of the professionals who testified this morning 
before the Senate's Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee or 
take the words of what the New York Times said a couple of days ago on 
its front page in the Sunday newspaper in describing the situation in 
the United States.
  Here is what the Times said: ``Much about the coronavirus remains 
unclear, and it is far from certain that the outbreak will reach severe 
proportions in the United States or affect many regions at once.'' 
Continuing, the New York Times: ``With its top-notch scientists, modern 
hospitals and sprawling public health infrastructure, most experts 
agree, the United States is among the countries best prepared to 
prevent or manage such an epidemic.''
  That is the New York Times' front page assessment 2 days ago.
  Now, in addition to the possible effect on the lives of Americans, 
this problem can disrupt our economy. Twenty percent of what we import, 
according to our Trade Representative, comes from China. So we are not 
just talking about medicines or masks. We are talking about parts of 
cars or chemicals, such as those for Eastman Chemical in East 
Tennessee, which employs thousands of people. It can cause our economy 
to slow down and economies in the rest of the world to slow down.
  The purpose of our hearing this morning was, first, to get an idea of 
what Americans needed to know about the coronavirus. We learned some 
things. We learned that, based on the data that we have and that has 
been received just in the last couple of days from China, we haven't 
seen many children infected by the coronavirus. They may be, but the 
average age of the people who seem to be infected by it is 50, and the 
people who get the sickest are people who are already sick.
  The second thing we have learned seems so simple it doesn't seem to 
be true. What can we do about the coronavirus? How can we keep from 
getting it? Wash your hands. Wash your hands. I find myself now doing 
it a few more times a day, and I didn't used to do it as often.
  Our hands pick up germs from our cell phones or from the rails we 
touch or from the hands we shake or from the seats in front of us on 
the airplane. Then what do we do? We put our hands on our face many 
more times an hour than most people are aware. That is the single 
biggest way this spreads.
  Wash your hands. That is what Dr. Fauci says--the professional who 
has been working on these diseases for decades.
  Here is something else we learned to put the coronavirus into 
context. We are just past the peak of the flu season. Most of us know 
about the flu. We have a vaccine for the flu--not for the coronavirus, 
but for the flu--and most of us take it. But there are tens of millions 
of us who will get the flu this flu season. Fifty thousand Americans, 
on average, die from the flu each year--50,000 Americans. It might be 
30,000 one year and might be 70,000 in a very bad year. But there are a 
lot of people who die from the flu.
  The flu is a respiratory disease, just like the coronavirus is a 
respiratory disease. It is a different respiratory disease, but the 
symptoms are similar: fever and a cough.
  We also learned this morning from the professionals who told us this: 
For 80 percent of the people who are infected with the coronavirus, it 
is a fairly mild experience. Twenty percent--mainly older people--are 
sicker, and they are the ones who need the attention.
  Those are some of the things we learned this morning from the 
professionals who have been working on epidemics or potential epidemics 
for a long time.
  What should we do about it? Let's start with what we have done about 
it. I think it is important for the American people to know that. Let's 
start with Congress. This is not our first rodeo, so to speak. We have 
faced public health threats for the last 20 years. There are Members of 
Congress and staff who were here during the anthrax attack in 2001, 
nearly 20 years ago. In 2003, we saw SARS. That was another type of 
coronavirus. Then, in 2009, the flu pandemic killed more than 150,000 
people around the world. Then there were the Ebola outbreaks in 2014 
and 2018.
  After every one of those incidents, Congress, working with Democratic 
and Republican Presidents, tried to prepare the Federal Government to 
be ready for the next problem.
  After anthrax, we created Project BioShield to develop and stockpile 
new treatments and vaccines. After the 2003 SARS outbreak, in 2006, 
Congress created the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act. Senator 
Burr of North Carolina was the principal author. It guides the 
government on how to respond to public health emergencies, and it 
created a fund the government can use to respond quickly to problems 
that come up.
  Last year, Congress provided more than $4 billion for public health 
and preparedness programs. When a crisis occurs, like this 
coronavirus--all of which has happened since the first of the year, 
maybe a little since December, but mostly since the first of the year--
money is often needed quickly, so Congress created a couple of funds 
the agencies can take money from. One of them is the Rapid Response 
Fund. Secretary Azar has already taken $105 million from that fund for 
this healthcare issue. We have given him the authority to take another 
$136 million, which he has done.
  The President has recommended $2.5 billion more. Congress, with many 
different suggestions having been made,

[[Page S1285]]

this week is likely to approve additional funding to do whatever our 
professionals tell us needs to be done to keep us safe and help protect 
our economy.
  In addition to what Congress has done, our various Presidents have 
done even more. For example, President Obama, if you will remember, 
sent our military to Africa to deal with the Ebola outbreak before it 
came here. That was quite an extraordinary action. President George W. 
Bush sent Centers for Disease Control scientists around the world to 
help with the SARS epidemic. In the same way, President Trump has done 
something that hasn't been done in this country for over 50 years. At a 
time when there were only six confirmed cases of coronavirus in the 
United States, this administration announced they would quarantine 
Americans who may have been exposed to the virus while in China and 
would not allow foreign nationals who traveled to China in the last 14 
days to enter the United States, and warned Americans not to travel to 
China and, more recently, to think more carefully about traveling to 
parts of Italy or South Korea. The President added Iran to these travel 
restrictions more recently.
  Dr. Fauci, the National Institutes of Health professional whom we 
heard from this morning, said that without those Executive actions, we 
would have many more cases right now.
  The third thing the administration has done is to develop a test to 
diagnose whether you have the coronavirus. We didn't have that before 
because this is a new virus. The administration is rapidly working on 
that--not as fast as everyone would like, but fast, so far as I can 
tell.
  The FDA is working with 65 private sector test developers in addition 
to the 46 labs in 38 States who are using the Centers for Disease 
Control test. The goal is to have in place kits that will allow 1 
million tests to be done shortly.
  As far as a vaccine, the professionals are working on a vaccine more 
rapidly than any vaccine ever before, but it still takes more than a 
year. However, the President met with drug manufacturers to see if 
existing treatments might be used earlier. Our National Laboratories 
have gotten involved as well.
  As we look at the impact of the coronavirus, we think mostly about 
our own health, but we also see other issues, such as the effect on our 
economy. 13 percent of the facilities that make active ingredients for 
drugs are in China. We need to take a look at that.
  I would like to conclude where I started. People ask me: What can we 
do about the coronavirus? The answer is as simple as wash your hands, 
drink a lot of water, and isolate yourself if you feel sick. If you 
have a fever and a cough, call your doctor. Stay home, and don't infect 
your neighbors.
  Are we going to be able to contain the coronavirus in the United 
States? I go back to what the New York Times said on its front page on 
Sunday. We have experienced dealing with new diseases in the United 
States. We have professionals who, for several decades through several 
administrations, both Democratic and Republican, have been successful 
in doing that. We have Presidents, both Democratic and Republican, who 
have taken strong Executive action, including this one, to protect the 
American people.
  In short, while this is an alarming problem around the world--surely, 
more Americans will become infected--most experts agree that we are 
fortunate that the United States is the country in the world with the 
scientists, with the resources, and with the experience to do the best 
possible job of containing the spread of this virus.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer). The Senator from Vermont.


                   55th Anniversary of Bloody Sunday

  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, 55 years ago, a courageous band of civil 
rights activists, including the fearless   John Lewis, began a march 
for what many of us considered a sacred right to vote. They marched 
from Selma to Montgomery, and they marched in the face of unspeakable 
violence. They shed their blood for access to the ballot. While much 
has changed in the last 55 years, this struggle for voting equality, 
and this march for progress, continues.
  On Sunday, I was inspired yet again by my hero, my dear friend, now-
Congressman   John Lewis, who summoned depthless strength to lead 
thousands in commemorating the anniversary of Bloody Sunday. This was 
not merely a commemoration; it was a clarion call to action. Those of 
us who know the Congressman know he has been seriously ill but has not 
given up the fight. In fact, Congressman Lewis's voice booming over the 
crowd reminded us all to ``continue to fight . . . now more than 
ever.''
  ``I'm not going to give up,'' he thundered. ``I'm not going to give 
in.'' I am proud to stand with my dear friend, Congressman   John 
Lewis.
  In the past several years, a number of States have done all they 
could to disenfranchise tens of thousands of minority voters. Their 
tactics were often brazen and transparent. While these voter 
suppression schemes took many forms--from sweeping purges of voter 
rolls to arbitrary, new identification requirements--they all shared 
one purpose and one purpose alone: making voting more difficult for 
minorities and the marginalized. As a Federal judge observed when he 
struck down one such State's voter ID law, it sought to disenfranchise 
``African Americans with almost surgical precision.''
  Today, we are seeing a reprise of these efforts ahead of one of the 
most consequential elections in the history of our democracy. Those 
doing the suppressions don't even pretend to hide their intent.
  In November, a senior adviser to President Trump's reelection 
campaign came right out and said the quiet part, but he said it out 
loud. He observed that ``traditionally . . . Republicans [suppress] 
votes,'' and then he predicted that voter suppression is ``going to be 
a much bigger program, a much more aggressive program'' in 2020.
  In May 2019, Tennessee enacted a draconian law imposing criminal 
penalties against voter registration groups who submitted so-called 
deficient registration forms. In October 2019, Florida's State 
legislature tried to undo a constitutional amendment overwhelmingly 
approved by Floridians to restore voting rights to former felons. This 
is something we take for granted in Vermont--that they can vote. These 
efforts have thankfully been halted, at least temporarily, in the 
courts. There will be other States that attempt what Florida and 
Tennessee tried--or even worse. And those who value the sanctity of the 
vote will be engaged in an endless war of Whac-A-Mole in the courts to 
stop these un-American efforts to suppress the right to vote.
  Why have States been given such free rein to suppress the minority 
vote? It is because of the disastrous 2013 Supreme Court decision, 
Shelby County v. Holder. That gutted section 5 of the Voting Rights 
Act, which had been voted on by both Democrats and Republicans. It 
gutted it. It crippled the Federal Government's ability to proactively 
prevent discriminatory changes to State voting laws.
  In the wake of Shelby County, States have unleashed a torrent of 
voter suppression schemes, some almost immediately after the decision 
came down, knowing full well that the Federal Government can no longer 
serve as a shield against disenfranchisement. Our democracy depends on 
these changes--and changing now. The proliferation, the threats to the 
right to vote in the wake of Shelby County, makes it unmistakably clear 
that we need the full protections of the Voting Rights Act.
  That is exactly why, for years, I have championed, authored, and I 
have reintroduced the Voting Rights Advancement Act. I reintroduced 
this legislation again in 2019. I note it is a bipartisan bill. I 
should repeat this. It is a bipartisan bill. Republicans and Democrats 
alike support it to restore section 5 of the Voting Rights Act and 
improve and modernize that landmark legislation, and provide the 
Federal Government with other critical tools to combat this full-
fledged assault on the franchise.
  A total of 47 Senators publicly stated they support this commonsense 
effort to protect the right to vote. Why don't we bring it to a vote? 
If people want to continue these suppressions, let them vote that way. 
If they want to allow people to vote, let them vote that way. If the 
majority leader would simply let

[[Page S1286]]

it come to a vote--right now it is being stopped by one person. If the 
majority leader would simply let it come to a vote, it would pass. The 
House has already passed its companion version of my legislation.
  I find it offensive for those who claim this bipartisan, bicameral 
legislation is some kind of partisan power grab. In America, it is the 
governed who possess the power. Restoring their power is not partisan. 
Restoring their power is what it means to be a democracy.
  I say to my friend the majority leader, to Senator McConnell: All 
eyes are on you. Will he release the Voting Rights Advancement Act from 
his legislative graveyard and do it before the elections? Will he 
simply allow an up-or-down vote on this legislation to restore the 
bipartisan Voting Rights Act of 1965? History is watching.
  As my hero and friend   John Lewis powerfully reminded us this past 
Sunday, ``We've got to make America better for all of her people. . . . 
We're one people, we're one family.'' I agree. The right to vote for 
all Americans is the beating heart of our form of government. Indeed, 
it is the very right that gives democracy its name. Let us show the 
world we are deserving of that name. Let us show the world the 
conscience of the Senate is that we will go forward and vote it--vote 
for it or vote against it but vote it. Don't just keep it from coming 
to a vote.
  Unfortunately, when you keep it from coming to a vote, it looks too 
much like what we are trying to do to a lot of people, especially 
minorities in this country, is keep them from voting. We have 
Republicans and Democrats in this body. Let us vote up or down on this. 
Most importantly, as we do in my State of Vermont, we fight to make 
sure every Vermonter gets to vote no matter what their party is, no 
matter where they live, no matter who they are. Let's see if we can do 
that for the rest of the country. We would be a better country for it.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cassidy). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                                S. 2657

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the American Energy 
Innovation Act--a compilation of energy-related measures that has been 
reported, with bipartisan support, by the Senate's Committee on Energy 
and Natural Resources.
  Let me start by recognizing the tremendous efforts of the very 
committed and dedicated chairman of that committee, Lisa Murkowski, and 
of the ranking member, Joe Manchin, and their work in bringing this 
comprehensive energy package to the Senate floor. Under their 
leadership, the committee has worked very hard to craft a bipartisan 
package that seeks to lower energy costs for consumers, to diversify 
our energy portfolio, and to facilitate and encourage the use of 
cleaner energy sources.
  The American Energy Innovation Act includes several bills that I 
either authored or cosponsored, including the Better Energy Storage 
Technology Act, known as the BEST Act, which supports energy storage 
research and development; the Weatherization Enhancement and Local 
Energy Efficiency Investment and Accountability Act, which reauthorizes 
the Weatherization Assistance Program; the Wind Energy Research and 
Development Act, which supports targeted investments in wind energy; 
and the Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act, as well as 
the Streamlining Energy Efficiency for Schools Act, which both promote 
energy efficiency.
  I am particularly pleased that this agreement includes legislation I 
authored with Senator Heinrich. It is what is known as the BEST Act, 
the Better Energy Storage Technology Act. This bipartisan bill would 
support energy storage research and development, which would, in turn, 
advance the deployment of renewable energy. Federal investments in the 
research, development, and deployment of energy storage technologies 
would enable the expansion of renewable energy sources that are 
essential in combating climate change.
  Energy storage systems actually provide a wide range of benefits. 
First, these technologies increase the reliability and resiliency of 
our electric grid by limiting potential disruptions. Energy storage 
allows for the better management of supply and demand on our Nation's 
power grid.
  Second, this type of technology can decrease energy costs. In the 
State of Maine, the price of electricity can rise steeply during the 
coldest days of the year. In late 2017 and early 2018, very cold 
temperatures in New England led to higher energy costs that amounted to 
more than $1 billion being spent in the wholesale energy market in only 
15 days.
  The next generation of energy storage technologies could also help to 
transform our grid, meaning that we would no longer need to generate 
more expensive power to meet demand during the hottest and coldest days 
of the year. Instead, we could use more affordable sources of energy 
that have been stored for later use.
  Finally, energy storage systems can allow for more intermittent 
renewable sources, such as wind or solar power, to be placed on the 
grid and to be used precisely when they are needed. Think of that. 
Right now, if the wind is not blowing, obviously we are not producing 
wind energy. If the Sun is not shining, we are not producing solar-
generated energy. Yet, if during those windy periods and on those sunny 
days we could figure out how to store the energy that is produced so 
that it may be released later for electricity on the grid, what a 
difference it would make.
  Off the coast of Maine, offshore wind turbines can produce 
electricity almost 50 percent of the time due to our relatively 
persistent offshore winds, but with next-generation energy storage 
technology, we could utilize this wind power closer to 100 percent of 
the time by storing the electricity that is produced so that it may be 
used when the wind is not blowing. That is why I am so excited about 
the potential for improving our energy storage technologies.
  We all think of batteries. Certainly, coming up with better, more 
efficient batteries with which to store electricity is part of the 
answer, but there are other technologies that are going to be available 
if we make a concerted effort to devote resources to research and 
development and deployment.
  For these reasons, I am especially delighted that the BEST Act was 
included in this package, and I hope it will be enacted swiftly.
  Next, I would like to turn to a program that is very important to 
many low-income families and seniors in the State of Maine, and that is 
the weatherization program. I thank Senators Murkowski and Manchin for 
including the bill that I authored with Senators Coons, Reed, and 
Shaheen that reauthorizes the Weatherization Assistance Program.
  Through my position on the Committee on Appropriations, I have worked 
with my colleagues to secure an increase of $51 million for 
weatherization assistance for fiscal year 2020. In fact, virtually 
every year, this is something on which I and the Senators whom I 
mentioned work together to achieve. Oftentimes, regrettably, the 
President's budget eliminates the funding for the weatherization 
program, but with bipartisan support, the members of the Committee on 
Appropriations work hard to include it in the funding bills. One reason 
we do so is that, whether it is insulating them or replacing windows or 
installing heat pumps, weatherizing our houses pays off. In fact, on 
average, weatherization returns a 4 to 1 on the investment.
  Since 2010, the State of Maine has received a little more than $22 
million in funding, and it has been able to successfully weatherize 
nearly 2,500 homes and rental units across the State. What a difference 
that has made to the families who live in those homes and to the 
seniors who were once living in drafty homes, for their energy costs 
were much higher than they needed to be because their homes were not 
well insulated. It also makes those homes a lot more comfortable for 
our seniors and low-income families.
  Encouraging the adoption of energy efficiency measures is one of the 
easiest, yet effective mechanisms for reducing energy consumption, 
lessening

[[Page S1287]]

pollution, and ultimately saving money for families, businesses, 
communities, and governments at all levels.
  In addition to weatherization, this comprehensive package supports 
crucial investments in renewable energy, including the Wind Energy 
Research and Development Act that I introduced with Senator Smith. This 
bill would reauthorize the Department of Energy's Office of Wind 
Energy. It would support grants in order to improve the efficiency, 
reliability, and capacity of wind energy generation. The Aqua Ventus 
program, which aims to be the first floating, deepwater, offshore wind 
project in the United States, has been under development by the 
University of Maine and a consortium of both public and private 
partners for many years now. That consortium and the University of 
Maine, in particular, could benefit from these targeted investments in 
offshore wind energy.
  Finally, another important component of this comprehensive bill is 
energy efficiency. I am pleased that the Energy Savings and Industrial 
Competitiveness Act is included in this package. As an original 
cosponsor of this bill, which is also known as the Portman-Shaheen 
energy efficiency legislation, I recognize that it can kick-start the 
use of energy efficiency technologies that are commercially available 
right now and can be deployed by residential, commercial, and 
industrial energy users. It can also improve the energy efficiency of 
the Federal Government, which happens to be our Nation's largest 
consumer of energy.
  I congratulate the bill's sponsors, Senators Shaheen and Portman, for 
crafting this commonsense bill and for their relentless efforts in 
getting it across the finish line.
  Again, I express my appreciation to Chairman Murkowski and Ranking 
Member Manchin.
  I would also like to highlight another energy efficiency bill that is 
included in this package, and that is the Streamlining Energy 
Efficiency for Schools Act, which I sponsored with Senator Mark Warner.
  In Maine, our schools have made tremendous progress on energy 
efficiency, but it can be challenging for schools to take full 
advantage of programs that lower energy costs, in part because school 
officials may not know where to start. A lot of these programs are 
scattered in different agencies across the Federal Government.
  Our bipartisan bill would create a coordinating structure within the 
Department of Energy that would streamline available Federal energy 
efficiency programs, assist school administrators with navigating 
available Federal financing, and thus reduce school buildings' energy 
costs.
  Again, I want to thank the committee leaders for their excellent work 
on this package of energy legislation, and I would urge all of my 
colleagues to join me in supporting the adoption of the American Energy 
Innovation Act. This is an area where we can truly make a difference 
for our constituents, our communities, our States, our levels of 
government, and for our country.
  Let's get on with the adoption of this very worthwhile package of 
energy bills.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            Stephen Schwartz

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, the U.S. Senate used to be called the 
greatest deliberative body in the world. It is the Senate where, at 
this desk, Hugo Black wrote labor law reform. Essentially, he and 
another Senator in the U.S. Senate and President Roosevelt created 
collective bargaining. It is the desk in the Senate Chamber where 
Senator McGovern from South Dakota passed legislation with Senator Dole 
across the aisle for feeding programs for hungry people in the United 
States.
  I just met with a number of people from the Cleveland Food Bank, the 
Middle Ohio Food Bank, and Second Harvest Food Bank. The McGovern-Dole 
legislation also fed hungry kids around the world.
  This is the body that used to do those kinds of things--the greatest 
deliberative body in the world. But under Leader McConnell, whose 
office is down the hall, we see something different. The focus of this 
body has pretty much been one job, and that is confirming young, 38-, 
40-, 42-, and 45-year-old judges--extreme judges--who always put their 
thumbs on the scale to support corporations over workers, to support 
Wall Street over consumers, and who put their thumbs on the scale to 
support insurance companies over patients and drug companies over 
patients. Even by the low standards--and, my gosh, they are low--we 
have come to expect from Senator McConnell and the majority in always, 
always supporting the rich, always fighting for the largest 
corporations, always fighting for the people who have privilege against 
struggling families, against workers--40 percent of people in this 
country don't have $400 to their name if they have an emergency to 
meet. Instead of dealing with that issue, it is more tax cuts for the 
rich. It is more cuts to Medicaid or to food stamps or to the SNAP 
program or any of these things.

  Even by the low standards we have come to expect from Leader 
McConnell and President Trump, this nomination I am going to talk about 
today, Stephen Schwartz, is appalling. In one sentence, he wants to 
abolish Social Security--not scale back the cost of living, not throw a 
few people off Social Security disability, not eliminate survivors' 
benefits; he wants to abolish Social Security. You heard that right.
  President Trump, on the stump--he came to Ohio many times, my State, 
and around the country--promised he would protect Social Security, but 
now he puts Stephen Schwartz on the bench, a judge who wants to abolish 
it.
  Stephen Schwartz wrote that Social Security benefits were intended to 
prevent ``outright starvation.'' He wasn't sitting at this desk, to be 
sure, in the 1930s when Social Security was started. Obviously, he 
didn't understand that Social Security was one of three legs of the 
stool: Social Security, private pension--we don't have too many of 
those anymore--and then savings that workers were able to accrue.
  He says that Social Security was there to prevent ``outright 
starvation,'' that Social Security has ``become a standard component of 
most retirement programs.'' That is kind of the point, to make sure 
that every single American who works her whole life and pays into the 
system can have a decent retirement. But for this man, Stephen 
Schwartz, the man President Trump and Leader McConnell want to put on a 
Federal court with jurisdiction--this isn't one of those lifetime 
judges who are in one district that can do a little bit of damage in 
the Northern District of Ohio or in the Southern District of Alabama--
they can do plenty of damage. But this is a man whom President Trump 
and Leader McConnell want to put on a Federal court with jurisdiction 
over the whole country. As long as people aren't literally starving to 
death in retirement, that is enough, he seems to think.
  I would like Mr. Schwartz to come to Ohio. I would like him to come 
to Garfield Heights. My wife and I live in the city of Cleveland. 
Garfield Heights borders the city of Cleveland. I would like him to 
come to Garfield Heights and go to Carlo's Barber Shop with me someday 
and just listen to people talk. Carlo cuts the hair of a whole lot of 
retired people. I would love to hear him listen to the retired 
machinist or the retired teacher and say to them that this gentleman 
wants to serve in the Federal Government, appointed by the President of 
the United States, and thinks that Social Security should be 
eliminated. I want him to talk to the nurses and the barbers and the 
teachers. I want him to talk to Americans who have paid into Social 
Security for their whole lives.
  Social Security is called social insurance. It is like unemployment 
benefits. It is like Medicare. Social Security--you pay in every 
paycheck unless you are really rich. Then you only pay in for a few 
months. But you pay into it every paycheck, understanding that it is 
insurance, it is social insurance. You pay in, and then when you retire 
or if you get disabled--or if you die, your children get the survivors' 
benefits. You pay in, paycheck after paycheck

[[Page S1288]]

after paycheck, and then when you need it--that is the whole point of 
insurance--for disability, when you need it for survivors' benefits, if 
someone in the family--if the breadwinner in the family dies or you 
need it for retirement, then you get it.
  It is one more broken promise to workers by President Trump, one more 
betrayal.
  Remember, at the beginning of the year, President Trump went to 
Davos, that sort of hoity-toity place in Switzerland. While he was 
hobnobbing with the global elite, he let slip his plan. He changed his 
mind the next day, but it is clear what he wanted. After his tax 
handouts to billionaires and corporations blew up the deficit, 
President Trump said he wants to pay for those tax cuts--remember, 70 
percent of the Trump tax cuts went to the richest 1 percent.
  That is why a year and a half ago you saw the lobbyists going in and 
out of Mitch McConnell's office, the leader's office, all saying: I 
want this tax cut for this company and this tax cut for that company. 
He wants to pay for all that--the President said he wants to pay for it 
by cutting Social Security and Medicare. Think about that. All these 
people pay into Social Security and pay into Medicare every day of 
their working lives--people starting at 16 or 15 or 17--they pay that 
throughout their working lives, and then the President says he wants to 
cut Medicare and Social Security in order to pay for tax cuts for rich 
people.
  He sold his giveaway to the wealthy as a tax cut for the working 
people. It wasn't. He sold his tax cut to the wealthy by saying it 
would raise wages. It didn't. People see Trump's tax scam for what it 
really was: a giveaway to corporations and the wealthiest tiny sliver, 
the 1 percent of this country.
  He said over and over that it would mean raises for workers. He 
promised that somehow these massive corporate tax cuts, these giveaways 
to companies, would end up in workers' pockets. I heard him pledge to a 
group of Senators at the White House in the relatively small Cabinet 
Room--I heard him say that everybody is going to get a $4,000 raise. 
Well, not. They obviously didn't.
  He told workers last year, the month after he signed the law: You are 
going to start seeing a lot more money in your paycheck.
  One lie after another. He did say, though, after signing the bill, 
when he went to Mar-a-Lago and hung around with his millionaire and 
billionaire friends: I made you a lot richer today when I signed that 
tax cut. He did live up to that promise when he made them richer. It 
just didn't trickle down, shall we say, to people making $30,000, 
$50,000, and $80,000 a year.
  Instead of investing in workers, these corporations bought back 
trillions of dollars of their own stock to line investors' pockets. 
Meanwhile, the deficit exploded. We know what the corporate crowd's 
plan always is to deal with deficits. You come into office, you cut 
taxes on rich people. The deficit goes up to over $1 trillion. So what 
do you do? Oh, my gosh, the deficit is up. We have to cut spending. Go 
after Medicare. Go after Social Security. Go after Medicaid. Go after 
SNAP. Go after, in my State, the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, 
the MEP, which helps local businesses create jobs. He cut that to zero. 
He has cut programs and all kinds of things that matter to working-
class, middle-class, and small-business Americans, all to pay for that 
tax cut. So much of what he does now is to pay for that tax cut that 
blew a hole in the deficit.
  It all comes back to whose side you are on. Do you stand with 
corporations, or do you stand with workers? Do you fight for Wall 
Street, or do you care about the dignity of work and live the dignity 
of work? We know for whom Stephen Schwartz fights. He spent his whole 
career trying to block protections for workers and students. He tried 
to stop people from voting in North Carolina. He has argued against the 
retirement securities that workers paid into their whole lives. And 
this is his reward. He has fought voting rights. He has worked to put 
Social Security out of business. He has always stood with the most 
privileged and the richest, and this is his reward from the President 
of the United States and his reward from Senator McConnell, who sits in 
the front of this room.
  That is why he doesn't belong on the Federal bench. If you love this 
country, you fight for the people who make it work. President Trump 
promised to fight for American workers, but this President betrayed 
American workers again and again and again.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. McSally). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                S. 2657

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, as I mentioned yesterday as we were 
preparing to vote on the motion to proceed to the American Energy 
Innovation Act, there is much to like and much to support in this 
energy reform legislation we have proposed.
  We are in the early stages here of legislating, and I think it is 
probably fair to say that perhaps we are a little rusty. As we have 
told Members, we hope to have a process that allows for amendments from 
both sides, that gives us an opportunity to debate these important and 
timely issues.
  As we legislate and as we move through each step, it does require a 
level of cooperation. Again, as I mentioned, we haven't been 
legislating on a weekly basis, so when it comes to just the process and 
the procedure of how this all comes together, maybe we are still in a 
little bit of a learning curve.
  I have had an opportunity in previous Congresses to be that first 
legislative vehicle that we have really taken on in a period of time. 
We have worked through some of them successfully before--one, famously 
unsuccessful. I don't want this to fall into the ``famously 
unsuccessful'' category, so I am encouraging Members to look critically 
at the bill we have introduced, the American Energy Innovation Act, and 
work with us through this amendment process. We have received a number 
of what I would put in the ``noncontroversial bucket'' category that I 
am hoping we will be able to accept, and I am hoping we can work 
together to incorporate those into our underlying measure.
  I wanted to take just a few minutes this afternoon to highlight why 
the innovation title within the American Energy Innovation Act is so 
important and what this bill will do to help support and increase 
innovation in America.
  When you think about who we are as Americans, what we are built on, 
we are built on a foundation of ingenuity and innovation. We pioneered 
the electric grid system. We pioneered nuclear energy. We pioneered 
horizontal drilling. These are many of the life-, economy-, and world-
changing technologies that you think of in this energy space, and the 
United States has led in these areas. But the policies underlying 
Federal energy R&D have not been updated now in more than 12 years--a 
dozen years since we have last updated, refreshed, modernized. So the 
question is whether they fully reflect the range of opportunities and 
challenges that we have, and I would submit to you that they do not. We 
haven't kept pace with everything that is happening around us. It is 
important--it is incumbent upon us to look to our policies.
  Modernizing our energy laws will support the scientific work 
undertaken by the Department of Energy, by our National Laboratories, 
and by our universities. It will also support the men and the women who 
dedicate their careers to scientific pursuits, individuals who truly 
form the backbone of American R&D and are a tremendous asset to our 
country.
  As I mentioned yesterday, those of us on the Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee have spent the last year putting together this 
innovation package. Throughout that process, what we heard in committee 
from the experts was that three of the most promising technologies for 
clean energy are energy storage; advanced nuclear; and carbon capture, 
utilization, and storage. These three areas, we are told, are where the 
promise really is if you want to focus on clean energy solutions. Our 
composite bill prioritizes all three technologies, as well as renewable 
energy and industrial and vehicle technologies.

[[Page S1289]]

  CCUS--carbon capture, utilization, and storage--technologies will 
allow coal and natural gas plants to avoid greenhouse gas emissions and 
even allow us to make useful products from carbon dioxide. I have had 
an opportunity and I know some other colleagues have had an opportunity 
to go to some of these laboratories--not only in this country but 
overseas--where we are taking that carbon, that waste product, and we 
are turning it into value--in other words, building materials, whether 
it is a sheetrock type of a process or whether it is the equivalent of 
cinder blocks made out of carbon, that waste. When we can change this 
so we are taking a waste product and converting it to value--talk about 
technologies that can really change how we operate.

  Again, the carbon capture, utilization, and storage technologies will 
allow us to advance in that direction. The bill also includes 
demonstration and deployment programs that focus on industrial 
emissions and direct air capture, which will similarly reduce 
emissions.
  When you think about the prospects and the possibilities for us with 
direct air capture, it was not too many years ago that it was a dream 
concept. Now it is no longer a dream concept. We are truly in the 
process of evaluating and piloting some of these technologies.
  I mentioned nuclear energy as one of the three. Nuclear energy is our 
Nation's largest and most reliable source of zero-emission electricity. 
Within this subtitle of this bill, we have included the legislation I 
have been working on, the Nuclear Energy Leadership Act, which would 
demonstrate advanced reactors to help restore our national leadership 
and keep our domestic industry competitive with the likes of Russia and 
China.
  You have the CCUS and nuclear energy. The third area--the third 
really transformative area--is storage. This is, without a doubt, 
probably the most popular topic within our bill. We have included the 
BEST Act from Senator Collins, which creates a crosscutting energy 
storage R&D program at the Department of Energy. Its focus is on long-
duration energy storage that can smooth out variable renewable energy 
generation. This is a very significant part of our bill.
  With regard to industrial energy, our innovation package includes 
language that Senator Whitehouse authored to create a crosscutting R&D 
program to reduce emissions in seven areas, including chemical 
production, steel and aluminum, high temperature process heat 
generation, and industrial carbon capture.
  I think you will see from that provision that, again, it is making 
inroads into those areas where we see the highest emissions within our 
industrial energy sector. As we see consumers demanding cleaner 
products, know that our bill helps ensure that American industries are 
going to be prepared to deliver on that.
  Another area where we are pushing forward, of course, is renewable 
energy, which we look at and say has the opportunity to provide nearly 
limitless power across America. The costs of many of these technologies 
we have already seen come down significantly. We take reasonable steps 
within this bill to move wind, solar, geothermal, marine, hydrokinetic, 
and other renewables to full commercialization.
  To give some specifics in this space, in geothermal energy, we 
provide opportunities to responsibly develop more of the resource with 
new techniques and to coproduce critical minerals along with it.
  In my State of Alaska, we have enormous potential within the 
geothermal space. Knowing that within this title, we have an 
opportunity to really help move out some of the new techniques that are 
out there is significant.
  For solar energy, we are working on new applications like solar 
paint, addressing grid integration challenges, and improving recycling. 
For marine energy--marine hydrokinetic--we are developing offshore 
testing centers to scale up new concepts.
  I remind colleagues, I come from a State where we have more coastline 
than the entire United States put together of all the coastal States 
there. This is an area that I have long looked to and said: Why are we 
not doing more when it comes to tapping into our marine energy sources?
  Our wind energy provisions include offshore and floating wind 
development and demonstration activities. We are working to push out in 
the renewable sector some of these areas where we are still pioneering 
in many of these ways. We have demonstrated wind on land with great 
efficiency. How are we doing with offshore? What more can we be doing 
there?
  By providing the Department of Energy with new tools and direction, 
we are helping to ensure the United States remains the world leader in 
innovative technologies.
  One of the challenges we hear about as we discuss these cool things 
in the Energy Committee is how you get these great cutting-edge ideas 
from the lab to the market. To address that, our bill reauthorizes the 
Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy. This is ARPA-E. This is the 
entity that helps these nascent technologies bridge the so-called 
valley of death and reach commercialization. ARPA-E has already 
delivered significant results with nearly $3 billion in follow-on 
private financing for its projects.
  We had the Secretary for the Department of Energy, Secretary 
Brouillette, before the committee just today on a budget hearing. He 
heard repeatedly from members on both sides of the aisle the value that 
comes from ARPA-E. Of course, developing new and cleaner and more 
affordable technologies doesn't benefit us just here at home; it can 
also make a meaningful impact around the world.
  We shouldn't just develop and deploy new technologies at home. We 
should also sell them to other countries around the world. This is an 
incredible opportunity for economic growth. We know that we will 
simultaneously lower global greenhouse gas emissions and help to cement 
geopolitical relationships that can span generations.
  We will be discussing more of the component pieces within the 
American Energy Innovation Act. You are going to continue to hear me 
say that this is good legislation, this is important legislation, this 
is timely legislation--after 12 years. But you don't necessarily have 
to take my word for it. Consider the work of the American Energy 
Innovation Council, which is led by noted individuals, luminaries, like 
Norm Augustine and Bill Gates. They have found that at least 50 percent 
of the U.S. annual GDP growth can be traced to increases in innovation 
and that innovation has been the predominant driver of U.S. economic 
growth over the last century.

  When we say that this Energy bill focuses on that innovation, 
recognize the value that innovation brings to us in the energy sector. 
The council's members have also observed that advances in energy 
technology deserve particular attention since energy underlies 
virtually every facet of modern life. Without a sufficient, reliable, 
and affordable source of energy, the U.S. economy would grind to a 
halt.
  They are exactly right in their words. Yet the United States 
continues to allocate less than 0.1 percent of its annual Federal 
outlays to energy R&D. Put that into context. This is an afterthought 
in our budget and, unfortunately, in real life for too many Americans. 
We take for granted that when you pull up to the gas station, they are 
going to have fuel there. We take for granted that when you flip the 
light switch, the lights are going to come on. The reality is, it takes 
a tremendous amount of work to make that happen. It is innovation that 
brings this all to us.
  Innovation is worth it. The proof is literally around us with 
everything we do. Given our history, given our people, given our 
institutions, I know this country can continue to lead the way on new 
technologies. What we need to do is make sure we have policies that 
help further incent them, that do not drag down that opportunity to 
meet those challenges.
  I am confident that we have a good bill in front of us, a strong bill 
in front of us. I appreciate the support that the Senate has shown for 
our bill thus far. I look forward to working on amendments as the week 
continues. I urge colleagues to provide us with those matters that you 
have been working on. We want to try to accommodate, but we also 
recognize that we haven't been in this process before where we have had 
the opportunity for open amendments. We want to try do it right. We 
want to try to be efficient, as

[[Page S1290]]

we do in the Energy Committee, and we want to be fair to our 
colleagues.
  With that, I look forward to the input and the cooperation from 
fellow Senators as we proceed with the discussion about the American 
Energy Innovation Act.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The 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.


                             Climate Change

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I am here today for the 267th time 
to call this Chamber to wake up to the threat of climate change. My 
chart here is getting a little dog-eared with use.
  Let me dive right in with a report from over 30 years ago that was 
presented to a major conference here in Washington, DC. On the very 
first page of this report it says:

       Increases in atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide 
     (CO2) and other key gases . . . that are opaque to 
     portions of the infrared spectrum result in the ``greenhouse 
     effect'' or global warming. When short wavelength infrared 
     radiation from the sun warms the earth's surface, and this 
     heat is later radiated from the earth, some gases in the 
     atmosphere are not transparent to the longer wavelength re-
     radiation, the heat does not escape, and the atmosphere 
     becomes warmer, much as does the interior of a greenhouse.

  That is a flawless description of climate change. I wonder who wrote 
it. Well, let me continue.
  After some hedging about the state of the science and the uncertainty 
surrounding how much climate change could be attributed to humans at 
that point in time, this same report delves into the expected effects 
of climate change on our planet. It reads:

       There is qualitative agreement among prognosticators that 
     sea levels will rise, wetlands will flood, salt water will 
     infuse fresh water supplies, and there will be changes in the 
     distribution of tree and crop species and agricultural 
     productivity.

  Wow. That is really accurate. That is all the stuff we are actually 
seeing happen right now. Gosh, I wonder who wrote that. Let's continue 
on through the report.

       A significant rise in sea levels will flood now habitable 
     land in some countries. . . . Developed countries may be able 
     to protect their cities, at least for some years, by building 
     levees and dikes at a considerable cost to avoid major 
     displacements of people and their economic bases.

  We are also seeing that. Impressive--whoever wrote this report really 
got this quite accurately 30 years ago.
  Let me go on with the report:

       These same actions will affect wetlands and it may not be 
     possible to protect both coastal and wetland areas.

  Once you have built your dike, it pushes water out into wetland 
areas.
  The report says:

       Flooding will intrude into water supplies, such as coastal 
     cities (e.g. Miami and New Orleans) . . . .

  Wow. Who wrote this? This is good.
  It continues:

       Changes in temperature patterns will affect natural 
     ecosystems by altering the distributions of species, and 
     affecting forestry and silviculture. Under various scenarios, 
     commonly harvested species will move north and try to grow in 
     different soil types. Ranges of particular species are likely 
     to change because trees in the southern part of the present 
     range may die off much more quickly than they can propagate 
     further north . . . .

  This is all stuff we are seeing now--all predicted 30 years ago in 
this report. Wow. I wonder who wrote it.
  I will continue quoting the report:

       Similarly, crop lands will change. In present farm areas, 
     there will be greater reliance on irrigation. The stress will 
     depend on changes in precipitation patterns, which is now 
     difficult (at best) to predict. Grain production will move 
     north and productivity may fall because of differing soil 
     types. Global warming could expand the northern range of 
     livestock disease and pests . . . .

  Still quoting from this report:

       Global warming will affect snowfall patterns, hence melt, 
     and affect water supplies. Most of California's water 
     supplies are from snow melt and if snow is reduced to rain, 
     or melts quickly during the winter, water supplies in the 
     summer will be less than now.

  Wow. Thirty years ago they predicted all of that. That is really 
impressive. Fast forward to today, and that is exactly what we are 
seeing. All of it is underway already. Sea level rise is already 
happening. The tide gauge in Naval Station Newport, in my home State of 
Rhode Island, shows over 10 inches of sea level rise over the last 
century. Temperatures are up globally, with some areas measuring 
increases well above 2 degrees Celsius. Wildlife and plants are indeed 
shifting away from the equator, like the maple trees whose range is 
creeping out of the United States toward Canada. And, of course, we 
have seen water tables continue to drop as temperatures rise and 
snowpack dwindles.
  Wow. This report was so accurate. Who wrote it?
  Well, let's look for a minute at the prescriptions that the report 
lays out. What should we do about this problem it describes so 
accurately? Those prescriptions are pretty good for 30 years ago, too. 
Here is what its authors reckon typical, sensible governments would do 
in response to climate change:

       (1) Reduce the emissions of CO2 by reducing the 
     use or mix of fossil fuels; (2) Reduce the emissions of 
     potential pollutants; (3) Improve energy efficiency; (4) Ban 
     or restrict the manufacture of certain chemicals; and (5) 
     Seek to affect the natural emissions of key chemical 
     compounds.

  Wow. Indeed, governments around the world have adopted these 
policies. There are dozens of carbon pricing regimes in place, 
including in some of our biggest global competitors, like the program 
China is rolling out this year. There are comprehensive energy 
efficiency programs and bans on climate-damaging chemicals like HFCs 
and global efforts to harness natural processes like growing trees to 
sequester carbon.
  That is really good prescription, whoever wrote it. This rigorous 
analysis was so good that its authors eagerly thrust it into the hands 
of political leaders here in the United States. Not only did the 
authors present it to the Symposium on Industrial Development and 
Climate Change in May 1989, but they submitted it to the U.S. House of 
Representatives at a hearing on the same day. In the hearing, the 
authors condemned the House committee on climate-related legislation 
and expressed support for ``coordinat[ing] federal research and 
national global climate change policy efforts.''

  So who was it? Who was this sensible, forward-thinking group that 
lauded a smart bill 30 years ago that was designed to prepare us for 
climate change? Who was it over 30 years ago who presented all of these 
sound findings and recommendations to international business leaders 
and to Members of Congress? Who was it? Hold your breath. It was the 
U.S. Chamber of Commerce--the biggest, most powerful trade group in 
Washington and one of the biggest obstructors of climate action in 
Washington today, according to the nonpartisan watchdog Influence Map.
  Here is a chart showing the big corporate players in Washington on 
climate. The good guys are over here on the green side, and the bad 
guys are over here on the red side. The worst is that climate 
miscreant, Marathon Petroleum, that is busy messing around with 
electronic vehicle taxes and messing around with vehicle fuel 
efficiency standards. Yet, right here, lined up with Phillips 66, the 
Southern Company, and Marathon Petroleum, is--boom--the U.S. Chamber of 
Commerce. It is way over on the far side of climate obstruction and 
denial.
  As Influence Map's Dylan Tanner testified last fall, ``The U.S. 
Chamber of Commerce . . . is likely the most authoritative voice of 
American business,'' and it has been one of the most ardent opponents 
of climate action.
  It is just gross. The chamber knew about this problem early on. It 
took its own sound climate report to business leaders and to the U.S. 
Congress in the 1980s. It described then what we are seeing now. It 
described then what it has denied since then. It made recommendations 
that we are still pushing for now. It was poised back then, in the 
1980s, to be a part of the solution to climate change--to get onto this 
problem early before it metastasized into the climate crisis we 
experience today.
  Instead, here is what the chamber did: It opposed one comprehensive 
climate bill after another in Congress. It opposed them all--the 
bipartisan cap and trade bill in 2005, the Energy Policy Act. The 
chamber sent out a Key Vote Alert signal that whoever voted

[[Page S1291]]

in favor of the bill could face an onslaught of political attacks in 
the next election. That is another feature of the chamber's climate 
obstruction.
  It runs TV ads against candidates who might do something about the 
climate. Here are some hot moments from some of its climate attack ads: 
If we were to do anything about climate change, obviously, you would be 
freezing in your bed, wearing your coat while in a sleeping bag with 
your covers. Clearly, you would have to cook your breakfast over 
candles, in a tin can, and you would have to walk to work.
  That is its crooked, political electioneering image of what doing 
something about climate change would mean for Americans. There is its 
logo, proudly, on that whole pack of lies.
  In 2007, the chamber ran political TV ads against climate 
legislation, making all of those threats: People would be prevented 
from heating their homes. People wouldn't be able to drive to work. 
People would cook over candles.
  Then, in 2009, the chamber led the charge against the Waxman-Markey 
bill. The chamber tanked Waxman-Markey, and since then, the Republicans 
in Congress have refused to hold hearings on, to mark up, to debate, or 
to vote on any legislation that proposes a policy framework for 
economy-wide reductions in carbon pollution. We have a lost decade, in 
significant respects, thanks to the misbehavior of the chamber of 
commerce--the largest, most powerful lobbying force in our country.
  The chamber doesn't just try to beat climate action in Congress; the 
chamber also has fought climate action in the courts, and it has fought 
climate action in the agencies of the executive branch. Here are some 
lowlights of chamber mischief:
  In 2010, the chamber sued the EPA and sought to overturn the finding 
that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health and welfare. 
Disabling the endangerment finding would cripple the EPA's ability to 
regulate carbon under the Clean Air Act. When the courts rejected the 
chamber's lawsuit, the chamber became central command for corporate 
lawyers, coal lobbyists, and Republican political strategists who 
devised the legal schemes to fight climate regulations. This produced 
another chamber lawsuit to block the Clean Power Plan to reduce carbon 
pollution from powerplants.
  Of course, once President Trump took office, the chamber switched 
from defense and obstruction to offense and began attacking Obama 
administration rules that limited carbon pollution. The chamber even 
funded the phony report that President Trump used as his justification 
for leaving the Paris accord. That is the contribution to this of the 
U.S. Chamber of Commerce. It authored 30 years ago the report that I 
read from. It made the recommendations 30 years ago about fixing this 
problem. Then it turned into this climate obstruction, political 
monster.
  Worst of all, the chamber has been fighting science itself. It 
actually proposed putting the evidence of climate change on trial in 
what its own officials branded as the ``Scopes monkey trial of the 21st 
century.'' The chamber said the trial ``would be evolution versus 
creationism.'' Of course, the chamber has been the 800-pound gorilla in 
elections that every Member of Congress and candidate for Congress 
knows all too well.
  The 2010 Citizens United decision allowed what we call outside 
groups, anonymous groups, to spend unlimited sums on electioneering 
activities. In the wake of that decision, the chamber has funneled, 
roughly, $150 million into congressional races--$150 million. This 
makes the U.S. Chamber of Commerce the largest spender of undisclosed 
donations on congressional races--the largest spender of what we call 
dark money on congressional races.
  If you dare cross the chamber or don't subscribe to its climate 
denial-climate obstruction point of view, you risk its running an ad 
against you like this ad, which was run against a U.S. Senate candidate 
in Pennsylvania in 2016. This is toward the end of the ad, and the 
theory of the ad is that the candidate is so determined to tax energy 
that she is going to tax the energy of these women's children who are 
running around on a playground.
  Here are two moms on a playground who are watching their children run 
around, and the setup is: Oh, wow. How energetic Johnny and Billy are. 
Oh, but don't you know? The Senate campaign is going to tax their 
energy.
  ``Run, Jimmy. Run'' is the punch line.
  Classy.
  So what gives? How did the chamber go from being the sensible climate 
realist to the hardened climate obstructor?
  The answer is pretty simple--fossil fuel money.
  As Influence Map's Dylan Tanner told us at our hearing, big trade 
groups like the chamber tend to adopt the lowest common denominator 
positions on climate of their most oppositional members. For the 
chamber, that lowest common denominator is Big Oil and other fossil 
fuel giants.
  Fossil fuel uses the chamber as its tool to defend--at all costs--
what the International Monetary Fund estimates as being a $650 billion 
subsidy in the United States. That was the number estimated by the IMF 
for 2015--a $650 billion subsidy to fossil fuel for getting away with 
what economists call negative externalities--shoving their costs on 
other people. If you believe in market economics, those negative 
externalities should be baked into the cost of the product, but they 
don't want that. They want the public to bear the cost so they can sell 
their products cheaper. That is a subsidy, and it is a $650 billion 
subsidy every year. So giving the chamber, let's say, $150 million to 
spend is chump change against $650 billion. That is exactly what the 
chamber does. It lets itself be used by fossil fuel interests to 
deliver this message.
  What about the rest of the chamber's members? Not everybody in the 
chamber is a fossil fuel company.
  Big tech, what about you guys? You have companies in your ranks who 
claim to care a lot about the climate.
  Google, for instance, has the company motto: ``Don't Be Evil.'' 
Google warns its investors that climate change threatens its 
operations, that its ``systems are vulnerable to damage or interruption 
from natural disasters [and] the effects of climate change (such as 
sea-level rise, drought, flooding, wildfires, and increased storm 
severity).''
  Google also tells investors that ``[c]limate change is one of the 
most significant global challenges of our time'' and that it has a goal 
to reach 100-percent renewable energy for its operations. Google even 
signed the Corporate Renewable Energy Buyers' Principles and the 
American Business Act on Climate Pledge. Yet Google also funds the 
chamber's anti-climate crusade.
  I don't know about my colleagues, but Google does not come to my 
office and say: Hey, you need to do something good on climate. Google 
has a million issues it lobbies us on, but they are not on climate 
change. On climate change, it supports the chamber of commerce, and the 
chamber of commerce is our adversary.
  Look at the big food and beverage companies. They have crops--a 
supply chain of grain and fruit and vegetables. They have crops that 
the chamber's report of 30 years ago told us would be affected by 
climate change. Those crops are the bread and butter--the supply 
chain--of these big food and beverage companies. Where are they?
  Many food and beverage companies say they understand the threat of 
climate change. Pepsi signed the Ceres BICEP Climate Declaration and 
the Prince of Wales's Corporate Leaders Group Trillion Tonne 
Communique. Those were both important commitments to climate action. 
There is Pepsi's rival, Coca-Cola. Coke says it plans to reduce 
CO2 emissions by 25 percent and that to do so will work to 
reduce greenhouse gas emissions across its value chain and make 
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's denial and obstruction operation, and they fund the American 
Beverage Association--their little beverage trade association--which, 
in turn, runs more money to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
  What is the net result here in Congress of all of that?
  You have two companies that actively reduce their carbon emissions 
and enthusiastically, publicly, support

[[Page S1292]]

good climate policy, but in Congress, through their funding of the 
chamber, they take the position of opposing climate action here in 
Washington--the place where it really, really counts.
  Decades ago, one of most powerful political forces in Washington, the 
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, knew climate change was coming. It wrote that 
report. It described how global warming happened. It described what the 
consequences were going to be in the oceans, in the agricultural 
sector, across our country. It made regulations as to how to head it 
off. It understood the risks. It knew. It knew what we needed to do to 
head off the worst consequences and, even back then, supported 
legislation to help us prepare.
  Then, in came the fossil fuel industry. The chamber will not tell us 
how they are funded. I could tell you right now how this all worked 
except that the chamber will not disclose how it is funded. But it sure 
looks as though floods of fossil fuel money came in and bought the 
chamber, caused it to change its position on the facts of climate 
change, caused it to change its position on the consequences of climate 
change, caused it to change its position on what we needed to do to 
head off climate change.
  The U.S. Chamber of Commerce let itself be bought by the fossil fuel 
industry. And thanks to the greed of that one-member industry, the 
fossil fuel folks, and thanks to the indifference of the others--thanks 
to the indifference of the tech sector, the indifference of the ag 
sector--we still have yet to act, 30 years later.
  At the close of the chamber's report is a really telling quote from 
the satirical comic strip ``Pogo.'' ``Pogo,'' in a legendary cartoon 
from when I was about as young as the pages here, says: We have met the 
enemy, and it is us.
  The chamber quotes that at the end of its report: ``We have met the 
enemy, and it is us.''
  Well, that was an observation about what was going wrong with the 
planet and how it was our emissions that were causing it. We have met 
the enemy; we see this danger; we understand it; and we are the cause 
of it. It is us.
  But at the same time, it is also like a preconfession by the chamber: 
``We have met the enemy, and it is us.'' For 30 years, the chamber has 
been the enemy. Since Citizens United, it has been an implacable enemy. 
They have been wrong on climate. They knew it 30 years ago; they know 
it now.
  We need to fix this, and we need corporate America to extract itself 
from the thrall of the evildoers in its midst, and we need to solve, at 
last, this problem.
  So time to wake up.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.

                          ____________________