[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 19267-19268]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                             CLIMATE CHANGE


                          Thanking Todd Bianco

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, this is my 53rd time for consecutive 
weeks we are in session that I have come to the floor to speak about 
climate change and to urge my colleagues that it is time to wake up. 
These speeches are not easy. A great deal of effort goes into assisting 
me with research and crafting of them. I am particularly grateful for 
the hard work of Dr. Todd Bianco in helping me to prepare them. He is 
the fellow sitting on the other side of the sign, looking embarrassed 
that I have just called him out.
  Todd joined my office in September of 2012 as a Geological Society of 
America-U.S. Geological Survey congressional science fellow. He has 
contributed considerable scientific understanding and analytical rigor 
to our work. His ability to interpret the latest climate research has 
helped me to convey complex scientific concepts both accurately and in 
a way that is accessible and meaningful to policymakers and the public. 
You may be used to seeing him with me here on the floor for each week's 
speech, but he has also been effective in researching legislation and 
preparing for hearings in the Environment and Public Works Committee.
  I say this because this week marks the end of Todd's fellowship and 
he will soon return home to Rhode Island with his wife Allison. Allison 
Bianco, by the way, is a very talented artist whose work reflects our 
deep human connection to the natural world. In addition to lending us 
Todd, Allison has also lent us some of her artwork which is hung on 
display in my front office. So in addition to thanking Todd for his 
efforts, I also want to thank Allison. Todd, like me, is an over-
married human being.
  I wish them both the best of luck back home, and I thank Todd for his 
work in the U.S. Senate to advance responsible public policy, grounded 
firmly in the best science.
  It is time at last for Congress at least to heed that best science 
and act responsibly. It is time to wake up. Denying and delaying is 
irresponsible. In the judgment of history, it will ultimately, I 
believe, be shameful. Carbon pollution from the burning of fossil fuels 
is altering the climate. The consensus around this fact within the 
scientific community is overwhelming, and public awareness of this 
crisis is growing stronger.
  Interestingly, it is growing stronger across party lines. Republicans 
might want to listen to this. A survey conducted for the League of 
Conservation Voters found that more than half of young Republican 
voters, 53 percent of Republicans under the age of 35--53 percent would 
describe a politician who denies climate change is happening as 
``ignorant,'' ``out-of-touch,'' or ``crazy.'' Madam President, 53 
percent of Republicans under 35 view that kind of climate denying as 
``ignorant,'' ``out-of-touch,'' or ``crazy.''
  Even though a majority of young Republicans understands that denying 
climate change is out of touch with reality, Republicans in Congress 
refuse to get serious. Why? Another national survey, this one by the 
Pew Research Center, found that 61 percent of non-tea-party Republicans 
actually agree there is solid evidence the Earth is warming, with a 
plurality saying it is mostly because of humans. But the tea partiers 
are different. Seventy percent of tea partiers, contrarily, say there 
is ``no solid evidence'' the Earth is warming and 41 percent of tea 
partiers assert that warming is ``just not happening.'' Not that we 
don't have enough information yet, but it is ``just not happening.''
  Regardless of what you think is the cause, there are legion 
independent measurements that the Earth is warming. This is not a 
theory. We measure that the temperature of the atmosphere and oceans is 
rising. We measure that snow, ice caps, and glaciers are melting. We 
measure that seas are rising. We measure that the very seasons are 
shifting.
  It is one thing to be the party that is against science. The tea 
partiers would make it the party against measurement. Just as the tea 
partiers led the Republicans off the government shutdown cliff, just as 
the tea partiers tried to defeat the budget deal most Republicans 
supported, so the tea party wants to lead the Republican Party off the 
climate cliff.
  Outside these walls it is different. Responsible Republican voices 
more and more acknowledge the threat of climate change and call for 
responsible solutions. Many want to correct the market failure that 
aids and abets the polluters' irresponsible practices.
  My colleagues, Representative Henry Waxman, Representative Earl 
Blumenauer, Senator Brian Schatz, and I have put forward just such a 
market-based proposal, a revenue-neutral fee on carbon emissions, the 
revenues of which would be returned back to the American people. Here, 
within Congress, where the polluters' money flows so abundantly, no 
Republican colleague has come forward to join us. But outside of 
Congress here are some of the responsible voices in the Republican 
Party: Former South Carolina Representative Bob Inglis has long urged 
his party to get serious on climate change. In an article in the Duke 
Environmental Law & Policy Forum this year, Mr. Inglis invoked the 
tenets of conservative economics. He wrote:

       If you're a conservative, it is time to step forward and 
     engage in the climate and energy debate because we have the 
     answer--free enterprise. . . . Conservatives understand that 
     we must set the correct incentives and this should include 
     internalizing pollution and other environmental costs in our 
     market system. We tax income but we don't tax emissions. It 
     makes sense to conservatives to take the tax off something 
     you want more of, income, and shift the tax to something you 
     want less of, emissions.

  That was Bob Inglis and that is exactly how you use his words 
``internalize pollution and other environmental costs in our market 
system.'' You do it with a carbon fee.
  Sherwood Boehlert and Wayne Gilchrest, former Republican 
Representatives from New York and Virginia, in a joint February 2012 op 
ed with Representative Waxman and Senator Markey, made the fiscal case 
for a carbon fee. Here is what they said:

       The debate over how to reduce our nation's debt has been 
     presented as a dilemma between cutting spending on programs 
     Americans cherish or raising taxes on American job creators. 
     But there is a better way: We could slash our debt by making 
     power plants and oil refineries pay for the carbon emissions 
     that endanger our health and environment. This policy would 
     strengthen our economy, lessen our dependence on foreign

[[Page 19268]]

     oil, keep our skies clean--and raise a lot of revenue. The 
     best approach [they continue] would be to use a market 
     mechanism such as the sale of carbon allowances or a fee on 
     carbon pollution to lower emissions and increase revenue.

  For one former Republican Member of this body, the threat of climate 
change has serious professional implications. As Secretary of Defense, 
it is Chuck Hagel's job to account for all hazards to our national 
security and our interests in the world. He gave this clear-eyed 
assessment at the Halifax International Security Forum just last month:

       Climate change does not directly cause conflict, but it can 
     significantly add to the challenges of global instability, 
     hunger, poverty, and conflict. Food and water shortages, 
     pandemic disease, disputes over refugees and resources, more 
     severe natural disasters--all place additional burdens on 
     economies, societies, and institutions around the world. . . 
     . The effects of climate change and new energy resources are 
     far-reaching and unpredictable . . . demanding our attention 
     and strategic thinking.

  Top advisers to former Republican Presidents have joined this chorus 
of Republicans speaking out on climate and urging a carbon fee. 
Republican Presidents listened to these men and women. Who knows, maybe 
Republican Members of Congress will listen to them also.
  William D. Ruckelshaus, Lee M. Thomas, William K. Reilly, and 
Christine Todd Whitman, all headed the Environmental Protection Agency 
during Republican administrations. They spoke with one voice in an 
August New York Times op-ed. They wrote:

       As administrators of the EPA under Presidents Richard M. 
     Nixon, Ronald Reagan, George Bush and George W. Bush, we held 
     fast to common-sense conservative principles--protecting the 
     health of the American people, working with the best 
     technology available, and trusting in the innovation of 
     American business and in the market to find the best 
     solutions for the least cost.

  These former Republican officials recognize both the wisdom of 
properly pricing carbon and, as well, the obstinate opposition that 
stands in the way of progress in Congress. They continued in their 
article:

       A market-based approach, like a carbon tax, would be the 
     best path to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but that is 
     unachievable in the current political gridlock in Washington. 
     But we must continue efforts to reduce the climate-altering 
     pollutants that threaten our planet. The only uncertainty 
     about our warming world is how bad the changes will get and 
     how soon. What is most clear is that there is no time to 
     waste.

  They could even have said that it is time to wake up.
  George Schultz, another prominent Republican, served as Secretary of 
both Labor and Treasury under President Nixon and Secretary of State 
under President Reagan. He, too, is calling for an end to the 
polluters' free ride.
  In an April op-ed with Nobel economist Gary Becker that appeared in 
RealClearPolitics, George Schultz appealed to our American sense of 
fairness writing:

       Americans like to compete on a level playing field. All the 
     players should have an equal opportunity to win based on 
     their competitive merits, not on some artificial imbalance 
     that gives someone or some group a special advantage. We 
     think this idea should be applied to energy producers. They 
     all should bear the full costs of the use of the energy they 
     provide.

  Let me repeat that:

       They all should bear the full costs of the use of the 
     energy they provide . . . Clearly, a revenue-neutral carbon 
     tax would benefit all Americans by eliminating the need for 
     costly energy subsidies while promoting a level playing field 
     for energy producers.

  Veterans of a much more recent Republican administration are likewise 
acknowledging the appeal of a carbon fee proposal.
  David Frum, speechwriter to George W. Bush, wrote in a December 2012 
cnn.com op-ed that a carbon fee could help address a number of pressing 
national issues. Here is what he wrote:

       Take three worrying long-term challenges: climate change, 
     the weak economic recovery, and America's chronic budget 
     deficits. Combine them into one. And suddenly three tough 
     problems become one attractive solution. Tax carbon. . . . 
     The revenues from a carbon tax could be used to reduce the 
     deficit while also extending new forms of payroll tax relief 
     to middle-class families, thus supporting middle-class family 
     incomes.

  Gregory Mankiw, economic adviser to George W. Bush and Mitt Romney, 
specifically highlighted our carbon fee proposal in an August op-ed in 
the New York Times. Our bill, he wrote, ``is more effective and less 
invasive than the regulatory approach that the federal government has 
traditionally pursued.''
  Speaking of us, he said:

       If the Democratic sponsors conceded to using the new 
     revenue to reduce personal and corporate income tax rates, a 
     bipartisan compromise is possible to imagine. Among 
     economists, the issue is largely a no-brainier.
       I say to Mr. Mankiw, as one of the Democratic sponsors, we 
     are very interested in a bipartisan compromise. We just need 
     a Republican to come to the negotiating table and we can 
     begin. That is what the American people want, what voters 
     want, and it is what responsible State and local leaders want 
     as well.

  Take, for example, Jim Brainard, a five-term Republican mayor from 
Carmel, IN. In an Indianapolis Star op-ed this month, Mayor Brainard 
implored Democrats and Republicans alike to face up to the reality of 
climate change. Here is what Mayor Brainard said:

       [T]his issue isn't just about saving polar bears. It's 
     about saving our cities. . . . No matter your politics, there 
     is overwhelming evidence of climate change and we as a nation 
     have a moral obligation to address these issues.

  For himself, he says he plans ``to urge the federal government to 
take a stronger leadership role in helping our cities prepare for what 
is certainly coming our way.''
  There are a lot of Republicans out there who are awake to the threat 
of climate change and to the win-win-benefits of pricing carbon and 
using the revenues to invest in tax reductions and adaptation and other 
ways to protect ourselves and advance our economy.
  Unfortunately, in Congress, the dark, heavy hand of the polluters is 
helping the tea party drive the Republican party off the cliff. One day 
the Republican Party will pay a heavy price for this, and that day may 
be soon. They need to make the change.
  It is the responsibility of Congress to heed the warnings of 
environmental calamity, to stamp out market distortions that favor 
polluters, and to steer this country on a prudent, reasonable path 
toward a proud future that is both sustainable and equitable. It is 
time for Congress to wake up.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Donnelly). The Senator from Ohio.

                          ____________________