[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 7204-7208]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           FACING THE ISSUES

  Mrs. BOXER. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are focused 
on several issues, which they call scandals. I would like to address 
those and then talk about issues that seem to be falling through the 
cracks while they focus on ``gotcha'' politics; they are going to get 
the President.
  I think we will start with the IRS. It is wrong to target any group 
for scrutiny whether they are on the right or on the left, if it is a 
tea party group or a liberal church. We have seen this with the IRS 
over the years. As a matter of fact, I looked back to see how many of 
my Republican friends stood up and talked about going after the IRS and 
straightening them out when they went after the NAACP or when they went 
after a liberal church in Pasadena in Congressman Schiff's district. 
The fact is they got exercised when they went after the tea party. OK. 
I hear you. I am with you. What is important is so is the President.
  If this President says: I agree with you, they say: We didn't hear 
you.
  They just want to fight. I have friends where sometimes we are having 
a debate, and all of a sudden a bright light goes on and I will say, 
you know what, I think you are right. Sometimes they keep on arguing.
  The President said this is an outrage, and he has already made sure 
people are being fired. We are going to make sure we straighten things 
out at the IRS.
  Let's focus on how to fix it, not how to make it into a ``gotcha'' 
political issue. We also have Republican outrage over the Justice 
Department seeking the phone records of the Associated Press.
  I, myself, believe freedom of the press is one of the most important 
freedoms we have. I don't like to see phone records of reporters 
subpoenaed in secret.
  I was once a reporter and had a lot of confidential sources. I wrote 
for a very good weekly magazine called the PacificSun. I did indepth 
stories on all kinds of issues. People would talk to me, and they knew 
I would never say who they were and who was giving background.
  The thought of having the government take a look at these records 
without telling the press is bad. Guess what. The President agrees it 
is bad. The President said we need a law, a media shield law. Guess 
what else. We had a vote on this in 2008. It was 51 to 43 with all 
Democrats supporting the media shield law and all Republicans, save 5, 
voting to filibuster, so the bill was killed.
  How do they then say this is horrible when they themselves, 
Republicans, blocked us from protecting the media?
  I believe this is an important issue we should work on together, but 
it shouldn't be made into a political ``gotcha.'' We should fix it and 
move on. Let's take up a media shield law again. This time the 
Republicans shouldn't filibuster since they are all over this question, 
and let's get going.
  Then we look at Benghazi. I am on the Foreign Relations Committee. I 
sit next to the chairman. I sat next to John Kerry. I sat through all 
the hearings where Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State, said: This 
was a tragedy. These were my friends who were killed. I take full 
responsibility.
  She ordered an independent investigation. It came back and guess what 
it said. We need to spend more defending our outposts.
  Guess who started cutting embassy security, who initiated it. The 
Republicans in the House.
  I think if they are looking to blame someone, why don't they look in 
the mirror for starters.
  Again, let's fix the problem. I am supporting a bill that will 
authorize funding for key items identified by the independent review 
board Secretary Clinton put together. It will deal with a number of 
pieces they recommend. It requires, among others, detailed reports from 
the State Department on how they are progressing toward implementing 
the recommendations, and it

[[Page 7205]]

requires the identification of the most high-security threats.
  I understand why we would look at losing four brave Americans as a 
tragedy. It is a tragedy. Don't politicize it.
  Where were the Republicans when we lost 4,000 Americans in Iraq, 
injured 10 times as many. Where were they? Where was their indignation 
at that? Based on false premises, that war was a war of choice, not a 
war of necessity.
  We have all of this swirling around Washington and we look at the 
American people and we say what is it they want us to do. Sure, we 
should conduct oversight. I am all for it. Let's solve those problems, 
but let's move to the issues that matter.
  I will tell you what matters most in California: jobs, jobs, jobs, 
the economy, the economy, the economy. We just moved off a double-digit 
unemployment rate. For the first time in a long time we are below 10 
percent. It means we have to keep our eye on this economy. We have to 
make the investments that matter. Restore some of the mindless cuts 
that were made with the sequester while we see this deficit going down.
  That is another point. All the howling from the Republicans about how 
this President doesn't care about deficit reduction, we are witnessing 
deficit reduction. We are witnessing the housing market come back. We 
are witnessing a lot of good. Just think of what we could witness if we 
came together, sat down with this President and inked a whole new plan 
for this economy, for deficit reduction.
  We have to do the farm bill. We just did the water resources bill. 
Let the House get it done. We did the Marketplace Fairness Act. Let the 
House get it done.
  Republicans, I say to them--they are not here--rhetorically, help us 
pass a budget. They are blocking the budget. They went around the 
country campaigning against Democrats saying we didn't pass a budget. 
Then we passed a budget and now they will not finish the job, which 
means making sure we get conferees appointed. Bring the two bills 
together, the House and the Senate, compromise on that, and get the 
budget done. There is no budget. They will not let us do it.
  Endlessly, they bash the President. Immigration reform, my colleagues 
are doing an incredible job in the Judiciary Committee, very 
difficult--sensible gun laws, background checks, things that matter to 
people.
  Working on the farm bill, I hope we get it done this week. Last time 
it died in the House. I have a message for my House friends. Please, do 
your oversight but do something for the people that they are asking us 
to do. Get a budget, get a farm bill, get a Marketplace Fairness Act. 
Work on restoring the mindless cuts so we can have more jobs. These are 
the things that have to be done. Background checks. We didn't get it 
here. It was very close. It would be great if they did something in the 
House.
  This week I believe we are voting on Richard Cordray to head the 
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. We have to protect the middle 
class.
  Today I read the paper about some new instrument that has been 
thought of by Wall Street that would go to people and say give us the 
proceeds of your pension plan, and we will give you a lump sum. Maybe 
that is great, but it sounds risky to me. We need someone who is out 
there protecting the consumers, particularly in banking and housing. I 
hope we get Richard Cordray done.
  I thought Senator Menendez was brilliant the way he explained why 
Thomas Perez deserves to be head of Department of Labor.
  I wish to spend a couple of minutes on Gina McCarthy. She has a 
history of bipartisanship. She worked for not one, not two, not three 
but four Republican Governors: Republican Governor of Connecticut Jodi 
Rell, Republican Governor of Massachusetts Paul Cellucci, Republican 
Governor of Massachusetts Jane Swift, Republican Governor of 
Massachusetts Mitt Romney. She worked for four Republican Governors. 
She is not enough qualified for my friends on the other side. She was 
confirmed here without a dissenting vote for her current position. What 
more do they want? She worked for four Republicans and one Democrat, 
Barack Obama. What more do they want?
  This is what Christie Todd Whitman said about the Republican boycott: 
They walked out. They have since returned to the table. I was happy, 
but when they walked out of that meeting, they didn't come to the 
meeting, and we couldn't mark her up the first time we tried. She said: 
They looked like sore losers when they walked out. If they don't object 
to the person and what they have done in the past, and they don't with 
Gina, then they have even less grounds to hold up this nominee.
  Jane Swift, who was a former Republican Governor of Massachusetts, 
said it was disgraceful.
  I don't get it. Ms. McCarthy answered 1,000 of their questions. Then 
when I approach my friends on the other side and say, you asked her a 
thousand questions, their answer was: Well, we only cared about five. 
Then why did you ask her a thousand questions? She had to sit there, 
exhausted, answering every single question.
  Now Senator Vitter says I don't know what I will do. I might let it 
go and not filibuster, but then I might filibuster or I might wind up 
voting for her. Well, you know, the time for all this contemplation has 
passed. The woman is qualified. The President deserves his Cabinet, he 
deserves an EPA Administrator. He made a bipartisan choice in Gina. 
Gina was brilliant when we had our hearing. Enough already. Please, it 
is time to have a vote up or down on Gina McCarthy.
  We have a lot of work to do. I mentioned a few. How about the latest 
threat from the Republicans? They decided they are not sure they are 
going to raise the debt ceiling so they now have a bill where they lay 
out who would get paid first when we default on our debt. And guess 
what, America: It is not you. It is China. Before we pay America's 
business or American bondholders, we are going to pay China.
  So when you look at where we are going with this debt ceiling, the 
last time they held it up it cost us $19 billion--$19 billion over 10 
years--because they played games, even though when Ronald Reagan was 
President he said: Don't even go there. Of course, I am paraphrasing. 
But he said even the thought of not raising the debt ceiling and not 
paying our debts is dangerous for our Nation.
  Yet now the Republicans have a bill that we call ``Pay China First.'' 
That is what it is about. They would pay China and other foreign 
bondholders before we pay our troops, our disabled and retired 
veterans, doctors and hospitals that treat Medicare patients, and 
before we pay American businesses that are contractors.
  I understand they had a meeting to discuss this further, and they 
were so excited about it--what hostages they could hold--they talked 
about proposals that threaten a woman's right to choose, tax breaks for 
the wealthy, and repealing ObamaCare. They have already tried it 37 
times. And cutting Medicare.
  What are they thinking over there? Pay our bills. Don't let this 
country's credit be downgraded again.
  I tell you something, if that is what they do, they do not deserve to 
get their salary. I have a bill that would say if we default on our 
obligations by not raising the debt ceiling we should give up our pay. 
I don't know what they are doing over there other than playing 
politics, and it is dangerous.
  We know they do not care for our President, but he is the President. 
Show a little respect for the office. Show a little respect for what he 
has on his shoulders. Show a little respect for what he has already 
accomplished, and accept the fact that when there is trouble he doesn't 
hide in the corner. He says: You are right, I want to fix it. Let's fix 
it together.


                             Climate Change

  I have gone over just some of the issues we have to look at, but I am 
going to close with one very big issue that no one, except a handful of 
Senators, seems to care about, and that is climate change.
  I have to say it is shocking to me that as this planet enters a 
planetary

[[Page 7206]]

emergency, where we are as close as we can be to carbon concentrations 
of almost 400 parts per million, which is the danger zone, I still 
don't see anyone here saying to me, as chairman of the Environment and 
Public Works Committee, let's get a bill to the floor. Oh, no. Oh, no. 
So we are burning up.
  I am going to read a little bit from what I thought was a very well-
done piece in Politico, and I am going to read parts of it, but I ask 
unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the entire Politico 
article I am about to read from.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                   [From Politico Pro, May 10, 2013]

         Scientists Alarmed As CO2 Passes Threshold

                         (By Andrew Restuccia)

       The amount of heat-trapping carbon dioxide in the 
     atmosphere passed a symbolic milestone this week, scientists 
     announced Friday, reaching levels that haven't prevailed on 
     the Earth since long before human civilization began.
       The long-expected announcement by the National Oceanic and 
     Atmospheric Administration--that CO2 
     concentrations had finally hit 400 parts per million at a key 
     measuring station in Hawaii--means little by itself. But it's 
     a sign that time is slipping away to head off or lessen the 
     rising sea levels, worsening storms, species die-offs and 
     other fallout from global warming, scientists and climate 
     activists warned.
       Still, there are few signs that Washington will emerge from 
     its deep snooze on the issue.
       Congress remains unable to pass serious legislation to 
     tackle climate change. Efforts to reach a major binding 
     international climate change treaty have sputtered. And while 
     the Obama administration has made some strides in lowering 
     greenhouse gas emissions, including increasing fuel-
     efficiency standards for cars, climate experts say much more 
     needs to be done--and fast.
       ``We've never been here before, certainly not while human 
     beings were on the planet,'' said Melanie Fitzpatrick, 
     climate scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, 
     estimating that it's been 3 million-5 million years since the 
     planet has had such high carbon dioxide levels.
       ``The carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere is 
     like the thermostat in your house. Every time you turn it up, 
     we are essentially turning up the heat in the planet,'' said 
     Jon Hoekstra, chief scientist at the World Wildlife Fund. 
     ``We're essentially baking ourselves in, perhaps quite 
     literally.''
       NOAA said the daily mean CO2 concentration was 
     400.03 ppm on Thursday at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, the world's 
     oldest continuous carbon dioxide measurement station. That 
     was the first time the figure had crossed 400 ppm there since 
     measurements began at the site in 1958, the agency said.
       NOAA said last year that sites in the Arctic had already 
     reached 400 ppm, but measurements from the facility in Hawaii 
     are closely watched as an indicator of broader trends on the 
     planet.
       ``It's unprecedented,'' said James Butler, director of the 
     Global Monitoring Division of NOAA's Earth System Research 
     Laboratory. ``Hitting 400 is just saying, `Folks, we haven't 
     addressed this yet.'''
       Butler said the planet hasn't seen atmospheric levels of 
     carbon dioxide this high since the Pliocene era, between 2.5 
     million and 5 million years ago. He said the global average 
     temperature will probably reach 400 ppm in one or two years.
       Scientists warn that continued increases could result in 
     catastrophe. A federal report released earlier this year, for 
     example, said 5 million Americans living in low-lying areas 
     could be affected by sea-level rise in the coming decades.
       And global emissions appear poised to continue soaring. Not 
     only has the CO2 concentration risen over the 
     decades, NOAA said, but the rate of increase has been 
     accelerating--``from about 0.7 ppm per year in the late 1950s 
     to 2.1 ppm per year during the last 10 years.''
       ``Before the Industrial Revolution in the 19th century, 
     global average CO2 was about 280 ppm,'' NOAA said 
     in a statement Friday. ``During the last 800,000 years, 
     CO2 fluctuated between about 180 ppm during ice 
     ages and 280 ppm during interglacial warm periods. Today's 
     rate of increase is more than 100 times faster than the 
     increase that occurred when the last ice age ended.''
       The surge in atmospheric carbon dioxide emissions shows 
     that federal and global policies to curb global warming 
     aren't even close to adequate, said Dan Lashof, director of 
     the climate and clean air program at the National Resources 
     Defense Council.
       ``It's a very black and white record of what we're doing to 
     the atmosphere. The bottom line for climate policy can be 
     measured by the CO2 concentration we're observing 
     in the atmosphere,'' Lashof said.
       Bill McKibben, founder of 350.org--an activist group that 
     has led the call for lowering carbon dioxide in the 
     atmosphere to 350 ppm--called the measurement ``one more grim 
     milestone.''
       ``Somewhere between 350 and 400 ppm the Arctic melted, and 
     the ocean turned 30 percent more acidic,'' he said. ``And the 
     country's political leaders took no action even remotely 
     commensurate with the scale of the crisis. Let's hope we can 
     build this movement strong enough that that changes before we 
     add another 50 ppm.''
       Environmental groups used the 400 ppm milestone to revive 
     their long-standing demands for action.
       ``What we're looking at is really an opportunity for a 
     wake-up call for people,'' Fitzpatrick said. ``We really need 
     to come up with solutions. And they're out there. We just 
     need to implement them.''
       But bitter partisanship in Washington has proven that 
     policymakers face massive hurdles in their push to tackle the 
     problem. Brad Johnson, campaign manager of the climate 
     activist group Forecast the Facts, painted a bleak picture of 
     the political landscape.
       ``We must respond with urgent resolve to end this 
     uncontrolled experiment on our only home,'' he said in a 
     statement. ``Yet the Republican Party maintains climate 
     change denial as a central tenet of their party platform, and 
     President Obama refuses to admit the threat projects like the 
     Keystone XL tar-sands pipeline pose to our future survival.''
       Still, some expressed hope that recent events like the 
     droughts that hammered much of the country and Hurricane 
     Sandy will build support for action.
       ``At what point do we as a society say this is more than we 
     can put up with?'' Hoekstra asked.

  Mrs. BOXER. This is from an article dated May 10 from Politico:

       The amount of heat-trapping carbon dioxide in the 
     atmosphere passed a symbolic milestone this week, scientists 
     announced Friday, reaching levels that haven't prevailed on 
     the Earth since long before human civilization began.

  Let me say that again. Is anybody listening to this? Scientists said:

       The amount of heat-trapping carbon in the atmosphere passed 
     a symbolic milestone this week, reaching levels that haven't 
     prevailed on the Earth since long before human civilization 
     began.

  Do you know who said that? NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration.

       . . . CO2 concentrations had finally hit 400 
     parts per million at a key measuring station in Hawaii. . . . 
     Still, there are few signs that Washington will emerge from 
     its deep snooze on the issue.

  How right on. They are all sleeping, except for a handful of us. Wake 
up to this.

       Congress remains unable to pass serious legislation to 
     tackle climate change.

  Melanie Fitzpatrick, climate scientist at the Union of Concerned 
Scientists, was quoted in the article saying:

       . . . it's been 3 million to 5 million years since the 
     planet has had such high carbon dioxide levels. We've never 
     been here before, certainly not while human beings were on 
     the planet.

  She goes on. Oh, no, this is Jon Hoekstra of the Wildlife Fund.

       The carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere is like 
     the thermostat in your house. Every time you turn it up, we 
     are essentially turning up the heat in the planet.

  James Butler, Director of Global Monitoring of NOAA's Earth System 
Research Lab, was quoted as saying:

       It is unprecedented. Hitting 400 is just like saying, 
     ``Folks, we haven't addressed this yet.'' The planet hasn't 
     seen atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide this high since the 
     Pliocene era, between 2.5 million and 5 million years ago. 
     The global average temperature will reach 400 parts per 
     million in 1 or 2 years.

  The article continues:

       Scientists warn that continued increase could result in 
     catastrophe. . . . 5 million Americans living in low-lying 
     areas who could be affected by sea level rise.

  It goes on and on. Hoekstra ends his quote with:

       At what point as a society do we say this is more than we 
     can put up with?

  I will tell you why we are not doing anything. Special interest: Big 
oil, big coal, big polluters. They do not want to address this. For 
their short-term profit they do not to want address this. It is sad, 
the control they have here. Special interests have a lot of control, 
whether it is the NRA stopping us from doing something 90 percent of 
the people want, such as background checks, or it is big polluters--big 
polluters who don't want us to do anything about this issue for their 
short-term benefit.
  When they are all gone and people are suffering in our country, our

[[Page 7207]]

grandkids and great-grandkids are going to say: What was my great-
grandma thinking? What was my great-grandpa doing? We see what is 
happening in the weather. Just look out the window. We see it.
  Mr. President, I have discussed the latest scientific information 
that is available to us, including a front-page story in USA Today, on 
March 1, that spotlighted the impacts of climate change unfolding 
around us. The story was part of a year-long series called ``Why You 
Should Sweat Climate Change,'' and it described how climate disruption 
is happening all around us.
  I have also talked about a report entitled the ``2013 High Risk 
List'' that was released by the Government Accountability Office--GAO--
a government watchdog agency. That report told us how climate 
disruption and the increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather 
events, such as Superstorm Sandy, threaten our Nation's financial 
security.
  Another aspect of climate change that I have discussed is its impact 
on public health in the U.S. and China, which has experienced the 
harmful health effects from air pollution due to its rapid 
industrialization over the past few decades.
  Today I will discuss how climate disruption poses a risk to our 
national security in several ways. It has serious implications on 
national security planning, it places additional burdens on the U.S. 
military, and it affects our military readiness.
  We have been told by a number of military leaders and defense 
experts, such as former Secretary of State George Schultz under 
President Reagan, that climate change is a fact and we must address it 
as a national security priority.
  It is a priority that we simply cannot ignore. An open letter was 
signed by 38 former high-ranking Republicans, Democrats, and 
Independents--including 17 former Senators and Congress members, 9 
retired generals and admirals, and Cabinet officials from the Nixon, 
Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush (41), Clinton, and Bush (43) 
administrations. The letter was turned into an ad highlighting that.
  Look at this chart.
  ``The cost of inaction will be staggering.'' This is a February 25, 
2013, Partnership for a Secure America ad.
  Some of our most senior military leaders have already told us that 
climate disruption will have significant impacts on national security.
  According to the Chief of U.S. Pacific forces:
  The significant upheaval from climate change `is probably the most 
likely thing . . . that will cripple the security environment . . . 
Navy Admiral Samuel J. Locklear, III, ``Chief of US Pacific forces 
calls climate biggest worry,''
  That is from the Boston Globe, March 9, 2013.
  There are a broad range of risks associated with the impacts of 
climate change, such as drought and lack of drinking water supplies, 
which can contribute to military crises around the world. These threats 
must be factored into our national security planning and operations.
  According to President Obama's National Security Advisor, the 
environmental impacts of climate change are clear:
  [T]he danger from climate change is real, urgent, and severe. The 
change wrought by a warming planet will lead to new conflicts over 
refugees and resources; new suffering from drought and famine; 
catastrophic natural disasters; and the degradation of land across the 
globe.
  That is from Tom Donilon, National Security Advisor, April 24, 2013.
  In March, the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, 
reported to the Senate that climate change and extreme weather will 
create water scarcity, disrupt food supplies, and harm energy 
infrastructure in ways that will raise global risks of instability and 
aggravated regional tensions.
  This is from the March 12, 2013, Worldwide Threat Assessment of the 
U.S. Intelligence Community, report to the Senate Select Committee on 
Intelligence.
  While climate change alone does not cause conflict, it can accelerate 
instability, increase the threat of international military crises, and 
hinder our ability to combat terrorism. According to the Department of 
Defense's Defense Science Board:
  Climate change effects, particularly those related to water and food 
and security, can erode the legitimacy of fragile states and create 
conditions terrorists and extremists seek to exploit. Therefore, they 
are significant factors in combating terrorism.
  This is from ``Trends and Implications of Climate Change for National 
and International Security,'' Department of Defense's Defense Science 
Board, October 2011.
  Climate disruption is also placing an additional burden on our 
military, because it impacts the type of missions that must be planned 
for and undertaken. Climate change is increasing the frequency and 
intensity of extreme weather events, and when a weather disaster 
occurs, our Armed Forces mobilize to provide humanitarian assistance to 
local communities and families in need.
  We saw this happen with Superstorm Sandy, which wiped out entire 
communities in just a few hours. In response, our soldiers came to the 
rescue of people on the east coast who were impacted by Sandy's storm 
surge. These types of humanitarian missions--whether it is in the U.S. 
or overseas--place additional burdens on our brave men and women in 
uniform.
  Disasters such as Sandy that harm our civilian infrastructure, such 
as airports, ports, and electric grids, also create national security 
issues, because they can affect military readiness.
  In addition to civilian infrastructure, Superstorm Sandy caused 
tremendous damage to our military facilities. A portion of the $60 
billion Sandy emergency relief package that Congress passed earlier 
this year went toward repairing and replacing damaged Federal military 
assets, including: Fort Dix in New Jersey; Norfolk Naval Station in 
Virginia; Dover Air Force Base in Delaware; and the Coast Guard Academy 
campus in Connecticut.
  The U.S. military has almost 300,000 buildings valued at $590 
billion--much of which is at risk because of climate change. In 
January, DoD stated:
  In many ways, coastal military installations have been on the front 
lines of climate change.
  In fact, 10 percent of DoD coastal installations and facilities are 
located at or near sea level. According to the National Intelligence 
Council, more than 30 U.S. military installations were already facing 
elevated risks from storm surges and rising sea levels. These 
installations include
  Eglin Air Force base, located on the Gulf of Mexico in the Florida 
panhandle--this facility faces storm surges and sea level rise; and
  Norfolk Naval Station and the neighboring Newport News shipyard--the 
location where we build aircraft carriers. These facilities are also 
threatened by storm surges and sea level rise.
  The U.S. military is not alone in viewing climate change as a threat. 
A recent study found that over 70 percent of nations surveyed around 
the world view climate change as a national security threat.
  This is from the American Security Project: Global Security Defense 
Index on Climate Change, March 21, 2013.
  Countries around the world recognize that climate change is a 
national security threat, but it is the U.S. military that must take a 
leading role. As one of America's retired military leaders, former U.S. 
Navy Vice Admiral Lee Gunn, stated:
  Climate Change poses a clear and present danger to the United States 
of America . . . The imperative, then, is for leadership and action on 
a global scale. The United States must act. The United States must 
lead.
  This is from the November 1, 2012, ``Climate Change and the 
Homeland,'' American Security Project.
  I could not agree more. We must follow the analysis and advice of our 
Nation's military leaders and national security experts to protect the 
American people by addressing the dangerous threat posed by climate 
disruption.

[[Page 7208]]

  I want to show a few charts about what people are saying, and then I 
will stop.
  ``The cost of inaction will be staggering.'' This ran in March.

       The effects of climate change in the world's most 
     vulnerable regions present a serious threat to American 
     national security. Countries least able to adapt to or 
     mitigate the impacts of climate change will suffer the most, 
     but the resulting crisis will quickly become a burden on U.S. 
     priorities. Both the Department of Defense and State 
     Department have identified climate change as a serious risk 
     to American security and an agent of instability.

  This is a very bipartisan group. It is actually mostly Republicans on 
this, of people saying do something about this. Our national security 
is at stake.
  When there are refugees who are run out of their country, what is 
going to happen to the world? There already are climate refugees. There 
is a movie called ``Climate Refugees.''
  ``Danger from climate change is real, urgent and severe.''

       The change wrought by a warming planet will lead to new 
     conflicts over refugees and resources; new suffering from 
     drought and famine; catastrophic natural disasters; and the 
     degradation of land across the globe.

  That is a quote from Tom Donilon, National Security Adviser. So this 
is a national security issue.
  How could the polluters have so much power to overwhelm our national 
security people? But that is where it is. That is where it is.
  ``Climate change can hinder ability to combat terrorism.''

       Climate change effects, particularly those related to water 
     and food and security . . . can create conditions terrorists 
     and extremists seek to exploit. Therefore, they are 
     significant factors in combating terrorism.

  That was the Department of Defense, October 2011. Department of 
Defense. National security advisers. The CIA has been telling us this 
for a long time. We have to act. We have to act.
  I have to say there are a number of my colleagues here--a small 
number--who feel the way I do. We are all pushing hard. Senator Sanders 
and I have a bill, the Sanders-Boxer bill, that would put a price on 
carbon. Carbon could cost us the planet. The least we can do is put a 
little charge on it so people move to clean energy--clean energy.
  Take the issue of the Keystone Pipeline. It is a big controversy. 
People say, let's just do it. Well, you ought to see what will come out 
of that in terms of carbon pollution. It will undo all the good we did 
from fuel economy. And the oil won't stay here. They have a waste 
disposal problem with it. But it is a little bit inconvenient.
  Remember when Vice President Gore wrote the book ``Inconvenient 
Truth.'' It is a little inconvenient for us. We don't want to know 
about it because it is hard to deal with. But we can do it.
  In California, we are beginning to see more and more solar rooftops, 
more and more clean power, and the jobs that are coming with it are 
extraordinary. We can do this. This is the greatest Nation in the 
world, but we are kind of held hostage to the big polluters. We have to 
say that we have to act for the safety of the people.
  We are hearing it. We are hearing it from our national defense 
department, we are hearing it from George Shultz, who was the former 
Secretary of State under President Reagan. He says it is a national 
priority that shouldn't be ignored. Cabinet officials from the Nixon, 
Ford, Carter, Reagan, and Bush--41 from Clinton and 43 from Bush--wrote 
a letter to us. And Navy ADM Samuel Locklear, III, Chief of U.S. 
Pacific Forces, calls climate ``our biggest worry.''
  That is what he said.

       The significant upheaval climate change ``is probably the 
     most likely thing . . . that will cripple the security 
     environment. . . . ''

  This is a Navy man.

       There are a broad range of risks associated with the 
     impacts of climate change, such as drought and lack of 
     drinking water supplies, which can contribute to military 
     crises around the world.

  This is what the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, 
said:

       . . . extreme weather will create water scarcity, disrupt 
     food supplies, and harm energy infrastructure in ways that 
     will raise the global risks of instability and aggravated 
     regional tensions.

  It goes on. The entire national defense establishment is speaking 
with one voice. We also wanted them to tell us what would happen to our 
military facilities. Many of them--300,000 buildings valued at $590 
billion are at risk because of climate change. Those are coastal 
military installations.
  We are dealing with a lot of infrastructure. Norfolk Naval Station, 
neighboring Newport News shipyard where they build the aircraft 
carriers, they are threatened by storm surges and sea level rise.
  I have come to the floor now three or four times to keep raising 
these different issues. Tonight I am talking about national security, 
but we also saw terrible tornadoes in Oklahoma--horrible. I send my 
condolences to the people who lost loved ones. This is climate change. 
This is climate change. We were warned about extreme weather--not just 
hot weather but extreme weather.
  When I had the gavel years ago--it has been a while--the scientists 
started to agree that we would start to see extreme weather. People 
said: What do you mean? Do you mean it is going to get hot? Yes, it is 
going to get hot, but we are also going to have snow in the summer in 
some places. We are going to have terrible storms and tornadoes and all 
the rest.
  We need to protect our people. That is our No. 1 obligation. We have 
to deal with this threat that is upon us. It is going to get worse and 
worse through the years.
  I certainly hope--and I pray over it--that people will wake up to 
this and we will start to have support for moving together and at the 
end of the day it is a win-win-win. We will help save our planet. We 
will create good-paying jobs right here in America as we move toward 
clean energy. We will see fewer people with asthma, and we will have a 
more healthy population.
  At the end of the day we will help those in the transition who have 
to pay a little bit more for their energy. We have it all figured out, 
how to do that, and no one will be hurt. But right now--I am a very 
straight from the shoulder person--I can tell you it is not happening, 
but I feel an obligation to my grandkids to be here every Monday I can 
be here to put in the Record the problems we are facing.

                          ____________________