[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 129 (Wednesday, July 26, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3572-S3580]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.


                  Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 4470

  Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, I will shortly ask for unanimous consent 
to pass bipartisan legislation to extend the Chemical Facility Anti-
Terrorism Standards Program, also known as CFATS. This critical 
counterterrorism program was created in the wake of September 11 and 
the Oklahoma City bombing to ensure that common chemicals could not be 
stolen or weaponized by terrorists and used in an attack.
  Now the program is set to expire on July 27, tomorrow, and we simply 
cannot let that happen. There are approximately 3,300 facilities across 
the United States that participate in this program. These facilities 
support a range of industries, from chemical manufacturing and 
distribution to agriculture and food production, paint and coatings 
operations, and healthcare and pharmaceuticals. In their everyday work, 
these facilities use materials that, in the wrong hands, can be turned 
into dangerous weapons. Because these types of industrial or 
commercially available materials are common and offer a simple pathway 
to weaponization, terrorists are more likely to try to use them.
  By participating in the CFATS Program, facilities work with the 
Department of Homeland Security to develop a plan to ensure potentially 
hazardous material is secure. I introduced bipartisan legislation, 
along with Senators Capito, Carper, and Lankford, to extend this 
important counterterrorism program for 5 years. The 5-year extension 
provides regulatory certainty and the stability for the companies and 
groups that participate in the program, ensuring that they can keep 
these important safeguards in place for longer.
  Companies including Dow, BASF, Lubrizol, and Brenntag North America, 
along with organizations like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the 
American Chemistry Council, the National Association of Chemical 
Distributors, the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, the 
Agricultural Retailers Association, and the Fertilizer Institute--all 
of them support extending this vital national security program for 
another 5 years.
  However, last night, the House passed a 2-year extension with 
overwhelming bipartisan support. More than 400 Members of the U.S. 
House voted to extend the program. And while I believe passing a longer 
extension to provide more certainty for companies and for the DHS would 
be better, the program will expire tomorrow, and if we do not pass 
legislation to extend it, our national security could be at risk.
  If this body allows this program to expire, the 3,300 facilities will 
no longer be required to maintain security measures and any new high-
risk facilities will not be required to invest in additional 
security. The Department of Homeland Security will no longer be able to 
assess whether facilities are high risk or share information about 
specific terrorist threats connected to chemical facilities. The high-
risk chemical facilities would no longer be able to screen individuals 
who have access to sensitive areas against the Terrorist Screening 
Database, which is a critical way to ensure that we are keeping these 
substances from getting into the wrong hands.

  Since it was created, CFATS has been extended with bipartisan support 
four times. We cannot let this vital program expire. We must take 
urgent action to pass this 2-year extension

[[Page S3573]]

that just passed overwhelmingly through the U.S. House and keep the 
American people safe from harm.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the 
immediate consideration of H.R. 4470, which was received from the 
House, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed, and 
that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the 
table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I rise today 
to object to the quick passage of H.R. 4470, which seeks to extend the 
Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards Program.
  How could anybody be against that? I am actually for it. We should 
have terrorism standards. But--you know what--we always had these 
before 9/11. How did it work before the government got involved?
  Well, companies had to insure things. If you had a $100-million 
electric plant and it was at risk for sabotage or a fire or a 
disruption to the community, you had insurance, and insurance required 
that you have a fence. I mean, these things happen. It is not as if 
safety for our utilities and public chemical plants didn't exist before 
9/11. So there are ways that the marketplace would take care of this.
  This measure, though, which would reauthorize this regulatory program 
for another 2 years, I think is being rushed through the Senate without 
due consideration or, really, any consideration at all. The Homeland 
Security Committee has jurisdiction over the program, yet we have not 
had any hearings to discuss this program or its effectiveness.
  This is part of the problem of government is we tend to reauthorize 
things without ever examining whether they work, what works, what 
doesn't work. Some programs might need more money; some programs might 
need less money. And we might ask ourselves: Do we have any money?
  We are $31 trillion, $32 trillion in debt. We borrow about $1 
trillion every year. It is easy to be for stuff. Everybody has got 
something good. Everybody is for something, but where does the money 
come from? We haven't really had any hearing to discuss this program or 
its effectiveness since the last time it was authorized, nor has the 
committee considered any legislation to reform the program.
  This program is a regulatory program. It is hundreds of regulations, 
and it was established to prevent the misuse of hazardous chemicals. 
But it also fails to understand that every company has a self-incentive 
to protect hazardous chemicals that is built into the nature of the way 
they do business.
  Facilities that store certain quantities of designated chemicals of 
interest, though, under this legislation, must undergo a risk 
assessment inspection every 2 years.
  If it is not reauthorized? It has been going on for 20 years. My 
guess is that the vast majority, if not all, of the utilities and 
chemical plants in this country have undergone this. My guess is, if 
the program didn't exist, they would still all have fences and barbed 
wire and protections against terrorism because they want to protect 
their investment.
  The requirement, though, through government places a burden on 
business, impeding their potential growth and creating unsurmountable 
barriers to entry for those who find the regulatory compliance too 
cumbersome and expensive to even attempt to break into the sector.
  This is why, a lot of times, big businesses like regulations. 
Regulations become a formidable barrier to new companies coming into 
the business. Why not have a ton of regulations, sort of like banks. 
All the banking regulations--guess who likes the banking regulations: 
the big banks, because they can hire more compliance officers. Your 
local bank in your town can't afford to do it. So the local bank gets 
gobbled up by the bigger bank because of regulatory burden.
  The monetary resources required to implement and maintain these 
standards are substantial, and the cost implications impact not just 
private companies but also the Department of Homeland Security.
  The United States is trillions of dollars in debt. We cannot continue 
to just pour money into nonessential government programs. We should 
have a discussion of what are the private incentives for people to 
protect their chemical plants, to protect their utilities. There is a 
long history of this. In fact, it was the history of our country until 
fairly recently.

  The Department of Homeland Security has a consistent track record of 
creating duplicative programs. Over the past 12 years, the Government 
Accountability Office--the GAO--has documented over 1,100 cases of 
duplicative programs created by Congress.
  Everybody has a great idea--we are going to fix this--but they don't 
ever take time to look up and find out that somebody had the idea 3 
years before, and they already created a program to fix this. So 
sometimes we have as many as 80 different programs to fix a problem 
that has already been fixed previously 80 times.
  It should come as no surprise to any of us that our government has 
grown into a $6.5 trillion leviathan, and this body seems more 
interested in passing bills than understanding the contents of the 
bills, the programs, or whether the programs are working.
  We saved, though, over $550 billion by removing just half of GAO's 
identified duplicative programs. Five hundred and fifty billion dollars 
was saved by taking the time to find out that we already have other 
programs doing what the new program proposes to do.
  I have already expressed a number of concerns about this program, but 
what should alarm us the most about this reauthorization is that GAO 
already found much of this program to be duplicative of other Agencies 
in a report from 2021. That is why I will be introducing and attaching 
to this bill and letting the bill go, frankly, if we can agree today to 
attach a small bill, but I think it could have profound implications 
over government.
  This is called the Duplication Scoring Act. What would happen is, 
every time someone gets a genius idea how they are going to fix your 
life or fix your business with another law, there would have to be a 
duplication score, and government would come forward and say ``Well, we 
have 32 programs that already do the same thing'' or ``We have 32 
programs that aren't working that do the same thing.'' It would be what 
a government should normally do before creating a new program--find out 
if we already have existing programs.
  So I will be asking consent to pass this bill. I will let the program 
continue, even though I think it has many problems, if we will add a 
duplication scoring system to all programs in government so we can 
review whether they already exist and are working. This program would 
be produced for each bill.
  I think all of us can agree that there is no point in passing a bill 
that already exists in another fashion or already has Agencies that do 
the same job. Before we unknowingly pass a thousand more of these 
duplicative, fragmented programs, I urge my colleagues to support my 
amendment, which would continue the program, allow it to be 
reauthorized, but at the same time begin having a duplication score on 
every new proposal.
  So I would ask the Senate to modify the current request; that my 
amendment, which is at the desk, be considered and agreed to; that the 
bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that 
the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the Senator's request?
  Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, I fully appreciate Senator Paul's 
commitment to making government more efficient. I was pleased that my 
committee advanced his bill earlier this year, but, as I noted at the 
time of our passing it out of committee, the bill requires additional 
work before it is ready to be passed by the full Senate.
  We have heard from several committees that have concerns about the 
potential impacts of the legislation. I hope that we can continue 
working over the summer to try to address those concerns and find a 
path forward for this legislation.
  However, the Chemical Facilities Anti-Terrorism Standards Program is

[[Page S3574]]

set to expire tomorrow. We urgently need to pass this bipartisan 2-year 
extension now. If we do not, chemical facilities that are at risk of 
being exploited by terrorists will no longer be able to implement 
critical security measures, including ensuring that individuals in the 
terrorist screening database do not have access to restricted areas in 
these facilities, and the Department of Homeland Security will no 
longer be able to assess or share information about terrorist threats 
related to these facilities.
  Our national security is on the line, and we cannot let this program 
expire over a completely unrelated bill about the inside workings of 
Congress.
  I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard to the modification.
  Is there objection to the original request?
  Mr. PAUL. I object, Mr. President. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Ohio.


                        Tribute to Sharon Cohen

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Sharon Cohen, who 
retires this week from the Senate Dining Room. Over her almost three 
decades here, Ms. Cohen has left a lasting impression on a number of my 
colleagues and guests who have visited the dining room, including my 
children and grandchildren and the whole Senate dining team.
  Ms. Cohen has seen Senators come and go from this building. She has 
been here longer than most of my colleagues. She has been here longer 
than I have. I always look forward to seeing Ms. Cohen. She is always 
welcoming. She is always gracious. She makes an effort to get to know 
not just every Senator but every guest who comes through the doors 
regardless of whom they walked in with, regardless of their political 
affiliation.
  In a place where at times relationships can be tested and debate can 
be intense, Ms. Cohen always made Senate dining a welcoming place. It 
is clear to anyone who has met Ms. Cohen that she cares deeply for the 
people in her life--her family, her colleagues, her guests. She seems 
to always be thinking about what is best for others.
  Among her colleagues, Ms. Cohen is known for being steady and 
reliable and, most importantly, for her generous spirit. She is always 
helping whomever she can, however she can. She never asks for anything 
in return. Her colleagues shared that they don't think they have ever 
met anyone who works harder than she, and when she finishes her work, 
she helps everyone who needs it. She is a team player. She is a hard 
worker.
  Maybe most important, she has made a difference for so many people. 
Maybe all of us, my colleagues and I, can learn from that.
  The workers in these jobs often don't get a lot of recognition. They 
are too often ignored. Yet they are every bit as important to the 
Senate as the people on the Senate floor.
  She brings a dignity to this job--the same kind of dignity as a 
carpenter who is proud of her work or a sheet metal worker who is proud 
of his work or someone who works in manufacturing, someone who works in 
a veterans hospital, someone who provides home care--because all work 
has dignity, as she understands.
  Ms. Cohen is a treasured member of staff and of this institution. As 
her colleagues shared, they are sad to see her leave. While they know 
things will not be the same without her, they share Ms. Cohen's 
excitement for her next chapter. In retirement, she plans to spend time 
with her daughter and help care for her granddaughter.
  I know she will be missed by the Senate dining team. I know we will 
all miss seeing her. And I appreciate not just her work but the work of 
all people who serve in this body in all kinds of capacities.
  Ms. Cohen, thank you. I wish you a long, joyous retirement spent with 
your granddaughter. Congratulations.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.


                                S. 2226

  Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, as we move forward with the National 
Defense Authorization Act, I want to say a little bit about why it is 
so important that we get this done.
  Over the last several months, the administration and all of us in the 
Senate--with particular thanks to Chair Reed and Ranking Member 
Wicker--have worked hard to deliver a bill that will keep our country 
safe.
  There is a lot in this bill, and we all know about some of the big 
stuff. This year's NDAA will better position us to deter conflict in 
the Indo-Pacific, strengthen our cyber security capabilities, help us 
acquire next-gen microelectronics to keep our military competitive, 
extend our security assistance to Ukraine, and authorize other programs 
that support our national defense.
  These are all reasons that I support this legislation, but I want to 
highlight a couple of provisions that are just as important and are 
focused on taking care of the people who serve our country--civilian 
and military--and underscore the need for accountability. People are 
the glue that holds everything together, and they are why we have a 
strong national defense. Some of these provisions are included in this 
bill, but others we are still working on to include in the final 
package.
  One provision we worked to secure in this bill deals directly with 
the State of Hawaii. When the Department of the Navy's Red Hill bulk 
fuel storage facility leaked jet fuel into the water system on the 
island of Oahu, many were exposed to contaminated water. Although we 
are on a path to defuel and permanently close the facility, we still do 
not have an accurate accounting of those affected.
  This year's Defense authorization includes my bill establishing a 
registry to track and collect health data from those who were exposed 
to the fuel leak. This is a meaningful step to continue to deliver 
resources to community members, servicemembers, and military families 
and monitor long-term health concerns. This leak should have never 
happened, but now we need to do everything we can to help those who 
have been impacted.
  A key provision we are still working to include in the final package 
will help us to better protect the most vulnerable among us--kids. In 
2018, the Department of Defense's internet network was ranked 19th out 
of almost 3,000 nationwide networks in the amount of peer-to-peer child 
pornography shared--19th out of 3,000. The ranking remains shocking and 
unacceptable, but it was not entirely unexpected. A 2006 investigation 
by Federal law enforcement officials found that 5,000 individuals--
5,000 individuals, including hundreds affiliated with the Department of 
Defense--subscribed to websites that contained child sexual abuse 
images and videos.
  Out of those 5,000 people, 80 percent of them were not investigated--
80 percent of them were not investigated. That is because the military 
lacked the capacity and the resources needed to follow up on leads, 
coordinate with local and Federal law enforcement, and prosecute the 
criminals.
  So Senator Murkowski and I went to work and authored a bill that 
would give the DOD the tools that they needed to address this problem. 
The END Network Abuse Act received bipartisan support and was included 
in the 2020 Defense bill, clearing the way for DOD to act. But it is 
almost 4 years later, and the DOD has been maddeningly slow to 
implement this law.
  This cannot wait any further. My amendment would simply compel the 
Department of Defense to implement this law immediately. We cannot 
afford to let another day, another month, another 4 years go by without 
addressing this matter. The stakes are too high, and we already have a 
Federal law.
  While these provisions aren't the most attractive to cable news--they 
are not leading the headlines or national papers--they directly impact 
our greatest national security asset: our people. Talking about our 
national defense priorities means nothing if we neglect to support the 
people who make it possible. We have to continue to honor our 
commitment to care for them, whether it is through quality healthcare, 
protecting the most vulnerable, or keeping ourselves accountable to 
those who serve. Our job in Congress is to deliver for them, and that 
means passing a final bill.


                           Executive Calendar

  Mr. President, on a different but related topic, later today, some of 
my colleagues, including Chair Reed and Senator Kelly, will speak on 
the critical topic of our military promotions

[[Page S3575]]

and the crisis currently caused by their delay here in the Senate by 
the obstruction of a few Republican Senators.
  For example, for the first time in over 100 years, we have an Acting 
Commandant of the Marine Corps. The service that is reorganizing to 
better compete in the Indo-Pacific--the region that we all say we need 
to prioritize--has no confirmed head. General Smith, the nominee and 
Acting Commandant, is a decorated servicemember, and there is no reason 
to delay his confirmation.
  More than 250 career military promotions are being held up--250 
career military promotions are being held up. This is hitting the 
morale of the forces, and it is causing a backlog in the chain of 
command. If Senator Tuberville wants to have a debate, let us debate on 
the floor. But to penalize the Armed Forces of the United States of 
America in this way is an abuse of the power of advice and consent.
  Let's just be really clear. We don't vote on flag and general officer 
promotions. That is done in what they call a wrapup script, right? At 
the end of some evening, the leader or his designee reads a script and 
says, ``I ask that nominations numbered,'' and then he lists them or 
she lists them. And then all of those one stars become two stars and 
three stars become four stars and you have a new Commandant of the 
Marine Corps and the pack fleet commander moves from one star to two 
stars, whatever it is.
  It is perfunctory because we are not in the position of making 
individual judgments. We don't have the time or the expertise to make 
individual judgments about 250 flag and general officers, the people 
who oversee every service branch.
  So the idea that we should sit here and burn up postcloture time and 
turn the Senate into the personnel committee for the Department of 
Defense is antithetical to the idea of advice and consent. And, yes, 
every Senator has enormous power. I could probably block the Defense 
bill this week if I wanted to. But I won't. You know why? Because I am 
not a maniac; because I understand that when you vest someone through 
your voters with this kind of power, you have to be very careful how 
you exercise it.
  In my 11-odd years, I blocked one or two things. And when I block 
something, people know I am serious. I have never--and I know no one of 
the current 100 Senators besides Senator Tuberville and no one else 
before him--I have never seen this in my life.
  This is a breaking of the Department of Defense, and this is a 
breaking of the basic understanding that, hey, we are going to vest 
each other with the kind of authority that is pretty enormous, right? 
But in exchange, you have to use that power wisely. In exchange, you 
have to use that power wisely.
  Senator Tuberville is mad about an abortion issue, and so he is 
preventing all of these general and flag officers from getting their 
promotions. It is bad for morale; it is bad for the chain of command; 
and it is also bad for these individual families.
  You have people who have to make basic choices: real estate 
decisions. Am I renting a condo or not? Where am I living? I am not 
even sure. Where should I enroll my kids in school? I don't know. My 
whole life depends on when Senator Tuberville decides that this 
craziness is over.
  It has to end. It is bad for the country; it is bad for the Senate; 
and it is bad for the U.S. Armed Forces.
  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. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            Federal Reserve

  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, earlier this year, the public confidence in 
the banking system was shaken by a series of significant bank failures. 
To put it simply, these banks failed to account for interest rate 
increases while leaning on a deposit base that was almost entirely 
uninsured. That is a textbook case of mismanagement.
  It is critical that faith be restored in our Nation's banks and their 
regulators. But before policymakers clamor to write stricter banking 
regulations, an independent review board should be appointed to 
thoroughly probe the failure of Silicon Valley Bank and the response of 
the Federal Reserve Bank.
  Many questions still remain unanswered. Silicon Valley Bank was 
quickly deemed systemically important because of its size, but the 
ensuing failure of a larger bank was not. The sale was dragged out for 
weeks out of fear that certain banks would grow too large, only for the 
largest bank in the country to turn around and purchase the next bank 
failure.
  In my opinion, all parties involved had a role in this failure: bank 
executives, examiners, and regulators. The bank failed to both 
accurately leverage their position and react to rising interest rates. 
Examiners failed to require changes in either the bank's policy or 
subsequent actions. Regulators failed by arbitrarily guaranteeing all 
funds against loss, creating an unlimited market insecurity by forcing 
taxpayers and customers to now question the safety of their deposits. 
The administration failed by furthering a culture of government 
intervention that props up certain too-big-to-fail institutions.
  Meaningful oversight requires objectivity and must hold all parties 
accountable without having a predetermined regulatory agenda in mind. 
To restore public confidence, the next step, in my view, would be to 
hire an outside investigative group to conduct a review of the Federal 
Reserve Bank's response. Conflicts of interest inherently arise when a 
singular member of the Board prepares a self-investigation.
  This comprehensive review must be done by a party uninvolved in the 
failure of Silicon Valley Bank and/or uninvolved in the Federal 
response. This would better ensure that the outcome of this 
investigation would be impartial, helping put to bed doubts that the 
Fed's review only served as a stamp of approval on the Fed's policies.
  The Fed's own internal review found significant negligence by both 
management and regulators. The public needs insight into the reasoning 
and conversations of regulators, the White House, and bank management 
involved in the response.
  Silicon Valley Bank and the banks that subsequently failed were 
specialized to do business with a unique financial sector. Any reform 
regulators push now must be narrowly tailored to those circumstances to 
avoid collateral damage to small and midsized banks that consistently 
operate responsibly. Stricter capital requirements will push lending 
out of the regulated banking sector and into the nonbanks and money 
market funds, none of which are subject to the regulations of the Fed 
for banks, as the Fed regulates banks.
  The banking turmoil was a result of a rapidly changing interest rate 
environment, the speed at which money can move, and the limitations of 
banks to adjust as quickly as the market can. Understanding the context 
and reason behind the response is absolutely necessary for ensuring 
future bank failures have a smooth and fair resolution with a minimal 
impact upon American taxpayers.
  An independent review of the Silicon Valley Bank collapse is 
necessary to get a nonpartisan, less biased assessment that gives 
Americans confidence in our banking system and policymakers better 
ability to ensure our financial system remains the strongest in the 
world.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.


                          Biden Administration

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as we know, President Biden has been 
talking the last 30 to 60 days about Bidenomics. I think it would be 
fair to say that because so many Americans are struggling to support 
their families, President Biden is struggling to explain what he means 
by ``Bidenomics.''
  I think most fairminded Americans, based on the, what, year and a 
half and a few months that President Biden has been President, 
understand what Bidenomics is because they understand, at this 
juncture, what President Biden believes in, not only what he believes 
in, what he has done.
  Bidenomics, to most fairminded Americans, is bigger government. 
Bidenomics is higher taxes. Bidenomics is more regulation.

[[Page S3576]]

  Bidenomics is more spending. Bidenomics is more debt. Bidenomics is 
also inflation.
  Let me say that again. First and foremost, Bidenomics is inflation. 
President Biden's inflation--history, I believe, will demonstrate 
this--is a cancer on the American dream. It is a cancer on the American 
dream.
  Since President Biden has been President, electricity is up 24 
percent. There is your Bidenomics. Gas, gasoline--I will quote you from 
Louisiana--is up 65 percent. Eggs are up 39 percent. Potato chips are 
up 25 percent. Bread is up 26 percent. Coffee costs 30 percent more, 
thanks to President Biden's inflation and Bidenomics. Rice is up 29 
percent. Flour is up 25 percent. Milk is up 18 percent; ice cream, 18 
percent; chicken, 23 percent. I could keep going.
  Let me give you a few statistics to put those numbers in context. The 
median household income in my State of Louisiana is $53,571. The median 
household income of an American family, nationwide, is $70,784. So in 
Louisiana, the median household income--not individual income, 
household income--is about $54,000. The median income throughout 
America is about $71,000.
  In my State, Bidenomics and President Biden's inflation is costing my 
people--the average family in Louisiana--an additional $757 a month--
not a year, a month. That is $9,084 a year.
  So imagine, in Louisiana, if you are at the median household income 
of $54,000 a year--that is you, a spouse, and children--and, all of a 
sudden, in the past year-and-a-half, under Bidenomics, you have got to 
come out of pocket an extra $9,000 a year. You are making $54,000 a 
year to support the family, and now, all of a sudden, you have got to 
come out--you have to find--an extra $9,000 just to tread water. Where 
are you going to get that money?
  Maybe you saved up a little money from the stimulus checks, but that 
is probably gone. Maybe you have a savings account that you set aside, 
but that is probably gone now too. Maybe you have got a couple of 
credit cards, but you have maxed those out. Maybe you have a dream of 
sending your children to college and you have a college fund, but you 
have already had to dip into that. And there is no end in sight.
  Now, that is the experience of the people in my State, from 
Bidenomics, and I think that is the experience across America. That is 
why I say that inflation--President Biden's inflation--has been a 
cancer on the American dream. And I can tell you that in Louisiana my 
people are getting really good at barely getting by, and there is no 
end in sight.
  Now, I am pleased to be able to say that the rate of inflation has 
been coming down, and I hope it keeps coming down. Our last inflation 
numbers showed that. You will see them reported in the media. Inflation 
is now at 3 percent. That is sort of accurate. It is at 3 percent, but 
the reason it is at 3 percent is primarily because of the fall in the 
price of gasoline. Gasoline is still high, but the price of oil has 
come down because our economy and the world economy are so weak. So 
there is less demand for it.
  But more important than overall inflation is what we call core 
inflation. That is what most economists look at. It would be core 
inflation because core--C-O-R-E--inflation looks at inflation without 
looking at energy or food, because energy and food can both be very 
volatile. Core inflation is at 4.8 percent, and it has been very 
sticky, still way over the Federal Reserve's targeted 2 percent.
  But it has been coming down, and that is good news. But what does 
that mean? All it means is that the rate of increase in inflation has 
been slowing.
  When you have inflation, let's say at 8 percent, and you get it down 
to 6 percent, that means that you have reduced the rate of increase of 
the prices. The economists call that disinflation. That doesn't mean 
that prices are going down. It just means that prices aren't rising as 
rapidly.
  And if we can get core inflation down to 2 percent, that does not 
mean these high prices that I just quoted are going to go down. That 
would be deflation.
  I regret to tell you, Mr. President--and I think you know what I am 
saying is accurate--these high prices are permanent. We are going to be 
stuck with a 24-percent increase in electricity. Even if we can get 
inflation down to zero percent, these high prices that have been caused 
by Bidenomics are permanent.
  We are going to be stuck with coffee up 30 percent. I am not going to 
reread the list. That is why I say that inflation, the major product of 
Bidenomics, has been a cancer on the American dream.
  Now, my people in Louisiana need every dollar they can get right now. 
The average family making $54,000 a year is now having to find an 
additional $9,000 a year, and that is not going to change. Their only 
hope is that it doesn't get worse.
  So I want to call the attention of my people to tax refunds. A lot of 
my people get tax refunds. They get money back. They have money 
withheld from their paycheck, and, oftentimes, it is too much. And the 
State of Louisiana and the Federal Government owe them money in the 
form of a tax refund.
  And sometimes my people in Louisiana are busy earning a living. They 
get up every day. They go to work. They obey the law. They pay their 
taxes. They try to teach their children morals. They try to do the 
right thing for their children. They get busy, and, sometimes, people 
forget to claim their tax refunds.
  So I am here today, No. 1, to try to explain Bidenomics and tell the 
people of Louisiana and the people of America that I am sorry they are 
having to go through this. But, No. 2, I understand that every dollar 
counts. And please, please, please, check and see if you are due a tax 
refund.
  For example, now, start with the State. The State of Louisiana is 
holding almost $12 million--$11,574,249--that is owed in tax refunds to 
the people of Louisiana. So 15,461 people are owed tax refunds, and 
they haven't claimed it. The average refund is about $750. You need to 
claim it, I say to my people. You need to claim it by August 28. If you 
don't claim it by August 28, you won't lose it. The money will be 
transferred to the Treasury Department and become part of what is 
called the Unclaimed Property Program, and then you just have to fill 
out more paperwork to get your money.
  So if you think you have a tax refund due from the State of 
Louisiana, go get it by August 28. It is worth checking. All you have 
got to do is go to the department of revenue website: 
revenue.louisiana.gov--revenue.louisiana.gov.
  Now, also, my department of revenue--thank you for doing this--just 
sent out letters to every one of these 15,461 people to whom the State 
owes a tax refund. Our department of revenue sent them a letter. Please 
open that letter and don't throw it away. This includes individuals and 
women and businessmen. All you have to do is open that letter. There is 
a voucher in there. You fill it out and send it back into the 
department of revenue, and you will get your money. So please do that. 
You earned it.
  Now, at the Federal level, it is a little more complicated, to no 
one's surprise--at the Federal level. I tried to get the information 
from the IRS about how much is owed to my people in terms of Federal 
income tax refunds. You won't faint with surprise when I say it is hard 
to get them on the phone. And when we did get them on the phone, they 
said: We can't give you that information. If we told you, we would have 
to kill you.
  So I went back and did some research. The most recent numbers I have 
are from 2019. In 2019, tax refunds in the amount of $22 million were 
owed to the people in Louisiana. These are Federal income tax refunds. 
This is 2019 now. I don't know what the current number is because the 
IRS won't tell me. But based on 2019 numbers, it is anywhere from $22 
to $25 million, and based on 2019 numbers, about 22,000 Louisianians 
are owed Federal income tax refunds on top of the State income tax 
refunds.
  And I want to encourage them to check to see if they have a Federal 
income tax refund. Here is what you need to do. You can call them if 
you like, but lots of luck. Go to www.irs.gov/refunds_www.irs.gov/
refunds_and you can check to see if the IRS owes you a tax refund.
  You are going to need your Social Security number, of course, or your 
taxpayer ID number. You are going to need your filing status. They want 
you

[[Page S3577]]

to tell them the exact amount of your refund. They have all that 
information, but they want you to tell it to them. Just don't argue 
with them. Just go ahead and do it, based off your tax return.
  And you can make a claim there, online, and give them a reasonable 
amount of time, and you can get a check from the Federal Government as 
well.
  I used to be the tax collector in Louisiana, and I can tell you that, 
for a variety of reasons, a lot of people--not just Louisianians but 
all across America--forget to claim their State income tax refund and/
or their Federal income tax refund. So I hope they will take advantage 
of this.
  I am sorry. I just want to say to them that I am sorry that the 
Federal Government has let them down. I am embarrassed about 
Bidenomics. I am sorry about this inflation. It is a cancer on the 
American dream. I am afraid it is going to be with us awhile. I hope I 
am wrong. But if we succeed in getting that rate of inflation down to 2 
percent, that doesn't mean prices are going to go down. I wish I could 
sit here and tell you that. These higher prices are coming. What we are 
trying to do is just stop the increase and stop the crisis from going 
up so fast. So I hope you will take advantage of this information, not 
just in Louisiana but all across America, and go claim your tax refunds 
if you are owed.

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cortez Masto). The Senator from Vermont.


                                S. 2226

  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, the Senate is now debating an $886 
billion Defense authorization bill, and unless there are major changes 
to that bill, I intend to vote against it. Let me take a few minutes to 
explain why.
  I think everybody in our country knows that we face enormous crises.
  As a result of climate change, our planet is experiencing 
unprecedented and rising temperatures. Along with the rest of the 
world, we need to make major investments to transform our energy system 
away from fossil fuels and into energy efficiency and sustainable 
energy. If we do not do that--not only America but China and countries 
all over the world--the planet we are leaving our kids and future 
generations will become increasingly unhealthy and precarious. In fact, 
there are some who wonder whether the planet will continue to exist in 
years to come unless we move aggressively on this existential threat.
  But it is not only climate change. Our healthcare system is broken, 
and it is dysfunctional--not a secret. Most Americans know that. While 
the insurance companies and the drug companies make hundreds of 
billions of dollars in profits, 85 million Americans are uninsured or 
underinsured. Unbelievably, our life expectancy, which is already lower 
than most major countries, is declining. Today, we have a massive 
shortage of doctors, nurses, mental health practitioners, and 
dentists--something that the committee I chair, the HELP Committee, is 
trying to address. But it is a reality today that our healthcare system 
is broken and dysfunctional.
  Our educational system is teetering.
  While we have one of the highest rates of childhood poverty of almost 
any major country, millions of parents in Vermont, Nevada, and all over 
this country are unable to find affordable and quality childcare. It is 
a major, major crisis which is only going to become worse as a result 
of the cliff that the childcare folks are going to be experiencing in a 
few months.
  But it is not just childcare. When we talk about education, we should 
appreciate that the number of our young people who graduate from 
college today is falling further and further behind other countries. In 
other words, we need to have the best educated country on Earth in 
order to compete internationally. Yet other countries are seeing a 
greater percentage of their young people graduating college. One of the 
reasons is the high cost of college. Many young people do not want to 
go $50,000 or $100,000 in debt to get a college or graduate school 
degree. Today, we have 45 million Americans who are struggling under 
the weight of student debt--something that President Biden, I, and 
others have been trying to deal with.
  But it is not only climate. It is not only healthcare. It is not only 
education. Today, all over this country, we are seeing a massive crisis 
in terms of low-income and affordable housing. While gentrification is 
causing rents to soar in many parts of our country, some 600,000 
Americans are homeless. A few blocks away from right here in the 
Nation's Capital, there are people sleeping out in the streets. And we 
have some 18 million people who are spending more than half of their 
limited incomes on housing.
  So that is what the country faces. We have a planetary crisis in 
terms of climate change. Our healthcare system is broken and 
dysfunctional. Our educational system is teetering. Our housing stock 
is totally inadequate. These are just some of the crises facing our 
country.
  What is very clear, I think, to the American people and many people 
here in the Senate and those in the House is that we are not addressing 
those crises. We don't have any pretense--we are not addressing those 
crises. When is the last time the Presiding Officer has heard a serious 
debate here about how we address climate change, how we build up 
affordable housing, how we reform the healthcare system? It is not 
taking place. We are not addressing this. So that is one political 
reality that exists here in the Nation's Capital.
  But there is another reality, and that is the reality of the Pentagon 
and military spending, and that is a whole other story. Every year, 
with seemingly little regard for the strategic picture facing our 
country, this body, the House and the Senate, votes to increase the 
military budget. It just happens. We don't worry about people sleeping 
on the street. We don't worry about people who don't have any 
healthcare. We don't worry about people who can't afford prescription 
drugs. Every year, the military budget--hey, more money.
  The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are over. Tens of thousands of 
American troops have returned home. Yet the Pentagon's budget continues 
to go up. Every year, despite sometimes very contentious 
partisan fights on all manner of things--you name it, big fights going 
on--Congress somehow comes together very quietly, with little debate, 
to vote for the one thing they agree on, and that is more and more 
money for the Pentagon.

  Right now, despite all of the enormous needs facing working families 
in this country, over half of the Federal discretionary budget goes to 
the military. Got it? Over half of the Federal discretionary budget 
goes to the military.
  I support a strong military. People don't have to convince me why we 
need a strong military. But I will oppose this legislation, this 
Defense authorization bill, for four major reasons.
  First, more military spending right now is unnecessary. The United 
States remains the world's dominant military power and is in no danger 
of losing that position. Alone, we account for roughly 40 percent of 
global military spending. This comes despite the end of the war in 
Afghanistan and despite the fact that the United States now spends more 
on the military than the next 10 countries combined, most of which are 
our allies. We spend more than the next 10 countries combined, most of 
which are our allies. Last year, we spent more than 3 times what China 
is spending on the military, and more than 10 times what Russia spent.
  While this year's National Defense Authorization Act would merely 
match the Pentagon's recordbreaking request, in most recent years, 
Congress has seen fit to give the Department of Defense more money than 
it even asks for. Imagine that. The 85 million people who are 
uninsured--we don't help them. People can't afford the high cost of 
prescription drugs--hardly doing anything on that. People sleeping out 
on the streets--can't do that. Kids can't afford to go to college--
can't do that. But we have, year after year, given the Pentagon more 
money than they have even requested, requiring them to submit ``wish 
lists'' of items to Congress; in other words, tell us what more you 
need.
  The Pentagon is routinely given so much taxpayer money that it 
literally doesn't know what to do with all the money Congress has 
thrown at them. According to the Government Accountability Office, the 
GAO, over an 11-year

[[Page S3578]]

period, the Pentagon returned an astonishing $128 billion in excess 
funds to the Treasury. In other words, we gave them so much money that 
they couldn't even spend it, and they had to return some of it.
  So that is reason No. 1 why I oppose this legislation.
  No. 2, the Pentagon cannot keep track of the dollars it already has, 
leading to massive waste, fraud, and abuse in the sprawling military-
industrial complex. The Pentagon accounts for about two-thirds of all 
Federal contracting activity, obligating more money every year than all 
civilian Federal Agencies combined. Yet the Department of Defense 
remains the only major Federal Agency that cannot pass an independent 
audit more than 30 years after Congress required them to do so.
  So we are throwing hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars into 
the Pentagon. Thirty years ago, Congress said: We want an audit; we 
want to know what is going on--a reasonable request. It has only been 
30 years, and we still have not gotten an independent audit.
  Last year, the Department of Defense was unable to account for over 
half of its assets, which are in excess of $3 trillion, or roughly 78 
percent of what the entire Federal Government owns. The Government 
Accountability Office, the GAO, reports that the Department of Defense 
still cannot accurately track its finances or capture and post 
transactions to the current accounts.
  Each year, auditors find billions of dollars in the Pentagon's 
proverbial couch cushions--just money lying around, you know, that pops 
up here and there. In fiscal 2022, Navy auditors found $4.4 billion in 
untracked inventory--couldn't find it, but there was $4.4 billion--
while Air Force auditors identified $5.2 billion worth of variances in 
its general ledger.
  These problems are why Senator Grassley and I have again introduced 
our Audit the Pentagon Act, with a number of cosponsors, which would 
force the Pentagon to get serious about their shortcomings by reducing 
by 1 percent the budget of any DOD component that cannot pass an audit. 
I don't think that is an unreasonable request.
  A meaningful effort to address this waste should be undertaken before 
Congress throws more money at the Pentagon. Yet this absolutely 
necessary oversight is again missing from this bill. So it doesn't 
matter. Next year, we will learn that tens and tens of billions of 
dollars can't be accounted for. So what is the problem?
  In June, the GAO found that in the preceding year, 1 single year, 
DOD's largest acquisition programs had seen cost estimates rise by $37 
billion. It goes on and on and on. They come up with an estimate for a 
weapons system, and then they say: Oh, sorry, it turns out it is going 
to cost a lot more than we told you. This comes after decades in which 
we spent more than $2 trillion on ill-considered wars, in my view, in 
Iraq and Afghanistan.
  Somehow, despite this incredible record of waste and fraud, the 
military-industrial complex escapes meaningful scrutiny.
  The third point I want to make in opposition is that much of this 
additional military spending will go to line the pockets of hugely 
profitable defense contractors. It is corporate welfare by a different 
name. Almost half of the Pentagon budget goes to private contractors, 
some of whom are exploiting their monopoly positions and the trust 
granted them by the United States to line their pockets. Repeated 
investigations by the DOD inspector general, the GAO, and CBS News have 
uncovered numerous instances of contractors massively overcharging the 
Department of Defense, helping boost these companies' profit margins to 
nearly 40 percent and sometimes as high as over 4,000 percent, while 
costing U.S. taxpayers hundreds and hundreds of millions of 
dollars. TransDigm, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Raytheon are among the 
offenders, dramatically overcharging taxpayers, while reaping enormous 
profits, seeing their stock prices soar, and handing out massive 
executive compensation packages.

  Just one example, Lockheed Martin received $46 billion in 
unclassified Federal contracts last year, returned $11 billion to 
shareholders through dividends and stock buybacks, and paid its CEO $25 
million. These companies are fully reliant on the U.S. taxpayer, yet 
their CEOs make over 100 times more than the Secretary of Defense and 
500 percent more than the average newly enlisted servicemember.
  TransDigm, the company behind the over 4,000-percent markup on spare 
parts, touted $3.1 billion in profits on $5.4 billion of net sales, 
almost boasting to investors about just how fully it was fleecing the 
taxpayers.
  Indeed, over the past two decades, major defense contractors have 
paid billions of dollars in fines or related settlements for fraud or 
misconduct. Almost every major defense contractor has had to pay fines 
for fraud or misconduct. Just the other day--people may have seen it in 
the papers--the consulting firm of Booz Allen Hamilton was fined $377 
million for overcharging the Defense Department. Yet these contracts 
never dry up.
  That is why I introduced an amendment to this year's NDAA to require 
the Secretary of Defense to produce an updated report on defense 
contractor fraud. That amendment was not included in what we will be 
voting on.
  Here is maybe the major point that I want to make: If the pandemic, 
the COVID pandemic, has taught us anything--and let us not forget for 
one minute that that pandemic cost us over 1 million lives--it is that 
national security relies on much more than just a strong military.
  It is funny, as chairman of the HELP Committee, a couple of months 
ago, we had those people who are responsible for protecting this 
country against future pandemics before us. And the question that 
everybody asked them, Democrat and Republican, is: Hey, are we prepared 
for the next pandemic that is likely to come? Without exception, the 
leaders of the government Agencies whose job is to protect us for the 
next pandemic said: No, we are not prepared.
  By the way, there are some right now who want to take money away from 
the Centers for Disease Control in this particular bill.
  The point is that when you lose over 1 million people to a pandemic 
and when the scientists tell us there is a good chance that another one 
may come, that is a national security issue.
  True security--if we are really looking at what true security is 
about--it means everything that we can do to improve the lives of 
ordinary Americans.
  True security is that we address the crisis of a declining life 
expectancy. The gap between the lifespan of the wealthy and the working 
class is over 10 years. If you are working class in this country, you 
are going to die 10 years shorter than the wealthy. Is that not an 
issue of national security? Do we not want to make sure that all of our 
people, whether they are rich or poor or middle class, have the right 
to live full and productive and healthy lives? I think so. That is 
called national security.
  National security has to do with the issue of education for our kids. 
How are we secure if our young people, from childcare to graduate 
school, are not getting the quality of education?
  There are millions of children who today, in America, as we speak, 
are food insecure. There are days that go by when they are hungry. How 
do we talk about national security and not talk about the crisis of 
childhood hunger, not to mention childhood poverty in general?
  How do we talk about national security when people are sleeping out 
on the street?
  How do we, in any sense of the word, talk about national security 
without understanding the weather in Texas, in the southwest, is now 
hitting recordbreaking levels? People are dying from the heat. Oceans 
are getting hotter. We are looking at drought. We are looking at 
extreme weather disturbances. My own State, just several weeks ago, 
experienced the worst natural disaster, torrential rainfalls that we 
haven't seen since 1927. That is national security. Whether people get 
forced out of their homes because of flooding, die from heat stroke--
that is called national security.
  This body--the Senate--could decide to have one or two fewer 
ballistic missile submarines, saving almost $15 billion over the next 
decade. And we could put that money--and it would go a long way--toward 
housing the homeless or feeding the 5 million children in this

[[Page S3579]]

country who are food insecure. Instead, day after day, here in 
Washington, many of my colleagues tell the American people that we just 
don't have the money. We can't do what every other major country on 
Earth does--guarantee healthcare to all people; we can't provide 
affordable housing; we can't provide affordable childcare; we can't 
provide nutrition to kids in America who are hungry. We just can't 
afford to do any of those things. But come to the military budget and 
all the lobbyists around here from the defense contractors, my God, we 
can't stop throwing money at them.
  So what I would say is that the time is long overdue for our country 
to get our national priorities right, and one small step forward would 
be to say no to this very bloated and wasteful military budget and 
start reordering our priorities so that we pay attention to the needs 
of the middle class and working class and low-income people rather than 
just defense contractors.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ossoff). The Senator from Rhode Island.


                             Climate Change

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, this is the 289th time that I have 
come to the Senate floor with my increasingly battered ``Time to Wake 
Up'' chart, to stir this Chamber to act on climate change.
  Since 2016, I have been talking about the zettajoule. The zettajoule 
is the measure of how much fossil fuel emissions are heating up our 
oceans. In this season of extreme, record-smashing heat touching all 50 
States, it is wild that elected representatives in Washington still 
choose to insulate themselves from reality, a reality measured in 
zettajoules.
  A zettajoule is a number almost beyond comprehension in its size. One 
joule--J-O-U-L-E--is our standard unit of energy, and it applies to 
heat energy. A zettajoule is 1 joule with 21 zeros behind it. It is a 
truly massive number.
  In a 2019 ``Time to Wake Up'' speech, I reported that more than nine 
zettajoules of heat energy was being added to the ocean annually. Since 
then, I have come to the floor with an updated number. Our oceans are 
absorbing around 14 zettajoules of excess heat every year.
  Let's put that in context. The total energy consumption of all 
humankind amounts to about one-half of a zettajoule of energy per year. 
That means that for the fossil fuel component of that one-half of a 
zettajoule of energy, we pay the price of 14 added zettajoules of heat 
into the ocean every year.
  Said another way, we load into our Earth's oceans every year nearly 
30 times the entire energy use of the entire species on the entire 
planet. That is a big magnification.
  If this is the zettajoules of excess heat absorbed into the oceans 
every year, that dot is the average annual energy consumption of the 
human species on the planet. For the price of the fossil fuel component 
of that, mankind's entire energy consumption in zettajoules, we suffer 
that load of heat energy going into the oceans.
  That is a bit hard to comprehend, so consider one other unit of 
measure: the energy released by the detonation of the nuclear bomb 
America dropped on Hiroshima. In Hiroshima bomb terms, last year the 
ocean absorbed the equivalent of seven Hiroshima bombs detonating every 
second in the ocean. Every second of every day for the entire year, 
seven nuclear detonations' worth of heat into our oceans--per second.
  This unfathomable amount of heat has been somewhat offset by La Nina, 
the cool phase of a recurring climate pattern called the El Nino 
Southern Oscillation, or ENSO. That is the acronym for the El Nino 
Southern Oscillation. The ENSO cycle consists of variations in sea 
surface temperature, rainfall, surface air pressure, and atmosphere 
circulation located over the Pacific Ocean near the Equator. And in 
that oscillation, La Nina is the name for the cooling period.
  Well, in June, we left La Nina and moved into an El Nino period. El 
Nino is the warmer side of the ENSO cycle. We saw it raise temperatures 
in previous cycles in 1998 and 2016. All those zettajoules of excess 
heat being dumped into the Earth's oceans, and now we are headed into 
the warming part of the cycle. Watch for more heat records to fall.
  One major consequence for us of hotter oceans is stronger hurricane 
activity. Hurricanes are powered up more by hotter water as they move 
over the Atlantic. This June, sea surface temperatures in the North 
Atlantic Ocean are the hottest in 170 years--the hottest in 170 years--
9 whole degrees Fahrenheit above normal.
  This is what is considered by science an ``extreme'' oceanic heat 
wave. And certain parts of the ocean are reaching the rare designation 
called ``beyond extreme.'' That is actually happening. On a scale from 
1 to 5, the North Atlantic's heat is either category 4 or category 5, 
depending on where you are.
  Bring it home to Florida. Water temperatures in Florida have hit 
records reaching as high as 101 degrees. That is not the air 
temperature, that is the ocean temperature. That is actually the 
recommended temperature for a hot tub. Indeed, that is the midpoint of 
the Jacuzzi Company's recommended range for its hot tub temperatures 
for healthy adults.
  Now, doctors recommend that children under the age of 5 avoid hot 
tubs over 95 degrees, and pregnant women are advised to stay out of 
water once it gets much above 100 degrees. So the ocean off Florida is 
almost too hot for many humans.
  ``Almost too hot for humans'' means definitely too hot for many ocean 
creatures, particularly ocean corals. Coral reefs matter because they 
support a quarter of all known marine species.
  Florida has the largest coral reef ecosystem in the continental 
United States, the third largest living barrier coral reef in the 
world. If you don't care about creatures and only care about money, 
well, Florida's protected waters contribute billions of tourism dollars 
to the Florida economy.
  All of that is in jeopardy in this heat. According to NOAA, when 
temperatures reach 1 degree Celsius or about 2 degrees Fahrenheit 
warmer than normal, corals cross what is called their bleaching 
threshold. That is where they turn white as they evulse the living 
creatures that keep them alive, and that is a step on the way to death.
  That is bad news, considering the temperatures around Florida have 
been running 5 degrees above normal. And the longer this goes on, the 
more trouble corals will have recovering.
  We hear sometimes about 100-year or even 500-year storms. These are 
storms that are so extreme they are expected to occur only once every 
100 or 500 years. Well, scientists have put this Florida heat wave off 
the charts. Ben Kirtman is the director of the Cooperative Institute 
for Marine and Atmospheric Studies at the University of Miami. He said:

       If you just wrote a statistical model and said what are the 
     chances of this level of warming, it would be 1 in 250,000 
     years.

  Not 1 in 100 years, not 1 in 500 years, 1 in 250,000 years. If that 
is not a warning that it is time to wake up, I do not know what is.
  Ultrarare weather events are not so rare anymore in this climate-
changed world. This is not just happening in the United States, it is 
worldwide. This summer, most of the oceans on planet Earth have at 
least a 70-percent chance of experiencing what are called marine heat 
wave conditions.
  The effects of marine heat waves read like Biblical plagues: 
decreased oxygen, dead zones, fish die-offs. And then come the weather 
effects: droughts in some places and increasingly deadly and dangerous 
storms in others because our oceans drive our weather on this planet.
  Over the course of a weekend last month, thousands of dead fish 
washed up along the Texas gulf coast.
  They died of lack of oxygen. Warm water holds much less oxygen than 
cold water. The ocean, through heat, becomes anoxic, and this slaughter 
results.
  Again, if you don't care about creatures and only care about money, 
in the United States last year alone, there were 18 separate billion-
dollar weather and climate disasters, exceeding $175 billion in total 
cost and, by the way, costing nearly 500 Americans their lives.
  Aside from those sudden disasters, comes the slow and insidious 
changes ocean warming brings, like the accelerating creep of sea level 
rise across

[[Page S3580]]

your coast and mine. As ocean temperatures increase, two things happen: 
1, ice in the Arctic and Antarctic melts, adding water to the ocean; 
and, 2, seawater expands--remember those zettajoules. Combined, the 
effects of melting ice sheets and expanding seawater volume increases 
sea levels along our coasts. That slow creep of sea level rise is not 
as slow as it used to be. The ocean rose more than twice as fast this 
decade as it did the previous decade. Last year, it set a new record 
high.
  The news gets worse. There is a centuries-long time lag in the 
natural systems causing sea level rise, meaning we are only seeing the 
leading edge of what we have caused. Even if we stopped emitting 
greenhouse gases today, ocean levels would continue to rise for 
decades.
  NOAA has predicted that the acceleration will continue; that sea 
level rise along the U.S. coastline will rise 10 to 12 inches just over 
the next 30 years, as much as the entire rise measured over the last 
century.
  One way to help deal with this is through the National Coastal 
Resilience Fund, a grant program that restores, increases, and 
strengthens natural infrastructure to protect coastal communities and 
to protect habitats for fish and wildlife. The fund invests in 
conservation projects that restore or expand our natural protections: 
coastal marshes and wetlands, dunes and beach systems, oyster and coral 
reefs, coastal forests, rivers and flood plains, and barrier islands 
that minimize the impacts of storms and sea level rise, as well as 
other dangerous events like lost fisheries from ocean warming.
  This program is so direly needed that it is vastly oversubscribed. In 
2022, over $600 million of projects went unfunded because there simply 
wasn't enough money in the program. Nearly half a billion dollars in 
unfunded protections for vulnerable coastal communities requesting 
Federal assistance.
  I will give you one example of where this program is important. In 
2019, the fund awarded $1 million to the Alaskan Native village of 
Shaktoolik to restore coastal dune habitat and to construct a natural 
storm surge berm. Well, last year, along came Typhoon Merbok and 
devastated parts of the Alaskan coastline. Shaktoolik was at the 
epicenter of the typhoon. The berm successfully protected the community 
from devastating coastal flooding. As one resident noted, ``The berm 
saved our lives.'' That is the value of resiliency, planning, and 
investment.
  But more than just brace ourselves for the baked-in effects of fossil 
fuel emissions poisoning our planet, we need to head off climate change 
at the oil spigot. That means taking on the fossil fuel industry's 
increasingly desperate lies and its well-funded political juggernaut 
that does such evil in this building. We know how to solve this 
problem; we just don't do it, because fossil fuel fingers creep through 
so many corners of the Capitol.
  In the time it took me to deliver this speech, around 6,000 Hiroshima 
bombs of excess heat energy were put into our oceans. Every day, it is 
getting worse. We completely underestimate how bad things are going to 
get--completely. Even people who care about climate change and believe 
that it is real and aren't in tow to the fossil fuel industry and its 
dark money, they still completely underestimate how bad this is going 
to get. And the tragedy is, it has always been preventable simply by 
moving to a productive, economically valuable, clean energy future and 
stopping our indulgence of fossil fuel pollution and obstruction. If 
what is going on with climate change heat going into our oceans is not 
enough to wake us up, I do not know what will. It is certainly--
certainly--time to wake up.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I would like to go through some of the 
materials that would ordinarily be in the evening wrap-up, but nobody 
watching should think we are in evening wrap-up. We are still expecting 
a great number of votes this evening when everything gets worked out.

                          ____________________