[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3982-4086]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                            MORNING BUSINESS

                                 ______
                                 

                             CLIMATE CHANGE

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, just last week one of the world's most well-
known spiritual leaders, His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet, 
visited the Capitol. He talked about the moral imperative to protect 
the planet we call home. The Dalai Lama spoke with passion and longing 
of his native Tibet, where mountain snows melt in spring to feed the 
rivers to provide Bangladesh, China, India, Nepal, and Pakistan with 
water.
  The Himalayas are sometimes called the ``third pole'' because they 
contain nearly a third of the world's nonpolar ice. But in recent 
years, manmade climate change has caused milder winters, less snow, and 
less water for 1.3 billion people living downstream from Tibet.
  In the Western United States we face a similar problem. For more than 
a decade drought has plagued the Colorado River, both upstream and 
downstream--the lifeblood of a number of Western States, including 
Nevada, California, Arizona, and other States.
  During this period of time, we have had some so-called average snows 
in the Upper Colorado but none of it reaches the river. The climate has 
changed. Milder winters have meant less Rocky Mountain snowpack and 
less spring runoff to feed the river. Combined with more extreme summer 
heat and other issues connected with climate change, the shrinking 
western snowpack threatens the water source for more than 30 million 
people. Far more than 30 million people, because 38 million people in 
California are affected very adversely because of what is going on with 
the Colorado River.
  The seriousness of this climate problem is not lost on the average 
American. The vast majority of Americans believe climate change is 
real. They believe it is here.
  A quarter century ago the first President Bush promised to use ``the 
White House effect'' to combat the ``greenhouse effect.'' That is what 
President Bush said, but not much has happened, I am sorry to say.
  Despite overwhelming scientific evidence and overwhelming public 
opinion, climate change deniers still exist. There are lots of them. 
They exist in this country. They exist, I am sorry to say, in this 
Congress--in the House and in the Senate.
  So I am very grateful to Senator Schatz, Senator Whitehouse, and the 
chairman of the very important environmental committee, Senator Boxer, 
and many other Senators who will join this climate change debate and 
presentation tonight for standing up against the deniers.
  Climate change is real. It is here. It is time to stop acting as 
though those who ignore this crisis--for example, the oil baron Koch 
brothers and their allies in Congress--have a valid point. They don't. 
Climate change is here. Climate change has brought harsh and drastic 
situations all over our country.
  In the last few years alone, the Midwest has experienced the most 
punishing drought since the Great Depression. Wildfires have ravaged 
the West, with places burning which have never burned before. The 
mighty Mississippi nearly ran dry, and barge traffic had to be brought 
to a stop because the river wasn't deep enough for them to travel.
  While record droughts affected some parts of the United States, 
torrential rains and extreme thunderstorms struck others. Temperatures 
topped 60 degrees in Alaska in January. February brought a blanket of 
snow and ice to Atlanta, GA--the South.
  In other parts of the world, glaciers and ice sheets which have been 
frozen for tens of thousands of years are melting and melting quickly. 
Fires have consumed vast forests and monsoons and superfloods left 
millions homeless all over the world. Since this new year, the United 
Kingdom has had its wettest winter perhaps ever but far more than in 
the last 100 years. Tokyo, Japan, in a period of a little over 2 weeks, 
got 4 years' worth of snow. Australia experienced its hottest summer in 
the history of Australia.
  The vast majority of scientists say this is just the beginning of the 
ravages of our world changing. Dozens of reports from scientists around 
the globe link extreme weather to climate change, and the more extreme 
climate change gets, the more extreme the weather is going to get. 
Everyone has to understand that. It is easy to see the urgency to 
confront climate change, but this challenge is also an opportunity--and 
it truly is.
  We have the ability now to reduce our reliance on oil and other 
fossil fuels, increase our production of clean energy, and create good-
paying jobs which can never be outsourced. We have the ability to 
choose the kind of world in which we live. We have that choice.
  In Nevada we have done some good things. We have chosen clean 
renewable energy as we retire older polluting powerplants. We only have 
one left. We imported millions of tons of coal.
  I remember I was in the House of Representatives and one powerplant 
was on its way out. Al Matteucci, attorney for Nevada Power, was 
telling me that little powerplant was importing 2 million tons of coal 
a year. I said: What are you talking about? I thought, 2 million tons 
of coal? But that is the way it was, just one relatively small 
powerplant. We are no longer doing that in Nevada. We have only one 
coal-fired plant left, and we have done this by going of course to some 
natural gas, but we have done so many good things with renewable 
energy. With geothermal we finally passed California. We are the most 
productive State in the Union with geothermal energy.
  We have done other things with renewable energy. This old plant I 
just talked about, where millions of tons of coal came in every year, 
why are we getting rid of that? For lots of reasons. But one reason is 
this polluting powerplant, built on Paiute Indian land in Moapa, NV, 
about 35 miles outside of Las Vegas, during the Johnson administration 
was closed.
  Next week, a week from this coming Friday, we are going to have a 
groundbreaking on the Moapa land, where they are going to have hundreds 
and hundreds of jobs because they are going to produce huge amounts of 
energy through solar, and that energy is going to go to California. We 
have huge amounts of solar energy all over the State of Nevada and we 
are shipping it to California because California did the right thing. 
They passed a law saying by a certain period of time one-third of all 
their power must come from renewable sources. This is a progressive 
State. It is important, and we are helping them meet those demands, but 
we are also doing a lot to produce our own energy.
  I talked about this powerplant. The powerplant, Moapa, at this Indian 
reservation, is the first solar project to be built on tribal lands--
certainly in Nevada and likely in the whole country.
  The largest solar plant in the world opened last month on the Nevada-
California border, the largest one in the world. Dozens of geothermal 
wells on public lands power the cities of Reno and Sparks in northern 
Nevada. Because some of Nevada's best renewable energy resources are 
located in the rural areas, we recently completed a power line 
connecting renewable energy sources. It was part of the Obama program 
to help stimulate the economy, which certainly has done that all over 
the country, but it certainly has done it in Nevada. We have this power 
line connecting the northern part of the State and the southern State 
for the first time ever.
  What is being put into that power line? Renewable energy. Solar, 
wind, geothermal. This power line connecting renewable energy resources 
with the people and businesses that need them and making the electric 
grid more efficient is a part of what we used to talk about all the 
time, a smart grid. It is actually here. Nevada is the first place 
where we actually have Federal programs which got us the smart grid. We 
have permission to take this power line from northern Nevada to 
southern Nevada, now into the great Northwest.
  So we are doing some good work. This is what the smart grid is all 
about. Nevada has proven it is very

[[Page 3983]]

easy to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, which is good for the 
economy and good for the environment.
  But as the Dalai Lama said:

       We have the capability and the responsibility to act. But 
     we must do so before it is too late.

  He went on further to say:

       This . . . is not just a question of morality or ethics, 
     but a question of our own survival.

  I believe him.
  I ask unanimous consent that following my opening remarks the 
following Senators be recognized for up to 90 seconds in the order 
listed: Durbin, Schumer, Murray, Boxer, Whitehouse, Schatz, Feinstein, 
Wyden, Nelson, Cantwell, Cardin, Klobuchar, Udall of Colorado, Udall of 
New Mexico, Shaheen, Merkley, Bennet, Franken, Coons, Blumenthal, 
Heinrich, King, Kaine, Warren, Markey, Booker, and Gillibrand.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The assistant majority leader.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, in this Chamber we spend a lot of time 
debating how our actions will affect future generations and the 
obligations we have to leave future generations a better nation and a 
better world.
  Nowhere is this responsibility more apparent than when it comes to 
the issue of climate change. It is critical we leave our children and 
grandchildren a sustainable planet with a promising, bright future.
  We can no longer shy away from the fact that over 98 percent of all 
working climate scientists believe that human activities have led to 
climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has found 
it to be unequivocal that the world is warming due to human activities. 
The existence of manmade climate change is not a debatable issue, nor 
is it a vague or distant threat. It is a situation which requires 
serious attention immediately.
  I have heard it said there is only one major political party in the 
world which denies what I just said: the scientific evidence which 
points to climate change and the fact the world we are living in is 
changing with extreme weather patterns the life we lead and the future 
for many generations.
  I hope, during the course of this debate, if the Republican Party 
comes to the floor, they will dispute what I just said. I am calling on 
them to name any other major political party in the world which agrees 
with the proposition that they stand for, questioning whether there is 
scientific evidence supporting climate change. I believe there is, and 
I believe we should act now.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues. They did an 
amazing job on the Climate Action Task Force, particularly Senators 
Boxer and Whitehouse, who led the task force, and the indefatigable new 
Member Senator Schatz for organizing and coordinating this effort.
  The overwhelming majority of the world's scientists believe humans 
are changing the Earth's climate. Climate deniers like to claim there 
are competing stories about whether this is true, usually pushing 
polluter talking points that there is not a scientific consensus on 
climate change. We know this is utterly false, and I would pose the 
following question to my colleagues who think ``the jury is still out'' 
on climate change: If you went to 100 doctors and 98 of them said you 
were sick and should take medicine, but two told you that you were fine 
and should do nothing, what would you do?
  Climate change deniers need to wake up and realize the scientific 
diagnosis about warming the planet is real. We need to take action, 
much of which will be outlined tonight. I hope my colleagues and the 
American people are listening.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, as a member of the Senate Climate Action 
Task Force, I am very proud to join with all of our colleagues to talk 
about an action which is needed.
  Climate change is real. We have seen it in the overwhelming 
scientific evidence which is occurring today. It is not just about 
science. It is impacting all of us. We see the rise in asthma attacks. 
We see the impacts in my home State of Washington. I hear this concern 
from my constituents, and we know rising sea levels are threatening all 
of us. We see it in our rural communities where we are seeing drought. 
We are seeing it in our forests where the dry weather is turning our 
woods into kindling. We see it in our local fishing communities where 
ocean acidification is hindering our shellfish development. These 
impacts have enormous costs. They are devastating to our families and 
communities who are suffering from droughts, superstorms, and 
wildfires.
  But it is not just an environmental issue; it is not just a health 
issue. It is a budget issue. It is not just about rising temperatures; 
it is about rising costs. As chair of the Budget Committee, I can tell 
you this issue is a burden to our taxpayers. Federal disaster recovery 
spending alone has increased year after year as the number and size of 
weather-related disasters rise. These costs will continue if we don't 
act.
  Climate change is real. Unfortunately, while so many of my colleagues 
across the aisle talk about the need to address our debt to avoid 
burdening future generations, too many of these same Senators refuse to 
take action to address the climate debt we are passing on. Most 
frustrating of all, we know what can be done to fix this problem.
  We know the solutions to reduce pollution and emissions that cause 
climate change create good-paying jobs. Jobs that put money back in 
families' pockets through low-cost energy sources and increased 
efficiencies in homes. These solutions make our Nation more energy 
independent, and our businesses more globally competitive. They give us 
cleaner air and water, and protect the health of our children and 
grandchildren.
  I know that we can take these steps because I have seen it in my home 
State of Washington. In Washington, our biodiesel producers are 
replacing imported oil with clean, renewable, home-grown fuels. 
Companies like McKinstry, who have made a home in the Northwest, are 
leaders in helping cities, hospitals, and others create energy 
efficient, sustainable buildings.
  In the past, the United States has led the world in innovative ways 
to create energy, but recently we have ceded our clean energy 
leadership to countries like China and Germany because too many have 
stood in the way of making necessary investments. When we passed the 
Bipartisan Budget Act this past December, we proved that Democrats and 
Republicans can put ideology aside and work together to make progress 
on our Nation's challenges.
  Climate change is no less a challenge than any of the other issues we 
face, and we have a moral obligation to address it. As I have said, 
addressing this challenge will create good-paying jobs here at home in 
fields like pollution management, energy efficiency, and renewable 
energy goods. And best of all, we can pass a healthier planet on to our 
children.
  I'm hopeful that Republicans and Democrats can find common ground and 
come together to move us forward.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mrs. MURRAY. We know the jobs we can create with new economic 
opportunities of climate change will help bring us out of the budget 
deficits we face.
  I congratulate all of our colleagues who are here tonight to talk, 
and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, we know all Senators care deeply about 
their constituents and their families. If any one of us saw danger 
looming, we would do everything in our power to save them. Yet in the 
face of irrefutable scientific agreement, the Senate does nothing to 
make sure polluters pay for the carbon they emit, which would move us 
toward a clean energy economy and away from catastrophic climate 
change.
  Yes, there is money, big money, behind the polluters. Yes, those 
polluters

[[Page 3984]]

are raging against us with layers of lies. Yet and still the 
environment which used to be a bipartisan issue has turned truly 
bitterly partisan, but we cannot and we must not and we will not give 
in because it is our job. We must preserve our environment for our 
people, which is pretty basic.
  The deniers have given in to the power of wishful thinking, just as 
those defending cigarette addiction did.
  To those who would say let China lead, I say this is shameful. In 
China 1.2 million people died in 2010 from air pollution. That is a 
fact, not a fantasy. America doesn't sit around and wait for someone 
else to protect the health and safety and the quality of life of our 
people. It is wrong. So I am so proud tonight to stand with my resolute 
colleagues as we fight back against those polluters who would put their 
self-interests ahead of the salmon we have sworn to protect.
  Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
  The problem of carbon pollution could not be more real for my home 
State of Rhode Island. It is real for our country's future. I will be 
here in the wee hours and I will yield my time so we can compress this. 
We have a lot of Senators who want to speak in a short period of time.
  I want to yield my time and express my gratitude to Senator Schatz of 
Hawaii who has coordinated tonight's event.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. SCHATZ. I rise with 29 of my colleagues with a simple message for 
Congress and for our Nation: Climate change is real; climate change is 
caused by humans; and climate change is solvable. We will not rest 
until Congress wakes up and acts on the most pressing issue of our 
time.
  Why are we doing this? Why are we taking this particular action to 
take the floor tonight and into the morning right now? The answer is 
simple: This is the floor of the U.S. Senate, the greatest deliberative 
body in the world. This is where historically America has addressed 
some of its toughest challenges. Tonight has to be the historic 
beginning of us facing the challenge of our generation. The real 
question ought to be: Why haven't we done this sooner and, perhaps more 
pointedly, why isn't every single Member of this body down here with 
us?
  Tonight is just the beginning. We are going to continue to push 
throughout the year, and the public is with us--Independents, 
Democrats, and Republicans. Americans are calling for action. The only 
place where climate change is still an open debate is within the four 
corners of this Capitol.
  I have seen what can happen when there is a real commitment to clean 
energy and clear goals laid out. In my home State of Hawaii we set 
aggressive goals and doubled our use of clean energy in just 3 years. 
Tackling climate change is going to require the entire country working 
together.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Hawaii has 
expired.
  Mr. SCHATZ. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I thank Senator Schatz for all the work he did to put together this 
effort tonight.
  I simply want to say that when you look at the data from the National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Academy of 
Sciences, I believe you reach a blunt judgment: Climate change is the 
scientific equivalent of a speeding Mack truck. So tonight it is 
appropriate that Senators start getting into these issues with 
practical approaches. We have done our part in a bipartisan effort to 
promote hydropower. I am very pleased the President has a new approach 
in terms of dealing with wildfire, which is also bipartisan, because 
fires we are seeing are getting bigger and hotter, and there are steps 
we can take to deal with those urgent problems. This evening is all 
about sensible action.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, one of the places that is threatened most 
is a low-lying area such as Bangladesh, but do you know what area is 
threatened most in the Continental United States? The Miami area. I am 
going to be taking the commerce committee during the April recess to 
have a hearing on climate change and sea level rise particularly right 
in the heart of a city that has been experiencing flooding over and 
over because of this climate change.
  Florida is ground zero for sea level rise. We have a compelling story 
to tell. Our leaders are making key decisions and investments today so 
that our coastal economy will thrive. We are going to pull all this 
together in the hearing. There are several members of the commerce 
committee here tonight. I invite Senators during the April recess to 
come to this hearing. Thank you all for organizing this all-night 
event, and I look forward to the material that will be coming out this 
evening.
  Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, climate change is not a problem of the 
future. Climate change is drastically impacting our oceans today. 
Acidification is increasing at astonishing rates, and our oceans take 
up 25 percent of our carbon emissions. Carbon and ocean acidification 
kill our oysters, crabs, and other shellfish, and impact the shellfish 
that other sea life depends on, such as our salmon, so the impact to an 
industry in our State that is worth $30 billion and supports 148,000 
jobs is serious.
  Just last week there was a huge die-off of scallops in British 
Columbia, resulting in 30 percent of employees in that region being 
laid off. So climate change is not only killing oysters and scallops, 
but it is killing our fishing jobs. That is why we are here tonight, 
because we know we need to act to save jobs and help our economy.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, as a member of the Climate Action Task 
Force, I couldn't be more proud of my colleagues on the floor tonight. 
I thank Senator Boxer, Senator Schatz, and Senator Whitehouse for 
organizing this evening.
  The information we want to present is clear. The facts are clear. 
Science indicates what we do here on Earth is affecting the livability 
of our planet, and we can do something about it. This is an urgent 
issue, from climate refugees around the world, the visible signs we see 
in China, to each of our individual States.
  I am honored to represent the people of Maryland, where 70 percent of 
citizens live in coastal zones. The Chesapeake Bay is iconic to the 
survival of Maryland as we know it today and yet it is at risk.
  But here is the good news: We can do something about it. We can 
reduce our carbon footprint. We can reduce our carbon pollution, and in 
doing so we not only help our environment, we also help our economy and 
job growth, help make America more energy secure, which helps our 
national security. So let's take the reasonable steps necessary to help 
our future generations, help our economy, and help our environment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I am also very pleased to talk about one of 
the most pressing challenges confronting our Nation and my State of 
Colorado, and that is climate change. We have seen in my State this is 
not an obscure threat or distant problem. We have had catastrophic 
floods and mega wildfires that have been the result of drought, of a 
whole series of changes in a way we see climate systems operating in 
Colorado. It is threatening our way of life.
  I have a powerful photograph here. We have had in the past 2 years 
three successive mega fires. Last year's Black Forest fire brought 
destruction to Colorado Springs. Over 500 homes burned and we lost 2 
lives. This fire

[[Page 3985]]

quickly surpassed the Waldo Canyon fire which was the most destructive 
fire in Colorado history.
  Now is the time to act. Now is the time to grab the opportunity to 
create new emergency technologies, to enhance our national security 
and, by the way, to keep faith with our children. We do not inherit 
this Earth from our parents. We are borrowing it from our children. If 
we do not act on climate change, we will leave them a less bright 
future. If we do act, we can create jobs and protect the environment.
  As a member of the Armed Services Committee, along with the Presiding 
Officer, we can enhance our Nation's security with these new 
technologies. Let's act now. I am here in this Congress and this Senate 
to protect our way of life. If we act now, we can protect that special 
way of life.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, thank you very much, and let 
me first of all congratulate my chairman, Chairman Boxer, Senator 
Whitehouse, and Senator Schatz for organizing this effort and what we 
are calling an up-all-night conversation.
  New Mexico is in the bull's-eye when it comes to climate change. 
Everyplace else, if it goes up 1 degree, New Mexico and the Southwest 
go up 2 degrees, so we know we are hit really hard. I am going to talk 
later in this conversation about all of the impacts.
  It is clear, forest fires, as my cousin talked about, droughts, huge 
die-off in terms of trees, extreme rain events after fires, and 
flooding are devastating. But New Mexico has been at the forefront of 
the solution. When it comes to renewable energy, we are out there--
solar energy, wind, bio, advanced biofuels such as algae. We are 
working in the direction we need all of us to be working in together in 
this country, to make sure we orient toward renewables and tackle this 
problem. I will be able to expand on this later.
  I would yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I am pleased to join my colleagues tonight in talking about the 
economic and environmental imperative of addressing climate change. I 
thank all of the members of the climate task force, all my colleagues 
who are here, and particularly Senator Schatz from Hawaii, for 
organizing tonight.
  The fact is, as we have heard, climate change is real and it is 
happening. According to the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 
Change, a group of 3,000 scientists from over 130 countries who have 
studied climate change for over 20 years, global emissions must be 
stabilized by midcentury in order to avoid the most catastrophic and 
irreversible consequences of climate change.
  Studies from the National Research Council and the U.S. Global 
Climate Research Program reinforce that global temperatures are 
steadily rising and contributing to more extreme weather events and 
rising sea levels. Scientists from the University of New Hampshire have 
found that humans are responsible for releasing large amounts of carbon 
dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere that are causing 
rapid climate change. I only need to look at New Hampshire to see the 
real economic and health implications.
  In New Hampshire, climate change is contributing to sea level rise, 
which imperils businesses, homes, and coastal communities such as 
Portsmouth.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from New Hampshire has 
expired.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. The outdoor recreation community has less snow, 
resulting in fewer tourism dollars. Wildlife health is becoming 
increasingly vulnerable to disease. What is happening in New Hampshire 
is happening around the world. We must take action now.
  I look forward to coming back later this evening to talk more about 
what we are seeing in New Hampshire.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, Theodore Roosevelt said:

       Of all the questions which can come before this Nation, 
     short of the actual preservation of its existence in a great 
     war, there is none which compares in importance with the 
     great central task of leaving this land even a better land 
     for our descendants than it is for us.

  We should reconsider those words now in the context of carbon 
pollution--carbon pollution which is a direct assault to our rural 
resources, on our farming, fishing, and forestry. In Oregon we had 
three worst-ever droughts we have faced over a 13-year period, 
devastating to the farmers, their families, and the farm economy.
  In fishing, everyone who goes to their favorite trout stream knows 
that if there is no snowpack, the stream is warmer and smaller in 
summer and a poor place to fish, and certainly worse for iconic salmon 
and steelhead.
  The forests are burning, from pine beetles, which spread throughout 
the land in the context of not having those cold snaps in the winter, 
and in the context of tinderbox conditions on the forest floor. Those 
forest fires have been some of the worst we have seen in a century, and 
more is yet to come. We cannot wait for 20 or 30 or 40 years to act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. MERKLEY. We cannot wait for 2 or 3 or 4 years to act. The carbon 
pollution is real and the damage is real. It is time for this Chamber 
to act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Why are we here tonight. We are here because if we 
fail to act, our planet will be destroyed. As exaggerated as that claim 
sounds, it is strikingly, irrefutably true. We are here because our 
future is at stake, and not only ours but our children's. We are here 
because of climate change, which is really climate disruption and 
planet destruction. It is real and it is urgent.
  Anyone who lives in Connecticut knows about the snowstorms and 
hurricanes, Superstorm Sandy, the rising tide that will eventually 
destroy our coastline, the rising temperatures that will emaciate our 
vegetation and our produce. There are real human effects but also 
economic effects. There are immense economic perils but also tremendous 
economic promise. There are immense economic perils but also tremendous 
economic promise if we invest in the steps that have to be taken to 
stop climate disruption.
  We can take advantage of the immense opportunity and obligation we 
face by acknowledging the reality that our planet is at stake and 
defeating and discrediting the climate change deniers, who are as much 
a part of the problem as any of the natural forces or elements at 
stake.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. That is why we are here tonight, and that is why we 
will stay the course.
  I yield the floor.
  The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, as a member of the climate change task 
force, I am pleased to join my colleagues in calling for action on 
tackling one of our Nation's greatest challenges. I wish to start by 
thanking Senator Whitehouse, Senator Schatz, and Senator Boxer for 
their leadership on this issue.
  Tonight we will illustrate that climate change is not theoretical and 
cannot be ignored. We will discuss how sound science can be used to 
better understand and manage climate impacts. We will highlight the 
moral imperative that we have in Congress to implement real solutions.
  In my home State of New Mexico we are seeing bigger fires, dryer 
summers, more severe floods when it finally does rain, and less 
snowpack in the winter. Our Nation's second most extreme year for 
weather on record was in 2012, but in New Mexico we experienced the 
hottest year on record. Over the last 4 years alone, we have seen the 
two largest fires in New Mexico's history.
  The reality is that things are only going to get worse if we don't 
act. If we have any hope of reversing the effects of climate change--
and we truly must--it is critical that we embrace this challenge now 
and lead the world

[[Page 3986]]

in innovation, efficiency, and clean energy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Mr. KING. Mr. President, Joe Sewall, David Huber, Harry Richardson, 
Hoddy Hildreth, and Sherry Huber--those names mean nothing in this 
Chamber, but they meant everything in Maine in the 1970s. They were the 
parents of the environmental movement in our State. What do they all 
have in common? They are all Republicans.
  I rise tonight in puzzlement as to how this issue became a partisan 
one. It is a scientific issue. Light travels at 186,000 miles per 
second. That is science. That is not a partisan or debatable issue. The 
science on this question is definitive.
  I would not call myself a denier, but I was a skeptic until several 
years when I encountered a chart, which I will show in a large version 
later this evening, that talks about CO2 in the atmosphere 
for the last million years. Yes, it varied over time between 150 and 
250 parts per million, but in the 1860s, at the dawn of the fossil fuel 
age, it started to go up, and now it is at 400 parts per million. That 
number has not been seen in this world for 3 million years. The last 
time we were at that figure, the sea level was 80 feet higher.
  We are playing with the future of this planet. We have to do 
something, and that is why we are here.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, as a member of the climate change task 
force, I am proud to join my colleagues today. I particularly wish to 
thank Senators Schatz, Whitehouse, and Boxer for getting us organized 
and bringing attention to the urgent need to address climate change. We 
are on the cusp of a climate crisis. We are at a point of no return 
that will threaten our health, our economy, and our planet.
  For the next several hours and all through the night and into 
tomorrow, dozens of Senators will add their voices to the millions of 
voices around the country of people who are committed in the fight 
against climate change.
  I got ready for this event by asking people for help. I sent out an 
email asking a simple question: What do people think the world will 
look like 25 years from now if we don't do anything at all to stop 
climate change? Nearly 5,000 emails have already poured in from 
workers, teachers, grandparents, and students. These Americans see what 
is happening to our environment. They see the paralysis of our 
politics. They see that we are headed down a dangerous path. They see 
that we--our country and our Congress--must change.
  This is where we start--a moment of great peril for Massachusetts, 
for America, and for the world, but also a moment of great opportunity. 
This is a time for us to come together.
  During my time on the floor, I plan to read letters from some of the 
people who have emailed me.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Ms. WARREN. I yield the floor.
  The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, the science proves there is a danger, the 
economics prove there is a solution, and the politics tonight begin the 
process of saying there is a way to deal with this issue.
  The planet is running a fever, but there are no emergency rooms for 
planets. We have to engage in the preventive care so that we deploy the 
strategies which make it possible for our planet to avoid the worst, 
most catastrophic effects of climate change. We can do it and do it in 
a way that helps our economy.
  There are now 80,000 people working in the wind industry in the 
United States. There are 142,000 people in the solar industry. That is 
220,000 people. There are 80,000 people in the coal industry. Most of 
the wind and solar jobs have been created in the last 5 years. This is 
a job-creating revolution which is taking off.
  Tonight we are going to stay up all night to talk about this climate 
change issue in the hopes that tomorrow will be the dawn of a new era 
where the Congress begins to do something about this issue and where it 
responds to its historic duty to the next generation to end this 
crisis.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, climate change is real and it is 
here. Rising sea levels, disappearing coastlines, longer droughts, 
colder winters, hotter summers, and massive so-called storms of the 
century are occurring routinely, such as Hurricanes Irene and Lee and, 
of course, Superstorm Sandy that devastated the Northeast. But powerful 
special interests and too many politicians who should simply know 
better would have us believe that it is a hoax or that any reasonable 
action would kill jobs.
  I, for one, refuse to believe that somehow harmful pollution is the 
only way to grow and sustain our economy. I, for one, know for a fact 
that what is good for our environment can be good for business when we 
act responsibly.
  It is time to invest in clean energy with wind, solar, biofuel, and 
other sources of energy that do not pollute our environment and 
contribute to climate change. We have everything it takes from 
sustainable resources, American innovation, and manufacturing know-how 
to produce new sources of clean energy that are made here in America. 
That is how we can cut our dependence on costly foreign oil and make us 
more secure; that is how we can spark new businesses, new jobs, and a 
stronger middle class, all while protecting the air we breathe and the 
water we drink and preserving all the beauty of our most cherished 
places for the next generation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, how much time remains under the 
control of our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 3 minutes 30 seconds.
  Mr. INHOFE. If the Senator needs more time, I will not object.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. That is kind of the distinguished Senator, but I 
think we have managed to come within our time.
  As we close, I wish to thank so many colleagues who have participated 
in this early lightning round of statements by Senators. We expect to 
have 30 Democratic Senators speaking on this issue during the course of 
the night, through the night, and into tomorrow morning.
  It is a matter we are overdue in addressing. It is a matter that is 
really beyond legitimate scientific dispute--at least as to the 
fundamental truth of the planet warming and why. Indeed, Abraham 
Lincoln was the President when a scientist named Tyndall--over in 
England--first presented to the Royal Academy of Sciences his work 
showing that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere warms the Earth as it 
increases its density. We are now more carbon dense.
  As Senator King said, we spent about 800,000 to 3 million years in a 
zone of 150 to 300 parts per million. We had never been at 400 parts 
per million in the history of human habitation on the face of this 
planet until just a few months ago when the first 400-parts-per-million 
reading was recorded. We have to pay attention to this.
  I will close by saying that not only is this a vital point for our 
home States, it is vital for California, which is riven by drought. It 
is vital for New Mexico and Colorado, which have also seen drought and 
wildfires. It is also vital for New York, which was clobbered by 
Superstorm Sandy. It is vital for Hawaii, which is seeing sea level 
rise and acidification. It is vital for Massachusetts, where the sea 
level is up 10 inches, and we are beginning to see fisheries move north 
and away from our waters to avoid the warming seas. It is vital for 
Connecticut, which has virtually lost its lobster fishery because of 
its warming season. And, of course, it is vital for Rhode Island. My 
Narragansett Bay is 3 to 4 degrees warmer in the winter, and that means 
that fisheries, such as the winter flounder fishery, are simply gone--
90-plus percent crashed.
  We have to face this as States, we have to face this as a nation, and 
if we fail, we will have failed the fundamental test of every American 
generation. The fundamental test of every

[[Page 3987]]

American generation is, will you bring the reputation of this country 
and the integrity of this democracy forward through your time so the 
next American generation can carry it forward with honor?
  We received our democracy from the ``greatest generation.'' They 
fought world wars to make it safe for us. If we fail now, we will not 
be the greatest generation; we will be a disgraced generation. I intend 
to do everything I can to make sure we do not get there.
  I yield back the rest of the Democrats' time
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, all night long? Well, that is going to be 
fun.
  By the way, the Oklahoma City Thunders are not playing tonight, so we 
may get a few more viewers.
  It is nice to look over and see probably the most articulate and 
knowledgeable of all of the alarmists historically as our newest 
Senator from Massachusetts, Ed Markey.
  You can be good friends and still disagree. The Senator from Rhode 
Island certainly knows that because we had a little disagreement last 
week. The Senator from California certainly knows this as well.
  We have been working on this for a long time. This started with the 
Kyoto Treaty. I think most people have forgotten about that. During the 
Clinton-Gore administration, Gore came back from Rio de Janeiro and 
said we are all going to die from global warming. I will say that he 
knows what he is doing. The New York Times speculated that Al Gore is 
very likely the first environmental billionaire in existence, so I 
guess he knows what he is doing there.
  In spite of the fact of what has happened recently, I think it is 
probably necessary to have something all night, something to get the 
attention of the American people, because they keep saying--and I hear 
it over and over--climate change is real, global warming is real; it is 
real; it is real; it is real. If you say it enough times, then people 
are going to think it is real.
  Tonight, all night long, you can say ``it is real, it is real, it is 
real,'' but I think people have heard that before and times have 
changed. A couple of things have happened, and I know a lot of you 
regret this.
  I remember so well when Lisa Jackson was the Administrator of the 
EPA.
  I have often said some very good things about her, even though she is 
very liberal and I am ranked most of the time as the most conservative 
Member of the Senate. Yet when she is asked a direct question, she 
always comes out with an honest answer.
  I asked my good friend Senator Markey just a few minutes ago, who was 
there--first of all, let me say the United Nations started all this 
stuff. They have one big annual party, and it is usually in very nice 
places. I think at last count 190 countries were there. I remember 
talking to one of my good friends from one of the sub-Saharan African 
countries who was there with his administration. I said: You don't 
believe this stuff, do you?
  He said: No, but this is one of the biggest parties of the year.
  One of the big parties in 2009 was Copenhagen. They set a record of 
how cold it was in Copenhagen. I remember that very well. I remember at 
that time--and I hope I get this right because we had several people 
from the administration. We had at that time Senator John Kerry, of 
course, Congressman Ed Markey, Nancy Pelosi, and President Obama, who 
was Senator Obama at that time--no, he was already President at that 
time. Their job was to convince the 191 other countries that were in 
Copenhagen that we in the United States were going to pass some type of 
real cap and trade legislation.
  So we had a hearing. At that time I think the Republicans were in 
control. But I said to Lisa Jackson: I am going to go to Copenhagen 
tomorrow to be a one-man truth squad. Everybody has been there talking 
about what we are going to do here in the United States and somebody 
has to tell them the truth. So I said: I have a feeling when I leave 
tomorrow, you are going to have a declaration and when you do, it has 
to be based on some type of science. I could tell by looking at her 
that they were going to have the endangerment finding.
  I ask my friend if he remembers that, the endangerment finding.
  Anyway, I left the next morning for Copenhagen, and that afternoon 
they had the endangerment finding. Before I left I said: When you have 
the endangerment finding, it has to be based on some type of science. 
What science are you going to use?
  She said: Well, mostly the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on 
Climate Change.
  So that is the kind of science they have been using for a long period 
of time.
  But, ironically, the timing couldn't be better. It wasn't a matter of 
weeks after that; it was a matter of hours after that, that climategate 
was exposed. Climategate was the--it all started with East Anglia 
University's Climate Research Unit--the CRU--one of the main 
universities that helps put together the information about global 
warming for the IPCC. There it was disclosed that the IPCC was 
systematically distorting the facts, cooking the science of global 
warming to either cover up data that didn't tell the story they wanted 
everyone to hear and exaggerating the impacts of changing climate to 
help drive people out of fear into action.
  There are three things one needs to know about the IPCC. First of 
all, the Obama administration has referred to the IPCC as the gold 
standard of climate change science and global warming. Some say its 
reports on climate change and global warming represent the so-called 
consensus of the science opinion about global warming. IPCC and Al Gore 
were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 for their efforts to build 
and disseminate greater knowledge and doing so through the IPCC. Simply 
put, what this means is that in the elite circles, the IPCC is a big 
deal.
  So as a result of climategate--when they found they had been lying 
all this time--when ABC News, when The Economist, when Time Magazine, 
when The Times of London, among many others, report that the IPCC's 
research contains embarrassing flaws and that the IPCC chairman and 
scientists knew of the flaws but published them anyway, we have the 
makings of a major scientific scandal. There are two examples of how 
the IPCC was cooking the science.
  The IPCC claimed that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035. Of 
course, this is not true. It is simply false. Yet it was put into the 
IPCC's fourth assessment report. According to The Sunday Times, the 
claim about the Himalayas was based on a 1999 story in a news magazine 
which, in turn, was based on a short telephone interview with someone 
named Seyed Hasnain, who is a very little-known Indian scientist.
  Next, in 2005, the activist group World Wildlife Fund cited the story 
in one of its climate change reports. Yet despite the fact that the 
World Wildlife Fund report was not scientifically peer reviewed, it was 
still referenced by the IPCC. Next, according to The Times, the 
Himalayan glaciers are so thick at such high altitude that most 
glaciologists believe it would take several hundred years to melt at 
the present rate.
  Anyway, all of that was taking place. It has to be really disturbing 
to a lot of those individuals who are alarmists, that all of a sudden 
this backbone of the science they have been referring to of the IPCC 
was exposed.
  I remember one of the emails in 1999. These were the emails that were 
exposed. These are the ones that are behind--giving the information to 
the IPCC:

       I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the 
     real temps to each series for the last 20 years, i.e., from 
     1981 onwards, and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline.

  So they were actually adding higher temperatures to give the trends 
they wanted.
  In 2009:

       The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming 
     at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can't.

  These are the people who were supplying the information to the IPCC.
  I could go on and on; there is not time to get to all of them.

[[Page 3988]]

  Christopher Booker of the U.K. said: ``This is the worst scientific 
scandal of our generation.'' He was talking about the IPCC. That is the 
basis of all of this.

       Clive Crook, Financial Times: The closed mindedness of 
     these supposed men of science . . . is surprising, even to 
     me. The stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering.
       IPCC Prominent Physicist Resigns: Climategate was a fraud 
     on a scale I've never seen.
       U.N. Scientist Dr. Phillip Lloyd calls out IPCC ``fraud''--
     ``The result is NOT scientific.''
       Newsweek: Once celebrated climate researchers feeling the 
     used car salesman.
       Some of the IPCC's most quoted data and recommendations 
     were taken straight out of unchecked activist brochures . . .

  Now, I am quoting right now. This was in Newsweek.
  George Monbiot--I probably mispronounced that. He is a columnist who 
is on the other side of this issue from me. He said:

       It's no use pretending that this isn't a major blow. The 
     emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic unit at the 
     University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging . . 
     . I'm dismayed and deeply shaken by them . . . I was too 
     trusting of some of those who provided the evidence I 
     championed. I would have been a better journalist if I had 
     investigated the claims more closely.

  We have the other problem, and that is that instead of increasing, we 
are going through now some cold spells that are just shocking and 
setting new records. In January of 2014, 4,406 cold temperature records 
were set around the country. In January of 2014, in my city of Tulsa, 
it got down to minus 2 degrees, breaking a record that was held since 
1912--over 100 years; in Enid, OK, minus 3 degrees. In Bartlesville, it 
went down to minus 14 degrees--colder than the South Pole, where it was 
only minus 11 on that same day.
  February 2014: 5,836 cold temperature records set around the country. 
March 2014: Snow cover at third highest level on record; 1969, 1978 
were higher. The Great Lakes, second highest ice cover on record--91 
percent; 1979 is highest at 94 percent.
  This is not surprising given the 15-year pause in global warming. 
Nature magazine stated that over the last 15 years ``the observed 
[temperature] trend is . . . not significantly different from zero 
[and] suggests a temporary `hiatus' in global warming.''
  The Economist magazine said the same thing.
  The President hasn't acknowledged this. On multiple occasions he has 
said--this is a quote from the President: ``The temperature around the 
globe is increasing faster than was predicted even 10 years ago.''
  Unfortunately for his talking point, the data that has been reported 
in Nature, The Economist, and even in the United Nations IPCC report 
shows that this simply is not true. Increases in global temperature 
have stalled over the last 15 years.
  This has to be really shocking to an awful lot of advocates who put 
their reputation and their lives on the idea that this world is coming 
to an end and global warming is a reality.
  Several weeks ago, in a hearing held in the EPW Committee, Gina 
McCarthy--she is the one who is the current EPA Administrator--was 
pressed on this point. Asked whether or not President Obama's statement 
was true, she responded: ``I can't answer that.''
  With all this in mind--climategate, recent cold temperatures, and a 
15-year hiatus--how could Congress, in good conscience, move forward 
with legislation that gives EPA the authority to regulate greenhouse 
gases? How could EPA, more importantly, move forward with regulations 
based off of this cooked science?
  There have been several votes on global warming-related legislation 
over the past decade since we first started debating it here in the 
late 1990s, but they have all failed to show that there have even been 
the 60 votes required to pass cap and trade.
  In 1997 the Byrd-Hagel legislation, 95 to 0, the United States should 
not be a signator to the Kyoto Treaty. The Kyoto Treaty was a treaty 
that was negotiated with Al Gore down in South America.
  In 2003 we had the McCain-Lieberman bill. It failed 43 to 55. Then we 
had the McCain-Lieberman bill again in 2005, and it failed 38 to 60. 
The trend is going in the wrong direction for them.
  In 2008 the Lieberman-Warner bill failed 48 to 36.
  In 2010, a resolution of disapproval on EPA's greenhouse gas rule was 
47 to 53.
  In 2011, the Inhofe-Upton prohibition on greenhouse gas regulation 
was 50-50. In 2013, the Inhofe-Upton prohibition on greenhouse gas 
regulations as a budget amendment was 47 to 52.
  What I am saying here is the sentiment of the House and the Senate is 
going in the reverse direction. So it has been virtually impossible to 
try to pass a cap-and-trade bill.
  I know there are a lot of people who at one time were looking at this 
and feeling as though this was something that was going to be a 
reality. But I have to say this. One of the reasons--this is kind of 
interesting. I am sorry my good friend from Massachusetts is not on the 
floor right now. But I can remember back when Republicans were in the 
majority in the Senate, and I was the chairman of a subcommittee of the 
Environment and Public Works Committee that was addressing this item. 
At that time everyone was talking as though global warming was here and 
it must be true, and I believed it probably was true, until they came 
out with the financial analysis. What would it cost if we passed cap 
and trade as a law?
  At that time the scientists and the economists from the Wharton 
School of Economics and from MIT who participated--all of the estimates 
were between $300 billion and $400 billion a year. That is something we 
want to be very careful about. I know every time we hear ``billion 
dollars'' it doesn't really register how much that is. In my State of 
Oklahoma, what I do at the end of each year is I get the total number 
of people who filed a Federal tax return, and then I do my math as to 
what it is going to cost. For $300 billion to $400 billion a year, it 
would cost each taxpayer in the State of Oklahoma some $3,000 a year. 
That could be really significant, but not if there is a problem they 
are addressing out there. Getting back to Lisa Jackson, who is the 
Obama appointee to be Administrator of the EPA, I asked the question--
and this was at a hearing, and I am sure the Senator from California 
remembers this as well because it was in one of the hearings of that 
committee, live on TV.
  I said: Right now we are looking at different bills. We are looking 
at the Waxman bill and several others. The cap and trades are pretty 
much cap and trades. If we were to pass this, any of this legislation, 
would this have the effect of lowering the release of CO2?
  Her answer was: No. The reason is this is not where the problem is. 
The problem is in China, in India, in Mexico, and in places where they 
do not have any regulations.
  In fact, you can carry it one step further. If we were to pass that 
either by regulation or by legislation, and go ahead and incur this 
huge tax increase--the largest tax increase in the history of America--
if we were to do this, as she said, it would not lower greenhouse 
gases. It could increase them because we would have to be chasing our 
manufacturing base where they could find the generation of electricity; 
and that would be in countries I just mentioned where they have no 
restrictions at all. So it could increase, not decrease, the greenhouse 
gases.
  This is very significant, but it is in the weeds to the point where 
it is rather difficult to understand. Under the Clean Air Act, the 
EPA--well, I want to talk about the timing just for a minute because we 
are going through this. Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA must finalize 
new rules within 1 year of its publication in the Federal Register.
  What I am saying now is, what they could not get done through 
legislation they are trying to do through regulation. One of the things 
they are trying to do is have the greenhouse gas legislation come under 
the EPA.
  Anytime you have a new EPA rule, it has to be finalized within 1 year 
of its publication in the Federal Register. So the rule was released on 
September 20, 2013, but it was not published until January 8, 2014. Why 
do you suppose that was? Had the new rule been published on September 
30, the rule would

[[Page 3989]]

have gone into effect 6 weeks prior to the midterm elections and people 
would have known how much it was going to cost them.
  If there is any doubt in anyone's mind, I have an article that was 
published on December 14 in the Washington Post that goes through the 
details as to why they did this so people would not know when they were 
voting how much all these regulations were going to cost. I ask 
unanimous consent this article be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, Dec. 14, 2013]

  ICYMI: White House Delayed Enacting Rules Ahead of 2012 Election to 
                           Avoid Controversy

                          (By Juliet Eilperin)

       The White House systematically delayed enacting a series of 
     rules on the environment, worker safety and health care to 
     prevent them from becoming points of contention before the 
     2012 election, according to documents and interviews with 
     current and former administration officials.
       Some agency officials were instructed to hold off 
     submitting proposals to the White House for up to a year to 
     ensure that they would not be issued before voters went to 
     the polls, the current and former officials said.
       The delays meant that rules were postponed or never issued. 
     The stalled regulations included crucial elements of the 
     Affordable Care Act, what bodies of water deserved federal 
     protection, pollution controls for industrial boilers and 
     limits on dangerous silica exposure in the workplace.
       The Obama administration has repeatedly said that any 
     delays until after the election were coincidental and that 
     such decisions were made without regard to politics. But 
     seven current and former administration officials told The 
     Washington Post that the motives behind many of the delays 
     were clearly political, as Obama's top aides focused on 
     avoiding controversy before his reelection.
       The number and scope of delays under Obama went well beyond 
     those of his predecessors, who helped shape rules but did not 
     have the same formalized controls, said current and former 
     officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of 
     the sensitivity of the topic.
       Those findings are bolstered by a new report from the 
     Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS), an 
     independent agency that advises the federal government on 
     regulatory issues. The report is based on anonymous 
     interviews with more than a dozen senior agency officials who 
     worked with the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 
     (OIRA), which oversees the implementation of federal rules.
       The report said internal reviews of proposed regulatory 
     changes ``took longer in 2011 and 2012 because of concerns 
     about the agencies issuing costly or controversial rules 
     prior to the November 2012 election.''
       Emily Cain, spokeswoman for the Office of Management and 
     Budget, said in a statement that the administration's 
     ``approach to regulatory review is consistent with long-
     standing precedent across previous administrations and fully 
     adheres'' to federal rules.
       Administration officials noted that they issued a number of 
     controversial rules during Obama's first term, including 
     limits on mercury emissions for power plants and Medicaid 
     eligibility criteria under the Affordable Care Act.
       ``OMB works as expeditiously as possible to review rules, 
     but when it comes to complex rules with significant potential 
     impact, we take the time needed to get them right,'' Cain 
     said.
       But Ronald White, who directs regulatory policy at the 
     advocacy group Center for Effective Government, said the 
     ``overt manipulation of the regulatory review process by a 
     small White House office'' raises questions about how the 
     government writes regulations. He said the amount of time it 
     took the White House to review proposed rules was 
     ``particularly egregious over the past two years.''
       Previous White House operations have weighed in on major 
     rules before they were officially submitted for review. But 
     Jeffrey Holmstead, who headed the EPA's Office of Air and 
     Radiation in the George W. Bush administration, said the 
     effort was not as extensive as the Obama administration's 
     approach.
       ``There was no formalized process by which you had to get 
     permission to send them over,'' Holmstead said, referring to 
     rules being submitted to the White House.
       The recent decision to bring on Democratic strategist John 
     Podesta as a senior White House adviser is likely to 
     accelerate the number of new rules and executive orders, 
     given Podesta's long-standing support for using executive 
     action to achieve the president's goals despite congressional 
     opposition.
       Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), who chairs the Judiciary 
     Subcommittee on Oversight, Federal Rights and Agency Action, 
     said he's concerned about the real-world impact of the 
     postponements in the first term.
       ``Legal protection delayed is protection denied,'' 
     Blumenthal said. ``I've spoken to officials at the top rungs 
     of the White House power structure and at OIRA and we're 
     going to hold their feet to the fire, and we're going to make 
     sure they're held accountable in a series of hearings.''
       The officials interviewed for the ACUS report, whose names 
     were withheld from publication by the study authors, said 
     that starting in 2012 they had to meet with an OIRA desk 
     officer before submitting each significant rule for formal 
     review. They called the sessions ``Mother-may-I'' meetings, 
     according to the study.
       The accounts were echoed by four Obama administration 
     political appointees and three career officials interviewed 
     by The Post.
       At the Environmental Protection Agency, for example, a 
     former official said that only two managers had the authority 
     to request a major rule in 2012: then-administrator Lisa P. 
     Jackson and deputy administrator Bob Perciasepe. Perciasepe 
     and OIRA's director at the time, Cass Sunstein, would have 
     ``weekly and sometimes semi-weekly discussions'' to discuss 
     rules that affected the economy, one said, because they had 
     political consequences, the person said.
       ``As we entered the run-up to the election, the word went 
     out the White House was not anxious to review new rules,'' 
     the former official said.
       Sunstein, who has returned to his post as a Harvard Law 
     School professor, declined to comment.
       Several significant EPA proposals were withheld as a result 
     of those meetings, officials said, including a proposal 
     requiring cleaner gasoline and lower-pollution vehicles that 
     had won the support of automakers but angered the oil 
     industry.
       That regulation, which would reduce the amount of sulfur in 
     U.S. gasoline by two-thirds and impose fleetwide pollution 
     limits on new vehicles by 2017, was ready in December 2011, 
     said three officials familiar with the proposal. But agency 
     officials were told to wait a year to submit it for review 
     because critics could use it to suggest that the 
     administration was raising gas prices, they said. The EPA 
     issued the proposed rule in March.
       Other EPA regulations that were delayed beyond the 2012 
     election included rules on coal ash disposal, water pollution 
     rules for streams and wetlands, air emissions from industrial 
     boilers and cement kilns, and carbon dioxide limits for 
     existing power plants.
       Ross Eisenberg, who serves as vice president of energy and 
     resources policy at the National Association for 
     Manufacturers and has criticized several EPA regulations, 
     noted that in the past year the administration moved ahead 
     with proposals such as the rules on greenhouse gas emissions 
     and boilers.
       ``The agenda certainly did slow down, but it doesn't 
     change,'' he said.
       The administration also was slow to handle rules pertaining 
     to its health-care law. Several key regulations did not come 
     out until after the 2012 election, including one defining 
     what constitutes ``essential health benefits'' under a health 
     plan and which Americans could qualify for federal subsidies 
     if they opted to enroll in a state or a federal marketplace 
     plan.
       The latter focused on what constitutes ``affordable.'' 
     Treasury proposed a regulation in August 2011 saying an 
     employer plan was affordable as long as the premium for an 
     individual was no more than 9.5 percent of the taxpayer's 
     household income. Several groups--including labor unions--
     argued that the proposal did not take into account that the 
     premium for a family plan might be much higher than that 
     standard.
       Unions represent a vital part of the Democratic coalition, 
     in part because they help mobilize voters during elections.
       The Treasury Department held the proposal back while 
     finalizing all the other tax-credit rules on May 23, 2012. 
     Treasury officials later told those working on the regulation 
     that it could not be published before the election, according 
     to a government official familiar with the decision who spoke 
     on the condition of anonymity because of its sensitive 
     nature. The department made the rule on Feb. 1.
       OMB has reduced the length of time that rules are pending 
     this year. The agency has cut the number of rules that were 
     under review for more than 200 days by more than half.
       But while the administration is pressing ahead, activists 
     say the delays took a toll. Peg Seminario, director of safety 
     and health for the AFL-CIO, points to an update of the 
     nation's silica standards proposed Sept. 12 after a long 
     delay. The rule, which would prevent an estimated 688 deaths 
     and 1,585 silica-related illnesses each year, won't be 
     finalized until 2016.
       Jon Devine, a senior lawyer in the Natural Resources 
     Defense Council's water program, said small streams and 
     wetlands remain vulnerable because of the administration's 
     foot-dragging. The EPA recently withdrew a proposal to 
     outline what kind of water bodies deserve federal protection 
     that had been pending since February 2012 and announced it 
     would issue a legally binding rule instead.

[[Page 3990]]

       ``What's disappointing is it leaves waters subject to the 
     existing, weak state of affairs until they get the rule over 
     the final hurdle,'' Devine said.

  Mr. INHOFE. There are more impacts that are taking place. The 
greenhouse gas regulations for existing powerplants are expected to be 
released in June of 2014.
  The other regulations that are out there--and I am not going to spend 
any time on this because there are too many. But on the greenhouse gas 
legislation--even though when it started, it was Charles Rivers and the 
Wharton School and MIT--they came out with the approximation of $300 to 
$400 billion a year; and that is every year. The greenhouse gas 
regulatory costs under the Clean Air Act are totally different. No one 
has even calculated this yet.
  I would like to make sure we understand that under the bill my good 
friend Ed Markey and Waxman put forth, it would regulate the emissions 
of those organizations that emit 25,000 tons or more. However, if you 
do it through the Clean Air Act, it would be 250 tons. So you are 
talking about instead of 25,000 tons--which might be only the very 
large organizations; refineries and that type of thing--under the Clean 
Air Act, which is what they are attempting to do today as we speak, it 
would be just 250 tons, which would be every school, every hospital, 
every shop, and many residences.
  So the greenhouse gas regulatory costs--if it costs $300 to $400 
billion to regulate organizations that emit 25,000 tons, how much would 
it be if they emitted 250 tons? It is something that has not even been 
calculated yet.
  So we have all of these impacts of the regulations that take place. 
But the greatest of all would be, if you think about the cumulative 
impact study back--I have introduced legislation, along with several 
others. I know John Barrasso and several others have cosponsored 
legislation that would tell the public the cumulative effect of all 
these regulations.
  For example, as to the ozone regulations: 77 Oklahoma counties would 
be out of attainment; 7 million jobs would be lost.
  As to Utility MACT--that is something that did pass--a $100 billion 
cost--1.65 million jobs lost. It has already been implemented.
  Boiler MACT--and every manufacturing company has a boiler; and 
``MACT'' means ``maximum achievable control technology''--Boiler MACT 
is costing $63 billion, and 800,000 jobs have already been lost.
  The BLM fracking regulations would be $100,000 per well--duplicative 
of effective State regulations, which have been doing very well now 
since 1948.
  And there are greenhouse gas costs of $300 to $400 billion.
  So I guess what I am saying here--and I know I am using up quite a 
bit of time, but it is important to look and see what has happened 
since the time they were all talking about global warming. Everybody 
was talking about it, and how they are going to have an all-night thing 
to try to revive it because the public has gone in the other direction.
  George Mason University had a study where they actually interviewed 
several hundred of the TV meteorological people. Mr. President, 63 
percent of them said that if global warming is taking place, it is from 
natural causes, not from global warming.
  Polar bears. Everyone is concerned about polar bears. I know my good 
friend from California gave me a polar bear. It is my favorite coffee 
cup and I use it all the time. But between the 1950s and 1960s, the 
number of polar bears that were wandering around out there was between 
5,000 and 10,000. Today, it is between 15,000 and 25,000.
  The threats. A lot of times when people cannot win an argument, then 
they threaten. NASA's James Hansen said this is ``high crimes against 
humanity.'' Robert Kennedy, Jr., called me a ``call girl,'' a 
``prostitute.'' Robert Kennedy, Jr., also said: ``This is treason. And 
we need to start treating them as traitors.'' In other words, we need 
to start killing people.
  In 2006, the eco-magazine Grist called for Nuremberg-style trials for 
skeptics. September 29, 2007: Virginia State climatologist skeptical of 
global warming loses his job after a clash with the Governor. ``I was 
told that I could not speak in public.''
  Barone: Warmists have a ``desire to kill heretics.''
  The Weather Channel--Heidi Cullen, by the way, is a meteorologist on 
the Weather Channel. She is off with an environmental group right now, 
so she is not around anymore.
  Polling--where the American people are going; I think it is important 
to understand--this is a Gallup poll that is a current one right now. 
According to a Gallup poll, climate change is the least important 
environmental issue among the voters.
  In March of 2010, the same Gallup poll: Americans rank global warming 
dead last, 8 out of 8 environmental issues.
  In March 2010, Rasmussen: 72 percent of American voters do not 
believe global warming is a ``very serious problem.''
  The global warmist Robert Socolow laments:

       We are losing the argument with the public, big time. . . . 
     I think the climate change activists, myself included, have 
     lost the American Middle.

  So there are definitely some things going on here that are not in 
their favor.
  I would like to mention this, though. I think a lot of people have 
talked about the various scientists. On my Web site you can look up 
several thousand--this is a long time ago--I think we passed through 
1,000 qualified scientists way back in 2006, and it has gone up since 
that time to many, many, so it is something where there are a lot of 
scientists. One of my favorite scientists is one because he is a Nobel 
prize-winning Stanford University physicist. He said:

       Please remain calm. The earth will heal itself--climate is 
     beyond our power to control. The earth doesn't care about 
     governments and legislation. Climate change is a matter of 
     geologic time . . . something the earth does on its own 
     without asking anyone's permission or explaining itself.

  Richard Lindzen of MIT was a former U.N. IPCC receiver. He said: If 
the government wants carbon control, that is the answer the NAS will 
provide. He is the one who also said: The ultimate controlling factor 
is once you control CO2, you control people.
  The Harvard Smithsonian Study. The study examined the results of more 
than 240 peer-reviewed papers published by thousands of researchers 
over the past four decades. The study covers a multitude of geophysical 
and biological climate indicators. They came to the conclusion that 
climate change is not real and that the science is not accurate.
  Dr. Fred Seitz--he is the former president of the National Academy of 
Sciences--said: ``There is no convincing evidence that human release of 
carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, 
in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's 
atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate.''
  So we have a lot of scientists on both sides of this issue. I think 
the American people have woken up. I use something quite often because 
it is a little bit comical--and this is just kind of from memory, but 
this is something that actually did happen. Mr. President, 1895 was the 
first time we had, in recent history--we have had cold spells before, 
and we had the medieval warm period and all of that stuff; that was a 
long time ago--but in 1895--starting with current, more modern 
history--they had a cold spell that came in. That is where, I say to my 
friend from New Hampshire, they first came up with a new ice age that 
was coming. That was in 1895. That lasted from 1895 to 1918. Then, in 
1918, they came along with a warming period. That was the first time we 
heard the term ``global warming.'' That was in 1918, and that lasted 
until 1948.
  And get this. These are about 30-year cycles. That lasted until about 
1945. In 1945, all of a sudden it changed from this warming period to a 
cooling period. That lasted until 1975. Then it changed to a warming 
period. Now, since 2000, it has leveled off, and we are going into 
another cycle. You can almost set your watch by these cycles.

[[Page 3991]]

  Here is an interesting thing about that. In 1948, when it changed 
from a warming period to a cooling period, that coincided with the 
greatest single release of CO2 in history. That was right 
after World War II.
  So these are the things that are happening. I know they are going to 
enjoy staying up all night. They will have an audience of themselves, 
and I hope they enjoy it.
  But I have to say this in all sincerity. When you see something, and 
instead of going right along with the public and saying, it must be 
true because everybody is saying it--and everybody goes over and over 
again and talks about the climate is real and the science is real, and 
all that--well, that happens when it is not real, and that is what we 
have been going through.
  Right now I know President Obama is going through all kinds of 
efforts to try to do through regulations what the elected people would 
not do in the House, as well as in the Senate. When people realize--and 
they will be reminded again, even though it has been a while--now, I 
think it might be clever that after several years now where people have 
been talking about global warming that now they are trying to revive 
it, and that is what you are going to hear all night long here tonight.
  It is kind of interesting that this is happening at a time that we 
are going through this cold spell. It certainly has not been much fun 
in Oklahoma.
  So I think the American people are not ready to pass the largest tax 
increase in the history of America, and we will have to wait and see.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, it was with great interest that I listened 
to my friend. I suppose we are making progress. He used to call climate 
change a hoax, and he did not say that. So maybe he is moving in our 
direction.
  But I also want to point out, he says we are going to be talking to 
ourselves. I am happy to report that I just learned of two petitions, 
one that has 65,000 signatures calling on us to act and another that 
has 30,000 signatures calling on us to act, and the night is young.
  Now, my friend from Oklahoma----
  Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield for an observation, since the 
Senator mentioned my name?
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, if the time is taken off their time, I am 
happy to yield.
  Mr. INHOFE. The reason I did not use the word ``hoax'' is because 
then I might be guilty of advertising my book, and I certainly did not 
want to do that.
  Mrs. BOXER. That is wonderful. I am so happy you did not use hoaxes, 
and maybe there is a way for us to come closer together on this issue. 
But let my say this: People are listening. People care. Because when 97 
to 98 percent of the scientists say something is real, they do not have 
anything pressing them to say that other than the truth. They do not 
have any other agenda. They do not work for the oil companies.
  I will tell you, as chairman of the environment committee, every time 
the Republicans choose a so-called expert on climate, we have tracked 
them to special interest funding, those 3 percent. They know where 
their bread is buttered. I am sorry my friend left. I guess he could 
not stand to hear the truth. So I will put that truth into the Record.
  I do not know how my Republican colleagues can continue to deny that 
climate change is happening. One would think they could see it out 
their window, because as my colleague says: Oh, there was such cold 
weather. That has been predicted by the scientists, extreme weather. 
Here is the U.S. Global Change Research Program, their National Climate 
Assessment draft: Some extreme weather and climate events have 
increased in recent decades. We have seen heavy downpours, more severe 
droughts, and some extremes.
  At the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works climate 
change briefing, Dr. Marshall Shepherd, president of the American 
Meteorological Society, and a director of the Atmospheric Sciences 
Program at the University of Georgia, said:

       Climate change is increasing the probability of extreme 
     events, and in some cases maybe strengthening their intensity 
     or increasing their frequency. We are loading the dice 
     towards more Sandy or blizzard-type storms.

  So when my friend says: The planet is not warming; it is cold, we all 
know it is not about the weather. It is about the climate. It is about 
the long term--and, yes, we are going to see these extreme weather 
conditions.
  I would say that when my friends call us alarmists, that is 
ridiculous. We are trying to do our job. We are not scientists. We are 
not doctors either, for the most part, but we want to make sure people 
have health care coverage. We are not scientists, but we want to 
protect our people from the ravages of climate.
  I would ask my colleague Senator Schatz would he like me to go 
another 5 minutes, 10 minutes or 2 minutes? It is up to him. I can 
withhold. I am going to be here for quite a few hours.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. SCHATZ. If the Senator from California wanted to go for another 2 
or 3 minutes, I could give remarks for about 10, and then the senior 
Senator from Oregon has remarks to give as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Absolutely. Will the Presiding Officer tell me when I 
have used 3 minutes and then I will yield the floor at that time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will be so notified.
  Mrs. BOXER. We just heard 45 minutes from my friend Jim Inhofe, whom 
I have a very friendly relationship with but who I think is a dangerous 
denier, a dangerous denier in the face of 97 percent agreement among 
scientists.
  He talks about international groups. I wish to talk about the 
National Academy of Sciences. Here is what they said: ``Levels of 
carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses in earth's atmosphere are 
exceeding levels recorded in the past millions of years.''
  That is our own National Academy of Sciences. I guess if we went out 
and asked the public do they support the National Academy of Sciences, 
I think it would come in at 90 percent, and the other 10 percent would 
say, I will get back to you.
  Then we have more from the National Academy:

       Climate change is occurring. It is very likely caused 
     primarily by the emission of greenhouse gasses from human 
     activity.

  They go on:

       Human activities have increased greenhouse gas 
     concentrations in the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide, the main 
     greenhouse gas, is emitted by human activities and it has 
     risen almost 40 percent over the past 150 years.

  So when you hear my colleagues on the other side of the aisle stand 
and deny this, how about the U.S. National Climate Assessment? This is 
the United States of America, our experts:

       Global sea level has risen by about 8 inches since reliable 
     recordkeeping began. It is projected to rise another 1 to 4 
     feet by 2100.

  That is dangerous. We have already seen it happening. I could go on, 
and I will come back, but I will conclude with this. I am, in my 
concluding remarks, going to tell you about every incredibly 
prestigious scientific group that has warned us about climate change: 
The joint world science academies' statement, the American Association 
for the Advancement of Science, the American Chemical Society, the 
American Geophysical Union, the American Institute of Biological 
Scientists, the American Society of Plant Biologists, the Association 
of Ecosystem Research Centers, the Botanical Society of America, the 
Crop Science Society of America, the Natural Science Collections 
Alliance, the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, the Soil 
Science Society of America, the American Medical Association, the 
American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 3 minutes.
  Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent for 30 additional seconds.

[[Page 3992]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. The Geological Society of America. All I can say is, to 
come down here and accuse the Democrats of being alarmist, when all we 
are trying to do is protect the health and safety of the American 
people, of their families and future generations, is extreme while we 
are in the mainstream.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I would like to address some of the tropes 
that our climate deniers tend to use. I will go through a couple of 
those before our great senior Senator from the great State of Oregon 
gives his remarks.
  The first trope is: It is not warming. The ``it is not warming'' 
crowd will not even admit that the Earth is warming. Their favorite 
tactic is to point out the window during winter and say: Look at the 
snow on the ground. Climate change is bunk.
  That is not an adult argument. Under that theory, winter weather 
anywhere disproves climate change. Snowstorms are weather. Weather is 
not climate. Weather is a local phenomenon over extremely short 
timespans. Weather is what it is going to be like tomorrow. Weather is 
not climate. Climate is long-term weather trends over vast regions. 
This is not difficult to distinguish among adults. It is easy to make a 
joke about how cold it is and therefore climate change is bunk.
  But the vast majority of science disproves that assertion. Pointing 
out the window on a cold day and laughing about climate change is one 
of the most profoundly unserious things that otherwise good and 
responsible leaders in this Chamber do. Part of this country's 
greatness is our pragmatism. We see the world as it is and fix the 
things we can. For that, we need reliable information. When it comes to 
climate change, we have reliable information. We ignore it at our 
peril.
  For those who say the Earth is not warming, I would like to talk 
about thermometers. They measure temperature. We have them all over the 
world, very sophisticated ones run by very smart people. They provide a 
lot of data that has proven beyond a doubt that the atmosphere and that 
the oceans are warming. Even prominent climate skeptics such as 
American scientist Richard Muller can no longer argue.
  After exhaustive research, Dr. Muller said in 2012:

       Our results show that the average temperature of the 
     earth's land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit 
     over the last 250 years, including an increase of one and a 
     half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it 
     appears likely that essentially all of this increase results 
     from the human emission of greenhouse gases.

  This was a prominent climate denier previously.
  Two, relying on anecdotes to disprove what is actually happening. A 
research vessel got stuck in summer ice in Antarctica. More and more 
deniers are being forced to rely on out-of-context anecdotes to support 
their false claims. In December, they got very excited about a research 
vessel that was stuck in the summer sea ice in Antarctica, claiming it 
as proof that the Earth is not warming. Here is the thing. It is an 
Antarctica. It is at the bottom of the Earth. It is one of the coldest 
places in the world. One summer's ice in Antarctica does not suddenly 
invalidate millions of worldwide temperature measurements from all over 
the planet.
  They do this whether glaciers are growing or melting. Even though 90 
percent of the world's glaciers are melting, they pick off one and use 
it as proof that climate change is somehow not an established 
scientific fact, even though it is.
  The fourth trope we hear, and this is a pivot, we are starting to 
hear it more and more: It may be warming, but maybe we did not cause 
it. They begrudgingly admit that the Earth is warming but say: Hey, 
this is part of a natural cycle. Natural cycles have happened before 
and they will happen again.
  Recently, Dr. James Powell, a geochemist, former college president 
and National Science Board member, studied all peer-reviewed articles 
on climate change--all peer-reviewed articles on climate change from 
1991 to 2013. He found just over 25,000 articles written since 1991. Of 
25,000 articles, only 26--only 26 rejected the premise of human-caused 
climate change. This is no longer a real debate. It is only a debate in 
the four corners of this Capitol. People across the Nation, insurance 
companies, the Department of Defense, most governments across the 
planet, our biggest corporations, regular people of all political 
stripes and in every State understand that this is what is happening to 
us.
  Some deniers also like to use responsible scientists' methods against 
them. The truth about scientists is that they are scientists, which is 
to say they entertain doubt; they ask questions; they are not afraid to 
express their doubts; they observe and refine their theories. So 
deniers cannot in good conscience use the scientific process as 
evidence that doubt still exists. Sure, there is uncertainty among 
scientists, but it is pretty much just about whether future impacts of 
climate change will be really bad or extremely bad.
  The sixth trope is: It is not a big deal. Maybe it is even good. As 
deniers paint themselves even further into a corner, they become 
desperate. We now come to the category of those who admit the Earth is 
warming, admit it is caused by humans but claim the effects are 
negligible or, even more preposterously, they might be good for us.
  My colleagues and I have presented evidence from study after study 
after study showing that while the changes so far are manageable in 
some places, if we do not change our ways, the bad news will start 
coming faster and faster. Absent major reforms, the rate of change will 
increase. We may not notice half a degree of average temperature 
increase here and there, but on a geological timescale, these changes 
are occurring at recordbreaking speed.
  In many cases, they may be happening too quickly for nature or 
humanity to adapt. A 2012 study commissioned by 20 governments, which 
was written by more than 50 scientists, economists, and other experts, 
found that by 2030 the cost of climate change and air pollution 
combined will rise to 3.2 percent of global GDP, with the world's 
least-developed countries most impacted, possibly suffering losses of 
up to 11 percent of their GDP.
  Developed countries will not be exempt from these impacts. The study 
finds that climate change could wipe out 2 percent of our GDP by the 
year 2030. That is a big deal.
  Finally, the trope that China is doing nothing so our actions do not 
matter. This category of deniers accepts the reality, causes, and 
seriousness of climate change, but then they say it is hopeless because 
countries such as China and others are doing nothing to reduce their 
image.
  That is flat wrong. Here is the evidence. In September, the Chinese 
State Council released its atmospheric pollution action plan, which 
called for a reduction in the construction of new coal-fired 
powerplants and a goal of generating 13 percent of its electricity from 
clean energy from renewable sources by 2017.
  Chinese officials have announced they plan to institute a tax on 
carbon pollution in 2015 or 2016. Certain regions have also begun to 
implement pilot cap-and-trade programs, and they have plans to create a 
national carbon market by 2020.
  How about current investments? In 2012, the United States spent about 
$35 billion on renewables, while China spent $64 billion.
  Finally, there is the nothing-we-can-do denial trope. Let's throw in 
the towel. This crowd accepts the science, accepts the impacts but 
seems to have just given up.
  When did we start thinking we couldn't solve America's big problems? 
When did we start thinking we were too small or not important enough to 
make a difference?
  I don't believe that. I believe that when America leads, the world 
follows. For this country to lead, this Congress needs to act.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Warren). The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, earlier this evening I touched on the 
numbers that underlie this debate--the

[[Page 3993]]

numbers from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the 
numbers from the National Academy of Sciences--and said they really 
drive me to the judgment that climate change is the scientific 
equivalent of a speeding Mack truck. But I believe numbers don't really 
capture this discussion fully because what people want to know is the 
impact of climate change in their community, what it truly means for 
them in their part of the country.
  To get into those impacts, I will start with one that is shellacking 
my home State; that is, the wildfires that are burning longer, getting 
hotter, and starting earlier. Drought and high temperatures from 
climate change are driving all of this. During the early part of this 
past year's fire season, intense wildfires once again burned across the 
Western United States, threatening population centers and destroying 
hundreds of homes. This winter, fires have already burned in western 
Oregon--something that used to be very rare. The number of houses that 
have burned in our country from wildfires has increased a staggering 
400 percent in only the past couple of years and is projected to get 
far worse. In 2012, 2 percent of my home State of Oregon burned in just 
one summer and nearly 1.5 million acres burned across the Pacific 
Northwest. Wildfires, of course, have always been part of life in my 
home State, but the fires of recent years are getting hotter and are 
significantly more threatening to homes.
  Our country's top scientists say the conditions that caused these 
recent fire seasons to become more severe, including drought 
accompanied by above-average temperatures, are more common now due to 
human-induced climate change. Over the past 30 years the fire season 
has become 2\1/2\ months longer and both the number and severity of 
forest fires in the American West have increased several-fold. 
Scientists who have examined this issue say climate change is a 
significant factor behind it.
  To their credit, the Obama administration has indicated that they 
want to work with Senators of both political parties to tackle this 
issue. In particular, what they have suggested--and Senator Crapo, the 
Republican Senator from Idaho, and I have pushed this strongly--is that 
instead of shorting the prevention fund, which is the heart of the 
problem--we have to go in and thin out these overstocked stands--
instead of shorting the prevention fund, which is what happens every 
year now, because these fires are so big and so hot, what happens is 
the bureaucracy comes in and takes money from the prevention fund in 
order to suppress the fires, and the problem, of course, gets worse 
because we don't have the funds for prevention.
  The administration wants to work with Democrats and Republicans in 
the Senate and in the other body so that the most serious fires--only 
the most serious ones--get handled from the disaster fund. We believe 
this is going to free up additional support for efforts to prevent 
these fires, and that will be beneficial to our communities.
  Second, I would like to focus on power sector vulnerability. The 
drought and high temperatures that can lead to the wildfires and make 
our power grid more vulnerable also raise the question of the 
implications for our grid and for taxpayers.
  Much of that vulnerability comes from changes in water supply and 
water temperature. Water plays two critical roles in generating 
electricity. Water is needed for generating hydropower--something we do 
a lot of in the Pacific Northwest. It is also needed for cooling in 
many other types of generation, such as nuclear, biomass, and coal. For 
those generators, water must not only be available in sufficient 
quantities, but it has to be cool enough to allow the plants to run 
safely and efficiently. That means climate change poses a double threat 
to some of these facilities.
  This is not a hypothetical situation; recent history has already 
shown the power sector's vulnerability to both drought and high 
temperatures. In 2001, for example, severe drought in the Pacific 
Northwest and California significantly reduced hydroelectric 
generation, causing tight electricity supplies and high prices 
throughout the West. That drought was estimated to have an economic 
impact of between $2.5 billion and $6 billion.
  High temperatures have also made water too hot to actually be able to 
cool some powerplants. In 2007 the Tennessee Valley Authority had to 
temporarily shut down its Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant because the intake 
water temperatures were too high. In 2012 the Millstone nuclear plant 
that powers half of Connecticut had to take 40 percent of its capacity 
offline for almost 2 weeks because the cooling water it was getting 
from Long Island Sound was too warm. In that same year the Braidwood 
nuclear facility in Illinois had to get an exemption to use intake 
water that was 102 degrees instead of shutting down during a heat wave. 
When somebody has their air-conditioning on high because it is over 100 
degrees, that is not a time that we can afford to be taking a base load 
powerplant offline.
  So far it has been possible to get through the heat- and drought-
related shutdowns of these powerplants without major outages, but let's 
make no mistake about it--the ratepayers have definitely felt them in 
their power bills. In Texas during the summer of 2011, for example, 
electricity was selling on the spot market for $3,000 per megawatt 
hour--well over 100 times the normal rate.
  Next I would like to talk about the effects of climate on energy 
infrastructure. The power sector isn't the only bit of energy 
infrastructure that is vulnerable to climate change. Recently, I--along 
with the majority leader, Senator Reid, Senator Franken, Senator 
Harkin, and Senator Mark Udall--asked the Government Accountability 
Office to look into the effects of climate change on energy 
infrastructure.
  That report was just released. What the Government Accountability 
Office found is that climate changes are projected to affect 
infrastructure throughout all major stages of the energy supply chain--
of course, once again increasing the risk of energy disruption.
  In addition to power sector vulnerabilities, the GAO also found 
vulnerabilities among the infrastructure for producing and extracting 
natural resources, including oil and gas platforms, refineries, and 
processing plants. This infrastructure is often located near the coast, 
making it vulnerable to severe weather and sea level rise.
  Fuel transportation and storage infrastructure, including pipelines, 
barges, railways, and storage tanks, are also susceptible to damage 
from severe weather, melting permafrost, and increased precipitation.
  I close by outlining some of the steps that can actually be taken to 
deal with these issues. I am sure people who are following this 
discussion tonight are saying: All right, they are making a good case 
about the nature of the problem. So what else. What comes next in terms 
of our ability to take action to deal with this.
  I have said before that there are a host of areas where we are going 
to have to work in a global kind of manner to build support with other 
countries for tackling climate change, but there is no question that 
this Senate can put points on the board this year in the fight against 
climate change.
  I am very pleased to have been able to work with our colleague 
Senator Murkowski, the ranking Republican on the Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee, over this past year. Until recently I served as 
chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and we were 
able to pass a major law to spur development of hydropower, which is 
one of America's forgotten renewables. Hydropower already makes up two-
thirds of our country's renewable power, so this is obviously a vital 
renewable source of energy. Our legislation makes it easier to put 
hydro on existing dams, irrigation canals, and conduits, and we believe 
it is going to spark big investments in clean renewable power. The 
National Hydropower Association estimates that there are 60,000 
megawatts of potential new hydropower in our country yet to be 
harnessed.

[[Page 3994]]

  In addition, our committee passed an important bill to cut redtape 
associated with developing geothermal power on public lands.
  My colleagues and I urge the administration to take steps to have 
tools at their disposal to invest in energy efficiency and use the 
savings to pay for those upgrades.
  I look forward, here on the floor of the Senate, to being able to 
pass what I would call the platonic ideal of consensus energy 
legislation; that is, the bill that has been sponsored by our 
colleagues, Senator Shaheen and Senator Portman. I am very pleased that 
we had a promising development over the past few weeks where we brought 
together those who care about trying to promote clean and renewable 
energy in Federal buildings. We have been able to get common ground 
between Senators of differing views. I look forward to seeing that 
bill, the Shaheen-Portman bill, on the floor of the Senate.
  The fact is a number of our renewable energy sources have been on a 
roll over the past several years, demonstrating their potential.
  For example, onshore wind has installed tens of thousands of 
megawatts of capacity in recent years when the policy support has been 
in place. As expected, the costs have come down with technology 
improvements, experience, economies of scale, and as a deep domestic 
supply chain has built up to manufacture all of the components of the 
wind turbines and towers. The policy support has been working, and wind 
is now knocking at the door of competitiveness with fossil 
technologies.
  Offshore wind is also picking up steam, even off the coast of my home 
State, where the waters have always been too deep for offshore wind to 
be possible. A company called Principle Power is trying to solve that 
problem by demonstrating floating offshore wind turbines just off the 
coast of Coos Bay in my home State. Putting a turbine on a floating 
platform instead of mounting it on a tower on the ocean floor has the 
potential to dramatically change the potential for offshore wind. It 
would let developers tap into the huge windy resource above the deep 
waters off the coast of Oregon and elsewhere but without the footprints 
on the ocean floor and without affecting views from the coast. It is a 
promising technology, but, like all first-of-a-kind technology, it is 
going to cost a bit more. That is why we ought to get policy support--
so we can realize the potential of commercial-scale energy.
  Finally, the costs of solar power have also been dropping like a 
rock. The potential for sustainable biomass to provide a quadruple win 
of low-carbon energy, increased forest health, reduced danger of forest 
fires, and economic growth is still there waiting to be fully 
developed.
  I wish to touch on two remaining issues, and one is before the Senate 
Finance Committee. It is my strong view that the tax treatment of all 
energy production in the United States ought to be modified so that all 
energy sources compete on a technology-neutral level playing field. 
That ought to be one of the major goals of comprehensive tax reform, 
which, in my view, is really the grand bipartisan prize for Senate 
Finance Committee members.
  In the short-term, we have another challenge. We shouldn't let the 
renewable energy industries that are so important simply fall off the 
cliff just when the supply chains have been developed and just when 
they are reaching a level of competitiveness where they can really take 
off.
  It is my hope that it is possible to work in a bipartisan way. I 
intend to talk to Senator Hatch, the ranking Republican on the Finance 
Committee, and colleagues on both sides of the aisle to work on a tax 
extenders package that includes a variety of clean energy and 
efficiency credits. Senator Hatch and I have been interested in moving 
forward this spring through the regular order and markup of this kind 
of energy package in the Finance Committee.
  I will close by talking about natural gas because to capture all of 
the climate benefits we also have to factor in the dramatic shale gas 
revolution. We understand that natural gas has turned the energy 
equation upside down over the past few years. Along the way, it has 
provided a low-cost way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at the same 
time. Increased usage of natural gas has helped our country to reach 
its lowest level of greenhouse gas emissions since 1994, even as the 
economy has been picking up steam. Manufacturing and industrial 
operations have been moving back to the United States to take advantage 
of cheap reliable gas.
  This is good news that was almost unimaginable just a few years ago, 
but we have some major challenges as well. I am concerned that methane 
emissions from leaky compressors and leaky pipes could undermine the 
emission benefits of natural gas in a way that isn't being accounted 
for. A recent report which showed a leakage rate of just 3 percent 
through the entire natural gas supply chain can make burning natural 
gas the same as burning coal from a climate perspective. So I have been 
pushing hard with colleagues here in the Senate to keep that leakage 
rate below 1 percent from production to usage to make sure that climate 
benefits come to reality.
  There are technologies that can address the issue of leakage, and 
they already exist. They can be put in place at almost no net cost, 
with many of the measures paying for themselves. There has been a 
comprehensive survey of the measures for reducing methane leaks through 
the natural gas supply and usage chain, and it found emissions could be 
reduced by 40 percent with technologies that already exist and are 
practical today.
  The scale of this problem is, of course, immense, and it is what 
Senators are talking about here tonight. It is going to take everyone 
pulling together at every level to make the meaningful changes actually 
happen. We are going to need continued leadership from our 
entrepreneurs, who aren't sitting idly by but are innovating to come up 
with solutions to climate change. We are going to need savvy consumers 
demanding lower carbon and more efficient goods and services. We will 
need leadership from retailers who are going to ask more of their 
suppliers and supply chains to give them products to sell to those 
consumers. Of course, the key is always innovation in the private 
sector--the private-sector leaders working with our national labs and 
universities.
  I am especially proud that my home State of Oregon is going to lead 
the State efforts in trying to promote sustainability, renewables, and 
efficiency at the local level.
  To wrap up my remarks, let me state the obvious. It is going to take 
new leadership from the Congress. The Congress is going to have to lead 
if we are going to get a long-term framework for a low-carbon economy 
that innovators, entrepreneurs, and others can use in the days ahead to 
address the global nature of this problem, and I think we are up to it 
here in the Senate. I think we are up to doing it in a bipartisan way, 
and that is what I look forward to being part of in the days ahead.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, Senator Feinstein is scheduled to 
speak next, and we are delighted that she is.


                           Dinner Invitation

  I just wanted to make a public service announcement at this point in 
the evening. Any staff, Senators who are here through the night, any 
floor staff, Republican floor staff as well, all are invited; and for 
any of the parliamentary staff who are interested, there is dinner 
available in Room S. 219, and better to get it while it is hot.
  That is the end of the public service announcement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.


                           Order of Procedure

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I ask unanimous consent that the order with respect 
to alternating blocks of time be vitiated and that the Senate remain in 
a period of morning business until 8:45 a.m., Tuesday, March 11, with 
Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page 3995]]


  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 
between 20 and 30 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I want to begin by thanking my friend and colleague, 
Senator Boxer, for her leadership. It was 2 years ago that she began a 
climate action task force that took place at noon, when all our 
stomachs were grumbling for food, but it provided some very interesting 
advice, very interesting knowledge, from interesting scholars who came 
to speak. She was then joined by Senator Whitehouse, when he came. Now 
there is Senator Markey, and there is quite a large number--certainly 
of Democratic Senators--who attend these Tuesday meetings at noon. So I 
want to thank them very much for this leadership.
  As we have heard already, debate over climate change has raged for 
years here on Capitol Hill, but the scientific facts actually have been 
conclusive for some time now. Most people I have found don't realize 
that the greenhouse gases we put into the atmosphere just don't go 
away. They do not dissipate. These gases can stay for decades. Our 
actions--the greenhouse gas pollution we put into the air and the 
forests we cut down--are changing the composition of Earth's 
atmosphere, increasing the concentration of carbon dioxide in the 
atmosphere to above 400 parts per million.
  Just look at this chart. As this chart shows, these are global 
warming gases. This is carbon dioxide. You can see how it has run quite 
along at this level, and then in the last few years it has begun to 
jump up, so much that the average in 2013 was 396 parts per million. 
People don't know this--that all these gases remain in our atmosphere 
year after year, decade after decade, and century after century.
  This change is altering how our atmosphere interacts, with massive 
amounts of solar energy radiating out from the center of our solar 
system. It is well known within the scientific community that the 
Earth's blanket--our atmosphere--is getting more effective at trapping 
heat. The full effects of this stronger blanket--or shield or whatever 
you want to call it--must be projected into the future. Different 
projections show different effects, but we know this. Change is coming, 
and it has already begun.
  A lot of people also believe our Earth is immutable, that we can't 
destroy it and that it can't change. They assume our planet has always 
been pretty much the same. But the last time the Earth's atmosphere 
contained 400 parts per million of carbon dioxide was more than 3 
million years ago when horses and camels lived in the high Arctic in 
conditions that averaged 18 degrees warmer than today. Seas were at 
least 30 feet higher, at a level that today would inundate major cities 
around the world and flood the homes of a quarter of the United States 
population.
  Concentrations of carbon dioxide have risen, as I said, from the 280 
parts per million to more than 400 parts per million in just the last 
150 years. Scientists tell us there is no known geologic period in 
which concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have increased 
as quickly. Bottom line: Never has our planet faced a faster or more 
ecologically devastating change.
  To settle the scientific debate over climate change, the Bush 
administration appointed a National Academy of Sciences Blue Ribbon 
Panel. The group, which included former climate change deniers, 
reported to Congress in 2001 that greenhouse gases are ``causing 
surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise.'' 
They said: ``Temperatures are, in fact, rising.''
  The United Nations created its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 
Change, a group of more than 600 leading scientific experts; and what 
did they say? They said the ``warming of the climate system is 
unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are 
unprecedented over decades to millennia.''
  Average temperatures over lands and ocean surfaces globally have 
increased 1.53 degrees Fahrenheit from 1880 to 2012, with the highest 
rate of increase in the past 3 decades.
  Just look at this. See the line indicating carbon dioxide 
concentration. Start from here. Now notice that the temperatures are 
still down. Watch the line start to go up and notice the climate warm 
up to where it is today.
  The IPCC report continued: ``The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, 
the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and 
the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased.''
  This makes that clear. If we don't reduce the greenhouse gas 
emissions, the National Research Council predicts the average global 
temperatures will increase by as much as 11.5 degrees--11.5 degrees by 
2100. Such a dramatic and rapid increase would be catastrophic to our 
planet Earth. It would change our world permanently.
  As temperatures have increased, we have seen that ice sheets that 
cover the North and South Poles have begun melting. The average annual 
Arctic sea ice area has decreased more than 20 percent since 1979. That 
is when satellite records first became available. The Greenland ice 
sheet has melted by nearly 30 percent.
  Here we can see the Arctic, the red line shows what it was in 1979, 
and current picture shows what has been lost and what is left.
  The melting of glaciers and ice caps, along with expansion of ocean 
water due to the increase in temperature have caused the global sea 
level to rise by 8 inches since 1870, with over 2 inches just in the 
past 20 years. If we do nothing to stop climate change, scientific 
models project that there is a real possibility of sea level increasing 
by as much as 4 feet by the end of this century--4 feet.
  Now, what would 4 feet do? At risk are nearly 2.6 million homes 
located less than 4 feet above high tide nationwide.
  Let me speak about my home State of California. We have, within those 
4 feet, the homes of 450,000 people, 30 coastal power plants with 
generating capacity of 10 gigawatts, 22 wastewater treatment plants 
with capacity of 325 million gallons per day, 3,500 miles of roadway, 
280 miles of railway, 140 schools, and 55 hospitals and other health 
care facilities. These could all be inundated by the end of the 
century.
  Oakland and San Francisco International Airports are susceptible to 
flooding, and both are today studying expensive new levy systems to 
hold back the tides.
  Sea level rise in California would also cause flooding of low-lying 
areas, loss of coastal wetlands, such as portions of the San Francisco 
Bay Delta, erosion of cliffs and beaches, and saltwater contamination 
of drinking water. Bottom line: Rising seas put California's homes, 
public facilities, and environmental resources in great peril, and 
adapting to this change will impose great cost.
  Temperatures in California have increased 1.26 degrees Fahrenheit 
over the past 4 decades. The warmer climate could be particularly 
devastating to us where threats from catastrophic wildfire and 
reduction in water resources will likely make sunny California a desert 
State. The Sierra Nevada snowpack--and we are hearing a lot about that 
now--which includes Lake Tahoe--is the State's largest source of water. 
It equals about half the storage capacity of all of California's man-
made reservoirs. If we do nothing, the Sierra Nevada spring snowpack 
could drop by as much as 60 to 80 percent by the end of the century, 
eliminating the water source for nearly 16 million people.
  Only four States have populations as large as 16 million people, and 
the largest agricultural State in the United States--California--needs 
water resources to farm and grow crops. The 38 million people living in 
California also need water to drink, to bathe, to water flowers, for 
businesses to flourish.
  Major fire is another danger because the size, severity, duration, 
and frequency of fires are greatly influenced by climate. This is the 
Rim Fire, from not too long ago. It gives us an idea of how things 
burn. Fire seasons in the West are starting sooner and lasting longer. 
The average length has increased by 78 days since 1970, a 64-percent 
increase. This isn't a coincidence,

[[Page 3996]]

and climate change is suspected as a key mechanism for that change. The 
change is apparent.
  During a recent Senate hearing, U.S. Forest Service Chief Tidwell 
testified:

       On average, wildfires burn twice as many acres each year as 
     compared to 40 years ago, and there are on average seven 
     times as many fires over 10,000 acres per year.

  I believe this: We cannot stop climate change from happening. We do 
not have a silver bullet. There is no action we can take to stem the 
tide. But if we can hold the warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius, we 
can accommodate for it. But if the warming reaches 5 degrees to 9 
degrees Celsius, the effects are catastrophic for our planet Earth. 
Dramatic and catastrophic effects are far more likely. Through a series 
of incremental but somewhat aggressive policy steps, we can slow the 
change.
  The combustion of fossil fuel--coal, oil, and natural gas--accounts 
for 78 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in our country. Most of the 
fossil fuel emissions come from the smokestacks of our power plants and 
the tailpipes of our vehicles.
  The bottom line: To address climate change, we must take steps to use 
fossil fuels more efficiently, and we must initiate a shift away from 
fossil fuels where we can and toward cleaner alternatives.
  I believe we can attack this problem by: establishing aggressive fuel 
economy standards to reduce emissions from the transportation sector; 
enabling a shift to renewable sources of power; limiting the emissions 
from stationary sources, especially power plants; and, most important, 
putting a price on heat-trapping carbon pollution.
  Let me mention some steps we have taken because we have begun a 
transition to a cleaner energy economy. The good news is that carbon 
dioxide emissions have dropped 12 percent since 2005, due in part to 
the policies we have adopted.
  One of my proudest achievements was working with Senators Snowe, 
Inouye, Stevens, Cantwell, Lott, Dorgan, Corker, Carper, and many 
others in the 2007 Ten-in-Ten Fuel Economy Act, raising the corporate 
average fuel economy known as CAFE at the maximum achievable rate.
  Let me say what these new standards mean. They mean we will have a 
fleetwide average of 54.5 miles per gallon in 2025. These standards 
will cut greenhouse gas emissions from cars and light trucks in half by 
2025, reducing emissions by 6 billion metric tons over the life of the 
program, more than the total amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the 
United States in 2010. Better yet, these standards will save American 
families more than $1.7 trillion in fuel costs, resulting in average 
fuel savings of more than $8,000 per vehicle.
  Our legislation also directed the administration to establish the 
first ever fuel economy standards for buses, delivery trucks, and long-
haul 18 wheelers. The first standards, which apply to trucks and buses 
built from 2014 to 2018, will reduce greenhouse gas pollution by 
approximately 270 million metric tons.
  I am very sorry Senator Snowe from Maine isn't here today because I 
began this effort with a simple sense of the Senate resolution in 1993 
with Senator Slade Gorton from Washington, Senator Bryan from Nevada, 
and myself, and we couldn't get a simple statement passed. We then 
tried an SUV loophole closer, which was to bring SUVs down to the 
mileage of sedans and we couldn't do this.
  We then did the Ten-in-Ten and we didn't think it was going to go 
anywhere. Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye put it in a commerce 
committee bill. Senator Stevens changed his view on it, put it in a 
commerce committee bill, and it swept through the Senate and through 
the House, was signed by the President, and is now the law. Today 
President Obama has made completing CAFE standards for trucks built 
after 2018--which are required by our 2007 law--a key part of his 
Climate Action Plan.
  Power plants are our largest single source of greenhouse gas 
emissions. It is fair to say Federal tax incentives and financing, 
State mandates, federally funded research, and a dramatically improving 
permitting process have led to a recent shift away from coal-fired 
power plants and toward renewable energy and lower emission natural 
gas.
  Additionally, renewable energy production has more than doubled since 
2008, and it continues to boom. Last year 4,751 megawatts of solar were 
installed nationwide. This is a 41-percent increase over the previous 
year. Power plant carbon dioxide emissions have dropped 17 percent 
since 2005.
  The lesson is clear: We must continue the policies which are working, 
such as the wind and geothermal production tax credits, the solar 
investment tax credit, and a project-permitting process which advances 
projects on disturbed and less sensitive lands expeditiously, but we 
must also take longer term steps to ensure that power plant emissions 
continue to drop.
  I support the President's plan to use Clean Air Act authorities to 
limit greenhouse gas emissions. The Supreme Court's landmark global 
warming case, Massachusetts v. EPA, found greenhouse gases are 
pollutants with the potential to endanger human health and welfare. 
President Obama and EPA have an obligation to comply with these 
directives to limit such emissions. So I very much look forward to the 
President advancing a strong rule which will use market-based 
mechanisms.
  I also believe Congress could act to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 
from power plants by putting an explicit price on pollution. It has 
taken me a long time to get there--approximately 20 years. I supported 
various other mechanisms--and will continue to support--but I am 
convinced, based on information by the Energy Information 
Administration, a fee on greenhouse gas emissions from power plants 
starting at only $10 per ton could reduce emissions 70 percent to 80 
percent by 2050, if the fee steadily increases over time. This is the 
emissions reduction level experts say is necessary to stabilize the 
climate at less than 2 degrees Celsius warmer than today. If we can do 
this, we save planet Earth. If the climate goes 5 degrees to 9 degrees 
warmer by the end of the century, we have lost.
  Such a fee could be responsive to emissions performance. If emissions 
were falling consistent with science-based emissions targets, the fee 
would not have to go up every year. It is estimated a fee on power 
plant emissions would be nearly as effective in reducing heat-trapping 
emissions as an economy-wide fee. The difference is 2 percent. So both 
policies deserve consideration.
  Such a fee would provide industry with cost certainty, and the 
revenues--exceeding $20 billion annually--could help address our 
Nation's debt. They should go back to the general fund. The revenue 
could finance other important national priorities, such as tax reform, 
income inequality, energy research development.
  An MIT study found that if the fee revenues were used to cut other 
taxes or maintain spending for social programs, ``the economy will be 
better off with the carbon (fee) than if we have to keep other taxes 
high or cut programs to rein in the deficit.''
  Science has clearly shown the planet is warming and now at a faster 
rate than ever. We know this. Now we as leaders must make a choice: Do 
we act, do we lead, do we tackle the problem or do we wait until it is 
too late? Do we continue the progress we have made on fuel economy by 
taking on other large emitters or do we simply claim it is impossible, 
it is intractable, we can't do anything about it? Do we blame the 
problem on China? And China has a big problem. Do we deny undeniable 
facts due to current politics?
  I believe we have an obligation to lead. There is no question it is 
difficult and there is no question there are hard choices, but we have 
an obligation to control our own pollution. Our Nation has the 
opportunity to demonstrate to the rest of the world it can be done, and 
tonight shows there are some leaders.
  I thank Senator Boxer, Senator Whitehouse, Senator Markey, and 
Senator Schatz for their leadership,

[[Page 3997]]

not only on this evening but for the years they have led on this issue. 
So let's get it done.
  Before I end, I would note that my legislative assistant, the young 
man sitting next to me, is leaving to work for the Department of 
Energy. He has worked on fuel efficiency standards, climate change, 
energy, transportation, and a number of other issues.
  Matthew Nelson, I want you to know your expertise, your unique 
creativity and capacity, and your dedication will be missed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, may I thank the distinguished 
Senator from California for her speech. For those who know of her 
history with this issue and her leadership on pollution issues over 
many years, this was an important speech, and I thank the Senator very 
much.
  Before we turn to Senator Boxer, I wish to say a few things about the 
comments the Senator from Oklahoma made earlier, I suppose in an effort 
to suggest climate change is not all that we shake it up to be. The 
first point he made was about a group of emails that came out of East 
Anglia University, which the climate denier community seized on and 
nicknamed climategate, as if like Watergate there was a big scandal in 
those emails. There were some probably not entirely appropriate 
comments that were said in the emails, but the question is, Was the 
science underlying it affected or compromised in any way?
  So-called climategate was actually looked at over and over again. 
Because it was at the University of East Anglia, the University of East 
Anglia did an investigation. Because it involved scientists at Penn 
State, Penn State did an investigation. Both of those universities gave 
a complete clean bill of health to the underlying science that was at 
the base of this.
  The House of Commons--the British House of Commons did its 
investigation. That is how much fuss the deniers kicked up about this. 
They came back and they said: Nothing wrong with the science there. 
Nothing wrong with the science. The U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency and National Science Foundation also did investigations, as did 
the inspector general of the Department of Commerce. Three for three, 
those investigations came back as well, saying: If they did say 
anything inappropriate, nothing wrong with the science.
  After all that, after six published reviews whose results confirmed 
that there was nothing wrong with the science as a result of these 
emails, for people to continue to come to the floor and to suggest that 
the email chain revealed some flaw in the data or some flaw in the 
science, it is untrue. It is as simple as that. It is just not true.
  In fact, if you wanted to nickname this properly, you would actually 
call it climategate-gate because the real scandal is the phony scandal 
that was whipped up about these emails when the underlying science had 
been confirmed by every single investigation that followed. So much for 
climategate or climategate-gate, more properly said.
  He also indicated that because the IPCC report had said the Himalayan 
glaciers were retreating, but they weren't, that there was something 
obviously wrong with the science. Let us start with some glaciers 
closer to home. This is Grinell Glacier in Montana. Here is what it 
looked like in 1940. That is all snow. Here is what it looks like in 
2004. It is melted down to this little puddle of snow and ice.
  We are indeed losing our glaciers. Have a look in Washington at 
Lillian Glacier in Washington's Olympic National Park. This is in 1905. 
Look at the size of that glacier. Here it is, the same bowl, virtually 
dried of snow--glacier gone.
  The fact that glaciers are disappearing is something people see in 
front of them all around the world. All you have to do is go to 
mountains with glaciers and look. I went with Senator Boxer to the 
glaciers in Greenland. You could see the glaciers retreat. You could 
see the increased speed as the ice moved more rapidly down and out to 
sea because of the melt.
  Now the question of the Himalayan glaciers has also been reviewed. A 
recent article in Nature said:

       The Tibetan plateau and surroundings contain the largest 
     number of glaciers outside polar regions. These glaciers are 
     at the headwaters of many prominent Asian rivers and are 
     largely experiencing shrinkage. . . .

  Which is exactly what one would expect from the science of climate 
change.
  Now the National Academy of Sciences recently did a report on this 
very subject about 6 months ago, and a quote on that report says:

       The report examines how changes to glaciers in the Hindu 
     Kush-Himalayan region, which covers eight countries across 
     Asia, could affect the area's river systems, water supplies, 
     and the South Asian population. The mountains in the region 
     form the headwaters of several major river systems--including 
     the Ganges, Mekong, Yangtze, and Yellow rivers--which serve 
     as sources of drinking water and irrigation supplies for 
     roughly 1.5 billion people. So the irrigation and drinking 
     water for 1.5 billion people is nothing to laugh about.

  Here is the conclusion:

       The entire Himalayan climate is changing, but how climate 
     change will impact specific places remains unclear. . . . The 
     eastern Himalayas and Tibetan Plateau are warming, and the 
     trend is more pronounced at higher elevations. Models suggest 
     that desert dust and black carbon, a component of soot, could 
     contribute to the rapid atmospheric warming, accelerated 
     snowpack melting, and glacier retreat.

  The Senator also mentioned the cost of a carbon fee. Just to make the 
record completely clear, I would propose a carbon fee whose every 
dollar of revenue was returned to the American people if as a result of 
a carbon fee they end up paying more in their energy bill somewhere.
  Every dollar of that should come back to the American people. It 
could come back in the form of a check to the head of a family. It 
could come back in the form of lower tax rates. It could come back in a 
variety of ways, and I hope soon we are actually having that 
discussion. But do not think there is any need for this to be a net 
cost to the economy. Every dollar can go back to the American people. 
Because of the nature of this tax, it is actually probably more 
efficient than others, so it should create economic lift for a net 
economic gain if you are truly offsetting the revenues. So I reject the 
proposition that this would create a cost. It would be easy to design 
it in such a way that it is actually net improvement.
  Finally, I will agree with something Senator Inhofe said. He said 
this has to be international; and indeed it does have to be 
international. India has a vote. They have a lot of powerplants. China 
has a lot of powerplants. They have to work together. We can do that.
  America can lead in the world. If the others are slow to come, we can 
erect tax adjustments at our border that protect us and our products. 
We can make this happen, and we should.
  The last is job loss claims. If you go back through the history of 
regulation of big industries, every time you roll something out they 
say it is going to be a huge economic disaster. They said this about 
the ozone layer; the Clean Air Act; the Clean Water Act. In fact, in 
some cases such as in the Clean Air Act, subsequent review showed the 
amount that is saved from not being polluted exceeds the cost of 
compliance by as much as 30-to-1. Why would we not want a deal like 
that, particularly where the costs of climate change are going to be so 
severe?
  The Senator said it is important to look at what has happened since 
the original IPCC report. Here is what happened since the original IPCC 
report. They doubled down. They are even more sure than they were of 
their findings on climate change. Other scientific organizations such 
as NASA have chimed in in unflinching language. I happen to have a lot 
of respect for NASA. If you can put a vehicle the size of an SUV up and 
out of our atmosphere, into orbit, send it to Mars, land it safely on 
Mars, and then drive it around, I think there is a pretty safe bet that 
you have some good scientists who know what they are talking about. I 
will put them up against the scientists paid for by the polluters every 
day.

[[Page 3998]]

  I will yield the floor first to Chairman Boxer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Ms. BOXER. I wish to thank Senator Whitehouse for his leadership. We 
are now 30 minutes behind, so I would take up to 30 minutes, and then I 
will be followed by Senator Franken.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection.
  Ms. BOXER. Madam President, I have been on this floor since early 
this evening and it is very clear that deniers are standing with 3 
percent of the scientists while we Democrats who are here tonight 
calling for action are standing with 97 percent of the scientists.
  As I mentioned before, every time the Republicans call a so-called 
expert to the Committee on Environment and Public Works, I track their 
path and they seem to be tied to the oil industry or to major 
polluters. That is just a fact. I am going to talk a little bit later 
about what has happened and why this suddenly has become a bitter 
partisan fight. It never used to be. It never used to be, but it is and 
it is wrong.
  No one party can put together the votes needed. We have to share 
responsibility and that is critical. People have said to me, the press: 
What is the point of this all-nighter? I said, very simply: The Senate 
Climate Action Task Force, which has membership of getting toward 30 
percent of the Senate, we want to wake up the Congress to the fact that 
time is running out. We have to act now. We have to do everything we 
can legislatively in every way.
  The good news--and there is some good news which has nothing to do 
with the Senate. It is all bad news for the Senate, frankly. But the 
good news is that we have a President who gets this and who is moving 
forward with a climate action plan. I am sorry to say every step he 
takes we have people trying to repeal what he is doing. So far we have 
beat back those naysayers and those voices of the polluters.
  One of the major functions of the Senate Climate Action Task Force is 
not just rallying around the scientists and calling attention to 
climate change, but it is clearly to play defense when we see attempts 
to roll back the President's plan.
  We have already seen a CRA, which stands for congressional review 
act, that is in the works to overturn what the President is trying to 
do to clean up coal-fired plants before they even finish the rules. 
Senator McConnell is talking about a race to repeal it before it is 
even put into place. I do not understand this--well, I understand it, 
but it is wrong.
  We have to stand up for our families. As I said in my earlier 
remarks, if you saw any member of your family or any one of your 
constituents standing in the wake of a disaster, say an oncoming car, 
you would do everything in your power--everything in your power--to 
save that constituent or that family member.
  We are facing an out-of-control problem here with our climate. It is 
out of control. If we do not wrap our arms around it, we will have 
catastrophic warming. It has already started and it will lead to 
horrible pain and suffering whether it is heat waves and deaths. We 
have already seen it in Europe. Colleagues from New Mexico and Colorado 
have already talked about horrible floods and fires. I can tell you 
more about fires in my State.
  I have never seen anything like it. We have seen drought. All of this 
was predicted by the scientists back in the early nineties. I cannot 
believe that is 20 years ago that they told us. I think we have proven 
the point that deniers are standing with 3 percent of the scientists 
and every major scientific organization has warned us to act.
  One of my colleagues, Senator Inhofe, came down and said: Oh, it is 
snowing. It is cold. It is called extreme weather, and it is what was 
predicted. The vortex up in the Arctic, we are feeling the impacts of a 
weakened jet stream. We are seeing these terrible temperatures in an 
extreme fashion hit the lower 48 States, some of which have never had 
it before. We have seen with our very own eyes snow in places such as 
Atlanta, people stuck on highways. No one knew what to do because it 
has never happened before. I think we have made the clear case.
  I say to my colleague Senator Schatz, who has worked so hard with 
Senator Whitehouse to put this together, we have proven the point. I 
believe that we stand with science in the mainstream, and our 
colleagues--most of whom have not come to the floor to debate us--are 
standing with the extreme and, frankly, the special polluting 
interests. Now, after they get done with denying, they have a fallback 
position, and they say: Well, even if you believe there is climate 
change, we should not act until China acts. Since when does the 
greatest country on Earth sit back and allow China to lead us out of a 
climate change impending disaster? Since when do we cede that 
authority?
  I want to talk about that. All you have to do is take a look at China 
to see what happens to a country that throws the environment under a 
bus. Let's take a look at some of the people in China and what it looks 
like. These are people on their bicycles. You can't see anything around 
them. They have masks on. We are going to wait for China to lead us out 
of the climate change problem? I don't think so.
  I went to China on a very interesting trip with Leader Reid a couple 
of years ago. We were there for a good 10 days. We really saw the 
country. It is fascinating. There are a lot of interesting things going 
on there with transportation and so on. We never saw the Sun--never.
  One day the Sun was behind the smog, and the guy who was with us 
said: What a beautiful day.
  I said: No, it is not. This is terrible.
  We went to the American Embassy. They have a measuring tool that 
tells them how dirty the air is in China. It is a hazardous duty post. 
People who were there with their kids were told not to go out because 
it was too dangerous. China has hazardous levels of pollution and toxic 
emissions which have had very harmful effects on the Chinese people.
  We are supposed to wait for China to clean up carbon pollution? I 
don't think so. According to a scientific study from the Health Effects 
Institute, outdoor air pollution contributed to 1.2 million premature 
deaths in China in 2010 alone. This is not fiction; this is fact.
  We have voices on the Republican side of the aisle who are begging 
us: Don't do anything on carbon pollution until China acts. Air 
pollution was the fourth leading risk factor for deaths in China. The 
threat is expected to get worse.
  Urban air pollution is set to become the top environmental cause of 
mortality worldwide by 2050--ahead of dirty water and lack of 
sanitation. It is estimated that up to 3.6 million people could end up 
dying prematurely from air pollution each year, mostly in China and 
India. Think about that. Yes, we will hear our colleagues say China and 
India too.
  I represent a very large and great State with a population of 38 
million people. We are on the cutting edge of a clean environment. We 
are tackling carbon pollution. We are seeing great jobs being developed 
in solar, wind, and geothermal. We are going to have one-third of our 
electricity generation come from clean sources by 2020. I am so proud 
of my State. The special interests came in there and they tried to 
repeal all of our laws that had to do with cleaning up carbon 
pollution, and the people--even though they were faced with millions of 
dollars in oil company ads--said no.
  So the people who say this isn't real, we have already disproved 
that. I put out the names of every possible organization. If you ask 
the American people about those organizations, they would say: We 
respect those organizations. So that is out.
  Then they say: Wait for China. That is out. In January the U.S. 
Embassy issued warnings to China's citizens that the air quality in 
Beijing was so bad it exceeded the upper limits of its measurements, 
and the exposure to fine soot was many times above what the World 
Health Organization considers hazardous. They call it an

[[Page 3999]]

``airpocalyse.'' It forced the Chinese Government to close highways 
because the visibility was so bad.
  This goes on in cities across China. A woman looked out her window in 
Harbin and said: ``I couldn't see anything outside the window, and I 
thought it was snowing.'' Then she realized it wasn't snow; it was 
dangerous toxic smog. That is what the people are living with. They are 
beside themselves. They walk around with masks. They can't go out. They 
are suffering and dying. And this is the country that my colleagues say 
we ought to wait for before we tackle climate change? You have to be 
kidding me. This is an embarrassment. Citizens of Harbin can see only 
10 yards in front of them because small particle pollution soared to a 
record 40 times higher than international standards.
  By the way, the cost of environmental degradation in China was about 
$230 billion in 2010 or 3.5 percent of the Nation's gross domestic 
product.
  We know that Superstorm Sandy cost us about $60 billion. One storm 
cost $60 billion. So when you talk about the economic impact of putting 
a price on carbon polluters who are polluting this country, put that 
into the context of what happens if you let them continue polluting. 
Superstorm Sandy--we all lived through it. We all saw what happened.
  I have seen the fires in California. We have seen them in New Mexico 
and Colorado. We know the costs that come from those fires. We have 
seen the drought. The President was out there. Thank God he came out 
there to give some money. Do you know that our ranchers were destroying 
their cattle, killing their cattle because there was no feed? The 
President went out there and made sure that emergency help was 
delivered so they could buy feed for those cattle.
  When people say it is going to cost a lot to solve climate change, I 
beg them to think about the costs if we do nothing. Look at China. They 
did nothing about clean air, and they are paying the price with 
premature deaths, lost productivity, and people who are miserable.
  Here is the thing: We learned a long time ago that stepping up to an 
environmental challenge pays off. Decades ago, the United States 
experienced damage and degradation--tremendous damage--to our 
environment. The Cuyahoga River in Ohio was on fire, massive air 
pollution hung over our cities, and lakes were dying from pollution. 
The American people demanded action. Guess what. We didn't wait for 
China or India or anybody else to act. We came together as Democrats 
and Republicans and said: This isn't appropriate.
  President Nixon helped on the environment, President George Herbert 
Walker Bush helped on the environment, Jimmy Carter helped on the 
environment, Bill Clinton helped on the environment, and Barack Obama 
is helping on the environment. But now it has become a partisan issue.
  The Clean Air Act goes back to 1970, and it was strengthened in 1990. 
Since 1990, the United States has cut fine particulate emissions. Those 
are the emissions that get into your lungs and cause all of our 
problems. Since 1990 we have cut those particulates by 57 percent 
because Democrats and Republicans came together. Now Republicans want 
to repeal all of that, but we won't let them. Fine particulate 
emissions is what is making the Chinese people sick.
  In 1976 there were 166 days when health advisories were issued in 
southern California to urge people with asthma and other people with 
lung sensitivities to stay indoors. That was in 1976. The American 
people said: No, no, no; this isn't right. The people of California 
said: This is terrible. There were 166 days where I couldn't go out and 
breathe the air and take a walk and take my kids out.
  Thanks to the action taken by Democrats and Republicans who worked 
together to pass the Clean Air Act and carry it out, the number of 
smog-related health advisories in 2010 in southern California dropped 
to--drum roll--zero days. So anyone who stands here and says, ``Oh, 
this problem is too big. I can't wrap my arms around it. China and 
India have to act,'' no, no, no, that is not America.
  We have brilliant people in this country with great technological 
skills. Many of our States--and I am so proud of my State--have the 
latest technologies to clean up the air and water, make cars fuel 
efficient. My friend Senator Feinstein spoke about fuel efficiency in 
cars, and I am so pleased we have done that. President Obama is now 
applying it to trucks.
  We are literally saving lives because we know outdoor air pollution 
causes cancer. We know that. Let me tell you what the National Climate 
Assessment--that is our country--is saying about climate change:

       Climate change threatens human health and well-being in 
     many ways, including impacts from increased extreme weather 
     events, wildfire, decreased air quality, diseases transmitted 
     by insects, food and water . . . Some of these health impacts 
     are already underway in the U.S.

  Clearly we have proven tonight that we stand with science. We are not 
scientists, but we are humbled before the science.
  We know our Nation has shown great leadership in the environmental 
movement for years. We started this back in the 1970s when that river 
caught on fire and we said: What are we doing to our planet?
  We should not and we must not wait for other countries to act. We 
must take action now, and that is the purpose of the Senate Climate 
Action Task Force. I am so proud of my colleagues who are here tonight 
and who go to those meetings every Thursday. Ed Markey is leading us in 
meetings on Tuesdays, which is the clearinghouse. The clearinghouse is 
more of a think tank where we bring in the experts. We listen and 
question them. On Thursdays we meet with the task force. Members of the 
task force speak to the Democratic caucus.
  I say to Harry Reid, if he is listening, how much I appreciate his 
leadership on this issue. He has seen some of the horrible impacts of 
climate change in his great State. His State has leaders in alternative 
clean energy. They are moving away from coal and toward clean energy. 
They are creating good-paying jobs.
  When we put a price on carbon, the dirty industries start to pay for 
the pollution they are causing, and that will move us toward clean 
energy. When we move to clean energy, we will see a tremendous 
difference in the amount of carbon pollution in the air, and we will be 
able to avert the most dire predictions for climate, which is 7 degrees 
Fahrenheit. We don't want to see that for our children and our 
grandchildren and our great grandchildren because that will literally 
change the face of the way America lives.
  We have it in our hands. Tonight we are saying: Wake up, Congress. 
Please, wake up. To my colleague from Oklahoma, Senator Inhofe, who is 
my friend, who said: You guys are just talking to each other; good 
luck, good night, I respond: I am proud to say more than 100,000 people 
have so far signed petitions calling on Congress to act, and this is 
just early in the evening. We are going to be going another almost 11 
hours.
  To Senator Whitehouse and Senator Schatz I say thank you for 
organizing this. It is a little like herding cats, getting us all here, 
but it is working. It is working because Senators here get it. They 
know they are going to be here for a finite time, and when we get a 
challenge such as this, we stand up to it. We find the solutions and we 
fight for them, and we fight for the people of this great Nation.
  Thank you so much, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kaine). The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. FRANKEN. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank Senator Boxer and 
Senator Schatz and Senator Whitehouse for organizing this.
  I rise tonight to talk about climate change, along with 25 to 30 of 
my colleagues who will be speaking through the night.
  The recent extreme weather events we have experienced across the 
United States are our call to action. We in this

[[Page 4000]]

body need not just to talk about climate change but to take action to 
address it. If we fail to act, the extreme weather events we have seen 
will only grow more extreme in the future.
  This winter has been exceptionally cold in many areas of the United 
States, including Minnesota. Some deniers have taken this as a sign 
that climate change isn't happening. They have pointed to the cold 
weather as evidence that global warming is not occurring. But they are 
missing the point. We already know that on average the Earth is 
warming. This isn't complicated. We have been using thermometers to 
make measurements around the globe for a long time. We know average 
temperatures have gone up significantly in recent years.
  But climate change isn't just about the average temperature. As the 
average temperature continues to rise, most experts agree we will see 
ever more frequent extreme weather events, including drought, storms, 
floods, and other extreme events. It is important to remember that we 
are not attributing any one event to climate change, but we can say 
there will be more extreme weather events as the Earth grows warmer.
  As the Presiding Officer knows, we have seen the polar vortex bring 
Arctic weather to much of the United States during this winter. 
According to White House Science Adviser Dr. John Holdren, we can 
expect to see more of this kind of extreme cold as global warming 
continues. This is going to have serious consequences--it already has.
  In my home State of Minnesota, the extreme cold has contributed to 
very serious propane shortages. Many rural residents are unable to 
properly heat their homes. Turkey growers are finding it difficult to 
heat their barns and, therefore, their turkeys. This is not just a 
problem in Minnesota. Other areas of the country have been affected. We 
in the Senate have to talk about what is happening and start taking 
action in the face of climate change threats.
  The ongoing drought in California and other States is another 
example. The situation is particularly grave in California where vast 
regions have been classified as D4, which is the most severe drought 
category. This has cost farmers their crops and livestock and created 
severe water shortages for residents and businesses. Farmers have had 
to stop farming half a million acres of what normally is irrigated 
land. That is about 6 percent of the entire State of California. 
According to the California Farm Water Coalition, it is already costing 
that State $5 billion. These costs get passed on to every American. As 
a result of this drought, Americans have to pay more and will continue 
to pay more for groceries this winter.
  Unfortunately, droughts such as this are becoming commonplace. In 
2012, drought caused more than 70 percent of U.S. counties to be 
declared disaster areas. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration estimated the economic impact of droughts to be $30 
billion. The droughts destroyed or damaged major crops all over this 
country, making corn and soybeans more expensive and increasing animal 
feed costs. Again, Americans pay more for meats and other animal-based 
products because of drought.
  In the Midwest, the 2012 drought dramatically lowered water levels in 
the Mississippi River, seriously interfering with our ability to 
transport our agricultural goods to market to compete with those from 
other countries. So that barges wouldn't run aground, shippers sent 
them down the Mississippi only half full with, say, soybeans. This made 
Minnesota soybeans less competitive with Brazilian soybeans.
  Climate change is also exacerbating our Nation's wildfires, as we 
heard Senator Wyden from Oregon describe about his State. When Forest 
Service Chief Tom Tidwell testified in 2012 before the Senate Energy 
Committee, I asked him about the link between climate change and forest 
fires. He told us that throughout the country we are seeing longer fire 
seasons--more than 2 months longer--compared to fire seasons in the 
1970s. Wildfires are also larger and more intense. I asked Chief 
Tidwell whether scientists at the Forest Service thought climate change 
was causing this increase in the size and intensity of wildfires and 
extending their season, and without hesitation he said yes. The Forest 
Service is spending more and more fighting wildfires--now about half of 
its entire budget.
  Longer fires and larger, more intense fires are going to eat up more 
and more of that budget. In addition, these wildfires--especially ones 
that occur at the wildland-urban interface--are increasingly 
threatening homes and property. Most importantly, more intense fires 
are costing lives. The 19 brave firefighters who perished in Arizona 
last June should be a reminder of the gravity of this issue.
  Of course, we cannot talk about climate change without talking about 
sea level rise. As I said, I serve on the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources. In 2012, I attended a hearing on sea level rise and 
heard testimony about how rising sea levels are increasing the size of 
flood zones and increasing damage from storm surges. One example they 
used--they said this is a possibility--is that a few inches of sea 
level rise could result in a storm surge that could flood the New York 
City subway system. It sounded like something out of science fiction. 
Yet 6 months later, that is exactly what happened when Hurricane Sandy 
hit New York City and flooded the subways. My colleagues do not need to 
be reminded of the cost of Hurricane Sandy. It cost taxpayers a 
staggering $60 billion.
  So when people talk about the harmful consequences of climate change 
and its costs in terms of homes and dollars and lives, they are not 
talking about some far-off future problem. Climate change is already 
hurting us.
  Unfortunately, only one of my colleagues from the other side of the 
aisle--the ranking member of the Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee, Senator Murkowski from Alaska--attended that hearing. This 
has been pretty much the case whenever we have a hearing that even 
tangentially relates to climate change.
  A number of my colleagues in Congress don't believe human activity is 
contributing to climate change. Many others, I suspect, don't talk 
about climate change because addressing it requires that we make some 
difficult choices.
  This is despite the fact that even some of the major fossil fuel 
companies that previously funded anti-climate change efforts have 
turned the page on this issue. ExxonMobil used to fund the Heartland 
Institute, one of the leading organizations spreading climate change 
denial propaganda. But if we go to ExxonMobil's Web site today, it 
states: ``Rising greenhouse gas emissions pose significant risks to 
society and ecosystems.'' That is ExxonMobil.
  Shell Oil states on its Web site: ``CO2 emissions must be 
reduced to avoid serious climate change.'' That is Shell Oil.
  So even the major oil and gas companies have begun to acknowledge 
that climate change is real. I would respectfully suggest that my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle here in Congress also need to 
engage in a serious conversation on climate change.
  At a time when Americans are dealing with record droughts and other 
extreme weather events, the Senate cannot afford to simply ignore 
climate change. Ultimately, we have to come together to start 
addressing climate change before its damage and costs to society get 
out of control.
  I know this is not going to be easy. Some will point out that climate 
change is a global problem--sometimes called global climate change--and 
that we can't solve it alone. They are right. Emissions in the 
developing world are on the rise. China now surpasses the U.S. in total 
greenhouse gas emissions. But China is also starting to wake up to its 
serious pollution problem. In fact, at the opening of the annual 
meeting of its parliament last week, the Chinese Premier stated that 
his country is declaring a war on pollution. Overcoming pollution 
challenges will require China to invest heavily in renewable and other 
environmentally friendly technologies. It is going to

[[Page 4001]]

make the global clean energy race even more competitive. If we are 
going to win this race and create good-paying jobs for Americans, we 
have to invest in clean energy.
  We know that government investment in energy can pay off. Take the 
example of natural gas. We are currently experiencing a natural gas 
boom in this country. Sometimes my colleagues forget that this boom 
happened in large part because of years of Federal support to develop 
hydraulic fracturing technology. The Eastern Gas Shales Project was an 
initiative the Federal Government began back in 1976, before hydraulic 
fracturing was a mature industry. The project set up and funded dozens 
of pilot demonstration projects with universities and private gas 
companies that tested drilling and fracturing methods. This investment 
by the Federal Government was instrumental in the development of the 
commercial extraction of natural gas from shale. In fact, microseismic 
imaging--a critical tool used in fracking--was originally developed by 
Sandia National Laboratory, a Federal energy laboratory.
  The industry was also supported through tax breaks and subsidies. In 
fact, Mitchell Energy Vice President Dan Stewart said in an interview 
that Mitchell Energy's first horizontal well was subsidized by the 
Federal Government. Mr. Mitchell said:

       DOE--

  That is the Department of Energy--

     DOE started it, and other people took the ball and ran with 
     it. You cannot diminish DOE's involvement.

  This is from one of the pioneers of horizontal drilling: ``You cannot 
diminish DOE's involvement.''
  So the basis of the natural gas revolution that is helping make 
America more energy independent can be traced back to Federal research 
and Federal support.
  In the same way, we have to support the renewable energy sector now. 
We have to be the ones who will develop these technologies and the ones 
who sell them to other nations. We need to lead the world in clean 
energy innovation.
  (Mr. MERKLEY assumed the Chair.)
  At the moment, we are not doing enough. Last year the Senate Energy 
Committee heard testimony regarding a report from the American Energy 
Innovation Council entitled ``Catalyzing Ingenuity.'' The report, 
authored by Bill Gates, Microsoft; former Lockheed Martin CEO Norman 
Augustine; and other business leaders, states:

       The country has yet to embark on a clean energy innovation 
     program commensurate with the scale of the national 
     priorities that are at stake. In fact, rather than improve 
     the country's energy innovation program and invest in 
     strategic national interests, the current political 
     environment is creating strong pressure to pull back from 
     such efforts.

  The report is a wakeup call and makes a convincing case for why 
government needs to support innovation in the energy sector.
  Unfortunately, it has been difficult for Congress to pass 
comprehensive clean energy legislation, even though this is an 
essential prerequisite if we are going to win the global clean energy 
race. The good news is that many individual States, which really are 
the laboratories of our democracy, have gone forward with their own 
clean energy programs.
  As chair of the Energy Subcommittee on the Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee, I recently held a hearing on lessons from State 
energy programs. Among the innovative programs developed by many States 
are goals and mandates for renewable energy production as well as for 
increased energy efficiency of government and commercial buildings.
  I say to the Presiding Officer, you probably know this because you 
are Senator Merkley and you know a lot. You probably know this. But 
over half the States have renewable portfolio standards. These 
standards are improving the air, creating jobs, and growing the 
economy.
  My home State of Minnesota is one of the leaders in this area. We 
have a 25-by-25 renewable portfolio standard in place, which means that 
25 percent of the State's electricity must come from renewable sources 
by the year 2025. Excel Energy, Minnesota's largest utility, is 
following an even more ambitious plan of generating over 30 percent 
renewable energy by the year 2020, and they are on track to do that.
  I believe the Federal Government should follow what the States are 
already doing and put a comprehensive and long-term clean energy plan 
in place.
  One of the issues we discussed in my subcommittee was the upcoming 
EPA rules to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from existing coal-fired 
powerplants. I know that a number of my colleagues are concerned about 
these regulations and have argued that they will increase the cost of 
electricity, especially in areas that are heavily dependent on coal and 
coal-fired plants.
  I understand these concerns. I believe these regulations should be 
crafted using common sense. For example, if you give flexibility to 
States to implement these regulations, you can allow powerplant 
operators to offset their emissions by investing in energy efficiency 
in homes and buildings. Buildings consume about 36 percent, 37 percent 
of the energy in this country. If you retrofit our buildings, you will 
get the same environmental result at a lower cost to powerplant owners. 
And just as important, you will unleash energy efficiency manufacturing 
and installation jobs throughout the country. It will reduce our energy 
use. It will benefit the environment and send a signal throughout the 
business sector that we are serious about deploying long-term energy-
efficient solutions. That is why NORESCO, a major energy service 
company that testified at my hearing, was a strong proponent of this 
proposal.
  In fact, we learned during my hearing that there was universal 
agreement among witnesses--both Democratic and Republican witnesses--
that giving States more flexibility to implement these regulations 
would be good.
  So when we talk about taking on climate change, let's start with what 
we can all agree on. Let's do that stuff first. Let's do Shaheen-
Portman.
  The stakes are simply too high to ignore this issue. We cannot leave 
it to future generations. Last year my first grandchild Joe was born, 
and I do not want to look back in 20 years and tell Joe that when we 
were in a position to do something about climate change we chose not to 
because it involved some difficult choices.
  Now, Joe is going to live through this century and, God willing, into 
the next. Unless we act now, his generation will pay a very high price 
for our inaction. Tonight, throughout the night, you are going to be 
hearing about that. You are going to be hearing about the Department of 
Defense research into this and the costs that we will pay when we have 
to address this.
  I do not want to have to have my grandson think of me long after I am 
gone and ask: Why didn't we do anything to address climate change while 
we could.
  So I invite my colleagues from both sides of the aisle--both sides--
to join in this endeavor. We really owe it to the Nation, and we owe it 
to future generations.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, as I begin, I thank Senator Boxer for her 
wonderful leadership of the Environment Committee and for her strong 
activism regarding climate change. I thank Senator Whitehouse and 
Senator Schatz, as well, for organizing this important discussion 
tonight.
  The scientific community has been extremely clear--no debate--climate 
change is real, climate change is manmade, and climate change is 
already causing severe damage in terms of drought, floods, forest 
fires, rising sea levels, and extreme weather disturbances. Given that 
reality, I find it extremely disturbing that virtually all--not all but 
virtually all--of my Republican colleagues continue to ignore the 
scientific evidence and refuse to support serious legislation which 
will address this planetary crisis. My hope is that my small State of 
Vermont will be a national leader, will be a model for

[[Page 4002]]

the rest of the country in transforming our energy system, moving us 
away from fossil fuels and into energy efficiency and sustainable 
energy. And doing that, by the way, will not only help the United 
States become a leader in reversing climate change but can, over a 
period of years, create millions of good-paying jobs in this country. 
And that has to be the goal.
  Some people ask--many people ask--they say: Well, why aren't you guys 
doing anything on this issue? The scientific community is almost 
unanimous about the causation of climate change or about its severity. 
What are you doing?
  Let me answer that by just very briefly reading an exchange that took 
place in the Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee on April 
11, 2013. Let me preface my remarks by saying Senator Jim Inhofe of 
Oklahoma is a friend of mine. I like Jim Inhofe. He is an honest 
person, a straightforward person. But on this issue, he is dead, dead 
wrong. This is the exchange that took place on April 11, 2013. I was in 
a committee hearing, and this is what I said:

       What Senator Inhofe has written--

And he has published a book on this issue--

       What Senator Inhofe has written and talked about is his 
     belief that global warming is one of the major hoaxes ever 
     perpetrated on the American people. That it's a hoax pushed 
     by people like Al Gore, the United Nations and the Hollywood 
     elite.

  Senator Inhofe was also in this committee hearing, and I said:

       I think that is a fair quote from Senator Inhofe. Is that 
     roughly right, Senator Inhofe?

  He was right here, and Mr. Inhofe said:

       Yes, I would add to that list: Moveon.org, George Soros, 
     Michael Moore and a few others.

  So that is where we are. We have a gentleman--again, a very honest, 
decent man whom I like--a former chair of the Environment Committee, a 
former ranking member of the environment committee, who believes that 
global warming is a hoax pushed by people like Al Gore, the United 
Nations, and the Hollywood elite. So when people ask me why we are not 
doing anything, I would say that is pretty much the reason.
  But let me respond to that, to Mr. Inhofe's views, by saying the 
following: Climate change is real, and there is no longer a scientific 
debate about that. In the words of the U.S. Global Change Research 
Program, which includes EPA, NASA, the National Science Foundation, and 
the Departments of Defense, Energy, State, Health, Interior, 
Transportation, and Commerce: ``global warming is unequivocal and 
primarily human-induced.''
  It is not my view. It is not Senator Boxer's view, not Senator 
Schatz's view. That is the view of the U.S. Global Change Research 
Program, which includes some of the major agencies of the U.S. 
Government. By the way, clearly it is not just the U.S. Government or 
agencies that believe that. There are agencies representing virtually 
every country on Earth that have come to the same conclusion.
  Now, when some people say: Well, there is a debate; the evidence is 
not yet clear; the scientific community is not quite sure, let me clear 
the air on that one. According to a study published in the journal 
Environmental Research Letters in May of last year, more than 97 
percent of the peer-reviewed scientific literature on climate supports 
the view that human activity is a primary cause of global warming.

       I believe I read yesterday that the minority leader, 
     Senator McConnell of Kentucky, was saying: Well, for every 
     person who believes that climate change is real, there is 
     another person who disagrees. Well, the polling indicates 
     that is not quite accurate. But what is really important is 
     not what this person feels or what that person feels, it is 
     what those people who have studied the issue extensively 
     believe. That is really what matters. And for those people--
     the 97 percent of the peer-reviewed scientific literature on 
     this issue--they say very clearly that climate change is real 
     and that human activity is a primary cause of global warming.

  I am reminded--I think Senator Boxer made this point a while ago--
that the debate we are having now is very reminiscent of the debate we 
had 30 or 40 years ago about the role tobacco plays in cancer, 
emphysema, heart conditions, and so forth. We had people, well-funded 
by the Tobacco Institute, coming before the American people, putting 
ads on television, saying: You know smoking is okay; there is no 
evidence linking smoking to cancer.
  Well, they were lying, as a matter of fact. Many of these people were 
being funded by the Tobacco Institute. I think we are in the same 
position now. A lot of the information--misinformation--which is coming 
forward is funded by the fossil fuel industry. We should be clear about 
that.
  Is there still a scientific debate about anything related to climate? 
What is the debate? Well, the only remaining scientific debates are 
about just how devastating climate change will be. Of that, the 
scientists are not exactly sure. There is a disagreement. Are we on 
track for a 2-degree change by the end of the century? Will the planet 
warm by 2 degrees? Will it warm by 4 degrees? Will it warm by 6 
degrees? People are not exactly sure. But they are certainly sure that 
it will warm. Will sea levels rise by 1 foot? Will they rise by 3 feet? 
By 4 feet? Again, scientists are not clear. But they are absolutely 
clear that sea levels will rise.
  As a result of industrial greenhouse gas emissions, Earth's climate 
warmed more between 1971 and 2000 than during any other 3-decade 
interval in the last 1,400 years, reports a paper in the journal Nature 
Geoscience, based on research conducted by 78 scientists from 24 
nations, analyzing climate data from tree rings, pollen, cave 
formations, ice cores, lake and ocean sediment, and historical records 
from around the sea.
  The globe has already warmed 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit from 1880 to 
2012, and the vast majority of that warming, 1.1 degrees Fahrenheit, 
has happened since 1950. According to NOAA, November 2013 was the 
hottest November on record, and 2012 was the warmest year on record in 
the contiguous United States, and saw at least 69,000 local heat 
records set.
  2013 was the fourth warmest year ever recorded since 1880. The World 
Bank, no bastion of left-leaning environmental thinking, is among those 
expressing grave concern about the trend. The World Bank concluded that 
limiting the global temperature increase to 2 degrees centigrade might 
allow us to keep sea level rise by 2100 to less than 2.3 feet.
  Unfortunately, the World Bank also acknowledges we are on track for a 
4-degree centigrade increase, which would result in extreme heat waves 
and life-threatening sea level rise. Since 1901, the global sea level 
has risen about 7.5 inches and it is getting worse; over the last 20 
years seas have been rising nearly twice as fast.
  All over the world glaciers and icepacks are melting. Glaciers in the 
Mount Everest region have shrunk by 13 percent in the last 50 years. 
Glaciers on Mount Kilimanjaro in Tanzania have already shrunk by 80 
percent and are expected to be completely gone by 2020. Greenland's ice 
sheets lost ice at a rate of about 60 cubic miles per year between 2002 
and 2011. This is six times faster than the ice was melting during the 
decades before that. All of these impacts and more can be traced 
directly to carbon emissions and their effect on the atmosphere.
  In 2013, as the Presiding Officer knows, we witnessed an ominous 
milestone: The daily mean concentration of carbon dioxide in the 
atmosphere surpassed 400 parts per million. The last time 
CO2 levels were this high was probably between 2.2 million 
and 3.6 million years ago, when it was so warm there were forests in 
Greenland.
  What does climate change mean? What are the consequences of global 
warming? How is climate change already impacting our lives--not in 5 
years, not in 50 years, but right now? For one thing, climate change is 
making droughts in the Western United States and in other parts of the 
world more severe, longer lasting, and more frequent. Scientists expect 
the precipitation pattern will continue shifting, expanding the 
geographic extent of the dry subtropics, leading to warmer and drier 
weather, which then causes air temperatures to increase even more.

[[Page 4003]]

  This helps explain why drought-stricken Texas saw the hottest summer 
ever recorded for a U.S. State in 2011, leading to a combination of 
drought and wildfires, costing $10 billion in damage, and the drought 
continues. As of last month, Texas had only received 68 percent of its 
normal rainfall between 2011 and 2013, and reservoirs are at their 
lowest levels since 1990.
  We should be very clear about this: When we talk about global 
warming, we are talking about the globe, the global community, not just 
the United States, not just Texas, not just California. Australia last 
year endured an ``angry summer,'' which is what it was called, which 
brought both the hottest month and the hottest day the country had ever 
witnessed, and a 4-month heat wave, severe wildfires, and torrential 
rains and flooding, causing $2.4 billion in damage.
  Last year's heat wave in China was the worst in at least 140 years. 
These droughts have very real consequences for water availability. Many 
regions in Southeast Asia, South Asia, and Sub-Saharan Africa, for 
example, are expected to experience a decline of 20 percent in water 
availability if the climate warms 2 degrees centigrade and a 50-percent 
decline if the climate warms by 4 degrees centigrade. What we are 
talking about here is the inability of people to get water to drink, 
the inability of people to get water to farm. This then leads to other 
problems, including mass migrations and struggles of limited natural 
resources.
  With sustained drought and heat waves comes wildfire. As Thomas 
Tidwell, Chief of the US Forest Service, explained to Congress last 
year: America's wildfire season now lasts 2 months longer than it did 
40 years ago--2 months longer than just 40 years ago--and burns up 
twice as much land as it did then because of the hotter, drier 
conditions from climate change.
  We are seeing this very horrendous and expensive situation of 
wildfires in the southwest of this country. The wildfires, in fact, are 
expected to increase 50 percent across the United States under a 
changing climate, while some studies predict increases of more than 100 
percent in parts of areas of the Western United States by 2050. When 
you think about climate change and you think about drier forests, we 
are looking at very serious problems regarding wildfires.
  Rising sea levels, another great concern and impact of climate 
change, also lead to more destructive storm surges. According to NOAA, 
Hurricane Sandy's storm surge exceeded 14 feet in places, which was a 
record for New York City. The National Academy of Sciences estimated 
every 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit increase in global average surface 
temperature could be a twofold to sevenfold increase in the risk of 
extreme storm surge events similar to Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy.
  When some people tell us: Well, gee, we cannot afford to address the 
problems of climate change, I would suggest we cannot afford not to 
address this crisis, if only for the kinds of money we are going to 
have to be spending repairing the damage of hurricanes like Sandy, and 
maybe hurricanes that are even worse.
  We heard during a recent Senate environment committee hearing that 
the State of Florida has already seen 5 to 8 inches of sea level rise 
in the past 50 years, with no end in sight. In the Florida Keys we 
expect that nearly 90 percent of Monroe County would be completely 
inundated at high tide, with just 3 feet of sea level rise, and New 
Orleans can expect to see an ocean level increase of well over 4 feet 
by the end of the century.
  In other words, what we are looking at here, in Florida, Miami, 
Louisiana, New Orleans, Massachusetts, Boston, New York City, what we 
are looking at is seas rising, which actually threatens the very 
existence of parts of those cities.
  Experts are predicting that cities such as Miami, Fort Lauderdale, 
New York, and New Orleans will face a growing threat of partial 
submersion within just a few decades as sea levels and storm surge 
levels continue to climb. What will it mean if the seas continue to 
rise and extreme weather events--severe drought, wildfires, storms, 
flooding--become much more common? One of the most important 
consequences will be massive human dislocation all over the world.
  More than 32 million people fled their homes in 2012 because of 
disasters such as floods and storms. An estimated 98 percent of this 
displacement was related to climate change. So when you look into the 
future--and one of the reasons that agencies such as the CIA and the 
Department of Defense and other security agencies worry very much about 
climate change is they see the national security implications of 
massive dislocations of people in different States or regions of the 
country fighting over limited resources, water, land, in order to 
survive.
  The Department of Defense, in its 2010 Quadrennial Review, called 
climate change a potential ``accelerant of instability or conflict.'' 
The potential economic impact of climate change on agriculture, for 
example, is huge. Water scarcity will make it harder to irrigate 
fields, and higher temperatures will make some areas unsuitable for 
growing crops. A study from the International Food Policy Research 
Institute found that globally climate change will greatly increase 
prices for staple crops such as corn, wheat, rice, and soybeans, 
including an approximately 100-percent increase in the price of wheat.
  What this means for Americans, for people all over the world who are 
already struggling economically, is that climate change will mean less 
areas being farmed and higher food prices, something we cannot afford 
right now.
  I think the question some viewers may have is, if the science is so 
clear--and it really is quite clear here in the United States and 
around the world--why do we not fix it? Why do we not come up with the 
bold strategy we need so America is a leader in the world in cutting 
greenhouse gas emissions and transforming our energy system? The good 
news here is the transformation of our energy system is going to be 
less expensive, if you like, than doing nothing.
  Doing nothing means that we will see higher food prices, we will see 
wildfires, we will see scarcities of food, and we will see weather 
disturbances wreaking havoc on communities all over America and around 
the world, requiring huge amounts of monies to address those problems. 
What is the alternative? What do we begin to do?
  The answer and the good news is that we--right now, today--have the 
technology to begin the process of significantly transforming our 
energy system. We know how to do it with today's technology, and that 
technology will only be improved in months and years to come.
  I will give a few examples of some of the good news that is happening 
in terms of the ability that we now have to move to sustainable energy.
  The cost of solar--which certainly will be one of the major 
sustainable energy technologies that we look to in the future--
continues to plummet.
  The Solar Energy Industries Association, in a report issued only last 
week, reported that the average weighted cost of a solar PV system was 
$2.59 per watt, a 15-percent drop from the year before.
  According to the Solar Energy Industries Association, utility-scale 
solar--perhaps the best comparison to utility-scale conventional 
electricity generation--now costs on average 7.7 cents per kilowatt 
hour compared to about 10 cents per kilowatt hour on average for power 
plants now operating across the United States.
  The cost of wind energy is also comparable to or even less than the 
cost of other more traditional energy sources. The average cost of wind 
power coming online between now and 2018 is estimated to be 8.6 cents 
per kilowatt hour, even without including the value of the production 
tax credit.
  Moving to sustainable energies such as solar, wind, geothermal, 
biomass, and hydropower clearly is something that we should be doing 
very aggressively.
  When we do that, we not only cut greenhouse gas emissions, we not 
only significantly cut air pollution but in the process we create many 
jobs as we transform our energy system. But sustainable energy is only 
one part of the

[[Page 4004]]

equation. What we must also do is invest very significantly in energy 
efficiency and in sustainable energy. Every dollar invested in 
efficiency and low-income households through the Weatherization 
Assistance Program results in $2.53 in energy and nonenergy benefits 
for a community.
  I suspect the story is the same in Maine as it is in Vermont, but I 
can remember meeting with two older women who were sisters. They lived 
in Barre, VT, and they were able to get their homes weatherized. Their 
home, as many of the homes in Vermont, was old, leaking energy, not 
well insulated, did not have good windows, did not have good roofing, 
and the heat was just going right through the walls. As a result of a 
weatherization project in their home, their fuel bill went down by 50 
percent.
  These were seniors and low-income citizens. When we move in this 
direction, we can save Americans substantial sums on their fuel bills. 
We create local jobs. We cut greenhouse gas emissions. If that is not a 
win-win-win situation, then I don't know what is.
  It seems to me that we should be investing substantially in subsidies 
such as the Investment Tax Credit and the Production Tax Credit. Every 
dollar we invest in these efforts yields many more in savings.
  It is also true that when some of my friends object to the government 
helping to assist sustainable energies or putting money into energy 
efficiency, they seem to forget that the very mature and very 
profitable fossil fuel industry benefits very substantially from the 
subsidies that we have provided them. In fact, American taxpayers are 
set to give away over $100 billion to the oil, gas, and coal industries 
over the next decade through a wide range of subsidies, tax breaks, and 
loopholes.
  If we can subsidize the coal industry, if we can subsidize ExxonMobil 
and the oil industry, if we can subsidize the gas industry, we sure as 
heck can subsidize and provide support for wind, solar, and other 
sustainable energies.
  I come to the end of my remarks and suggest the following: The time 
is now for us to take bold and decisive action. As my colleague Senator 
Franken mentioned, those of us who have kids--and I have four--and 
those of us who have grandchildren--I have seven beautiful 
grandchildren--they will look us in the eye 20 years from now and say: 
Why did you let this happen? Didn't you know what was happening? Didn't 
you understand what lack of action would do for our country and the 
planet?
  That is the issue we face. We need to have the courage now to stand 
up to extremely wealthy and powerful forces in big energy--and that is 
the coal companies, the oil companies, the gas companies--and come up 
with an alternative vision for energy in America.
  In that regard, I am proud to have joined with my colleague, the 
chair of the environmental committee, Senator Barbara Boxer, to 
introduce last year the Climate Protection Act.
  Our bill does what, at the end of the day, every serious person 
understands must be done, and that is to establish a fee on carbon 
pollution emissions--an approach, by the way, endorsed not only by 
progressives but also by moderates and even prominent conservatives 
such as George Shultz, Nobel laureate economist Gary Becker, Mitt 
Romney's former economic adviser Gregory Mankiw, former Reagan adviser 
Art Laffer, and former Republican Congressman Bob Inglis.
  In other words, there is an understanding that if we are to be 
serious about addressing the need to cut carbon emissions, there has to 
be a tax on those emissions.
  Our legislation, which has been endorsed by, I believe, almost every 
major environmental organization, does several things. What we do in a 
very significant way is to invest in energy efficiency and 
weatherization because that is the low-hanging fruit. What we also do 
is invest, very significantly, in sustainable energy. Also, 
importantly, in the event that folks are paying increased costs for 
electricity or for other areas, much of the money is returned directly 
to taxpayers.
  Let me conclude by saying we can have an honest debate about the best 
path forward to transform our energy system. This is complicated stuff, 
and I don't think anyone has the magic answer, but we can debate that. 
What we can no longer debate is whether climate change is real, whether 
it is caused by human activity or whether it is today causing serious 
harm to our country and serious damage all over this planet or whether 
that devastation will only get worse in years to come.
  Right now we have to summon up the courage to acknowledge that we are 
in a crisis situation and that bold action is needed now. I happen to 
believe that with the United States playing a leadership role, China, 
India, Russia, and other major consumers of fossil fuels will follow 
our leadership. Our credibility is not much if we are not what we are 
talking about. If we want to lead the world, we have to act. This is 
something our children, and our grandchildren expect of us and 
something I hope we can, in fact, do.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. King). The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. KAINE. I thank my colleagues for drawing attention to this 
critical issue and problem.
  I want to start with the solution. The solution to climate change is 
American innovation. The solution to climate change is American 
innovation.
  We have to get beyond the idea first that we need to choose between a 
clean environment and a strong economy. We all want cleaner air and 
water. We all want jobs. They don't have to contradict each other.
  When we frame the debate as a conflict between an economy and the 
environment, we talk past one another and we are not realistic about 
our own history. This is, at the beginning, kind of a math problem. 
According to the EPA's annual inventory of greenhouse gas emissions, 
the U.S. pumped about 6 billion tons of greenhouse gases into the 
atmosphere in 2005--6 billion tons.
  The overwhelming scientific consensus is that putting this much 
pollution into the air is bad for the planet, bad for our kids, and bad 
for our grandkids. Most scientists tell us we need to reduce emissions 
about 17 percent from that peak by 2020 and over 80 percent by about 
2050 in order to contain climate change to manageable levels.
  So the question is this. How do we establish the appropriate 
incentives to get that number lower to produce energy more cleanly, at 
prices we can afford, in quantities that support modern life.
  We have to reduce pollution. We need to create jobs. Instead of 
arguing which is more important, let's figure out how we can use 
American innovation to do both.
  My colleague from Vermont has talked a lot about some of the 
evidence. It is important to pay attention to patterns. In Virginia, we 
have huge areas of risk of the negative impacts of climate change, 
especially sea-level rise, all effects that can be traced to carbon 
pollution.
  The Hampton Roads area of Virginia is the second-most populous part 
of our State, 1.6 million people, and it is the second-most vulnerable 
community on the east coast after New Orleans, the eastern half of the 
United States, to sea-level rise.
  Our second-largest area, which is the home of the largest 
concentration of naval power in the world, and critical to our defense, 
is deeply vulnerable to climate change.
  In fact, I have friends who live in Hampton Roads in a historic 
neighborhood where homes have been occupied for 150 years. In the last 
15 years, their home has become completely unable to be occupied. They 
cannot sell it. There is no way the bank will take it back, and there 
is no way anyone will issue insurance to them.
  In addition to being vulnerable because of our coast, our largest 
industry in Virginia is agriculture and forestry. If we want to talk 
about an industry that is affected by climate, that is our industry, 
$70-plus billion a year of economic activity in our State--our largest 
industry affected by climate.
  Tourism is big in Virginia industry--outdoor tourism. That is $20-
plus billion a year. We are directly affected by

[[Page 4005]]

climate, and we see extreme weather patterns. It is not only a Katrina, 
a Sandy or an Ike. It is the pattern of one after the next, droughts 
one after the next, fire damage one after the next.
  To use a recent example, we are having to deal with this in these 
halls. We passed a flood insurance bill to delay sharp premium 
increases for flood insurance policies that are subsidized by the 
National Flood Insurance Program.
  For those who weren't around when we had that debate, these increases 
in premiums were not because of new beach homes that millionaires are 
building on the flood plain out on the beach. No, these were policies 
for homes whose owners had lived in them for decades. They were never 
in flood plains before, but they are now in flood plains because of 
sea-level rise.
  My Portsmouth friends are people who fit into that category, with a 
home that never had these challenges--that is now a home that they 
cannot sell because of the sea-level rise in that area.
  The debate in the Chamber focused on what it would cost to delay 
premiums, how many people would be affected and impacted by the 
solvency of this national program. The larger point is this: Premiums 
are higher because flood risk is higher. When we see flood risk getting 
higher in every coastal area of the country, we have to pay attention 
to what the pattern tells us. If we don't, we are foolish.
  Now, we have naysayers. There are two kinds of naysayers. There are 
science deniers and leadership deniers, and I want to talk for a minute 
about both. The first are a group of people who, despite the 
overwhelming scientific consensus, say: Oh no, there is no scientific 
evidence that humans affect climate change or that there is even any 
change in the climate going on at all, despite this overwhelming 
scientific consensus. The Senator from Vermont mentioned some quotes 
from Members in this body who deny science exists.
  To science deniers, I am happy to say that Virginians are pro-
science. We are pro-science. The quintessential Virginian, Thomas 
Jefferson, was the preeminent scientist of his day. You cannot be a 
proud Virginian and be anti-science. We accept the science in Virginia. 
In fact, the polling overwhelmingly, among the Virginia public--and we 
are not the bluest State in the country; we are a coal-producing State, 
which I will get to in a minute--even in coal-producing Virginia, the 
polling shows overwhelmingly that the Virginia public accepts that 
humans are affecting climate, causing bad things to our economy, and we 
have to do something about it.
  Now, there is a second argument. It is not science denial; it is 
leadership denial. These folks may not deny the climate science, but 
they deny that the United States can or should be a leader in taking 
steps. They say: Look, even if we reduce U.S. emissions to zero, it 
wouldn't offset world emissions unless China or India did something, so 
let's just not do anything.
  It is just not the American way, folks, for us not to lead on 
something as important as this. It is true that we need every country 
to reduce emissions in the long run, but that is not an argument for 
the United States to do nothing; that is an argument for the United 
States to step up and be leaders.
  Part of leadership is sending the right signals into the market at 
the right time. That is one of the reasons I think it would be very 
good if the President rejected the proposal to expand use of tar sands 
oil in the Keystone Pipeline program. We ought to send the right 
message right now. That is one of the most powerful things we could do 
in our country and beyond to show we are going to be leaders.
  It is very difficult to lead and impossible to get people to follow 
if you are not willing to take a step as the most powerful and 
innovative economy in the world. We are the largest economy in the 
world, and we have been since 1890. We are the global economic leader. 
We have a burden of leadership. And if we lead, we will succeed.
  It is not too hard to reduce emissions. We can reduce them. In fact, 
we are already starting. The Senator from Vermont mentioned this. I 
mentioned that in 2005 the United States was putting 6 billion tons of 
CO2 into the atmosphere. That was our base year. We have now 
actually dipped down to 5.6 billion tons. We have reduced it since 2005 
thanks to greater energy efficiency, natural gas, uptick in renewables, 
and better fuel standards in our vehicles. So we are already on a 
positive path. We are actually on the way to meeting our goal of 
reducing emissions 17 percent by the year 2020. We are on the right 
track; we just have to take more steps forward.
  So what is the strategy we need? I hear the President sometimes and 
others--and I may even use these words on occasion--talk about an ``all 
of the above'' energy strategy, and I have decided I really don't like 
that phrase. When I hear somebody say ``all of the above,'' it is like 
when I ask one of my teenagers something and he says: ``Whatever.'' I 
don't like ``whatever'' as an answer because it kind of sounds 
indifferent and anything goes and who cares and what difference does it 
make. ``All of the above'' kind of has that attitude a little bit.
  Now, sure, we should use all of our energy resources--I get that--in 
a comprehensive strategy, but what we really need is a comprehensive 
strategy that reduces CO2 emissions--that reduces 
CO2 emissions. Such a strategy to reduce emissions does mean 
everything: wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, and advanced biofuels. I 
think it also means natural gas as bridge fuel to reduce our carbon 
footprint; nuclear, if we can reduce costs and resolve disposal issues; 
and, yes, coal, so long as we always work to make it burn cleaner.
  This is my punch line of what we have to do: We have to do everything 
cleaner tomorrow than we are doing it today--everything cleaner 
tomorrow than we are doing it today.
  We will have fossil fuels with us for some time, and we won't bring 
emissions to zero anytime soon. But just because we can't immediately 
go from 6 billion to zero tons of CO2, we can't rest in our 
effort to reduce our CO2 every day a little bit more. On 
fossil fuels, we have to take any progress we can that replaces dirty 
with less dirty even if it doesn't get us the whole way. Over time, the 
portion of our total energy footprint that is carbon based will get 
smaller as we develop more noncarbon alternatives, and it will also get 
cleaner as we reduce carbon-based energy emissions with better 
technology.
  This is why I am against dirty fossil fuels, such as tar sands, which 
make us dirtier tomorrow than today. I want to be cleaner tomorrow than 
today. Tar sands oil is about 15 to 20 percent dirtier than 
conventional oil. Let's not be dirtier tomorrow than today. We have the 
trendline moving in the right direction. We are reducing CO2 
emissions. Let's be cleaner tomorrow than today. Why would we embrace 
tar sands oil and backslide to be dirtier tomorrow? The bottom line is 
that we have to create energy cleaner tomorrow than today.
  Remember, it is a math problem--6 billion tons a year. We have 6 more 
years to reduce it 17 percent, 36 years to reduce it by more than 80 
percent. So we have our goal. We have our goal. We have to give 
innovators the tools they need to meet it. Since innovators will solve 
this problem, here is the really fundamental challenge. This is the 
fundamental challenge. Will Americans be the innovators? See, 
innovation will solve this problem. Will Americans be the innovators or 
will we bury our heads in the tar sands and let other nations' 
innovators be the ones who grab leadership in this new energy economy. 
I don't want to bury my head in the tar sands. I want us to be the 
leader. Will we create the new technologies and sell them to other 
nations or will we be late to the game and have to buy all the 
technologies from other nations?
  The good news is, as I said, we are already on our way to the 2020 
goal, so we don't have to make it all dire. Let's celebrate a little 
success and then figure out how to accelerate our success.
  The transportation sector, the fuel economy standards for cars, 
changing

[[Page 4006]]

to natural gas in power production--all these things have helped us 
move toward lesser emissions. Wind is the fastest growing source of new 
electricity capacity in the world and in the United States, even above 
natural gas, which is growing rapidly. In a few years Virginia will be 
contributing, with some of the first offshore wind turbines near 
Virginia Beach.
  I would like to talk now for a second about a specific Virginia issue 
because I am not sure how many folks who are in this all-nighter 
speaking on this come from States that have coal and have produced 
coal, and Virginia does. I want to talk about coal for a second.
  EPA is expected to issue standards later this year on reducing 
pollution from coal-fired powerplants, and, in fact, there is already 
talk on the other side of introducing a bill to repeal the regulation 
before the regulation has even come out. I am not exactly sure that is 
kosher, but I suspect we will be having that debate later.
  There is a natural anxiety in a coal-producing region such as 
southwest Virginia. That is where my wife's family is from. It is five 
counties in southwest Virginia. They are hard-hit counties. Coal is a 
big part of their economy, and traditionally it has been. We mine as 
much coal today in Virginia as we did 50 years ago with one-tenth of 
the workers because it is a heavily mechanized industry, but there are 
jobs at stake. And it is not just jobs; coal has been traditionally low 
priced, and so the issue that is important--and even States that don't 
have any coal often use a lot of coal to produce power, and the low 
price has been helpful to consumers who rely on cheap and abundant 
electricity made possible by coal.
  Coal has been hit hard in some recent years, but I disagree 
fundamentally with the cynical argument that is made by some--mostly in 
the coal industry--who blame coal's woes on a regulatory ``war on 
coal.'' When I talk to folks in the industry, they are always talking 
about there is a Federal ``war on coal.''
  I am going to tell you what is hurting coal. What is hurting coal is 
innovation and natural gas. Innovation in the natural gas industry has 
brought natural gas prices down, and utilities are deciding to use 
natural gas rather than coal. That is what is hurting coal these days, 
and we ought to take a lesson from that. Innovation is driving 
environmental cleanliness. Innovation is driving lower cost. The 
solution is not to stop innovation. The solution is not to shake your 
fist and blame regulation. The solution is to innovate.
  Coal currently accounts for 37 percent of U.S. electricity generation 
and about the same percentage in Virginia. Today we don't have 37 
percent of anything else that can step right in and replace coal, which 
means we need coal and we are going to be using it for a while.
  Since we need to reduce emissions--do it cleaner tomorrow than 
today--and we are going to need coal for a while, the challenge is to 
convert coal to electricity more efficiently and with less pollution 
than we do today. We have to innovate to make coal cleaner for that 
portion of the pie chart. I learned this as Governor working to permit 
a state-of-the-art coal plant in Wise County, VA. It opened in 2012. It 
is designed in a way that dramatically reduces sulfur dioxide, nitrous 
oxide, mercury emissions, and water use. It was also a plant that was 
only permitted when the company that wanted it agreed to take a dirty 
coal plant--one that preexisted the Clean Air Act and was grandfathered 
in for all of its pollution--and to convert that to natural gas. That 
was innovative. The fuel mix of this plant needed to run the burners 
accommodates biomass and waste coal as well.
  If we can use innovative practices to reduce these emissions, we can 
do the same with carbon emissions. But coal cannot stand still, let 
others innovate, and then complain if it is not competitive. Coal has 
to be as innovative as everything else, and we have to figure out ways 
to assist.
  That is why I support Federal investments in advanced fossil energy 
research and development. Last fall the Energy Department made 
available $8 billion in advanced fossil energy loan guarantee authority 
for low carbon fossil technologies. I advocated for appropriations for 
fossil energy R&D, and there is a strong boost for those programs in 
the omnibus budget bill. There is a great Center for Coal & Energy 
Research at Virginia Tech that is doing some of this research that can 
help us take that portion of the pie chart, make it cleaner, and over 
time make it smaller as we expand noncarbon energy.
  We have to make sure the upcoming standards the EPA will put out are 
ambitious and appropriate incentives to get cleaner and disincentives 
to get dirtier and at the same time avoid catastrophic disruptions in 
reliability or affordability.
  I am going to come back and conclude where I started. Remember, when 
I started I said I am going to give a solution. The solution to climate 
change is American innovation, and I want to finish there.
  Reducing CO2 emissions is a hard problem, maybe harder 
than any pollution problem we face because most pollutants tend to come 
from a particular economic sector, but CO2 comes from 
transportation and buildings and manufacturing and power production--
all sectors. So the solution won't be simple. But we do not have to 
accept the false choice of an environment against the economy. Instead, 
we just need to innovate to find the solution. That is the innovation 
challenge we have.
  I make it a habit--apparently unlike some of my colleagues here--to 
never bet against American innovation. We are the Nation that said we 
would put a man on the Moon in a decade with computers that had less in 
them than your cell phones do, and we did it. We are the Nation that 
harnessed the power of the atom. We are the Nation that unwrapped the 
riddle of DNA and are now using that knowledge to cure disease. Nobody 
should ever bet against American innovation.
  In fact, we have already shown it again and again, that innovation 
and regulation--smart regulation--can help us tackle pressing 
environmental problems.
  When we were kids and my wife was growing up in Richmond, where we 
now live, nobody--and I mean nobody--fished or swam in the James River 
in downtown Richmond. You would be taking your life into your hands if 
you swam or if you ate fish you caught in that river because of ketone 
pollution, other industrial pollution, and poor treatment of municipal 
solid waste. But the Nation passed the Clean Water Act and we got 
serious about cleaning up our rivers.
  Naysayers said: It will damage the economy. It will bring our economy 
to its knees.
  But come and see what the Clean Water Act has meant to my hometown. 
You can swim or fish in the James River today, and you can eat the fish 
you catch. You can see herons and bald eagles there that were never 
there before. You can see residents and tourists who flock to the James 
River because they enjoy it.
  It took a law, it took some tough regulations, it took American 
ingenuity in finding new ways to clean up industrial and municipal 
waste, but we did it, and our environment and economy are better off as 
a result.
  When we needed to reduce nitrous oxide and sulfur dioxide emissions 
because of acid rain, industry said that any new law would be a 
burdensome job killer, just as they are saying today. But President 
George H.W. Bush worked with Congress to pass a cap-and-trade law to 
bring down these emissions. After the new law, somebody invented the 
catalytic converter. After the new law, somebody invented the sulfur 
scrubber. Not only weren't they burdensome job killers, they improved 
air quality, and they created jobs for American companies that 
manufacture catalytic converters and sulfur scrubbers, and our economy 
and environment are better off as a result.
  Not long ago we heard requiring automakers to make cars which got 
better gas mileage would be devastating to the American auto industry. 
But President Obama struck a deal with the industry, and guess what. 
The

[[Page 4007]]

quest to build more fuel-efficient vehicles helped revitalize an 
American auto industry which was on its back. Plants operating with 
skeleton crews just sweeping the floors at night now have multiple 
shifts making better vehicles which save drivers more money every day. 
The skeptics were loud, but we moved ahead with smart regulation and 
American innovation, and our environment and economy are better off as 
a result.
  It is the skeptics and the deniers who fight against these strategies 
who are actually naive, because again and again they always claim that 
taking steps to help the environment will hurt the economy, and again 
and again they have been proven wrong. Protecting the environment is 
good for the economy and good for the planet.
  So I say to the skeptics of whatever variety, climate denier or 
leadership denier, don't underestimate American innovation. We can 
solve the problem of climate change for the good of the economy and the 
good of the planet. The story of American innovation is a story of 
solving the hard problems, and I know we can solve this one.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I appreciate the words of my colleague 
from Virginia, especially his focus on innovation and how it must be a 
major part of the solution to our climate change problem.
  As I look around the Chamber and see Senators from Vermont, Virginia, 
Hawaii, California, we may be 5,000 miles apart, but what unites us 
today--including the Presiding Officer's home State of Maine--is the 
focus on climate change and the recognition we are connected by the 
impact of global climate change. It is time for Congress to wake up and 
tackle this issue. This is why we are staying up all night tonight to 
make that major point.
  The consequences of climate change include rising seas and larger 
tidal surges for seaside communities, the devastating drought and water 
shortage we are seeing in California, extreme weather harming the 
habitat for native animals in Hawaii, but it also impacts the Midwest, 
which I don't think is the first area of the country people think about 
where we are seeing climate change problems.
  We have seen increased potential in my home State of Minnesota for 
extreme weather wreaking havoc on our local economies, particularly 
those anchored in forestry and farming. In Minnesota we export about 
one-third of our agricultural production which contributes 
significantly to our country's record high agricultural trade surplus 
of $38 billion. This is a major part of our economy and the second 
biggest industry in my State.
  The 2012 drought in Minnesota threatened our ability to produce the 
food needed to feed a growing world. Look at our lakes and our rivers. 
For many years our snowmobilers, the tourism industry, and ice fishers 
couldn't even get out. They had to cancel many activities because--not 
this year but many years before--we had issues with the heat in the 
middle of the winter. We certainly have issues with the heat in the 
summer.
  What is this industry? Every year nearly 2 million people fish in our 
lakes and streams, and close to 700,000 people hunt our fields and 
forests nationwide. The hunting and fishing industry is valued at $95.5 
billion a year and brings in $14 billion in direct tax revenue. This is 
why, as a member of the farm bill conference committee, we worked very 
hard with conservation groups such as Ducks Unlimited and Pheasants 
Forever to make sure we had strong conservation protection in the bill 
and new ideas, such as the sod saver provision Senator Thune and I 
introduced and got signed into law.
  For the people of our State, the economic impact of climate change is 
about their livelihood. It is about a way of life. I mentioned the 2012 
drought. It was the worst drought since 1956 and cost over $30 billion 
in damage nationwide. The drought was uneven in our State. For one 
farmer their crops were fine; in the next county crops would be 
devastated. At the same time, as some farmers were experiencing not 
enough rain, farmers in other parts of our State actually lost their 
crops due to flash floods.
  Research which looks at weather changes in Minnesota indicates that 
extreme weather events, which include heavy rainfall, are becoming more 
and more frequent. These are costs borne heavily by farmers, ranchers, 
and consumers. These production costs lose revenue, they lose supply, 
and they drive up costs at the grocery store for everyone.
  One of the things I don't think people always think about when they 
think about the economic connection with climate change--in the Midwest 
we think about our crops; we think about extreme weather, with 
tornadoes, flash floods, and extreme heat and drought. But it actually 
affects the transportation of goods to market.
  In 2012 Lake Superior was near its lowest level in the last 80 years, 
impacting our ability to transport cargo. It is simple: The heat was 
there, the water wasn't. The barges couldn't be filled all the way 
because the water was simply too shallow. Why is this happening? In the 
years when we don't have solid ice cover, the ice is melting more 
quickly so the water evaporates and you see lower water levels in 
places such as Lake Superior.
  This isn't just a problem for Lake Superior; it is also a critical 
issue impacting the shipping industry on the Mississippi River. The 
Mississippi moves hundreds of millions of tons of goods, such as corn, 
grain, coal, and petroleum. The Mississippi River starts in Minnesota. 
In Minnesota one can actually walk over the Mississippi at Itasca State 
Park. The 2012 drought led to low water conditions which made barge 
travel down the Mississippi very difficult. If shipping were completely 
cut off, as was possible, the economic repercussions would be severe. 
If barge traffic is disrupted, cargo valued at over $7 billion could 
experience shipping delays, including 300 million bushels of farm 
products, 3.8 million tons of coal, and 5 million barrels of 
domestically produced crude oil. A prolonged shipping delay would be 
devastating to the bottom lines of farmers, businesses, and common 
citizens. These are just a few examples of the economic costs of 
climate change.
  Global climate change is a challenge with so many dimensions, some 
moral, some economic, some scientific, and I will spend a few minutes 
talking about the science. My colleague from Virginia talked about 
Virginia being the home of science. I kind of wanted to break in and 
say we have the Mayo Clinic. Minnesota is truly a home of science. We 
are the home of great medical institutions. We helped launch the green 
revolution in agriculture with University of Minnesota alumni Norman 
Borlaug one-half century ago. We have brought the world everything from 
the pacemaker to the Post-it note. We believe in science.
  As we know, climate change doesn't mean every day we will have a 
hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico or every day will be as hot and sticky 
as a 100-degree, humid Minnesota afternoon. But scientists say we are 
sure to see more days outside the range of normal, which includes 
extremes of all kinds.
  In fact, scientists at NASA found that at 2013, factoring all the 
cold temperatures Minnesotans bravely endured last year, the United 
States was still warmer by 1.1 degrees Fahrenheit than the mid-20th 
century average.
  The last time the United States had a below-average annual 
temperature was 1976. Climate change means simply, over time, the 
average temperature is getting warmer and weather patterns are changing 
and becoming less predictable. How many times have we heard in our 
States: This is the hottest summer I can remember. I can't believe it 
warmed up this quickly. I can't believe the ice is melting this 
quickly.
  The debate on whether climate change is happening should be over. The 
facts are in and the science is clear.
  The National Academy of Sciences finds climate change is occurring, 
is very likely caused primarily by the emission of greenhouse gases 
from human activities, and poses significant risk for a range of human 
and natural

[[Page 4008]]

systems. We know certain kinds of gases, including carbon dioxide, 
methane, and nitrous oxide, absorb or trap the Sun's heat as it bounces 
off the Earth's surface.
  This wouldn't be such a big problem except that carbon dioxide 
doesn't dissipate quickly. It stays in the atmosphere for five decades 
or more, causing Earth's temperatures to rise. This means most of the 
carbon dioxide produced in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s is still 
in the atmosphere. It means carbon dioxide produced today will still be 
in the atmosphere in 2050 and beyond. This carbon dioxide-trapping heat 
is in our atmosphere. Over time, it means global temperatures rise; in 
turn, sea levels rise, both because water expands and glaciers melt.
  The 2013 draft National Climate Assessment found human-induced 
climate change is projected to continue and accelerate significantly if 
emissions of these heat-trapping gases continue to increase.
  In short, there is robust scientific evidence that human climate 
change is occurring. Climate change is impacting our Nation's systems 
in significant ways, and that is likely to accelerate in the future. 
The result is ocean levels are rising, glaciers are melting, violent 
weather events are increasing, and certainly we have seen them in my 
State.
  When it comes to climate and environmental policy, I think we all 
know we have seen gridlock in this country, just as we have seen in so 
many ways--despite the Presiding Officer's good efforts as the Senator 
from Maine in trying to break through and mine as someone who came out 
of a background which wasn't at all partisan. I was involved early on 
in Kent Conrad's bipartisan energy group during my first few years in 
the Senate, where we were trying to forge some kind of a compromise on 
a policy approach to energy and the environment which brought people 
together. We were stymied in our effort. I served on the environmental 
committee for many years under Senator Boxer's leadership. We were 
again stymied in our efforts.
  As I look back at the moments where we could actually move on the 
issue, where the Nation was captivated, I think we blew it.
  We blew it when President Bush stood before the American people after 
9/11; and if he had truly sold the Nation on energy independence from 
the countries involved in that tragic historic moment, if he had made 
the case for a new American energy agenda, I believe 80 percent of 
Americans then would have said sign me up. That didn't happen.
  The second moment we lost was during the summer of 2008. The 
Presiding Officer wasn't a Senator then; I was a brandnew Senator. We 
actually took action. We raised gas mileage standards for the first 
time since I was in junior high. We also made some energy efficiency 
improvements. I called them ``building a bridge to the next century.'' 
But we fell short of one important thing, and we didn't just fall 
short. We fell one vote short of beating the filibuster to get a 
national renewable electricity standard like we have in Minnesota. That 
was a lost moment by one vote.
  The third moment we lost was when President Obama first came into 
office. We had some new Senators. We were in the middle of a downturn. 
It was an incredibly tough time. But I still believe, as I have said 
many times, if we had moved forward on a renewable electricity standard 
at that time in those first 6 months with those new Senators, we would 
have passed it with the House of Representatives. We chose to do some 
other things with the environmental committees. We passed a bill, but 
we were, unfortunately, unable to get it done on the Senate floor. That 
is where we are.
  So when is the next opportunity? The next opportunity is now. We have 
the potential for leadership on energy. We have the potential because 
of the people in this country--the innovators Senator Kaine so 
eloquently talked about. I continue to be optimistic. I wouldn't be 
standing here late at night if I wasn't. This desk is the desk of 
Hubert Humphrey, who was known as the Happy Warrior. He was willing to 
tackle anything which came his way.
  Why am I optimistic? The first is the leadership of Gina McCarthy at 
the EPA. Her background working with Republican Governors, her 
reputation among business leaders as being tough but fair, and her 
experience navigating the ways of Washington make her well suited to 
look at the bigger picture issues.
  As someone who comes from an agricultural state, I understand full 
well how the EPA can sometimes get bogged down in minor issues from my 
perspective, taking on things that create a huge firestorm that 
actually do not solve the problem. I believe this Administrator, Gina 
McCarthy, is going to look at the larger mission of the EPA, especially 
when it comes to climate change.
  Secondly, I am optimistic because we still have some good happening 
here. There is some realism going on in Congress. The Washington Post 
ran an editorial last fall where the editorial board wrote:

       The overriding problem is that Congress hasn't faced up to 
     the global warming threat. Instead of updating clean air 
     rules and building a policy that addresses the unique 
     challenge of greenhouse emissions, it has left the EPA and 
     the courts with a strong but sometimes ambiguous law that 
     applies imperfectly to greenhouse gas emissions.

  That is true, and that is why we have something to do here.
  Given the current mix right now, given what we are facing on this 
issue, I still believe.
  What can we do this year? This year we can be pragmatic. We can 
foster leadership. We passed the farm bill. It had good measures in it 
for conservation and the environment.
  Another example is the Shaheen-Portman energy efficiency bill which 
contains a range of policies that would reduce residential, commercial, 
and industrial use. Not every bill is supported with everyone from the 
Chamber and NAM to many environmental groups. This bill is.
  This leads to my third reason for hope. There are a lot of businesses 
out there that realize they cannot afford the pure cost of the old way 
of doing things. More and more businesses are seeing the good in going 
green, whether it is Walmart in its push toward energy efficiency or 
Apple which is working toward a goal of getting 100 percent of its 
energy from renewables.
  The fourth reason to be positive is because there are some current 
economic positives and market changes out there that are actually 
moving in the right direction. We have reduced our dependency on 
foreign oil in just the last 7 years from 60 percent to 40 percent. It 
is a combination of things. Yes, some of the natural gas and drilling 
in North Dakota is a major force, but we also have stronger vehicle gas 
mileage standards. We have biofuel. We have cleaner fuel. We are moving 
on a number of fronts.
  Look at the efforts on the State level ranging from the rules in 
Texas that are helping to encourage the construction of transmission 
lines bringing wind energy from the plains to the homes and businesses, 
to Colorado's strong renewable portfolio standard and the use of woody 
biomass for power.
  I would add my own State of Minnesota where we have a renewable 
electricity standard requiring 25 percent of electricity coming from 
renewable sources by 2025. Xcel Energy, our largest utility, is on its 
way to meet their even more ambitious standard. By law they will get 30 
percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2020. I have met 
with their CEO. They are more than on their way to meeting that 
standard. They believe in wind. They believe in renewable.
  The bill we passed in Minnesota, which could be a model for the 
Nation, has overwhelming bipartisan support. It had bipartisan support, 
and when it passed, nearly every legislator voted for it and it was 
signed into law by former Governor Tim Pawlenty.
  What does this mean? The investment in renewable energy and energy 
efficiency technology means that Xcel is actually on its path to reduce 
its greenhouse emissions by 31 percent. Xcel will cut its emissions a 
full 11 percentage points by 2020, more than the

[[Page 4009]]

standards proposed by the passed cap-and-trade law that came out of the 
environment committee.
  Minnesota Power is another utility in our State that is working to 
meet the State's renewable portfolio standard by bringing more wind 
energy onto the grid. They are looking to keep costs low to their 
consumers by using Canadian hydropower to back up their wind resources. 
Because the wind doesn't always blow in Minnesota, the hydropower will 
act as a battery, storing energy when there is too much on the grid, 
and providing electricity when it is needed. By working together we can 
get more wind and solar energy on the grid in a way that provides 
reliable service and keeps prices low for our consumers.
  The Rural Electric Co-op also implemented another way to make better 
use of wind energy in Minnesota, to make our goal of 25 percent by 
2025. They installed large capacity hot water heaters in people's 
basements. How can something as basic and boring as a hot water heater 
play a role in reducing energy consumption and climate change? The hot 
water heaters are only turned on at night when the wind blows the 
strongest and the demand for energy is the lowest. In the morning when 
people wake up and turn on their lights, the heater is already off. The 
wind energy is stored in the form of hot water that can be used 
throughout the day. Heating water is a major source of energy 
consumption and our co-op could find a way to provide an important 
service in a way that incentivizes wind development and saves consumers 
money.
  It was the Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis who said that ``the 
states are the laboratories of democracy.'' We are certainly seeing 
that right now with energy and environmental policy.
  I would like to see a major Federal policy back at those moments that 
I went through back when Bush was President and the tragedy of 9/11 
occurred, back when we had that vote in the summer, when we missed the 
renewable electricity standard by just one vote. But I am hopeful that 
we are going to get back to a point where compromise is possible in 
Washington, and we will get there just as the American people have 
demanded. And when we get there, we know that the States are useful 
models for how to get this done.
  Before we can act on a comprehensive national blueprint for climate 
policy in this country, we need to bring together Americans who share 
these values and speak with a common voice. We are starting that 
discussion tonight. The message is to get Congress to wake up and get 
this job done.
  As I close, I think about this challenge and I recall a prayer from 
the Ojibwe people in Minnesota. Their philosophy told them that the 
decisions of great leaders are not made for today, not made for this 
generation, but leaders must make decisions for those who are seven 
generations from them. That would be an Ojibwe philosophy, that led 
them to take care of their land. This is now a part of our burden and 
our challenge as we approach this issue. I have always believed we 
should be stewards of the land.
  In the past, leaders from both parties--you know this so well from 
me--have worked to protect our land, keep our air and water clean. 
President Theodore Roosevelt took executive action to create the 
National Parks System which Ken Burns famously called ``America's best 
idea.''
  Congress has come together to make great progress to protect our 
natural resources. The 1970 Clean Air Act passed in the Senate 73-0 and 
the House by a vote of 371-1. The Clean Water Act in the House, the 
final vote was over 10-1 in favor of this landmark legislation to 
protect our water.
  Global climate change is our generation's challenge to solve. It is 
our generation's challenge. I believe if we work together 
constructively, we can address this threat. We can be stewards of our 
world.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I am honored to be joining Senator Schatz 
who has been working with Senator Whitehouse and with Senator Boxer to 
put together this very important discussion, very important evening.
  While we are discussing climate change, I thought I would first talk 
a little bit about baseball. Something very funny happened in baseball. 
From 1920 all the way through the entire modern baseball history, the 
average number of players who hit more than 40 homeruns in a season was 
3. That is all--Babe Ruth, Hank Greenberg, Willie Mays, Mickey Mantle, 
Ted Williams, Joe DiMaggio. No matter who was playing in the United 
States, the average number of players was 3.3 who made it over 40 
homeruns in a season.
  Then something very strange started to happen. All of a sudden there 
was a dramatic spike in the number of players who could hit more than 
40 homeruns. In 1996 it went up to 17 players all of a sudden, with an 
average of only 3.3 who hit more than 40 homeruns. Year after year the 
same thing was occurring.
  Then it occurred to someone, maybe they are injecting these players 
with steroids. Now some people said, no, the ballparks are getting 
smaller, maybe they are corking the bats, maybe they are juicing the 
baseball. But, no, it turned out that they were injecting steroids into 
baseball players. And all of a sudden the average of 3.3 players 
averaging more than 40 homeruns in a season had spiked to three and 
four times that, until Major League Baseball decided that they were 
going to test for steroids. A very strange thing started to happen. The 
average number of players hitting more than 40 homeruns went right back 
down to the traditional average.
  Well, ladies and gentlemen, NOAA has the same kind of chart for our 
climate. NOAA has been able to do the calculation going back to 1880 of 
what the average temperature is on the planet. As you can see, it 
stayed at a pretty current level until all of a sudden, especially 
beginning in the 1970s, there is a dramatic spike. As we all know, 20 
of the warmest 30 years ever registered have occurred in the last 30 
years. As we all know, the fourth warmest year of all time ever 
recorded occurred just last year, 2013. But we haven't applied the same 
steroids equivalent test for this change in temperature. We have a 
pretty good idea of what has happened because scientists all across the 
United States agree on this issue: It is manmade. The chemicals we are 
putting into the atmosphere are causing the same kind of chemicals 
ballplayers were putting into their bodies were causing in the dramatic 
rise in the number of homeruns that were being hit in Major League 
Baseball.
  (Ms. KLOBUCHAR assumed the Chair.)
  This is basically an obvious correlation between what we are doing as 
human beings and impact on the world in which we live. And just as 
those homeruns went up when the players used chemicals, so too has the 
temperature on the planet. And the same distortions that occurred in 
our national pastime are now occurring on our planet.
  Ladies and gentlemen, the planet is running a fever, but there are no 
emergency rooms for planets. There are no hospitals to go to. We have 
to engage in preventive care. We have to put in place the measures that 
reduce dramatically the likelihood that we are going to see the worst 
catastrophic effects of this dangerous warming of our planet.
  If you are still skeptical, perhaps the findings of another skeptic, 
Dr. Richard Muller and his colleagues at the Berkeley Earth Surface 
Temperature Project, will reassure you. Let me quote from Dr. Muller's 
July 2012 New York Times column entitled ``The Conversion of a Climate 
Change Skeptic.'' Here is what he said:

       Our results show that the average temperature of the 
     earth's land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit 
     over the last 250 years, including an increase of one and a 
     half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it 
     appears likely that essentially all of this increase results 
     from the human emissions of greenhouse gases.

  Our current understanding of human influence on climate change rests 
on 150 years of wide-ranging scientific observations and research. It 
is informed

[[Page 4010]]

by what we see today with our own eyes measured by our own hands. 
Global temperatures are warming, glaciers are melting, sea levels are 
rising, extreme downpours are increasing. The ocean is becoming more 
acidic.
  But climate change is more than just numbers in a scientist's book. 
In my home State of Massachusetts it is having tangible impacts now. My 
State, Massachusetts, loses an average of 49 football fields of land to 
rising sea levels each and every year. Rates of sea level rise from 
North Carolina to Massachusetts are two to four times faster than the 
global average. Extreme downpours and snowfall in New England have 
increased by 85 percent since 1948.
  According to scientists at the University of New Hampshire, New 
England winters have become 4 degrees warmer on average since 1965. In 
other words, we now have in New England the same weather that 
Philadelphia had in 1965. We are 4 degrees warmer than we were in New 
England in 1965. We have Philadelphia's weather. Thank God in Boston we 
do not have their athletic teams, but we do have their weather and it 
is getting warmer.
  In Massachusetts and most of New England, spring has sprung 5 days 
earlier on average than it did in the latter part of the 20th century.
  Around the iconic Walden Pond, plants now flower 10 days earlier on 
average than they did in the 1850s, according to the careful records 
kept by Henry David Thoreau. Our iconic cod have been moving north as 
ocean temperatures warm. Cod need cold water. As the ocean warms, they 
are moving farther and farther north. In Massachusetts, Cape Cod is our 
iconic beach front, ocean front, and fishing front. The cod are moving 
north and away from our State because they need cold water.
  The coastal communities that depend upon them are being affected 
negatively by the absence of these fish. Scientists are just beginning 
to understand the consequences of the increasingly acidic ocean on 
scallops, lobsters, and plankton, which are the base of the food chain 
in the gulf of Maine.
  As Dr. Aaron Bernstein, from the Harvard School of Public Health, has 
written, climate change is a health threat, no less consequential than 
cigarette smoking. Increasing temperatures increase the risk for bad 
air days, and in turn it increases the risk of asthma attacks. It is 
worse for people with lung disease.
  I have two stories. Rachel is from Cambridge and Sylvia is from 
Amherst. Their moms talked about the impact of pollution on the health 
of their children. I think it is important for us to understand that 
asthma and other illnesses that are created by pollution are 
preventable but only if we here in the Senate put in place the policies 
that make it possible for us to reduce the risk to these young people 
all across our country.
  I strongly support all of the efforts the Members are putting 
together tonight to focus on this issue. It is not just the planet, it 
is the children of the planet who are negatively impacted by all of 
this additional pollution. Left unchecked, the impacts of climate 
change will only become worse in the future.
  An analysis by the Sandia National Lab found that changes in rainfall 
alone could cost Massachusetts $8 billion in GDP and nearly 38,000 jobs 
between 2010 and 2050. That is Massachusetts alone. New England could 
see a $22 billion hit to our GDP and almost 100,000 jobs lost from 
changing precipitation patterns. Sea-level rise will also threaten 
coastal communities where one-third of the Massachusetts population 
lives.
  The seas are getting hotter and they are getting higher. Those 
hotter, higher seas are making storms more damaging. Storm surges on 
top of sea-level rise could cause hundreds of billions in damages to 
cities on the Massachusetts coast during the next decade.
  In 1775 Paul Revere warned Massachusetts revolutionaries of an 
invasion coming from the sea. With climate change, Boston and the Bay 
State could face an invasion of the sea itself in Massachusetts and all 
across New England.
  As sea levels rise and storms become more severe, many of Boston's 
best known landmarks will be threatened, including Faneuil Hall, Quincy 
Market, North Station, Fan Pier, Copley Church, John Hancock Tower, the 
Public Garden. The Back Bay will revert to its original personality as 
a bay.
  We have to be realistic about this. The threats are there. The 
scientists are warning us. This can happen. There but for the grace of 
God and a few degrees, Hurricane Sandy would have damaged the city of 
Boston. We have been warned. Anyone who hasn't been hit by a Hurricane 
Sandy yet has been warned. It is coming, and it will be worse than 
Hurricane Sandy.
  By the end of this century, Massachusetts summers could feel like 
North Carolina's summer--not Philadelphia. By the end of the century, 
the temperatures are going to keep warming. By 2100, Maine could be the 
only State in New England that still has a skiing industry. That is how 
rapidly the snows are disappearing. The economic impact of climate 
change isn't confined to New England because we already feel the cost 
of climate disruption. The GAO added climate change to its 2013 high-
risk list based in large part on two reports they did at my request. 
GAO found that climate change presents a significant financial risk to 
the Federal Government. GAO could just as easily say it presents a 
significant financial risk for all of America.
  As daunting as the impacts of climate change are, the good news is we 
have the solutions to address it. We can generate good jobs in America 
that are also good for saving all of creation.
  With wind and solar, we have a tale of two tax policies. Here is the 
solar industry in the United States. Back in 2007, there was a 
production of perhaps 200 megawatts of electricity from solar. It was 
at the dawn of the solar industry. It wasn't as though the Sun had not 
been up there or that the technologies did not exist or could not have 
been created in order to capture it, but the tax policies were not 
there.
  In 2008, Congress passed a law which added an 8-year tax incentive 
for the solar industry. We can see what happened to this industry. It 
had been denigrated for years--up until last year when there was 5,000 
new megawatts. Think of five Seabrook nuclear powerplants of 
electricity generated by solar in 1 year. That tax break stays on the 
books until the end of 2016, and by the end of 2016, there is an 
expectation that 10,000 new megawatts of solar will be installed in the 
United States in 1 year, ladies and gentlemen, if we keep those tax 
breaks on the books. We can see what happens when there is a 
consistent, predictable tax policy on the books.
  Let me show you another tax policy. This is the tax policy for the 
wind industry. The wind industry has not had the same good fortune 
which the solar industry has had. Every time there is a tax policy that 
is put on the books, wind starts to build upwards of 2,000 megawatts in 
2001, but then the tax policy evaporated and it collapsed as an 
industry. When we put it back on the books, it went back up to 2,000 
megawatts. It expired at the end of that year and collapsed again.
  In 2005, we put a policy on the books that began to see the kind of 
installation of wind that we knew was possible from the beginning of 
time. We all knew it. We all knew the Dutch were right with those 
windmills. We all knew there was something to it, but there was no tax 
policy that was consistent, until we reached 2012 when, unbelievably, 
13,000 new megawatts of wind was installed in the United States--13 
nuclear powerplants. There is only 100,000 megawatts of nuclear power 
in the United States after 70 years of tax subsidies. Look at what 
happened with wind in 1 year--13,000 megawatts. But then it expired, 
and it collapsed down to only 2,000 megawatts in the year 2013.
  That is our challenge, ladies and gentlemen. If we give the same kind 
of predictable tax and policy treatment to these renewable energy 
resources that were given to the oil industry over the last century, 
they have a lot to worry about. By the way, you don't have to worry 
about the oil or the gas industry. Their tax policies stay the same.

[[Page 4011]]

Through the good times and the bad times, the oil industry keeps the 
same tax breaks on the books. They know they can rely upon that. Those 
two industries know the $7 billion in tax breaks they rely upon are 
going to be there year after year after year.
  Let's talk about what else can happen in other industries. Let's talk 
about the automotive industry. The Senator from Minnesota just talked 
about the fuel economy standards we put on the books. Look what 
happened since the fuel economy standards were put on the books and 
implemented by Barack Obama. George Bush did not implement them. I am 
proud to be the host author of those fuel economy standards, but it 
took Barack Obama to put them on the books--54.5 miles per gallon by 
the year 2026. Look what has happened. We are now nearing 600,000 
hybrids, plug-in vehicles, and all-electric vehicles per year. It is 
skyrocketing. Ford, General Motors, and Chrysler are reporting record 
profits and record sales. People will buy them, but you have to create 
the policy in the country.
  By the way, that one policy--the fuel economy standards that were put 
on the books in 2007 in this body, and over in the House of 
Representatives--backs out 4 million barrels of oil per day that we 
import into our country by the year 2040 when all of these standards 
that we put on the books are finally implemented.
  How much is that? The United States imports 3 million barrels of oil 
a day from the Persian Gulf. We are backing out 4 million barrels just 
by putting together a policy that incentivizes the industry to invest 
in the kinds of technologies that Americans want to buy and citizens 
around this planet want to buy. Wind, solar, hybrids, all-electric 
vehicles--it is all there. It is what we can do in order to create jobs 
and at the same time save the planet.
  I will talk about some other numbers that I believe are really 
relevant. The coal industry now has 80,000 employees. The wind industry 
has 80,000 employees in the United States. We saw how low it was in 
2007. Well, they now have 80,000 employees. The solar industry has 
142,000 employees. Coal only has 80,000 employees. We saw what happened 
from the moment that predictable tax policy went on the books until 
today, and it is continuing to go off the charts, but we know there 
will be people who are going to be out here fighting to take away those 
tax breaks and will compromise the ability of the EPA or the Department 
of Transportation to keep those standards on the books.
  Back in the 1990s, I was the chairman of the Telecommunications 
Committee in the House of Representatives, and I was able to put three 
bills on the books. One bill created the 18-inch satellite dish, 
another one created the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth cell phone 
license. That is what drove the price of a phone call from 50 cents a 
minute down to 10 cents a minute. It was 1996 when you started to have 
one of these devices in your pocket. At 50 cents a minute, you didn't 
have one. By the way, it was the size of a brick before that bill 
passed.
  Finally, the 1996 Telecommunications Act moved us from analog to 
digital. It moved us from narrow band to broadband. It created this 
revolution of Google, eBay, Amazon, YouTube, and Facebook. All of that 
happened because of the policies created by the House and Senate and 
signed by the President, and it unleashed $1 trillion worth of private 
sector investment. It revolutionized villages in Africa and Asia. We 
invented those technologies and sold them around the world.
  We have the same kind of economic possibility for renewable energy 
and new energy technologies as we had in the telecommunication sector, 
and we have a chance to cap another $1 trillion to $2 trillion worth of 
investment in the private sector.
  Let's move on to our Nation's carbon emissions from energy due to 
fossil fuels. The total amount of greenhouse gases in our country from 
energy sources fell from 2005 to 2012 by 12 percent. We installed more 
wind, solar, and fuel-efficient vehicles. We got more efficient and we 
reduced our coal use from 2005 to 2012, but in 2013 that reversed, and 
the U.S. carbon dioxide emissions from energy sources increased by 2 
percent in 2013. What happened? The price of natural gas increased in 
2013 by 27 percent. As a result, U.S. electric utilities returned to 
burning more coal and using less natural gas. U.S. energy-related 
carbon emissions are still 10 percent below 2005 levels, but to keep 
driving them down, we need to keep the price of natural gas low and 
continue to drive the deployment of wind and solar up.
  For the oil and gas industry, the crisis in the Ukraine is an 
opportunity to throw open the doors to unrestrained exports of American 
natural gas. But the notion that gas exports will help Ukraine is an 
illusion. It is a talisman, some lucky charm. This is a simple matter 
of geo-economics, geology, and geopolitics. We have already approved 
five export terminals that could send 4 trillion cubic feet of natural 
gas abroad every year. That is nearly equal to all the gas consumed by 
every home in America. Just take that slice of the pie, and we are 
going to export all that natural gas. That is twice as much as Ukraine 
consumes every year.
  Exporting natural gas could raise U.S. prices upwards of 50 percent 
and create an energy tax of $62 billion each year on American consumers 
and businesses, and it will put the coal industry back in business 
because coal will then be less expensive than natural gas. Then our 
ability to meet this goal of reducing greenhouse gases will be replaced 
by a policy to export all the natural gas we can get to the ports of 
the United States, and the lower our supply is, the higher the price is 
going to be for the remaining natural gas within our boundaries. The 
Energy Information Agency says that just with the terminals that are 
now being proposed, it is a 52-percent increase in the price of gas 
here. We saw it last year. When gas went up 27 percent, coal replaced 
natural gas, and our emissions went up, not down. So we just have to be 
realistic about this whole debate in Ukraine about what it means for us 
in handling this issue.
  By the way, it is what has been leading to manufacturers returning to 
the United States. It is what is a big part of why there is a move 
towards natural gas vehicles, which also backed out imported oil. But 
the higher natural gas prices are the more we undermine our ability to 
make real progress on climate change, on manufacturing, on natural gas 
vehicles, on utilities moving from coal over to natural gas. That is 
our challenge as a people.
  Then, finally, we are the leader, not the laggers. The whole world is 
looking at us. So much of that CO2 is red, white, and blue, 
and they look to us to be the leader. You started your industrial 
revolution in the 19th century, they say to us. If you want us to 
reduce our greenhouse gases, you reduce yours. So we cannot abdicate 
this responsibility.
  Last week I attended a conference here in Washington called Globe. 
There were 100 legislators from around the world who came here--the key 
players on energy and the environment in each country in the world. We 
had a conference over in the Russell Building. Each of these 
legislators said they are looking to us for leadership. Five hundred 
new laws have been put on the books over the last 15 years in these 
countries on climate change. But the question comes to us. What are you 
going to do this year, next year, the year after on these issues? Their 
countries are even more vulnerable than our country. They do not have 
the resources which our country has. So that is our opportunity.
  Henry Waxman and I built a coalition of utilities, of businesses, of 
labor, of faith and environmental groups, and concerned citizens in 
2009. The pieces are still out there, I say to my colleagues. We can do 
it again, but we are going to need everyone's help.
  Recently, the books of Massachusetts author and national treasure 
Doctor Seuss have been popular and read on the Senate floor. I wish I 
had time to read the entirety of his environmental classic ``The 
Lorax.'' But since there are so many Senators who want to talk about 
the impacts of climate change and the benefits addressing it will

[[Page 4012]]

bring our country, I will just have to close with this short portion. 
Here is what it says:

       But now says the Once-ler, now that you're here, the word 
     of the Lorax seems perfectly clear. Unless someone like you 
     cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It's 
     not.

  So to my colleagues in the Senate and to everyone watching and 
following tonight, thank you for caring a whole awful lot. This is not 
for us; it is for all the subsequent generations of this country and 
this planet who are looking to this Chamber for leadership. We are 
going to make things better from tonight onward. This is a moment. The 
science is clear; the economics are clear; and now the politics is 
clear. We are going to have a big fight about this in 2014 because 
future generations are going to look back and know that this Senate 
stood up and we had the debate on the most important issue facing this 
planet.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Markey). The Senator from Maine.
  Mr. KING. Facing challenges is hard. The bigger the challenge, the 
harder it is to face it because facing a significant challenge always 
involves risk, always involves a little uncertainty, always involves 
effort, always involves cost, always involves inconvenience, and always 
involves change. The most profound observation I ever heard about 
change is that everybody is for progress and nobody is for change.
  In the 1930s, Europe and particularly England faced a challenge. They 
faced a challenge that was to their very survival. But for almost the 
entire decade of the 1930s, England didn't face that challenge. They 
did not act, even though the data was overwhelming, even though the 
facts were compelling, even though their greatest parliamentarian, the 
greatest parliamentarian in English history--at least recent English 
history--continuously warned them. Winston Churchill spent a good part 
of the 1930s warning his country about the dangers of the rise of Nazi 
Germany. But people didn't listen, and they didn't listen for much the 
same reason I think people aren't listening now--because it is hard to 
take on a new challenge. It is hard to take on something that will have 
a cost. It is hard to take on something that will entail risk. But 
ignoring warnings has consequences. In the case of the 1930s in England 
and ignoring Winston Churchill's warnings, the consequences were 55 
million people dead. Most historians believe Hitler could have been 
stopped in 1938, 1939, but instead of facing the challenge, people said 
it was too expensive; it was too inconvenient; it was too much of a 
change. They were exhausted from World War I.
  That was perfectly understandable, but the consequences were 
catastrophic.
  That is where we are today. We are facing a daunting challenge. For 
all of us speaking tonight, this isn't easy. We can outline the 
problems, but the solutions aren't easy, and the solutions aren't going 
to be free. The solutions are going to involve change; they are going 
to involve investment; they are going to involve innovation; and they 
are going to involve facing up to a challenge that is very serious.
  There are lots of ways to think about this. One way is this example: 
All of us have health insurance. We all have homeowners insurance--even 
simpler than health insurance. Homeowners insurance means basically we 
are insuring our home against burning down. What is the risk of our 
house catching fire? One in two? No. One in 365. Will your house burn 
down once a year. No. One in 3,650? I suspect the risk is somewhere 
around 1 in 10,000 or 20,000. But every family in America is paying an 
average of $800 or $900 a year to insure against a 1 in 10,000 risk. 
But we are being told in this body--in this country--that we can't take 
steps to insure ourselves against a risk which 98 percent of the 
scientific evidence says is a dead certainty. I don't want to take that 
risk.
  People say: You are wrong, Angus. This isn't true. It isn't going to 
happen. Maybe I am. Maybe we are. Maybe that 98 percent of climate 
scientists who have spent their lives studying this issue is wrong. I 
hope they are. I hope I am. But what if we are not wrong? The 
consequences are almost unimaginable.
  Although I have a long history of involvement in environmental 
matters in Maine, I was a climate skeptic. I heard all the arguments 
about it, and I said, I don't know whether this is really true. We can 
argue it both ways. Then, about 5 years ago, I ran across a little 
chart and the chart to me answered the whole question. Here is the 
chart.
  This chart shows a million years of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. 
We often hear carbon dioxide naturally goes up and down in the 
atmosphere. Well, yes, it does. That is what these figures show. But 
for 900,000-plus years, it ranged between 160 parts per million to 
about 250 or 275. That is the range. Then all of a sudden, we get up to 
the year 1,000, and it is still in the same higher range. Then right 
here, 1860, when we started to burn fossil fuels in large quantities, 
and there it goes. It goes to levels that we haven't seen on this 
planet for 3 million years. The last time we saw 400 parts per million 
of CO2 in the atmosphere, the temperatures were 12 to 14 
degrees warmer and the oceans were 60 to 80 feet higher.
  This isn't politics. This isn't speculation. These are actual 
measurements based on the Greenland ice cores. This is what the 
CO2 concentrations were, and here we are at the beginning of 
the industrial revolution.
  This chart, it seems to me, answers two of the three basic questions 
on the subject. The first question is: Is something happening? Yes, 
inevitably. We just can't look at this and say this point and this 
point are so different, and this is a million years. Something is 
happening.
  The second question about this whole issue is this. Do people have 
anything to do with it? This is when we started burning stuff. This 
answers that question. Of course, people have something to do with it. 
It is just too weird a coincidence to say all of a sudden, when we 
started to burn fossil fuels in large quantities and release them into 
the atmosphere and increase the CO2, it just happened to 
happen at the same time. One fellow I know said it is volcanoes. I am 
sorry. We didn't have an outburst of volcanoes in the 1850s and 1860s. 
We had little fires all over Europe, all over America. We had steel 
mills. We had the beginnings of the industrial revolution. We started 
to burn coal and later oil. This is what happened.
  I mentioned there were three questions. No. 1, is something 
happening? Yes. No. 2, do people have anything to do with it? Yes.
  The third question is, So what. CO2 is going up in the 
atmosphere. So what. What does that mean? This answers that question. 
This is the relationship between CO2 and temperature. The 
red line is carbon dioxide and the black line is temperature, an almost 
exact correlation. If the CO2 goes up in the atmosphere, and 
we are at about 500,000 years, we can see CO2 goes up, 
temperature goes up; CO2 goes down, temperature goes down. 
So this is the answer to the third question, so what. The answer is 
temperature.
  One of the things that worries me, and the reason I am here tonight, 
is some research that has been done at the University of Maine. We have 
a climate study center at the University of Maine. I was there a year 
or so ago, and I was meeting with them. It was one of these meetings 
where we are going around and we go to the university, factories, and 
schools and meet with people and they give us briefings, and I was 
listening to a briefing on climate change when a word crept into that 
discussion that I had not heard before, and the word was ``abrupt.''
  Climate change, I always assumed, happened in a very slow, long, 
historic, geological time kind of way. That is not the case.
  These are two lines on this chart. The yellow line is temperature; 
the red is the extent of the ice in the Arctic. The point of the chart 
is, look at these vertical lines. That is in a matter of a few years. 
It is not a matter of 1,000 years or 10,000 years; it is a matter of a 
few years. It is as if someone throws a switch, and I do not want to be 
around when that switch is thrown,

[[Page 4013]]

and I certainly do not want to be the cause of the switch being thrown.
  Abrupt climate change, that is what keeps me awake at night; that 
this is something we are sort of assuming is going to be the next 
generation's problem or the generation after that or by 2100. Who knows 
about 2100? Who thinks about 2100? Well, it could be a lot sooner than 
that.
  If things such as this cause a melt-off in the Arctic ice and the 
Greenland ice sheet, and it changes the currents in the Atlantic or 
anywhere else in the world, for that matter, everything changes.
  Without the Gulf Stream, England, Scotland, Ireland, and Scandinavia 
are essentially uninhabitable. I do not know about the Presiding 
Officer, but I have always thought of England as a being to the east. 
It is not to the east; it is way to the northeast. England is on the 
same latitude as Hudson Bay. The only reason it is of temperate climate 
is because of the Gulf Stream. If something happens to the Gulf Stream, 
Northern Europe is almost uninhabitable.
  These changes can happen abruptly. Again, maybe I am wrong. I hope I 
am wrong. But what if I am right? What if the science is right. Are we 
willing to take that risk? Do you want to be the person who says to 
your grandchildren: We saw this coming. All these people talked. They 
talked all night in the Senate. But we decided not to do anything 
because it would be expensive and it would disrupt some of our 
industries and might cost us a few jobs, which, by the way, would be 
replaced in other industries.
  Do you want to be the person who says: Well, we had this warning but, 
no, we didn't feel we had to do anything. I do not want to be that 
person.
  Does it have practical effects? It does have practical effects. There 
is not a theoretical discussion. This is not just a science lesson. 
This has effects in all of our States. We have heard them here 
tonight--about the water temperature in the streams in Minnesota, the 
forest fires in Colorado, the drought in the West, in California, that 
is rendering millions of acres potentially unproductive that have been 
the breadbasket of America.
  In Maine, it is the lobster, the iconic product of the coast of 
Maine. What is happening is the ocean is getting warmer. As the ocean 
is getting warmer, the lobsters do not necessarily--they are not too 
unhappy about it getting warmer, but the center of gravity of lobsters 
is going to go where the water is colder, and that is what is 
happening. That is what the lobstermen have told me.
  The center of gravity of lobstering in Maine used to be right off of 
Portland in what is called Casco Bay, where I live. But over the last 
10 or 15 years, it has slowly moved northward. Now the lobsters 
themselves have not moved northward, but the heavy catch has moved 
northward.
  Here is a dramatic picture of what has happened. In 1970, here was 
the hotspot for lobster: south of Massachusetts, south of Rhode Island, 
off the end of Long Island. This is where they were catching the most 
lobster. Here is where they are in 2008. They are up along the coast of 
Maine, headed for Nova Scotia. This is the center of gravity of the 
lobster industry.
  People around here may not know what is happening in the climate, but 
the lobsters of Maine know it, and the green crabs and the shellfish 
and the moose and the deer and the trees, they know it because that is 
what is changing in my State.
  There is another thing that is happening that I do not think has been 
discussed tonight; that is, that the ocean is becoming a giant sink for 
all this carbon that is in the atmosphere. When the atmospheric carbon 
dioxide goes into the water and is dissolved in the water, it turns 
into something called H2CO3--carbonic acid. 
Carbonic acid attacks shellfish. Shellfish cannot form their shells 
because the ocean is becoming acidic. This is a recent observation, and 
it is the result of the massive load of carbon that we have been 
putting into the atmosphere.
  Here is another practical result, and the Presiding Officer talked 
about this in terms of Boston. These are charts that show what happens 
if the sea goes up varying levels--6 meters, 1 meter. One meter is 
shown in dark red on the chart. Look what happens to Virginia Beach in 
North Carolina at just 1 meter, and that is predicted in the next 100 
years as the sea level goes up. Then we look at all these communities: 
New York, Boston, Savannah, and Charleston, Virginia Beach, Miami, 
Louisiana. Then we can multiply this all around the world. I do not 
know the percentage, but a very significant percentage of the world's 
population lives within about 40 miles of the coast--everywhere in the 
world.
  These are real consequences, and these are the kinds of consequences 
that are unbelievably expensive and unbelievably destructive.
  There is another piece of evidence, which is the sea ice extent. We 
are now talking about the famous Northwest Passage actually existing. 
Ships can now go from the Atlantic to the Pacific across the Arctic 
because the ice is disappearing.
  Here it is, as shown here, just from 1979 to the present. This is 
evidence. This is data. This is irrefutable.
  Here is essentially a chart of the Arctic sea ice. The red line was 
the extent of the ice, the average place the ice was in 1979 through 
the year 2000, and here is where we are in 2012. As it continues to 
shrink, several things happen: the ocean levels rise, the acidification 
of the ocean continues, and there is a threat of a change in the 
ocean's currents, which would be catastrophic for many parts of the 
world.
  Another example is the Muir Glacier in Alaska. These two photographs 
I have in the Chamber were taken from exactly the same spot. In 1941, 
here is the glacier. In 2004, here is the lake. The glacier is gone. 
That has changed, and that is a change that is the canary in the coal 
mine. That is the change that tells us something is happening and we 
ignore it at our peril.
  What are the consequences? What are the consequences? I have talked 
about the economic consequences: forest fires, floods, lobsters, 
agriculture, all of those people living in low-lying areas. Multiply 
Superstorm Sandy by two, three, four, five, and we are talking billions 
of dollars of economic costs; we are talking about lost jobs. Something 
like 30 percent of the businesses that were wiped out by Superstorm 
Sandy never came back. They never came back. To each one of those 
businesspeople, to each one of those insurers that insured those 
businesses, to those families it is gone forever. That is the result of 
these superstorms we are seeing more and more frequently.
  An enormous economic risk, an enormous cost. Yes, it is going to cost 
something to prevent this, but it is going to cost us either way. The 
old ad I remember when I was a kid: Pay me now or pay me later. In this 
case, it is pay me now or pay me more later.
  But there is a second level of risk that is almost as significant as 
the economic risk; that is, the national security risk. We have had 
panels of retired judges and admirals who have looked at this issue. 
Global climate change is a major national security risk. Why? Because 
it is going to lead to friction, to riots, to famine, to loss of 
agricultural land, to loss of homes, to territorial disputes about 
water, and that increases our risk.
  I am on the Armed Services Committee and Intelligence Committee. I 
have spent the last year and a half listening to testimony about Al 
Qaeda and what we are doing to confront Al Qaeda. Part of our strategy 
is to fight them and to kill them, but we cannot kill them all. It is 
like the Hydra. You cut off one head and two come back. What we have to 
do is get at the basis of why young people are joining an organization 
such as that and change their lives. This climate change, which 
threatens people's livelihoods, particularly in the developing world, 
is a grave threat to our national security because it generates the 
very people who are dangerous. The most dangerous weapons of mass 
destruction in the world today are large numbers of unemployed 20-year-
olds who are angry and dispossessed and have no hope and are willing to 
take up arms against any

[[Page 4014]]

authority they can find, and unfortunately that may be us.
  This is a national security risk. Water, I predict, will be one of 
the most valuable commodities of the 21st century. It is going to be 
something people fight about. It is going to be something people get 
into wars about. Water is an enormously valuable commodity that global 
climate change threatens.
  Finally, on the question of what are the consequences, it is an 
ethical risk. It is an economic risk, a national security risk, but it 
is also an ethical risk. Another aspect of this that has struck me that 
is not strictly related to climate change but is related to our 
consumption of fossil fuels is what right do we have in two or three 
generations to consume the entire production of fossil fuels that the 
world has produced in the last 3 or 4 or 5 or 10 million years.
  It reminds me of a dad sitting down at Thanksgiving dinner, where all 
of his children are sitting around the table, mom brings in the turkey, 
puts it in front of him, and he says: This is all mine. None of you get 
any. I am going to take it.
  None of us would do that, but that is exactly what we are doing. We 
are saying this oil, this precious oil that is an amazing commodity, 
can do all kinds of different things, we are going to burn it up in 
about 200 years. It takes millions of years to make it, and we are 
going to burn it all up. I think that is an ethical risk.
  OK. I hate talking about problems and not talking about a solution. 
What are the solutions?
  I believe in markets. I believe in free markets as the best way to 
allocate goods and services. But the market, in order to be efficient, 
has to be accurate, and it has to accurately reflect the true costs and 
price of the commodity. Right now we are not paying those costs. The 
cost of climate change is not factored into the cost of consuming 
fossil fuels. If you factor it in, then you have a free market and 
people will make their decisions based upon their economic situation 
and also their commitment to the environment, but the real costs are 
not factored in.
  I am old enough to remember when this debate took place in the 1970s, 
when I worked here. But the debate then was about environmental law 
itself, and the debate was characterized as payrolls versus pickerel. I 
can remember that term, ``payrolls versus pickerel.''
  The idea was that if you clean up the water and clean up the air, it 
is going to put people out of business, we are going to lose jobs, 
industry is going to run away, we can't possibly do it. Well, a man 
named Edmund Sixtus Muskie from the State of Maine did not believe 
that. He was raised in a paper mill town on the Androscoggin River--one 
of the most polluted rivers in America. They used to say it was too 
thick to drink, too thin to plow. Muskie did not believe it, and Muskie 
stood in this body and fought for the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water 
Act.
  Here is the amazing thing. I was asked to do some research and to do 
a presentation about Muskie's environmental leadership. I went back and 
looked at the record. I could not believe my eyes, particularly in 
light of where we are here today--tonight--in this body and in this 
city. The Clean Air Act passed the Senate unanimously. In the midst of 
the debate, Howard Baker, the minority leader, the Republican leader, 
gave his proxy to Muskie. Can you imagine that happening today? It 
passed unanimously. We could not pass the time of day unanimously in 
this body. Yet it happened.
  That brings me to a question that really puzzles me. How did this 
become a partisan issue? How did it come to divide us so cleanly along 
environmental lines? This discussion tonight is important, but it is 
all Democrats and people--Bernie and I, the two Independents--Senator 
Sanders, the Senator from Vermont, and I, the two Independents--no 
people from the other party. I do not understand that. The leaders, the 
giants of the environmental movement in Maine when I was a young man 
were all Republicans.
  When Ed Muskie got the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act passed 
through this body, it was with the support of the overwhelming 
majority--in the case of the Clean Air Act, all of the Republicans, 
including very conservative Republicans. Senator Buckley from New York 
supported the Clean Air Act. I do not know how or why this became a 
partisan issue. Maybe it was because it was invented by Al Gore. I do 
not know. But somehow it has become this divisive partisan issue. It 
should not be. This is our future that is at stake. This is our 
children and grandchildren's future. This should not be a partisan 
issue.
  In my experience, if we can develop a common understanding of the 
facts, we can find solutions. They will not be easy, but they are 
there. Right now the problem is that we do not have a common, shared 
understanding of the facts.
  So what are the solutions? The market is one. Innovation, as Senator 
Kaine from Virginia said, is another. There are ways to use electricity 
and generate electricity through innovation that will be much cleaner, 
support just as many if not more jobs, and help prevent this tragedy 
from befalling us.
  By the way, it does not mean we cannot burn coal. Coal is an abundant 
resource that we have in this country that is loaded with energy, but 
unfortunately it is also loaded with CO2 and other 
pollutants. So I think part of our commitment should be intense 
research on how to use coal efficiently, effectively, and cleanly. That 
should be part of the deal. We are not trying to put any region of the 
country out of business or control people's use of valuable resources, 
but let's use them in the most efficient and effective and 
environmentally safe way. That can be done in part through innovation.
  I was a lobbyist in Maine 30 years ago. One of the things I lobbied 
for was to get rid of pop-top beer cans. The Presiding Officer probably 
remembers the first ones. You grabbed the ring, pulled it off, and it 
became a little razor. People threw them on the ground. You would step 
on them. They were dangerous.
  I remember going to the lobbyist for the bottlers and I said: We want 
to get rid of those things.
  He said: There is no way. Our engineers have looked at it. It is 
impossible to make one that you do not have to tear off.
  Well, lo and behold we passed a law banning those pull-off tabs, and 
the industry found a way to do it safely and in an environmentally 
sound manner. Sometimes you have to help people find a way.
  The final piece when it comes to solutions is that this has to be 
international. I agree with my colleagues who say we cannot just do it 
here. We cannot just do it here. If we just do it here and nobody else 
in the world does it, if China and India do not do it, then it is not 
going to be effective. We will have imposed costs on our society that 
will simply make their businesses more competitive if they are ignoring 
these externalities, these realities of price. It has to be done 
through international cooperation.
  I think the moment may be right. From everything I understand about 
the air quality in China, they may be ready to discuss this. They may 
be ready to take steps along with us. But we are going to have to be 
the leaders. We are going to have to show what can be done and how it 
can be done. We are going to have to innovate our way out of this. But 
we have to do it with our international partners. Movement of air does 
not respect boundaries.
  When Ed Muskie was promoting the Clean Air Act, he would take a 
globe--I do not think we are allowed to take props onto the floor of 
the Senate--he would take a standard globe--imagine I have it here--and 
everybody used to have these in their library. On a globe is a coating 
of shellac to make it shine. That coating of shellac is the same 
thickness in proportion to the globe as our atmosphere is to our real 
globe. In other words, it is very thin and very fragile. We destroy it 
and threaten it at our extreme peril.
  I can boil it all down to one simple concept. This is a Maine 
concept. It is the Maine rototiller rule.
  For those of you from urban States, a rototiller is a device that you 
use to

[[Page 4015]]

turn the ground in your garden. I guess it is a homeowner's plow. It 
turns the dirt. Not too many people own rototillers, but enough do so 
that you can borrow one when you need it for that one day in the spring 
when you are going to put in your garden.
  The Maine rototiller rule is very straightforward: When you borrow 
your neighbor's rototiller, you always return it to them in as good 
shape as you got it with a full tank of gas. That is all you need to 
know about environmental policy. We do not own this planet. We have it 
on loan. We have it on loan from our children, our grandchildren, and 
their grandchildren. We are borrowing it from them. We have a moral, 
ethical, economic, and security obligation to pass it on to those 
people in as good or better shape than we got it. That is what this 
issue is all about.
  I deeply hope we can put aside the partisanship and the arguments, 
agree on the facts, and then have a robust and vigorous discussion of 
solutions. It is not going to be easy. It is not going to be free. But 
it will make all the difference in the world to the people to whom we 
owe our best work--the future of America and the world.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I appreciate so much the comments of my 
colleague from Maine, bringing his insights and his expertise through 
the years and his stories about how the land and waters of his home 
State are being impacted and our responsibilities to the broader 
planet.
  I am reminded of the comment that Henry David Thoreau said, which is, 
``What is the use of a house if you haven't got a tolerable planet to 
put it on?'' His comment now seems very much ahead of the time and the 
context of the issue we are discussing tonight.
  Then we have the insight from Theodore Roosevelt, who said, in terms 
of our responsibility, ``Of all the questions which can come before 
this Nation, short of the actual preservation of its existence in a 
great war, there is none which compares in importance with the great 
central task of leaving this land even a better land for our 
descendents than it is for us.''
  But right now we are failing that challenge. Carbon pollution is a 
direct threat to our resources on this planet, a direct threat to our 
forests, to our fishing, and to our farming. So I am going to take a 
little bit of time tonight to talk about those aspects.
  I would like to start by taking a look at our forests. Indeed, if 
there is something that symbolizes some of the dramatic impacts carbon 
pollution is making, it is the spread of the pine beetle.
  This is a picture of a forest devastated not by fire, not by drought, 
but by the spread of the pine beetle. I have gone up in a plane and 
flown over a vast zone of the Cascades known as the red zone, where the 
pine beetle has killed thousands of acres in my home State. They start 
out looking red because the needles turn red. That is why it is called 
the red zone. Then the needles fall off, and you have essentially this 
brown desolate remainder of what was once a thriving forest.
  Timber is something that is very close to our hearts in the State of 
Oregon. So many of us--myself included--are children of the timber 
industry. My father was a millwright--that is the mechanic who keeps 
the sawmill operating--a job he absolutely loved. He used to say that 
if he did his job right, then everyone had a job to come to, and the 
mill made money and everyone was happy as long as the machinery ran. 
Oregon is still the top American producer of plywood and softwood 
lumber. The industry certainly is a big component of our gross domestic 
product in my State.
  When this happens, then not only do we have zones that are not good 
environmental zones, but they are not good timber zones either. It is a 
lose-lose situation. It happens, and it is spreading for one reason: 
The winters are not as cold as they used to be, and the pine beetle is 
very happy about that because it is not knocked back and largely wiped 
out with cold snaps each winter, and it is easy to spread much more 
quickly, and it is able to spread to much higher elevations.
  Then these dead forests become a component in another huge problem, 
which is forest fires.
  This picture you will see in a moment is a picture of the Biscuit 
Fire in 2002--a wall of flames.
  The summer before last, I went down and flew about the State of 
Oregon to look at the innumerable forest fires that were burning. One 
of the reasons we had so many forest fires--10 years after this fire--
was because the floor of the forest was so dry. It is estimated that a 
2-by-4 that you see in a Home Depot has about a 6-percent moisture 
content. The material on the floor of the forest was even drier than 
that. Then you throw in far more lightning strikes due to the pattern 
of the weather, and you have this magic combination, this combination 
of tinderbox dryness, pine beetle devastation, and then lightning 
strikes. What you have are some of the largest fires we have ever seen. 
Indeed, the Biscuit Fire in 2002--500,000 acres. Half a million acres. 
Fast-forward 10 years. In 2012, 750,000 acres burned in my State. With 
the combination of the ongoing effects of carbon pollution--that being 
pine beetle damage, more lighting strikes, and far drier, drought-
driven fire seasons--it is going to get worse and worse.
  The seven largest fire years since 1960 have all happened in the last 
13 summers. It is pretty amazing to recognize how that transition is 
occurring. If we think about projecting into the future, the National 
Research Council predicts that for every 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit 
temperature increase, the area burned in the western forests will 
quadruple.
  This led our Energy Secretary to tell me a few weeks ago about a 
draft of a study that says the western forests will be dramatically 
impacted, devastated in the course of this century due to these 
factors.
  We have a triple threat, that of drought and bark beetles, increased 
temperatures, and the result is decimation of an incredibly important 
world resource, our forests.
  But carbon pollution is not only an attack on our forests, it is also 
an attack on our farming. Indeed, drought across the U.S. is a huge and 
growing threat to agriculture.
  In the State of Oregon, we have had the three worst-ever droughts in 
the Klamath Basin in a 13-year period. It was 2001, then the worst-ever 
drought of 2010, then the worst-ever drought of 2013--and now we are 
looking at the possibility of a drought even worse than any of those--
the worst-ever drought of 2014. Hopefully, we will have a lot of 
precipitation and a lot of snow in the coming weeks and that won't be 
the case, but if we are looking at the snowpack, it is possible that we 
will have the fourth worst ever in a 14-year period. It is absolutely 
devastating to our rural economy, absolutely devastating.
  Let's look at the impact coming from smaller snowpacks. Snowpacks are 
a significant piece of this puzzle. If we were to look at the Pacific 
Northwest, we would basically draw a circle like this. What we see are 
these zones where there is a huge percentage decrease in those 
snowpacks. The snowpacks then provide far less irrigation and water 
available, and therefore dry their foundation for the summer drought, 
which then has a devastating impact on agriculture. This is not good 
for our farming families, and it is certainly not good for our farm 
economy.
  Those snowpacks have another impact. I am going to skip forward to 
the impact on our streams and our fish.
  Folks who like to fish for trout and go to their summer streams know 
that it is going to be better if the stream is large and cold than if 
it is small and warm. But the last of those snowpacks means that the 
summer streams are smaller and warmer, and they are very bad for trout. 
That is what we are seeing in this particular picture: dead trout from 
the Deschutes River. Last fall thousands of fish died in the river from 
low flows attributed to drought.
  Clearly, not only is it bad for trout, it is bad for salmon; it is 
bad for steelhead. It is certainly bad for our fishing industries.
  Let's turn to another part of our fishing industry, and this is an 
impact that we see over on the coast of Oregon.

[[Page 4016]]

  I specifically want to take a look at the impact that we see on our 
oysters. Oysters have to fixate a shell at the beginning of their life. 
They are called oyster seed, the baby oyster. We have hatcheries, and 
those hatcheries have been having challenges. The Whiskey Creek oyster 
hatchery in Oregon has had a big problem. Indeed, at one point it had a 
huge impact.
  I will read part of an article:

       Peering into the microscope, Alan Barton thought the baby 
     oysters looked normal, except for one thing: They were dead. 
     Slide after slide, the results were the same. The entire 
     batch of 100 million larvae at the Whiskey Creek Shellfish 
     Hatchery had perished.
       It took several years for the Oregon oyster breeder and a 
     team of scientists to find the culprit: a radical change in 
     ocean acidity.

  This is why, because when we have greater carbon pollution in the 
air, that carbon then is absorbed by the ocean, a significant portion 
of it. That dissolved carbon dioxide combines with water and becomes 
H2CO3, otherwise known as carbonic acid.
  That carbonic acid is preventing the baby oysters from forming their 
shells. We can think of this as the canary in the coal mine for our 
world's oceans because if baby oysters are having a challenge forming 
their shells because of a 30-percent increase in acidity since the 
start of the Industrial Revolution, what other impacts are there going 
to be along in the shellfish world and the food chains that depend on 
those shellfish, not to mention the impact on our shellfish farmers.
  I was noting this in Washington State and I was told: You know, our 
oyster farmers are experiencing a similar problem, and they are going 
to Hawaii and to Asia. This is not only an Oregon problem.
  The manager of the hatchery in Oregon, David Stick, said in an 
article:

       I do not think people understand the seriousness of the 
     problem. Ocean acidification is going to be a game-changer. 
     It has the potential to be a real catastrophe.

  Let's recognize another part of the planet that is having a problem 
with warmer waters and ocean acidification; that is, our coral reefs. 
We have, in Oregon, a researcher at Oregon State university. His name 
is Professor Hixon. Professor Hixon is recognizing that the coral reefs 
around the world are in trouble. As he said in a presentation, he 
studied dozens of reefs. They are his children. Then he said: My 
children are dying. One of the key reasons is acidification, but 
another is the oceans are getting warmer.
  I have a chart showing the warming of the ocean. The oceans are 
absorbing carbon dioxide, and they are also absorbing heat. As they 
become warmer, they create a real problem for coral reefs. Coral is an 
animal. We may think of it as a plant, but it actually is an animal, 
and it lives in a symbiotic relationship with a type of algae.
  They depend on each other. What happens when the water gets warmer 
around a coral reef is that the algae start to multiply in a fashion 
that overwhelms the coral.
  The coral, in an effort to survive, ejects the algae, throws them out 
of the host. Then the coral, having ejected the algae, dies. This is 
called bleaching, and it is something we are seeing in coral reefs 
around the world. That is why Professor Hixon noted: My children are 
dying.
  I will state something else about the warming that is occurring, and 
this is more about warming that is occurring in terms of the 
temperature of our planet. It is affecting our recreation industry and 
our snow industry.
  I am going to start by taking a look at what is driving that in terms 
of a chart related to carbon dioxide. Specifically, this chart shows 
the dramatic change that has gone on. We see the fluctuations in carbon 
dioxide over hundreds of thousands of years, into the modern time and 
then, boom, 400 parts per million of carbon pollution.
  What does this come from? It comes from burning fossil fuels.
  This carbon--carbon dioxide, as a component of the atmosphere, traps 
heat. To summarize, our planet has a fever. The temperature is going 
up. Let's take a look at how that carbon dioxide correlates with 
temperatures.
  We have, in this case, showing since 1880--basically, the start of 
the Industrial Revolution--the increase in temperature on our planet, 
the global surface mean temperature. We have seen a significant 
increase.
  If we want to find a way that this impacts our economy, let's take a 
look at how it impacts our recreation industry. This is an article that 
I grabbed from the New York Times. It is a lengthy article, but it is 
the title and the picture that I really wanted to show. It is from the 
Sunday Review and it is called ``The End Of Snow.''
  This article basically documents how our ski resorts around our 
planet are suffering because they don't have as much snow as they used 
to have. There is a picture of artificial snow being created and put on 
the slope. It notes how much energy this requires, how many dollars it 
costs to provide that energy, how this is making many of our resorts 
not feasible, and how many of them will go out of the business. This is 
just another angle on the impact that carbon dioxide is having, in this 
case, on our recreation industry.
  Of course, it is having other impact on our recreation industry. When 
we think of those smaller streams, we can think of fewer kayaks, for 
example, and rafting companies operating.
  Let's turn from these multitudinous impacts. First, before we return 
to recognizing that we have the power to take on carbon pollution, 
let's recognize when folks say isn't that global warming issue about 
some computer programmer using some assumption and some model. Isn't 
there some dispute about it; is it real.
  Put all of that aside. We don't need a computer model to show us the 
impact from the pine beetle. We don't need a computer model to show us 
the impact on our trout streams. We don't need a computer model to show 
us the impact today on droughts. We don't need a computer model to show 
us impact on forest burning. We don't need a computer model to show us 
the impact on our coral. We don't need a computer model to show us the 
impact on the oyster industry, and we don't need a computer model to 
show us the impact on our snow-based recreational activities and the 
industries that are associated with it.
  In other words, carbon pollution is here and now. Global warming is 
here and now. It is making an impact wherever we look. We can feel it, 
we can touch it, we can see it, and we can smell it. It is here, and it 
is our responsibility, our responsibility as American citizens, our 
responsibility as policy leaders in this esteemed Chamber of the Senate 
to take on this issue.
  There is so much we can do because it boils down to this. We have to 
replace our appetite for fossil fuels with renewable fuels, renewable 
energy. We can do that. We can do that in a host of ways.
  I will start. Let me start by noting a little bit about the growth of 
solar energy. When one realizes this chart is just from 2001 to 2013, 
it is phenomenal the deployed amount of installed capacity in megawatts 
in solar energy. From 2012 to 2013, we have more than 3,000 additional 
megawatts of energy, solar energy, solar potential, deployed.
  A similar explosion of renewable energy is happening in the source of 
wind. Let's take a look at that.
  We have deployed capacity in wind energy. If we were to recognize 
that, again, from 2001 to 2013 there was a huge growth in the 
industry--and I want to point out a particular factor here going from 
2011 to 2012. This large bump on the chart was 13,000 megawatts of 
installed capacity and wind energy in 1 year. The next year there was 
only 1,000.
  The difference, as pointed out by one of my colleagues earlier on 
this floor, is the difference in tax credits, of consistently available 
production tax credits that the wind industry can depend on.
  We give all kinds of subsidies to the fossil fuel industry. Why can't 
we create a steady, reliable source to promote renewable energy to help 
replace those fossil fuels. We have this policy potential in our hands, 
and we need to exercise it. There are many other forms of renewable 
energy. There is offshore wind, there is geothermal energy, and there 
is wave energy. Oregon has

[[Page 4017]]

some of the best winds for offshore wind energy and waves for wave 
energy, but we already have the ability through the technologies we 
have today to dramatically reduce our consumption of fossil fuels.
  What this chart shows is that in different parts of the country the 
mix between biomass and geothermal and wind onshore, wind offshore, 
wave energy and solar energy, concentrated solar power energy would be 
different in different parts of the country, but everywhere around the 
country there is the potential to essentially replace our appetite for 
fossil fuels.
  Then there is the conservation side. We can certainly do a tremendous 
amount in our fuel standards for cars, a tremendous amount in our fuel 
standards for trucks, and a significant amount in terms of energy-
saving retrofits to our buildings.
  In the farm bill we just passed, we have a program for low-cost loans 
for energy-saving retrofits, and that program--the Rural Energy Savings 
Program--will help retrofits occur in commercial buildings and 
residential buildings, and it will allow people to pay back the loan on 
their electric bill. Often, they will be able to pay back that loan 
simply with the savings in energy--electricity consumption--from the 
changes they make to their building. So it is a win-win--creating jobs, 
saving energy, yet being paid for without much additional expense for 
the consumer.
  All of these possibilities exist and more. It is our challenge as 
policymakers to take on this issue, to work on how we can generate 
electricity with far fewer fossil fuels, how we can conserve 
electricity in transportation. How do we conserve electricity and other 
fuels? In fact, in both cases--transportation and heating our homes, 
energy consumed in our buildings--how do we do this with far fewer 
fossil fuels and do it with renewable energy?
  I applaud my colleagues for coming here tonight to raise this issue 
and say we must come together and take on these challenges. My 
colleague from Delaware is about to speak and share some stories from 
his experiences that bear on this, but every Senator in this Chamber 
can talk about issues from their home State and where they see the 
impact of carbon pollution and call upon us, call upon our moral 
responsibility to tackle this issue.
  With that, I yield the floor to my colleague.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Heinrich). The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I would like to thank my colleague from 
Oregon, Senator Merkley, who has done a tremendous job laying out the 
scientific case, the compelling economic case, the cultural case, and 
the global case for why we here in the Senate need to wake up, need to 
listen to the indisputable evidence of what climate change is doing in 
our home States, to our country, and around the world.
  Mr. President, even now as we speak in this Chamber, my own three 
children--Maggie, Michael, and Jack--are asleep at home. And as I 
reflected on this past summer, I was struck by something--an experience 
we had--that was a simple and telling reminder of the steady changes 
wrought by climate change in our Nation.
  Last summer we took a family vacation--a trip--to Glacier National 
Park. For those who have had the opportunity to hike in this majestic 
national park in Montana, it is the site of many striking and beautiful 
scenes, but there was one hike we took in particular that stayed with 
me. It was a hike to historic Grinnell Glacier--a glacier that is by 
many photographs over decades documented in its steady receding. In 
fact, since 1966 it has lost nearly half of its total acreage. We took 
a long and winding hike up the trail that takes you to Grinnell 
Glacier. You can't quite see until you come up over the last rise that 
most of what is left of Grinnell Glacier in the summers today is a 
chilly pool of water.
  For my daughter Maggie and for my sons Mike and Jack, as I look ahead 
to the long-term future, I think we all have to ask ourselves this 
question: How many more changes are we willing to accept being wrought 
on creation, on this Nation, and on the world by the steady advance of 
climate change?
  I know we can't simply take the examples of things such as Grinnell 
Glacier or what to me seemed a striking change in the cap of Mount 
Kilimanjaro. I first climbed it in 1984 and visited it again last year. 
There is a striking change, a visually powerful change. These aren't 
scientific.
  There are lots of other arguments, perhaps, as to why these two 
particular glaciers have retreated, but I still remember hearing a 
presentation at the University of Delaware by Dr. Lonnie Thompson of 
Ohio State University, a glaciologist who presented a very broad and I 
thought very compelling case based on ice cores for the actual advance 
of climate change over many decades.
  In fact, I see my colleague from Rhode Island has a photographic 
history of Grinnell Glacier in Montana's Glacier National Park, so the 
point I was just making in passing he is able to illustrate here. That 
is as of 10 years ago. The glacier has retreated even further from 
that. But this striking glacier from 1940 is now almost completely gone 
in just one generation. This and so many other glaciers that were 
monuments in our national parks are today receded or altogether gone.
  Well, I think we have to ask ourselves fundamentally, what is our 
path forward? We have heard from other Senators. Tim Kaine of Virginia 
spoke about the importance of innovation, and Angus King, the Senator 
from Maine, spoke about the importance of markets and of making sure 
our inventions and innovations in trying to solve these problems are 
also shared internationally. I think these are great and important 
insights.
  One of the things I wanted to bring to the floor today first was 
insights from my own home State of Delaware, where our Governor, Jack 
Markell, impaneled a sea level rise advisory committee starting in 2010 
that looked hard at how climate change might affect my home State.
  At just 60 feet, Delaware has the lowest mean elevation of any State 
in the country, and that already makes it more susceptible to sea level 
rise than almost any State in the country. In my State of Delaware, we 
have seen and will continue to see the impact of climate change on our 
businesses, our communities, and our local environment. As the sea 
level rises, we are seeing the effects more and more.
  Sea level rises essentially for two reasons. First, as the planet's 
ice sheets melt--the much larger sheets than Grinnell Glacier--they add 
to the amount of water in the ocean. Second, saltwater actually expands 
as it warms as well. So as the planet's average temperature has 
steadily risen, so too has the level of its saltwater seas.
  The fact that the Earth's oceans are rising each year isn't new 
information. It has been rising as long as we have been keeping track. 
But what is really jarring is that rate of rise is increasing and 
increasing significantly. When the data was tracked from 1870 to 1930, 
the sea level was rising at a rate of 4 inches per 100 years. Over the 
next 60 years it rose at a rate of 8 inches per 100 years--more than 
double. In just the last 20 years the sea level has been rising at a 
strikingly more rapid rate of 12.5 inches per 100 years. The water is 
rising, and in Delaware it is rising fast.
  The land itself in my State is also actually sinking. There is 
actually a documented vertical movement of the Earth's crust under the 
mid-Atlantic coast. It is called subsidence. It has been happening in 
Delaware slowly but gradually since the ice age at a pace of just 2 
millimeters of elevation every year. I know that doesn't sound like a 
lot, but it adds up to another 4 inches over the century.
  So we have the water rising and the land sinking, making climate 
change and sea level rise--specifically for my home State--a very real 
issue.
  A wide array of scientists have studied this and its impact on 
Delaware, and they have developed three models for a future scenario. 
In the conservative model, by the year 2100 the sea level in Delaware 
will have risen about 1.5 feet. In another model, the water off 
Delaware rises another full meter. In another and the most 
disconcerting

[[Page 4018]]

model, it is 1.5 meters or about 5 feet. Unfortunately, at present, 
this broad group of scientists--inside and outside of government--are 
estimating that is the most likely scenario.
  Let's make this real. Here is a projection of these three different 
scenarios in one area of Delaware. This is Bowers Beach. This shows how 
now this is a well-established beach community. The most conservative 
model, we still have something of the land; in the middle, it is 
completely cut off here from the mainland; and then in the most likely, 
sadly, given the most current evidence, there is literally nothing left 
except a little sandbar out by itself in the Delaware Bay. That gives 
one example of why the difference between these three scenarios matters 
so much. Unfortunately, there is no scenario in which Bowers Beach is 
still a viable beachfront community by the end of this century. This 
beach community of Bowers Beach is very close to Dover Air Force Base 
and ends up underwater.
  Now let's take a look at South Wilmington. The city in which I live 
is Wilmington, DE, and South Wilmington is a neighborhood in the 
largest city in our State. As the water rises in the Atlantic Ocean, it 
also rises up the Delaware Bay, the Delaware River, and the Christina 
River, which runs right through most of my home county, Newcastle 
County, and rises in the Peterson Wildlife Refuge too.
  The impacts here are potentially devastating. We are talking about 
water 1.5 feet higher than what Delaware experienced during Superstorm 
Sandy--not for a brief storm surge but each and every day. Again, take 
a look at today the conservative, the middle, and the most likely, most 
aggressive scenario in which virtually all of South Wilmington is 
underwater by the end of this century. The calculation of whether we 
are hit with a half a meter, a full meter, or 1.5 meters of sea rise 
comes down to the rate of acceleration of climate change globally, and 
it leaves for us a central and so far unanswered question: whether we 
try to slow the rate at which climate change is affecting our planet 
and maybe somehow turn the tide. This is the part of climate change 
policy called mitigation.
  Priority one in this strategy is cutting the emissions we are pumping 
into our atmosphere. To do that, we can and must diversify our energy 
sources and reduce our dependence on polluting fossil fuels. Clean 
energy technology, energy efficiency programs, public transportation, 
and more will help cut down on these emissions, but it will require a 
global effort in order to avoid or minimize local impacts.
  The second part of climate change policy is adaptation based on an 
acceptance of the reality that our climate is changing and will have 
real effects on our planet and all of our communities. The truth is 
that even if we stopped all greenhouse gas emissions today--if we shut 
down powerplants, stopped driving cars, stopped using gas-powered farm 
equipment, trains, and ships, and all the rest--the amount of 
greenhouse gases, of CO2 and others already in the 
atmosphere would still take many years to dissipate. Changes in the 
world's climate are at this point inevitable. It is already happening 
and affecting communities, and we can expect these impacts to intensify 
as the rate of climate change continues to accelerate. We can modify 
our behavior to prevent those effects from being catastrophic. We can 
and should make better choices now to prevent disaster later.
  In Delaware, for example, we have had two laws on the books for now 
40 years that have helped us adapt. The first was championed in the 
1970s by a Republican Governor, Russ Peterson, a hero of mine and of 
our Governor's and others. It is called the Coastal Zone Act, and 
passing it cost him his career in politics. It prohibited future 
industrial development on a long strip of coastal land, allowing the 
State and Federal government to preserve it and reduce the impacts of 
flooding and coastal erosion. Ultimately, in the long run, Governor 
Peterson has been proven a visionary in preserving this vital barrier 
all along Delaware's coast.
  The second law empowered the State to protect and replenish the 
State's beaches, including the beaches on Delaware Bay, which are often 
overlooked. This has allowed our State to build a berm and dune system 
that protects infrastructure and protects property from being washed 
away.
  More important than these significant landmark laws of 40 years ago, 
today, instead of running away from the science, Delaware's leaders 
have embraced it. The State agency that manages environmental issues 
for Delaware--known as DNREC and ably led by secretary Collin O'Mara--
has taken the lead on a governmentwide project to assess the State's 
vulnerability to sea level rise and, as I mentioned, recommend options 
for adaptation.
  Delaware's Sea Level Rise Committee spent 18 months looking at 79 
different statewide resources--roads, bridges, schools, fire stations, 
railroads, wetlands, people and their homes and businesses--and layered 
all of this onto maps to show just how far the water would reach at 
different models for sea level rise.
  If the sea level does get to 1.5 meters, we lose more than 10 percent 
of our State. The water claims 20,000 residential properties, 
significant percentages of wetlands, farms, highways, and industrial 
sites. We would lose 21 miles of our Northeast corridor rail lines to 
flooding, shutting down the vital Northeast corridor that transports so 
many millions every year.
  The Port of Wilmington would be rendered useless, nearly all the 
State's acreage of protected wetlands could be inundated, nearly three-
quarters of our dams, dikes, and levees flooded out. In short, this 
scenario for our lowest-lying State would be devastating.
  As Secretary O'Mara said:

       We're looking at big risks for human health and safety, and 
     not just at the Delaware Bay beaches. We have big concerns 
     about [communities in Delaware]. It's much more complex than 
     just the bay beaches or a community here or there.

  He is right. So once again, remember, we have two basic approaches to 
climate change policy: adaptation and mitigation.
  Once Delaware compiled its 200-page vulnerability assessment on sea 
level rise, the committee got to work on an adaptation strategy to 
protect our State and came up with slightly more than 60 options and 
hosted a whole series of public meetings and townhalls to discuss it. 
We are now working on a broader vulnerability assessment to examine the 
full range of impacts from climate change, even beyond sea level rise--
changing temperatures, extreme weather, changes in precipitation--
impacts which will affect us and our neighbors.
  Climate change will affect the distribution, abundance, and behavior 
of wildlife, as well as the diversity, structure, and function of our 
ecosystem. We are already seeing changes in natural patterns. As 
Senator Markey of Massachusetts commented earlier this evening, many 
commercial and recreational fish stocks along our east coast have moved 
northward by 20 to 200 miles over the past 40 years as ocean 
temperatures have increased. Scientists expect migratory species to be 
strongly affected by climate change, since animal migration is closely 
connected to climate factors, and migratory species use multiple 
habitats and resources during their migrations. These changes are 
impacting our own multimillion bird watching and waterfowl hunting, an 
important economic driver for us and critical parts of our heritage.
  According to the draft National Climate Assessment released in 2013, 
our farmers are expected to initially adapt relatively well to the 
changing climate over the next 25 years. But later, as temperature 
increases and precipitation extremes get more intense, crop yields and 
production of poultry and livestock are expected to decline. More 
extreme weather events--drought and heavy downpours--will further 
reduce yields, damage soil, stress irrigation water supplies, and 
increase production costs. All in all, this is a fairly grim long-term 
outlook in the absence of decisive action.

[[Page 4019]]

  I am proud of my State. Delaware was the first State to thoroughly 
assess the vulnerability of specific resources in as comprehensive a 
way as they have, and we are determined to confront these changes to 
our planet head on and to protect our communities and the way of life 
we have built.
  I will briefly review. There is so much we can and should do here in 
Congress in a bipartisan way to lay the groundwork for the actions we 
have to take. We can improve our energy efficiency. We could take up 
and pass the bipartisan bill recently reintroduced by Senators Shaheen 
and Portman to increase the use of energy-efficient technology across 
all sectors in our society. The new version of the bill has 12 
cosponsors--six Democrats and six Republicans--and includes 10 new 
commonsense amendments which would save consumers electricity and 
money, a small but meaningful start on a journey toward changing our 
direction on climate change. Or we could level the playing field and 
help new clean energy technologies get off the ground by giving them 
the same tax advantages currently utilized by fossil fuel projects. The 
bipartisan Master Limited Partnerships Parity Act--which I am proud to 
cosponsor with my colleagues Senators Moran, Stabenow, Murkowski, 
Landrieu, and Collins, Democrats and Republicans working together--
would level the playing field for renewables and give them and other 
new technologies a fighting chance in our energy market.
  There are so many other steps we could do in combination, if we would 
but get past this endless, pointless debate which has long been 
resolved in the halls of science, and move forward in a way which 
better serves our country and our world.
  The bottom line is that our climate is changing. We know this. With 
this knowledge comes the responsibility to reduce our emissions, to 
mitigate the impacts, and prepare for and take action to deal with the 
coming changes.
  As I reflect on our own responsibilities as Senators, I am in part 
moved to respond to the challenge of climate change--not just because 
it is an environmental issue, an economic issue, a regional issue or 
global issue, but it is also for me and for many others a faith issue. 
It is a question of how we carry out our responsibility to be good 
stewards of God's creation, to be those Senators we are called to be 
each from our own traditions who stand up and do what is right, not 
just for the short term, not just for the concerns of the day, but for 
the long term.
  As I move toward my close, I will share with those in the Chamber and 
watching one of the things most encouraging to me as I have reflected 
on the change in the climate change movement over recent years is it 
has begun to draw support from all across the theological spectrum. 
There was last year, July of 2013, a letter sent to Speaker Boehner, 
Majority Leader Reid, and all Members of Congress by 200 self-
identified Christian evangelical scientists from both religious and 
secular universities all across the United States, a powerful and 
incisive letter which says:

       As evangelical scientists and academics, we understand 
     climate change is real and action is urgently needed. All of 
     God's Creation--human and our environment--is groaning under 
     the weight of our uncontrolled use of fossil fuels, bringing 
     on a warming planet, melting ice, and rising seas.

  I urge any watching to consider reading it. It is posted on line. It 
goes on to quote Christian Scripture at length in making the case we 
have an obligation, if we are concerned about our neighbors and about 
the least of these in this world, to take on the challenge of making 
sure we are good stewards.
  Those of the Roman Catholic faith might be inspired by Pope Francis, 
who has taken the name of the patron saint of animals and the 
environment, and recently issued a call for all people to be protectors 
of creation.
  Last, I might read from a letter issued by the president of the 
National Association of Evangelicals, a group not commonly known for 
their close alignment with my party. Leith Anderson wrote in a letter 
in 2011:

       While others debate the science and politics of climate 
     change, my thoughts go to the poor people who are neither 
     scientists nor politicians. They will never study carbon 
     dioxide in the air or acidification of the ocean. But they 
     will suffer from dry wells in the Sahel of Africa and floods 
     along the coasts of Bangladesh. Their crops will fail while 
     our supermarkets remain full. They will suffer while we 
     study.

  This couldn't be more true. I urge all of us in this Chamber to 
reflect on whatever traditions sustain and bring us here that we have 
an obligation to those who sleep soundly in our homes now, to those 
from our home States around the country, to stand up and take action, 
to look clearly at the challenge which lies in front of us and to act 
in the best traditions of this body and of this Nation, to be good 
stewards of creation and to stand up to the challenges of this time.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I thank all of my friends who are 
speaking on the floor tonight for their continued commitment to not 
just bring attention to climate change, but to push for decisive action 
on the issue.
  As experts from around the world show us beyond a reasonable doubt 
that we, as a global community, are contributing to rising 
temperatures, there are those that would deny that human actions can 
have any effect on our climate and environment. Too often, lawmakers 
try to legislate their own ``science'' rather than properly utilizing 
the conclusions and recommendations made by skilled experts--yet nature 
does not conform to our laws. That is why the United States must be an 
innovator in reducing our greenhouse gas emissions, and a leading light 
in the clean energy sector.
  My own home State of New Jersey has shown strong leadership in moving 
our country towards a sustainable energy future. We have developed and 
implemented an aggressive Renewable Portfolio Standard that requires 
over 20 percent of New Jersey's electricity to come from renewable 
sources by 2021. We have put in place strong incentives for energy 
customers of all sizes, from single families to the many businesses 
that call New Jersey home, to become energy efficient and even clean 
energy producers, by installing solar panels on their homes and 
buildings. New Jersey is also beginning to realize some of its 
extraordinary potential to harness wind power off our coast, with 
multiple offshore wind projects currently in development. I am 
encouraged by some of the progress that I have seen in the renewable 
energy sector in New Jersey and other leading States, and hope that 
others will follow suit.
  New Jersey's many exemplary institutions of higher learning have also 
been at the forefront of the vital research that has helped us to 
understand the causes and consequences of global climate change. 
Important work is being done at the Institute of Marine and Coastal 
Sciences at Rutgers University into how climatic changes in the Arctic 
impact weather in the U.S., and Princeton University's Cooperative 
Institute for Climate Science is at the forefront of climate change 
mitigation options and response strategies.
  Some of my Senate colleagues from fossil fuel producing States have 
been hesitant to act, they say, because oil and coal production are 
home State issues for them. Well, for me, climate change is a home 
State issue. Not just because of the excellent work being done in New 
Jersey, but because my State has seen firsthand the devastating effects 
of a warmer climate that brings with it powerful storms, rising seas, 
and destructive flooding.
  Not 18 months ago, New Jersey and much of the eastern seaboard was 
battered by an unprecedented superstorm that washed away much of the 
New Jersey coastline. Superstorm Sandy caused an estimated $65 billion 
in economic losses. 159 people lost their lives, 650,000 homes were 
damaged or destroyed, and 8.5 million households and businesses lost 
power, many of them for weeks. Power outages caused severe gas 
shortages, with traffic backed up for miles, and people waiting for 
hours to obtain fuel to feed the generators that were keeping their 
families warm and their food from spoiling.
  Now, New Jersey has persevered. We worked together and helped each 
other

[[Page 4020]]

rebuild lives, businesses, homes, and our famous beaches and 
boardwalks. Efforts have been undertaken to make our coastal 
communities and critical infrastructure more resilient to future storms 
of this magnitude. But unless we act to implement responsible energy 
policies that cut our greenhouse gas emissions and incentivize 
investment in renewable energy infrastructure, these damaging 
superstorms will only become more powerful and frequent. Those who deny 
the reality of climate change tend to emphasize the economic costs of 
regulating carbon emissions, but these costs pale next to the economic 
and social costs of doing nothing.
  I am proud to join my colleagues tonight, and for the duration of my 
time serving the people of New Jersey in the Senate, to call for real 
solutions to our climate challenges. The decisions that we make in this 
body now will shape the future for our children and grandchildren. 
Years from now, I hope to humbly reflect on my time in the Senate, and 
be able to say I was a part of the Congress that finally reigned in big 
oil and coal, and put the United States on a path towards 
sustainability and environmental responsibility. Future generations of 
Americans deserve no less, and our planet demands it.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, nearly 30 years ago, I joined a good 
friend, the late Hub Vogelmann, along with a Republican Congressman, a 
Democratic Governor, and President Reagan's EPA Administrator, on a 
hike to the summit of Vermont's iconic peak, Camel's Hump. We had a 
goal in mind. We wanted to observe first-hand the effects of acid rain. 
When we arrived at the summit, we saw the evidence we feared. You did 
not have to be a scientist to see it: a scar burned across the peak of 
Camel's Hump and across all of the peaks of the Green Mountains and the 
Adirondacks. Due to human action, weather patterns had changed, 
altering the very chemistry of rainfall on a grand scale. As a result, 
we caused profound and large-scale damage to life sustaining 
ecosystems.
  There were Democrats and Republicans, scientists and bureaucrats on 
that mountain. We returned to Washington, united and eager to address 
the problem. It was not easy. We had to overcome strong objections from 
industry and develop an entirely new cap-and-trade regulatory 
framework. In the end, a Democratic majority in Congress passed, and 
Republican President George H.W. Bush signed into law, the Clean Air 
Act amendments.
  Once again, we are confronted with irrefutable evidence that humans 
have altered not just the weather of a region, but the climate of the 
entire planet. This time, we do not need to climb mountains to see the 
damage. We see it in New England's flood ravaged river valleys, 
California's scorched farmland, Alaska's retreating glaciers, Wyoming's 
burnt forests, and super-storm ravaged coastlines.
  Before we even get to the accumulated--and accumulating--scientific 
evidence for climate change and the carbonization of our fragile 
envelope of atmosphere, we only need to apply common sense. As we look 
around us, anywhere, everywhere, and at any time, doesn't it just stand 
to reason that human activity is contributing to documented changes in 
our atmosphere, and to climate change? I certainly have seen it in my 
lifetime. But I have also seen people try to deny all reason and the 
evidence all around us.
  The scientists have done their work. We now better understand the 
human causes of climate change and we understand its profound and 
accelerating impact. Unfortunately, too many policy makers deny the 
evidence, or refuse to cross political lines to solve the problem. I 
say it is time we wake up and act on climate change.
  We have taken some steps in the right direction. This past summer, 
President Obama announced his Climate Action Plan to cut carbon 
pollution. The Environmental Protection Agency has begun creating new 
carbon emission standards for future power plants. The Department of 
Energy is working on ground-breaking energy technologies, and the 
Department of Transportation is studying transportation planning to 
address future risks and vulnerabilities from extreme weather and 
climate change. The Transportation Department is also addressing 
vehicle fuel efficiency which is saving vehicle owners and operators 
billions of dollars a year. These are all positive changes, but before 
we rest on our laurels, we have to understand that there are not nearly 
enough to address the problem at hand. Congress needs to cast aside 
partisan blinders by enacting legislation that prioritizes renewable 
energy development, supports energy efficient technologies, and taxes 
carbon pollution.
  It is time to take a stand against misguided policies and projects 
that put future generations at risk, and in my State, we believe that 
includes the Keystone XL pipeline. The State Department recently 
released its long-awaited environmental impact statement on the 
Keystone XL pipeline. I am deeply troubled that the State Department's 
analysis did not take into account the overwhelming evidence that this 
project will further accelerate the release of greenhouse gas 
pollution, which will intensify climate change. There is a mountain of 
evidence that the carbon pollution, drinking water threats, public 
health threats, and safety threats from this pipeline are so great that 
it is not in our national interest, and its permit should be denied. I 
realize this goes against some public opinion polls, but I believe we 
must stamp out our addiction to fossil fuels and fight back against 
these threats to our land, water, air, and healthy communities around 
the world.
  We have to understand that climate change is not simply an 
environmental challenge. Creating a green energy sector is not just 
about cutting greenhouse gas emissions. It is about providing jobs for 
Americans in the renewable energy and energy efficiency fields. It is 
about strengthening national security in America by having greater 
control over our energy sources and breaking the stranglehold of oil on 
the transportation system. What should unite all of us, Republicans and 
Democrats alike, is assuring that our children and grandchildren have 
clean air to breathe.
  We have come together before. We did it back in the time of President 
George H.W. Bush. We joined hands across the aisle and across regions 
of this great country to solve problems. Why can't we do it again? 
Isn't that the least we owe to our planet? Isn't that the least we owe 
to our children and grandchildren?
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Delaware for his 
powerful words and his participation in this great debate.
  There is plenty of room for a robust discussion about what set of 
choices we need to make in order to deal with this very real challenge. 
We are here tonight to ask for that discussion, for that debate, in the 
tradition of this great body. Climate change is the challenge of our 
generation, and the debate of how we confront it belongs here in the 
Senate.
  We have no illusions about being able to reach the number of votes we 
need to pass significant legislation during this Congress, but we must 
start this conversation now. We must start now. We are here agreeing it 
is time for us to find a way to work together to find solutions.
  The Senate is supposed to be the place where we address and debate 
the big issues. I hope we can work with the House on how best to tackle 
climate change as well. But there is no room for those who deny science 
itself exists or those who deliberately propagate misinformation and 
scare tactics because they profit from pollution.
  I know people are smart enough to know the difference between today's 
weather and what is generally happening with the climate. People cannot 
be misled into thinking that just because winter still exists, the 
planet isn't warming in totality. We can't possibly believe that 
because there was a snowstorm last week, there is no such thing as 
climate change.
  Since 1991, scientists have published more than 25,000 scholarly 
articles on

[[Page 4021]]

climate change. Only 26 out of the more than 25,000 articles reject the 
existence of climate change. This is 1 in 1,000. The idea that because 
scientists, frankly, are scientists and always leave a little room for 
additional information or for the possibility of revising their 
projections, assessments, and estimates somehow introduces significant 
doubt about what climate change is does violence to the very principles 
on which science operates.
  This problem is no longer confined just to our wilderness areas or to 
those of us concerned with biological diversity or environmental 
issues. In other words, this is no longer an environmental problem. 
This is an economic one. All we have to do is look at the extreme 
weather and the way it has affected both the Nation's fiscal condition 
and our continuing ability to deal with natural disasters, and the very 
real possibility that many of our coastal communities will be literally 
flooded by the end of the century. There is no way we can allow this 
issue to remain a priority for only one party in American politics. 
This is everyone's problem. This issue impacts every single American.
  Every single Senator should be down here. This is our responsibility 
for future generations, not just to preserve birds and butterflies but 
to preserve the American economy and our way of life. Scientists, 
leaders of States, cities, and counties, the leadership in our 
Department of Defense, the rest of the world, the business community, 
the largest insurance companies--which insure actual risk--all agree on 
the reality of climate change. The only place where we are proceeding 
as if this is an actual open question, as if the science is not 
settled, is in the four corners of the U.S. Capitol.
  I am not going to point to any one extreme weather event and say it 
was caused by climate change, but climate change has increased the 
likelihood of increasingly strong and frequent storms, drought, and 
floods.
  Through the 1980s, the United States experienced an average of two to 
four billion-dollar disasters per year for storms severe enough to rack 
up more than $1 billion in damage. But 2011 and 2012 together 
experienced 25 individual billion-dollar storm events. This is over $25 
billion in damages in just 2 years.
  I will talk a little bit about what is happening with our Department 
of Defense. There is growing consensus within the Department of Defense 
that climate change is shaping the global security environment in new 
and profound ways which will affect the U.S. military. Climate change 
is dramatically shaping the U.S. military's strategic operating 
environment. In its 2010 strategic planning document, the Quadrennial 
Defense Review, the Department of Defense concluded that:

       While climate change alone does not cause conflict, it may 
     act as an accelerant of instability or conflict, placing a 
     burden to respond on civilian institutions and militaries 
     around the world.

  The U.S. military concluded that it is increasingly likely to be 
called on to respond to crises which manifest as a result of climate-
related instability. These include natural disasters which emanate from 
extreme weather events, which climate scientists expect to become more 
frequent and more severe as a result of climate change, because, like 
many first responders, the U.S. military has an obligation to respond 
when called for help, and indeed, the U.S. military is often the only 
organization capable of helping, with its fixed-and rotary-wing lift 
capacity and personnel to get relief supplies to those most in need.
  Admiral Locklear, the head of the U.S. Pacific Command, headquartered 
in my home State of Hawaii, said last year that climate change is the 
greatest long-term security threat in the Asia-Pacific region, an area 
covering more than half the Earth's surface area and almost 60 percent 
of its population. Upheaval and political instability from climate 
change, he said, ``Is probably the most likely thing that is going to 
happen . . . that will cripple the security environment, probably more 
likely than the other scenarios we all often talk about.''
  Eleven retired three-star and four-star admirals and generals in 2007 
stated that climate change is ``a significant national security 
challenge'' which can serve as a ``threat multiplier for instability in 
some of the most volatile regions of the world.''
  Climate change is also likely to impact the U.S. military's 
facilities and capabilities. America's military installations may be 
particularly vulnerable to climate change, and the Department of 
Defense has dedicated resources to assess the risks. According to a 
2008 National Intelligence Council finding:

       More than 30 U.S. military installations were already 
     facing elevated levels of risk from rising sea levels.

  The Department of Defense's own QDR acknowledged that the U.S. 
military's operational readiness hinges on continued access to land, 
air, and sea training and test space, which means ensuring that climate 
change does not prevent the military from accessing these critical 
training and range areas. This may require costly intervention to adapt 
to sea level rise and other climate impacts that might otherwise 
undermine defense readiness and preparedness.
  The Department of Defense is already working to map out its 
vulnerabilities with offices like the Strategic Environmental Research 
and Development Program, helping installation planners develop the 
tools they need and to plan accordingly. Climate change has become an 
urgent national security challenge that our military cannot and will 
not ignore.
  Secretary of State John Kerry was right when he said that among the 
global challenges ``know no borders''--``terrorism, epidemics, poverty, 
the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction''--``the reality is 
that climate change ranks right up there with every single one of 
them.''
  Let me talk about the insurance industry. I make this point about the 
Department of Defense not because this admiral or these generals are 
members of the Sierra Club or the National Resources Defense Council. 
It is because when they do their defense review, they have a single-
minded objective: To analyze what they see as their strategic 
challenge. They are not grinding an ideological ax. They are talking 
about what is real.
  Insurers are risk experts in a different way. They are not paid to 
care about the environment or conservation or future generations or to 
steward resources. If insurers have personal environmental opinions or 
whether they voted for President Obama or Governor Romney, they do not 
bring that point of view to the table when it comes to risk assessment. 
They can only think about and quantify risk. Their goal is to figure 
out what is going to happen and how much it is going to cost to cover 
it. What they are saying about global climate change is it is 
happening. Climate change is presenting real risk. They have determined 
that climate change is underway already and is causing economic damage 
and therefore needs to be insured and underwritten. From their 
standpoint, when billions and trillions of insurance and reinsurance 
dollars are in play, they recognize what is real, which is the threat 
of climate change.
  When it is the highest stakes, projections, and assessments, these 
people look at the world with very clear eyes and say climate change is 
real. It is happening now, and it is already causing economic damage. 
When money is on the line, whether these people are Democrats, 
Republicans or Independents or do not vote, they are looking at the 
facts and measuring the risk. They have determined that this risk is 
already upon us. It is not imaginary.
  Let's talk about big business. Big businesses, from Nike to Coca-Cola 
to Starbucks, and insurers like Lloyds of London, recognize the 
economic threat of climate change as well because it affects their 
bottom lines. For them it is simple numbers. Their motivation is 
simple: Protect the bottom line. With billions and trillions of dollars 
at play, risk experts such as Lloyds are making high stakes risk 
projections to protect their business models. These projections are 
telling them that the risk is increasing.

[[Page 4022]]

  For many multinational companies, climate change has moved from a 
corporate social responsibility issue to a bottom-line issue. They are 
starting to see the impact of unpredictable and extreme weather and 
realize that investing in environmental protection means investing in 
the economy. Climate change affects the supply of key inputs, disrupts 
factories, demolishes infrastructure, and drives up prices. The 
economic calculus is shifting for them.
  Major companies doing business in America have signed the climate 
declaration, which acknowledges that tackling climate change is one of 
America's greatest economic opportunities of the 21st Century, and it 
is the right thing to do. These companies include Apple, Avon, eBay, 
GM, Ikea, Intel, Levi's, Mars, Microsoft, Nestle, Nike, Owens Corning, 
Starbucks, Swiss Re, Symantec, The North Face, and Unilever. If we do 
not make serious changes, the only thing we can be certain of is that 
uncertainty will increase. Extreme weather events, drought, floods, 
spreading infectious diseases, resource wars and other tests of human 
civilization will test us repeatedly. Our economy thrives on certainty. 
Climate change increases uncertainty. The pragmatic, conservative 
approach requires us to take action.
  We have heard the argument tonight, earlier in the evening from the 
Senator from Oklahoma, from some in this body at other moments, about 
climate change today, that there is either nothing we can do or that 
action will be too expensive. Regulations will kill jobs and hurt the 
economy, driving up prices on everything from gas to bread. Opponents 
of the Clean Air Act, vehicle efficiency standards, energy efficiency, 
and removing lead from gasoline all used the same arguments. They 
denied it was happening, they spread misinformation, and they sowed 
fears of economic destruction. In every case they were wrong.
  Largely as a result of government regulations between 1970 and 2011, 
total air pollution dropped 68 percent while the U.S. gross domestic 
product grew by 212 percent, more than doubling.
  Well designed solutions to environmental problems can, in fact, 
contribute to a healthier and growing economy. America can innovate its 
way out of this problem. Inaction comes with financial costs. Climate 
change is absolutely right now hurting our economy. It is affecting 
individual fishermen everywhere from my home State of Hawaii, to the 
Presiding Officer's home State, to the lobstermen in Maine--which my 
good friend from Maine has already discussed.
  A 2012 study commissioned by 20 governments which was written by more 
than 50 scientists, economists, and other experts found that climate 
change is already contributing to multiple deaths per year costing the 
world $1.2 trillion in 2010, and reducing global GDP by 1.6 percent.
  The study also said by 2030 the cost of climate change and air 
pollution combined could rise to 3.2 percent of global GDP with a 2 
percent hit to the U.S. GDP. Similar effects could cost China $1.2 
trillion. Every time we try to move forward with environmental or 
public health legislation there are people who will say that the U.S. 
economy will collapse as a result. This happened with the Clean Air Act 
and the Clean Water Act. Almost every time they are proven wrong.
  The American economy is an innovation economy. Whenever we require 
our American companies to innovate, whether in the interest of public 
health, the environment or the economy, they have thrived. They step up 
to the plate. Climate change is a challenge where America can once 
again be the global leader. We have to believe in our ability to 
innovate our way out of this problem.
  When the U.S. economy and our businesses are presented with 
opportunities to innovate, they thrive. During the debate on the Clean 
Air Act we heard those standards would destroy the economy, but since 
1970 every dollar invested in compliance with the Clean Air Act 
standards has actually produced $48 in economic benefits. It is not 
just that the American economy and business can innovate and thrive in 
this context, it is also that we are still the indispensable Nation. 
America is still the Nation where other countries look to see whether 
real leadership will be displayed. For that reason we need to act.
  On this issue that affects every single American and the entire 
planet, we cannot afford to give up on American leadership. We have to 
believe in our ideas and the power of our ability to innovate, in the 
strength of our economy and in the American ideal that whatever problem 
our generation is faced with, we will meet it.
  The idea--and we have heard it before on this floor from climate 
change deniers--that we shouldn't do anything because China won't do 
anything misses the point. If we do something, China will do something.
  Some are saying let's not do anything because of China and India. I 
am saying let's do something because of China and India. If we lead 
here we will have the economic advantage.
  In fact, China has already begun the work to fight pollution and to 
transition to a clean energy economy. Last week at the opening of 
China's annual meeting of the parliament, the Chinese Premier said that 
China will declare war on pollution in the coming years. China faces a 
two-fold threat of extreme local pollution and the effects of climate 
change, and it recognizes that transitioning to clean energy sources is 
an economic and political stability imperative.
  In January the executive secretary of the U.N. Framework Convention 
on Climate Change said that China is ``doing it right'' as it begins to 
tackle climate change. She said that the Chinese are ``not doing this 
because they want to save the planet, they are doing it because it is 
in their national interest.''
  The Chinese State Council's September Atmospheric Pollution 
Prevention Action Plan set specific goals: A reduction in the 
construction of new coal-fired power plants, a goal of generating 13 
percent of its electricity from clean energy resources by 2017.
  Last year China installed 12 to 14 gigawatts of solar panels and is 
expected to do it again this year. Prior to 2013 no country had ever 
added more than 8 gigawatts of solar in a single year. A price 
guarantee for utility-scale solar projects known as a feed-in tariff, 
as well as low-cost panels drove this dramatic growth. China is taking 
decisive action. I, for one, do not want to give up on American 
leadership here.
  We have to believe in our ideas, in the power of our ability to 
innovate, and the strength of our economy, and the American idea that 
whatever problem our generation is faced with, we will address it.
  I would like to talk a little bit about our Hawaii experience. I have 
seen firsthand from our experience in Hawaii that with commitment and 
specific goals, real progress can be made. We have led the way to 
building clean energy infrastructure, producing renewable energy, and 
reducing our petroleum dependency. I know we can achieve this kind of 
change across the Nation. As Lieutenant Governor, I led our efforts 
toward Hawaii's 70-percent clean energy goal by the year 2030, and we 
have made encouraging progress. The Hawaii Clean Energy Initiative 
Partnership has the enthusiastic support of our business community, the 
U.S. DOE and DOD, the State government and even our monopoly electric 
utility company. By 2013 it would surpass our 2015 goal of 15-percent 
clean energy while having one of the lowest unemployment rates in the 
Nation. Hawaii's progress has taken creativity, collaboration, and 
innovation, the same qualities that have helped America overcome other 
seemingly unsolvable problems.
  Transformation did not come easily and would not have occurred 
without collaboration between Federal, State, county, and private 
sector partners. But because of their hard work, we are now on track to 
achieve the highest renewable energy portfolio in the Nation, with 40 
percent by the year 2030. Not everything we are doing in the State of 
Hawaii will work in all states, but we are learning that some policies 
have broad application. We know that climate change is a real problem, 
and

[[Page 4023]]

that it is caused by humans, but we also know that it is a problem that 
we can fix, and we know what to do.
  The challenges of climate change won't disappear overnight if 
Congress acts, but for the U.S. or the world to fight climate change 
while Congress sticks its head in the sand is like trying to fight with 
one hand tied behind their back. Americans agree that climate change is 
real and caused by humans. They agree that something must be done. 
Congress is a necessary but not sufficient part of this problem, for we 
face the biggest collective action problem in the history of 
humankind--bigger than war, bigger than disease, bigger than poverty.
  America must continue our role as a leader that does not shy away 
from the big problems. Climate change is an economic issue, a health 
issue, and a national security issue.
  I would like to take a moment to recognize the many professionals who 
have made tonight possible. The Senate stands out as the greatest 
deliberative body in the U.S. and, in my opinion, the world. Even in 
our disagreements, our remarks are generally at least collegial and 
usually friendly. The reason is simple: Respect. Respect for one 
another as representatives of the concerns of our home States, respect 
for the diversity of experiences that qualify us to serve as Senators 
but, most of all, respect for this institution, which is so much more 
than the physical infrastructure.
  Even for the short time I have had the honor of serving, what I see 
is an institution built on people. The Capitol may be made of bricks 
and mortar, but the Senate lives and breathes through the people who 
work here. Often in the course of our daily business, we thank the 
people we work with for their help. But in light of the unusual demands 
that our event requires tonight, I would like to thank not only the 
individuals but their offices and departments. Without them, we would 
be unprotected, we would be in the dark, and we would be unable to 
function.
  I would like to start with the Sergeant at Arms and all of its 
departments: doorkeepers, capitol facilities, media galleries, 
executive office, recording studio, printing and graphics, direct mail, 
the fleet office, and the U.S. Capitol Police. You keep our Senate 
orderly, safe, and functioning smoothly, and we thank you for that.
  We almost must recognize the Secretary of the Senate: the executive 
office, the office of the Bill Clerk, the Captioning Services office, 
the Daily Digest office, the office of the Enrolling Clerk, the office 
of the Executive Clerk, the office of the Journal Clerk, the 
Legislative Clerk, our Parliamentarians, and the Official Reporters of 
Debates. You maintain order in the legislative process and record our 
actions so this body's work can be transparent and accountable to the 
American people, and we thank you.
  The cloakrooms help to preserve order on the floor so that our 
deliberations perpetuate the rule of law in our great Nation, and we 
thank you.
  The Senate librarians and CRS make it possible for us to make 
informed statements based on the best information available, and we 
thank you.
  The Senate pages stepped away from their usual classrooms and 
schoolmates to support our actions here and participate in American 
democracy. We thank you.
  While all have roles to keep tonight moving smoothly, I would like to 
call special focus on the Official Reporters of Debates. These folks 
transcribe every word we speak here tonight for the Congressional 
Record, which is then distributed the following day to more than 20,000 
subscribers.
  In 1956, then-Senate majority leader Lyndon Johnson explained the 
importance of the Congressional Record:
  Locked in its pages are the debate, the resolutions, the bills, the 
memorials, the petitions, and the legislative actions that are the 
reason for the existence of the Senate. Without them, our words tonight 
would be lost, so I offer on behalf of all the Members who have helped 
to coordinate tonight our sincerest thanks.
  I am happy to yield to the Senators from New Mexico and New Jersey if 
they are ready; otherwise, I would be happy to continue to speak.
  Does the Senator from New Mexico need a few minutes to prepare or 
would he like to start?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. HEINRICH. Speaking through the Chair to the Senator from Hawaii, 
I am happy to get started and give an opening statement and focus on 
the State of New Mexico and some of the climate impacts we have seen in 
the last decade, and then perhaps engage in a conversation with my 
colleague the Senator from New Jersey.
  I think it bears saying that this is a historic evening. This is an 
incredible first step in recognizing the challenge that lies ahead. I 
am here tonight as a member of the climate change task force. I join my 
colleagues in calling for action on tackling what is unquestionably one 
of our country's greatest challenges but a challenge we are up to 
meeting.
  We are here to illustrate, for starters, that climate change is not 
theoretical. We are here to discuss how sound science can be used to 
better understand and manage the very real impacts of climate change 
that we are seeing and to highlight the moral imperative we have in 
Congress to implement real solutions.
  I thought I would start tonight with something that is just about 
anywhere in the United States. If you are a gardener, if you are a 
farmer, if you are a horticulturist, if you have an orchard of fruit 
trees, you probably know these maps. They are the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture plant hardiness zone maps.
  When I hear people deny our climate is changing and how much our 
climate has already changed, I think it is very helpful to look back to 
the year 1990--the year I graduated from high school--and to look at 
the USDA plant hardiness zone map for the United States and to compare 
it to the one that came out in 2006. What you see when you look at this 
map is literally every single plant hardiness zone. If you are a 
gardener, you take these to the bank. This tells you whether a certain 
crop can grow in your zone. If you are in Minnesota, the answer to what 
is going to thrive in your garden is going to be very different than if 
you are in Arizona or New Mexico. What you see when you look at these 
maps is all of these zones have literally moved north.
  In the case of my home State of New Mexico, there are zones that 
existed in the northern part of the State--up around Taos and Chama, 
and at a high elevation, where the Sangre de Cristo mountains reach up 
to over 13,000 feet. There are zones that existed in 1990 that exist 
nowhere in the State today because it has warmed so much. In fact, 
those zones only exist at the highest elevations in the State of 
Colorado to our north.
  I don't think you can look at this map and say our climate is not 
getting warmer. It captures year after year of real-world experience of 
the people who rely on these maps to make sure our food supply and all 
the plants we use for other purposes as well are safe and productive.
  In my home State of New Mexico, one of the other impacts we are 
seeing we have heard from other Western States tonight, as well as up 
and down the intermountain West and the Rocky Mountains, has been the 
impact of forest fire. We are seeing bigger fires and drier summers. We 
are seeing more severe floods when it does rain and less snowpack in 
the winter.
  In 2012, looking back just 2 years ago, it was our Nation's second 
most extreme year on record for weather. In New Mexico, it was actually 
the hottest year we have experienced since we started collecting 
temperature records. With humidity levels lower and temperatures 
higher, we are dealing with fire behavior in the Southwest that is 
markedly more intense than anything we have seen in the past.
  When people think of the State of New Mexico, and if they have not 
been to New Mexico, they often think of it as one of the southwestern 
arid desert low-elevation States. The reality that I grew up with was 
the high elevation forests of New Mexico. We literally have millions of 
acres of mountains

[[Page 4024]]

and forests. If you just saw a photo, you might say: Well, that looks 
like Colorado or that looks like Montana. Those are all up and down our 
mountain ranges from the southern part of the State. We have the Gila. 
Up in the northern part of the State, we have the Santa Fe National 
Forest, the Carson National Forest, the Jemez mountains, and the Sangre 
de Cristo mountains.
  One of the things that has evolved over the years which exists in the 
high elevation western forests is the ability to deal with forest fire, 
in particular, our Ponderosa pine forests. We used to have a regime 
where every 10 years or so we would have a fire in those forests. That 
fire would not burn the forest down. It would move through the 
Ponderosa pine. It would burn fine fuels, as we call them, such as the 
needles that fall from the canopy of the Ponderosa pine forest, the 
small pieces of woody debris, and the grass that grows in between the 
Ponderosa pine trees, and it would sort of clean out the understory and 
it would leave this incredible cathedral of high elevation Ponderosa 
pine forest with grass in between the trees, but that is changing.
  This incredibly sad photo is exhibit A on what happens when the 
temperature increases just a little bit. We are seeing fire behavior in 
New Mexico that is like nothing in the historical record and nothing 
within the context of normal behavior. We are seeing what they call 
stand-replacing fires. I believe this was a couple of months after the 
Las Conchas fire a few years ago. If I remember correctly, the Las 
Conchas fire was in 2011 in the Jemez mountains. It was the single 
largest fire in our State's history at the time. Since then, we have 
had a bigger fire, the Whitewater-Baldy fire.
  What was particularly concerning about the Las Conchas fire is how it 
burned--how intensely it burned, how it burned down slope with stand-
replacing flames, and how it literally didn't leave behind any of those 
big fire-protected trees. Those Ponderosa pines are built to survive 
fire after fire throughout the course of their lives. They may live to 
be 300 years old. They have such thick bark that typically in the past 
they survived dozens and dozens of fires in the course of their 
lifetimes.
  As we can see from this, almost nothing survived large parts of this 
fire, and that is what we are seeing as temperatures increase. As those 
temperatures increase, the humidity level in the fuels goes down, and 
the fuels burn hotter. The fuels are able to jump up into the canopy 
and literally burn out the entire forest. We can see a few patches of 
green here. This is one of the most destructive fires in our State's 
history.
  Over the last 4 years alone, as I mentioned, we have seen the two 
largest fires in our State's history. With elevated temperatures, 
studies by Los Alamos National Labs predict that three-quarters of our 
evergreen forest in New Mexico could be gone by 2050. In my lifetime, 
three-quarters of our high-elevation conifer evergreen forest could be 
gone.
  These are places we rely on for our economy. They hold snow in the 
winter. They produce an enormous number of jobs. We have approximately 
68,000 jobs that are tied to public lands recreation in the State. Many 
of those are centered around these high-elevation forests where people 
hunt for elk in the fall. They produce the waters that allow people to 
raft in the Rio Grande during the summer. They are the places where 
people cross-country and alpine-ski in the winter. They are under 
direct threat from a changing climate.
  We now know that the extreme weather we are seeing comes at an 
enormous economic cost. There was a new study produced in the journal 
Frontiers in Ecology and Environment that reveals the trend and how 
much ignoring this problem has cost the American taxpayer over the 
course of the last couple of decades. They went back and looked at 
firefighting in the early 1990s, around 1993. The average cost of 
fighting fires in our national forests at that time was $350 million a 
season. That is a lot of money; that is real money; and that is spread 
over many different States. Fast forward to today, and on average we 
are spending $2 billion, with a B, a fire season fighting fires.
  Yesterday the Washington Post reported that the study's conclusions 
``underscore what the agencies responsible for fighting wildfires--the 
Interior Department, the Agriculture Department's Forest Service--have 
said for years. Global warming is accelerating climate change in the 
West, resulting in winters with less precipitation and a drier 
landscape. The wildfire season that historically started in June and 
ended in September now starts in May and ends in September.'' I would 
say that in New Mexico we haven't been lucky enough to have it begin in 
May and end in September; we have actually had some fires that were 
completely outside of that window.
  I remember a few years ago as I was running for Congress in the fall 
of 2007, leading up to the 2008 elections, I watched as the Monzano 
Mountains near my home in Albuquerque burned in November, around 
Thanksgiving time. We saw extreme fire behavior there--fires once again 
burning down slope, in November, and fire behaviors even in the middle 
of the night that we normally wouldn't see except in the middle of the 
day in the middle of summer.
  It has been something that has touched our State dramatically. It 
happens now with such regularity that we are almost used to it, but it 
puts lives at risk. It puts property at risk. Many people in this 
Chamber probably remember all of the brave firefighters who literally 
lost their lives in Arizona last year fighting these fires. In fact, 
those firefighters helped on a New Mexico fire before in the very area 
we saw with the picture I showed of how the Las Conchas fire burned.
  One of the related issues is the relationship between the economy of 
my home of New Mexico and the impact of snowfall and how snowfall has 
changed as a result of a changing climate.
  This is a map of the Four Corners States. This is Albuquerque, NM, 
here, Santa Fe; this is the Four Corners area where Utah, Arizona, 
Colorado, and New Mexico all come together. Historically, our economy 
relies very much on not just rainfall and precipitation but the value 
of a strong snowpack. Agriculture in the Southwest does not work as it 
does in other parts of the country where crops are literally watered by 
rain. We store our snowpack in reservoirs. We rely on the fact that 
snow lasts longer and is released slowly from the high elevation 
forests and mountains. It gets stored in reservoirs and then is used to 
irrigate hundreds of square miles up and down the Rio Grande Valley 
throughout the heart of New Mexico, as well as other valleys in the 
State, such as the Pecos Valley. We have seen dramatic changes in the 
extent of both snow cover as well as the amount of water that is stored 
in that snow.
  These two images show snow cover in 2010 and in 2014. They illustrate 
a trend that is becoming all too common with the current drought 
conditions and with warming winter temperatures. So 2010 was a 
relatively good year for us. We had snow cover, as my colleagues can 
see, across much of the northern part of the State. As we move into 
even higher elevation areas up in Colorado, very intense snows in the 
San Juans that drain down into the Rio Grande, the San Juan rivers in 
New Mexico. If we look at the Mogollon Rim, which goes all the way from 
Gila, NM, up through Arizona on its way toward the Grand Canyon, just a 
long, high-elevation geologic feature that stores snowpack for both 
Arizona and New Mexico, we can look over at the 2014 image and what we 
see is a dramatic reduction in the amount of snow cover. As a result, 
the runoff we have experienced in this drought has been a fraction of 
what we used to think of as normal. It is sort of the new normal.
  In December of 2012, two researchers affiliated with the University 
of New Hampshire unveiled a study around snow and winter tourism 
impacts called ``Climate Impacts on the Winter Tourism Economy in the 
United States.'' That report, completed for the Natural Resources 
Defense Council and Protect Our Winters, an organization founded in 
2007 by professional

[[Page 4025]]

snowboarder Jeremy Jones, concluded that the economies that rely on 
winter sports tourists have a lot to lose if we fail to take action on 
climate change.
  The Presiding Officer probably heard some of the recent stories 
around the Sochi Olympics--stories I couldn't have imagined as a 
child--of literally covering up huge amounts of snow to insulate it 
from the elements so it didn't melt, so it could be used in some of 
those sports. The report states that December 2011 through February 
2012 was the fourth warmest winter on record since 1896 and the third 
lowest snow cover extent since 1966 when satellites began giving us 
images just like these.
  When it doesn't snow in the Intermountain West, communities that rely 
on winter sports tourists take an enormous economic hit. Fewer people 
lodge in their hotels, fewer people shop in their stores, and fewer 
people eat in their restaurants. If we were to ask the businesses in 
places such as Taos, NM, or Ruidoso in the south central part of the 
State, Red River and others spread across the high-elevation portions 
of my State, they will tell us when there is no snow; they see an 
enormous reduction in the amount of business activity, in the gross 
receipts in those small towns, and it ripples through the entire 
economy.
  That report points out that ski resorts in the northern part of New 
Mexico are the primary drivers of New Mexico's $182 million ski 
industry. Winter tourism in New Mexico provides more than 3,100 jobs. 
We are a State of only 2 million people, but 3,100 jobs has a $104 
million impact on our economy. In low snowfall years, New Mexico lost 
out on an estimated $48 million in ski resort revenue and had nearly 
600 fewer jobs compared to higher snowfall years. Winter sports 
tourists are an extremely important part of my State's economy, and I 
am very concerned that if we continue to do nothing about climate 
change, we will lose those tourist dollars.
  Climate change is very real and it is impacting our bottom line in 
the State of New Mexico. Climate change is also leaving a devastating 
imprint on our agricultural industry in the State of New Mexico. These 
images are striking to me, and these are satellite images from NASA.
  This is the largest reservoir in the State of New Mexico. It is 
called Elephant Butte Reservoir. It is in the central part of the 
State. If a person is used to growing up in a State such as New Mexico 
and a person knows there are certain crops that are just iconically 
connected to the State, including green chili being at the top of the 
list, red chili--they are actually the same plant, but we will save 
that for another day--pistachios, pecans, all of these things are tied 
to irrigation and the ability to irrigate hundreds of square miles of 
agricultural land along the Rio Grande throughout the State.
  In 1994, in the midnineties, Elephant Butte Reservoir was functioning 
as it had since the early 1900s, storing all of that snowpack we talked 
about a few minutes ago, making sure it was released to serve 
agriculture, to extend the irrigation season, to make sure those crops 
were realized. Then we began to get into this long-term, persistent 
drought. My colleagues have probably heard the stories about California 
and its drought and its impact on agriculture. New Mexico has 
experienced just as intense a reduction in snowpack, in predictability 
of summer precipitation. We get a lot of our moisture in the summer 
monsoon, the wettest time of the year outside of the winter. So we get 
some in the wintertime in snowpack typically and then in the summertime 
we have the summer thunderstorms, and the predictability of that has 
all changed now. But as we can see, so has the quantity.
  Elephant Butte Reservoir is about 2 million acre feet in capacity. An 
acre foot of water is literally taking an acre of land and covering it 
in water 1 foot deep. It is about 325,000 gallons, if my memory serves 
me well. This is about 2 million acre feet. People can do the math. But 
it is literally the largest single body of reservoir water for 
agriculture and other uses in the State of New Mexico.
  Fast forward to 2013. These were both taken in the same month, the 
month of July, which is kind of the height of the irrigation season. 
Three percent is what was left in Elephant Butte Reservoir. It 
literally doesn't even look like the same place. The northern extent of 
the reservoir has been dry land for much of the year in this photo. 
This has enormous ramifications for agriculture in our State and for 
other industries that use and rely on that water.
  Farmers and ranchers are often first to see the effects of extreme 
weather. A 2012 study found that by 2020, New Mexico agriculture and 
ranching will lose $73 million annually due to climate change. We can 
layer that on to the $48 million we talked about a little while ago 
from impacts to the winter ski season. We start to see the very real 
cost of not doing anything about climate change.
  The agricultural sector is incredibly vulnerable due to the sustained 
threat to the water supply, to soil and vegetation from sustained 
drought. Livestock levels in many areas of New Mexico were one-fifth of 
normal levels last year due to the scarce forage. So year after year of 
drought--not just 1 year but over and over again--is what leads to this 
incredible inability to even manage water. We don't have the water in 
the reservoir to be able to deal with the fact that we are not getting 
enough precipitation. We have over the years sort of used our savings 
account, and now we are down to a very small amount of water that has 
to be stretched as far as we can in summer irrigation season. We have 
seen a number of parts of the Rio Grande run dry in the summer as a 
result.
  Things are only going to get worse if we don't act and begin to 
address some of these conditions. If we have any hope of reversing the 
effects of climate change--and we truly must--it is critical we embrace 
this challenge now and that we lead the world in innovation, in 
efficiency, and in clean energy.
  As our colleagues Senators Portman and Shaheen know, there is no 
cleaner source of energy than the ones we don't use in the first place. 
Energy efficiency and conservation should be the centerpiece of any 
strategy to address climate change. The easiest way we can reduce the 
amount of carbon pollution, methane pollution, and other greenhouse 
gases that make it into the atmosphere is to not use those in the first 
place.
  Conservation pays enormous dividends. I remember when my wife and I 
bought our first home, we decided we wanted to make it as sustainable 
as we could, but it was a retrofit, so where do we start. Well, we have 
had solar on the roof of that home in Albuquerque for many years now, 
but that is not where we started. That wasn't the first place we put 
our investment. It wouldn't have made sense. The first thing we did is 
we insulated a home that had been built without insulation. We replaced 
windows that were leaking warm air to the outside all through the 
wintertime, not keeping cool air inside during the summertime. 
Efficiency is absolutely critical if we are going to begin to address 
our overall energy usage in this country and to reduce the amount of 
carbon pollution in particular we are putting into the atmosphere.
  Getting the most out of each unit of energy, kilowatt, Btu should be 
a concern at every level of our government. The U.S. Federal Government 
is the largest energy consumer in our country, and the Federal 
Government has an obligation to lead by example when it comes to energy 
performance.
  We heard a lot about the transportation sector and the advances we 
have made due to the fuel economy standards. But buildings are also an 
enormous part of our carbon and our pollution footprint in this 
country. They account for about 40 percent of our energy use, and they 
offer the greatest opportunities for savings. Investing in energy 
efficiency in those buildings isn't just good for our environment and 
for reducing air pollution; it is literally one of the fastest and most 
cost-effective ways to grow our economy.
  We have seen business energy efficiency take off in recent years and 
produce high-quality jobs all across

[[Page 4026]]

this country. Energy efficiency is a large, low-cost, underutilized 
U.S. energy resource. Increasing our energy efficiency in the 
residential sector, commercial sector, industrial and governmental 
sectors offers Americans savings on their energy bills, opportunities 
for more jobs, improves our Nation's competitiveness, and it stretches 
every tax dollar further.
  To help the Nation transition to cleaner and renewable sources of 
energy, I am also supporting efforts to streamline permitting for 
renewable energy projects on our public lands, while protecting access 
to those public lands for families and sportsmen to enjoy.
  Another key to further development of renewable energy is to 
alleviate the bottlenecks in our electric power grid. Much of our power 
grid was developed decades ago, some of it nearly 100 years ago, and I 
am working in New Mexico to help tap our renewable resources by adding 
new transmission capacity and smart grids to an aging infrastructure.
  We need to find better ways to make sure new transmission projects 
are well planned to protect the environment but can also move forward 
in a reasonable timeframe. Whether for our national security, our 
energy independence or our Nation's ability to compete in the global 
economy, our efforts and our solutions should be rooted in fact and 
driven by the best available science.
  As we heard earlier tonight from our friend and colleague from 
Oklahoma, not everyone agrees. There are some who deny that climate 
change exists. There are some who are simply paralyzed by how big the 
problem is--the fear of the economic or political costs along the way. 
But one of the things that has bothered me the most, as we have had 
this debate, is too often we see scientific integrity undermined. We 
see scientific research politicized in an effort to advance ideological 
or purely political agendas or to protect certain industries and 
interests. Too often we see that some in Washington believe they are 
not just entitled to their own opinions but believe they are somehow 
entitled to their own facts. Frankly, none of us are entitled to our 
own facts.
  No area of innovation in science will be more important than our 
Nation's ability to tackle climate change and lead the world in clean 
energy technology. We saw a lot of information earlier in the evening 
about the incredible growth we have seen in renewable sources of energy 
in recent years, particularly in wind and solar. The cost of solar has 
come down precipitously in recent times. It reminds me that in 1961 
President John F. Kennedy made a bold claim that an American would walk 
on the Moon by the end of the decade. To many people that seemed 
absolutely ludicrous.
  This is a similar challenge we face. Eight years after President 
Kennedy made that claim, Neil Armstrong did just that. It did not even 
take a decade. We need that kind of effort to be able to address the 
incredible challenge we have with a warming globe. We need to think 
big, we need to execute, and we need to innovate, as the Presiding 
Officer said.
  Innovation is going to be so important as we deal with this issue. 
Frankly, in the United States we have met issue after issue that people 
said could not be solved or was too big or would cost us too much. We 
turned those around and into opportunities to grow new jobs and grow 
new industry.
  As we look at this particular challenge, the real question is, is the 
economic activity that is going to be associated with solving these 
challenges--are we going to get the benefit of those technologies? Are 
we going to get the jobs from manufacturing, installing, developing 
those things or are we going to cede that leadership to other countries 
around the world?
  Even the sleeping giant in China, with all of their policies over the 
years that have led to the incredible, dangerous pollution levels we 
see--where students actually put masks on statues in China to make a 
political point that there is no clean air to be had--even China is 
realizing they have to invest in this innovation, that they have a 
national interest in it.
  We have the most innovative folks in the world. We have our National 
Laboratories. We have scientists and entrepreneurs who can come up with 
solutions that will take us further than we have seen with the 
incredible growth in wind and solar in the last few years. We need to 
make the commitment and move from just having a debate about these 
issues to employing the policy changes that will drive that innovation.
  (Mr. SCHATZ assumed the Chair.)
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, I would be happy to yield to the Senator 
from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. The Senator's point about China makes me think that 
if you look at the behavior of the Chinese with respect to this power, 
you see a couple things. You see, first of all, that they have worked 
very hard to try to undercut our domestic innovation by dropping prices 
on solar artificially. You see that particularly if you are involved on 
the Intelligence and Armed Services side, the extraordinary efforts 
they have made to hack into our intellectual property and to try to 
steal it back to China so their companies can compete unfairly against 
ours.
  When you see this activity, particularly in the area of solar and 
renewables, and you see the extent to which the Chinese are investing 
in solar and renewables, what conclusion must one draw about what the 
Chinese see as the future of solar and renewables?
  Mr. HEINRICH. The Senator from Rhode Island brings up a very good 
point because obviously the Chinese have come to the conclusion that it 
is in their best interests to innovate and to do it as rapidly as 
possible. He brings up some issues that, frankly, are not necessarily 
what I would call the most responsible or moral ways to move rapidly 
through that ladder of innovation. But, nonetheless, it is unmistakable 
that they are realizing just how important this is.
  I think it is important for us to come to the same conclusion. I 
think it is important for us to realize if we cede these industries to 
China, they will be selling us the products of the future. We have seen 
this already with their ability to undercut the price and artificially 
lower the cost of producing solar panels and how deleterious that has 
been to our domestic manufacturing base for those technologies.
  We need to make sure we are making the technologies of tomorrow's 
clean energy economy here and installing those technologies ourselves 
and getting the jobs, all the way from the innovation to the 
manufacturing, to the supply chain, to make sure we see the 
opportunities in this as well as other challenges.
  I think what motivated me to be part of tonight is that, similar to 
the Presiding Officer, I have a couple of young kids at home--a 7-year-
old named Micah, a 10-year-old--soon to be 11 years old--named Carter.
  When I think of some of the issues the Senator from Rhode Island 
brought up and the briefings I receive on the Intelligence Committee--
and not only the intellectual property theft that has been reported in 
the open media but also the impacts we are seeing in places such as 
Central Asia, the glaciers that an enormous part of the world's 
population relies on for their fresh water, a place that has inherent 
and sometimes volatile conflicts right below the surface, where 
Pakistan and India and other countries come together--when we look 
around Southeast Asia and realize there is an enormous amount of the 
world's population living just a few feet above sea level who are 
exposed to those superstorms in a way that even those of us who have 
had to deal with superstorms such as Sandy cannot imagine because they 
did not have a home to shelter in or at least a home that looks like 
the places we have, it certainly sobers one.
  I see the Senator from New Jersey is here.
  Mr. BOOKER. If I may interrupt for a question because I would like to 
stay on point.
  Mr. HEINRICH. Absolutely.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with 
the

[[Page 4027]]

Senator from New Jersey who knows firsthand what some of these 
superstorms are capable of.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BOOKER. I would like to continue to have the Senator from Rhode 
Island as well involved in this colloquy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BOOKER. Because he brings up a tremendous point.
  For all of us who are competitive and have this belief that this 
Nation of ours should remain a leader in the globe, the Senator from 
Rhode Island makes a very good point. We are a nation that has led in 
innovation, led in ingenuity. Generation after generation, we have seen 
our country excel and exceed economically because of American 
innovation.
  What the Senator from Rhode Island brings up so pointedly is that in 
this area--the technologies of the future that are going to have us 
have an ability to produce the energy of the future--America runs the 
risk of falling behind some of our most fierce competitors.
  But what I would like to ask the Senator from Rhode Island--because 
it goes further than that--we know that as to the challenges of the 
future, we can look at the past and see how economic policy has so 
dramatically influenced foreign policy. You can go back to right after 
World War II, how America's economic dominance helped us to advance.
  Looking at the Suez crisis, when America and Britain had different 
agendas, it was a fact that we held their debt, that we had the 
economic advantage that allowed us to press our interests, but there 
are other threats too.
  What is interesting to me is, as has been stated tonight already--and 
I would love to talk to folks because both of you have already talked 
about Senate intelligence briefings and military briefings--I would 
like to read from a document that talks about Navy ADM Samuel J. 
Locklear, III, the commander of U.S. forces in the Pacific, stating 
very dramatically--and I would love to get the reaction of the Senator 
from Rhode Island to this--that significant upheaval related to the 
warming of the planet, the admiral says, ``is probably the most likely 
thing that is going to happen . . . that will cripple the security 
environment, probably more likely than the other scenarios we all often 
talk about.''
  You see, Admiral Locklear focuses on risk management and preparedness 
for our Nation. He does not have time for philosophy. He does not have 
time for politics. He is focusing on a concrete risk analysis when it 
comes to the safety, security, and preparedness of our Nation.
  He goes on:

       While resilience in the security environment is 
     traditionally understood as the ability to recover from a 
     crisis, using the term in the context of national security 
     expands its meaning to include crisis prevention.

  I read on:

       Admiral Samuel Locklear had a meeting the other day with 
     national security experts at Tufts and Harvard. After this 
     session, he met with a reporter who asked him what the top 
     security threat was in the Pacific Ocean. Rather than 
     highlighting Chinese ballistic missiles, the new Chinese Navy 
     aircraft carrier, North Korean nuclear weapons, or other 
     traditional military threats, Admiral Locklear looked to a 
     larger definition of national security.
       Locklear commented that ``People are surprised sometimes'' 
     that he highlights climate change--despite an ability to 
     discuss a wide range of threats from cyber-war to the North 
     Koreans. However, it is the risks--from natural disasters, to 
     long-term sea level rise threats, to Pacific Nations--that 
     have his deepest attention.

  Here he is being quoted:

       You have the real potential here in the not-too-distant 
     future of nations displaced by rising sea levels. Certainly 
     weather patterns are more severe than they have been in the 
     past. We are on super typhoon 27 or 28 this year in the 
     Western Pacific. The average is about 17. Climate change 
     merits national security military attention for very 
     pragmatic reasons.

  So the Senator from Rhode Island--we have talked about many things 
tonight--understands this issue, and he is one of the motivating 
factors for an amazing array of Senators from all around the country 
tonight to be talking about the impacts on our individual States, which 
I hope to do about New Jersey soon.
  But the bigger issues at stake are long-term economic 
competitiveness, which the Senator from New Mexico has talked about, 
and also the threat that our military experts see to our Nation and 
global security. I wonder if the Senator for a moment would comment on 
that.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. On the point the Senator from New Jersey makes about 
economic power being the foundation for military power and the power of 
persuasion around the globe, one really does not have to look any 
further than back to the decline and fall of the Soviet Union, which is 
widely viewed as being based on a country that spent so much on its 
military without an underlying economic engine powerful enough to 
support it that it finally fell in.
  So when we are looking out at a clean energy market that has been 
estimated to be a $6 trillion market, the idea that it is in America's 
interest to cede that entire market to the Chinese, to let them be the 
manufacturers, to trust that we will be fine if they are manufacturing 
solar and wind and all of the new battery technologies and that we are 
just consumers of that, is crazy. That economic weakness has national 
security overtones.
  In addition, as the distinguished Senator from New Jersey pointed 
out, in addition to Admiral Locklear--and the distinguished Senator 
from Hawaii mentioned Admiral Locklear as well, but he is not alone. 
Secretary Mabus, Secretary of the Navy, has pointed out the same thing. 
We are at risk from global warming from a national security 
perspective. The Joint Chiefs of Staff is on record about the national 
security consequences of climate change to our country. As the Senator 
from New Mexico knows from his time on the Intelligence Committee, 
there are NIEs--National Intelligence Estimates--that speak to the 
danger climate change presents for America, for our national security 
interests when it happens in other lands. The Defense Quadrennial 
Review, which is the key document that drives our defense policy, has 
over and over again emphasized climate change as a national security 
risk, as a liability for our country. So, yes, it is very important 
that we deal with this.
  I had a conversation with Henry Kissinger the other day. He was 
speaking generally. He used an interesting phrase. He said that the big 
upheavals and revolutions in the world have always come from a 
confluence of resentment--a confluence of resentment.
  So I would add to the immediate risk of climate change causing 
upheaval and causing military problems that threaten our national 
security interest the larger problem is that America stands for 
something in this world, and we all benefit because America stands for 
something in this world, and the rest of the world knows it. If we come 
to the point where around the world people are seeing in their homes, 
in their lives, in their villages, in their hamlets, and on their 
shores the effects of climate change and it is bad for them--the fish 
they used to catch are not there; the crops they used to grow will not 
grow any longer; the river they used to irrigate is not running as 
strong any longer; and their lives have been hurt as a result of that, 
and they look around, what greater resentment could there be than a 
resentment of the country that knew this was coming, that said it was a 
leadership nation, and that did nothing about it when it knew.
  Now, there is a confluence of resentment around the world. That, too, 
creates a national security risk for our country.
  Mr. BOOKER. I appreciate that from the Senator from Rhode Island. I 
have only been in the Senate for about 4 months. As soon as I made a 
decision to run for this office, I asked for national security 
briefings to study hot points in our country. I figured if I was going 
to win this office, New Jersey would expect me to be prepared to serve 
and deal with national security issues.
  I was amazed that, when I was being briefed by a group of folks who 
focus on

[[Page 4028]]

national security issues, a general came up to the briefings in New 
Jersey as well and began to be very intent and intense on letting me 
understand that the military is not waiting for us to figure this out 
in Congress. They are preparing. He told me about flying planes on 
biofuels, thinking about the resiliency of our military bases here and 
abroad. It was amazing to hear this general talk in such fierce 
pragmatism about what we must do to protect the safety and the sanctity 
of our country.
  But I will tell you this: We are in a bad economy right now. When I 
go back to New Jersey, I hear people talking to me about jobs. I hear 
people talking to me about government spending. I hear about the 
strength of our country.
  If the Senator from New Mexico would allow me to ask him a question, 
what moved me about your remarks--I have to say, again, I am a new 
Senator. But the Presiding Officer and I have both gotten to know the 
Senator from New Mexico. The Senator lives and bleeds New Mexico. Our 
conversations when we are in the cloakroom are amazing. I have learned 
more about New Mexico than the Jersey boy ever did back in my own 
State. It is amazing the pride with which you talk about your State. I 
hope your constituents understand how much you are about New Mexico 
every day you are here.
  What was amazing to me as I listened to you speak was the numbers 
that rolled off your tongue about the financial impact of climate 
change on the New Mexico economy. When you started talking about the 
billions--you emphasized ``b''--spent on fire protection, you mentioned 
the grievous loss of life of firefighters in Arizona who nobly fought 
fires in New Mexico. You talked about the grievous impact--hundreds of 
millions of dollars--on industries in your State, and those numbers, to 
me, which fly off the tongue, represent jobs, represent government tax 
dollars which are being used in your State to fight forest fires but 
which could be reinvested in the things that rebuild infrastructure, 
educate children, do research.
  It is an undeniable fact that fires are burning hotter, that 
reservoirs are getting emptier, and that is having a serious impact on 
your economy, but this is the truth about our country: We are not New 
Mexico, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Hawaii; we are the United States of 
America. As much as we might think your economy is insulated from mine, 
that is not true. When I heard Senator Klobuchar talking about what it 
is doing to crops in her State, that affects food prices in New Jersey. 
When I heard the Senator from Maine talking about the lobster industry, 
we eat lobster in New Jersey as well. We are one integrated economy. 
King said it so profoundly--that ``injustice anywhere is a threat to 
justice everywhere.''
  So if the Senator would comment for me a little deeper because I know 
when you leave here and go back to your State, you are not looking at 
data or the statistics, you are talking to people whose lives are not 
just being disrupted by climate change but severely affected, I wonder 
if the Senator could--we have seen lots of data and charts tonight and 
all day, but I was hoping the Senator could speak a little bit more to 
the grievous financial damage it is doing in our interconnected 
economy, to the people of your State and thus to the people of America.
  Mr. HEINRICH. I thank my friend the Senator from New Jersey. These 
issues have such a profound impact on individual people and 
communities. When I think back to that Las Conchas fire that I talked 
about a little bit in my comments, I cannot help but think about Santa 
Clara Pueblo. Actually, maybe we can put up this other image too, 
because normally the fires lie down at night. That is what they used to 
do, at least. Here you can see the fire burning north of Los Alamos in 
the Jemez mountains in the middle of the night. You can imagine, this 
was sort of a scene from Espanola and Santa Fe across the valley. 
Everyone I talked to at the time had never seen a conflagration in the 
northern part of the State quite like it.
  One community that was particularly impacted and is still recovering 
today is Santa Clara Pueblo. They have this incredible, beautiful 
canyon that is tied to their identity and their religion and who they 
are as a people. Unfortunately, this fire burned the headwaters of that 
canyon, and that produces the water for their irrigation, as well as 
with the Rio Grande. It is more than just economics. It is an identity. 
It is a place that cannot be separated from the community and the 
people there.
  The impact of that, unlike a typical disaster we think about, such as 
an earthquake, where you have the disaster and then you have the 
recovery from the disaster, these fires in these communities happen 
multiple times. You have the fire, and it is usually in May or June, 
which is the driest time of the year in the State of New Mexico. It is 
the time when the snowpack is long gone and we have not had 
precipitation, oftentimes in months. Then you get these early lightning 
strikes that do not actually have rain associated with them.
  You have the fire. Finally, the fire goes out when the rains come, 
and then you have the thunderstorms that come and flood these 
communities and take their farmland and bury it under 6 inches of 
cobble and gravel or a foot of everything but topsoil, so they cannot 
use it. You have roads literally impassable and infrastructure 
destroyed, irrigation ditches that have been in place for hundreds of 
years blown out or filled with sediment so they cannot be used.
  It happens not just that first year, but until these places recover 
with some sort of vegetation--I have to say that they are not coming 
back as the same kind of forest in many cases. But as the vegetation 
does recover, you finally get a more moderated situation where you do 
not get those floods.
  But I just have been too many times now with people at the Pueblos 
Nambe across the valley, same situation, different fire. It is touching 
everyone and their communities. It is really a struggle, when we cannot 
even recognize the problem here in Washington, DC, to look at my 
constituents, you know, and say: Hopefully, through FEMA and other 
measures, we can address the emergency. But we have to start addressing 
the problem.
  I want to ask the Senator from New Jersey--I mean, your State just 
came through one of the most unbelievable superstorms in our country's 
recent history with Superstorm Sandy. I can only imagine--we have very 
different States. My problem is usually not enough moisture. Oftentimes 
in extreme weather events you have too much. We certainly do not have 
coastal issues. I would love to hear more about the direct economic 
impact of what it meant--the Senator from New Jersey is someone who 
comes to this Chamber with something that I value enormously, which is 
the experience of governing at the local level where you are close to 
the people. I was a city councilor. You were a mayor of a huge city. 
You know what those impacts are to infrastructure and economy and to 
small businesses when a storm such as that hits your State. I would 
love to have a little bit of that perspective because I think it is 
important, as this grows and grows and the challenge faces us head-on, 
to understand how it is impacting your constituents and their small 
businesses and all of the things you have direct experience with from 
your local government work.
  Mr. BOOKER. I am grateful to the Senator from New Mexico for giving 
me this opportunity to say a word about my State. To keep the 
conversation going, if the Senator from Rhode Island would indulge me 
in answering that question, but I would like to get back to the Senator 
from Rhode Island.
  I want to say to the people who are watching this, perhaps on C-SPAN 
or others, the reason why I am so grateful to the Senator from Rhode 
Island is because I have been here, again, for a little over 4 months. 
But the Senator from Rhode Island is--and forgive me if this sounds in 
any way disrespectful to say it this way, but I almost think the 
Senator from Rhode Island reminds me

[[Page 4029]]

of the movie ``Shawshank Redemption.'' I say that because one of my 
favorite moments in Shawshank was that guy----
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I am just waiting to hear what character I remind the 
Senator of, because this could be for good or it could be for very ill.
  Mr. BOOKER. No. I am reminded that Morgan Freeman or the main 
character of the movie wanted to get a library for the prison. Frankly, 
their strategy was every single day they sent a letter. The reason why 
I have great respect for the Senator from Rhode Island is he has been 
relentless, to my knowledge, in a way I did not know about before I 
came to the Senate--but relentlessly and constantly nonstop, not only 
one time when we are going for an entire day, but every single week 
going to the floor and speaking to this issue, speaking truth to power, 
using his office to try to not only speak to issues pertaining only to 
his State, but to speak to issues that relate to our planet, and I have 
generated a lot of respect for the Senator in his consistency.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I appreciate that very much.
  Let me say for the Record I would be Morgan Freeman all day long and 
all night long, for that matter.
  Mr. BOOKER. The Senator has it. But before I get to my Senate 
colleague from Rhode Island, allow me for a moment to answer the 
question of my colleague because I am grateful that he asked me about 
what is happening in New Jersey.
  We know this, that no storm, no flood, no drought, was caused 
singularly--no single episode could be said to be caused by climate 
change. That would be irresponsible and give an opening for those 
people who choose to criticize those who talk about climate change, 
give an opening to pounce on that.
  But we do know, when these extreme weather events happen--and I 
believe they are happening more frequently because of climate change--
what we know factually is that when these extreme weather events 
happen, they become more extreme because of indisputable climate change 
that is happening.
  Forest fires, as the Senator said, become more extreme because of a 
warming climate. We know in New Jersey, and we have seen painfully from 
Hurricane Sandy, that when flooding happens it is more extreme and more 
severe because of rising sea water.
  We know in New Jersey that the storm had painful effects. Let me put 
it in numbers, and then I want to talk about people.
  The numbers that affect people so dramatically are powerful. I am 
going to read some of them. This is a Rutgers University report that 
rising sea levels, as I mentioned before, mean hurricanes will produce 
more severe damage such as the damage caused by Hurricane Sandy, more 
frequent extreme weather events, heat waves. Inland flooding from heavy 
rains present a growing challenge to our New Jersey economy, to the 
environment, and to the everyday way of life of New Jerseyans and I say 
to Americans.
  The images left by Sandy's wakes are seared into the minds of so many 
New Jerseyans. We saw what happened to some of the most precious parts 
of our State up and down the coast. The State's vulnerability to these 
extremes we see, the storm and its immediate aftermath resulted in 34 
people dying in the State of New Jersey, and it cost New Jerseyans an 
estimated $37 billion. The storm, in its entirety, impacted and claimed 
more than 150 lives and exceeded $50 billion in damage. In New Jersey, 
nearly 7 million people and 1,000 schools lost power. Transit systems 
and streets were completely flooded, damaging our infrastructure. More 
than 8,000 jobs were lost in the month after the storm.
  (Mr. WHITEHOUSE assumed the Chair.)
  There were power interruptions that lasted for days and days, putting 
people into hardship. As the mayor of a city, I saw that the power 
disruptions actually cost people lives. There were two people who were 
without power in the city of Newark who tried to sustain themselves 
with artificial heat. It produced carbon monoxide from which they died. 
Hurricane Sandy displaced more than 116,000 people and damaged or 
destroyed 346,000 homes in New Jersey.
  We have seen in our State these horrific stories and know for a fact 
that should more hurricanes hit with rising sea levels, they are going 
to do more and more extreme damage.
  What I wanted to do, in answer to your question, is those were 
numbers, but the stories that came from Hurricane Sandy rip your gut.
  This is one story of Christina, a homeowner from Toms River, as 
reported in the Huffington Post. They had evacuated her house before 
Hurricane Sandy hit, Christina did, and then returning found a 
mysterious note. The letter was hastily scrawled by a person who had 
broken into her house and taken a blanket and a black jacket to keep 
hypothermia at bay. The author of the note was sure he was dying.
  These storms rushed in so quickly and so severely that it put people 
in conditions where life and death happened quickly.
  I saw them as mayor of Newark. One of the people who died in my city 
due to Hurricane Sandy was with folks we came to evacuate from Sandy in 
a low-lying area east of Newark. I will never forget this because the 
group of men said they did not want to leave. They were going to stay 
on the higher floor of a structure, but one of them went to move his 
car at the exact time the water was rushing in so quickly and so fast 
that he drowned in his car.
  This story continues. The man identified himself as a 28-year-old man 
named Mike and left contact information so that the homeowner could 
contact his father and tell him he had died.
  The note reads: Whoever reads this, I am dying. I am a 28-year-old. 
My name is Mike. I had to break into your house. I took blankets off 
the couch. I have hypothermia. I didn't take anything. A wave threw me 
out of my house and down the block. I don't think I am going to make 
it. The water is 10-feet deep at least. There is no rescue. Tell my dad 
I love him, and I am trying to get out. His number is--he gives it to 
the newspaper and his name is Tony.
  He continues: I hope you can read there in the dark. I took a black 
jacket too. God Almighty, help me.
  The heartbreaking last words of a Hurricane Sandy victim made its 
rounds on social media. In an interview later, Mike told listeners the 
harrowing story of how he was swept out to sea.
  I wish to give a couple more quick vignettes. This is Theresa, 41, 
Middlesex County, NJ: Walking out of my house the morning after the 
storm and seeing my neighbors, it was unreal. It was like a war zone. 
We were unprepared for what happened.
  June, 51, Union Beach, NJ: Living through the storm in one of the 
hardest hit bay towns of New Jersey, I learned that God is good. In the 
midst of the hardship and trauma, I saw His love through average 
people, people who care enough to smile, serve, hug, and weep with me. 
I saw such compassion in the young and old. I saw the best in humanity.
  This is what should be driving us at the core. The heroism we see at 
these extreme weather conditions, made worse by climate change, shows 
the grit of America. It shows our strength and our courage, our 
willingness to be there for one another in times of crisis.
  But the point of the matter is we are in a larger crisis right now, 
and that demands we should act. There is an old saying the only thing 
necessary for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing. Well, 
good people in New Jersey did a lot during Hurricane Sandy as our State 
had billions of dollars of damage to their communities, displaced 
people who are still not back in their homes. But as we look at rising 
sea levels in and around New Jersey, we know that if future storms hit 
that the damage as the sea level rises will be increasingly worse. So 
we have an affirmative obligation to act. That is who we are as 
Americans. We see that right now in our country there is a crisis. It 
is unmistakable. Every Senator

[[Page 4030]]

who has spoken tonight has pointed to charts with the facts. We talked 
earlier about the military recognizing what is happening. They are 
active.
  But of this body, the question will be asked, did this body, when the 
evidence was clear, when the damage was being done, when homeowner 
after family after neighborhood after farm town after urban area--when 
we knew the crisis was coming, did we do everything we could to prevent 
that challenge, that damage, that infliction of economic, emotional, 
physical pain from coming?
  I ask the Senator, as I wish to switch back in a second, the cost of 
not doing anything is great. But the Senator mentioned before the 
benefit of acting. I thought that was one of the more powerful remarks 
of the Senator. But actually there are rewards for acting, in creating 
economic activity, in creating jobs, in improving environmental 
conditions, and in saving money.
  I was wondering if the Senator would highlight some more of that 
intelligent, enlightened action that could actually not be as much of a 
sacrifice as people are talking about at the beginning.
  Mr. HEINRICH. Through the Chair, I thank the Senator from New Jersey 
in particular for sharing those stories, because we need to take some 
inspiration from people all across this country, and certainly in New 
Jersey, who have faced up to incredible challenges such as Superstorm 
Sandy and shown that when we put our minds to it Americans can 
accomplish just about anything. We need to take that inspiration and 
find the will in this body to move forward on what we know are the 
facts and to start to have a conversation about what are the policies 
we are going to put in place to make sure we do meet that challenge. 
How are we going to do it in a way that recognizes what the Senator 
from New Jersey had said a number of times tonight, that right now 
people care so much in this country about the fact that we need jobs 
and we need economic development. Even though one can look at the stock 
market and say there has been some sort of recovery in this country, 
most of our constituents will tell us they are not feeling it.
  We have an opportunity to create a whole new generation of jobs. The 
question is are we going to create them in the United States or are we 
going to let someone else create them somewhere else in the world.
  One of the speakers earlier tonight, the Senator from Massachusetts, 
brought up the incredible innovation that has happened in recent years 
in the auto industry with hybrids, plug-in hybrids, and even electric 
vehicles. Certainly my State is one of the Southwestern States 
competing, if you will, to try to get Tesla, a disruptive technology 
manufacturing company, to possibly put their battery manufacturing 
facility in the State of New Mexico. They are looking at a number of 
States in the Southwest, but we think with our combination of two 
national laboratories, Los Alamos and Sandia, the rail lines that we 
have in the State, the innovativeness around renewable energy that is 
part of their values, that we offer something unique we hope they will 
look at as their site and where to put that facility. But think of all 
the jobs in an industry and a company that a few years ago a few people 
wouldn't have believed in.
  Mr. BOOKER. I beg the indulgence of the Senator, because I am going 
to put him on the spot. The Senator was talking about Tesla, the 
innovative company of today. The Senator and I were sharing stories 
earlier, and this goes to the point of the ingenuity of our country. I 
know some of the people involved in Tesla, and they are so inspiring.
  But the Senator, years ago, when he was in not quite in high school 
or college----
  Mr. HEINRICH. College.
  Mr. BOOKER. College. The Senator got involved in building solar cars 
and racing around our country. To me, that is a tribute to the lessons 
of what you are talking about; that is, No. 1, we are the leader 
globally in innovation, but we are also one of the leaders globally in 
education and training and preparing people.
  So this idea--and I see it in schools in Newark and in New Jersey--is 
kids innovating in robotics competitions, kids innovating in sciences, 
kids using technology and using the platforms created by big companies 
to do things that have value and work.
  So let me put my colleague on the spot. Forget Tesla. Long before we 
even knew what Tesla was, my colleague was doing something with solar 
cars back in college.
  Mr. HEINRICH. Before there was a Tesla, when I was in college in the 
early 1990s--and this is one of the things that makes me such a strong 
believer in innovation and really gives me the optimism to say that we 
can do just about anything as a country when we set our mind to it--my 
fellow students and I joined the Sun race in 1993. At the college I 
attended, a number of my colleagues who were studying electrical 
engineering--I was studying mechanical engineering, and we had people 
who were studying material science--we all got together and we designed 
and built a car, a solar car, that we raced across the United States. 
We raced from Dallas, TX, up to Minneapolis, MN.
  People were asking us along the way: When are we going to be driving 
solar cars? That really wasn't quite the point, but it was a great 
opening to say this isn't about having solar cars. We are not going to 
have solar cars because you need a pretty big car to get enough 
sunlight to do the job. But it is about driving that innovation and 
engaging the best--and we have the best--education system at the 
collegiate level in the world and putting that to work to make sure we 
are growing the next generation of jobs and the opportunity that 
represents.
  While there are not solar cars riding around in the United States 
today, there are now electric cars, and many of the fundamental 
innovations we made are now showing up throughout the auto industry. In 
fact, one of the things, if you look at how disruptive the Toyota Prius 
was a few years ago, one of the reasons why it was so efficient was a 
little thing called regenerative braking, where when you step on the 
brakes, instead of all that energy being wasted, the heat through the 
brakes is turned into electricity and put back in the batteries in the 
car. Now you are seeing that in hybrids throughout the auto industry. 
That is something we used in the early 1990s in this contest with our 
solar car.
  We had LED lights long before anybody had LED lights in their cars. 
We were making turn signals and lights on the solar car with LEDs. We 
built our car out of carbon fiber. It kind of looked like an upside-
down wing. All of these kinds of innovations are now standard fare. 
They are things that get used in the American auto industry in cars 
built right here in the United States to make all of our cars more 
efficient and to create some really good jobs along the way.
  I believe we ought to be able to do that more broadly with clean 
energy technology to help address some of these climate issues.
  Mr. BOOKER. I think my colleague's point has been seen in history, 
before he and I were even born. We had a President put forth a noble 
ambition to make the Moon not a dream but a destination. What he did 
was he set in motion, by charting a course for America to be first, to 
lead the globe to be the innovators and to go beyond human imagination. 
It actually affected everyone, all the way down to our schools and our 
classrooms and what kids were studying. Generations came up with that, 
and not only did we win the space race, but it fueled new technologies, 
new innovations for our generation.
  Think about this. This company in Silicon Valley, I think it was 
called Keyhole, looked at the satellite information borne out of the 
space race. That company was bought by another company called Google, 
and that turned into Google Maps, something my colleague and I probably 
both have on our phones.
  So it is amazing when America has this attitude that we are not going 
to put our heads in the sand and deny a new world is upon us; we are 
going to lead the country. That has multipliers of collateral benefits 
that are not anticipated. As mayor, I became not a

[[Page 4031]]

convert, because I knew this was an issue, but I became a zealot about 
this idea that you could create a multiplier effect of benefits when 
you talk and innovate around making the American Dream a green dream.
  Let me share this with my colleague. We see in a 2012 report by the 
Rockefeller Foundation that it was estimated that more than $279 
billion could be invested in retrofitting existing buildings making 
them more energy efficient. This goes back to the point we were talking 
about--job creation and leading. This investment, the Rockefeller 
Foundation study found, could yield more than $1 trillion of energy 
savings over 10 years, reducing United States emissions by as much as 
10 percent. But this is the kicker. This creates energy savings, 
reduces emissions, and creates a healthier environment for cities such 
as Newark and Camden that are on these heat islands that ratchet up 
asthma. So we lower those emissions, lower the heat in those areas, 
which has collateral benefits. Here is the one we should be talking 
about right now while we are coming out of a recession. It could create 
more than 3.3 million new jobs, direct and indirect, in the U.S. 
economy.
  That is just by investing in retrofitting and getting a return on the 
investment, with $279 billion, getting a return of $1 trillion in 
energy savings, and reducing energy costs for families, for 
governments. These jobs cannot be outsourced. They are not about 
foreign competition. It is about putting people here to work, and not 
only do these energy efficiency retrofits utilize local workers, the 
vast majority of the materials used for the retrofits come from where, 
Senator?
  Mr. HEINRICH. Right here at home.
  Mr. BOOKER. Right here. Energy retrofits are manufactured right here 
in the United States of America. This is the collateral benefit, the 
multiplier effect we are talking about. Attic insulation, replacement 
windows, and new furnaces--more than 90 percent of the energy efficient 
materials are made in the USA, putting Americans to work, fueling our 
economy, and making us strong and successful in a multiple of layers.
  That is all in just one segment of the green economy. I am just 
talking about retrofitting. Hundreds of thousands of jobs have already 
been created, as we both know, in the wind and solar sectors. People 
don't know, but New Jersey is one of the leaders in the solar industry. 
Only California does better than we do, and those sectors are still in 
their infancy.
  We can have a healthy environment and a healthy economy. These false 
choices that people seem to be putting up are simply that: false 
choices. It is not the tyranny of the ``or;'' it is the liberation of 
the ``and.'' They are not mutually exclusive.
  When I was mayor of Newark we took action. Understanding this data 
and these facts, we worked with the building trades, and they created a 
laborers local, local 55 in my area, that focused on weatherizing 
residential properties in Newark. We recruited Newark residents who 
were taught how to perform energy audits and residential retrofits. Our 
residents had new job opportunities, and our homeowners who 
participated in the program saw energy savings.
  We first did this as a pilot focusing on senior citizen homes in the 
south ward of my city, and it was amazing. They were seeing reductions 
in energy costs of 25 percent or more. It was amazing. So we were able 
to save senior citizens money, employ young people from our community, 
and improve our environment, all at the same time.
  We found this was of value on all the issues. We knew one of the 
issues was just planting trees. We said: Hey, we are going to take 
action by increasing our tree canopy. We brought in private dollars at 
the neighborhood level through community organizing, and we began the 
process of making Newark greener, thus cooler, and making sure that new 
generations had opportunities.
  My colleague and I both know that one of the great definitions of 
leadership is that great leaders are those who plant trees under whose 
shade they will never sit. By our taking action on climate change, we 
will benefit generations to come, but the truth is--the exciting thing 
for me--it is going to help us in our economy right now. This is why 
this doesn't have to be a political issue. It can be one about 
pragmatism where left and right can come together.
  If my colleague will allow me, on that point of left and right coming 
together, I want to explain why this should not be a political issue. 
The opportunities are too great for America not to lead, for us to 
bolster our economy, for us to improve our environment, for us to 
reduce these savage weather anomalies. What inspires me about this is 
that there are a lot of people--Republicans--who are realizing this is 
not a Republican-Democratic issue.
  When forest fires rage in New Mexico, they hurt Republicans, 
Democrats, and Independents in that State. When droughts hit the 
Midwest, they hurt the farms of Republicans, Democrats, and 
Independents. When the lobster industry suffers in Maine or scallops in 
Cape May, this affects all of us. If my colleague will allow me, and 
then I would love to get his comments on this afterwards, I love this 
editorial, and I think it is worthy of reading into the record right 
now. The writers are former Administrators of the EPA. Listen to this. 
This was written by Lee Thomas and William Kelly and this incredible 
woman from New Jersey named Christie Todd Whitman. She was our 
governor. She came and joined the Bush administration. These are heads 
of the EPA, people who had to deal with the facts, the pragmatism, 
every single day. Their job was to analyze what was going on around the 
country, and they wrote a letter, and I think it is worthy of reading, 
if the Senator will indulge me.
  Mr. HEINRICH. Please do.
  Mr. BOOKER. Thank you. They say:

       We served Republican presidents, but we have a message that 
     transcends political affiliation: the United States must move 
     now on substantive steps to curb climate change at home and 
     internationally.

  I'm telling you right now, and my colleague knows this, when we lead, 
other nations follow.
  The letter continues:

       There is no longer any credible scientific debate about the 
     basic facts: our world continues to warm, with the last 
     decade the hottest in modern records, and the deep ocean 
     warming faster than the earth's atmosphere. Sea level is 
     rising. Arctic ice is melting years faster than projected. 
     The costs of inaction are undeniable. The lines of scientific 
     evidence grow only stronger and more numerous. And the window 
     of time remaining to act is growing smaller: delay could mean 
     that warming becomes ``locked in.''

  I know my colleague and I both believe in the free market.
  Mr. HEINRICH. Absolutely.
  Mr. BOOKER. But we know we see businesses now that are internalizing 
profits and externalizing costs. I see this in New Jersey. We are 
cleaning up the Passaic River, and it is costing taxpayer dollars. When 
we hear complaints about high taxes, it is going to this kind of 
stuff--cleaning up the Passaic River because corporations and 
businesses are dumping pollutants in there and do not internalize the 
cost. They said: Some future generation is going to pay for it. We are 
that future generation.
  So getting back to this--because I love the free market--I want 
people who externalize the cost to internalize it. If you are polluting 
the air and hurting the planet, you need to pay for that.
  A market-based approach like carbon tax would be the best path to 
reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but that is unachievable in the 
current political gridlock in Washington. Dealing with this political 
reality, President Obama's June Climate Action Plan lays out achievable 
actions that would deliver real progress. This is amazing to me. Four 
Republicans who served under Republican Presidents as heads of the EPA 
are saying President Obama's June Climate Action Plan lays out 
achievable actions that would deliver real progress.
  The President also plans to use his regulatory power to limit the 
powerful warming chemicals called hydrofluorocarbons. People 
understandably don't like overregulation,

[[Page 4032]]

but the reality is that if this is being released as pollutants into 
the air, we should be doing something about it.
  Mr. HEINRICH. If the Senator would yield, we have heard time and time 
again that when we allowed the market to innovate and deal with these 
same kinds of challenges--whether it is NOX and 
SOX or other pollutants we have been able to address in the 
past; whether it is the hole in the ozone layer--I mean, talk about a 
global issue of pollution--the market was able to solve those.
  Mr. BOOKER. I don't mean to question the Senator's integrity, but I 
just don't know if he was alive at the time.
  Mr. HEINRICH. I think I read it in a book somewhere.
  Mr. BOOKER. Allow me to continue because the Senator is absolutely 
right. I heard some incredible examples from other Senators talking 
about things we did. I love the story by the Senator from Maine about 
the pull-top cans.
  Mr. HEINRICH. It reminded me of growing up as I did. My mother worked 
in the auto industry, and there was a time when we had a great debate. 
My grandfather complained based on something he heard on the radio 
about these catalytic converters which were going to ruin the American 
auto industry.
  What happened is when we decided to clean up emissions from the auto 
industry, we actually created an entire new industry around catalytic 
converters, which for many years afterward was an export industry for 
the United States. Since we took the first step, none of the other 
countries understood the technology well and could manufacture it well. 
So as the rest of the world followed our lead to clean up their 
pollution, they were importing our catalytic converters.
  We can look at example after example where this has been the case. 
When we allow the market to innovate, we can solve the most challenging 
pollution problems.
  Mr. BOOKER. I love that. Never bet against America's ability to 
innovate, to be resilient, to be industrious.
  So I continue on this editorial written by four past Republican EPA 
Administrators:

       The president also plans to use his regulatory power to 
     limit the powerful warming chemicals known as 
     hydrofluorocarbons and encourage the United States to join 
     with other nations to amend the Montreal Protocol to phase 
     out these chemicals. The landmark international treaty, which 
     took effect in 1989, already has been hugely successful in 
     solving the ozone problem.
       Rather than argue against his proposals, our leaders in 
     Congress should endorse them and start the overdue debate 
     about what bigger steps are needed and how to achieve them--
     domestically and internationally.
       As administrators of the E.P.A. under Presidents Richard M. 
     Nixon, Ronald Reagan, George Bush, and George W. Bush, we 
     held fast to the 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 
     results for the least cost.

  Highlighting the Senator's words.

       That approach helped us tackle major environmental 
     challenges to our nation and the world: the pollution of our 
     rivers, dramatized when the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland 
     caught fire in 1969; the hole in the ozone layer; and the 
     devastation wrought by acid rain.

  These are all points just made by the Senator from New Mexico.
  They continue:

       The solutions we supported worked----

  Government acted. They worked----

     although more must be done. Our rivers no longer burn, and 
     their health continues to improve. The United States led the 
     world when nations came together to phase out ozone-depleting 
     chemicals. Acid rain diminishes each year, thanks to a 
     pioneering, market-based emissions-trading system adopted 
     under the first President Bush in 1990. And despite critics' 
     warnings, our economy continued to grow.
       Climate change puts all our progress and our successes at 
     risk.

  It says what the Senator and so many others have said: Climate change 
puts all of our successes and our communities--like Toms River, like 
Cape May County--at risk.

       If we could articulate one framework for successful 
     governance, perhaps it should be this: When confronted by a 
     problem, deal with it. Look at the facts, cut through the 
     extraneous, devise a workable solution and get it done.
       We can have both a strong economy and a liveable climate. 
     All parties know that we need both. The rest of the 
     discussion is either detail, which we can resolve, or 
     purposeful delay, which we should not tolerate.
       Mr. Obama's plan is just a start. More will be required. 
     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.

  Republicans who echoed to me these words--and I know the Senator 
knows who wrote them, but I will read them first and cite them later. 
We heard four Republicans speaking today echoing the words of someone 
who wrote in the 1960s:

       We are now faced with the fact, my friends, that tomorrow 
     is today. We are confronted with the fierce urgency of now. 
     In this unfolding conundrum of life and history, there ``is'' 
     such a thing as being too late. Procrastination is still the 
     thief of time. Life often leaves us standing bare, naked, and 
     dejected with a lost opportunity. The tide in the affairs of 
     men does not remain at flood--it ebbs. We may cry out 
     desperately for time to pause in her passage, but time is 
     adamant to every plea and rushes on. Over the bleached bones 
     and jumbled residues of numerous civilizations are written 
     the pathetic words, ``Too late.''

  As the Senator obviously knows, those are the words of Martin Luther 
King.
  I know for the people in New Jersey, who stand with the 
understandable anguish of a State still recovering from Hurricane 
Sandy, that should the sea levels continue to rise in the coming years, 
we know cities such as Atlantic City and others could see not hundred-
year floods but ten-year floods, which will severally damage those 
cities' ability to continue as we know them today. For my State, there 
can be no ``too late.'' We must act now. And the Senator sees that 
urgency as well in New Mexico.
  Mr. HEINRICH. I do. And I think it is worth noting that when we speak 
about the four Republican Administrators of the EPA, they have all 
looked at the history of this argument and how it really reflects on a 
conversation we have had since the 1960s--and I think the Senator put 
it so eloquently--that it is not about jobs or quality of life; it has 
to be about both.
  Those Republican Administrators of the EPA have watched as the Clean 
Water Act and the Clean Air Act and the work done on the Montreal 
Protocol--all those debates were fundamentally identical to this one. 
People said that this was going to cost too much, that we were going to 
lose jobs if we made these decisions to clean up our environment. And 
what happened? If we look back at 1980 and today and the policy changes 
made, we have a GDP twice as big as what we had in 1980. We have 
doubled our country's economic output at the same time we have cleaned 
up our air and water and said we are going to have the cleanest country 
in the world. We are not going to be like China, where kids walking to 
school have to wear masks and can't play outside.
  When we think about young people in this country, the thing that 
always strikes me is that when we talk about climate change and when I 
go home, people are concerned about impacts and the things we talked 
about before--not the fact that forest fires are happening but that 
they are happening too often and with such extreme fire behavior now; 
the fact that drought is getting to be the norm, not the exception. But 
kids understand this issue, young people understand this issue in a way 
that calls out for action. I think that is why it is so important that 
we are doing this tonight, to send a message that we are hearing that 
because when I talk to high school students or kids in junior high or 
at college campuses, they understand they are inheriting all the weight 
of inaction.
  I remember as a kid hearing explanations of how the greenhouse effect 
works and what this is going to do long term. Here we are close to 35 
years later, and we are seeing the impacts. Our kids and our grandkids 
are going to see impacts a whole lot more extreme than even what our 
constituents have already shouldered. We can't wait anymore. We have a 
moral obligation. We can argue about what the best way

[[Page 4033]]

to address these challenges is and we should. We should find a way to 
address these challenges that gets the buy-in of a majority of this 
deliberative body. But we can't step aside any longer and say we are 
not going to act. That would be irresponsible.
  Mr. BOOKER. I will ask the Senator about some of the vulnerable 
communities in his State, but I will go about it this way. I have such 
great memories of my father and grandfather, both of whom passed away. 
Probably the first time I passed through the Senator's State was in a 
mobile home, in which my grandfather took us and drove us across the 
country. I saw America, north and south. We did that a number of times. 
I remember standing with him and looking at Mount Rushmore. My 
grandfather had a great sense of humor, and if he didn't know a 
historical fact, he would just make it up. But he taught us to 
appreciate and love this country. My father was the same way. He grew 
up in the mountains of North Carolina and took me there as a little boy 
and with such pride showed me mountains and lakes, and I fell in love. 
My mom also took me around New Jersey to some of our great parks and 
hiking the Palisades of New Jersey. I have incredible memories of the 
Jersey Shore and walking the boardwalk with my hand in my parents' 
hands. All these memories are so great. My father had this story that I 
think makes this point about tonight. One of the slogans for tonight is 
``Wake Up.''
  My father tells a story about a guy walking along and sees a porch, a 
man sitting in a rocking chair, and this hound dog sitting next to him. 
The hound dog is just howling away like he was in great pain. The man 
says, ``What is wrong with your dog? Why is he howling so much?''
  And the man says, ``Well, he's sitting on a nail.''
  And the other man says, ``Why doesn't he get up?''
  And the man says, ``Because he's not hurting bad enough yet.''
  I tell you, the story used to always get me because my father used to 
always say: Son, get up. Do not tolerate bad. You are better than that. 
Do not just lie there.
  I think about our country and know our history.
  You and I have been talking about our history. You and I were born in 
an amazing generation. We were born after the dawn of the civil rights 
movement, born after going to the Moon. So much we are talking about 
tonight is the history of our elders who did give to us a country of 
unbridled possibilities. We are America, but we are hurt. We are hurt, 
and we represent communities that feel all this pain.
  This is the point I wish to make. I heard Senator Landrieu from 
Louisiana in the debate about flood insurance and how these waters are 
rising. These are becoming more severe problems. I heard some of my 
Northeastern colleagues talk about the erosion, how we are losing acres 
and acres every year with rising sea levels. One of the times I got 
very moved listening to Senator Landrieu talk was when she was reacting 
to people who say this is about people who have lost their vacation 
home. I heard this in New Jersey as well. What bothered me about that 
is what many folks do not realize is the pain of climate change often 
affects the most vulnerable Americans most--the poorest people.
  She was talking about those people who make a living, scratch out a 
living in her State, whose livelihoods--who really have not that many 
other choices. I was in Cape May County talking to these fishermen and 
listening to the kind of tough jobs they have. These aren't people who 
are millionaires. They go out there. Talk about an honest day's work. I 
have to say I am a northern New Jersey boy, listening to these men talk 
about the toils of pulling from the sea. Cape May is one of the most 
productive areas to bring in the sea's bounty in our country. They say 
it is No. 4.
  To hear them talk about their jobs--but their fear, their worry in 
their eyes that with the warming waters their catch is moving north. 
They are getting less out of the sea. I know this as a former mayor of 
Newark. I see this when I go to my schools and talk to my school 
nurses, and they use the word ``epidemic'' with asthma, seeing the 
warming climate, what it is doing to the lung development on these 
children.
  I know from Sandy that when a storm like that hits, everybody assumes 
why not get in the car, drive someplace, stay in a hotel. Many people, 
No. 1, do not have cars, cannot just pull out of their pocket a couple 
hundred bucks to stay in a nice hotel for 1 month or 2 months. When 
they lose their home, they lose everything, and then when they come 
back, they are told they have to build in a certain way. So this is 
something that affects us all.
  As King said, to quote him again in the letters from the Birmingham 
jail:

       We are all part of an inescapable network of mutuality, 
     tied in a common garment of destiny.

  In America there is no rich destiny and poor destiny. There is no 
Republican destiny and Democratic destiny. There is no Black destiny 
and White destiny. We have one destiny here. But the truth is, in this 
country, the people who are most immediately impacted by this growing 
problem are these vulnerable populations. We have to talk more about 
those folks. They cannot hire lobbyists to come down here. They do not 
represent some industry we give tax breaks to but folks who cannot 
engage in expensive fundraisers. The Senator from New Mexico has a 
State--and again, the goodness you have done to educate me. I hope I 
have done as good a job educating my friend about New Jersey, and he is 
welcome to come to our State.
  Mr. HEINRICH. I am learning everyday, but I am looking forward to 
visiting too.
  Mr. BOOKER. My colleague from New Mexico represents everything from 
Native American peoples to a very diverse State. I am wondering if he 
could talk for a moment about the urgency he sees of this problem for 
the more vulnerable populations who are becoming--the situation they 
are in right now is becoming much more dire and should call to the 
consciousness of our country and should challenge our morality as a 
people, should expand our moral imagination about what we can and 
should do and must do.
  Mr. HEINRICH. I think the Senator has hit the nail on the head when 
he said that those among us with the least economic means often bear 
the highest cost.
  That is certainly true in New Mexico. We have enormous economic 
challenges. We have communities where people cannot afford to get up 
and move because the climate situation changed. We have literally 
cities where wells are dry and there is no water. Reservoirs run dry, 
and there is no water. Las Vegas has come within--Las Vegas and New 
Mexico has come within a month or two, several times now, of their 
reservoir literally going dry. A town such as Magdalena, NM. Their well 
lost water to the town for a number of weeks and they had to come up 
with a plan for how to deal with that and diversify their water supply 
again at huge costs to local residents and the State.
  These are real challenges being borne by people who do not have 
discretionary income to be throwing at these challenges. We have people 
who live a very traditional lifestyle, who are living in these forests. 
When there are wildfires, they are the first to bear the economic brunt 
of that.
  We see the impact drought has had. The Senator mentioned fishing off 
the coast of New Jersey. That is kind of how many of our traditional 
communities view mule deer and elk and wild game that have always 
called New Mexico home. We see direct impacts to our rival population 
when people--when the mule deer population crashes or there is a fire 
that literally you cannot hunt in the same places because this year it 
is closed due to the damage by fire and they are not letting anyone in.
  There are people who rely on that activity to literally get them 
through the winter. Those impacts are always felt by the people who 
have the least need to be in control of that situation, and that is an 
enormous challenge. We

[[Page 4034]]

should do a better job of illustrating some of those stories and making 
sure we make clear what the impacts are to the people who have the 
least means. They cannot stay in a hotel simply because there is an 
extreme weather event on the coast of New Jersey or there is a fire in 
New Mexico.
  There are many of my constituents who could not afford to stay in a 
hotel, and they are the ones bearing the brunt of the challenges. 
Traditional farming communities that used to be able to grow, they are 
cut off from the irrigation season. If they get cut off from water 
halfway to a crop that produces--some sort of production that is not 
like growing grass or alfalfa, but they literally cut off the water 
before their crop comes in, they lose it all. Even if they got to 90 
percent but didn't quite get to where their crop actually produces, 
they can lose it all. It is those kinds of impacts my constituents feel 
when we have some of these extreme weather events.
  Mr. BOOKER. I guess what makes me emotional, I have to say, is I do 
not need to imagine what the future will be like because I have seen it 
in the urban area I have represented for the last 7-plus years. Let me 
go a little bit deeper into what I mean.
  We wanted to do urban gardening. We were told by environmental 
regulators in our State that we couldn't dig into our soil because the 
soil in my city was toxic. Not one of my residents did it, not the 
folks who had been living there for generations. It is toxic because 
folks put things in the soil.
  We have the biggest urban gardening city, Newark, NJ, but they are 
planting in beds above ground. I already talked to you about the air 
quality. This is why so many cities in New Jersey now are working very 
hard--and I am proud--on two items, and one of them is we have epidemic 
asthma rates. Go to urban places around the country and you will see 
that. Now we are separated from the air, separated from the soil. Go to 
your river. It used to be, if you were poor, you could just go to the 
river and get some shellfish. Go fishing, eat a meal. But somebody took 
that away, and now you cannot do that. Now you have to find money and 
see if you can buy something from the store that nature used to provide 
in the safe river. So you are separated from your water. So the 
collateral damage all through the populations, I do not have to see 
what it is going to be, I see it now.
  Mr. HEINRICH. You see it now.
  Mr. BOOKER. There is wisdom in my community. There is still wisdom. 
If you will, allow me to share a story with you.
  I have learned my best lessons in life from some of the humblest 
folks who have this wisdom. There is something about the DNA of human 
beings that knows we have to respect the environment that gives us 
everything. We are a people that used to be an agrarian society.
  In my city there is a gentleman. I talked about this gentleman in the 
State of the City Address once who was living in a high-rise building 
across the street from a lot. It was fenced in by some iron, but the 
iron had given way, so it was full of debris and junk. There were some 
guys who dealt drugs out there. People looked at that as an area you 
just do not go to. This guy got a stimulus check in the mail. You were 
saying before how expensive it is. James Baldwin, the great American 
author, said something about is very expensive to be poor. But I also 
find there are those who have the least who are the most generous to 
others.
  This retired State worker, instead of just saying, great, I got a 
check in the mail--he didn't do that--he said: I am going to use this 
check. So he went and bought a lawnmower, a rake, and gardening 
materials. He went into the lot the drug dealers were using--the 
elderly man goes into the lot and he tended to the earth; cleaned it 
up, mowed the lawn, a little bit every day. He didn't do it all at 
once.
  First, people were worried about it. The drug dealers didn't pay him 
any mind. He tended to the earth. Before he knew it he became a hero in 
his building, not just because that lot became more beautiful than the 
White House lawn down the road but because after he made it look so 
beautiful, what happened to the drug dealers? They left. They left that 
spot.
  I heard about this gentleman. I went to visit him in his building, 
and it was just to me this amazing story of the pride people have, of 
the desire they have to take care of their community.
  Mr. HEINRICH. The amazing thing is that in our conversations we have 
sort of educated each other on these two States that are kind of close 
to each other in the alphabet----
  Mr. BOOKER. Right.
  Mr. HEINRICH. But miles and miles apart. New Jersey has a coastline. 
New Mexico does not have anything resembling an ocean anywhere near us. 
Our States have incredibly different histories and yet so many of the 
same kinds of issues. I think another State that could have a different 
set of issues, yet many of the same threads run through it, is 
obviously the State of Hawaii. Our colleague Senator Schatz of Hawaii 
took it upon himself to help organize this. I have been amazed at the 
things that my home State of New Mexico has in common with the State of 
Hawaii. I wonder if the Senator would maybe spend a little time talking 
about what with regard to his constituents inspires him when the 
Senator sees how they are stepping up and doing what we need to do in 
the Senate, recognizing there is a problem that we as a nation or at 
least in our communities have the potential to solve.
  Mr. BOOKER. Can we pause for station identification in the sense that 
the Senator from Hawaii is really the ringleader, so to speak, in 
bringing us together in almost a 24-hour period. The Senator has done a 
great job of pulling our colleagues together. There have been a little 
more than two dozen Senators who have come to the floor.
  I thank my friend from Hawaii for his extraordinary leadership on 
bringing this issue to the floor. He has spoken so eloquently about 
Hawaii and the impact of the severe weather changes. I am very much 
looking forward to hearing that now.
  I do want to say that right after I turned 17 and got my New Jersey 
driver's license, one of the earliest places where I drove was on a 
trip to Hawaii--the only trip I had ever taken--and I found it to be an 
extraordinary State.
  Mr. HEINRICH. The Senator didn't drive to Hawaii.
  Mr. BOOKER. I did not drive to Hawaii. I thank the Senator from New 
Mexico for that clarification. I appreciate that for the Congressional 
Record.
  I do want to say that Hawaii was a paradise, except that it lacked 
some fundamental things. For one, it lacked a good Jersey diner. In a 
future career, the Senator might want to open a diner. It would be so 
successful there.
  Please, Senator, go ahead.
  (Mr. HEINRICH assumed the Chair.)
  Mr. SCHATZ. I thank the Senator from New Jersey and the Senator from 
New Mexico for such an energetic discussion at this earlier or late 
hour, depending on how you define it. It is nearing bedtime in my home 
State, but for the rest of us across the Nation, many of us are asleep. 
But we are up for climate. The hashtag is up4climate, and we encourage 
you to jump on that hashtag.
  I thank both of the Senators for participating in that discussion.
  I spent a fair amount of time on the Senate floor today talking about 
how serious, how dire, and how real climate change is. But I think it 
is important--and consistent with what Senator Kaine from Virginia and 
Senators Booker and Heinrich have talked about--to talk about the 
opportunity for American leadership in economic and technological 
innovation. There are such incredible opportunities for our country in 
innovation that it is really worth drilling down and talking about the 
details.
  First, let's talk about battery storage. One of the challenges in the 
State of Hawaii is this. We have abundant wind and solar energy. We are 
the most isolated populated place on the planet. We still burn 85 
percent of our energy as low-sulfur fuel oil. In other words, we import 
oil and burn it for electricity, which at this point in time is

[[Page 4035]]

really unheard of and overly expensive. Three to four times the 
national average is what we pay for our electricity. It is really 
hurting us in the pocketbooks, and so we are adopting solar and wind 
and other clean-energy resources as fast as we possibly can.
  The challenge with a grid system that is island by island is this. 
When you need the energy, you need the energy. If the sun is not 
shining, and it is the evening time, or if the wind is not blowing, you 
need either dispatchable power or some other kind of reliable power. 
The breakthroughs with battery storage that are being driven by this 
new clean-energy economy in the State of Hawaii is really 
extraordinary.
  The technicians that have run the utility companies for many years 
used to think that the maximum penetration of renewable energy on to 
the grid--a grid like Hawaii--ought to be around 15 percent. Well, we 
blew through 15 percent in parts of our grid 3 or 4 years ago. There 
are parts of our grid that are in the high 20s to low 30s. We are on 
the leading edge of all of this.
  The good news is that on the utility side--in terms of battery 
storage--the consumer side, and the power-producer side, we are making 
tremendous breakthroughs in battery storage. That brings us to this 
overall question of the smart grid.
  The smart grid means a lot of things to a lot of people. It means 
increasing the resilience of our infrastructure in the case of either a 
manmade or a natural disaster. It means making sure we are not wasting 
energy by curtailing power. What is curtailing power? It basically 
means that sometimes there is clean energy coming onto the grid that 
cannot be used. Because battery storage is still overly expensive, 
there is no way to store that energy.
  Although the wind might be blowing on the island of Maui--sometimes 
the wind is blowing and the turbines are turning, but we can't utilize 
that power because we don't have a smart enough grid. So what we are 
doing is attracting investment from all over the planet to develop a 
smart grid.
  We have a partnership in Maui County and with the State of Hawaii 
with the Hitachi Corporation and the Japanese government. They are 
investing tens of millions of dollars in little Maui County to better 
understand how to integrate large-scale penetration of renewable energy 
into a relatively small grid.
  There is a new area that I am learning about where we are really 
innovating in the State of Hawaii, and that is aerodynamics and 
hydrodynamics. Unlike the Presiding Officer, I do not have a background 
in engineering, but I understand aerodynamics and hydrodynamics in the 
following way: It is basically trying to get things to move through 
water or air as efficiently as possible. This has tremendous 
implications.
  As you can imagine, the Air Force is very interested in aerodynamics 
because fuel costs are really out of control for all branches of the 
service, but in particular in the Air Force and the Navy. The Navy is 
also looking at hydrodynamics to try to figure out how their ships and 
other vessels can move through the water as efficiently as possible, 
and again, not for conservation reasons. It is not because they are so 
interested in the climate, but because they want to save money on fuel. 
So we are making really good progress in aerodynamics and 
hydrodynamics.
  We have a company that has a test case where they think they can 
increase the productivity of a wind turbine by 15 to 25 percent. What 
would that mean? If they can actually prove this technology out, every 
existing wind farm--if they just swapped out the turbines--could be 15 
to 25 percent more productive for the grid. That means no additional 
siting and no additional permitting. If we could simply swap out new 
wind turbines, we could see a massive new increment of clean energy 
onto the grid.
  Solar energy is another area that is exploding all across the 
country. I was talking to somebody who was working in the Capitol 
Rotunda as we were doing a live television show this afternoon. He was 
telling me how he just got solar energy, and that is happening all 
across the country. Solar is just absolutely going crazy in the State 
of Hawaii. With costs of 38 to 40 cents a kilowatt, solar energy makes 
a lot of sense for everybody.
  We are doing utility scale solar, but we are also doing distributed 
solar because people want to get their own savings. They want to 
participate in a clean-energy economy, but speaking practically--this 
is not ideological, this is not political, this is a pocketbook thing--
they are doing the math. These people are not Democrats or Liberals or 
Independents. They don't wake up every morning--like many of us--
thinking about how to solve this problem. They are looking at their own 
bottom line and saying solar makes sense.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. SCHATZ. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Michael Brune, who is the head of the Sierra Club, 
came in to see a number of Senators the other day. He told an 
interesting story that lines up with what Senator Schatz said about how 
solar is a pocketbook issue and not a political issue.
  This story involves Atlanta, GA, which is not exactly a hotbed of 
liberal sentiment. In Atlanta, the cost of solar on a residential 
rooftop--the cost of putting a solar panel on your home--has now 
leveled out with the cost of electricity at the plug in your home. As a 
result, residential installations of solar energy started to boom.
  Now, for economic reasons, the fossil fuel polluters were against 
that, and so the Koch brothers and the polluters got behind this group 
called ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council, which is 
basically a front group for them. They tried to put through a tax on 
rooftop solar installations so that if you put a solar panel on your 
roof, you would get taxed for it because they didn't like the fact that 
solar had actually caught up to polluting fossil fuel power at the 
plug.
  Who came together to fight that tax? The Sierra Club and the tea 
party. The Sierra Club and the tea party worked together to beat that 
tax and to beat ALEC and to beat the Koch brothers and the polluters 
back on that. Again, if you have the Sierra Club and the tea party 
pulling side by side, you know it is not ideology. You know at that 
point it is a pocketbook issue, and that people are starting to see 
savings from putting solar on their own home and they don't want 
anybody to interfere with that. That is a story that is a long way from 
Hawaii, but it helps to illustrate that point.
  Mr. SCHATZ. I thank the Senator. Although the tea party is in the 
State of Hawaii, they are not as strong there as they are in other 
places across the country. We do have a strong strain of conservatives 
across the State of Hawaii who want to get off the grid or at least 
want to participate in the clean-energy economy, and it has to do with 
the very simple fact that we pay 38 cents a kilowatt hour for the 
privilege of burning low-sulfur oil for electricity. That is not a 
left-right issue. That is a ``this makes no sense'' issue.
  We are one of the very few States where we have a good bipartisan 
consensus. We have been moving forward with our clean-energy initiative 
previously under a Republican Governor with the participation of the 
Republicans in our legislature, with our Chamber of Commerce, with our 
business roundtable, with our tourism industry, with our Department of 
Defense. It is exactly what the Senator from Rhode Island has been 
talking about. It is about doing what makes sense rather than 
subscribing to any particular political ideology.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. It is interesting that my friend should mention his 
Chamber of Commerce. In Rhode Island, we too are seeing very active 
participation by our local Chambers of Commerce in green, solar, 
alternative energy, energy efficiency, and other such endeavors. They 
see it is a pocketbook issue. They see it makes sense.
  It is a stark comparison with the so-called U.S. Chamber of 
Commerce--the national organization--which tends to represent the 
multinational corporations which have very little, if any, allegiance 
to this country and the big polluters. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has 
been an absolute menace in

[[Page 4036]]

terms of any responsible dealings with climate change. But as soon as 
you get away from the so-called U.S. Chamber of Commerce--the 
multinational Chamber of Commerce is what it should probably be 
called--and get down to these Chambers of Commerce that are grounded 
with our States, grounded with local businesses, grounded in 
commonsense, you immediately see that they step right up and want to be 
a part of this solution.
  Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we be given 
permission to engage in a colloquy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Booker). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. SCHATZ. One of the things I would like to add is a specific 
technology that is happening that is trying to be developed in the 
State of Hawaii and which is a perfect example of the kind of 
partnership between the clean-energy industry and some of the more 
traditional companies. It is called seawater air conditioning. Even 
with my nonengineering background, I can understand it. It is cold 
water from deep within the ocean that cools air conditioning systems.
  Rather than using electricity to try to cool water and cool air and 
blow it through, you just grab the cold water and put it into the pipes 
and it cools systems. This makes perfect sense for Waikiki and for the 
physical plant of Waikiki as well as our millions and millions of 
visitors and our thousands and thousands of hotel rooms and our 38-cent 
kilowatt costs.
  One of the highest cost drivers--more than labor and more than our 
physical plant--is the cost of energy for the Waikiki hotels. We 
believe that having a private sector company--one that is trying to 
build a seawater air conditioning system which would be environmentally 
conscious--move into Waikiki can literally save 40 percent for all 
Waikiki hotels. This is an extraordinary opportunity.
  The Sheraton and the Royal Hawaiian and the Hilton Hawaiian Village 
and the Queen Kapiolani Hotel, and all of these wonderful hotels, I 
know their GMs, I know the work they do, I know their employees, and 
they are all doing great work. But they are not interested in sea water 
air-conditioning necessarily because of its environmental benefits. 
They are looking to save 40 percent on their electricity bill and that 
it just makes sense. That is what this is all about.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Let me mention one thing. The Senator from Hawaii was 
good enough to mention that our hashtag tonight is up4climate, with the 
``4'' being a numeral, so up numeral 4 climate. There was a remark made 
earlier that we are just going to be up late at night talking to 
ourselves and that nobody is going to be paying attention. The reports 
I have are that the League of Conservation Voters is tracking this with 
a Web site and 70,000 people have gone to their Web site to support us 
in our effort tonight. 350.org has 15,000 people who have gone to their 
Web site to support us. Our own Web site has 40,000 people, for a total 
of 120,000 signatories just on these Web sites. We also have people who 
have been going out on Twitter on this. We have people such as Leader 
Pelosi from the other side of the Capitol. They are locked down hard by 
the polluters over in the House right now. Nevertheless, Leader Pelosi 
wanted her voice to be heard, and so she has tweeted out and put out a 
release about this. OFA has tweeted out about what we are doing 
tonight, and they reach 42 million people.
  So if anybody thinks nobody is listening to what is going on tonight, 
wrong. Millions of people are following this on Twitter, have been 
notified about it on Twitter, and literally over 100,000 people have 
joined these Web sites with more to come, I hope.
  Mr. SCHATZ. I wish to ask the Senator from Rhode Island to give us a 
little bit of context. The Presiding Officer and I are new to the 
Senate. I think it is important to understand tonight in context.
  From my perspective, having 30 Senators on the floor, to take the 
floor for about 15 consecutive hours to speak about one topic, with the 
emphasis, with the clarity, with the unanimity of this group, 28 
Democrats and 2 Independents, is significant. It is historically 
important. But I am wondering whether the Senator from Rhode Island can 
give us a little context and let us know what has happened in the past 
and how he views tonight in the arc of our efforts to take action on 
climate.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I think this is an important turning point, an 
important launch point for the final phase of getting to responsible 
climate legislation. We were so close. We were heartbreakingly close 
when the House passed Waxman-Markey and in the Senate we failed to 
bring up any bill that could have gone to conference. We just failed to 
do it.
  There was a period after that when the White House would barely 
mention climate change. It was deeply discouraging for people across 
the country to see the Senate fail that way and the White House retreat 
that way, but that has changed. The White House is back. The President 
is reengaged. He has announced a very strong climate action plan that 
has as a critical element putting some regulation on the big 
powerplants that are doing so much of the polluting. By the way, when I 
say big powerplants that are doing so much of the polluting, I mean 50 
top polluting powerplants in this country put out more carbon than 
Korea, which is a very industrialized country, put out more carbon than 
Canada. That is just the top 50 polluting powerplants.
  So that was a big shift when the White House did that, and this 
signals a shift that is coming to the Senate. The next big shift we 
need to get to is one where this line in the Senate, marking Democrat 
from Republican, is not such a harsh line on this issue. There is no 
need for it to be. This has in the past been a bipartisan issue.
  Senator Lieberman on our side and Senator Warner on the Republican 
side did one of the early climate bills. This is an issue where 
Republican candidates for President who served here still campaigned 
for President on the issue of climate change. There is a Member on the 
other side of the aisle who was the original cosponsor of a climate fee 
bill. There are Republican Members who when they were in the House 
voted for Waxman-Markey. There are a number of Republican Senators who 
have publicly said they think a carbon tax or a carbon fee is a 
sensible idea or is an idea they would support under the right 
circumstances.
  So there is a great opportunity to reach out to colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle. Once we get past people who are elected 
politically, we see Republicans in abundance supporting doing something 
about climate.
  The Presiding Officer, the distinguished Senator from New Jersey, 
discussed earlier the Republican former EPA Administrators who came 
forward to say: Hey, guys, time to wake up. This is serious. You have 
to be responsible about it.
  George Schultz has campaigned for a carbon fee, to put a proper price 
on carbon so we can deal with this issue. Former Representative Bob 
Inglis is out barnstorming around the country arguing that there should 
be a Republican conservative carbon fee proposal.
  So even though that side of the Senate has been empty all night since 
Senator Inhofe left--and he was here to deny there is a problem--so 
there has been no voice for doing anything responsible about climate 
change all night from that side of the aisle. It has been absolutely 
silent, absolutely empty. But it is closer than it looks when we 
actually look at the history of Members on that side of the aisle, when 
we look at the position of Republicans who are not up for election.
  Mr. SCHATZ. I wish to speak a little bit about how I believe taking 
action on climate is consistent with conservative principles. My 
understanding of conservative principles--and I am a progressive--but 
my understanding of conservative principles is basically that they 
value incrementalism, that they understand the importance of 
institutions, that they try to move slowly where possible, that they 
try not to make radical changes to communities or societies or 
organizations unless it is absolutely necessary. There is no more 
radical change that we could make to our economy, to our physical

[[Page 4037]]

environment, to our communities, to our government than to allow 
climate change to move forward.
  It seems to me what the Senator is saying is exactly right. There are 
plenty of conservatives who are prepared to take action in this area. 
Right now what we need is a Republican dance partner. I think we have 
them. I think there are those who understand and may have quiet 
conversations with us and nod and agree that the situation is getting 
increasingly dire and increasingly real and scientifically based in 
fact, but they don't want to be the first one caught making sense. They 
don't want to be putting themselves at the tip of that spear.
  So one of the reasons we are here tonight is to hopefully galvanize 
the American public to go back to their more reasonable Republican 
Members and say: Remember when you said you would be a middle-of-the-
road Republican. This is the way to demonstrate that you are a middle-
of-the-road Republican. This is the way to demonstrate that you are a 
true moderate.
  When the Department of Defense is saying this is a real strategic 
challenge, this is not the province of the League of Conservation 
Voters anymore. I love them. But listen. This is beyond conservation 
organizations. This is beyond my particular passion for Hawaii's 
environment. This is about the future of the United States of America 
and our economic viability. So there are going to be Republican dance 
partners, but we all as--not just as a Senate but as a country--have to 
create a political environment in which they can operate with us and we 
can get to 60 votes. We don't have those votes right now. But as the 
Senator from Rhode Island said, it always looks more difficult than it 
is, and it is always impossible until you get it done.
  So that is what this is about tonight.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Here is a fairly well-known Republican 
conservationist; indeed, perhaps the greatest conservationist President 
in American history: Theodore Roosevelt, a Republican. He had two very 
important characteristics that there is no reason the Republican Party 
should not be following today; one was he cared about America as a 
physical and spiritual space. It wasn't just about the money. It wasn't 
just about who could make money buying and selling what, who could make 
money extracting this or doing the other. He cared about America as a 
physical and a spiritual place. He would go out and camp in the forests 
with John Muir to get the experience and to embody the value of America 
as a physical and a spiritual space.
  So that was one characteristic that was very important.
  Here is the other one: He was willing to stand up against the big 
money. He was willing to tell the big money, basically: I am against 
you. I am willing to have a fight with you. The fact that you are big 
money is not alone enough for your argument to prevail with me. He went 
after the big trusts and he stuck up for the little guy against the big 
money. There is nothing that says the Republican Party couldn't do that 
again, although right now that is not their situation.
  I mentioned earlier how we had a former Republican Presidential 
candidate who campaigned on climate change, how we have a Republican 
Senator who was a cosponsor of a climate fee bill, how we have a 
Republican Senator who voted for Waxman-Markey when he was in the 
House, how we have Republican Senators who have spoken for a carbon 
fee. All of that happened before 2010. What happened in 2010 that drove 
every Republican back underground on this issue? I will tell my 
colleagues what happened. The U.S. Supreme Court decided a case called 
Citizens United, and the instant they decided Citizens United, the Koch 
brothers and the big polluters put enormous amounts of money into 
elections. They didn't just put the money into elections between 
Republicans and Democrats, they put money into elections between 
Republicans and Republicans. They went into primary elections and they 
went after Republicans who were not consistent with their orthodoxy on 
climate change. Unless you are a denier, they either punish you or 
threaten you.
  Since that time, that is why there has been silence on the Republican 
side. It is not because there is not a tradition of Republicans caring 
about the environment. The Environmental Protection Agency was 
established by a Republican President. Theodore Roosevelt was our 
greatest conservationist. There is a Republican tradition of this. 
There is a Republican tradition of standing up to the big money and 
sticking up for regular people but not since Citizens United, not since 
that baleful decision cast an absolute avalanche of dark money--of 
unlimited money and anonymous money--into the elections. I will speak 
more about that later, but that is what the problem has been. The only 
thing it takes to cure that is for the Republican Party to become more 
worried about the reality of climate change and the opinion of the 
American public than they are about the Koch brothers' millions and 
what is going to be spent against them.
  If the American public makes it clear in the coming months that they 
are tired of Congress being stuck, if the American public decides it is 
time to wake up here in Congress, then the choice becomes inevitable. 
As the Senator from Hawaii said, the dance partners on the Republican 
side have to come off the wall and come back onto the dance floor. 
There is a conservative way to do a carbon fee, as Secretary Schultz 
and Representative Inglis and Reagan's budget officer, Laffer, have all 
come forward to say.
  Mr. SCHATZ. I would just add there is another motivation that I think 
will come to bear among all of our colleagues. Actually, the Presiding 
Officer spoke passionately along these lines, and that is our 
conscience. There is no doubt there are people of good will on both 
sides of the aisle in this Senate and in the House, and what is 
happening to people as a result of climate change pricks everyone's 
conscience.
  I wish to talk a little bit about a small island state that probably 
most people have never heard of. It is called Kiribati. It has become a 
cautionary tale for low-lying places across the Asian Pacific region 
and the world. It is 900 miles south of Hilo. Kiribati's Fanning Atoll 
is the closest land feature to Hawaii, making Kiribati actually way 
closer to Hawaii than to California.
  Put another way, the people of Kiribati are our neighbors. More than 
100,000 people live on 21 of Kiribati's 33 corral islands. Thirty-two 
of those islands are low-lying atolls where most of the population 
lives just 2 meters above sea level.
  The close proximity to the sea is already taking its toll, as rising 
seas contaminate water tables with salt water, denude fertile land, and 
decimate the few island crops the land can support.
  Kiribati's President, Anote Tong, has taken great pains to focus 
attention on his country's plight. His sobering remarks from last 
November are worth recounting. He said:

       The outer island communities have been affected, we have a 
     village which has gone, we have a number of communities where 
     the sea water has broken through into the freshwater pond and 
     is now affecting the food crops.
       That is happening on different islands, it's not an 
     isolated event, serious inundation is being witnessed. These 
     are the realities we are facing, whether they are climate 
     change induced or not.

  If you travel around Kiribati, it is impossible to miss the long 
stretch of seawalls people have built to protect their homes from the 
encroaching sea. Besides the sea level rise, low-lying atolls such as 
Kiribati face risk of being pummeled by the next tempest. Barely above 
the water's edge, places such as Kiribati face the risk of having storm 
surge and sea level rise amplified by the typhoon that roars through 
the Pacific, washing over runways, roads, and homes lying just above 
sea level.
  The risks are even more acute for families living in these Pacific 
island states where, because of the limited space for agricultural and 
commercial development, population density remains extraordinarily 
high.
  Take South Tarawa, the capital of Kiribati, where the population is 
close

[[Page 4038]]

to 5,000 people per square kilometer--one of the most densely populated 
areas on the planet. These densely populated areas make Mother Nature's 
destructive power even more devastating. The cards would appear to be 
stacked against countries like Kiribati, and not surprisingly outside 
observers have been less sanguine about its fate.
  Journalist Jeffrey Goldberg described it this way:

       The apocalypse could come even sooner for Kiribati if 
     violent storms, of the sort that recently destroyed parts of 
     the Philippines, strike its islands.

  He said:

       For all of these reasons, the 103,000 citizens of Kiribati 
     may soon become refugees, perhaps the first mass movement of 
     people fleeing the consequences of global warming rather than 
     war or famine.

  Almost 6,000 nautical miles away, in the Indian Ocean, the Maldives 
face a similar fate to Kiribati. The island state of nearly 400,000 
faces risks of sea level rise and extreme weather events that threaten 
to inundate its communities with swells of storm surge that leave 
families and their loved ones literally underwater.
  In 2009, leaders in the Maldives staged a dramatic demonstration 
ahead of the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, when they 
held a cabinet meeting on the bottom of the ocean floor to foreshadow 
their impending fate if the world failed to act in the face of climate 
change.
  Maldives President Mohamed Nasheed told observers:

       We're now actually trying to send our message, let the 
     world know what is happening, and what will happen to the 
     Maldives if climate change is not checked.
       If the Maldives cannot be saved today we do not feel that 
     there is much of a chance for the rest of the world.

  Leaders spent 30 minutes on the ocean floor that day. When later 
asked about what would happen if the U.N. Climate Change Conference in 
Copenhagen failed to produce an agreement among states, President 
Nasheed simply said: ``We are going to die.''
  In addition to sea level rise, island nations face other immense 
challenges from climate change. Slight changes in ocean temperature 
from increased warming and increased ocean acidity, which scientists 
explain as a consequence of oceans observing more carbon dioxide from 
the atmosphere, disproportionately affect communities living on island 
nations.
  I would like to ask the Senator from Rhode Island to talk a little 
bit about ocean acidification and the impact it is having on fisheries 
in the Northeast. I know it is having a real cultural and economic and 
environmental impact, and I am not totally sure people are fully 
grasping how dangerous this is, not just from an ecological standpoint 
but from a food security standpoint, from a price of food standpoint, 
from the standpoint of jobs and the economy. I am hoping the Senator 
from Rhode Island can elucidate this.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I would love to. But before I do that let me follow 
up on the point Senator Schatz was making because you do not have to go 
to faraway island nations to see people who are being hurt by rising 
sea levels and eroding shorelines. You do not have to go to island 
nations. You can go to Rhode Island and you can see it.
  Here is a photograph of some homes at Roy Carpenter's Beach on the 
south shore coast of Rhode Island in Washington County after Hurricane 
Sandy.
  This is Governor Chafee, former Senator Chafee, who used to serve in 
this body. These homes--I remember speaking to a lady who was with us 
that day, and I do not remember if it was this house in the picture or 
this house that was hers. But she had started coming as a very little 
girl. Her childhood memories were on this beach. This house used to 
have a lawn in front of it. She can remember playing badminton on the 
lawn in front of her house. On the other side of the lawn was a road--
just a dirt road--so cars could come in and out. On the other side of 
the road was a parking lot, where the cars could park, and on the other 
side of the parking lot began the beach.
  She can remember, as many little children who have been to the beach 
can remember, that when that hot Sun beats down on the sand, it gets 
hot, and on the child's little feet that heat can hurt. So she would 
have to run. She would have to run across this long, expansive beach. 
She can remember the distance running across the hot sand until her 
feet got into the cool, sparkling waters of the ocean.
  Those were her memories of a Rhode Island summer: playing on the 
lawn, seeing the cars come to the beach, running across the hot sand to 
the cool water.
  In her lifetime the beach is gone, the parking lot is gone, the road 
is gone, the lawn is gone, and the ocean is tearing out the 
underpinnings of these homes.
  You can go as far away from Rhode Island in the United States as you 
can get on the mainland and where do you end up? Alaska. What do you 
see? A very similar phenomenon of houses falling into the sea. This is 
a town called Shishmaref. It is a little bit different in Alaska as to 
the reasons. It is often because the ice that protects the shore from 
winter storms--because the waves break against the ice and not the 
shore--the ice is not there. The ice has melted away. So now the winter 
storms beat directly against the shore.
  There are villages like Shishmaref that have been at their location 
for as long as the memories and the traditions of the indigenous tribes 
who live there go. For as long as the memory of man runneth in those 
areas, those villages have been there. But now, in a generation, they 
are going.
  We see it in comparisons like this. This was, again, after Sandy. 
Here is a beachfront building at the South Kingstown Town Beach in 
Rhode Island. You can see the ocean right up against it.
  That is what it used to look like not too long ago, as shown in this 
picture, in just 1994. This building is that building now shown in this 
other picture. This walkway is that walkway. As you can see, this 
walkway was broken up by the storm. The ocean has now come to here. The 
entire beach has gone.
  So we see it in Rhode Island, I say to the Senator, as much as we do 
in faraway island kingdoms. But to the Senator's point about 
acidification, the seas are an honest witness. The oceans do not lie. 
You can measure what the oceans are telling us about climate change, 
and they are telling us they are getting warmer. It is not complicated. 
You measure that with a thermometer. They are getting bigger, higher. 
The law of thermal expansion means that when you warm fluids, they 
expand and the seas, therefore, rise. You measure that with, more or 
less, the equivalent of a yardstick. Thermometers and yardsticks--it is 
not complicated. It is undeniable.
  The third piece, as the Senator mentioned, is ocean acidification, 
which everybody who has an aquarium knows how to measure acidity. It is 
a litmus test. You can do it in any laboratory. You do it in school. It 
is not complicated. You can take measurements like that of the ocean 
and you can see it is acidifying.
  It is acidifying for very simple reasons. One-third of the carbon 
that goes into our atmosphere gets absorbed by the oceans. Ninety 
percent of the heat from climate change gets absorbed into the oceans; 
30 percent of the carbon. The oceans bear witness to what is happening, 
and right now, if you look at the rate at which the oceans are 
acidifying, it is happening--here is a graphic on the effects. Where 
does the heat go? Mr. President, 93.4 percent goes into the ocean; 2.3 
percent goes into the atmosphere. The oceans are getting bombarded with 
this heat, and they are also acidifying.
  Mr. SCHATZ. I ask the Senator, what does that mean as a practical 
matter for the fisheries industry, for people who like to eat fish? 
What is the impact of ocean acidification? Because the Senator has, in 
very plain language, explained the science of this.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Yes.
  Mr. SCHATZ. But what does this mean to a regular person?
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. When the carbon is absorbed by the ocean, it makes it 
more acidic; and when the ocean becomes more acidic, it makes it more 
difficult for all the little critters that live in the oceans that have 
a shell to

[[Page 4039]]

make that shell. Because shells are made out of something called 
calcium carbonate, and the calcium carbonate is eaten away by acidic 
waters. So it means a small creature such as a pteropod has a harder 
time making its little shell, so they do not grow as well, and 
ultimately they could be eliminated by acidified waters.
  Who cares about the humble pteropod? Most people have never heard of 
the humble pteropod. I will tell you who cares about the humble 
pteropod. Salmon care about the pteropod. For some species, it is a 
huge part of their diet.
  So if they are not there, then the salmon are in trouble. If the 
salmon are in trouble, the salmon fisherman and the salmon industry are 
in trouble. It really hit home on the west coast of America a few years 
ago when oyster fisheries--on the coast of Washington I think it was, 
but Oregon was hit as well--literally got wiped out when a sudden 
upwelling of Pacific waters that had become heavily acidified washed 
into where the young oysters were being grown. The waters were so 
acidic that the little baby oysters, the little spat, could not grow 
their shells. The water was too acidic for them to grow their shells.
  Again, you can say: Who cares about an oyster? Well, people who grow 
oysters care a lot about them. It is a big industry in a lot of places. 
We are actually rather proud of our Rhode Island oysters.
  Mr. SCHATZ. You should be proud of your Rhode Island oysters. I care 
about oysters.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I will turn it back to you. Because one of the things 
that Hawaii is famous for that we do not have much of in Rhode Island 
is tropical coral reefs. Coral reefs are affected by acidification, by 
runoff, by warming, and they can bleach. When they do, what once was a 
healthy reef, rich with fish, a nursery for all of the species that we 
end up consuming, can end up looking like this, dead remnants of what 
was once living coral. I know Hawaii faces that problem. So why don't I 
turn to you to discuss that.
  Mr. SCHATZ. Well, it is really important to dwell on the question of 
what is happening to our oceans, not just because it is critically 
important but because I think that because it is more difficult to see 
it does not get enough attention. What is happening to our fisheries is 
every bit as drastic, in some cases more drastic, than what is 
happening in our agricultural sector. When there is a drought or when 
there is difficulty in our agricultural sector, it is ably represented 
in the Senate by its able home State Senators. Yet when there is a 
fisheries difficulty, it is more difficult to pin down. It does not 
necessarily become the new story a drought or any difficulty in a 
growing season may create.
  This is something we have to talk about both on the recreational 
fisherman side as well as on the commercial fishing side. I know that 
in a lot of States in the Southeast, in the northeast, on the west 
coast and certainly in Hawaii, people who fish, maybe recreationally, 
maybe for subsistence, or maybe as a commercial venture, it is really 
part and parcel of the culture of the place. It is not purely an 
economic issue, it is something you do with your children and their 
children. It is part of where you live. It is part of what it means to 
be from Hawaii or from Louisiana or from Florida or from Rhode Island. 
This is part of the American experience.
  To the degree and extent we are diminishing that experience, setting 
aside the economics for the moment, that is very significant. I know 
people across the State of Hawaii grew up fishing and treasure that 
opportunity to share what is in the ocean with their families.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. May I tell you story about a Rhode Island fisherman. 
There is a fishing captain, Christopher Brown, who came recently to 
testify before the Environment and Public Works Committee. He has been 
fishing all of his life. He is a real Rhode Island fisherman. He used 
to go out with his dad, who was a Rhode Island fisherman. When he was 
probably 20 years old, he built himself a fishing boat and then went 
out and began fishing on his own. He fished that fishing boat he built 
for 30 years. He is the real deal when it comes to fishing.
  He can remember as a boy fishing offshore with his dad, dragging nets 
behind them, trawlers. Now he goes out to those same waters, and he 
gets completely different fish. He says he pulled up a net full of 
spot. When he was out with his dad, his dad virtually never saw a spot. 
He said now he is catching fish like grouper and tarpon that his dad 
never saw in his life. The waters are changing.
  When you have regulations over what you can and cannot catch that are 
not keeping up with the changing fisheries, it is a nightmare for 
fishermen. So we are going to do our best to update our fisheries laws, 
but the underlying problem is that fisheries that have existed for as 
long as Rhode Island fishermen remember them are changing in 
unprecedented ways.
  I will close. As one fisherman said to me when he came to visit here 
in Washington maybe a year ago, he said something unforgettable. He 
said, ``Sheldon, it's getting weird out there.''
  Mr. SCHATZ. I thank the Senator from Rhode Island.
  I am going to talk about something that I think is astonishing. The 
Senator from New Mexico earlier talked about this, but this is mind-
boggling to me, and it may be a surprise that the Senator from Hawaii 
is talking about this. I have a 10-year-old son and a 6-year-old 
daughter. It has been at least that long since I have been 
snowboarding, but I enjoyed it when I was a lot younger and my knees 
were better. But what is happening to winter recreation is really bad 
news. One source states that roughly 23 million people participate in 
winter sporting activities, adding $12 billion to the economy and 
employing almost 212,000 people. Roughly 20 million Americans over the 
age of 6 ski or snowboard. The industry generates more than $11 billion 
across 38 States.
  You do not have to be a climate scientist to recognize that skiers 
are dependent upon consistent, plentiful snow. You do not have to be an 
economist to realize that ski areas are only sustainable in places with 
plentiful snow and cold weather, aside perhaps from the indoor ski 
slopes in certain places such as Dubai.
  So what does it tell you when you see ski resorts struggling to meet 
their bottom lines due to winters so warm that even with enormous 
artificial snow systems, they cannot keep snow on their mountain? 
Mountains cannot move. They cannot migrate. So when the climate warms, 
ski resorts that depend on them face difficult choices, if they have 
any choice at all.
  According to one study on the impact of climate change on the ski and 
snowboard industry, more than half of all sky resorts in the northeast 
will no longer be viable by 2039. I will repeat that. More than half of 
all ski resorts in the northeast will no longer be viable by 2039.
  Another study of Washington State ski resorts found that almost 13 
percent of the ski areas in the Cascades and fully 61 percent of the 
ski areas in the Olympic mountain range are at risk from the future 
effects of climate change.
  Another study of ski areas in southern Ontario Canada cautioned that 
by the year 2080, with current snow-making technology, the ski season 
will be reduced by anywhere from 11 to 50 percent. Operators of ski 
areas do not have too many ways to adapt. They can move their runs to 
north-facing slopes, landscape trails to reduce the need for snowpack, 
and move to higher altitudes. All of these efforts, however, involve 
massive capital investments. It is difficult to know with certainty if 
these changes are real solutions or just stopgap.
  Of course, skiing and snowboarding are just two examples of outdoor 
recreational activities that are increasingly in peril as a result of 
future climate change. Sportsmen such as hunters and fishers should 
keep a watchful eye on the changing climate as well. We all know that 
Americans in every State love to hunt and fish. In 2011, almost 14 
million people, or 6 percent of the United States population 16 years

[[Page 4040]]

old and older, went hunting. Hunters spent $34 billion on trips, 
equipment, and licenses. More than 33 million people 16 and older 
fished in 2011, spending almost $42 billion on trips, equipment, 
licenses, and other items. As the climate warms, hunters and anglers 
will see decreased opportunities as a result of lower streamflows, 
population declines, and changing migration patterns.
  Organizations such as the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership 
which exist to promote hunting and fishing recognize this trend and 
believe it is in the best interest of the hunting and fishing 
communities to take action on climate change. The organization's 
director, Bill Geer, published a cautionary note in 2012 that is worth 
recounting:

       Contentious or not, climate change is real, and it is 
     already affecting our natural resources, fish and wildlife 
     and outdoor opportunities. At the Theodore Roosevelt 
     Conservation Partnership we aim to educate sportsmen about 
     the effects of climate change and ensure sportsman 
     involvement in mitigation efforts.

  This is another example of conservatives, of independents, of 
progressives, of basically everybody outside of the four corners of the 
U.S. Capitol recognizing that is what is actually happening is actually 
happening. It is only in the four corners of this Capitol that the 
debate rages on, as if we can ignore the facts of the matter. This is 
no longer confined to conservation organizations or people who are 
concerned primarily with biological diversity.
  Look, I am a hiker. I am a surfer. I love Hawaii's natural 
environment, in particular. So that is the origin of my passion for 
this issue. But the way this issue has evolved, it is way beyond any of 
those questions. It is national security; it is economic security; it 
is our ability to grow our own food and catch our own protein; it is 
literally the American way of life that is at stake here.
  I think the reason we have had such great participation last night 
and well into the morning is because there is a growing recognition on 
the left, right, and center that we have got to take action.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. To follow up on Senator Schatz's point in terms of 
the bipartisanship we can hope for here sooner or later, on the skiing 
question and snowboarding question that was raised, the Park City 
Foundation in Utah, which runs all of the Park City resorts, the Park 
City Foundation in Utah predicts an annual local temperature increase 
of 6.8 degrees Fahrenheit by 2075. That would cause a complete loss of 
snowpack in the lower Park City resort area--a complete loss of 
snowpack. The foundation--this Utah foundation--estimates it will 
result in thousands of lost jobs, tens of millions in lost earnings, 
and hundreds of millions in lost economic growth.
  We have to be able to find a way to work with Senators from Utah on 
that. The point that Senator Schatz made about the northeast comes home 
because when you drill down into the report a little further, they say 
the number of economically viable ski locations in New Hampshire and 
Maine will be cut in half; that skiing in New York will be cut by 
three-quarters. I do not know what that does to skiing in New Jersey, 
but I will say that they said there will be no ski areas in Connecticut 
or Massachusetts. They overlooked Rhode Island. They did not mention 
Rhode Island. But I can promise you, knowing geography, if there is no 
ski area that can survive in Connecticut or Massachusetts, then Yawgoo 
Valley in Rhode Island is in trouble. That is our sky slope. So this 
really does hit home.
  I want to mention, the bicameral task force that Henry Waxman and I 
run brought in all of the major sports leagues to talk about how 
climate change is affecting their sports. We had the National 
Basketball Association, we had Major League Baseball, we had the U.S. 
Olympic Committee, we had the National Football League and the National 
Hockey League. They all agreed we need to take action on climate 
change. In particular, the NHL talked about the history of their sport, 
with kids growing up and playing on frozen ponds. Many of those frozen 
ponds do not freeze any longer or they freeze so little that a child 
does not have a chance to learn to skate and develop that skill out on 
the pond. So the NHL has been active. I appreciate that.
  The other point I wanted to mention is a lot of these winter sports 
are part of the Winter Olympics. There was a study done by the 
University of Waterloo that took a look at all of the different 
locations in which there have been Winter Olympics, all of the way up 
to Sochi. The green shows that from 1981 to 2010, all of these 
locations for the Winter Olympics were climate reliable for snow 
conditions.
  Then they run a couple of different scenarios, 2050s with low 
emissions, 2050s with high emission; 2080s with low emissions, 2080s 
with high carbon emissions; and one by one the sites of previous Winter 
Olympics fall away as reasonable sites. If we go to the 2050s low-
emissions scenario, there goes Sochi and there goes Grenoble. If we go 
a little bit further, Vancouver, Squaw Valley, Sarajevo are in trouble. 
When we go to this part of the chart, a number of the sites where we 
have had Winter Olympics are no longer climate suitable for Winter 
Olympics, including Lillehammer, Nagano, Torino, Innsbruck, Oslo, 
Sarajevo, Squaw Valley, Vancouver, Chamonix, Grenoble, and on.
  So the people who are involved in these winter sports know about 
this. One hundred athletes of the Sochi Olympics from 10 different 
nations wrote a letter saying we have to take climate change seriously. 
They particularly focused on the small towns in the mountains where 
skiers and snowboarders train and where the economy is based on 
snowboarding, skiing, and winter sports, and the devastation that would 
happen in those small towns if that economy collapsed because of 
climate change.
  I yield to the Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. SCHATZ. I thank the Senator from Rhode Island.
  I would like to offer a personal story from a young lady in Hawaii 
because I think it is very important to think of this in generational 
terms. Her name is Kara Tanaka, and she is a senior at a school called 
Hanalani. She wrote me a letter, and I will read it into the Record.
  She states:

       Recently, I read that Hawaii is one of two destinations 
     being considered for the World Conservation Congress.
       The International Union for the Conservation of Nature is 
     the organization that convenes this meeting which brings 
     together nations to discuss conservation on a global scale.
       As this meeting has never been held in the US, Hawaii hopes 
     to be selected as the host location. For many reasons, Hawaii 
     is the perfect place to hold this meeting.
       Hawaii is the most remote set of islands in the world and 
     has the most concentrated examples of flora and fauna that 
     are in jeopardy in the United States, our islands could be 
     subjected to rising waters caused by global warming.

  (Mr. Murphy assumed the Chair.)
  Continuing:

       The outer reefs that protect our shores will be in crisis 
     if the current environmental challenges are not addressed and 
     solutions enacted upon.
       I have been blessed in growing up on the north shore of 
     Oahu and have experienced the beautiful scenery of nature 
     which surrounds me.
       As a first generation Japanese American, my 92 year old 
     grandpa loves to tell me stories about spending his youth 
     living on the plantation fields in Mokuleia. During our early 
     morning hikes up Peacock Flats and lunches on the beach, my 
     grandpa enjoys telling me about all the edible plants we walk 
     by and can identify all the animals that we hear and see.
       My grandpa also shares with me the things that are no 
     longer around: dry streams, less wildlife, and lower water 
     levels. Although there may be other factors affecting the 
     environment, I truly believe that climate change is a major 
     reason causing these changes.
       For both my grandpa and me, climate change is real, he sees 
     the changes. It is a very important thing because Hawaii's 
     wildlife is a very sentimental and beautiful part of our 
     life.
       Scientists tell us that the effect of climate change could 
     be catastrophic.
       For example, the rising temperatures will cause loss of 
     habitat, there will be changes in water supply, and it could 
     push certain species to the endangered species list. The 
     animals my grandpa and I look and hear for may soon no longer 
     be there at all.
       In addition, I can't even imagine how it will be like if 
     our coral reefs die from global

[[Page 4041]]

     warming. Beach erosions will multiply rapidly and people's 
     homes will be prone to destruction. Hawaii's beaches could be 
     gone. Not only would this affect Hawaii's beauty, but it 
     would affect Hawaii's economy because of the heavy reliance 
     on tourism. Climate change is real and in need of full 
     attention.
       I have seen many programs for sustainability in my 
     community from the recently built wind turbines by my house 
     to programs in elementary schools, like Aina in the Schools, 
     that have raised the awareness of climate change.
       I believe that there needs to be more research about 
     climate change and its effect on the environment. When I 
     become a parent, I hope I can share the same sounds and 
     sights that my Grandpa has shared with me, to experience 
     wildlife with my children rather than teach them how the 
     environment could have been or was like before.

  Kara's words, spoken from her heart, reflect the deepest feelings of 
her generation, not only in Hawaii but throughout the United States. I 
repeat the most resonant of her thoughts:

       When I become a parent, I hope I can share the same sounds 
     and sights that my Grandpa has shared with me.

  Indeed, Hawaii has a remarkably beautiful environment. Yet I think we 
all agree that throughout our home States, from sea to shining sea, 
there are lands that define who we are and that call upon us to teach 
what is right and to rightfully protect them.
  These thoughts from Kara inspire me. I think they inspire all of us. 
There is a Kara Tanaka in every community who inspires us to take 
action. It is time to wake up. That is why we are up for climate, and 
that is why we are in this fight.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. If I may, let me ask people who are listening to 
think back in time. Think back in time to many years ago when Abraham 
Lincoln was President of the United States, when this room was just 
under construction and soldiers coming down occupied it, camped here, 
camped in the lounge, and actually made fires in the lounge across the 
way to cook their bacon. One could hear cannon fire from the Capitol. 
The Civil War was happening in America.
  When that took place, there was a scientist named John Tyndall who 
delivered a paper that showed that when you added carbon dioxide to the 
atmosphere, it warmed the Earth. That is how long it has been that we 
have known that when you add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, it warms 
the Earth.
  Since that time, we have probably added close on 2,000 gigatons, 
2,000 billion tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. What happens 
when we do that? This goes back to 800,000 BC. That is nearly 1 million 
years. We can see that in the time we have measured here, 800,000 
years, there has been a very clear range of carbon concentration in the 
planet.
  We kicked in around 200,000 years ago as human beings. This is about 
where homo sapiens showed up. So long before there were homo sapiens, 
the Earth stayed between about 170 and 300 parts per million of carbon 
dioxide. For every single year human beings have inhabited this planet, 
we stayed within that window. But then that 2,000 gigatons started to 
kick in, and here it goes, up through 250, up through 300, up through 
350, and for the first time it hit 400 parts per million. So that is 
very real.
  If people are worried about deniers out there, we can't deny 
Tyndall's theory. Nobody denies that when we add carbon dioxide to the 
atmosphere, it has this effect. Nobody denies that we have put roughly 
close on 2,000 gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere since then, and 
nobody denies these measurements. These are measurements. This isn't 
theory; these are measurements.
  It is one thing if the Republican Party wants to be the party that is 
against science. I doubt they want to go so far as to be the party that 
is against measurement, but here we are at 400.
  Sure enough, some strange behavior is showing up, and this shows 
where all the land and ocean temperature anomalies are showing up. If 
we look, starting in 1880 it goes from blue--the cold anomalies--to 
red, and we can see a very distinct line.
  People who look at it say: Well, that is that undeniable climate 
change happening. That is that 400 parts per million. That is the 
increase in carbon dioxide.
  How many people think that? Well, about 14,000 peer-reviewed articles 
think that; 24 reject global warming. That is the little red line if 
you are comparing the two. The blue is the universe of peer-reviewed 
articles on climate change, and that tiny little red line is the 24 out 
of 14,000 who reject climate change.
  I ask my friends on the other side of the aisle, you are betting the 
reputation of the Republican Party on your current de facto premise 
that climate change isn't real? Do you really want to take a 24 out of 
14,000 article bet? Is that the smart place to put the reputation and 
the honor of the Republican Party? I don't think so.
  That is another reason I am confident we can get to a bipartisan 
solution. I don't think it is smart for Republicans to take the 
reputation and honor of their party and bet it on a theory that is 24 
out of 14,000.
  If we look a little bit behind the climate denial operation, we will 
see that it is actually very sketchy. It is very sketchy. A lot of 
these organizations have a tradition of denial. They denied that the 
ozone hole was growing. They denied that tobacco caused cancer. Heck, 
some of them probably even denied that seatbelts made auto travel 
safer. That has been their industry. They have been in the denial 
industry. But that is a dangerous place to be, particularly because the 
oceans don't lie. The oceans tell the story, and they tell it in ways 
we can't deny.
  It is big--what happens in the oceans--because 93 percent of the heat 
goes into the oceans. What do we see? We know perfectly well what 
happens to liquids when they get warmer. That is a law of science. It 
is called the law of thermal expansion. When liquids get bigger--get 
warmer, they get bigger. Sure enough, when the ocean gets bigger, the 
sea level rises.
  Here is a time series showing the sea level rise taking place.
  So we have the principle of carbon dioxide warming the temperature of 
the Earth. We have the addition of the carbon dioxide. We have the 
measurement in the atmosphere of the effect of that addition. We have 
the laws of nature which show what happens when the ocean warms and 
rises. Then we go back out, measure, and we see it coming through 
exactly as predicted.
  By the way, it is 93 percent of the heat, but it is 30 percent of the 
carbon.
  We can go into a regular chemistry lab and we can do the experiment 
of adding carbon dioxide to saltwater and watching its acidification go 
up. Sure enough, we can go to the ocean and do this as well. Again, 
this isn't theory; this is measurement.
  Does the Republican Party want to be the party that doesn't just deny 
science but denies measurement? I don't think so. There is no future in 
that.
  Responsible people who back the Republican Party need to bring their 
party back from the brink of one of the most embarrassing fiascos any 
political party could get itself into.
  Mr. SCHATZ. If I may, the Senator from Rhode Island has elucidated 
the problem with respect to climate change deniers. I wish to read a 
few quotes from Members of Congress, unfortunately. They would be funny 
if they weren't so alarming. These are direct quotes from Members of 
Congress who are denying the reality of climate change.
  The first quote: Is there some thought being given to subsidizing the 
clearing of rain forests in order for some countries to eliminate that 
production of greenhouse gases?
  Second quote: We don't know what those other cycles were caused by in 
the past. It could be dinosaur flatulence, you know, or who knows. 
Global warming is a total fraud, and it is being designed because what 
we have got is you have got----
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. May the record reflect that this is perhaps the first 
reference in the history of the Senate to dinosaur flatulence.
  Mr. SCHATZ. I would hope.
  Global warming is a total fraud, and it is being designed because 
what you

[[Page 4042]]

have got is you have got liberals who get elected at the local levels, 
want State government to do the work and let them make the decisions. 
Then at the State level they want the Federal Government to do it, and 
at the Federal Government they want to create global government to 
control our lives.
  Here is one about global climate change.

       It could just be a shift on the axis.

  I don't even know what that means. And they are a little humorous 
except these are sitting decisionmakers. So it is time to wake up. It 
is time for those folks who are denying the reality of climate change 
to move off of their position, and for those who are quietly agreeing 
with us about the sciences but not stepping forward and showing 
leadership to show leadership.
  Frankly, I think it is time for those of us who have been passionate 
about this issue to work together and to redouble our efforts. But I 
have 20 or 30 pages worth of quite alarming quotes. Again, they would 
be funny if they weren't from sitting decisionmakers who have real 
authority over this question.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. The one we hear the most often right now is: Don't 
worry, climate change has leveled off. Global warming and the 
temperature increases have leveled off.
  Well, as you just saw, 93 percent of the heat goes into the ocean. So 
if you are measuring just the atmosphere, a tiny wobble in the 93-
percent share the oceans take up will make a massive effect in the 
atmosphere.
  But more to the point, if you take a graph, here is the leveling they 
show over the last 15 years. The problem is, if you go back through the 
data, you can show it leveled here, and then it leveled here, and then 
it leveled here, and then it leveled here, and then it leveled here, 
and then it leveled here. There are constant levels in an upward-going 
staircase. If you cherry-pick the data, you can say: OK, it has gotten 
level for that period. But if you really look at the trend of the 
identical data, that is the real trend. That is the actual trendline 
through the data.
  So when somebody comes to you and says: Ignore that trendline; 
instead look at it having gotten flat. And by the way, forget all those 
other times it got flat before. What do you think about somebody who 
makes an argument to you like that. It is a ridiculous argument. It 
ruins the credibility of the person who makes it. How you can believe 
that is astonishing.
  Mr. SCHATZ. I think the Senator is exactly right. In some ways that 
is a more dangerous argument than some of the other denier arguments, 
because it sounds like science. It is not, but it sounds like science.
  But the most recent, and in my view most absurd, and we have now I 
think seen it for three or four winters, is every time there is snow--
and at first I thought it was sort of a little jab, a little rhetorical 
joke--but they are actually saying that because it was snowing last 
week there must not be climate change. That is an argument they are 
relying upon.
  I think because in the face of actual evidence they are now having to 
rely on anecdotes, on the fact that it is icy in Antarctica or there 
was a snowstorm in DC, or it was unseasonably cold for a weekend in 
Georgia or whatever it may be, but to rely on individual anecdotes 
about the weather I think is pretty tough stuff to take and I want to 
make sure we don't let that stand; that the idea you get to look out 
the window and understand what is happening with the climate is a lack 
of understanding about the climate.
  Climate is long-term patterns over large swaths of land or ocean. The 
weather is you get to check it on your iPhone app tomorrow morning. 
That is the weather. It is not the climate. It may or may not be hot or 
cold tomorrow. That doesn't tell you a thing about what is happening to 
climate change. And to the extent someone wants to pick off a day and 
say: Look, it is 32 degrees in Seattle and, therefore, climate change 
is not real, I don't think anybody actually believes that argument. But 
it is important the American public realizes how specious that claim 
is.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Climate science doesn't tell you that every day is 
going to get a tiny little bit warmer. Climate science tells you that 
putting that extra energy into the system will make the weather 
extremes worse, both warmer and colder. So the fact there have been 
cold snaps is actually perfectly consistent with climate science. Not 
only does that argument ignore the difference between weather and 
climate, it also takes advantage of people who haven't drilled into the 
climate science. Because if you knew the least little bit about the 
underlying science, you would know the point made no sense because that 
is exactly what the people who predict global warming predicted would 
happen. If anything, it confirms the argument that people are trying to 
rebut. So it really, really is a dishonest argument.
  Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, may I ask a question of the Senator from 
Rhode Island.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. BOOKER. There are a number of issues here and the first is: Are 
temperatures going up? And for me, the air temperature is increasing. 
We have objective measurements on that. Ocean temperatures are 
increasing. We have objective measurements on that. The ocean is 
becoming more acidic. We have objective measurements of that. Sea 
levels are rising because of the expansion of warming oceans. 
Obviously, that is just basic, basic science we learned in our earlier 
years. The amount of land covered in snow is decreasing in the northern 
hemisphere. We have evidence of that. Glaciers are melting away. There 
is evidence of that. Arctic sea ice is decreasing. We have evidence of 
that. Again, we see in New Jersey evidence of measurements of these 
things happening.
  Scientists at Tufts and Rutgers estimate the New Jersey shore will 
experience a sea level rise of 1.5 feet by 2050. This is based upon 
what is happening right now that they can measure. The projections for 
the New Jersey coast are higher than projected for average sea levels 
that rise globally. The projected sea level rise of 1.5 feet by 2050 
for the New Jersey coast in places such as Atlantic City, if there were 
a 10-year storm--not a 50-year storm or a 100-year storm, but just the 
scale of a storm that, on average, we see every 10 years--flood levels 
from that storm would be worse than any flooding that has ever been 
seen in Atlantic City, even worse than those from Superstorm Sandy.
  The temperature issues in New Jersey are the same as well. In New 
Jersey, the statewide average temperature in 2012 was the highest in 
118 years of recording it. Nine of the ten warmest calendar years on 
record in New Jersey as an objective measurement have occurred since 
1990, and the five warmest years have occurred since 1998. Scientists 
predict that by 2050 summer temperatures in New Jersey will regularly 
surpass the current hottest temperatures on record, making the State 
begin to have more such as that of Alabama. I know Senator Sessions and 
Senator Shelby can tell me a lot about those temperatures, but that is 
not the New Jersey we know.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. We are seeing the same thing in Rhode Island. Indeed, 
Newport, RI, is known for being a summer destination. The first summer 
visitors to Newport, RI, the first people who made it the summer 
capital of the United States were traders from the Carolinas, who 
sailed up the coast with their families to get away from the baking 
fetid heat of the Carolinas and enjoy the cool shores of Narragansett 
Bay.
  Well, what is happening is that due to climate change and the warming 
climate, that very climate those Carolina traders sailed up to Newport, 
RI, to get away from is inching its way up the coast and will soon be 
the climate in Newport, RI.
  Mr. BOOKER. So I guess my question is--first of all, there is no 
denying what is happening. The bait we often get pulled into, by using 
a ridiculous paucity of a study, as compared to the grand total of the 
other studies, is what is causing this. Is it manmade or is this some 
regular fluctuation? But let us hold that in abeyance for a second, 
that question, and just deal with

[[Page 4043]]

what we talked earlier about--the military that deals with the fierce 
urgency of now. Even not dealing with the question of how this issue is 
created, we should be doing things right now to deal with the 
consequences--investments in resiliency and adaptability along our 
coasts. There is so much we should be compromising on both sides of the 
aisle. If they want to argue about what is causing it, that is an 
argument we should take, and I believe we will win, but absent that, 
even if you say these trends are happening, now what are we going to do 
as a country? Nothing or are we going to prepare for that? Isn't there 
a lot of action we can take even before we get to the argument of 
whether this was manmade? Because these are trends that are happening 
and there are things we should be doing about it.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. The Senator knows better than I what is happening in 
New Jersey. You know how hard New York and New Jersey in particular 
were hit by Sandy. You have our sympathies, because we had some Sandy 
damage in Rhode Island but we just caught a glancing blow. The full 
thrust of that hit was on New York and New Jersey, and you guys paid 
the price.
  In the recovery, FEMA and other Federal agencies and your State 
agencies are starting to look at this in a whole new way. They are 
saying: We can't build back the same. The same didn't work last time. 
And by the way, with that sea level rising, the same is probably going 
to not only not be enough for the last time, it is going to be way less 
than is necessary for next time. So the very way in which the U.S. 
Government, the State of New York government, the State of New Jersey 
government, the city of New York government are taking a look at how 
they respond to Sandy and how they recover and how they rebuild for the 
future is a perfect living example of the point my colleague is making. 
For that purpose, it doesn't matter whether this is manmade. The fact 
that it is happening, the fact you can predict it means it would be 
reckless and foolish not to take that into account as you rebuild.
  Mr. BOOKER. Right. So that is sort of the frustrating thing for me. 
We see these challenges mounting up all around us and we still do 
nothing. It reminds me of this crazy story my brother told me when I 
was a young guy. I think originally it was a story from Lou Holtz. You 
will appreciate this, because if you are in it, doing nothing is not an 
option.
  This is a story of a very wealthy man who had no heirs to leave his 
money to. So he lined up a whole bunch of young strapping guys in front 
of his big old Olympic-sized pool with a cover over it and said: OK, 
anybody who can swim across this pool gets my inheritance. You are the 
ones. So all these young men got ready to jump across the pool, and he 
pushed the button, the pool cover opened, and there in the water were 
snakes and alligators and piranhas, and a very mean, vicious-looking 
duck.
  Basically he waited there, and all the men now backed off and didn't 
do anything. He finally had enough of it and said: Aw, shucks, and 
turned around. But just as he walked away, thinking none of those young 
men were going to be up to the challenge, he hears this big splash. He 
turns around and he sees navigating across the pool the youngest of all 
the men--a guy the age of Senator Schatz--navigating through this water 
and battling alligators, pushing back the poisonous snakes, kicking 
back piranhas, dodging that vicious-looking duck, working his way over, 
and heaving himself onto the other end of the pool. He is now bloodied 
and tired and breathing hard, and the man runs over and says: I can't 
believe it, boy. You did it. I can't believe it. You did it. Anything 
you want, it is yours. Anything you want, it is yours.
  The young man looks up at the guy and says: Well, all I want is to 
know who pushed me.
  I asked my brother, after he told me the story, what is the moral of 
the story? He said: Cory, the moral of the story is: If you are in it, 
you don't do nothing. If you have challenges up to your neck, you don't 
do nothing. You keep moving across those challenges.
  So my colleague's point is excellent, that we are at a point in 
America where we see clearly the challenges we are facing, but right 
now, because of a deadlocked legislature, we are not doing that much. 
The cost of inaction we can actually calculate by watching countries 
around us begin to advance the ball down the field in innovation and 
new technologies that can help reduce the dependency on carbon fuels. 
We see vulnerabilities being created from Hawaii to New Jersey, up and 
down the east coast and the west coast that we are not doing anything 
about. Lacking the investments and that kind of resiliency will cost us 
more in the long run.
  The point I am trying to make is, when we hear from the military that 
we need to do work and they are starting to do things to learn how to 
run their planes on biofuels and learn how to better secure property, 
when we hear from people in industries who say we have to be ahead of 
the curve on innovation, ahead of the curve on these new technologies 
other countries are challenging us on, when we hear even on the issue 
of job creation and government responsibility in terms of saving 
taxpayer dollars, retrofitting buildings, lowering energy costs, 
helping people save more money and keep it there--all of these things 
should be enough alone to compel us to act before we even get to the 
debate about what is causing this.
  So what I am asking is, understanding that debate, having been in the 
Senate only for about 4 months, where is the bipartisan work on what is 
factually happening--warming seas, rising sea levels and the obvious 
stuff knowing these challenges are there? Why aren't we doing more as a 
Nation to wake folks up and invest in what we know will make us a 
better, stronger, and safer Nation?
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. The bipartisan work I think is mostly being done at 
the local level--at the level of Governors and mayors, at the level of 
local city councils.
  One example which comes to mind is the City of Miami. Miami is really 
ground zero for climate change. On high-tide days, their streets 
already flood with water which is pushing up through what should be 
ways for water to flow off the streets but comes up into the streets--
saltwater. The freshwater supply is already being inundated by 
saltwater as it pushes through the porous limestone the Miami area is 
built on. They realize they have a real problem. So four county 
governments came together to deal with this. The four counties are led 
two by Democrats and two by Republicans.
  I mentioned earlier we used to have bipartisanship on this issue 
until Citizens United was decided by the Supreme Courts, until all the 
big money came in, until all the dark money came in, until people on 
the Republican side who were willing to speak up about climate change 
were punished and threatened so badly they could no longer do it. The 
Citizens United effect hasn't worked its way down to Governors and 
counties, so they still see the real action.
  I think the Senator as a mayor will also remember there were reality-
based problems to be dealt with--not every day but 10 times a day or 15 
times a day.
  Abraham Lincoln in the movie ``Lincoln'' said: I like to get my 
public opinion bath by having real people in. The Senator got a reality 
bath every day as mayor, and every mayor out there is getting a reality 
bath every day. Here, we don't deal with that. Here, it is different. 
We don't have to live in the same real world. We live in a more 
political world. So people can say things which are, frankly, 
irresponsible, untrue, and get away with it longer. The intimidation 
factor of big money is worse here.
  So where is the bipartisanship? It will be back here. It is 
inevitable. But we know there can be bipartisanship here by looking at 
bipartisanship live and healthy and in action on climate at the 
municipal, State, and county level.
  Mr. BOOKER. I share the Senator's sense of hope about our ability to 
come together as a country, crisis after crisis, generation after 
generation, and we

[[Page 4044]]

come here to do the right thing. I know this from the history my 
parents and grandparents have talked to me about--whether it was 
against an external threat of fascism, and how folks pulled together, 
from victory gardens and conserving, to people who stormed beaches in 
Normandy. I know for the civil rights movement we came together as a 
Nation and overcame those people who were trying to deny equal rights 
and equal opportunity in this country. It is those past victories which 
fuel my hopes about the present.
  We as a Nation have already set limits for arsenic, mercury, lead, 
and other types of pollution. We have already done that and said if a 
private company is going to spew this filth into our climate, they are 
going to have to face limitations and take responsibility for those 
actions. In other words, they are going to have to internalize the 
costs and not externalize them, not put the burden on people. Again, I 
have seen this in countless cities across America where, when we didn't 
do that, people were still paying the price in the money we spent here 
in the Federal Government for brownfield remediation and public tax 
dollars paying for the cleanup of land often in urban spaces which 
other people dirtied up. So it is just common sense not to allow 
polluters to release unlimited amounts of pollutants in the air.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. It is a win. The only thing I would distinguish a 
little bit is the example of the boy who went into the pool filled with 
piranhas and alligators and snakes.
  Mr. BOOKER. Don't forget about the duck.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. And the particularly vicious looking duck. The 
solution on climate is not the equivalent of piranhas, alligators, 
snakes, and a vicious duck. The solution on climate is actually a 
triple win.
  The Senator mentioned the earlier limits on pollutants. We found over 
and over that despite the regular claims by the industry that this was 
going to be the end of civilization as we know it and an economic 
catastrophe would ensue, when we actually look back, people saved money 
because of the harm they were spared. I think the Clean Air Act is $30 
saved for every $1 we had to invest in cleaning up. So the limits 
actually saved money.
  In this case, we will add--as the Senator mentioned before--the 
growth in new industries, the $6 trillion clean-energy industry we want 
to be in rather than trailing behind and buying from China. Finally, if 
we believe in market theory, if we believe markets are the most 
efficient way to make choices, then we have to set up a market which is 
a fair one. This business the Senator mentioned of a business being 
able to externalize its costs by saying, ``That is not my 
responsibility. I don't have to pay for that. I am just going to dump 
it.'' This is no more fair than a New Jersey neighbor or a Hawaii 
neighbor or a Connecticut neighbor or a Rhode Island neighbor, instead 
of cleaning up their lawn, just shoveling their leaves over to the next 
guy's wall. We don't get to do that. We are responsible for cleaning up 
our own lawn when the leaves fall, in the same way these companies that 
are making this mess are responsible for cleaning it up.
  So it is actually a triple win. We have markets which work correctly, 
limits which save money for people in the long run, and the proper 
investment in green industries which are going to grow. So if that is 
alligators, snakes, and piranhas, I think it is the exact opposite. It 
is abundance and opportunity and innovation.
  Mr. BOOKER. Again, the Senator said it. On the local level, dealing 
with the urgencies of the moment, we don't have time to philosophize 
and don't have time for politics. We have to solve problems. The 
Senator's point is something I experienced as a mayor on multiple 
occasions. We got teenagers and trained them in solar panel 
installation. What happened to the buildings? It reduced the costs. 
People saved money. Our surrounding environment actually improved, 
burning less fossil fuels, putting less carbon in the air.
  Every time we attended to our environment, we were able to find win-
wins. We looked at that and said: Let's create multiple farms and 
create more locally-grown food. We found a way to address crime issues 
in our city.
  By the way, there are studies which show cities with more trees and 
plant life and what have you often see some correlations with crime. We 
did it in a different way. We created greenfields, planting food, 
locally-grown produce, able to source it to restaurants over in New 
York across the Hudson River. But what excited me is we created a 
reentry program for men and women coming home from prison.
  So this is the creativity we see in industry and local communities, 
people realizing that this is not an either-or choice, the economy or 
the environment. No. That is a false choice.
  So people who see this as incredibly threatening haven't looked at 
the facts that we can create wins on multiple levels for the United 
States of America. So we can get the win on the economy. We can get the 
win on the environment. We can get the win on the costs being spent. We 
can get the win from being less dependent upon nations who have helped 
destabilize our planet. Then the biggest patriotic win of them all is 
an America that can lead again in this area, that can show the world 
the way to go. Frankly, we can show other countries that are saying: 
Why should I do anything on this issue, we can show a way forward which 
isn't about self-interest. It is about enlightened self-interest, if 
you go the way we are going.
  We heard one of the other Senators talk tonight about what China is 
already seeing in terms of their pollutants and environment and how the 
public is reacting to that. That is one area I might question one more 
time--the hope that somehow bipartisanship will come here. The feeling 
I have is the statistics the Senator was reading about the number of 
people on the Web site is such an important thing for me. Often as I 
look at the history of this institution, change does happen here, but 
often it comes from people demanding it, standing up for it, letting 
their politicians know: I don't care if you are a Republican or a 
Democrat; if you don't get on board with this, you are going to pay for 
it at the polls.
  What gives me hope is it is such common sense that folks are going to 
start putting pressure on this body--just like I have seen on some 
other issues which have come around of recent--pressure on folks to 
say: Hey, you have got to get on board because this is common stuff 
which is going to benefit my neighbor, my community, my school, my 
kids, my country.
  I am hoping those numbers you were revealing show some of that 
energy. I wonder if that is your view.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. The energy is definitely out there. There is no doubt 
about it. Poll after poll shows how strongly Americans feel about 
climate change.
  My favorite one, because it involves Republicans, is a poll taken of 
self-identified Republican voters under the age of 35--young voters, 
the future of the party, the future of the country, the future 
demographic they need to reach out to. When asked what they feel about 
climate denial, 53 percent of young Republican voters described climate 
denial with three words: Ignorant, out of touch or crazy.
  So there are lots of reasons to have confidence. But one reason to 
have confidence is young people in this party view the climate denial 
strategy which we heard here earlier this evening from the one 
Republican who came--they view that theory as ignorant, out of touch or 
crazy. If this is what the young people in their own party think about 
it, that is not a position they can hold. Up against the common sense 
and the reality, up against the force of public opinion, and up against 
the effort of this evening which Senator Schatz has done so much to 
make happen, there shows a new spirit of stirring in the Senate. Then I 
think we win. I think the American people win, more to the point.
  Mr. BOOKER. I will ask one more question and then invite Senator 
Schatz--who has been the catalytic agent in pulling this all together--
to address this idea of a level playing field and free markets, the 
subsidy that is given to oil and coal, and the predictable subsidies 
that have been given to

[[Page 4045]]

oil and coal which have helped fuel the industry, compared to the 
unpredictable subsidies that are given to alternative energy sources 
such as wind, which has led to more disjointed advancements in those 
areas.
  Again, I think of arguments about picking winners and losers. I heard 
a lot about this when I came to Washington. ``Why is Obama picking 
winners and losers?''
  It seems to me this is anti-philosophy of allowing the free market to 
work, because we seem to be favoring--based, I imagine, on very 
powerful lobbies--favoring tax loopholes and tax breaks for certain 
industries and not allowing them for other industries, and the 
industries of the future that would help us to have a more blended all-
of-the-above strategy.
  I know you have a lot of insight into this, which to me flies in the 
face of conservative ideology. It flies in the face of progressive 
ideology. The only ideology that seems to make sense is money interests 
that want to corrupt a free market, corrupt common sense, and corrupt 
what we think should be a unifying force toward moving as a nation 
toward a more sound energy policy.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. If you have two factories working side-by-side and 
one factory is paying attention to making its products and doing the 
best it can and being as efficient as it can and making a great product 
and going out and selling it, and then the factory next to it has 
figured out a way to take a big chunk of its costs and push them off on 
to other people--let's say one factory has to clean up its effluent, 
and the other one just dumps it in the river; let's say one factory has 
to pay for cleanup of its trash and disposal and the other just shovels 
it in the neighbor's yard at night; no matter how that second factory 
is cheating by offloading costs onto other people instead of putting 
them in, you do not have a fair market between those two factories. You 
have one that is playing by the rules, playing by market theory, and 
you have one it cannot compete with because the other one is cheating.
  When fossil fuels dump carbon into our atmosphere and we now know the 
harm it causes, and it comes home to folks at Roy Carpenter's Beach in 
Rhode Island, and people's homes are falling into the water; when it 
comes to storms that smash on the shorefront of New Jersey; when it 
comes to the wildfires and droughts that we heard of tearing through 
New Mexico and Colorado; when it comes to ocean acidification, those 
are real costs to real people, and they have been pushed onto the rest 
of us by those polluters, and it simply isn't fair. It is a violation 
of basic market theory. So, if as the Republican party so often says, 
``We want to be the free market party,'' fine, be the free market 
party, but have it be a fair market. It cannot be a racket of a market. 
It has to be a free and fair market in which the costs of a product are 
in the price of a product. Otherwise it is just picking winners and 
losers.
  Mr. BOOKER. For us then to take the innovators that are trying to 
invest the money and the resources to keep America on the cutting edge 
of alternative fuels to be denied any kind of flexibility, and for the 
Senator illustrating earlier what is happening at a local level as the 
money interests from fossil fuel firms that get involved in 
legislatures that are trying to do things to create a level playing 
field, to me that should be something we should all say no to. It 
should stop completely.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Here are two families. Here are two families who paid 
a price. That wasn't built into the price of fossil fuels, but they 
sure as heck paid it and they just didn't pay it in the wrecked front 
of a building and entirely ruined their little house there. They paid 
it also in the loss of all the memories of all the summers where they 
grew up back when this was their summer home. That is a real price. 
People paid a lot when this happened. And to write that off as if it is 
nothing, and have the polluters just keep going at it--no, that is not 
right.
  I yield the floor.
  Senator Schatz, I know you have some remarks you would like to make, 
and let me take another opportunity to thank you again for your 
leadership in bringing us together.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. SCHATZ. I thank the Senator from Rhode Island and the Senator 
from New Jersey for engaging in such an energetic dialogue about these 
issues.
  Allow me to brag about Hawaii a little bit. I would like to speak 
about the incredible work Hawaii has done in energy transformation. We 
have taken a problem--high energy prices, no in-state fossil fuel 
resources--and turned it into an opportunity to transition the State to 
clean energy. Hawaii, like Alaska and the territories, is 
geographically isolated from the rest of the country. This relative 
isolation presents unique challenges.
  Hawaii has some of the highest energy costs in the country. Our 
energy mix is heavily reliant on oil and our multiple islands mean we 
have multiple electric grids. This challenging picture also presents 
unparalleled opportunity because the high cost of energy makes 
renewables not only competitive but often the low-cost option. We have 
abundant natural resources in solar, wind, geothermal, and ocean 
energy. But that doesn't make a transition to clean energy easy. 
Current policies, entrenched modes of thinking, longstanding business 
models, along with high upfront costs for capital for clean energy mean 
we need to aggressively encourage market transformation using a variety 
of policy tools. Thankfully, farsighted and committed policymakers have 
helped Hawaii to develop and implement some of the most aggressive 
clean energy and efficiency goals in the country.
  This effort began in earnest in 2008 with a unique partnership 
between Hawaii and the U.S. Department of Energy that became the Hawaii 
Clean Energy Initiative. Hawaii Clean Energy Initiative, or HCEI, is a 
partnership between the state, the Federal Government, the not-for-
profit and the private sectors. It helped to lay out a roadmap for 
Hawaii to achieve our aggressive clean energy goals.
  Our job is far from done, but as a result of this effort I am 
optimistic about Hawaii's energy future and our ability to reduce 
carbon pollution. I strongly believe that despite Hawaii's unique 
characteristics, opportunities exist for other States and regions to 
replicate the successes we have had. Already energy regulators and 
policymakers from other parts of the country and the world are coming 
to Hawaii to learn what we are doing. I say that with great 
appreciation for the enormous work others are doing to transition to a 
clean energy future. I do not claim Hawaii has all the answers, but I 
do think we have discovered some of them.
  Let's start with a brief overview of the energy sector. We are the 
most geographically isolated major population center in the world and 
we are also internally separated, with seven different populated 
islands. We are the most oil-dependent State in the Nation.
  In 2010, 75 percent of the State's electricity came from foreign 
petroleum. This reliance leads to both high and volatile energy costs. 
Hawaii's electricity rates are the highest in the Nation at around 37 
to 40 cents per kilowatt hour. This is three times the national average 
and twice as high as Alaska's rate, the country's second highest. 
Hawaii's multiple islands mean multiple grids that all must be managed 
independently.
  Looking forward, the State is considering an undersea transmission 
cable as one of the key possibilities for sharing renewable energy and 
reducing rates throughout the islands. A major consequence of our 
geography is that the best clean energy resources are not located in 
the same places as our demand center.
  Oahu is by far the most populated island with the highest electricity 
demand, with Waikiki and the Pacific Command, and yet technical 
analysis has shown that Oahu may only be able to realistically generate 
30 percent of its own energy. Hawaii has been unable to take advantage 
of the mainland's natural gas, while our State continues to pursue its 
clean energy goals. Various groups have begun to explore

[[Page 4046]]

bringing low-cost LNG to Oahu to further transition away from our 
dependence of low sulphur fuel oil for electricity.
  So back up to 2008 with high energy costs and the desire for greater 
energy security and the pressing need to get serious about reducing 
carbon solutions. It was clear we needed to do something. HCEI was 
founded on a memorandum of understanding signed between the State of 
Hawaii and the U.S. DOE in 2008. This partnership resulted in an 
ambitious plan to reduce energy consumption by 30 percent and increase 
electrical generation from renewables to 40 percent of the total mix by 
the end of 2030. These renewable and efficiency goals are now law. But 
such goals, even enshrined in law, need a suite of policy tools to help 
implement them, and they need the political will to relentlessly see 
them through.
  One of the key policy tools aiding compliance with the State's RPS, 
and especially the efficiency standards, is the decoupling of the 
electric utility's income from fluctuations in sales and revenue. This 
is crucial in a place such as Hawaii where distributed generation is 
playing an important role in meeting our goals. This way we can ensure 
that the utility receives financial incentives for increasing renewable 
production from independent power producers and decreasing total energy 
use. Hawaii's decoupling policy began in 2011 and allowed the State 
utility to be compensated through revenue-balancing rate adjustments 
approved by the PUC. Like many other States, Hawaii supplements Federal 
tax incentives to deploy greater technology such as wind, solar, and 
geothermal. Our incentives create tax incentives for producers at every 
level for commercial and resident.
  In June of last year Hawaii passed legislation to establish a green 
infrastructure financing program. The Green Energy Market 
Securitization Program, which we call GEM, creates an integrative 
financing model that will help low-to-moderate-income households, 
including renters, to take advantage of clean energy improvements and 
energy efficiency. It aims to address the financial barriers of 
investing in and installing energy cost-savings products.
  The heart of the program is an on-bill financing structure backed by 
state issue rate reduction bonds that allow customers to overcome the 
high upfront costs of clean energy products. What does that mean? It 
does this by allowing customers to pay for clean energy investments 
over time via surcharge on their electricity bill. In other words, you 
can simply sign up for clean energy. Some of the savings go to the 
company that is providing you the clean energy, and some of the savings 
go to you, and all of it gets taken care of by the electric utility on 
your bill. On-bill financing is a wave of the future whether it is in 
electricity generation or in energy efficiency. This program will begin 
by targeting distributed solar, but will quickly expand to other 
technologies.
  HCEI also works to promote Hawaii as an attractive place to invest in 
commercial production of clean energy technologies and serve as a test 
bed for demonstrating and proving out cutting-edge ideas and energy 
management practices. Outside groups have looked at Hawaii, especially 
when it comes to smart grid development.
  In May of 2011, Japan-based New Energy and Industrial Technology 
Development Organization, NEITDO, contributed $37 million as a partner 
to our Maui smart grid project. This is a demonstration project to 
reduce peak loads through demand response to integrate intermittent 
energy sources, to incorporate grid scale battery storage technology.
  What does that mean? It means on the island of Maui we have lots and 
lots of wind energy and yet we are lacking in the ability to actually 
utilize all of that energy at the same time. So we are looking at using 
distributed electric vehicles to take that energy off of the grid and 
be stored in electric vehicles. Hitachi Corporation, NEITDO, the U.S. 
DOE, our Natural Energy Lab, they are all very interested in trying to 
figure out how to make our grid more intelligent and more efficient. 
Hawaii's high levels of renewable energy penetration, especially on our 
neighbor islands, make it an excellent place for utilities on the 
mainland to come and observe grid operators manage the grid under 
demanding circumstances. What we are hearing from grid operators across 
the continental United States is they come to Hawaii to understand the 
kinds of pressures their grid is going to be under in 3 to 5 to 7 to 10 
years depending on where they are from.
  Public investment and early-stage technology companies continue to 
play a key role. In September of 2013, the Office of Naval Research 
provided $30 million to support an energy accelerator startup program. 
This program has already invested in projects that are attracting 
private investment including from the local utility. So far it has 
helped 17 energy companies bring their product to market. These 
products have subsequently been able to raise over $38 million in 
follow-on funding. Let's take a quick look at how Hawaii's energy 
sector has fared in the years since HCEI began.
  In 2012 Hawaii reached an important new milestone by generating 
almost 14 percent of its electricity from renewable resources. We are 
close to our stated goal of 15 percent by 2015, which means we are on 
track to reach our interim target of 25 percent by the year 2020.
  In terms of distributed generation--primarily rooftop solar--2012 saw 
installations more than double from over 5,000 in 2011 to more than 
12,000 in 2012. At the end of 2012 the cumulative number of systems 
sold statewide totaled 22,000, with a total capacity of 138 megawatts.
  In energy efficiency, Hawaii had reduced consumption by 14.5 percent 
as of 2012. One of the questions people ask when you make good progress 
in energy efficiency is whether it is simply tracking the economy. In 
other words, generally speaking, when the economy goes down, so does 
energy consumption. But our energy efficiency gains have been made 
whether or not our economy has been growing or shrinking. They have 
been extraordinarily strong over the last 5 years because we have a 
great and aggressive energy conservation program that is really 
groundbreaking. Rapidly improving energy efficiency efforts, along with 
increased renewables, have contributed to decreasing energy costs in 
Hawaii.
  From 2008 to 2012 electricity use has declined while the State GDP 
grew by 9 percent. Hawaii's transformation to a clean energy economy 
has helped to create many of the State's 14,000-plus green jobs. Hawaii 
ranked third in clean energy job growth nationally.
  The implementation of HCEI goals has not come without challenges. One 
of the biggest challenges has been integrating intermittent renewable 
energy sources into our various grids--grids that are often quite small 
in scale.
  Making things even more challenging, much of our renewable energy is 
distributed, which means that our utility companies don't even know 
whether they are coming or going. They have no visibility into what is 
happening with rooftop solar. They are trying to develop technologies 
to understand what is happening with the grid. For example, wind farms 
on Maui were recently forced to spill about 28 percent of their energy 
production due to lack of demand on the island. In other words, 28 
percent of our wind energy was actually wasted.
  Here is a real success story of learning by doing. This fall the Maui 
Electric Company announced recent operational changes to bring that 
number down to 9 percent. That is a huge achievement. We didn't have to 
install any additional wind turbines, but we are now able to use more 
clean energy on the grid because of technological improvements.
  In Hawaii we are particularly concerned with ensuring that every 
citizen can participate in the clean energy economy and benefit from 
the competitive cost of renewables. I am confident that the State's 
GEMS Program will be a groundbreaking State-level policy that will make 
clean energy and efficiency investments available to all.
  Finally, we need to keep the momentum going in the face of a changing

[[Page 4047]]

State legislature, State administration, and evolving Federal 
policies--the latter of which is perhaps the biggest challenge. The 
recent expiration of the production tax credit and a host of energy 
efficiency and biofuel incentives have had a profound effect on 
economics of clean energy technologies. These incentives must be 
renewed, and Congress must and should act to ensure continued growth of 
the clean energy sector.
  I am particularly grateful to the chairman of the Finance Committee 
for joining the task force tonight in calling for action on climate 
change and greatly appreciate his leadership on these issues.
  Many, if not most, States and territories are doing excellent work to 
encourage clean energy, and I am sure Hawaii has a lot to learn from 
those States. But the HCEI model can be an effective tool for States, 
the Federal Government, and for other countries. It is profoundly 
difficult to get all or even some of the interests in the energy sector 
to agree. HCEI, especially at the beginning, provided a forum for 
Hawaii's different groups to come together and find common ground and 
then move forward. At its core, HCEI is designed to be a collaborative 
effort between all citizens of Hawaii to leverage their respective 
strength in achieving a clean energy future. Without the participation 
and cooperation of all of the key players involved and the support of 
the general public, HCEI would not succeed.
  I also can't stress enough the importance of the partnership we have 
with the U.S. DOE. DOE offers a unique ability to act as convener, 
facilitator, and an active, long-term partner in HCEI. DOE continues to 
serve as a conduit between Hawaii and other entities, such as the 
national labs, Federal programs, R&D groups, other Federal agencies, 
and national organizations that support the strategic planning process 
and contribute to the execution of core activities. DOE provides 
assistance to the State for producing technical and economic tools and 
analysis necessary to realize the goals of initiatives as well as the 
implementation of pilot projects. If the States are truly the 
laboratories of democracy, then we in Congress should provide them with 
the tools they need to experiment and innovate.
  The United States faces the same energy and environmental challenges 
as the State of Hawaii. A majority of energy assets in this country are 
ready for retirement or replacement, and decisions made today will have 
lasting impacts. The energy sector faces a wave of new technology, new 
regulations, and rapidly evolving market and business conditions. These 
uncertainties will impact investment decisions, policy formulations, 
and ultimately economic growth.
  We must meet the challenge of climate change head-on. We have more 
frequent and intense extreme weather events, and we need to reduce 
localized pollutants and address the increasing number of cyber and 
physical attacks on our energy infrastructure. These challenges are not 
physically constrained by State boundaries, jurisdictions, or even our 
international borders. Recent blackouts and regional fuel shortages 
have highlighted the interconnected nature of U.S. energy systems, with 
energy disruptions starting in one State and extending to neighboring 
States and regions. This fundamental property of U.S. energy systems 
means that preparing for uncertainty and threats in a robust and 
effective manner will require regional and national strategies and 
plans if we are going to successfully address the challenges we face in 
the coming years.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). I welcome and recognize the 
Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I would like to offer my grateful thanks 
to the Presiding Officer and Senator Schatz and Senator Boxer, who I 
know was down here earlier. All of you are true heroes, as well as some 
of our other colleagues who have manned the quiet hours of the 
overnight. I know Senator Heinrich and Senator Booker spent long hours 
on the floor arguing with great voracity and passion about the cause 
that brings us here today. I am humbled to pick up where many of my 
friends have left off and thankful for the bringing of all of us here 
today.
  In thinking about this event and thinking about how to frame this 
debate, I asked some of my friends in Connecticut how they were 
thinking about this issue of climate change. I received a number of 
different responses--one that maybe didn't actually stand out but was 
emblematic about the way my State of Connecticut thinks about climate 
change--a State that has most of its population right along the 
shoreline.
  All of our economic assets essentially buffer the State from the 
rising coastal levels. Our State has now gone through--as the Presiding 
Officer's has--four record and once-in-a-lifetime storms in a period of 
a handful of years. This is a State that has been called to action.
  A rabbi in the greater New Haven area wrote me a very simple note. He 
became an activist on the issue of climate change after Superstorm 
Sandy. Senator Booker was down here, and clearly his State was hit with 
the worst of it, but Connecticut was hit hard too. We were hit hard in 
a physical sense and economic sense, but we were also hit hard in a 
psychological sense. A lot of people who believed in climate change in 
Connecticut decided to stand up and do something about it when Sandy 
hit.
  Rabbi Ratner remembers that night when Sandy hit. He said: The winds 
were so ferocious that my family feared our house would be torn apart 
by the trees on our property. My wife and I grabbed our three little 
children and we brought them into our room for safety. Throughout that 
long night we huddled together, blocking the windows and praying that 
we would make it through. The experience and the sense of paralysis and 
powerlessness reverberated with me and my family for a long time. As a 
parent, it is not something I am content to let happen again and again.
  This rabbi has become an activist on the issue of climate. For him, 
it comes from this experience of that evening in Connecticut.
  I don't live in the extreme coastal parts of Connecticut, but I 
remember that after the lights had gone out that night, the only 
connection I still had to what was happening along the coastline, as 
the worst of that storm came in--predicted to be at the level of 
historic tidal high tides along the Connecticut shoreline--was my 
smartphone. I was trying to keep up via Twitter as to what was 
happening in places such as Greenwich, Bridgeport, and Norwalk. What I 
started to see in the moments before I finally lost battery power was 
what appeared to be a coming apocalypse. Thanks to lucky coincidence, 
the worst-case scenario did not happen. In fact, in Connecticut the 
historic high tide and the worst of the surge did not actually hit at 
the same moment as predicted. Lives were spared, and the economic costs 
were only in the hundreds of millions of dollars rather than in the 
tens of billions of dollars.
  But for Rabbi Ratner and thousands of others in Connecticut, this was 
the last straw. This was another once-in-a-lifetime storm happening 
once again and putting their families, their communities, and our 
economy at risk. What Rabbi Ratner talks about is this sense of 
paralysis he felt that night. There is a sense of powerlessness as you 
are huddled and holding your children in your home wondering if the 
walls will still stand up to yet another historic storm as a 
consequence of changing climate. And what the rabbi figured out is that 
he actually was not powerless. That night all he could do was really 
hunker down and hope they would survive, but the next morning he could 
go out and do something about it.
  The problem is that moment is fleeting. There are only so many hours 
left before the trendlines that have developed--shown so well by 
Senator Whitehouse in chart after chart--are very hard to turn around. 
If I have some time later on, I will talk about some of the most 
insidious trendlines that come not from carbon dioxide emissions but 
from what we call fast-acting

[[Page 4048]]

pollutants, such as methane, HFCs, and black carbon. Once they get into 
the air, it is very hard to turn back around.
  You are kind of reminded about the parable of the boiling frog. If 
you put a frog into a pot of boiling water, he will jump right out, but 
if you put him into a pot of cold water and you just gradually turn up 
the temperature, he will die because he won't recognize over the course 
of those minutes that the water is heating up to an intensity that he 
can't survive.
  There are only a handful of moments when that frog can choose to jump 
out before the die is cast because his future is written and his death 
is guaranteed. That is the moment we are in. We can sort of sit back 
and say: Well, it does not seem half bad today. Now we have these 
storms that are bigger, and crops are vanishing, and species seem to be 
migrating, but, you know, the water around us is not boiling yet. We 
only have a matter of minutes for the frog to jump out before it is too 
late. We are in that period of time in which if we do not make some 
decisions, pollutants will be so locked into the atmosphere, and the 
trend lines will be heading so clearly in one way, that there is no way 
to turn around.
  But this is the moment, as Rabbi Ratner shows, where we have power to 
do something. I do not want to overstate this analogy because there is 
no reason to equate anyone with the heroism of people like John Lewis 
and Eleanor Holmes Norton. But I went with them this past weekend down 
to Mississippi and Alabama to commemorate what is this year the 49th 
anniversary of the Selma march that resulted in Bloody Sunday, that 
eventually inspired LBJ to introduce the 1965 Civil Rights Act, what 
many people see as a fulcrum point in the civil rights movement.
  Of course, the idea that had been perpetuated upon African Americans 
in the South was an idea that, one, it is not that bad. Yes, you have 
to go to separate facilities, and, yes, your schools are not the same 
as our schools, but we treat you really nice, and we still allow you to 
drink from the water fountain, just not our water fountain. We still 
allow you to go to schools, just not the same schools as we do. And 
there is the sense of powerlessness, that you really cannot do anything 
about it.
  As we recreated this march across the Edmund Pettus Bridge with 
Congressman Lewis, I got the chance to march next to one of the foot 
soldiers in the civil rights movement. Searese Crawford was not a 
figure that made any headlines, and Searese is not anybody that you 
will find if you Google her name in the civil rights movement. But 
Searese has a story to tell. She was there in Birmingham when the hoses 
mowed down hundreds of protesters and the dogs were let out to chew up 
the ankles and knees and legs of those who dared to confront the white 
power structure. She went to jail at 18 years old for 5 days, which has 
to be a harrowing affair, and then she marched on Washington at 19 
years old, traveling all the way up here to be a part of that moment.
  I asked her, I said: Searese, why did you do it?
  She kind of looked at me with a funny look on her face as if it was a 
silly question. She said: Well, who else was going to do it?
  I said: So all of your friends did it?
  She said: No, none of my other friends did it.
  I said: Did you tell your parents?
  She said: No, I didn't tell my parents. I just did it because I knew 
it was the right thing to do.
  She knew that the situation was not OK. She knew that she was not 
powerless, that she could do something about it. That is why I feel 
inspired tonight to be down here with all of the other Senators--not 
because I am trying to equate this small act of civil disobedience with 
those of the civil rights movement, but because this is an attempt, as 
the presiding officer has said over and over in his soliloquies on the 
Senate floor, to wake up to this issue and to the idea that what is 
happening today is real, that it is almost irreversible, and that we 
are not powerless to do something about it.
  So I want to talk for just a little while this morning about my State 
of Connecticut, which as I mentioned is particularly impacted by 
climate change. I want to talk a little bit about that dual discussion, 
about how we recognize that this is a real problem, not one that can be 
papered over by the oil companies and by the fossil fuel companies and 
by the Koch brothers and everyone else who would try to perpetuate this 
mythology across this country that we do not have to pay attention to 
the issue of climate change, not unlike the white power structure in 
the South perpetuated the mythology that African Americans really did 
not have to worry about the way in which they were being treated. Then 
I also wish to talk a little bit about the path forward and how hopeful 
it is.
  I thought the presiding officer's comments were spot-on--in response 
to a very apt parable and story from Senator Booker--in which the 
presiding officer sort of challenged this idea that there is really any 
danger in lurching into all of the things necessary to fix the problem 
of climate change.
  In fact, there is enormous opportunity, not just moral opportunity 
because we are doing the right thing. That is, of course, probably our 
first charge as Members of the most powerful legislative body in the 
world, but also there is enormous economic potential in the ability for 
this country to capture literally millions of jobs that some nation 
across the world is going to have as we try to combat climate change.
  So let me first tell you about what climate change means to us in 
Connecticut. Here is an example of what it means to the Nation as well 
through the lens of one company in Connecticut, and that is Electric 
Boat. Electric Boat is a company that employs a lot of folks in both 
the presiding officer's State and my State. For those of you who do not 
know what Electric Boat does, they make submarines. They, along with a 
company in Virginia, make every single submarine that goes out across 
this world in order to protect the people of this country. There is 
maybe no more important defense asset to the United States today than 
the submarines which provide a multisystemic platform with which to 
protect this country. We do reconnaissance and surveillance off of 
them. We use them in times of war to launch attacks to defend our 
homeland, for charting the maneuvers and operation of other navies 
across the world.
  The reality is that you cannot make submarines inland. It probably 
goes without saying, but you have to make submarines right next to the 
water because these suckers are big. When you finish making them, you 
have to deliver them right into the water. So we make them in Groton, 
CT. Since the inception the submarine building program in Groton, we 
have lost 100 feet of coastline in Groton at Electric Boat.
  Now, 100 feet of coastline, that is a lot of coastline anywhere. But 
maybe you can manage that if you are in a residential area or in an 
area of marshland; maybe you can figure out ways to adjust. But when 
you have a multibillion dollar presence sitting right on the water, 
when you have literally hundreds of millions of dollars of machinery 
and equipment and training resources right on Long Island Sound, the 
loss of 100 feet of coastline jeopardizes the ability to make 
submarines.
  With sea levels rising at 4 millimeters a year, it is not long before 
the entirety of our submarine building industry is compromised by 
rising sea levels. Every day, Electric Boat, a for-profit private 
company that protects this Nation, is thinking about ways to try to 
force the water back out of their facility so that they can continue to 
make boats that protect this country.
  I know the presiding officer has talked already about the effect on 
local agriculture. People do not think about Connecticut as an ag 
State, but we are. We have already seen the impact of these changing 
climates on Connecticut. I will just give one example. Cranberry Hill 
Farm is a specialty crop producer in Ashford, CT. They produce heirloom 
vegetables. They produce heritage breeds of chickens. They produce a 
lot of firewood for the community, and they produce maple syrup.

[[Page 4049]]

  The owner of Cranberry Hill Farm is adapting to managing a farm in a 
wildly unpredictable climate. In April of 2012, Connecticut faced a 90-
degree heat wave for a week. We are used to heat waves in the 
Northeast, but we are certainly not used to the number of extended 
periods of high-level temperatures that we are having today as a result 
of climate change. So this heat wave caused the strawberry crop at 
Cranberry Hill to bloom early. Then, when the temperatures dropped back 
down to average-April levels, the strawberry crop did not survive. 
Strawberry crops cannot survive a 90-degree heat wave in April. They 
are not built for that. So Cranberry Hill Farm lost the entirety of 
their strawberry crop for that season.
  I wish that was the exception to the rule. But that story can be 
repeated over and over across Connecticut. Farmers, especially small 
farmers in Connecticut, that is what we have. We have a lot of farmers. 
We have a growing number of farms, frankly. We have more and more 
people going into farming. But they farm pretty small plots of land, 
and they cannot be, with small acreage, terribly diversified. So when a 
farm like Cranberry Hill loses a strawberry crop, that jeopardizes 
their whole operation. There just is not the resiliency in New England 
farming because of the small size and limited scope that you may not 
have in other places.
  But at least when it comes to something like strawberries or other 
specialty crops, they can hope that they are going to be able to do 
better next year. But for their maple syrup operations, which is a big 
deal in Connecticut and across the Northeast, the prospects are pretty 
seriously dire. As Connecticut summers get hotter and they got longer, 
what we are seeing is a receding sugar bush tree line. The sugar bush 
is a temperate tree and the hot summers are driving those trees farther 
northward. So with record-breaking heat waves hitting my State every 
single summer, Connecticut's maple syrup industry may not survive at 
all.
  In Connecticut, that is a big deal. That is an industry that employs 
a lot of people. I just personally would panic if I did not have my 
Connecticut maple syrup. But what we have seen is that the hotter 
temperatures are moving industries further north. Senator King maybe 
told this story earlier tonight if he was on the floor. I have heard 
him tell it before. He talks about the temporary benefit that Maine has 
received because our Nation's lobsters are moving.
  As the temperature of the water on the Atlantic coastline grows 
hotter and hotter, the lobsters are pretty quickly figuring that out. 
They are not as dumb as you may think. They are retreating north. So 
for the time being, Maine is having a bounty because they have all of 
Connecticut's lobsters. That, however, has been disastrous for States 
like ours. In places like Connecticut and Rhode Island, we have seen 
the wholesale evisceration of the fishing industry, especially those 
lobstermen in Connecticut who were once a defining feature of our 
landscape and of our economy.
  They had to move or just shut down operations because the temperature 
of the water, in part, is forcing the lobsters to move to a different 
place. So whether it is maple syrup or strawberries or lobsters, 
Connecticut's maritime industry and our agricultural sector have 
already been fundamentally transformed.
  Let's talk about two other things that really matter to us in 
Connecticut. I heard the presiding officer reference one of these 
subjects a little bit earlier. We have a pretty big tourist industry in 
Connecticut. One of the reasons for that is that over the course of the 
fall, we get hundreds of thousands of people, certainly at least tens 
of thousands of people, who drive through the beautiful stretches of 
northwestern Connecticut and eastern Connecticut in which the fall 
foliage just lights up New England like a Christmas tree.
  Those tourists bring with them to Connecticut their wallets, their 
pocketbooks, and they deposit a little bit of money with us in what we 
colloquially will call leaf-peeping season. It is a big deal to our 
State.
  Climate change is having today and will continue to have an effect on 
fall foliage. For a lot of people that sounds like maybe a small, minor 
consequence, that leaves in Connecticut will look a different color, 
but in Connecticut it is a big part of our fall industry.
  Climate change is making our summers much hotter, making there be 
more 90-degree days and this, in turn, will affect these brilliant fall 
colors on the trees. Many of those trees will migrate north or die out, 
and the timing of that transition from summer to fall fundamentally 
changes in a lot of ways. Many of these tree species which present the 
most vibrant colors may completely be gone.
  Skiing is another industry that matters to us in Connecticut. We 
don't have the big mountains Vermont and New Hampshire and Maine have, 
and I know our friends out in the Midwest don't even accept what we 
have to offer in the northeast qualifies as big mountains, but in New 
England, of course, skiing is a very big deal and it is a major 
industry. We are having trouble, as we speak, keeping Connecticut 
slopes open.
  We have had one, I guess it is a hill--not a mountain--that brings in 
millions of dollars to Connecticut's economy called Powder Ridge not 
far from my home in Cheshire, CT. It has been an off-and-on prospect 
with families and operators starting it up, stopping it, starting it up 
and stopping it, because they are on a year-to-year lifeline due to the 
fact that there is less snow and less people coming onto the slopes.
  Estimates suggest that over the course of the next half a century, 
the skiing industry is likely to vanish in Connecticut.
  This is a multimillion dollar industry in places such as Ski Sundown, 
Mohawk Mountain, and others that are in small towns in places such as 
northwestern Connecticut. Those small-town economies will essentially 
collapse if they don't have the central organizing principle of their 
winters, which are the ski mountain, the ski lodge, and the thousands 
of families who come from all over Connecticut and all over New England 
to ski there. Our ski industry in Connecticut already is in jeopardy, 
but it is going to get worse if we don't do something about it.
  Maybe what is scariest, though, is what is happening with these 
storms along the coastline. I mentioned this a little bit in the story 
of the rabbi who sheltered his family, but we are not unlike most other 
States across the Atlantic in that we were initially, as a State, a 
maritime community, so we built up our State along our waterways. To 
us, that was essentially Long Island Sound and the Connecticut River. 
Today, if you track development, it has migrated outside of those 
corridors. It is still basically centralized along the Connecticut 
River, which now is not coincidental to Interstate 95 and the Long 
Island Sound which is not coincidental to both Interstate 95 and the 
Amtrak line.
  What is most troubling is the fact that these storms attacking us 
with increasing ferocity and severity are no longer a nuisance. They 
present a catastrophic potential for Connecticut's entire economy.
  I will give us one example of how close we came during Superstorm 
Sandy to an absolutely economy-ravaging disruption of our rail lines. 
The Amtrak line runs down Connecticut's coastline. If we take a little 
kayak down across the Long Island Sound--which I will do virtually 
every summer--there are long stretches of that kayak ride in which we 
can see the Amtrak line lying literally on top of the wetlands that 
shelter the land from the sea or within just a handful of yards. Now 
whether that was a smart decision, in retrospect, I can't tell you. But 
we built up our main rail line, which provides billions of dollars of 
economic benefit to the entirety of the Northeast corridor in 
Connecticut right on the shoreline. This is a line that obviously 
millions of Connecticut consumers use but connects Boston to New York 
and to Washington, DC. It is the vital life link between some of the

[[Page 4050]]

biggest economic centers in the entire world.
  When Superstorm Sandy hit, it completely obliterated a sand dune near 
Rocky Neck State Park that essentially took the bullet for a rail 
bridge that was just feet behind it. We were fortunate at this sort of 
point of exposure to have an enormous sand dune that was standing right 
next to the rail bridge. All of our ecologists and all of our disaster 
experts tell us that if that sand dune wasn't there, then that bridge 
would have been obliterated.
  If you lose just a stretch of track, you can probably rebuild that in 
a handful of days or weeks. But if you lose a bridge along the Amtrak 
line, that is a disruption that will likely take you months to recover 
from. That is a disruption that will be, as I said, catastrophic to the 
entire northeastern corridor. If you lose the ability to move people by 
rail from New York to Boston, that kills thousands, tens of thousands, 
of jobs. If you can no longer take a train from Rhode Island to 
Washington, DC, that eliminates commerce. That kills jobs.
  That sand dune is gone. So if there is another storm, then all that 
is left to protect the rest of Connecticut from that storm surge is 
that rail bridge, and it is likely to come down.
  We are going to do the hard work of rebuilding that sand dune, but 
that is not the only place along the Connecticut shoreline in which the 
Amtrak line is in harm's way. As we talk on the floor about the rising 
sea level tides we have, it is just a matter of time before there is no 
sand dune that is big enough to withstand the storm surge that will hit 
the Amtrak line and knock it out of service potentially for weeks and 
for months.
  Our beaches are part of our economy as well. The estimate with 
respect to Hammonasset Beach State Park--which is a beautiful beach 
that tens of thousands of Connecticut residents go to--but people from 
all across the country and all across the world flock to every year--
frankly, I am lucky enough to spend a good part of my summer down on 
the Connecticut shoreline. My family has had a little beach house in 
Old Lyme that I get to go to, which is essentially right next to the 
Hammonasset Beach State Park. I can't tell the number of license plates 
we see from Canada, Quebec, and Ontario, that are coming down to spend 
their summers on the Connecticut beaches. They rent a little house or 
they park their RV or they camp out on the campground surrounding both 
Rocky Neck State Park and Hammonasset Beach State Park. They spend 
thousands of dollars, each family, over the course of August or the 
several weeks that they come down in the local part of the economy. So 
much of that part of the State is built up over beach tourism that 
comes into Hammonasset Beach State Park and to Rocky Neck State Park.
  The Department of Energy & Environmental Protection tells us that by 
the end of this century--and it could come faster if the worst-case 
scenarios come true--Hammonasset Beach State Park will be gone. It just 
won't exist any longer. The scope of the tides and the water will be 
such that our economy-driving, dollar-generating State park--which is a 
beautiful place to go and which brings joy to thousands of families--
will not exist any longer.
  While I don't have the estimate for Rocky Neck, I know the geography 
and it would suggest to me that if Hammonasset is going to be gone by 
the end of this century, then Rocky Neck is probably not far behind.
  The insurance industry is not located along our shorelines, but it 
employs thousands of people. We are the insurance State, Hartford, CT. 
We are the insurance capital of the world. If our friends on the 
Republican side of the aisle don't believe the scientists, then 
hopefully they may believe the market. Our Republican friends tell us 
that they take their cues from the private market. The private market 
is very quickly having to adjust to the reality of climate change 
because, as storm after storm hits the northeast and as storms ravage 
the gulf coast and more severe weather--often in the form of tornados--
hits the Midwest, it is the insurance companies that in most cases ride 
to the rescue. They ride to the rescue with billions of dollars that 
they have to pay out. The only way they adjust is by raising premiums 
on all the rest of us. Companies such as Travelers and The Hartford, 
some of the biggest property casualty insurers in the world, which are 
headquartered in Hartford, CT, will tell us their models are 
fundamentally changing because they know climate change to be a 
reality.
  They aren't budgeting premiums in the future on the belief that these 
are just freak temporary occurrences. The biggest insurance companies 
in the country--indeed, in the world--are making economic decisions 
based upon their rock-solid belief that the 99 percent of climate 
scientists that are referred to on the floor are telling the truth. So 
rates are increasing. The exposure for Connecticut's insurance industry 
is expanding.
  I think about the expansion of flood plain zones. Today, about 11 
percent of New York City is in a flood-risk zone. Within the next 
several decades, the estimates from the insurance industry are that 34 
percent of New York City is going to be in flood-risk zones. If you are 
in one of these zones, you obviously pay a severe premium when it comes 
to your insurance cost. Now while maybe in some way, shape, or form I 
am glad that part of that money will migrate to Connecticut's insurance 
companies, it gets sucked out of millions of businesses all across this 
country. They are having to pay the insurance premiums because the 
insurance companies are planning on climate change.
  The insurance companies are planning on this body doing absolutely 
nothing about it, resulting in billions of dollars more in premiums 
from small companies, big companies, mom-and-pop stores, and homeowners 
all across this country.
  We are going to become a sicker State as well, and that comes with 
costs too. Lyme disease--named after a particularly beautiful part of 
the world, Lyme, CT, and Old Lyme, CT--absolutely ravages tens of 
thousands of people in Connecticut. If someone knows anyone with Lyme 
disease, they know how insidious a disease it is because it initially 
presents with systems that are a little hard to detect that are masked 
by other illnesses. It is still sometimes very troublesome and tricky 
to treat. Often antibiotic treatments will zap Lyme disease within the 
first couple of days or months, but there are people across the State 
of Connecticut with what we refer to as chronic Lyme disease and who 
don't respond to antibiotic treatment. It is life changing. It really 
is life changing and it forces many people to be bedridden, out of the 
workforce, and living fundamentally different lives than they had 
planned.
  With warmer and wetter conditions in Connecticut, our epidemiologists 
and our disease scientists tell us we are going to see an increase in 
the deer tick. We are going to see, as we have already, an increase in 
the diagnosis of Lyme disease. And the mosquito-borne diseases, such as 
eastern equine encephalitis virus, along with Nile virus, which impacts 
people but also livestock--horses--and wild birds, are going to become 
more prevalent as well.
  As you sort of figure out what the consequence of this is, the story 
just gets worse and worse. So as you have wetter and warmer conditions, 
as we have today, and the mosquitoes and the deer ticks start to 
infest, especially in our coastal areas, then you have to engage in 
mosquito-control measures, and that historically has involved draining 
or ditching wetlands, which has enormous environmental consequences for 
those areas. That further erodes a lot of our maritime industries that 
depend in part on those wetlands staying healthy and happy.
  The other way you deal with mosquitoes is you spray aerially. After 
decades of bad history with pesticides and aerial spraying, we know how 
careful you have to be about that. The reality is that you are going to 
see a mist floating down on tens of thousands of homes and 
neighborhoods and kids as we try to stamp out the increasing numbers of 
mosquitoes that come to

[[Page 4051]]

places such as Connecticut as climate change guarantees warmer and 
wetter climates.
  So we lose jobs, we increase costs, we see entire industries 
evaporate from Connecticut, and we become a more expensive and a sicker 
place. But the folks I got to spend some time with this last weekend in 
places such as Selma and Jackson, and tiny little towns in the 
Mississippi Delta, such as Money and Ruleville, saw a better day. They 
saw the ability to change their circumstances.
  On the other side of that fight an epic battle that, not unlike the 
fight we have here today, combined individual decisions people had to 
make to change their lives and the way they treated people, small 
testaments of courage by people such as Sarah C. Crawford, but it also 
involved a fight here in the Senate that eventually culminated in the 
Civil Rights Act. They recognized that the path to justice for African 
Americans didn't actually come with much pain at all, that the path to 
economic and racial justice for Blacks across this country lifted up 
everybody.
  And if you talk to a lot of White Mississippians or White citizens of 
Alabama, they will tell you that they felt as if there was a 
psychological and mental weight lifted from them, and they saw the 
economies of their States improve.
  I don't know all of the history, but many people suggest that in the 
years following World War II, Birmingham, AL, was poised to become the 
economic crossroads of the South, that it could have become an economic 
powerhouse rivaling cities of today such as Atlanta in the South, but 
it didn't because of the fact that racial injustice held it back. Once 
they figured out that was both a moral stain on that State and an 
economic stain, they changed their ways.
  Again, not to overstate the comparison--it is just in my brain 
because I was there this last weekend--so goes the story for the fight 
against climate change in the sense that the pathway to addressing this 
issue runs through the creation of millions of jobs in this country as 
well as cleaner air to breathe and cleaner water to drink for all of 
our citizens and kids across the country. So if I could, I would like 
to run through a handful of examples of how this could matter to my 
State as well.
  Connecticut has built a pretty serious and I think pretty impressive 
fuel cell industry. Fuel cells aren't renewable resources in the sense 
that they use a small amount of gas that mixes together with elements 
inside the fuel cell to produce what is essentially an ultra-clean 
source of energy. There is virtually no pollutant coming out of fuel 
cells, so there is almost no contribution to global warming from these 
fuel cells. They are changing the climate, but they are also creating a 
lot of jobs in Connecticut.
  On December 20, 2013, Connecticut opened its first utility-scale fuel 
cell farm in Bridgeport, CT. It was manufactured and built by a company 
in Connecticut that employs hundreds of people--the world's biggest 
fuel cell company, Fuel Cell Energy. It is located on a former 
brownfield. It is the first powerplant like this of fuel cells in North 
America, and at 15 megawatts it is producing enough power to supply 
power to 15,000 homes. It is a serious facility, and it is creating 
hundreds of jobs in places such as Danbury and Torrington, CT.
  The problem, though, is this fuel cell farm in Bridgeport, CT, is the 
exception rather than the rule. Fuel Cell Energy is selling most of its 
products in Asia. It is selling most of its products in Korea. Over the 
years the Korean Government has kind of figured out what the gig is, 
that its main seller of fuel cells is creating jobs in the United 
States while they are selling product into Korea. So Korea has 
essentially said to Fuel Cell Energy: Your time is up. We will continue 
to buy a handful of these fuel cells from you over the coming years, 
but by the end of this decade we want to produce all of those fuel 
cells in Korea, and we want you to transfer the technology and transfer 
the jobs to us.
  Fuel Cell Energy doesn't have any choice in this matter because if 
Korea decides they do not want to buy from them, they will buy from 
somebody else. So they have to essentially do an agreement in which 
they transfer that technology and transfer those jobs. Those are 
hundreds of jobs today in Connecticut but potentially thousands of jobs 
in the future as we power up fuel cells all across the country.
  The reason they are not selling fuel cells in this country is because 
we don't have a renewable energy strategy to really advantage those 
sources, which, admittedly, today costs a little bit more than 
purchasing energy from a grid powered by things such as coal and by 
oil. But when you weigh the jobs that can be created in the fuel cell 
industry against the slightly marginally higher cost of getting that 
energy from a fuel cell rather than getting that energy from a coal-
fired powerplant or an oil-fired powerplant, there is a pretty darn 
good argument that you should invest in fuel cells.
  So, to Connecticut, this is a matter of jobs, especially in the fuel 
cell industry.
  Greenskies Renewable Energy is a company in Middletown, CT, and they 
design and install big solar arrays. They do not manufacture the 
equipment, but they design these big solar arrays and they install 
them. It was started in 2008 by a former Peace Corps volunteer in Mali. 
The company doesn't charge customers any upfront costs for solar power. 
Instead, they typically sign customers to long-term contracts, and 
Greenskies purchases the solar energy they are producing on their 
buildings. Greenskies has installed over 70,000 solar panels across the 
country, and they have offset 15 million pounds of CO2. That 
is the equivalent of 763,000 gallons of gasoline being burned.
  In 2012 they got their biggest contract yet. They won a contract to 
build solar arrays on 27 Walmart stores in Massachusetts. That is a $30 
million contract.
  In 2013 they announced plans to build a 43-acre solar farm in East 
Lyme that is going to be 16,000 solar panels. That solar farm alone in 
East Lyme will be able to power 6,300 homes. That is pretty significant 
in terms of the amount of power it is going to be able to put on the 
grid, but it is also significant in terms of the number of jobs that 
will be created. Today Greenskies may be employing dozens of people, 
but they are going to be hiring hundreds and thousands of people as 
they install all of these solar arrays in Connecticut and Massachusetts 
and for clients all across the Northeast.
  Another company playing in the solar space is a company called Apollo 
Solar. It is based in Bethel, CT. It is a small company. Today it only 
employs about 10 people. But they manufacture the electronic equipment 
that filters power from a solar cell and allows it to be stored in a 
battery. That is really the future, the idea that every individual home 
is going to be a small powerplant where you can put solar panels on 
your roof, then take the power that is being produced by the solar 
panel, store it in a battery, and then use it at the moment at which 
prices on the grid are the highest or, if you want, sell it back to the 
grid at the moment at which you can get the most return for this little 
stored amount of energy you have created by the solar panels on your 
roof.
  Today, Apollo Solar has become a significant supplier for cell phone 
towers in the developing world, especially in Africa. Countries in 
Africa just don't have the electric grids we have, so if they want cell 
towers to be able to provide lifesaving cell coverage to their 
residents, then they have to essentially power these cell towers on an 
individual tower-by-tower basis. And if you don't do it with solar 
arrays, then you have to do it with diesel generators, which produce 
enormous amounts of black carbon. That makes the air very difficult to 
breathe, and it is also much more expensive.
  Apollo Solar has produced this technology for cell towers. Right now 
it is being used in places such as Africa, but eventually this 
technology can be used in millions of homes all across Connecticut and 
all across the country,

[[Page 4052]]

and that is going to fundamentally change the way in which we engage 
with the electric grid.
  We think Apollo Solar is poised to become an industry leader on this 
issue. Today it is only a handful of people, but this is one example of 
thousands of companies all across Connecticut and all across this 
country that are poised to explode in growth if we do the smart thing 
and decide we are going to create a renewable energy market here in the 
United States.
  It is important to say that neither Greenskies nor Apollo Solar is 
making those solar panels because much of that work is being done in 
other countries--countries that do have domestic markets for renewable 
energy, countries such as Germany and China. So despite the successes 
of companies that install these big solar arrays and successes of 
companies such as Apollo Solar that create the attendant technology 
attached to the solar panels, there is so much more we could do if we 
had that domestic market here.
  The point is that we have an enormous opportunity to create millions 
of jobs in this country based on this technology. The imperative should 
be one surrounding the public health effects of climate, the imperative 
should be around the life-changing catastrophic consequences of rising 
sea levels, the added cost to our economy that comes with entire 
industries such as those in Connecticut--the maple syrup industry, the 
fall tourism industry, the skiing industry, and the lobster industry--
evaporating and disappearing before our eyes. That should be the 
imperative.
  Being a country that has only 5 percent of the world's population but 
25 percent of the world's pollution in carbon emissions, we more than 
any other nation in the world have to play a role in this global 
economic and environmental imperative. But beyond that, there are 
enormous job gains to come if we make the right decision.
  Lastly, before I turn it back over to the Senator from Hawaii for 
some remarks--and I will stay on the floor because I would like to 
maybe talk a little about short-lived climate pollutants, if I have the 
time--New England is an example of a place that has figured out how to 
do this the right way. The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative--we call 
it RGGI--is the first market-based regulatory program in the United 
States to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It is a cooperative effort 
amongst Northeastern States to cap and reduce carbon dioxide emissions 
from the power sector. It is essentially just a miniversion of 
legislation which we have debated here in Congress. We essentially set 
a cap for how much carbon we are going to produce in the northeast. We 
allow emitters of pollution to trade credits and decide for themselves 
what cost point-source polluters are willing to pay for the ability to 
send carbon dioxide into the air.
  We have heard over and over the horror stories coming from our 
friends on the Republican side. As a member of the Energy and Commerce 
Committee in the House of Representatives, when we debated the Waxman-
Markey bill, we heard over and over that electricity prices were going 
to dramatically spike; and, yes, you are going to have the benefit to 
the environment from reducing carbon dioxide, but you are going to have 
catastrophic consequences for the economy because everybody is going to 
have to pay for it.
  I guess I can understand how people would believe that if there 
wasn't any empirical evidence to test their theory. Luckily, New 
England has just that evidence. New England has tested this idea. 
Frankly, the whole world has tested this idea because we have reduced 
ozone-depleting pollutants based on a similar protocol. But in New 
England we have taken on this issue.
  RGGI has been an unqualified success. Our carbon-reducing plan in New 
England has prevented the release of 2.3 million tons of carbon dioxide 
into the atmosphere, the equivalent of taking 435,000 cars off the road 
for a year. The program will offset 8.5 million megawatt hours of 
electricity generation and avoid the release of 8 million tons of 
CO2. The program is going to generate $1.6 billion in net 
economic benefit regionwide, and it is putting $1.1 billion in 
electricity bill savings into the pockets of consumers in the region 
over the next decade. That is maybe the most important number.
  In addition to preventing the release of 2.3 million tons of 
CO2 pollution, it is reducing the energy bills for New 
England consumers by over $1 billion. Wow. How does that happen? How do 
you restrict emissions and then reduce pollution? We take all the money 
we glean in people buying the credits necessary to pollute and we put 
it right back into energy efficiency. We put it right back into 
programs which actually allow consumers to use less electricity, to 
make their homes more efficient, to transfer over to furnaces which 
will use less energy. All of these energy efficiency investments cancel 
out and override the price to the energy producers of having to comply 
with the new requirements.
  It is pretty simple calculus, but it works for us in New England. We 
have taken the equivalent of two coal-fired powerplants offline, and we 
have returned $1 billion in savings to rate payers. We have done 
something about the scourge of climate change that people have been 
talking about overnight and we have saved people a whole boat load of 
money.
  I guess this is why the Presiding Officer and Senator Schatz decided 
to engage in this exceptional exercise, to come down to the floor of 
the Senate tonight because we just don't understand how people don't 
see this.
  If this were really a fight as some people make it, between the 
quality of our air and the quality of our economy, then let's have at 
it. Let's come down and have that debate. But it is not, and we have 
proved that in Connecticut. This isn't just guesswork. This isn't 
estimation. This isn't conjecture. In Connecticut we have proved we can 
make significant gains to reduce climate pollutants, create jobs, and 
save people money.
  This is a triple whammy. We get a cleaner environment, become a 
global leader, create a whole bunch of jobs and save a whole bunch of 
people money. Why on earth wouldn't you do that? Unless this debate has 
been hijacked by the very small number of people today who make money 
off the status quo. I don't have the exact quote. I should have brought 
it down here. We probably shouldn't look to Machiavelli for political 
advice. He, before anybody else, painted for us a picture of the 
challenge presented to the reformer. The reformer's job, he said, is 
the toughest job in the world, because those who will benefit from the 
new order have trouble seeing it today, but those who will be harmed by 
the new order, those who exist in the status quo, see the peril in the 
most acute sense and fight the hardest to preserve it.
  So, yes, there are people who face a perilous future, but they are a 
very small number of people, and they are people who run the old-line 
energy businesses which are clinging to the status quo today, who are 
flooding this debate with millions of dollars to try to affect it. But 
as even they will find, there are even bigger, brighter opportunities 
on the other side. I imagine even the Koch brothers are industrious 
enough and innovative enough to figure out how to make a whole mess of 
money off of the renewable energy economy. I argue they will make even 
more money.
  So I thank Senator Schatz, Senator Boxer, and the Presiding Officer 
for leading this effort. I will stick around on the floor to engage in 
discussion, but this is a triple win: Combat climate change, create 
jobs, and save people money. It is time for the Senate and time for the 
Congress to wake up.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am honored to follow my colleague 
and very good friend, the Senator from Connecticut, and to join him, 
the Presiding Officer, the Senator from Rhode Island; the Senator from 
Hawaii, Senator Schatz; and Senator Boxer, the Senator from California, 
in this really very inspiring and exciting occasion.
  I was driving to the Capitol early this morning and I saw in the 
black

[[Page 4053]]

sky the beautiful dome which words can barely capture in its beauty. 
Many have tried. But I felt so fortunate to be here as a spokesperson 
and an advocate for this cause which truly is about the rest of this 
century, the rest of this planet's life, our children and their 
children, and to be part of a debate which has reached through the 
night. But in fact it is night only here. In many parts of the world 
already it is day.
  If we think globally, we realize the planet truly never sleeps. It is 
awake for the night here. Someplace in the world there is daylight. 
Hopefully, during this debate we have shed light at a time of darkness 
on a debate which is so critical to the future of our Nation.
  We are only a few Members of the Senate here, but I cannot help 
recalling what the famous scientist and conservationist Margaret Mead 
said about this cause and the importance of people in this cause: Never 
doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change 
the world; indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.
  Around the world where it is daylight or still dark, there are groups 
of committed people willing to put their lives and their voices on the 
line to save this planet from climate disruption. We are not talking 
about climate change. We are talking about disruption--planet 
disruption. We are not talking about small consequences which may alter 
the quality of life a bit here and there. We are talking about 
horrendous, gargantuan changes because they are incremental and they 
accumulate one by one, bit by bit, until they alter our shoreline in 
Connecticut, our vegetation, our produce, our recreation industry, all 
of what makes Connecticut the great State it is in its scenic and 
natural beauty, and all of what makes America the great country it is--
not only in its beauty but in its economic strength and its vision for 
the future.
  I thank Senators Whitehouse, Boxer, and Schatz for bringing us 
together, all of my colleagues for joining in this debate, and all who 
worked through the night--whether it is the guards or the pages or all 
who tirelessly gave us the opportunity to really make the case, much as 
we would in court--whether it is a closing argument or an opening 
statement--for the need that all of us unite in this critical cause.
  The gravity of climate disruption cannot be denied. There are people 
who deny it. No question that there are deniers. But the science is 
irrefutable. The facts are there. And as Ronald Reagan said, facts are 
a stubborn thing. We can't change them by rhetoric in this body, and we 
can't make them go away in storytelling. We can read our children's 
books, Dr. Seuss or others, about the wonderful things which happen in 
fantasy or nightmares which may occur to people also in their dreams.
  But in the real world, the science is well established. The science 
tells us climate disruption is happening as we speak, relentlessly and 
tirelessly. This is why we are here today.
  The compassion that we as legislators demonstrate indicates we care 
about the people who occupy this planet now, but also about the many 
others who will follow us. We are here to break the culture of 
indifference in a busy world which is awake all the time, is so global 
in its reach, and is digitally connected at all moments. There is a 
tendency to move forward and forget about what is fundamental and 
important, and that is climate disruption.
  To break this culture of indifference toward pollution and climate 
disruption, we must reverse the practices and policies which accelerate 
this dramatic and destructive trend in our world.
  In Connecticut we have already seen firsthand the effects of climate 
disruption. Severe weather events used to occur once in a generation. 
They are now becoming the new norm. These monstrous storms--whatever 
they are called, Irene or Sandy--they are the new norm. In just the 
time I began serving in the Senate, since January 2011, Connecticut has 
experienced four major storms claiming lives and costing millions of 
dollars in damage, culminating in the unprecedented Superstorm Sandy. 
Now we can call Sandy a hurricane or superstorm or whatever you will. 
We can call these weather events inevitable or surprising, but they are 
becoming the new normal because of climate disruption. In February 2011 
a snowstorm cost the State $20 million, and the leadership of our 
Governor was exemplary, but remedying the effects of the storm does not 
prevent them, and even preparing for them does not forestall them, 
because the weather is bigger than any action of man, and man can 
control it only by fundamental changes in the way he or she lives. The 
snowfall in February 2011 was followed by tropical storm Irene that 
wreaked $546 million in damages. The people of Connecticut had barely 
any time to recover before a freak October snowstorm brought an 
additional $614 million of devastation to the State.
  Hurricane Sandy struck a year later, causing record-breaking damage 
and devastation to Connecticut as well as the states of New Jersey, New 
York, and Rhode Island when the storm cleared. When all this 
destruction was tallied, Connecticut found itself facing damage of $770 
million as well as incalculable harm to houses, beaches, and other 
places along the coast. I toured the coast. I saw the damage. The 
ferocity and fury of that storm could be comprehended only by seeing 
that damage or being in the midst of it, which I was for a short period 
at the very start when I went to tour the energy operations center in 
places such as Norwalk and Greenwich, along the coast where preparation 
was beginning for that storm. Driving back on I-95 as the storm 
gathered in its ferocity and fury, I was frightened in a way that all 
of us should now share as we see the prospect of that fury and ferocity 
of nature, destructively impacting our entire planet, our world, and 
our children's world.
  We must heed Hurricane Sandy's warning as well as the alarms sounded 
by other storms and take steps to stop climate destruction and global 
warming. The evidence beyond the anecdotal facts that we all see is 
irrefutable scientific evidence. Climate disruption impacts our ocean 
and atmosphere, disrupting actual temperature cycles and variations in 
climate, leading to an increasing number of severe weather events, 
snowstorms as well as hurricanes, cold and rain, as well as heat and 
drought across the country.
  Severe storms and other things such as floods and tornadoes and 
drought are happening at a rate four times greater than the average 30 
years ago. These storms are costing us. They are costing our families, 
local communities, and taxpayers more and more of their hard-earned 
dollars, and Connecticut families and our people are impacted severely. 
So Washington has an obligation and opportunity to act. This body must 
face the responsibility at hand and act in the interests of the 
American people. Climate change is a real and present and urgent 
danger. The threat is now. We should face this with a sense of 
immediacy just as we would a house burning or a storm coming, much as 
we did the coming of Sandy when the brave first responders, our firemen 
and police, braved the storm but did the right thing knowing they must 
act to protect our people.
  The sense of urgency this issue requires and, indeed, demands is 
lacking today, which is why we are here, to break the culture of 
indifference and despair. Outside the insularity of Washington, outside 
of repeated recalcitrance and political stagnation--dysfunction I think 
is the word most often used--which has paralyzed our politics, the 
American public is understanding. The American public gets it. They 
understand that climate disruption is happening. It is happening in 
their everyday lives. It is affecting their homes near rivers and 
oceans, affecting their drinking water supplies and the crops we need 
for food. They understand that if nothing is done this problem will 
only get worse. Communities in the Midwest know why they are 
experiencing some of the worst drought in decades. Families in 
California know why their water supply is dwindling dangerously lower 
and lower. Lobstermen in Connecticut, Long Island Sound, dwindling in 
number, understand why lobster numbers are

[[Page 4054]]

shrinking. Surviving lobster populations are moving farther north. The 
lobsters are our modern-day canary in the coal mine. From Montana to 
Arizona to New Mexico people see why clearly the wildfire season is 
starting earlier in the year and lasting later into the fall. We have 
seen the pictures here on the floor of some of those wildfires that 
have devastated our forests. The American people understand why our 
forests are burning, and the American people get it, but Congress still 
does not.
  We have reached the time where we must do the job we were elected to 
do. It is time to fight for a remedy, fight for relief, to 
firefighters, to farmers, to lobstermen, to ordinary American people, 
who want to take their families to the shore and see it as they knew it 
when they were children.
  Every generation in this Nation makes a covenant. Every generation 
has an obligation to leave this Nation better than when we found it. We 
are in danger of leaving a lesser America in so many ways, most 
important in what matters to everyday life, our climate, our weather, 
our soil and trees, what we see when we wake in the morning and before 
we go to bed, the natural world that is essential to our survival, not 
to mention our thriving.
  In my home State of Connecticut the people are not waiting for 
answers from Washington. We have waited long enough in Connecticut, 
because Congress has not fully awakened. Indeed, it is still asleep. As 
my colleague Senator Whitehouse has said time after time, just a few 
feet from me, America and the world must wake up. The failure to do so, 
waiting and watching as disaster develops, could spell devastation for 
America and for our climate. That is why Connecticut is taking steps to 
address climate change effects like rising sea levels and storms. State 
officials are researching areas especially along our coast and along 
our waterways that are vulnerable to storm surges and inland flooding, 
and figuring out how best to protect infrastructure that is at risk.
  I know the citizens of Senator Schatz's State of Hawaii are doing the 
same, taking an issue and implementing policy to rein in solutions, 
taking steps on their own, voting with their feet, not just their 
voices but their actions. And that is what the citizens of Rhode Island 
are doing as well, seeking to do whatever they can as individuals. They 
are a small group of intelligent and dedicated people, but they are 
seeking to change the world for the better, because a small group 
seeking to do so is the only thing that ever has, as Margaret Meade has 
said. The citizens and states from California, in the Northwest and all 
the way to New England, are joining in this effort. This citizens' 
movement to save the planet from climate disruption eventually will 
prevail. Eventually there will be action. But will it be in time?
  I want to read an article in the Hartford Courant on January 27, 
2014, just a few weeks ago. It captures how people of Connecticut are 
paying attention to the growing threat upon them and how they are 
taking steps to address it. I am quoting:

       The changing climate is expected to make Connecticut a 
     different place with more extreme weather, hotter summers and 
     more precipitation, disrupting the natural world around us 
     and testing our ability to respond and adapt.
       Some changes will be volatile and abrupt while others will 
     be more nuanced.
       For example, maple syrup production could decline while 
     grape growing improves which would bode well for 
     Connecticut's wine industry.
       At the end of the century Connecticut summer heat is 
     expected to feel more like the sticky dog days of Washington, 
     DC or perhaps, Savannah.
       A warmer summer could seem rather pleasant on its face if 
     Connecticut were to have a summer more like those in the 
     south, but the changes come with greater volatility.
       ``As the climate gets warmer, you put more moisture into 
     the atmosphere, and it just gets a little more violent,'' 
     said Richard Houghton, president of the Woods Hole Research 
     Center in Falmouth, MA, a nonprofit research organization 
     that focuses on environmental sciences.
       ``There's a lot more energy around. . . . that comes out in 
     unexpected ways, generally not to the betterment of gardens 
     and forests and so on,'' Houghton said.
       The changes have been studied and monitored by 
     universities, state and federal agencies and others who have 
     combed for decades of data on everything from changes in 
     trees' growth rings to lobster habitat in Long Island Sound. 
     Extensive collections of scientific data have been the source 
     of documents for metaanalyses saying, in effect, that big 
     changes are underway disrupting a mostly climatological 
     period of thousands of years.
       Perhaps more worrisome is the likelihood of severe weather 
     events such as floods.

  Quoting here:

       ``Even if you had the same amount of rain, it is going to 
     be delivered in these more punctuated, very intense rain 
     events, which are more likely to wash out bridges, roads, 
     cause damage to people's basements, flooding, things like 
     that that cost more,'' said Brenda Ekwurzel, senior climate 
     scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists, an 
     organization started in Massachusetts Institute of Technology 
     in 1969, and which is now an alliance of more than 400,000 
     citizens and scientists.
       ``We haven't designed our infrastructure, especially the 
     aging infrastructure of the Northeast to handle these times 
     of drainage needs.''
       In 2007, the Northeast Climate Impacts Assessment was 
     conducted by scientists at more than a dozen universities, 
     including Harvard and Princeton, in addition to experts at 
     the U.S. Geological Survey, the National Oceanic and 
     Atmospheric Administration and the U.S. Department of 
     Agriculture.
       In 2009, several Federal agencies that are part of the U.S. 
     Global Research Program released another large report with 
     specifics about what will change and what will happen to the 
     northeast and Connecticut as a result of climate change.
       Here are some highlights of the two reports: The northeast 
     could see 20 to 30 percent more winter precipitation and more 
     of that could be rain rather than snow, assuming a greater 
     level of heat-trapping emissions from human activities.

  The higher emission scenario assumes a continued heavy reliance on 
fossil fuels while a lower emission scenario assumes a shift to cleaner 
energy by the middle of the century. Heavy downpours of rain have 
increased across the Northeast in recent decades causing intense spring 
flooding in 2006, 2007, and 2010.
  Cities that experienced only a few 100-degree days each summer might 
average 20 such days per summer while others, including Hartford, would 
average nearly 30 days at 100 degrees or hotter.
  Large portions of the Northeast could be unsuitable for growing 
popular varieties of apples, blueberries, and cranberries in a higher 
emission scenario. Heat stress could reduce milk production in dairy 
cows. However, the longer growing period could be better for gardeners 
and farmers so long as they can adapt to the likelihood of summer 
droughts and flooding rains in the spring.
  Hotter weather is expected to shift growth range for maple, beech, 
and birch forests to the north, disrupting the maple sugar industry and 
shifting the food sources for animals that rely on those forests, such 
as migratory song birds, such as the Baltimore oriole. Long-lived trees 
might endure, but they would be vulnerable to stresses of competition, 
bugs, and disease. Some parts of northern Connecticut will retain those 
hardwoods.
  Sea levels are expected to rise 10 inches to 2 feet by the end of the 
century, and those projections do not account for recent observed 
melting of the world's major ice sheets, which means the estimates 
could be too conservative.
  What is now considered a once-in-a-century coastal flooding in New 
London and Groton along the Thames River could occur as frequently as 
every 17 years. Several experts agree that modeling sea-level rise is 
more difficult than predicting other effects of climate change because 
there are so many variables related to the ocean. In any scenario, the 
seas are expected to rise.
  Houghton, the head of the Woods Hole Research Center, said that what 
happens to the climate depends on a multitude of factors around the 
globe--from deforestation in tropical areas to the burning of fossil 
fuels for energy. One important distinction is that weather and climate 
are different. Climate future does not predict when and where it will 
rain. Instead, it predicts patterns, such as overall warmer 
temperatures or the greater likelihood for violent floods, such as 
tornadoes or floods. For climate change, it is more

[[Page 4055]]

about general trends and extreme changes as a result of global warming.
  As more erratic and extreme weather becomes more likely, property 
owners, town governments, cities, States, and the Federal Government 
will be put to new tests of their responses and adaptability.
  Dr. Ekwurzel said that maybe 30 years down the road we will have 
gotten better at dealing with those extreme events because they are 
going to become the new normal. I would say in the next decade--15 or 
20 years--we are going to have some hard lessons as to how to deal with 
this.
  The work of responding and adapting is already underway and has been 
for years, though there is renewed concern after power outages and 
widespread property damage during Tropical Storm Irene and the October 
storm of 2011 and Superstorm Sandy in 2012. ``They were clearly wake-up 
calls,'' said Jessica Stratton, director of policy in charge of climate 
issues at the State Department of Energy and Environmental Protection.
  Connecticut has a wide-ranging climate strategy that ranges from 
buying energy that produces less carbon which causes further warming 
and a less predictable climate to better preparation for greater 
extremes. In terms of preparing for higher sea levels and inland 
flooding from harsh rain, there are three priorities, according to 
Jessica Stratton.
  First, Connecticut is researching areas vulnerable to rising sea 
levels and storm surges and inland flooding. Second, the State is 
looking to critical infrastructure, facilities, and property at risk in 
those high-hazard areas. Third, the State, and other parties, will work 
to develop best practices to protect infrastructure and habitat and to 
mitigate or reduce risk to the greatest extent possible. The last 
measure will involve assisting residents, State, and local government.
  In 2010 a committee of scientists, engineers, farmers, policymakers, 
public health officials, and business owners published a 195-page 
document called ``The Impacts of Climate Change on Connecticut 
Agriculture, Infrastructure, Natural Resources and Public Health.''
  ``We think it is highly probable that we are going to experience 
these kinds of events more frequently,'' Stratton said of recent storms 
and flooding.
  She continued:

       And because of that, I don't want to sit here and just say, 
     ``OK. We'll take it. We'll pick up the pieces afterward.'' 
     Let us do what we can to lessen the negative impacts, and 
     those are human, those are property, those are business 
     losses. There are a whole bunch of things. So, let us take 
     whatever steps we can to enable our society as it currently 
     is to function as well as it can and to get back to normal as 
     quickly as it can.

  I have quoted so extensively from this article in the Courant because 
it summarizes many of the facts that cannot be denied. Those facts are 
stubborn. Those facts presage a disaster that we have the power to 
ignore, but we also have the power to act and to deal with it and to 
take advantage of the immense opportunity that lies ahead. This is an 
opportunity that could actually create jobs and economic growth, and 
that is the key point.
  The problem of climate disruption is also a tremendous opportunity. 
It is an opportunity not only to change mindsets and culture--the 
culture of indifference--it is an opportunity to change the way we 
live, create jobs, a new lifestyle, and economic growth.
  The real and serious health impact of climate change impacting 
millions of Americans should be enough to force Congress to act, but if 
that is not enough evidence, let us look to the economic impact of 
inaction. Take the asthma rates--just one example of climate change 
impact on health costs.
  According to the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology, 
the United States spends approximately $3,300 per person with asthma 
per year. In the 5-year period between 2002 and 2007, asthma costs grew 
6 percent, from $53 billion to $56 billion.
  NOAA, the National Climate Data Center, estimates that the extreme 
weather events that occurred across the country in 2012 alone, which 
included tornadoes in the Plains States and the South, the wildfires in 
the West, and the Midwest drought and Hurricane Sandy, cost the 
American economy $1 billion in rebuilding and lost economic 
productivity. That estimate is no doubt low and conservative.
  A rocket scientist is not needed to understand the effects that 
rising sea levels will have on our coastal communities, which include 
many of America's large cities and population centers. America's cities 
will be underwater, and we will have to rebuild their defenses at great 
cost.
  There is another side of this situation. There is a different side of 
this coin of climate disruption. Yes, climate disruption can be 
devastating to our economy; indeed, it has already begun to be so, but 
it also offers the hope and opportunity of spurring new technology, 
reducing our dependence on oil, and thus driving down greenhouse gas 
emissions in a way that will empower and drive economic growth.
  The U.S. Economic and Statistics Administration reports that the 
country's 2010 trade deficit in petroleum-related products was $265 
billion or approximately $855 per American citizen. The EPA and the 
DOT--the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of 
Transportation--estimate that the corporate average fuel economy 
standards that require vehicles to be more fuel efficient and emit less 
CO2 by 2025 save $8,000 per vehicle over each car's 
lifetime. Upgrading and retrofitting buildings to be more energy 
efficient and creating jobs by creating new technologies and training 
workers to develop skills to execute the retrofit and to work in 
burgeoning alternative energy industries will generate tremendous 
return for our economy.
  The bipartisan Shaheen-Portman Energy Savings and Industrial 
Competitive Act, which I was proud to sponsor, is waiting in the wings 
for congressional action. It would create over 190,000 jobs and save 
$16 billion a year for consumers by 2030. We must make the Shaheen-
Portman bill law. It is only one example of what the Senate can and 
must do to help stop climate disruption. It is a small measure--modest 
in its impact--but it is a start. If we do nothing else as a result of 
this debate tonight, let it lead us to bring back the Shaheen-Portman 
bill.
  So even if--unlike the overwhelming majority of scientists--you have 
doubts about the science of climate change, remember that the economic 
benefits of addressing it, even if you think it is a dream, a nightmare 
or some fantasy supporting renewable energy, promoting greater 
efficiency in motor vehicles and buildings will save money, add jobs, 
make for stronger buildings and better vehicles. Most important, it 
will save wasteful energy use. That argument ought to be enough to 
convince anyone that these investments are smart for America.
  So whatever your reasons may be, whether you are motivated by the 
need to ensure a livable climate for future generations, whether you 
are moved to action by Americans suffering by millions from health 
problems, exacerbated by a more polluted environment, whether you 
understand the threat to the U.S. economy that is created by not only 
the more intense weather events but a more efficient energy landscape--
whatever your motivation, whether it is fear or anxiety, apprehension 
about the future or simply a desire to save money from wasteful use of 
energy, the intense weather events are becoming more intense and they 
are becoming the new normal. Inefficiency in energy is becoming a norm 
as more people around the globe use energy, and we can lead by example 
in the United States. The Nation must wake up. Congress must awaken, 
and now is the time to act.
  I wish to close by reading some letters from the people of 
Connecticut because I think they speak eloquently to the reason we are 
here and the reason the people of Connecticut are taking this kind of 
action.
  They are letters to me from constituents in all walks of life 
expressing their personal feelings about this issue. Patricia Wallace 
of New Haven wrote:

       As the director of elderly services for the City of New 
     Haven last year when we had 34 inches of snow, I heard from 
     seniors who

[[Page 4056]]

     could not get out of their front or back doors and had no way 
     to move that much snow, who could not get fuel delivered, who 
     could not get food. I have a husband who uses a wheelchair to 
     get to work. It was nearly impossible for us to move the snow 
     that city plows pushed up on the side of the street so that 
     he could get on the lift of the van to get to work.
       A few years back, many senior housing complexes lost power 
     during Sandy and had no generators. When they were built, we 
     did not face the frequent severe weather that is now routine. 
     Two non-profit nursing homes have generators, but they are 
     not built for the length of time we have had to operate 
     during these severe weather storms.

  Another Connecticut resident named Diane Taber-Markiewicz told me:

       The global warming of our planet is now creating a push 
     back from the environment that is causing millions of people 
     around the world to lose their way of life. This affects us 
     all and results in a loss of people and other valuable 
     resources needed to sustain and progress our species. 
     Personally, we deal with severe weather events regularly; 
     power outages that cause us to lose work and cost us in 
     wasted food that spoils during outages. Our local, regional, 
     national infrastructure is dangerous in its deteriorated 
     state and our tax dollars go to assisting the very companies 
     and politicians who support our demise.

  Lenore Lewis-Foreman of Bridgeport wrote me to say:

       I have a nerve disorder. Because of this, the weather plays 
     a significant part of my day-to-day activities. Some days I 
     am okay enough to get out of bed and participate in society 
     while being productive. There are days the pains are so bad 
     that my eyes blur and I cannot move. The past season has made 
     it increasingly difficult for me to even motivate myself 
     enough to get out of bed. I have many family and relatives 
     who have been affected by climate change. Some have passed on 
     or moved to another State. A few have decided to stay here in 
     the northeast and stick it out.

  Countless Connecticut residents, in other words, countless members of 
our communities across our State have written to me with their 
positions and concerns. Like these three writers whose letters I shared 
with you, many Connecticut citizens fear that climate change will 
disproportionately affect the most vulnerable among our population: the 
elderly, the ill, and people without financial resources. People 
understand that climate change will have consequences, not only for 
their personal lives but for our food and water, our way of life. 
People are already bearing the burden of climate change and disruption 
every day. They know that if nothing is done, it will only get worse 
for them and for future generations. Again, the time for action is now. 
America must wake up.
  Let me close by reading a small part of a book that was quoted 
earlier in this debate by my colleague from the State of Oregon, 
Senator Merkley, who cited the ``Lorax'' book by Dr. Seuss. It says in 
part:

       Now I'll tell you, he says, with his teeth sounding gray, 
     how the Lorax got lifted and taken away. It all started way 
     back, such a long time back, way back in the days when the 
     grass was still green and the pond was still wet and the 
     clouds were still clean.

  It goes on to describe the degradation and the tree cutting and the 
disregard for that environment. I know Senator Merkley has quoted it at 
length so I will not do so. But it closes with a very poignant and 
dramatic observation that maybe others, maybe many in this body have 
read to their children.

       I worried about it with all of my heart, but now says the 
     Once-ler, now that you are here, the word of the Lorax seems 
     perfectly clear. Unless someone like you cares a whole awful 
     lot, nothing is going to get better, it's not. So Catch! 
     Calls the Once-ler. He lets something fall. It's a Truffula 
     Seed. It's the last one of all. You're in charge of the last 
     of the Truffula Seeds. And Trufulla Trees are what everyone 
     needs. Plant a new Trufulla. Treat it with care. Give it 
     clean water. And feed it fresh air. Grow a forest. Protect it 
     from axes that hack. Then the Lorax and all of his friends 
     may come back.

  In a certain sense, the stories we read our children have a message 
they understand. Our children understand in many ways better than we 
do, because they understand what it means to play in the snow or have 
sunny skies or a day that is not filled with superstorms. They 
understand what it means to act individually, to take care of the 
environment and our planet. I would like to think it is because we have 
read them the stories of environmental heroes who championed the right 
causes, who cared enough to act. I would like to think the leadership 
of some in this body, their leadership by example and countless others 
across the Nation, who take stands, stand up, speak out against climate 
disruption, against the emissions that threaten the very existence of 
our planet, provide those young people with leadership by example. I 
would like to think they are learning from some of us and the stories 
we tell them and read to them from Dr. Seuss or others.
  The story from Dr. Seuss is not about games, about fantasies. It may 
seem like a fantasy and it may be spoken as a story, but it carries a 
message that the trees are what everyone needs; we need to plant them. 
Fresh air is what everyone needs, and we must preserve it. We need to 
protect this planet from the axes that will hack at them, as climate 
change most assuredly will do.
  Climate disruption--call it climate change, global warming, whatever 
you will--is a threat that we have the opportunity and obligation to 
counter. We are taking baby steps. We need great strides. America must 
wake up and so must the world.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Murphy). The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. May I inquire through the Presiding Officer if the 
Senator from Connecticut would be willing to engage in a brief 
colloquy. If the answer to that is yes, I would propound the following 
question:
  I know the senior Senator from Connecticut to be a very deeply 
believing patriot. He spoke in his remarks about how each American 
generation takes upon itself a covenant. I also know the senior Senator 
from Connecticut serves on the Armed Services Committee and has to 
consider, as part of his responsibilities in the Senate, the power that 
America projects around the world, which is sometimes military power, 
but also sometimes the soft power that comes from our role.
  I know also, as a student of history, Senator Blumenthal knows that 
President Lincoln described the United States of America as the ``last 
best hope of earth'' and that Thomas Jefferson, in his first inaugural, 
described this American government as the ``world's best hope.''
  Finally, I heard the Senator say that climate change will have 
consequences. I wonder if he would care to comment on what a failure to 
address climate change by the United States of America, knowing the 
information we know, would mean in terms of the kind of hope America is 
to the world, in terms of the kind of credibility America needs to 
project its soft power. Is there a consequence the Senator could 
foresee in our foreign policy and in our national security from 
fumbling and dropping this ball at this time?
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. If I may respond to the Senator, my colleague and 
friend from Rhode Island, with a question that summarizes one of the 
key reasons we are here today. I see we have been joined by the senior 
Senator from Rhode Island who is senior to me on the Armed Services 
Committee and so knows better than I probably some of the answers that 
can be made to the question posed by the Senator from Rhode Island. But 
let me say at the outset, the military understands, in some ways better 
than America, the crisis of energy waste and climate disruption this 
Nation and the world faces. Indeed, the military has taken steps to be 
greener in its energy use, to use fuel cells and other renewable 
sources of power, because it knows the cost of excessive energy 
consumption, particularly oil dependence and energy reliance on powers 
that will do us no good and mean us harm.
  Energy dependence cannot be good for America's strategic interest or 
American defense. That is one of the reasons why our military is 
seeking to lead by example. I thank them for doing so. The Secretary of 
the Navy, for example, has spoken to me at great length, Secretary 
Mabus, about the use of new sources and renewable sources of power on 
the ships that take the navy to the farthest corners of the globe. So 
the American military is leading by example. But America can lead by 
example. Thomas Jefferson and our Founders thought America would be the 
best hope for the world in its example of leadership. Thomas Jefferson

[[Page 4057]]

said, ``The world belongs to the living.'' Let us resolve that the 
living have a world that is worthy of that covenant we make as 
Americans to leave this Nation better and stronger than it was when we 
took over.
  Let's not have failed on our watch. America can be a shining example 
in what it does, inspiring the world by that example, not by its 
mandates or its military, but by its peaceful use of energy in a way 
that preserves the planet. We can use renewables. In fact, in 
Connecticut, we make fuel cells that can power the world in a much more 
energy-efficient and environmentally friendly world. Fuel cells are our 
future. They are made in Danbury and Torrington and the Hartford area 
by companies that are growing, another example of jobs creation and 
economic boom that can result from addressing the opportunities as well 
as the obligation of climate change.
  I have spoken on the floor about those companies, as well as about 
the Connecticut climate action plan launched in 2005, the main goal of 
which is to substantially cut the amount of greenhouse gases being 
produced within our State. In Connecticut, we are moving ahead, just as 
the Nation must move ahead with these kinds of initiatives.
  The Connecticut Sea Grant College Program, another example, 
understands the opportunity and the obligation of this time in our 
history. We can translate climate disruption into a positive through 
these kinds of measures we use to show the world that there are 
profoundly important gains at hand.
  The regional cooperation Connecticut has helped to lead in the 
Connecticut Energy Finance and Investment Authority, the RGGI program. 
That kind of initiative is, in a microcosm, what America can do for the 
world.
  So the question posed by the Senator from Rhode Island, who has 
helped to lead this debate, goes to the heart of what we are as 
Americans, as leaders in providing the world an example of energy 
savings, respect for our planet, addressing the problem that exists for 
us now, and denying the deniers their sway in this debate.
  I have heard from others on the floor about how it is all a product 
of our imagination, but, as Ronald Reagan said, facts are stubborn 
things, and the facts show, regrettably and tragically, that climate 
disruption is destructive, implacable, relentless, and only we can stop 
it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Blumenthal). The Senator from Rhode 
Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise this morning to join my colleagues in 
calling for action to address climate change. This is a global 
challenge that has far-reaching consequences for our economy, our 
public health, and our national security.
  I begin by thanking my colleague Senator Schatz, who is with us; 
Senator Whitehouse, my colleague from Rhode Island; Senator Boxer; and 
members of the Senate Climate Action Task Force for their leadership 
and for bringing so many of our colleagues to the floor last evening 
and through the early hours of this morning to call attention to the 
critical issue of climate change.
  This issue is daunting and difficult. One reason it is so daunting 
and difficult is that it is a slow-moving crisis. We are often faulted 
for not responding to critical issues before us, but we are certainly 
faulted for not responding to those that have evolved over many months 
and many years--the nature of our political process, the nature of our 
attention span, and the fact that other issues crowd out these longer 
term issues. But what we have seen as we look back is a clear path of 
evidence suggesting that our climate is changing. Our climate is 
changing in ways that are going to disadvantage us--disadvantage us in 
terms of our economic productivity, our national security, and it is 
going to disadvantage us in terms of things that we take for granted.
  Senator Blumenthal, Senator Murphy, Senator Whitehouse, and I grew up 
along the New England coast. I am a little older than my colleagues, 
but in the 1950s and 1960s those coasts had wide beaches and homes 
built along those beaches for middle-class workers. All of that has 
literally eroded over the last several years--particularly these 
superstorms that have come up our coast. Now we are seeing that places 
we saw as our summer ideal, beautiful places, have literally been lost. 
Homes have been upended by storms. Areas that were frequently places 
for summer relaxation are now gone because of rising seas and because 
of changing climates around oceans, bays, and our estuaries. This is 
only one example. I could go on and on. This evidence is so clear-cut, 
so condemning, and so convincing that we have to take steps now.
  Across the globe, these issues are also increasingly important. It is 
not simply a localized issue. This is an issue which is impacting every 
person across every part of the globe. We see temperatures increasing, 
seasons shifting, sea levels rising, extreme water events becoming more 
frequent, and heat-related illnesses and diseases on the rise.
  As I said before, these changes are being felt everywhere--they are 
being felt in Rhode Island, Connecticut, Hawaii, and all across this 
country. California has been enduring a crippling drought, and in other 
parts of the world we have seen unusually large rains. All of these 
weather patterns suggest that there is a changing dynamic that has 
consequences. We have to deal with these consequences.
  There are some who would argue that we should take no action to 
mitigate these impacts because there is a cost of addressing these 
issues, a cost to our economy. In fact, there have been proposals 
introduced in Congress that would greatly restrict the U.S. EPA, for 
example. Their position is: See no evil. Hear no evil. Do nothing.
  That approach is only going to make this problem worse. That approach 
is going to make the cost for us but also, more profoundly, for our 
children and the next generation of Americans, much more severe. We 
have to act wisely now. We have to move forward wisely now.
  I think we have to do so with the notion--which I think is quite 
obvious and true--that sound environmental protection is not in 
contradiction to economic growth. In fact, they work together hand in 
hand. We have to have the long-term combination of sound environmental 
policy to encourage sustainable, economic growth. A healthy environment 
is essential for our economy and for our quality of life. Indeed, the 
strength of the economy depends on the health and resilience of our 
people, our critical infrastructure, and our natural resources. The 
cost of inaction, as I have suggested, is substantial, and it will be 
paid.
  We talked today about rising seas, and as we look at most of our 
major cities, many of them are clustered on the ocean. They started 
there. They were ports. They were points of entry into the United 
States. They are the economic engines that drove this country from its 
founding until today.
  But as our seas rise, critical infrastructure is jeopardized. There 
have been discussions in New York City, for example, of building walls 
in certain low-lying areas of Manhattan. That whole process is likely a 
multimillion-dollar process, and it might well have to be taken--
certainly, if we do nothing--because the rise of these tides seems 
inevitable. But if we act now, it might be mitigated or lessened or, 
through different techniques, avoided. But it takes action now. That is 
why my colleagues have tried to galvanize us into this session to 
underscore the need to act and the need to act promptly.
  According to the U.S. Global Change Research Program, economic losses 
from weather-related events, including floods, droughts, and storms, 
have been significant and have been increasing. That is sort of the 
dynamic we are seeing. Not only are we seeing an increase in these 
weather incidents, but we are seeing them in a larger scale and it 
seems to be an accelerating process--more and larger weather incidents 
creating more damage.

[[Page 4058]]

  We in Rhode Island and our sister States, Connecticut and 
Massachusetts, saw significant damage from Sandy, but we did not 
receive the brunt of the storm. However, that was a factor that could 
have altered, indeed, hours before the storm hit. We were concerned it 
would come straight, pouring down on Rhode Island with catastrophic 
effects.
  Fortunately we missed the worst of it, but that was not the fortune 
of New Jersey and New York. They suffered billions of dollars in 
damage. They are still trying to restore communities, and they are 
still trying to restore services. We have had some effects, too, that 
we are dealing with.
  But what we have seen is these storms coming repeatedly. My sort of 
vague history of hurricanes in Rhode Island--it was the 1938 hurricane 
that came roaring through. I was not there, but that was a devastating 
event. Then there was the 1954 hurricane, Hurricane Carol, and that was 
a devastating event. But there was, it seemed to me at least--and this 
is anecdotal more than analytical--a decade or more, 15 years, almost 
20 years between storms. In the interim the storms were the old-
fashioned nor'easters. They would come and go, and there would be a 
little damage but nothing significant. But that pattern and intensity 
of storms seem to have increased in their repetitiveness and their 
nearness of time. What we are seeing is a barrage, really, of economic 
events--huge environmental events--that have huge economic costs.
  According to data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration, since 1980 the United States has sustained 151 weather-
related disasters where overall damages reached or exceeded $1 billion. 
The total cost of these events tops $1 trillion. In 2012 Superstorm 
Sandy, the prolonged Midwest drought, and the nine other weather-
related disasters led to damages in excess of $110 billion, making 2012 
the second costliest year for disasters.
  Let's stop and think. These disasters--that is $110 billion or so for 
Superstorm Sandy and some of the other incidents that took place in 
2012--if they were avoided or mitigated, could allow public resources 
to be used for other things. That is one of the facts we have to face. 
This is not free to us.
  If this prolonged drought in the West produces more forest fires--and 
there is a rough correlation between those two--we will pay for that. 
We will have to fight those fires. That is a huge amount of Federal 
spending before $1 goes to an Indian health care center or $1 goes to a 
Federal program to support higher education. Before $1 goes anywhere, 
we have to respond to those fire crises. That is only one example that 
is coming from the conditions established by a drought.
  When we look at the coastal storms that are bearing down on us, we 
have to fix the infrastructure, we have to fix the shattered roads that 
line the coastlines, and we have to fix the sewer systems that have 
been shattered by these storms. It is not avoidable. So these costs 
keep accumulating.
  Then there is another cost; that is, the opportunity cost of not 
being able to invest more in schools, invest more in other 
infrastructure, invest more in lowering the cost of energy--all of 
these things. We have to recognize that. As I said before, my State has 
been impacted, along with every other State, by these different weather 
phenomenon. The Sandy storm--mercifully we missed the brunt, but we 
still sustained significant damages.
  Our coastline is increasingly vulnerable. That is the other factor. 
These storms weaken our coastlines and our barrier beaches. So when the 
next storm comes, the damage is even more severe, and when the next 
storm comes, it is worse. This cumulative effect is accelerating so 
rapidly that these damages are making us more and more vulnerable to 
storms.
  In fact, it goes back to the frequency and the intensity of these 
storms. There used to be--at least anecdotally--a period of time where 
literally the coast could recover. There was a decade or so where, 
instead of severe storms every summer or fall, we had a period of 
accumulation of beach sand, of the ocean depositing sand, not ripping 
it away in a storm. That doesn't seem to be happening. We have to 
recognize that.
  We also have to recognize that we have a Federal perspective, but the 
States are also spending a huge amount of money on responding to the 
effects of the storm, and that also diverts their efforts from 
education, from health care, and from all of the things States have to 
do.
  This is not only a national issue. This is not only a regional issue. 
This is, as everyone has said on this floor, a global issue. Because of 
the global characteristics, it touches on interests of national 
security, which my colleague the Presiding Officer from Connecticut 
spoke about.
  Rising waters--and they are rising for a very simple reason: As the 
water temperature increases, water expands. That is just simple 
thermodynamics. It is science. Simple thermodynamics is all I remember 
from West Point. As the water expands, sea levels rise, and that is 
going to keep happening.
  If we mention the temperatures in the waters around New England over 
the past 20 or 30 years, they have gone up. And the water levels have 
also gone up. There is no sinister force out there. There is no 
whirling machine that is driving the water. There is no high-level 
combination of winds coming together. That might happen; that is the 
nature of a storm. But water keeps rising because molecules keep 
getting farther and farther apart as they heat up.
  That water rise is significant to us in Rhode Island, but it is 
catastrophic to other places. Bangladesh is a country that is 
essentially on the water, and many parts of it are close to being 
underwater. If the sea waters rise there you have a situation of a 
relatively poor country that has had problems with its neighbors, and 
just to seek shelter people will be forced to move in and to put 
pressure on the boundaries. It could cause tremendous problems. That is 
just one example.
  In Pakistan, we have invested a huge amount of money to work with the 
government of Pakistan to provide assistance as they battle the 
Taliban, to provide assistance as we move supplies through there to our 
forces in Afghanistan. The floods, the seasonal droughts, the chaotic 
weather they have seen there weakens an already weak government. This 
is repeated time and time again around the globe.
  So this is, again, not just an issue about whether we are going to 
preserve our beaches, preserve our coasts or save money here in the 
United States to devote to more meaningful reasons. It could pose a 
serious national security threat as people are forced together with 
political issues already and now are under the threat of environmental 
catastrophe. They are changing borders, migrating, moving in conflict, 
and creating huge problems, undermining the weak governments that 
already exist in these areas of the world and providing further 
pressure on these governments. The result is chaotic situations which 
are the breeding ground for much of the terror and much of the carnage 
we see across the globe. This is related and we have to recognize that.
  There is another part of this, too, that is often neglected. It is a 
challenge, yes, and a serious challenge, but also it is an opportunity. 
It is an opportunity to create jobs to deal with this evolving problem. 
Frankly, in the American spirit, one of our greatest characteristics is 
when we have seen a challenge, we also saw opportunity. Other nations 
just saw a challenge. They didn't roll up their sleeves and deal with 
some of the issues as we did, as our predecessors did, as our parents 
did. Now it is our turn. Will we roll up our sleeves, look at this as a 
real serious challenge, and not ignore it but deal with it?
  If we do that, we can create good jobs. We can create jobs that will 
reward people and contribute to an improved environment. 
Weatherization, for example, supports thousands of highly skilled 
workers and additional jobs in related businesses, materials suppliers, 
vendors, manufacturers, et cetera. This is a very straightforward way 
to deal with the issue of climate change. When we make homes more

[[Page 4059]]

weather tight and better insulated, when we don't waste energy, when we 
don't have to use as much, when we cut down demand and don't have to 
generate as much and put as much pollution into the atmosphere, and we 
do these things on a widespread basis, we put a lot of people to work. 
These are the types of jobs that many people have the skills to do and 
that are rewarding. They can do them, and we save ourselves energy. We 
save the pollution, we save the warming that comes from just spewing 
excess emissions into the environment, and we put people to work.
  This is a low-cost, effective way to deal with employment and with 
energy. We have to do more of these things. It is not, as they say, 
rocket science. This is no fabulous, new, high-tech application that we 
need to develop. This is giving people and communities the resources 
and the support to go out there and to put better insulation in 
buildings, to try to use more alternate energy sources, to put better 
windows in and better doors to hold the heat. This is just 
straightforward but very powerful. It can help curb energy consumption. 
Particularly for low-income people, it can reduce the cost of energy.
  One of the problems, again and I see my New England colleagues around 
that we face in New England is our energy costs are much higher than 
the rest of the country. One is because we have a poor distribution 
system; and two, we have a system also where we are paying for some of 
the pollution in the Midwest that comes out of stacks and is taken at 
high altitudes and then it descends into New England and the Northeast. 
So we have to compensate not only for our pollution but also for other 
areas of the country. So all these factors come together.
  My point is we can do a lot collectively across the country. It is 
not just a challenge, it is a huge opportunity, and that means getting 
our public policies here in Washington right. That means investing in 
better energy, investing in better distribution systems, investing in 
improving those systems that exist.
  One of our problems in terms of the natural gas distribution in New 
England is not only that it is old and inefficient in terms of 
delivering gas, but it leaks methane, which is not a very good 
environmental component to release.
  So we have these challenges before us, and we want to go ahead and 
deal with these challenges. We see around the globe increases in 
precipitation, increases in sea level rise, storm surges becoming 
greater, and all of these are putting to the test every system we have.
  Our road systems--I haven't seen the roads as poor in the Northeast 
in my life. Highways--I-95, there are potholes everywhere. Why? We have 
had so many storms over the last 2 years, so much plowing, and so 
little dollars to do the repairs. The roads now leave you bouncing 
along on the highway like you are not in the United States of America 
but in some second or Third World country. That is a consequence--
indirect, but a consequence--of the weather and our inability to 
marshal the resources to deal with the weather. Not just clearing the 
snow, but then going in and repaving the roads. We see that everywhere. 
But we have to do more.
  This is a threat to our fisheries. It is a threat to our drinking 
water. It is a threat to our quality of life. Again, growing up in 
Rhode Island, we took for granted in the 1950s and 1960s that short 
ride to a beautiful beach--a big, broad, beautiful beach--swimming in 
the water and not worrying about the beach being closed because of 
environmental conditions, toxic conditions in the water. Some of that 
has changed, and we have to go back and reestablish that quality, that 
lifestyle. It is not just all about dollars and cents. It is also about 
the quality of our lives.
  As I said before, and let me conclude, this is not just an issue of 
domestic policy, localized issues. This touches upon our national 
security. Ironically, we debate budgets of billions and billions of 
dollars about platforms, about what kinds of systems we will have in 
the air, on the sea, under the sea; what types and sizes of units we 
will have on the ground and what their training is like. But 
ironically, one of the things that is likely to trigger the engagement 
of our forces is this growing environmental crisis throughout the 
world.
  Someone, I think it was one of the defense ministers in Nigeria, said 
one of the greatest problems the east faces, with the rise of these 
bands of radicalized young people, is the fact that because of 
desiccation of parts of his country, traditional farming, traditional 
aspects of economic growth and jobs and livelihood have been taken 
away, and so young people can get a gun and that is their new job. I 
think we have to be very serious about the national security 
consequences. So as we are moving forward, I hope we will recognize 
that these environmental challenges are also national security 
challenges.
  There is one thing that was very revealing to me, and that was a few 
years ago when the Navy announced the Arctic Ocean would be able to be 
commercially transited during certain parts of the year. Again, growing 
up in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, if someone had told me the Arctic 
Ocean was going to be a commercial highway for ships, I would have said 
that is preposterous. It is frozen. It is always frozen. It will always 
be frozen. Well, that is not the case. Last year, Arctic sea ice 
reached an all-time low, and as climate change accelerates, the melting 
of sea ice will invariably make that a source of navigation.
  It will create new opportunities, such as shipping routes, but also 
new challenges. Who will patrol those seas? Will we have to create not 
only a Pacific fleet but an Arctic fleet? That costs money. Who owns 
the rights? Who has access to that area?
  So we are looking at huge problems that even 10 years ago we thought 
were fanciful.
  That underscores the final point I want to make. We see this climate 
process, this climate change coming, and it doesn't seem to be 
affecting us minute by minute, so there is this tendency to be rather 
cavalier about it. Beyond the people who out-and-out deny it, which I 
think ignores the facts of science, even people who do tend to 
recognize it think, yes, well, we have time. But what we are seeing is 
not just the intensity of these incidents; we are seeing them 
accelerating, and the consequences of accelerating with such rapidity 
is that what we thought might be a huge problem 2 or 3 years from now 
might occur in half that time. So we have to act.
  I want to conclude by thanking my colleagues, Senator Boxer, Senator 
Whitehouse, and Senator Schatz because they have called us to come 
forward and to recognize this issue--to seize the challenge but also to 
seize the opportunity. In doing so, they have done remarkable work for 
the Senate and for this country.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, before I yield the floor to Senator 
Udall of New Mexico, this may be my last chance to speak before the 
all-night session comes to its end, because I am about to relieve the 
Presiding Officer. In fact, I am overdue for that.
  But I did want to take this moment to say a few thank-yous. As one of 
the instigators of this episode, I thank my staff in particular for all 
the work that went into this. I thank the parliamentarians and the 
Senate clerk staff, who had a long night with us, and I appreciate it 
very, very much. There is only one page I see on the floor remaining--
no, there is another one. I want to thank all the pages. Many of them 
stayed here through the night, and it was a very long night for them, 
and I appreciate very much their effort. Then throughout the building, 
because the Senate had to be kept open, there were people who were kept 
here--the Capitol police and others--and it is much appreciated.
  One of the things about the Senate is when we are in session, the 
light on the top of the Capitol stays on. So all night last night, 
people across the city could look and see that the light on the Capitol 
stayed on. I hope that wasn't the

[[Page 4060]]

only light that was shed last night, but at least it is an example, and 
I just express my appreciation to all of the people who we have 
inconvenienced in order to make this point.
  Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield before we hear from my good 
friend.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank also everyone who made this 
evening possible, and I want to say to my co-chair of the Climate 
Action Task Force, Senator Whitehouse, what a privilege it is to work 
with him, as his passion on this runs deep; to Senator Schatz, who, 
from Hawaii, is witnessing climate change in real time, just as so many 
of us are who are from coastal States.
  I am so looking forward to hearing Senator Tom Udall, and I am not 
going to quote him but I hope he will say what he said in front of the 
environment committee when he was a new Member. He called attention to 
what is happening in the West, and all one has to do is read the papers 
to see the suffering that is going on.
  So I also want to say, because time is wasting here, that this was 
something that I think has caught on, that has caught the attention of 
people. I can tell you that well over 100,000 people--well over that--
have signed various petitions calling on Congress to wake up.
  I am under no illusions that our colleagues on the Republican side 
watched us. So let's be clear. Senator Inhofe said before he left: You 
are talking to yourselves, and I took great offense at that because the 
vast majority of the American people understand climate change is real. 
There is no doubt about it, no more doubt than people have that 
cigarettes don't cause cancer. We know this is a fact. And for us to 
close our eyes to this fact is closing our eyes to the people we 
represent and about whom we care.
  Again, my deepest thanks to all the staff in the entire building. To 
all my colleagues, Senator Whitehouse informed me we are about to hear 
from the 30th Senator. That is incredible. Thirty percent of the Senate 
is participating.
  I yield back my time, again, with my deepest thanks. There is more to 
come from the Climate Action Task Force. We are just getting started. 
We will have lots more. The next time we do something, we will engage a 
lot of other folks as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I thank Senator Boxer for her 
very kind words. She is the chairman of the committee which deals with 
climate change legislation and has been ever present in terms of trying 
to see if we can come up with a bipartisan solution and get 
legislation. I was very proud to serve on her committee when the Obama 
administration came in and the Senate sat down to work and was trying 
to do something about climate change. Unfortunately, we ran out of 
time.
  But as we can see by the number of Senators who have spoken--we are 
up to 30 now--we still have incredible passion about this issue. We 
know it is a serious problem, the American people know it is a serious 
problem, and we want something done.
  What have we learned? I have watched my colleagues over the night. I 
am No. 30 and I have watched what they have been talking about. The 
tradition here in the Senate is normally if we are talking like this 
and our colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle want to come 
down and exchange with us, they can do that. That is our tradition, to 
say we speak and then they speak. What we have ended up seeing is one 
Republican Senator show up in this 12-plus-hour period is my 
understanding. I think I am right. This is what was reported on NPR 
this morning. To me, this is tremendously sad, because in the glory 
days of the Senate in the 1960s and 1970s major environmental 
legislation, major conservation organization legislation--remember the 
Wilderness Act, the Clean Water Act, Clean Air, Endangered Species--was 
passed with significant bipartisan support. We don't see that effort 
today. It makes me very sad. We are here all night trying to engage and 
say: This is something the American people believe is serious, and we 
need to engage on this issue.
  Today I am going to talk a little bit about New Mexico, and how New 
Mexico and the Southwest are at the bull's-eye when it comes to climate 
change.
  What do I mean by that? If New Mexico is at one temperature and we 
compare it with the rest of the country--let's say in the rest of the 
country we have a 1-percent rise--New Mexico is going to be 2 percent, 
so there is a doubling effect in the Southwest. This is a map of New 
Mexico, but we are talking the Southwest.
  First let me talk a little bit about the drought we have had. Here we 
are from June 2011 to the present, a drought of epic proportions. The 
U.S. drought monitor shows more than 90 percent of New Mexico is in 
extreme drought. Northern and western New Mexico got some precipitation 
last year, but several other areas of the State remain mostly dry. We 
can see this is extreme; the other is moderate. Added together, it is a 
significant impact. These are the kinds of challenges we are going to 
face with climate change.
  To talk a little bit more about these impacts, I would now like to go 
to chart 2 and look at the snowpack in the northern New Mexico and 
southern Colorado watersheds. They only range from one-half to three-
quarters of what normally would be there.
  This is a winter picture. Normally in northern New Mexico at this 
time of year we would see a massive snowpack. Why is that important? 
Because in the summer when we start using the water, we start 
irrigating, the farmers start doing things, they recharge the aquifer. 
So if we don't have a snowpack, we don't have that kind of recharge and 
we don't have the storage levels of drinking water.
  Just to pick one of our communities, Santa Fe, NM, gets 40 percent of 
its water from the ground and it gets another big chunk of the water 
from reservoirs. Those reservoirs are fed when we have a snowpack and 
when the ground gets recharged and it flows off and flows into those 
reservoirs, so this is something which makes a huge impact when we 
don't have a snowpack and when we have a decreasing amount of 
precipitation. We are going to see more and more of this as we move 
down the road, when we look at the modeling which has been done by the 
experts who are working on this issue.
  This next slide is particularly disturbing in terms of water. I 
remember it being roughly at this place on the Rio Grande just last 
year in the middle of the summer. This photo is showing a very meager 
amount of water. When I was there last summer, there was no water. It 
was completely dry. So here, the river which flows the whole length of 
the State of New Mexico down to southern New Mexico--El Paso, TX, 
relies on it; Mexico, our neighbor to the south, relies on it--there 
was no water to be seen. Once again, it dramatically shows the impacts 
of climate change and the impacts as we see this move down the road.
  One experience with ranchers and farmers I think really brings this 
home in terms of water. There was a flood control project in Tucumcari, 
NM, created in the middle of the Great Depression. Everybody in the 
community invested in it. The Federal Government invested in it. These 
projects have a dual purpose. One is, if there is a big flood, to try 
to control the flood. The second thing is to hold the water, so when we 
get to the irrigation season we can have irrigated farmland. They did 
this in the 1930s. I think about 600 or 700 farmers and ranchers rely 
on this project and have been relying on this project since the 1930s.
  I visited this community recently and learned from the people who run 
the project and from the farmers and ranchers, in the last couple of 
years, zero water. No water at all. They had never seen this since the 
1930s, even though when we went through very serious conditions in the 
1950s it was thought to be one of the biggest droughts and no water. 
The last 10 or 12 years, this particular project, the same thing: very, 
very little water.

[[Page 4061]]

  What ends up happening as a result? Farmers and ranchers cannot 
plant. Ranchers sell off their herds. Just to show how dramatic it is, 
in New Mexico we saw 50 percent of our cattle herds sold off this last 
year. People are hurting so badly in terms of this drought, they are 
unable to keep their livestock on the land and they end up having to 
pull the livestock off. This has a devastating impact to people who 
live closest to the ground.
  I have been out on the land in New Mexico with conservationists and 
scientists and talked to them about climate change. One of the things I 
try to describe in what I have learned--and I think this is what 
Chairman Boxer is talking about--when I made a presentation in one of 
the committees, is if we take the modeling which has been done on 
climate change in the Southwest, and particularly focusing on New 
Mexico, what we do with that modeling is ask ourselves: Where are we 
going to be 50 years down the line?
  We just had a study at Los Alamos National Laboratory which says by 
2050--in less than 50 years--we are not going to have any forests in 
New Mexico. So much of this area of northern New Mexico and down here, 
the forests throughout this area, they are saying it looks like no 
forests and much less water, as I have just talked about. If we don't 
get snowpack, we can't charge the system back.
  The most dramatic description to me is what happens here 50 years 
from now. These are conservative numbers. These aren't the ones many of 
the scientists nowadays are saying we have. We are taking conservative 
numbers, and many scientists are saying it is happening quicker, it is 
moving faster.
  What they tell us is--imagine on a computer screen how we can drag 
things. New Mexico is over 300 miles. If we click on New Mexico and 
drag it 300 miles to the south--so we are moving the top of New Mexico 
down 300 miles to the south--what do we get? We are in the middle of 
the Chihuahuan desert in Mexico. So what was a dramatic forested area, 
what was an area which was very acceptable to farming and ranching: 
Devastating impacts.
  So those are the kinds of things. I could go on and on here. But the 
thing about the impacts--and we could talk about how one of our 
reservoirs at Elephant Butte has the lowest level in 40 years. This is 
a great recreational lake which people used. This is a picture of the 
reservoir in June of 1994. Here is the picture today--dramatically 
different.
  I wish to highlight as I close here--because I know we are trying to 
wrap up after we have been going for many hours--New Mexico has been 
focusing on solutions. One of the solutions sitting right in front of 
us is renewable energy. We know we are going to have to deal with this 
problem one way or another. It is much better to deal with it earlier. 
In New Mexico we are doing everything we can to foster the solar power 
industry. This slide shows solar power to beat coal prices in New 
Mexico. Right now, the solar installations going up are very 
competitive in terms of coal.
  Wind power. Once again, in New Mexico we have installed wind capacity 
of 778 megawatts. New Mexico ranks 19th for the total megawatts 
installed. So all over New Mexico, up on our mesas, as we can see here, 
we have wind turbines collecting the energy from the wind. The number 
of wind turbines: 575. New Mexico ranks 17th for the number of utility-
scale wind turbines. Current wind generation in New Mexico is 6.1 
percent.
  Just a few years ago when we put in place a renewable electricity 
standard, we had a lower level and we have been pushing that up. This 
is one of the things we need to do at the national level. My cousin and 
I worked in the House of Representatives before we were in the Senate 
to get a national renewable electricity standard. This is something we 
have to do which is a solution.
  As I laid out all of the things earlier, the devastating impacts, one 
of the things we should realize is there are solutions; they are here 
today; the technology is perfected; and we are able to put those into 
place.
  The final area of renewable energy I wish to talk about and we have 
huge potential here in the Southwest is called advanced biofuels. I 
have been to this facility and seen the experimentation they are doing. 
They have taken land and are farming algae. What eventually happens 
with this algae is it is refined and the algae becomes a very good 
fuel. So this is something which is, once again, a solution to this 
problem.
  We shouldn't despair when we look at the impact of climate change and 
when we look in the future as to what people are going to predict, 
because we know we have the ability to cultivate solutions.
  I am very proud of my State and how we have really worked to 
cultivate these sources of renewable energy, and we are moving it up 
with our renewable electricity standard higher and higher every year. I 
am very proud to have been a part of this effort, the 30th Senator to 
stand and speak about this. I guess we have been going about 13 hours, 
14 hours.
  Once again, I can't close without mentioning I wish we had our 
friends and colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle down here to 
engage us. I don't know what to conclude but that either they don't 
care about this or don't want to engage with us. We only had one 
Republican Senator in this 14-hour period show up. This sure isn't like 
the glory days of the Senate when so many Republicans participated with 
Democrats to tackle the big problems which faced our country. This is a 
problem which faces the entire world, so we need the U.S. Senate and 
the entire world working together in a cooperative way to solve this.
  I thank the Presiding Officer, who was a key person in terms of 
organizing this, Senator Whitehouse from Rhode Island, and I yield for 
my good friend from Massachusetts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Massachusetts.
  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Udall.
  I am proud to join with my colleagues in speaking on climate change. 
Senators have been speaking on this issue since yesterday, all through 
the night, to add their voices to the millions of voices around the 
country who are committed to fighting climate change.
  The level of commitment we have seen from these Senators is 
extraordinary, and we will need an extraordinary commitment here in 
Congress, around the country, and around the world to address this 
issue. We will need that commitment because we are on the cusp of 
climate crisis, a point of no return, which will threaten our health, 
our economy, and our world.
  We are also on the cusp of innovation in clean energy and energy 
efficiency which has the possibility of transforming energy production 
and consumption. In other words, we are at a moment of great danger and 
great opportunity, a moment where we must make choices about whether we 
will go boldly into the future, investing in innovation, establishing 
serious and smart regulations, and committing to address the climate 
crisis or whether we will continue to subsidize fossil fuels of the 
past and ignore the risks to our future. It is up to us.
  Doing something new is hard, because when it comes to environmental 
and energy issues in this country, powerful, entrenched, deep-pocketed 
corporations are lined up to fight any change from the status quo. 
These powerful corporations defend policies which poison our air and 
foul our water with little regard for the well-being of future 
generations. These powerful interests work hard to tilt the playing 
field so energy entrepreneurs and innovators have a hard time getting a 
foothold in the market. These powerful interests too often have a 
stranglehold on our political system, blocking not only bold change, 
but even conservative, market-based reforms.
  When it comes to environmental and energy policy, the system is 
rigged--it is rigged against our families and it is rigged against our 
future. Let me give one example.
  In 2012, the five biggest oil companies--ExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron, 
BP, and ConocoPhillips--made combined

[[Page 4062]]

profits of $118 billion. At the same time, they sucked down billions of 
dollars in tax subsidies from the American people. Over 10 years, oil 
and gas companies will receive $40 billion in taxpayer subsidies. And 
if the Republicans have their way, these companies will get even bigger 
breaks in their taxes.
  Think about what $40 billion could mean for our future: a serious 
investment in research to figure out the problem of energy storage and 
to develop better incentives for wind and solar installation; certainty 
and predictability for investors and entrepreneurs who have a big idea 
in green energy or energy efficiency and want to build a new business. 
And here is the point to underline: We can invest in research and 
develop new markets without spending any new money, if we just shift 
our priorities from old fossil fuel energy to new clean energy.
  A tax policy which protects these powerful interests of the past is a 
tax policy which is rigged against the entrepreneurs, small businesses, 
and innovators of the future. It is rigged against families who want 
their children to live in a world where they can drink the water and 
breathe the air.
  In preparation for the speech I am giving this morning, I asked 
Americans to write in and talk about how their lives will be affected 
if we do not get serious about climate change. My question was a simple 
one: If we don't do anything at all to stop climate change, what do you 
think the world will look like 25 years from now?
  I would like to read some of the responses for the record. These are 
just a few of the more than 5,000 letters I received on this issue. It 
is obvious to me the people of Massachusetts and the people of our 
great Nation are worried about this problem. So let me read from some 
of their letters.
  Blake Cady of Brookline, MA, writes:

       I served on a US Navy icebreaker in the Arctic from 1959-
     1961 and saw th[at] relatively pristine region with intact 
     permafrost and heavy sea ice well into the summer off Baffin 
     Island and further north. Now, much of the Arctic Ocean ice 
     cover is disappearing and is predicted to be entirely gone by 
     the end of the 2030 summer season. . . .
       Currently there is open water across the Northwest Passage 
     in the summer, and shipping has become routine, [which is] a 
     profound change already. There will be untold alterations--
     from the warming Arctic Ocean to accompany the rapidly 
     melting Greenland ice cap--which have the potential to change 
     global currents and further escalate global warming trends.
       There is still a narrow time window to address this looming 
     climate disaster, but action must be forceful and rapid to 
     escape its worst aspects. I fear for my children's and 
     grandchildren's future.

  A letter from Susan Timberlake of Florence, MA:

       I used to be a clinical chemist. We made up ``buffers'' as 
     part of our tools that kept a solution at the pH [that is, 
     relative acidity] that you desired even as you added things 
     that would upset the pH.
       Really good buffers have really good capacity. 
     CO2 dissolved in water as a bicarbonate has pretty 
     good buffering capability. Once all the buffering capacity is 
     used up the pH change is precipitous. The pH shifts radically 
     and directly as anything else is added to the solution. You 
     lose any control you had over the chemical reaction(s).

  And here is where she makes the connection.

       The oceans are where much of our excess CO2 is 
     going. . . . So far the oceans have been absorbing the 
     CO2. . . . But the coral reefs and the starfish on 
     the west coast of America don't lie. We have no idea . . . 
     how much buffering capacity is left (or not). If we keep this 
     up we will have a well carbonated, acidic--and quite dead--
     ocean.
       [That's] [n]ot something I can bear leaving for my children 
     and grandchildren. (And I am a registered Republican--[a] 
     conservationist in the real sense.)

  A letter from Nilan M. MacDonald of Scituate, MA:

       I live in Scituate, MA, on Boston's South Shore. We are 
     about two miles from the coast. In 25 years we could be 
     flooded out. Also, storms are worsening, and we have been 
     left without power for days at a time, which has endangered 
     our health ([and] we are seniors).
       In 25 years, populations who live at sea level will become 
     climate refugees as sea levels rise. This will affect people 
     worldwide. Crops will be threatened by droughts and floods. 
     Diseases now in check will become rampant as the planet 
     warms. Mosquitos are the deadliest animal vector for human 
     diseases--and their numbers and range will greatly increase 
     with climate change.

  Dorothy Bagley of Hudson, MA writes:

       If folks think that this has been a bad winter in New 
     England and weird all over the world, [consider] how much 
     worse it will be in 25 years. Areas of concern to me [are]: 
     weather changes affecting crops, water supplies, flooding, 
     etc. Our whole style of life is in danger . . .
       I am a retired Chemistry Teacher and I know what the effect 
     of temperature is on chemical reactions. Our World is one big 
     chemistry experiment . . . with so many variables which 
     compound the problems.
       We can take steps, however small they may seem, like 
     lessening pollution due to carbon-containing fuels, lower 
     speed limits, increase[d] use of alternative fuels, 
     chang[ing] the Nation's attitude about recycling . . . 
     chang[ing] our transportation by . . . mak[ing] our cars more 
     efficient, etc.
       Education and focus are the keys. People need to know that 
     they can effect a change both positively and negatively. 
     Unless citizens' attitudes change toward any of the above, 
     nothing will help to minimize what will be in 25 years.

  A letter from Mon Cochran of Orleans, MA, who writes:

       Dear Elizabeth,
       I am 72 years old and living on Cape Cod, where I grew up. 
     When I was a kid back in the 1940s my parents and other very 
     old people used to tell scary stories about the Hurricane of 
     1938, and how it knocked down all the trees and blew the 
     roofs off houses. We saw pictures of boats smashed on the 
     shore or carried up into the streets by the flood tides.
       As I grew up in Orleans, we experienced a series of 
     hurricanes, starting with Carol in 1954 and then Diana the 
     next year. Each time our parents remember 1938--and each time 
     I remember being very, very scared as the storms barreled 
     across the bay like furious freight trains while we cowered 
     in the basement. In 1960 Donna came through, and even though 
     I was 18 years old by then the fear that the house would be 
     destroyed brought nightmares.
       Now I am a grandfather, and know much more about what 
     causes hurricanes and why they can be so destructive than my 
     parents did back then. For the past twenty years or so we 
     have been lucky on the Cape--most of the really bad storms 
     have been confined to the Caribbean or turned inland before 
     reaching us.
       My grandchildren Tom and Kay and I have been learning about 
     global warming together, and we have noticed, in particular, 
     how our bay, and the ocean it connects to seems to be warmer 
     every year. The ocean water over at Nauset Bay is so warm in 
     the summer that we can boogie board indefinitely without 
     getting cold. What we have been reading about hurricanes is 
     that the warmer the water is, the more energy that is 
     available to the storm and the stronger it becomes.
       Kay and Tom were very scared by the pictures of Superstorm 
     Sandy they saw on TV and were worried that a storm like that, 
     or worse, might hit us here in South Orleans. As for me, I 
     think it is just a matter of time, but I don't tell them 
     that. They live in Boston and have visions of a great wall of 
     water roaring into Boston Harbor, knocking down all the 
     buildings in the waterfront and surging up into the 
     neighborhood where they live in Roslindale.
       From what I have been learning, we have already pumped so 
     much extra carbon into the air, that these much more extreme 
     storms are likely to occur no matter what we do. If we 
     redouble our effort to switch to clean energy--solar, wind, 
     hydro, tidal, geothermal, and biofuels--the way they are 
     doing now in Europe, and even in countries such as China and 
     India, then 25 years from now Tom and Kay will know that a 
     sustainable lifestyle is possible and their children can look 
     forward to a much safer and more secure second half of the 
     20th century.

  From Ken Marien of Westminster, MA:

       [I expect to see] [m]ore severe weather patterns, colder 
     colds, warmer warms, drier days, wetter floods, bigger 
     storms, higher winds, more dust, more mud, loss of marginal 
     growth plant and animal life.

  I have many more letters. As I said, I received more than 5,000 
letters from people in Massachusetts and across the country. I wish I 
could read every one of them. I don't kid myself. We are up against an 
army of lobbyists, and we will not win all the fights ahead. But here 
in the Senate we have leaders who will fight as hard as we can to 
protect our environmental future.
  The Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Whitehouse, has shown dedication 
to addressing climate change and his commitment to ocean issues and the 
coastline has been visionary.
  My colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Markey, has committed his 
long career to protecting and preserving the environment.
  Senator Boxer, from California, who chairs the Environment and Public

[[Page 4063]]

Works Committee in the Senate has been a force to fight to protect our 
environment. Senator Schatz, from Hawaii, organized Senators to speak 
through the night on this issue and is quickly distinguishing himself 
as a leader in the fight against climate change.
  In a few minutes, Senator Cardin will come forward and continue this 
important discussion.
  I am proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with such dedicated public 
servants and with all of the Senators who have held the floor for so 
many hours to draw attention to our urgent need for climate change.
  We are on the cusp of a climate crisis, a point of no return. We can 
continue to subsidize polluters and ignore the warnings all around us 
or we can invest in a future that can create jobs, a future that can 
strengthen our national security and, most of all, a future that can 
save our planet.
  This is our moment in history. We can act, we must act, and we will 
act.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of New Mexico). The Senator from 
Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, first, I wish to compliment and thank 
Senator Warren for her comments. Senator Warren has brought up a lot of 
issues that I can relate to because our States share the Atlantic 
Ocean. We talk about climate refugees around the world, and we are 
starting to see those in our own States. As sea levels are rising, we 
see dead zones in the oceans and in our bays. We need to take action in 
order to protect our people.
  In my State of Maryland, you can see firsthand the effects of the 
rising sea-level. One example is Smith Island. Smith Island is a 
habitable island in the Chesapeake Bay that is home to many of our 
watermen who have been practicing their professions for many years. 
They are at risk.
  You need a boat to get from one of the towns to the other. Smith 
Island only has a couple of hundred remaining residents, but they are 
losing their land daily as they fight to counter the rising sea level 
change--I think that is a very visible sign of what we are up against--
and the urgency of dealing with climate change.
  I am so proud to be identified with the Climate Action Task force. 
Many of the leaders have been mentioned, and I thank Senator Schatz and 
Senator Whitehouse for organizing this opportunity for us to put a 
spotlight on climate change and the need for urgent action. I thank 
Senator Boxer, the chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee, 
for her extraordinary leadership.
  Throughout last night and into this morning, we have highlighted the 
science, which is indisputable, as to the fact that over millions of 
years we have seen catastrophic changes on our own planet. Because of 
our activities and what we are doing on Earth, within a very short 
period of time--just hundreds of years, and less than that now--we are 
causing a catastrophic impact on our climate. It is urgent. We have 
seen firsthand the impacts of climate change.
  I was in Beijing, China, last year. I was there 3 days. There wasn't 
a cloud in the sky, but I never saw the Sun because of the pollution 
that was in the air--their carbon emissions. We have seen the costs of 
climate change in lives and in dollars we spend to try to adapt to the 
new realities of extreme weather conditions.
  I will use the few moments I have to talk about the issues that are 
closer to home in my own State of Maryland. Seventy percent of 
Maryland's population lives in coastal zones. It is now predicted by 
the Maryland Climate Change Commission that we will see a 1.4-foot 
increase in the sea level by 2050 and 3.7 feet by the end of this 
century. That is going to have a dramatic impact on many Marylanders 
who live in the coastal area.
  I can give another example. Ocean City, MD, is a popular place for 
Marylanders and people from outside our State to enjoy the beautiful 
beaches. I must say that I am very proud that this Congress has 
appropriated millions of dollars for beach renourishment. Those dollars 
have returned multiple times because they prevent the full force of 
these nor'easter storms that are more frequent and more severe in 
Maryland and along the Maryland coast. There is a limit as to what we 
can do if we don't take action to deal with the sources of climate 
change. We want to protect our property owners, and the best way to 
protect our property owners is to do something about the causes of 
climate change.
  We saw the impact of Sandy along the east coast of the United States. 
I know that the most severe impact was in New Jersey and New York, but 
in Maryland we saw in Crisfield, MD, the full effect of Sandy. The 
people there know they are at risk because of the severe storms that 
are becoming more frequent and more severe.
  The Chesapeake Bay itself is at risk. I have talked on the floor many 
times about the importance of the Chesapeake Bay, and how it is a 
national treasure. It is important just by the fact that it is the 
largest estuary in our hemisphere. It is important because of its 
coastline and its impact. It is also important because of its impact on 
our economy. The blue crabs and oysters are critically important to 
Maryland. Yet they are at risk.
  The blue crab is a little complicated, but we know one of the factors 
that is affecting the blue crabs is the ability of juvenile crabs to be 
able to survive in seagrasses. Yet the seagrass population is declining 
because of temperature rise in the Chesapeake Bay. That is just one 
example of the challenges we have because of climate change. It is 
affecting the economy of my State, and it is affecting the economy of 
our country.
  The Port of Baltimore is the largest single economic factor creating 
jobs in our community, and the Port of Baltimore depends upon a stable 
coastal climate.
  The tourism industry is directly affected by climate change. People 
love to come to our State to hunt and fish. One of the most valuable 
assets we have along the bay is the Blackwater National Wildlife 
Refuge.
  The Presiding Officer has heard me talk about that frequently in the 
Environment and Public Works Committee. The bald eagles have returned 
to Blackwater. It is an incredible sight. People go there just to see 
the beauty of nature and to visit our wildlife and our waterfowl.
  Blackwater is at risk. It is important for tourism, and it is 
important for our environment. It is also the land in which Harriet 
Tubman conducted the underground railroad, so it has a lot of 
significance. Yet, between 1938 and 2006, we lost 5,000 acres of 
marshland to open water, and that is accelerating. It is not slowing 
down. If we don't reverse the impacts of climate change, we are going 
to see a more dramatic impact on those types of treasures in Maryland 
and nationally.
  I will also mention the fact that, of course, this is a Federal 
legislature, and we should be concerned about the Federal facilities as 
well. In Maryland we have Pax River, which does incredibly important 
work for our Navy so they can do their research and flight testing on 
the coast of our State, and that is at risk by the rising sea-level.
  I serve on the Board of Visitors at the Naval Academy, and I can tell 
you I have visited the Naval Academy when it has been flooded because 
of storms. It is a little below sea level at some of its locations. The 
rising sea level jeopardizes that iconic institution that is so 
important to our national defense.
  The Aberdeen Proving Grounds is also located on our coast and does 
critical work in national security. All of these facilities are being 
jeopardized because of the climate change that is occurring in our 
community.
  I will talk a little bit about some good news. We can reverse what 
has happened. We can slow down the effects. We can change the course 
that we are on. We have already done a significant amount. I 
congratulate President Obama and his policies because he has taken on 
the major areas that deal with climate change.
  The United States has to lead internationally, but it starts with 
action right here in the United States. We have to lead by example. 
Other countries are far ahead of us. We have to

[[Page 4064]]

join with other countries to produce a strategy that works because our 
environment does not end at our borders. We have to work 
internationally, but first we have to work at home.
  What has President Obama done? He has taken on the transportation 
sector, which is one of the greatest uses of carbon fuels, with our 
CAFE standards--our efficiency of our automobiles. We now have 
standards that would lead to having an automobile get 54\1/2\ miles per 
gallon by 2025. That is ambitious. They said we couldn't do it before, 
but we did it. We met those standards, and we will meet these 
standards. We will significantly reduce the amount of fuels that we 
need to fuel our transportation in this country.
  We are investing in transit facilities, and that reduces our carbon 
footprint. High-speed rail reduces our carbon footprint. We are 
committed to those types of solutions that are common sense to help our 
environment.
  The Obama administration is moving ahead on the regulation of carbon 
pollution under the Clean Air Act. They recognize that the energy 
sector can help reduce our carbon footprint substantially.
  Senator Warren was absolutely correct when she said that we don't 
have a level playing field today. We subsidize the fossil fuels, but we 
don't with the renewable fuels. We can expand our renewable energy 
sources.
  Quite frankly, we are showing innovation among all of our 
stakeholders. Buildings use a lot of energy and generate a lot of 
carbon. The Federal Government is leading in the LEED certification, as 
is the private sector, in doing things that are much more energy 
efficient in the building sector.
  Therefore, we have seen progress in transportation and buildings and 
the generation of electricity. We have been reducing our carbon 
footprint, which will help the people on Smith Island by reducing the 
sea level changes.
  The Presiding Officer and I saw firsthand the impact of the glacier 
melts when we were in Greenland. I thank Senator Boxer for arranging 
that opportunity. We saw very visually the glacier melts and how much 
has occurred in a very short period of time. We can reverse that by 
showing leadership in transportation and the way we use our buildings 
and the way we generate electricity. We can work together with the 
international community.
  The good news is that the solutions for dealing with climate change 
will help our national security by consuming less fossil fuels. We want 
to get to zero as far as our need for imported energy in this country.
  We can get that. We now know the threats that are made from Russia to 
Ukraine to the Middle East. We can eliminate that threat to our 
national security. We can create more jobs. Green energy will give us 
more jobs in the fossil fuel industry. We need good-paying jobs. We can 
leave our children and grandchildren a cleaner planet and a better 
future. That is what is at stake. That is why we have taken this time. 
I am proud to be identified with so many who have spoken on this issue.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Maryland. I 
thank him for all his work on the Chesapeake and so many important 
issues as it relates to this issue and for being here up all night with 
my colleagues on this important climate issue.
  I thank Senators Boxer and Whitehouse and Schatz for organizing this 
endeavor and for everybody participating. Obviously we are here to talk 
about climate change, but like my colleagues we know climate change is 
actually impacting jobs now because it is impacting our climate now. So 
while we are here to talk about what might happen in the future, I am 
here right now to specifically talk about what is happening to our 
economy and why we need to take action because ocean acidification is 
an economic issue and it affects so many different people in our 
economy in the Pacific Northwest.
  It affects our shellfish growers, which is a major industry. We have 
three and four generations of shellfish growers who are threatened now 
by the impact of carbon in our oceans and the warming of our oceans. So 
when you talk about climate and you talk about acidification of our 
oceans, you are talking about an industry that is key to the Northwest 
that is being affected today.
  Also, our crab fishermen are being affected today, which is an 
important part of our fishing industry all the way to the Bering Sea. A 
lot of people do not realize that the Alaska crab fishermen are based 
in Alaska and in Washington State. They very much depend on making sure 
we deal with this issue in the future if we want to protect these jobs 
and the important industry that is there.
  Sea levels are rising and forcing communities to deal with this 
issue. We want to help ticket these jobs, even jobs for the salmon 
fisherman. A lot of people watch ``Deadliest Catch'' and understand the 
seafood industry, but they may not understand that even salmon depend 
on a food source that is affected by ocean acidification, that it is 
not just killing oysters and shellfish, but it is also killing these 
pteropod that the salmon industry depends on too.
  You can see I am here to talk in relation to jobs because commercial 
fishing in Washington State is a $30 billion coastal economy with 
42,000 jobs and contributes about $1.7 billion to our gross economic 
product. So for us this is the impact of climate that is being felt 
today, not in the future. It is being felt today. It threatens a key 
industry. Not only is that industry important to Washington State, it 
is also important to the Nation. It contributes $70 billion to the U.S. 
economy and supports over 1 million fishing jobs. So our inaction in 
Congress, deciding not to do something, basically threatens those 1 
million jobs because the climate is impacting our oceans and our oceans 
are impacting the food supply these fishermen harvest.
  If we do not do something about this, we are going to have severe 
problems in the future. Why is this? The key point--if we could have 
just one chart today played over and over, I would have this chart--is 
our oceans absorb 25 percent of the CO2 emissions. That is 
right. All of the CO2 emissions, 25 percent of them 
basically sink into the ocean. So that means carbon emissions from 
fossil fuels are being absorbed into the ocean. That basically creates 
a very corrosive environment in our waters.
  So the notion that people think we can continue doing what we are 
doing and not make the change, I guarantee you the problems we are 
causing for our oceans is a serious threat. This graph shows you the 
kind of acidification that is happening in our sea water.
  That ocean acidification has increased 30 percent over the last 200 
years. Oceans are on track to be 150 percent more acidic by the end of 
the century. The current rate of acidification is 10 times faster than 
anything Earth has experienced in the last 50 million years.
  As you can see, this increase of carbon and an increase of the 
acidity level in water, an increase in acidification, is what is 
causing this problem for us. Again, my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle who think this is just something that we do not have to deal 
with are ignoring the real science and the state of our oceans.
  What does that acidification cause? I guess if there was another 
chart here I would make this chart also the star of the show, because 
this is not a science experiment, this is the current state of oyster 
larvae. Last night I was at a restaurant here in town and they offered 
Washington oysters, shellfish on the menu. That is great to see.
  But this is a picture of actual larvae, the beginning stages of these 
shellfish that are being impacted. You can see here that this is what 
acidification is doing to that larvae. It is not able to form. We saw 
in 2005 when shellfish production plummeted on the West Coast, it 
seemed like a freak accident, but then it happened again in 2006 and in 
2007. Then in 2008, more than 80 percent of the oysters at Whiskey 
Creek Shellfish Hatchery died before they could be planted into the 
shellfish farm. In total, billions of shellfish died

[[Page 4065]]

because of that acidification. These images from Oregon State 
University show ocean acidification, what it does to the larvae because 
that acidification erodes and becomes corrosive and actually kills the 
oysters.
  As I said, these are third- and fourth-generation jobs in my State. 
It is very important that we protect them. They have been a big driving 
part of our economy. But when corrosive sea water increases and then 
you have a 60-percent decrease in production, you are talking about 
hundreds of jobs in Washington State that are being impacted. We need 
to do something right now to act.
  It does not just affect the larvae of oysters, acidification destroys 
other shellfish. This again is another example of a pteropod, which 
just happens to be the food source for salmon. Some of these shellfish 
are what salmon feed off of for a protein source. Yet these same shells 
are not being able to form. Over 30 percent of the marine life in Puget 
Sound is a calcifier. So these calcifiers basically are species that 
are a calcium carbonate shell, just like the oysters and the shellfish, 
that needs to form. That is 30 percent of our marine life, of our food 
source.
  So if we do not do something about ocean acidification, these shells 
are not forming, and we are going to have an even more serious impact 
to our salmon industry in Washington State.
  My constituents know these are big issues. In fact, the Seattle Times 
ran a groundbreaking series called ``Sea Change,'' the highlighting of 
the impact of carbon to the oceans because it could--as this article 
details--cause a collapse of that huge Alaska crab fishing industry--a 
collapse. I know my colleagues from the Northeast are here. They 
understand what a collapse to a fishing industry means. They understand 
it means a lot of people without jobs, it means a lot of people who 
depend on the fishing industry as ancillary or related jobs end up 
without jobs. They understand that a collapse of the fishing industry 
means a collapse to the economy overall in their region.
  So if we do not do something to address acidification, we are talking 
about climate change impacting a key jobs sector and causing huge job 
losses. That is what this chart shows. Basically it shows how the crab 
harvest industry is being impacted by ocean acidification and that it 
could cause a very precipitous decline.
  We cannot afford that. I will show you why we cannot afford that. We 
just recently--people might have caught it on the west coast. You might 
think what I just showed you is about oysters and about the pteropod 
for a salmon source, but scallops, we just had I think 1 week ago a 
massive die-off, another canary in the coal mine. Basically it shows 
that 10 million scallops died off the coast of British Colombia. 
Acidification was to blame. So acidic water was blamed for west coast 
scallop die-off.
  It shut down a processing plant and one-third of its workforce. You 
can see these things basically are killing jobs. So ocean acidification 
kills jobs. Us doing nothing about ocean acidification or about 
CO2 in the atmosphere is going to cause us economic 
problems.
  I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to make sure we 
support measures that will allow us to mitigate now the impact of this 
and plan for the future because we cannot have what is happening now.
  We have a buoy system that we have deployed all across the United 
States. That buoy system helps us identify acidification levels and 
helps the fishermen come up with alternative strategies about when to 
do their planting. Let's just say it this way: They figure out when is 
a perfect moment to actually have the seeding. If you have too much 
CO2 and a warming of the oceans, then figuring out that very 
moment where it might not be so acidic or challenging and then actually 
doing the planting is giving us some problems.
  But these are high-risk tactics. We actually have to reduce the level 
of CO2. We are here this morning to talk about how this 
issue impacts the industry in my State. But this last chart shows a 
picture that is irrefutable. This is ocean acidification's effects on 
coral. Here is healthy coral. You can see it is vibrant, colorful. If 
you have ever been off our coast or walking on the beaches, you can see 
the shell life that exists in a healthy coral reef.
  This is the same coral reef years later with an unhealthy effect. We 
are here this morning to talk about jobs, to talk about climate and its 
impact on our economy today. It is important that we address this 
issue. I have sponsored bipartisan legislation with my colleague on the 
other side of the aisle called the CLEAR Act. It is just one idea, but 
the premise of that is that we have to not only reduce greenhouse gases 
now, we have to mitigate the impact and plan for a more diverse energy 
source in the future.
  That is what we are talking about. We are talking about trying to 
save jobs in the United States of America by doing a better job of 
planning on this important issue.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I wish to agree with Senator Cantwell, 
our colleague from Washington State, because in New Hampshire we are 
also seeing the impact of climate change on our traditional industries. 
It is contributing to sea level rise, it imperils businesses and homes 
in coastal communities such as Portsmouth. New Hampshire's very popular 
Hampton Beach is experiencing greater storm surges and beach erosion. 
The outdoor recreation community is facing shorter winters, less snow, 
and that results in fewer tourism dollars.
  Wildlife and public health are becoming increasingly vulnerable to 
diseases. In New Hampshire, tourism is our State's second largest 
industry. It accounts for $9.3 billion in the State's economy. It 
provides jobs and economic growth throughout the State, but climate 
change could put some of New Hampshire's best attractions in jeopardy. 
The fall foliage in New Hampshire is a main draw for visitors from 
around the world who spend millions annually to see our beautiful 
landscape. As climate change continues, those warmer temperatures are 
causing dulling and browning of climate-stressed unhealthy trees.
  Another driver of tourism in New Hampshire is our State's outdoor 
recreation activities, such as downhill and cross-country skiing, 
snowshoeing, and snowmobiling. As temperatures increase due to climate 
change, the ski industry has to make more snow, and that increases 
their expenses. In fact, the EPA has predicted that by the end of the 
century, summers in New Hampshire could be as warm as summers in North 
Carolina, which would drastically shorten fall foliage without cooler 
temperatures starting in September. We are already seeing it in terms 
of fewer snow days in New Hampshire and earlier ice out on our lakes.
  Maple sugar production is being affected. It depends on prolonged 
cold temperatures with freezing nights and warm daytime temperatures to 
create the optimal sugar content and sap production. With warming 
underway, maple sugar producers in New Hampshire tell me they are 
already seeing an impact on production. According to a report by the 
New Hampshire Citizens for a Responsible Energy Policy, ``Current 
modeling forecasts predict that maple sugar trees eventually will be 
completely eliminated as a regionally important species in the 
northeastern United States''--that is, if we fail to act on climate 
change.
  New Hampshire's seacoast is facing rising sea levels along our 18 
miles of shoreline. The coastline is one of the most developed parts of 
the State, and flooding could devastate coastal towns and their 
economies. Ted Diers, who is the administrator of the Watershed 
Management Bureau of the NH Department of Environmental Services, 
recently said:

       Sea level has been rising at 6 to 8 inches a century. What 
     we're seeing right now is a tripling of that.

  Climate change is expected to cause widespread tree deaths, which 
could cause extensive wildfires. We are already seeing that in the 
West. There

[[Page 4066]]

are large increases in pest and pathogen outbreaks and a lag in the 
establishment of new forests for several decades. It is also a threat 
to animals and their habitats.
  The moose population in New Hampshire is declining due to warming 
trends in winter and summer. The fact is that New Hampshire's moose 
population is down 40 percent this year, and it is the result of ticks. 
We have not had winters that are cold enough to cause those ticks to 
die off, and so we are seeing that across our wildlife population.
  What is happening in New Hampshire is happening around the world. We 
must take action now to slow these harmful trends, and we can make 
progress. We should be looking at all kinds of ways to make progress, 
to address what is happening to our environment.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to find 
smart and sensible solutions because New Hampshire's economy, the 
health of our citizens, the U.S. economy, the world's economy, and our 
health all depend on it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized.
  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I want the 31 colleagues who have been on 
the floor to know how proud I am. As I have watched throughout the 
evening and this morning, I have seen our colleagues continue to hold 
this floor to try to bring attention to climate change. I am very proud 
of them.
  I have the privilege of being the cleanup hitter in this session that 
has gone on for hours and hours. I want to speak from the perspective 
of the part of the United States that is going to be and is most 
affected by sea level rise, which is a consequence of climate change; 
that is, the State of Florida. I also want to speak from the 
perspective of outer space.
  When someone looks back at the planet through the window of a 
spacecraft--which I had the privilege of doing 28 years ago in the 
early part of the space shuttle program, the space shuttle Columbia, 
which was piloted by now-retired Marine Gen. Charlie Bolden, who is the 
head of NASA and has been for the past 5 years--when we look back at 
our home, we see this incredible creation that is so colorful suspended 
in the midst of nothing. Space is nothing. Space is an airless vacuum 
that goes on and on for billions of light years, and there is our home 
and it is so beautiful, yet it looks so fragile from that perspective 
of miles and miles away. What the naked eye can see from that altitude 
as we orbit the Earth at 17,500 miles an hour is incredible in the 
detail we can see, but some of that detail is quite disturbing.
  For example, coming across the Amazon I could see the color contrast. 
I could see the destruction of the rain forest. Then I could look to 
the east coast of Brazil at the mouth of the Amazon. I could see the 
silt that discolored the waters of the Atlantic for hundreds of miles, 
the extra silt coming off the destruction of the trees upriver.
  On the other side of the globe, for example, coming across Madagascar 
28 years ago when they were cutting down all of their trees for fuel, 
for fires, and as a result there was no vegetation, and when the rains 
came, the water ran down the hills, the silt came into the rivers, and 
we could see for miles and miles at the mouths of the rivers from 
Madagascar--flying 203 miles above the surface of the Earth, we could 
see the effects. We could see those kinds of effects in the midst of 
that God-given beauty, that the Earth is so fragile.
  We could look at the rim of the Earth and see this thin film. It went 
into a blue band that then went into the blackness of space, and we 
could see what sustains all of life--the atmosphere. As a result, I 
certainly became more of an environmentalist because I saw in its 
entirety how fragile this ecosystem is.
  We could see the effects of storms. We were up in January, so we saw 
a hurricane in the Southern Hemisphere going clockwise, not 
counterclockwise as in the Northern Hemisphere. For hundreds of miles, 
there was this storm in the Indian Ocean. We could see from that 
perspective of the window of a spacecraft the delicacy of this God-
created ecological balance.
  What we have done, as we burn more fuel and carbon dioxide goes into 
the air, instead of what was created where the Earth's rays come in and 
hit the surface--where the Sun's rays come in through the atmosphere 
and hit the Earth's surface and reflect back into space, suddenly the 
excess gases in the atmosphere create a kind of greenhouse effect, 
which then traps the heat. The heat, as it reflects off of the Earth's 
surfaces and bounces as it radiates back into space, can't get out and 
the Earth continues to heat.
  The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change projects that the globe 
could warm 1.5 to 4.5 degrees Celsius by the end of the century. It 
also estimated that sea levels could rise from 1 foot to 3 feet over 
the same period.
  Since we are talking about inches, degrees, and hundreds of years, 
now I want to go from space to my home in my native State of Florida, 
which is ground zero for the sea level rise. What will Florida look 
like in the year 2100? Florida has a population closing in on 20 
million people. We are surpassing New York as the third-largest State. 
About 14 million of those people live along the coast, and that number 
is going to double by the year 2100. In those coastal cities and towns, 
there are homes, schools, powerplants, water treatment plants, roads, 
and bridges which could be underwater as the sea level rises. This 
isn't only hypothetical; this is real. Florida's Atlantic University, 
one of our great State universities, indicates that Florida has 
recorded 5 to 8 inches of sea level rise in the last half century. This 
rate is a rate of 1 foot per century, and it is about 8 times the 
average rate over the past 2,500 years. Today at high tide we can see 
for ourselves the flooded roads. They are a regular occurrence. We can 
see the flooded neighborhoods. We can see what happens when the 
infrastructure is flooded.
  If we just take a few years further in this century, 2060, we are 
going to see close to 1 to 2 feet of sea level rise. According to the 
National Research Council, by 2100 that number could be as much as 3 
feet. Do you want to see what 3 feet is? Three feet of sea level rise--
look at the heavy population of southeast Florida. Look at all of these 
portions of the Everglades. Look at the Florida Keys--gone, under 
water. Look at the Fort Myers area, the Caloosahatchee River, Charlotte 
Bay, and look at Tampa Bay. Look where our space shuttle launched from 
pad 39A, Cape Canaveral--under water. Look at all of the coast of 
Florida, look over here at the tremendous Apalachicola oyster estuary--
under water, and so forth and so on. That is what prominent scientific 
organizations have estimated at the end of this century: a 3-foot rise 
in the sea and 14 million people--a population that over the course of 
the next few decades will double; 28 million people living on the coast 
of Florida--are going to be under water. Why aren't people paying 
attention?
  Before I came to the Senate, I had one of the toughest jobs I had 
ever had in elected public service. I was the elected insurance 
commissioner in Florida. The task fell to me in the aftermath of the 
monster storm Hurricane Andrew to resuscitate the insurance marketplace 
back to life.
  Back then, in the early 1990s, we could see monster storms meant 
warming of the climate, warmer ocean temperatures, more frequency and 
ferocity of storms. So as the then-insurance commissioner, I tried to 
go to the insurance companies to try to start getting them interested 
in protecting the investments they insured, and they kept their heads 
in the sand. We couldn't get it.
  So you can see that 75 percent of the State's population on the coast 
makes up 80 percent of the State's total income. Because we have more 
beaches than any other State, we have more coastline than any other 
State, save for Alaska, and a warmer climate, we have a great tourism 
industry--a tourism industry that attracts 37,000 companies to 
Florida--businesses related to the coast, from boating, to fishing,

[[Page 4067]]

to lodging, to leisure recreation, all told employing a quarter of a 
million people.
  This 1,350 miles of coastline is a magnet for visitors. They come and 
they enjoy the beaches. They fish for red snapper in Destin, up here. 
They look for red snapper off of Panama City. Maybe they go for 
scallops off of Cedar Key. Maybe they go to see the spring training 
games in Tampa. Maybe they watch the sunsets from the Florida Keys. 
Well, you can see what is happening. The most recent data from the 
State indicates that in 2011 tourists spent $67 billion in Florida and 
contributed $4 billion to our State treasury.
  So while a lot of people have their heads in the sand, some local 
leaders, happily some local elected leaders are starting to do 
something about it. The city of Miami Beach already experiences 
flooding and drainage problems due to the high tides. They are planning 
to spend $200 million to purchase more pump stations, raise seawalls, 
and upgrade stormwater storage. Do you know whom we are talking to? 
Holland, the Netherlands. We are trying to learn about large-scale 
dikes and engineering fixes and how the Dutch have kept their lands 
dry. Miami Beach is taking the initiative so that homes and businesses 
will continue to thrive.
  The higher sea levels--get this--also threaten the water supply. Do 
you know why? Because Florida is basically land on top of a vast 
limestone honeycomb. Like a sponge, it holds freshwater deep 
underground, but when the sea level rises, the saltwater moves in and 
replaces the freshwater, so those aquifers become too salty or 
brackish. You can't drink that. That is happening, and it is happening 
in a little town on the southeast coast of Florida called Hallandale 
Beach. Their local officials are spending right now $16 million to 
upgrade their stormwater system and move the city's drinking water 
system to the west side of the city, further away from the coast.
  So local leaders are making the tough decisions to prepare for the 
future, and that is one reason I have the privilege of having the 
support of Senator Rockefeller, the chairman of the commerce committee, 
and we are going to take a commerce committee field hearing during the 
April recess down to South Florida, to Miami Beach, and we are going to 
hear what local governments, businesses, and even reinsurance companies 
are doing in the wake of the sea level rise.
  One additional thing. I described what CO2 does, going 
into the air and creating the greenhouse effect, which stops the 
radiating of the Sun's heat back out into space. But there is another 
thing it does. Because carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is making our 
oceans more acidic, it threatens the coral reefs and all of the 
creatures in the ocean, from lobsters to clams.
  This is a picture of a healthy coral reef.
  This is not.
  The coral reef system in Florida is responsible for bringing in $3.5 
billion in sales and income, and off of the coast of South Florida it 
supports 36,000 jobs. More acidic water means oysters, crabs, and 
lobsters are threatened. Biologists tell us that when shelled organisms 
are at risk, the entire food web may also be at risk because the reefs 
provide the core reproductive and feeding habitat for the marine life.
  So I come to the end of my comments, Mr. President. Whether you look 
at it from the perspective of the Senator from Florida, whose State is 
severely threatened at this moment, or from the perspective of the 
window of a spacecraft, looking back at this creation we call home, 
planet Earth, we are in severe jeopardy, and it is time for us to get 
out of our lethargy and recognize the problem happening in front of our 
very eyes.
  I am so proud of my colleagues. Before the Senators came in, I said 
that I had been watching on C-SPAN during the course of last evening 
and this morning, and I am so proud of you for what you have done in 
bringing attention to this issue.


                       Hawaii Travel and Tourism

  Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, as you have heard here tonight, climate 
change is real, it is caused by humans, it is happening now, it is 
solvable, and it is time for Congress to wake up and take action.
  I want to talk now about an important sector of the U.S. economy and 
how it is specifically impacted by climate change.
  I am talking about travel and tourism. It is a major economic driver 
in this country, representing almost 3 percent of the gross domestic 
product. It generates nearly $1.5 trillion in economic output and 
supports nearly 8 million jobs.
  This sector is critical to my home state of Hawai`i but as chairman 
of the commerce committee's tourism subcommittee, I am also concerned 
about the economic impacts climate change could have on this critical 
industry for the entire Nation.
  The U.S. welcomed nearly 70 million international arrivals in 2012 
who spent almost $130 billion on hotels, restaurants, airline tickets, 
shopping, attractions, and more. This is significant.
  As the United States works to meet our national goal of welcoming 100 
million international visitors annually by 2021, we must think of how 
climate change factors into the equation for this economic sector as 
well as how the industry itself contributes to climate change.
  Travel and tourism is responsible for about 5 percent of global 
CO2 emissions. Transportation generates three quarters of 
these emissions with the majority coming from air travel.
  In addition to transportation, the hospitality sector also consumes 
significant amounts of water for bathrooms, landscaping, laundries, and 
kitchens, and consumes sizeable quantities of electricity for lighting, 
heating and cooling systems and elevator and other equipment.
  Changes in extreme weather caused by climate change will impact this 
industry and the experience our visitors have while exploring our 
States and territories by potentially damaging travel and tourism-
related infrastructure, increasing the required investment in emergency 
preparedness to prepare coastal tourism communities for disasters, 
increasing operating expenses to do business in challenging and 
uncertain conditions; and discouraging travel to affected areas.
  As we certainly know here in Washington, DC, the United States has 
experienced an extreme winter season this year, with record cold 
temperatures and plenty of snow. As extreme weather events continue to 
occur, made more frequent by a changing climate, the travel and tourism 
industry will continue to feel the impact.
  To put this into real terms, economists estimate that the 
cancellation of one domestic flight for weather-related reasons costs 
over $31,000 in passengers' lost economic activity or $3.5 billion in 
2013.
  The travel and tourism industry is a major economic driver in Hawaii. 
It is the biggest generator of jobs. More than eight million visitors 
came to Hawaii in 2013 and spent $14.5 billion in Hawaii. Damage to our 
visitor industry will cost us jobs and threaten our economic 
prosperity.
  If we don't act now, climate change over the next several decades 
could have a negative impact on Hawaii's visitor industry. Climate 
change affects the quantity and quality of Hawaii's tourism assets, 
including our beaches, coral reefs, and tropical ecosystems.
  Extreme weather and natural disasters, like droughts and hurricanes, 
are also made worse and more severe by climate change and impact 
residents and visitors alike.
  But it is not enough to just recognize the impacts of climate change 
on tourism. One of the themes here tonight is that climate change is 
solvable.
  We have a responsibility as policymakers to strike a sensible balance 
between the positive and negative aspects of travel and tourism and 
ensure that it is conducted in an environmentally sustainable way.
  According to the United Nations World Tourism Organization, ``There 
is now a wide recognition of the urgent need for the tourism industry, 
national governments, and international organizations to develop and 
implement

[[Page 4068]]

strategies to face the changing climate conditions and to take 
preventive actions for future effects, as well as to mitigate tourism's 
environmental impacts contributing to climate change.''
  The U.S. travel and tourism industry recognizes its impacts and is 
stepping up to the challenge of mitigating its contribution to climate 
change.
  The US Travel Association says that, ``the [U.S.] travel community as 
a whole and its sectors individually are committed to taking actions to 
reduce greenhouse gas emissions and explore mitigation measures needed 
to address climate change impacts.''
  In my home State, Hawaiian Airlines is working to reduce its 
emissions. It was awarded the first ever aviation-based carbon credit 
in 2012 for its use of the EcoPower engine wash system, which reduces 
fuel consumption--saving the company money at the same time.
  One of our biotech companies is working on producing advanced 
biofuels for aviation and has signed a deal to produce green fuel for 
Alaska Airlines, perhaps as soon as 2018.
  Hotels have gone far beyond simply asking guests to reuse towels and 
close lanai doors to save on water and energy. They have invested in 
technology to improve lighting efficiency, manage energy use in 
unoccupied spaces and improve the efficiency of building equipment to 
decrease energy and water use while not impacting guest services. And 
they are continuing to look for more ways to operate efficiently, 
including technology such as seawater air conditioning.
  We can solve the problem through reductions in our energy use by 
improving energy efficiency, increasing the use of renewable energy, 
changing how we conduct business, and adopting policies that promote 
sustainable tourism.
  We need to work together to implement policies that support the 
continued growth of this important sector to support jobs and economic 
prosperity. We need to protect the natural resources that bring 
visitors from around the world to our beautiful country and to my home 
state of Hawaii.
  It is time for Congress to act.


                              Asia Pacific

  Mr. President. We have heard from many colleagues tonight about the 
challenges of climate change and the need for urgent action. Left 
unaddressed it has the potential to impact the lives and livelihoods of 
nearly everyone on the planet.
  As Secretary of State John Kerry cautioned recently in a speech in 
Jakarta, climate change is akin to many other global challenges that 
``know no borders,'' like terrorism, disease, poverty and nuclear 
proliferation.
  ``The reality is that climate change ranks right up there with every 
single one of them,'' he said. I could not agree more.
  But with every challenge comes an opportunity. And just as the world 
has come together to confront the crises of pandemic disease and the 
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, climate change too holds 
the potential for collective action.
  So I would like to spend some time tonight discussing climate change 
in a different way--not just as a problem to be solved, but as an 
opportunity for the U.S. to exercise its leadership in the world; an 
opportunity for the U.S. to develop long-lasting and effective 
partnerships with the international community.
  Regardless of whether all Americans believe global climate change 
should be a top priority and an issue worthy of immediate Congressional 
attention, I believe that we all can agree this issue should be a part 
of our diplomatic and development efforts with countries facing the 
gravest and most immediate climate change impacts.
  Nowhere is this more true than in the Asia-Pacific region, where 
America's partners and allies face acute and imminent risks associated 
with climate change, such as sea-level rise, extreme weather, flooding, 
and environmental degradation.
  According to the U.N.'s Environmental Program:

       Asia-Pacific is one of the most vulnerable regions to 
     climate change and impacts are likely to become more intense 
     in the future. Rising temperatures and extreme weather events 
     have contributed to loss of crop yield in many countries. 
     Crop yields are projected to decline by a further 10 percent 
     by 2020.
       Sea-level rise is likely to result in significant losses of 
     coastal ecosystems and put nearly a million people along the 
     coasts of South and Southeast Asia at risk. Diarrheal disease 
     primarily associated with climatic changes will also put many 
     lives at risk in South and Southeast Asia. In addition, the 
     greenhouse gas emissions of a number of Asia-Pacific 
     countries are large and will grow significantly in future if 
     actions are not taken to curb emissions.''

  The Obama administration's foreign policy rebalance to the Asia 
Pacific has been well-covered in recent months. With nearly a third of 
the Earth's population and one quarter of global GDP, ``America's 
future prosperity and security are intertwined with the East Asia 
Pacific region.'' What America's rebalance to the region will mean for 
U.S. military engagement and U.S. traditional diplomacy in the region 
has been widely discussed. Yet, issues such as the region's huge 
proportion of the planet's biodiversity vulnerable to climate change 
have gone largely unnoticed in the discussions.
  To strengthen our existing relationships and to develop new 
partnerships, we must bring our engagement with Asia-Pacific countries 
on global climate change issues to the forefront of diplomatic and 
development efforts. This includes promoting efforts to help countries 
adapt to their most vulnerable risks. By developing a robust global 
climate change engagement plan, we are also countering the naysayers 
who claim that the United States rebalance to the Asia Pacific is only 
about projecting military power in the region.
  In fact, promoting climate change mitigation and adaptation 
strategies as part of our foreign policy toolkit would serve to 
deescalate military tensions in the region by demonstrating that our 
realignment to the region is more than military power. I would like to 
spend the next few minutes detailing several avenues for addressing 
climate change in the region, with some specific examples of how we and 
our partners are already engaging on the issue.
  First, I will discuss our traditional diplomatic efforts and the 
importance of developing and enhancing bilateral and multilateral 
agreements and partnerships.
  Second, I will highlight how climate change mitigation has become an 
integral part of our development and foreign aid packages. Finally, I 
will advocate for a cross-sector approach that brings together private 
sector investments, non-governmental organizations, and educational and 
scientific partners.
  It is important for the United States to collaborate in ways that, 
first and foremost, promote America's interests. However, we must also 
recognize that we can learn valuable lessons from our partners and 
allies as well. As a recent progress report on President Obama's 
Climate Action Plan states: ``Just as no country is immune from the 
impacts of climate change, no country can meet this challenge alone.''
  In that light, we have much to learn from other countries confronting 
the crisis of climate change, just as much as we have to share about 
our efforts to manage the challenge ourselves.
  In June 2013, President Obama presented his Climate Action Plan, 
which laid out the case for action on climate change and the steps his 
administration will take to address it. The Climate Action Plan 
includes measures to lead international efforts to address global 
climate change.
  It is particularly important that we expand bilateral cooperation on 
climate change with the major emerging economies in the Asia-Pacific 
region, China and India, and the President's plan has started to do 
that.
  Climate change was a central theme of the United States-China 
Strategic and Economic Dialogue in July 2013. The United States-China 
Working Group on Climate Change launched five focus areas to deepen 
bilateral efforts to address greenhouse gas emissions: reducing heavy-
duty vehicle emissions; smart grids; carbon capture, utilization, and 
storage; collecting and managing greenhouse gas data; and energy 
efficiency in buildings and industry.
  In December, during Vice President Biden's visit to China, the United

[[Page 4069]]

States and China committed to reviewing their fossil fuel subsidies 
under the G20 process. In addition, China committed to implement 
aggressive low sulfur fuel and motor vehicle emissions standards. These 
standards can pave the way toward the adoption of more fuel efficient 
technologies, and ultimately lower greenhouse gas emissions. The United 
States is also working with China to combat short-lived climate 
pollutants.
  During Indian Prime Minister Singh's visit to Washington in October 
2013, the United States and India launched a new large-scale off-grid 
clean energy initiative to help bring clean energy to those under-
served by the electricity grid, as well as an initiative to help India 
deploy advanced space cooling technology.
  We must also continue to engage in the region through multilateral 
organizations like the United Nations, the Association of Southeast 
Asian Nations, ASEAN, and the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation, APEC. 
ASEAN members are also attempting to tackle climate change issues in 
the region. Several countries have announced voluntary mitigation 
targets, including Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Singapore. 
ASEAN has also developed a Socio-Cultural Community Blueprint, an 
innovative strategy to ``enhance regional and international cooperation 
to address the issue of climate change and its impacts on socio-
economic development, health and the environment in ASEAN Member States 
through implementation of mitigation and adaptation measures, based on 
the principles of equity, flexibility, effectiveness, common but 
differentiated responsibilities, respective capabilities, as well as 
reflecting on different social and economic conditions.''
  On the economic and energy front, APEC leaders have:

     proposed a regional goal to reduce energy intensity by at 
     least 45 percent by 2035. To this end, APEC Ministers 
     determined to improve energy efficiency and support the use 
     of cleaner and more efficient energy technologies by setting 
     individual goals and action plans; collaborating with the 
     International Energy Agency to develop energy efficiency 
     indicators; sharing information on energy efficiency policies 
     and measures; and encouraging APEC economies to contribute to 
     and utilize the APEC Energy Standards Information System. 
     Economies are held accountable through the APEC Peer Review 
     Mechanism on Energy Efficiency.
       This peer review is also a vehicle for economies to share 
     their respective policies, experiences, information and 
     ultimately to improve energy efficiency.

  United States development assistance is also rising to meet the 
challenges of climate change in the Asia-Pacific region. Three projects 
are particularly noteworthy:
  The United States Agency for International Development is investing 
$7.3 million in the Indonesia Forestry and Climate Support program, 
which works with the Indonesian government, the private sector, and 
communities to improve forest governance and planning at the district 
level; promote sustainable forest management in target landscapes; and 
increase sustainable development of local economies by engaging private 
sector partners who can provide financing and technical expertise;
  The United States Agency for International Development is investing 
$2.9 million in the Asia-Pacific Climate Change Adaptation Support 
Facility, known as ADAPT. ADAPT will work with governments in the Asia-
Pacific region to support training on the preparation of financeable 
adaptation projects, and provide assistance for analysis and financial 
review of selected project proposals. The program will link climate 
fund managers with representatives of government adaptation projects to 
identify adaptation investment opportunities and facilitate access to 
climate funds. A regional knowledge platform will also broadly 
disseminate best practices, climate fund eligibility requirements, and 
application procedures;
  The United States Agency for International Development is investing 
$2 million in the Maldives Program to Enhance Climate Resiliency and 
Water Security. The United States Agency for International Development 
will partner with the Maldives Ministry of Housing and Environment, 
provincial utility service providers, and Island Councils and residents 
on two northern islands to assess long-term climate vulnerability and 
develop cost-effective adaptation strategies. The program will support 
innovative solutions to the growing problem of water scarcity, which is 
made worse by climate change and sea level rise. The program will 
assist the Government's goal of developing the standards and criteria 
for a ``climate resilient island'' model program that can be replicated 
throughout the country, and potentially in other small island 
developing states.
  As a Senator from the island State of Hawaii, I have a particular 
interest in this last project. Hawaii stands in the center of the Asia-
Pacific region.
  The people of Hawaii--including native Hawaiians who have lived on 
our islands for millennia--and Hawai`i-based institutions such as the 
East-West Center provide a unique cultural and geographic perspective 
on global climate change and stand ready to serve as ambassadors for 
climate change issues in the region.
  In Hawaii, I have been involved with the Asia Pacific Disaster Risk 
Reduction and Resilience, APDR3 initiative, which was launched at the 
Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation meetings in Honolulu in 2011. APDR3 
recognizes that ``there are steps we can take to mitigate the impact of 
natural disasters, but we must work together across all sectors of 
society in order to maximize our effectiveness.
  The APDR3 network, hosted by the University of Hawaii Foundation, is 
a collaborative initiative, which works across six sectors of society--
academia, business, government, military, nonprofit organizations and 
civil society, and philanthropy. The network believes that by working 
together through a `whole of society' approach, we can enhance our 
ability to reduce risks from disasters and build more resilient 
communities and economies in the Asia-Pacific region.
  Government and international organization efforts to mitigate climate 
change are important, but the public sector cannot do it alone. If we 
are to truly make significant progress, the APDR3's cross-sector 
approach must be replicated on a much wider scale. Innovative solutions 
are being developed in think-tanks, universities and other non-profit 
institutions across the United States.
  To cite just one example, International Food Policy Research 
Institute fellow Mark Rosegrant has published findings that climate 
change could cause the production of irrigated and rain-fed staple 
crops--rice and wheat in Asia, and taro, sweet potatoes, and cassava in 
the Pacific--to decline by as much as 25 percent by 2050.
  According to Rosegrant, ``this will have a direct effect on 
nutrition, increasing the number of malnourished children in the area 
by an additional 9 to 11 million.'' However, Rosegrant proposes 
solutions to the worst scenarios. Through ``targeted, aggressive 
investment in agricultural research, rural roads, and irrigation,'' 
Rosegrant believes we cut the increase in childhood malnutrition due to 
climate change significantly. This type of investment, however, hinges 
on ``regional cooperation on research'' and ``nonagricultural 
investments for clean water and maternal education.''
  ``In addition to these increased investments, Rosegrant's other 
recommendations include establishing regional centers of excellence in 
the Pacific countries to link national and international research 
centers; forming integrated data management, monitoring, and evaluation 
systems for a wide range of market and climate information; opening the 
global agricultural trading regime to share risk and increase 
resilience; and revitalizing extension systems to include local 
participation and effectively coordinate public, private, and NGO 
providers.''
  Many of these ideas would help countries in the region mitigate other 
potential effects of climate change as well. It is crucial that 
governments utilize studies and recommendations such as these when 
developing policies on climate change.
  I close with this reminder: climate change is not merely a 
complicated problem to be solved; it is an opportunity for the United 
States to demonstrate forward-thinking leadership

[[Page 4070]]

and positive engagement with the world community. Climate change 
diplomacy, especially in the Asia Pacific, has the potential to 
transform our relationship with present and future partners and 
strategic allies for years to come.
  It must serve as cornerstone of our rebalance to the region. Let us 
seize that opportunity.


                           National Security

  Mr. President. One of the themes that we have heard tonight is that 
climate change is a challenge that affects all Americans--from small 
businesses and local farmers to major corporations and agricultural 
communities. But there is one community that I would like to focus 
specific attention on because the consequences of climate change fall 
on its shoulders in unique ways: the U.S. military.
  In an interview last year, ADM Samuel J. Locklear III, commander of 
the United States Pacific Command in my home State of Hawaii, argued 
that climate change is the greatest long-term security challenge in the 
Asia-Pacific region. Upheaval and political instability from climate 
change he said ``is probably the most likely thing that is going to 
happen . . . that will cripple the security environment, probably more 
likely than the other scenarios we all often talk about.''
  His comments echoed those of 11 retired 3-star and 4-star admirals 
and generals who, in 2007, unequivocally stated that climate change is 
a ``significant national security challenge'' that can serve as a 
``threat multiplier for instability in some of the most volatile 
regions of the world.'' Their comments are not without a sense of 
urgency.
  As Admiral Locklear explained last year, ``I'm into the consequence 
management side of it. I'm not a scientist.'' When he testified before 
the Senate Armed Services Committee last April, Admiral Locklear made 
his point clearer when he explained the urgency for preventive action. 
He said:

       We are also seeing--if you go to USAID and you ask the 
     numbers for my PACOM AOR how many people died due to natural 
     disasters from 2008 to 2012, it was about 280,000 people 
     died. Now, they weren't all climate change or weather-
     related, but a lot of them were due to that. About 800,000 
     people were displaced and there was about $500 billion of 
     lost productivity.

  Admiral Locklear's comments and those of his former colleagues before 
him are not out of the ordinary. They reflect the growing consensus 
within the Department of Defense and the broader national security 
community that climate change is real and already shaping the global 
security environment in new and profound ways.
  The Department of Defense is focused on two areas in particular.
  First, climate change is shaping the U.S. military's strategic 
operating environment, forcing the Department of Defense to grapple 
with new mission requirements that it generally did not anticipate a 
decade ago.
  In its 2010 strategic planning document, the Quadrennial Defense 
Review, the Department of Defense for the first time concluded that, 
``While climate change alone does not cause conflict, it may act as an 
accelerant of instability or conflict, placing a burden to respond on 
civilian institutions and militaries around the world.''
  Simply put, the drivers of instability that fragile States already 
confront--drought, food shortages, water scarcity, and pandemic 
disease--may be made worse as a consequence of climate change. These 
stresses could break the backs of weak central governments and 
institutions in countries around the world where the United States has 
enduring interests--places such as Burma and Pakistan, to name a few.
  Last week, the Department of Defense confirmed its initial 
conclusions when it published its 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review, 
noting that:

       The pressures caused by climate change will influence 
     resource competition while placing additional burdens on 
     economies, societies, and governance institutions around the 
     world. These effects are threat multipliers that will 
     aggravate stressors abroad such as poverty, environmental 
     degradation, political instability, and social tensions--
     conditions that can enable terrorist activity and other forms 
     of violence.

  The more pressing concern for the U.S. military, perhaps, might be 
with those countries that are most vulnerable to extreme weather events 
and least capable of responding to them. Like drought, food shortages 
and other environmental grievances, natural disasters can overwhelm 
weak governments, contributing to the conditions that lead to 
instability and violence.
  With each passing day, as we pump more carbon dioxide into the 
atmosphere, we know that we are increasing our chances of extreme 
weather events that carry with them dangerous consequences.
  The Asia-Pacific region is particularly at risk of extreme weather 
events that may become more frequent and severe as a result of climate 
change. The National Intelligence Council cautioned last year that, 
``Asian cities are vulnerable to the severe weather connected to 
climate change, which amplifies storm surges and flooding of low-lying 
areas.''
  The tragic typhoon that struck the Philippines last November, while 
not directly attributable to climate change, is a stark reminder of the 
kinds of natural catastrophes that the U.S. military gets called on to 
respond to.
  As Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel noted not long after this awful 
event:

       Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines is a reminder of 
     humanitarian disaster brought on by nature. And 
     climatologists warn us of the increased probability of more 
     destructive storms to come.

  The Department of Defense recognizes that it has a role to play in 
supporting humanitarian assistance and disaster relief missions. And 
like many first responders, the men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces 
have an obligation to respond when called on because the U.S. military 
is often the only organization with the capability and personnel 
necessary to support those most in need, including fixed- and rotary-
wing aircraft that can bring relief supplies to communities otherwise 
cutoff from the outside world.
  But we should not be resigned to be the world's 911 first responder--
crouched in a reactive posture to respond to the next climate-related 
disaster. As the Department of Defense has already noted and planned 
for, ``Proactive engagement with these countries can help build their 
capability to respond to such events.''
  And as Admiral Locklear stated, U.S. Pacific Command can play an 
important role in helping our partners and allies build their 
capacities to respond to natural disasters, building their civil 
defense forces so that they can mobilize ahead of an impending storm. 
The U.S. military can work with them to professionalize their air 
forces, training them to be more efficient users of search and rescue 
aircraft and other capabilities so that they can do more with less.
  Next month, Hawaii will host the inaugural United States-ASEAN 
Defense Forum in Honolulu, convening 10 of the defense ministers from 
the Association of Southeast Asia Nations to discuss challenges that 
our countries face in the region. I hope that leaders use this forum in 
part as an opportunity to discuss the urgency of climate change and an 
opportunity for proactive engagement to weather any climate-related 
impacts in the future.
  Proactive engagement is cost-effective and can serve as a force 
multiplier for U.S. military forces in the future by helping our 
partners and allies develop the resources and skills they need to help 
themselves; freeing our soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines and 
coastguardsmen to defend our interests elsewhere, responding only when 
absolutely necessary.
  The simple fact though is that the U.S. has treaty obligations and 
agreements with many of these vulnerable states. But regardless of 
those commitments, we also have a moral obligation to help those 
countries most in need. When the next disaster strikes, the U.S. 
military will be called on to provide relief. And that will force 
defense planners to make tradeoffs somewhere else. But if we can reduce 
the number of military assets and personnel required to support natural 
disaster relief by making it possible for other

[[Page 4071]]

countries to help themselves then we should do that.
  In an increasingly lean budget environment, we owe it to the U.S. 
military to make wiser investments where possible. Preventive 
engagement is a smart solution. Such a commitment of our time and 
resources would recognize an age-old truism that an ounce of prevention 
is worth a pound of cure.
  Besides the prospect of more frequent humanitarian assistance and 
disaster relief missions, the Department of Defense is also facing new 
mission requirements as a result of a new theater of operations that 
until recently has largely been quiet--the Arctic.
  Rapid environmental change at the top of the world is quickly making 
the Arctic one of the most accessible maritime domains on the planet. 
Secretary Hagel declared last November that, ``Climate change is 
shifting the landscape in the Arctic more rapidly than anywhere else in 
the world.''
  What is striking is how quickly the region is changing. Chief of 
Naval Operations ADM Anthony Greenert wrote recently in the U.S. Navy's 
updated Arctic Roadmap that ``ice conditions in the Arctic Ocean are 
changing more rapidly than first anticipated.''
  The pace of change in the region compelled the Department of Defense 
to develop its first-ever arctic strategy to provide for a ``secure and 
stable Arctic,'' which Secretary Hagel presented last November to an 
international security forum in Halifax, NS.
  To achieve the strategic aims that he laid out for the Department, 
Secretary Hagel presented eight simple objectives, to include 
``[evolving] Arctic infrastructure and capabilities at a pace 
consistent with changing conditions.''
  Simply put, the U.S. military will likely face new mission 
requirements in the Arctic as a result of climate change, and those 
requirements might develop sooner than we may expect.
  These new mission requirements did not come out of the blue, of 
course. The U.S. military operated in the Arctic during the cold war, 
and there had been growing acceptance that as climate change continues 
to take its toll on the region it would operate in High North once 
again.
  The Defense Science Board concluded in 2011, for example, that 
``Climate change is currently having a major impact on the demands of 
military operations in the Arctic,'' and that the military would need 
``additional capabilities to meet the demands of the expanded Arctic 
mission.''
  What sets today's Arctic apart from yesterday's is the mission that 
the U.S. military is likely to confront. During the cold war, the U.S. 
Navy largely stayed under the ice. But many suspect that with the ice 
disappearing, the U.S. Navy's surface fleet could play an ever 
increasing role in the region.
  The need for additional capabilities in the Arctic may also require 
the U.S. Navy to think anew about whether its tried and tested 
capabilities are well calibrated for a changing operating environment.
  There is new evidence to suggest, for example, that climate change 
could have direct and indirect effects on the Navy's operating 
environment, particularly in the Arctic.
  A study by one national security think tank found that, ``ice melt 
will change water densities, as an infusion of fresh water lowers the 
density of high-latitude northern waters, while increased evaporation 
from a warmer atmosphere increases the density of tropical waters.''
  The study cites one example when, ``In 1999, the Sturgeon-class 
nuclear-powered attack submarine, USS Hawkbill, noted how changes in 
water salinity--attributed to polar ice melt--made it harder for the 
captain to maintain neutral buoyancy''--essentially, making it 
difficult for the submarine not to sink or rise.
  The same study found that:

       Water density affects not only submarine mobility but also 
     sonar . . . Sonar detection is especially crucial in arctic 
     regions, where it is necessary for detecting underwater ice 
     ridges. Accurate detection will be critical in the coming 
     years, as submarine operators have to contend with the 
     continued break up of major ice sheets, which can drive ice 
     ridges deeper under water. In the 1999, aforementioned 
     expedition by the USS Hawkbill, the crew noted risks 
     associated with detecting ice ridges.
       Outside the Arctic, the Department of Defense must confront 
     other operational challenges that could result from climate 
     change. This is the second area of concern that bears 
     mentioning, and one where the Department of Defense has 
     focused considerable time and resources.

  The Department of Defense has warned that climate change is likely to 
impact the U.S. military's facilities and capabilities. In particular, 
America's military installations may be particularly vulnerable to 
climate change.
  According to a 2008 National Intelligence Council finding, ``more 
than 30 U.S. military installations were already facing elevated levels 
of risk from rising sea levels.''
  The Department of Defense's recent Quadrennial Defense Review 
acknowledged that the U.S. military's ``operational readiness hinges on 
continued access to land, air, and sea training and test space,'' which 
means ensuring that climate change does not prevent the military from 
accessing these critical training and range areas.
  Following the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review, the Department of 
Defense began working in earnest to map out its vulnerabilities, with 
offices like the Strategic Environmental Research and Development 
Program helping installation planners develop the tools they need to 
plan accordingly.
  Last year, the Department of Defense released its climate change 
adaptation roadmap which lays out in greater detail a plan of action 
for managing the short- and long-term consequences of climate change. 
Referencing the 2010 findings from the Quadrennial Defense Review, the 
adaptation roadmap concluded that, ``The military is potentially 
vulnerable to climate change in many of the same ways as the rest of 
society, and in ways that are unique due to its operations and 
mission.''
  There is still much work that the Department of Defense must do to 
assess its vulnerabilities at the regional and installation level, 
including where to best prioritize adaptation efforts at each of the 
most vulnerable bases.
  The Department of Defense committed itself in its 2014 Quadrennial 
Defense Review to ``complete a comprehensive assessment of all 
installations to assess the potential impacts of climate change on our 
missions and operational resiliency, and develop and implement plans to 
adapt as required.''
  Although these assessments are ongoing, the last several years have 
nevertheless witnessed a groundswell of support in an effort to better 
understand the specific mission vulnerabilities that the U.S. military 
may face as a consequence of climate change.
  These vulnerabilities are not specific, but they can better frame the 
risks that the Department of Defense faces so that we in Congress can 
ensure that they have the resources they need to plan accordingly.
  These risks include the potential for: increased occurrence of test/
training limitations due to high heat days; reduced land carrying 
capacity for vehicle maneuvers; increased maintenance cost for roads, 
utilities, and runways; limits on low-level rotary wing flight 
operations; temporary or prolonged disruption of military operations or 
test and training activities due to intense storms and resulting storm 
damage; inundation of and damage to coastal infrastructure; degradation 
or loss of coastal areas and infrastructure; increased cost of 
infrastructure reinforcement to withstand increased storm intensities; 
and ``coastal installation vulnerability.
  These potential vulnerabilities are particularly worrying in my home 
State of Hawaii, where U.S. Navy and Marine Corps installations like 
Pearl Harbor Naval Base and Marine Corps Base Kaneohe Bay are literally 
on the water's edge. I am glad that the Department of Defense is 
assessing these risks now and making short- and long-term plans to 
adapt where it needs to.
  Hawaii is America's anchor for the strategic rebalance to the Asia-
Pacific region. A cornerstone of that rebalance rests on ensuring that 
America's military presence in Hawaii and the region can cope with the 
turbulence of more frequent and severe weather events, operate under 
those conditions, and help America's partners and allies do the same.

[[Page 4072]]

  I have focused on the U.S. military because of the unique ways in 
which the men and women of the Armed Forces are and will continue to 
shoulder the burden of managing the challenges of climate change.
  But to say that climate change is a challenge that can only be 
managed by the U.S. military would be wrong and undermine the serious 
efforts underway within the broader foreign policy and national 
security communities to confront this issue.
  The men and women of our diplomatic corps and consul services are 
invaluable to facilitating cooperation between our partners and allies, 
and will continue to play an important role in ensuring that we are 
providing the resources they need to plan for the future. Aid workers 
with the U.S. Agency for International Development have the expertise 
that is necessary for designing and deploying toolkits that can help 
vulnerable communities improve their resiliency to natural disasters 
and other environmental crises.
  The Department of Defense has an important role to play in helping 
the United States manage the challenges of climate change. But in many 
ways it is other agencies, not the U.S. military, which must lead on 
our climate engagement abroad.
  What the Department of Defense's efforts to date show is that climate 
change is no longer solely the purview of conservationists concerned 
about protecting endangered species, or of environmentalists concerned 
about preserving the Earth for future generations.
  Climate change is an urgent national security challenge.
  Secretary of State John Kerry put it well when he said recently that 
among the global challenges that ``know no borders . . . terrorism, 
epidemics, poverty, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction . 
. . the reality is that climate change ranks right up there with every 
single one of them.'' Secretary Kerry went on to add that the United 
States cannot confront this challenge alone. That like the challenge of 
confronting nuclear weapons proliferation, we must come together as a 
global community and take collective action to confront the challenge 
together.
  The consequences of inaction are too real. For ``in a sense,'' 
Secretary Kerry said, ``climate change can now be considered another 
weapon of mass destruction, perhaps the world's most fearsome weapon of 
mass destruction.'' We must attack the challenge with the same 
fierceness and urgency that we would nuclear weapons proliferation, 
because the consequences are no less real.
  Congress can begin by giving climate change the rightful attention 
that it deserves, rather than ignore its responsibility of dealing with 
the hard choices of managing one of the greatest challenges a 
generation of Americans faces.


                             Energy Sector

  Mr. President, I will discuss the role of the power sector in the 
United States. Modern sources of fossil energy have been a tremendous 
force for good, but they also come with a cost--pollution--requiring us 
to quickly and decisively transition to cleaner sources of energy.
  The effects of pollution are both local and global, and as many of my 
colleagues have discussed here tonight climate change, caused by the 
burning of fossil fuels, is one of the greatest threats to the future 
prosperity and health of the human race.
  As we look for ways to combat climate change, we must redouble our 
efforts to transition away from fossil fuels, reduce energy use, and 
build an energy sector based on renewable and low-carbon power.
  Humanity has been using fossil fuels for centuries. It was not until 
the industrial revolution of the late 1700s and early 1800s that its 
use really began to take off. The first U.S. commercial coal mine 
opened in Virginia in the 1740s, and as the industrial revolution came 
to the U.S. in the 1800s, coal was the driving energy source behind 
steamships, railroads, and factories.
  From 1800 to 2000, the world saw total energy use increase 80 to 90 
times over. Fossil fuels drove almost all of that growth and today 
account for three quarters of global energy use.
  As coal, then oil and natural gas grew in availability, humanity 
found new ways to use these new energy resources, driving even further 
development in energy hungry industries. The widespread adoption of 
fossil fuels during this time contributed to unprecedented global 
population growth and urbanization.
  There is no doubt this explosion of fossil fuels and the multiple 
opportunities it presented for use was a major driver of American and 
global economic growth. And this had enormous benefits for humanity. It 
helped increase efficiencies in agriculture, improved human health, 
created increased opportunities for trade, and improved standards of 
living for many people in the world.
  I say all of this to make it clear that when I call for a transition 
away from fossil fuels--it is not because of some inherent dislike for 
them, or some capricious judgment of those who make a living in that 
industry. But as their use increases, the downside of fossil fuels--
pollution, and a dramatically changing climate--is too big an issue to 
ignore.
  Global pollutants--greenhouse gasses that contribute to the warming 
and changing climate on the entire planet, and chemicals that threaten 
the earth's protective ozone layer--are causing global pollution. And 
global pollution requires global solutions. No one country can solve 
the problem alone--but let me be clear here--any solution will require 
bold leadership by the United States.
  My colleagues and I have stressed the following points all evening: 
Climate is real, and it is caused by burning fossil fuels. Analysis of 
peer-reviewed scientific studies finds that over 99 percent of actively 
publishing climate scientists are firmly convinced that climate change 
is real, that human activities are a significant cause, and it will 
increase if we continue to burn fossil fuels.
  The most recent United Nations International Panel on Climate Change 
report calls evidence that the earth is warming ``unequivocal'' and 
plainly states many of the changes to the climate we see today are 
``unprecedented over decades to millennia.''
  And at the risk of repeating myself this evening, it is important to 
note the IPCC report shows that the biggest driver to the changing 
climate is ``the increase in the atmospheric concentration of 
CO2 since 1750.'' This is a key point, because humanity's 
use of fossil fuels for energy, heat, and transportation--is 
responsible for close to two-thirds of global greenhouse gas emissions 
each year.
  The U.S. electricity sector is the largest user of fossil fuels in 
the country. In 2012 we used coal to generate 37 percent of our 
electricity and natural gas to generate almost 30 percent. Nuclear 
power, which emits little to no greenhouse gases, was almost 20 percent 
of the mix, with renewable energy from wind, solar, geothermal, and 
hydropower contributing just under 13 percent of the Nation's 
electricity.
  This overreliance on fossil fuels is exactly why I support President 
Obama's Climate Action Plan to set carbon pollution limits for new and 
existing power plants, and to continue to push the transportation 
industry towards advanced vehicle technologies, advanced biofuels, and 
greater fuel efficiency standards. President Obama's plan is a good 
one, but there is only so much he can do. Without decisive legislative 
action, Congress is choosing to hold American innovation and leadership 
in check.
  We must do more to transition energy to renewables, reduce emissions, 
and improve efficiency. The world has made tremendous strides in 
developing and improving renewable energy technologies, and the United 
States has benefited. Between 2008 and 2013 total U.S. renewable energy 
generation, not including hydropower, almost doubled. 2014 will likely 
be the first year generation from hydropower is overtaken by generation 
from other renewable energy technologies.
  Prices, one of the major barriers to renewable energy deployment, 
have dropped dramatically. Solar module

[[Page 4073]]

prices have declined by 99 percent since 1976 and a stunning 80 percent 
in the last 6 years. Wind power costs have also declined markedly to 
the point where wind is often the low-cost option. For example, a 
utility in Michigan decided to lower its customers' rates 6.5 percent 
for 2014, and one of the major factors it cited in the decision was its 
ability to provide low-cost wind power.
  Solar power is growing by leaps and bounds both at the utility and 
distributed scales, as homeowners in some parts of the country are 
finding that putting solar panels on their roofs can lower their energy 
costs. My home State of Hawaii is a prime example of this. Distributed 
energy installations have skyrocketed in recent years, with the total 
number of annual installations doubling from 2011 to 2012. At the end 
of 2012, Hawaii had a total capacity of 138 MW in distributed 
generation--most of it coming from solar power.
  Wind energy has been an incredible success story in America. Aided by 
important tax incentives and State renewable energy goals, wind power 
in 2012 was the number one source of new U.S. generation capacity for 
the first time in history. This represented a $25 billion investment in 
the United States. Wind energy is also a great story for American jobs. 
Over 70 percent of the content of wind turbines is made right here in 
the United States.
  Globally, investment in clean energy has been strong, hitting an all-
time high of $318 billion in 2011 following the great recession. But in 
order to successfully drive down costs and accelerate deployment, 
investment in clean energy must increase, and Congress can help.
  In order to help the United States do its part in avoiding the most 
extreme effects of climate change, Congress must double, triple, or 
perhaps quadruple-down on current policies to drive down costs of clean 
energy technologies and accelerate widespread adoption.
  Reauthorizing and extending important tax credits for wind, 
geothermal, marine and hydrokinetic power, efficiency improvements, and 
advanced biofuels should be a number one priority. There is no excuse 
for the on-again off-again policies of Congress which create false 
boom-and-bust cycles for crucial industries. I applaud the new Chairman 
of the Finance Committee for making an extension of these incentives 
his first order of business.
  Congress must also encourage technologies which help with the 
transition to renewable energy. I am proud to be a cosponsor of a bill 
that would create incentives for energy storage, which can help with 
grid management, especially as we move towards intermittent resources.
  The United States and Europe have done incredible work improving 
energy efficiency over the last several decades. As recently as the 
early 1990s, electricity sales in the United States were growing by 
over 2 percent per year.
  According to a new study by the American Council for an Energy 
Efficient Economy, growth in electricity sales has stopped. In fact, 
retail sales in 2012 were almost 2 percent lower than in 2007. This 
study finds that the drop in economic activity due to the great 
recession cannot fully explain this decline in electricity demand. 
Rather, energy efficiency in the residential and commercial sectors 
plays a critical role. The last several years have been the first in 
which energy use and economic growth have moved in opposite 
directions--a highly encouraging sign for a leaner and meaner American 
economy.
  I wish to highlight energy efficiency as an important part of the 
solution to reducing carbon pollution. By being able to do more with 
less power, we reduce the need to burn additional fossil fuels in the 
short term, and we save ourselves money by having to build less new 
power generation capacity in the future.
  At the commercial and utility level, innovative financing mechanisms 
and business models are driving energy efficiency. Energy Savings 
Performance Contracts allow building owners to work with efficiency 
experts that reduce their clients' energy bills and get paid through a 
portion of the savings.
  As the largest energy user in the country, the Federal Government 
continues to expand its use of these contracts--a goal specifically 
highlighted by President Obama in his Climate Action Plan. I have 
introduced a bipartisan bill which would offer the government even more 
choice in executing these energy savings contracts. It is an excellent 
example of a commonsense small step we can take immediately to save 
money and energy.
  I would be remiss here without mentioning the important work done by 
Senators Shaheen and Portman on their pragmatic bipartisan energy 
efficiency legislation. It is another commonsense piece of legislation 
that deserves immediate consideration by the full Senate.
  I wish to turn now to discuss the incredible government support 
enjoyed by the fossil fuel industry over the decades, and make the 
argument that renewable energy technologies deserve a similar 
commitment.
  Because of their importance to U.S. and global economic growth, 
fossil fuels began to receive government subsidies early in their 
commercial development. From 1916 to 1970, Federal energy tax policy 
focused exclusively on promoting oil and gas production. In addition, 
government-funded research into fossil fuel production helped to create 
the technologies that today drive one of the biggest energy booms the 
world has ever seen. This sustained and ongoing Federal support has 
provided unbelievable certainty for the fossil fuel industry.
  The energy crisis of the 1970s showed just how dependent on foreign 
energy the United States is, and spurred an additional focus on 
efficiency and alternative sources of transportation fuels. After a 
brief dalliance with renewable energy incentives in the late 1970s and 
early 1980s, Congress enacted incentives for wind and biomass 
electricity generation in the early 1990s. This credit was sparingly 
used, however. It wasn't until 2005--not even 10 year ago--Congress 
finally began to show real commitment to incentives for renewable 
energy and energy efficiency.
  And in just that short time, with stop and start policies in recent 
years; look at the success of renewable energy in America. We are on 
the verge of full-fledged, competitive domestic industries in wind, 
solar, advanced biofuels and geothermal, but if we stop now and don't 
nurture these industries, we may lose them to other countries. We 
cannot go backwards.
  Congress should seriously examine, and consider repealing, tax 
incentives for fossil fuels. The billions of dollars spent per year to 
subsidize one of the most mature and profitable industries in the world 
is not money well spent. Nor is there sufficient evidence these 
subsidies result in lower fuel prices for Americans.
  Rather, we should use this money to invest in innovative federal 
financing programs for cutting-edge technologies and incentives to help 
deploy more renewable energy systems.
  Let me be clear, fossil fuels have done a lot for humanity. They 
have, in a very real sense, reshaped our civilization. But if we 
continue to rely on them, they will reshape our world once again, and 
this time not for the better.
  We know we cannot switch completely to low or zero emissions sources 
of energy overnight--especially in a sector which makes long-term, 
capital-intensive investments. This will take a sustained commitment 
from individuals, States, and the Federal Government. The best thing 
Congress can do to unleash innovation in the private sector is to send 
a clear message to the private sector by crafting policies that 
encourage renewable energy technologies, reward efficiencies, invest in 
our national infrastructure, and remove hundred-year-old subsidies for 
already mature industries. We need to give our energy sector the tools 
to reshape itself, and we need to do it now. The world will not wait.


                           Insurance Industry

  Mr. President, I wish now to speak about how the insurance industry 
is dealing with climate change today and preparing for it in the 
future.

[[Page 4074]]

  Insurers are risk experts--it is not their job to care about the 
environment. Their job is to look at the facts to calculate value and 
the odds of loss--and then put a price tag on insuring the value. As 
hardnosed folks who work from spreadsheets and calculators, they keep 
their personal politics out of the equation. And they say the risks are 
real.
  In 2009, Lloyd's of London issued its assessment: ``Climate Change 
and Security: Risks and Opportunities for Business.'' The report 
recognizes the uncertainty of the exact timeline for climate change, 
and instead focuses on a simple message--to be successful, businesses 
must adapt:

       As climate change takes hold, few businesses will be able 
     to escape the impact of greater competition for resources. As 
     nations become more protective of their assets, and markets 
     become more volatile, it can no longer be business as usual.

  Lloyd's of London is not alone. Major players like Allianz, Swiss Re, 
and Munich Re have all published their own reports on climate change to 
urge businesses to start planning now.
  Their motivation is simple: protect the bottom line. With billions 
and trillions of dollars in play, risk experts like Lloyd's are making 
the high stakes risk projections to protect their own business models. 
Those projections are telling them the risks are increasing, and so 
outreach to industry is part of their pro-active plan to manage their 
own risk.
  To understand other ways insurers are adapting to climate change, the 
Government Accountability Office issued a report in 2007 examining the 
substantial climate related risks to insurers in coming decades. The 
general findings should come as no surprise: the insurance industry has 
concluded that climate change is real, that it is happening, and that 
it will have an enormous effect.
  Their projections are telling them the risks are increasing, and so 
they are acting to reduce their exposure to catastrophic events in 
reinsurance and primary insurance coverage along the gulf coast and the 
east coast.
  Part of ``reducing exposure'' means the outreach and education I just 
discussed, but it also means raising insurance premiums in coastal 
States.
  Even these pro-active measures may not be enough. According to a 
Congressional Research Service report, there is serious concern both 
within the insurance industry and among policymakers about the ability 
of the insurance industry to pay for extremely large disasters or 
multiple catastrophic events that happen within a short period of time.
  The report says that, and I quote:

       Insuring increasingly vulnerable residential private 
     property risks will likely require a substantial increase in 
     risk transfer capacity that is currently beyond the existing 
     property and casualty insurance industry's total claims 
     paying capacity.

  In other words: the increasing intensity of many natural disasters 
means increasing risk of catastrophic loss--and one day, we may reach 
the point where the insurance industry will be unable to cover our 
losses.
  When disaster strikes, insurers and reinsurers bear the initial costs 
of reconstruction. Those costs get passed on to the public in the form 
of: increased insurance rates; reduced coverage; withdrawal of insurers 
from some high risk locations; and increased demands on government-run 
insurance programs.
  This is already happening because some extreme weather events are 
happening more frequently, as the reinsurance industry has testified 
before Congress. For the risk experts the facts are clear: the rate of 
major natural catastrophic events increased both globally and in the 
U.S. between 1980 and 2012.
  Frank Nutter, President of the Reinsurance Association, has spoken 
out to Congress. Last year, Mr. Nutter testified on climate change 
before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. In his 
testimony, he quoted the reinsurance industry giant, SwissRe which 
said:

       Today, global warming is a fact. Since the beginning of 
     industrialization and the rapid growth of world population, 
     man's activities--along with natural variability--have 
     contributed to a change of climate manifesting itself as a 
     considerable increase in global temperature . . . the 
     financial services industry can help guide society towards an 
     effective response.
       However, the industry can only be effective in this role if 
     the regulatory and legislative framework establishes the 
     right incentives for emissions reduction and adaptation . . .

  Mr. Nutter's testimony is not an empty pledge. Hartford, one of the 
oldest insurance companies in the U.S., agrees with this analysis and 
is acting:

       The Hartford Financial Services Group recognizes the clear 
     consensus in the scientific community that climate change is 
     of real and increasing concern.
       As an insurer, investor, employer, property owner and 
     responsible corporate citizen, Hartford is committed to 
     understanding, managing and mitigating the risks associated 
     with climate change.

  Suiting actions to words, Hartford has engaged in an effort to 
promote energy efficiency and reduce waste and emissions. By 2012, the 
company reduced its own greenhouse gas emissions by 42% from their 2007 
base year. It has also worked with the American Insurance Association 
to advocate for land use planning and building codes that reflect risk 
exposure. Raising premiums is also part of the response, and so they 
have warned that ``proper pricing will send appropriate risk signals to 
the most vulnerable areas.''
  Hartford is not alone. Allianz is an integrated financial services 
and insurance company that is over 120 years old and has over 80 
million customers worldwide. Here is what it says about climate change:

       Human-induced global warming threatens to radically change 
     our climate. This poses a major risk to the global economy, 
     and for a global insurance company like Allianz, could have a 
     severe impact on our business. In recognition of this, we 
     have been implementing a group-wide strategy covering 
     climate-related risks and opportunities for our business and 
     our clients.
       As an integrated financial services provider, we are well 
     aware that climate change could result in a range of compound 
     risks and opportunities that affect our entire business. As a 
     result, we are committed to supporting the development of a 
     low-carbon economy, and see this as not just a sustainability 
     priority--it is a viable business and investment case.

  Insurance and re-insurance companies are risk experts. They measure 
risk, they are seeing risk all around them from climate change. And 
they are speaking up and acting to protect their bottom lines.
  As a Congress, we need to support their efforts by establishing 
incentives for industry to incorporate the risks from climate change 
into their business plans.


                              Agriculture

  Mr. President, I want to discuss how climate change potentially hurts 
our farms. Agriculture is profoundly affected by climate change, and we 
must take action now to ensure that we are able to protect crop 
diversity, yields, and food security in coming decades for a growing 
population.
  Farmers and ranchers occupy an important cultural part of the 
American psyche, even if recent decades have seen a consolidation of 
the farming sector. Concepts of ample subsistence, self-reliance, and 
the virtues of farming pepper early-American literature.
  More than anyone else, Thomas Jefferson articulated the notion of a 
country founded on agriculture. In 1785, he wrote, ``Cultivators of the 
earth are the most valuable citizens. They are the most vigorous, the 
most independent, the most virtuous, and they are tied to their country 
and wedded to its liberty and interests by the most lasting bands.''
  During World War I and World War II victory gardens became an 
effective way to relieve the pressure on the food supply, as well as a 
symbol of patriotism--farming became a civic duty.
  Today, amidst incredible changes in global agriculture and an 
increasingly scientific and mechanized approach to farming, a 
noticeable trend towards organic farming, local agricultural economies, 
and crop diversity has reinvigorated the cultural importance of farming 
in the United States. Farmers markets have become an increasingly 
visible sight, especially in urban areas.
  Agriculture is an extremely important part of the American economy 
and contributes at least $200 billion to the economy each year. U.S. 
farmers are the most productive in the history of the world, and food 
is more affordable here than in any other developed country.

[[Page 4075]]

  Climate change could have an enormous impact on farming worldwide, 
and this could come at a time when the world's producers must prepare 
to grow even more. Today the world population stands at 7.2 billion 
people. By 2050 the world will be home to more than 9.6 billion people. 
The World Bank estimates that agricultural production must increase by 
70 percent during that time in order to feed the population.
  One of the myths that climate deniers spread is that climate change 
will mean longer growing seasons and more carbon dioxide for plants, 
which will translate into increased yields and abundant food resources. 
That does not align with what our scientists say. While slightly warmer 
temperatures could bring some benefits, climate change brings much more 
than rising temperatures and increased carbon dioxide. Both observation 
and modeling estimate that by midcentury and beyond, any 
CO2-related benefits to crops may be outweighed by the 
downsides of global temperature increases. For example, scientists have 
projected that for each degree Celsius of warming, yields of corn in 
the United States and Africa, as well as yields of wheat in India, 
could drop by 5 to 15 percent. As yields fall, farmers must deal with 
increasing threats. They currently spend over $11 billion per year 
dealing just with weeds. Warming means that crop pests, weeds, and 
plant diseases will expand in both geographic range and frequency, 
potentially affecting crop yields and increasing the need for 
pesticides and fungicides.
  As shortages become more common, prices could go up, especially as 
the population grows, and increasing extreme weather events may further 
threaten crops.
  This future is not far off. A 2013 Department of Agricultural report 
found that within 40 years, climate change might have a negative effect 
on both farming and ranching in the United States. This will have an 
economic cost for both the private sector and the Federal Government. A 
GAO report that studied crop insurance and climate change found that 
the three biggest causes of loss to crops were ``drought, excess 
moisture, and hail.'' It is worth repeating that scientists agree that 
climate change will mean more extremes: wet places get wetter and dry 
places get drier, meaning that it is possible that crop insurance 
claims--and government costs--will increase.
  We need to do the big things necessary to fight climate change but in 
the meantime, we are taking small steps.
  I am proud to have supported the 2014 farm bill and appreciate the 
leadership of the chairwoman of the Agriculture Committee. This bill 
authorizes almost $900 million in mandatory funding for energy, which 
includes important programs for advanced biofuels like biodiesel. It 
also supports the Rural Energy for America Program, which is a major 
source of funding for renewable energy systems in rural America. 
Importantly, these programs are available to small businesses and non-
profits in rural America, not only to farmers.
  The farm bill's conservation programs also deserve mention.
  Perhaps the most important achievement is the linkage between crop 
insurance assistance and basic conservation practices, which requires 
that farmers take common sense steps to conserve soil health in return 
for crop insurance assistance.
  But we can and must do more--both to fight climate change and to 
adapt to its effects. Farming is a practice that knows no political 
boundaries. Farmers and ranchers might feel the effects in red and blue 
States alike, and if they don't have the resources to be able to adapt, 
in the long-term their production and income could suffer, which means 
that every American might pay more for fruits, vegetables, bread, and 
milk.
  There is a representative in Congress from every single part of the 
country, As a body that must balance both local and national interests, 
Congress should be acutely aware of the need for action on climate 
change. It may have real economic consequences on our farmers and 
ranchers in the coming years. And those consequences threaten a part of 
our culture with deep roots in the history of our Nation. We must act 
to preserve that culture and come to the aid of those farmers who ``are 
tied to their country and wedded to its liberty and interests by the 
most lasting bands.''


                             Transportation

  Mr. President, I will take some time now to talk about climate 
change, transportation, and infrastructure. Every day millions of 
Americans rely on cars, trucks, transit, trains, ships, and planes to 
get to work, visit relatives, and go to the doctor. Transportation is 
vital to the continued success and growth of our economy. But we know 
that our transportation system is a major driver of climate change, and 
if we are to tackle this problem, we will need to reduce this sector's 
contribution to global greenhouse gas pollution.
  Thankfully, we have solutions--solutions that are creating jobs and 
improving the ease and efficiency of moving people and goods. We are on 
the right track, but we need to continue in this direction by making 
our vehicles more efficient, building resilient infrastructure, and 
making smarter decisions about how we get around. This will take a 
strong commitment from government, business, and the American people.
  Transportation accounts for more than 30 percent of greenhouse gas 
emissions in the United States. In Hawaii, this is even more 
pronounced, where transportation accounts for approximately 50 percent 
of total greenhouse gas emissions. We all face different challenges, 
but regardless of where we are from, we can't tackle climate change 
without addressing the emissions generated by getting people and goods 
from point A to point B.
  In the United States transportation grew as a contributor to climate 
change through economic and population growth--our more affluent 
population takes more trips on planes, trains, and by car. Demand for 
consumer goods has increased, and sprawling development patterns have 
increased auto travel. We are seeing some of these trends across the 
world. Currently, the transportation sector accounts for 15 percent of 
worldwide emissions. But in many countries, this trend is expected to 
grow. In China, for example, energy consumption and CO2 
emissions are expected to increase almost fourfold in 2030 compared to 
2005.
  Even as transportation is contributing to climate change, severe 
weather is threatening our critical national infrastructure--our roads, 
bridges, ports, and airports. Severe weather can wipe out our 
infrastructure connections quickly and catastrophically. We saw this 
with the tragic Superstorm Sandy, which devastated the Northeast when 
it made landfall in October 2012, washing away roads and bridges and 
flooding the subway system and two major rail tunnels under the Hudson 
River.
  These Hudson River tunnels--critical access points on the busiest 
commuter corridor in the nation--were flooded with more than 3 million 
gallons of water, halting all Amtrak Northeast corridor and New Jersey 
Transit service into Manhattan for roughly 5 days. Let me repeat that. 
Commuter and subway tunnels in New York City were flooded with more 
than 3 million gallons of water. That is not a projection; that is a 
fact. This impacted nearly 600,000 daily riders and caused significant 
economic disruption.
  Former Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood highlighted the importance 
of building our infrastructure to withstand storms:

       Hurricane Sandy exposed the risks of relying solely on a 
     system of century-old tunnels for rail access into New York 
     City. We were fortunate that these tunnels were not destroyed 
     during the hurricane, and providing Amtrak with funds to 
     preserve its ability to build a second tunnel will provide 
     much-needed resiliency to the Northeast Corridor in case of 
     future disasters.

  I am glad Congress directed emergency funding to be used to harden 
and rebuild our infrastructure. But we need to invest much more.
  Continued weather fluctuations will amplify issues we face today. For 
example, derailments during extremely hot days are safety hazards, and 
hundreds of thousands of rail commuters

[[Page 4076]]

are inconvenienced by slower travel times. Air traffic disruptions due 
to severe weather have already cost airlines and passengers $5.8 
billion this year, according to a recent study.
  We also need to plan for the longer term impacts of climate change, 
which will wear down our infrastructure even faster. Transportation 
infrastructure is expensive and built to be long-lived. Studies show 
that climate change impacts will shorten that infrastructure life. 
Temperature fluctuations continue to degrade our pavement and bridges 
while severe flooding damages low-lying infrastructure, imposing 
significant costs to drain and rebuild.
  Water temperatures are expected to affect the volume and rates of 
water flows throughout our marine highways, threatening to reduce 
shipping access to docks. All this translates into higher maintenance 
and construction costs for a system that already has significant 
needs--the American Society of Civil Engineers estimates the United 
States will need to invest approximately $2 trillion by 2020 to 
maintain and expand our transportation infrastructure.
  In Hawaii, we can't escape the reality that climate change is 
threatening the way we move our people and our goods. It affects all 
aspects of transportation infrastructure--our ports, airports, roads, 
bridges, and transit systems. On Maui, we need a new bus storage 
facility because the current facility is now in the flood plain. By 
2100, all of our most critical transportation assets--our harbors, 
airports, and roads--will be highly vulnerable to sea level rises, 
storm surges, or high intensity rainfall.
  We don't even yet know how much it will cost to protect against 
climate change. As an island State, we are more vulnerable to the 
disruption of transportation infrastructure than most. First, 90 
percent of Hawaii's goods are imported into the State, which means that 
if severe weather or environmental change disrupts transportation, we 
lose access to food and other necessities.
  That makes Hawaii especially vulnerable to maritime disruptions--but 
also to disruption of truck and rail transport to west coast ports. We 
can't afford to have our transportation system disrupted; we need to 
invest now in resiliency.
  Recent estimates put the minimum cost of hardening our infrastructure 
in the tens of billions of dollars each year. For example, annual costs 
for strengthening our bridges alone are estimated at around $2 billion 
between now and 2090. The full costs--which also include rebuilding and 
restoring services after extreme events and maintaining and making 
design changes for the full range of critical infrastructure--could 
easily rise to hundreds of billions of dollars each year.
  Building in resilience is common sense management to protect our 
infrastructure investments, but simply hardening existing 
infrastructure will not solve our problems because the costs of this 
approach will grow over time.
  In order to build true resilience we need a combination of 
traditional mitigation measures and forward-looking approaches that 
find resilience in other ways--from green infrastructure, to growing 
our own energy and food independence.
  At the national level, the U.S. Department of Transportation is 
already working to integrate climate change impacts and adaptation into 
future planning and operations. But we need to do much more to help our 
States and cities address the costs of climate change. This includes 
smarter, integrated planning, prioritization, and funding.
  We also need to make our transportation sector cleaner and more 
efficient. The good news is that the United States can lead by example. 
We have already begun implementing a number of solutions developed by 
industry with public sector support that are cutting into 
transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions. New technologies are 
being developed for all modes of transportation that are cleaner and 
more efficient.
  U.S. automobile manufacturers are working hard to increase fuel 
efficiency and develop vehicles that run on alternative energy such as 
fuel cell, hybrid, and electric vehicles. They have paired with our 
universities and research institutions to advance biofuel development 
and alternatives to oil.
  These investments promote research and manufacturing jobs and save 
money for consumers at the pump. In turn, they have more in their 
pockets to spend in the U.S. economy.
  Many of these advances are part of the President's Climate Action 
Plan. CAFE standards are helping to improve fuel economy. In 2013, more 
than 400 models that achieve 30 miles per gallon or better were on our 
Nation's highways. And we will continue to see improvements in fuel 
efficiency of our light-duty fleet. I applaud President Obama's recent 
call for new fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions standards for 
medium and heavy-duty trucks by 2016.
  Focusing on these trucks will get us more bang for our buck--20 
percent of the transportation-related emissions in this country are 
from heavy-duty trucks, even though they make up only 4 percent of 
vehicles on the road.
  Across the country our universities and industry are working together 
to develop ideas and solutions to decrease transportation-related 
greenhouse gas emissions. In my home State of Hawaii, a number of 
innovative state and private sector initiatives are leading the country 
in the areas of bioenergy and other alternative fuels and vehicles. For 
example, Hawaii BioEnergy, a consortium of three of Hawaii's largest 
landowners as well as partners in the venture capital community, is 
planning to use locally grown feedstocks to produce biofuels. Last 
year, Hawaii BioEnergy announced a deal to supply Alaska Air with 
sustainable biofuel for their aircrafts possibly as soon as 2018. 
Pacific Bio-Diesel is producing diesel from recycled cooking oil that 
is used in public transit buses and other vehicles. Hawaii is home to a 
number of demonstration projects, including the sustainable hydrogen 
project at Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam that demonstrated the use of 
hydrogen produced by solar and wind in aircraft towing vehicles, 
trucks, small buses, and cars made by General Motors. General Motors 
has also deployed fuel cell cars in Hawaii, and the Department of 
Energy has funded a project on Hawaii Island to demonstrate the use of 
buses powered by hydrogen produced with geothermal energy that would 
otherwise have been curtailed. The State of Hawaii used stimulus funds 
to deploy the Hawaii E V Ready Program--a network of electric vehicle 
charging stations to encourage early adoption of this exciting 
technology. The Maui Smart Grid Project now includes fast chargers as 
part of an initiative to demonstrate the use of electric vehicles as 
part of an electric grid management project.
  It is important to note that many of the exciting projects my State 
is working on extend past improving efficiency for our trucks and cars. 
We are committed to making travel by sea and sky more efficient and 
cost-effective.
  Our consumers and businesses don't want the instability of the wild 
fluctuations in the oil market. This is especially important in Hawaii, 
where we are so dependent on air travel, and I am proud that Hawaiian 
Airlines is one of the Nation's most fuel efficient airlines.
  As a nation we are investing billions of dollars in Next Generation 
Air Transportation System upgrades, which will help to make air travel 
more safe, productive, and sustainable. Through improving efficiency 
and easing congestion in our skies, NextGen will improve air quality 
and limit aircraft emissions. The FAA predicts net reductions of the 
climate impact from all aviation emissions over the long term by 2050.
  We need to continue to support critical clean energy research and 
development to further these types of advances. In addition, we need to 
act now to extend important tax credits for advanced biofuels and 
advanced vehicle technologies.
  In the same way that we look at increasing fuel economy for our 
trucks and planes, we can improve the efficiency of our transportation 
systems

[[Page 4077]]

by making smarter choices about how we build our communities. By 
providing American workers and families options other than driving to 
get to where they need to go, we can help to reduce greenhouse gas 
emissions, increase mobility, and improve the quality of life for all 
Americans.
  In Hawaii, we recognize that in addition to making our vehicles more 
fuel efficient, improving reliable transportation options is a critical 
part of reducing our impact on climate change. This is one of the 
reasons why I have been such a staunch supporter of the Honolulu Rail 
Transit Project. Electrically powered rail transit will not only ease 
traffic congestion in Honolulu, but it will also advance Hawaii's goal 
of 70 percent clean energy by 2030.
  As noted by the National Resources Defense Council, ``By investing in 
transit we can give people real transportation choices so people aren't 
forced to burn a gallon of gas every time they need to pick up 
groceries or get to work. Along with other solutions--like charging 
stations for electric cars, smart traffic technology, or communities 
where people can walk or bike to shops, schools and work--transit can 
help break our addiction to oil. Laying the groundwork for a 21st 
Century transportation system that makes our communities more 
productive and efficient will free us from constantly worrying about 
prices at the pump while boosting our economy, safeguarding our 
environment, and improving our quality of life.''
  Major transit investments, like Honolulu Rail, have the added benefit 
of attracting development around stations. Transit-oriented 
development, or building neighborhoods with homes and businesses close 
together and accessible to transit, allows residents to choose to make 
at least some trips without a car, reducing emissions. The market is 
showing that more and more Americans want these options, and for good 
reason.
  Transportation is the second largest item in the average American 
household budget, and more options can shorten commutes and save money. 
Families can save on gas or forego that second car and the payments 
that come along with it. When communities become livable and walkable, 
property values skyrocket. And when our children and seniors can walk 
and bike to school, community centers, and shopping destinations, we 
see health benefits. Building our communities with housing and 
transportation near jobs, schools, stores, and restaurants can help 
support local economies while protecting the environment.
  I am working hard to find ways to support these types of commonsense 
options at the Federal level. One of those commonsense solutions I have 
championed is my Military Installations Enhancement Act of 2013, which 
was included in the 2013 defense authorization. Commanders now have 
more authority to make smart, cost-saving choices about how we use 
space on facilities. Using less space is more efficient.
  It is also about improving quality of life on bases, connecting our 
military families housing to jobs, the commissary, and the rest of the 
community.
  In Hawaii we are already moving on this. Honolulu is in the process 
of building our rail system, and the military is working with the local 
transit authority to situate two stations next to Pearl Harbor-Hickam.
  Though the Department of Defense has been looking at these benefits 
primarily to promote defense readiness, they also help address climate 
change by making bases more sustainable over the long term. With 
destinations closer together, people who work on or visit the base can 
choose to walk, bike, take transit, or drive. Having these options 
means less air pollution and less traffic on roads.
  Biking and walking are great ways to take zero emissions trips, but 
taking that trip isn't an option if it means you risk your life to do 
it. I recently introduced the Safe Streets Act of 2014 with my 
colleague, Senator Begich. The Safe Streets Act would require complete 
streets policies in all States, meaning that roads would be built to be 
safe for all of the people who use them, including bikers and walkers. 
This is especially important in Hawaii, where we have some of the most 
dangerous roads in the Nation for seniors.
  AARP highlighted how important this bill is: ``Safe mobility options 
are . . . essential to the independence and well-being of mid-life and 
older Americans. Fully one-fifth of persons ages 65 and above does not 
drive. Yet almost half of respondents to an AARP survey of persons age 
50 and above said they cannot safely cross the main roads in their 
neighborhoods . . . AARP supports Safe Streets legislation because it 
would ensure that federal transportation infrastructure investments 
provide safe travel for all-whether driving, bicycling, walking, or 
taking public transportation.
  These improvements that allow older adults to travel by foot will 
benefit younger road users as well. Your bill will help ensure that all 
users are safe, that scarce transportation dollars are spent wisely, 
and that Americans have choices in how they move around their 
neighborhood.''
  Smarter transportation choices improve mobility, save money, and 
reduce emissions. We have an opportunity in the next surface 
transportation authorization to ensure that we continue Federal support 
for transit, biking, walking, and smart development.
  All these innovations in the transportation sector to reduce carbon 
pollution have benefits beyond climate change. The research, design, 
development, and production of fuel efficient vehicles and airplanes 
help to create new high paying jobs. Such innovations will help America 
reduce its dependence on foreign oil and shield consumers from the 
volatility of fluctuating foreign oil prices. Moreover, high-quality 
public transportation surrounded by mixed-use developments will 
increase mobility and expand job opportunities for all Americans. 
Overall, this is a win-win for businesses, consumers, and the 
environment.
  It is time for Congress to wake up to the realities of climate change 
and take action to reduce our consumption of fossil fuels, but we can 
make real and lasting changes to our transportation sector and 
infrastructure without climate change being our primary motivation. 
Reducing our dependence on oil just makes long-term economic sense. It 
is a pragmatic decision that will have dramatic impacts to our economy, 
our health, and our way of life.


                            Water Resources

  Mr. President, without water, life on Earth would not exist. Water 
sustains our ability to grow crops and raise livestock. It quenches. It 
cleans. It provides habitat for plants and animals and produces 
electricity. It is perhaps the world's most valuable resource. Yet many 
of us in the United States take water for granted on a daily basis when 
we turn on our faucets, flush our toilets, water our plants, cook our 
food, and drink from our cups. Others around the globe do not have that 
luxury. The World Bank estimates that 1.6 billion people live in 
countries or regions with ``absolute water scarcity'' and that number 
is expected to rise to 2.8 billion people by 2025.
  Growing up in Hawaii and now representing my State in the Senate, I 
know the value and scarcity of our planet's water resources, especially 
as we confront the effects of climate-driven changes to our 
environment.
  As stated by the Center for Island Climate Adaptation and Policy, 
``Hawaii water experts have recognized that alterations in rainfall, 
temperature, wind, or other climate phenomena have the potential to 
devastate natural resources and human communities'' on our islands. Our 
freshwater resources are particularly at risk.
  Water resource issues are by no means confined to my State. Most of 
the other 49 are also facing or may soon face water-related problems, 
such as changes in precipitation and runoff patterns, drought, 
flooding, and sea level rise, that have the potential to be 
catastrophic. From California, through the American Southwest and 
Midwest, down to Florida and up the east coast, our cities, farms, and 
communities are at risk.

[[Page 4078]]

  I will begin tonight by stating the facts. Climate change is real, 
and it is perhaps most real in its effects on the water patterns of the 
planet. Countries around the world, including the United States, have 
always been afflicted by some degree of variability. Droughts have 
stricken portions of North America for thousands of years. Floods have 
been commonplace on our major rivers and tributaries. But never before 
has this variability been caused by humans.
  Scientists predict that warmer temperatures have three major effects 
on the planet's water: increased evaporation, increased precipitation, 
and a rise in sea levels.
  These in turn may drastically affect our water resources. Increased 
evaporation, caused by higher temperatures, heightens our risk for 
longer and more severe droughts--what scholars have termed 
``megadroughts''--especially in our already vulnerable drought-prone 
areas. Changes in precipitation and runoff patterns leave areas near 
rivers, lakes, and streams much more susceptible to devastating floods. 
And sea level rise endangers the homes and infrastructure in our 
coastal communities and can taint their drinking water.
  When it comes to these water resource issues, the future is now. The 
effects of climate change on our water resources are already upon us.
  Drought is among the earliest documented events related to climate 
and has been a part of human history much longer. Evidence even exists 
to suggest that a megadrought in Africa more than 100,000 years ago may 
have caused the migration of our ancestors out of the continent.
  A report by the Congressional Research Service notes that precolonial 
North America was subject to ``severe, long-lasting droughts'' that 
``may have been a factor in the disintegration of Pueblo society in the 
Southwest during the 13th century, and in the demise of central and 
lower Mississippi Valley societies in the 14th through 16th 
centuries.''
  More recently, ``droughts in the 1930s Dust Bowl era and 1950s were 
particularly severe and widespread. In 1934, 65 percent of the 
contiguous United States was affected by severe to extreme drought, 
resulting in widespread economic disruption and displacement of 
populations from the U.S. heartland--many relocating to California's 
Central Valley--and revealing shortcomings in agricultural and land use 
practices.''
  The CRS report states that in the past 50 years, human-induced 
climate change has caused scientists to question whether we are 
entering a ``new megadrought era'' akin to the worst megadrought 
periods of the past, which are believed to have been caused by a 
warming climate. Large areas of the United States, such as the American 
Southwest and California, would be particularly susceptible to 
megadroughts.
  In California, the snowpack in the Sierra Mountains as of February 
2014 was, according to the CRS report, ``well below normal, and water 
levels in multi-year reservoirs were below average conditions for that 
time of year.'' This follows 2013, which was California's driest year 
on record. Now I want to be clear: We still cannot connect any single 
weather event or drought directly to human-caused climate change, but 
we can use these extreme weather events as examples of what future 
climates might look like. We know firsthand the economic consequences 
of major weather events.
  Looking to examples in our history will help illuminate the future. 
Islands like Hawaii with small land masses and limited water resources 
also face difficult times ahead if global temperatures continue to rise 
due to greenhouse gases. Recent studies have shown that most of the 
Hawaii islands have experienced a steady decline in rainfall over the 
past 20 years, which has had an enormous effect on our ranching 
industry.
  I am pleased that Governor Abercrombie and the Hawaii Department of 
Agriculture are working to improve our State's irrigation systems and 
to develop long-term solutions to help the farmers of Hawaii deal with 
the effects of climate change.
  To quote Scott Enright of the Hawaii Department of Agriculture, ``We 
know we will experience climate change in Hawaii and the department has 
been putting through legislation to help us with that.'' Such efforts 
at the State level are crucial to helping the agricultural sector 
adapt.
  Like droughts, floods have been a scourge to humanity since the 
beginning of civilization. Climate science predicts that severe floods 
may result from global warming.
  According to the National Resources Defense Council, ``Climate change 
has contributed to a rise in extreme weather events.'' These events 
``will increase the frequency of heavy rainstorms, putting many 
communities at risk for devastation from floods. Flooding can cause a 
range of health impacts and risks, including: death and injury, 
contaminated drinking water, hazardous material spills, increased 
populations of disease-carrying insects and rodents, moldy houses, and 
community disruption and displacement. As rains become heavier, 
streams, rivers, and lakes can overflow, increasing the risk of water-
borne pathogens flowing into drinking water sources. Downpours can also 
damage critical infrastructure like sewer and solid waste systems, 
triggering sewage overflows that can spread into local waters.''
  I turn now to the issue of sea level rise, which, as National 
Geographic has noted, can have ``devastating effects on coastal 
habitats. As seawater reaches farther inland, it can cause destructive 
erosion, flooding of wetlands, contamination of drinking water and 
agricultural soils, and lost habitat for fish, birds, and plants.''
  Like drought and floods, sea level rise due to climate change is 
already upon us. A recent joint report from the National Academy of 
Sciences and the British Royal Society shows that since 1901, global 
sea level rose by about 8 inches, with a large percentage of that rise 
coming in the past two decades.
  If greenhouse gases continue to increase on their current 
trajectories, it is projected that sea level may rise by as much as 3 
feet by the end of the 21st century. And ``rising sea levels will not 
stop in 2100; sea levels will be much higher in the following centuries 
as the sea continues to take up heat and glaciers continue to 
retreat.''
  Eight inches of sea level rise might not sound like a big deal, but 
it is.
  Even very small increases in sea level, such as those seen already, 
can have devastating impacts, one of which is saltwater intrusion into 
freshwater sources, which is a fancy way of saying that drinking water 
along some coasts will become salty and undrinkable.
  ``Rising sea levels are causing saltwater to flow into the Ganges, 
India's biggest river, threatening its ecosystem and turning vast 
farmlands barren in the country's east,'' according to a Reuters 
article from several years ago. In the United States, the Fort 
Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel reports that Florida aquifers, which provide 
much of the freshwater to communities throughout the State, are in 
danger of oversalinization.
  More than half of freshwater used in Florida is from underground 
sources like the Biscayne Aquifer. The consequences of climate change 
induced sea level rise are dire for some low-lying coastal areas.
  The combination of sea level rise and a growing population are 
putting strains on freshwater sources in Florida. A local natural 
resources official noted in the Sun-Sentinel article that ``potable 
water supply is obviously a major concern long-term.'' One possible 
solution proposed by the Southeast Florida Utility Council is 
reengineering stormwater runoff to drain into the aquifers, instead of 
flowing back out to sea. This would beat back the saltwater intrusion 
and replenish freshwater.
  Saltwater intrusion also poses problems in low-lying parts of my 
State and many other Pacific island nations and U.S. territories with 
limited freshwater supplies. If sea levels continue to rise, these 
areas could quickly become uninhabitable.
  The United Nations reports that rising sea levels have left and are 
leaving salt deposits in the soil and contaminants in the groundwater 
supply. Both

[[Page 4079]]

of these have adverse impacts on agriculture, food, and water security. 
Many small Pacific nations face the risk of saltwater intrusion of 
their freshwater supplies.
  Allow me to share with you a few words from the Honorable Enele S. 
Sopoaga, Prime Minister of Tuvalu, who spoke at the United Nations 
Framework Convention on Climate Change in 2013: ``Some have suggested 
that the people of Tuvalu can move elsewhere. Let me say in direct 
terms. We do not want to move. Such suggestions are offensive to the 
people of Tuvalu. Our lives and culture are based on our continued 
existence on the islands of Tuvalu. We will survive.'' It is our duty 
as a pacific nation to help the people of Tuvalu and other island 
communities do just that--survive.
  Let me end on a positive note and describe some of the additional 
ways that I have supported protecting our water resources through 
legislation at the national level.
  As chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water 
and Power, I have introduced the 
SECURE Water Amendments Act of 
2014 to conserve water resources and 
promote sustainability.
  As part of the SECURE Water Amendments Act, I am fighting for funding 
for a national water inventory. In its last major report on water use 
in the United States in 2005, the U.S. Geological Survey reported that 
over 400,000 million gallons of water are withdrawn every day. However, 
we also need to know how much water we have and where we have it so 
that we can better prepare for the effects of climate change on our 
water resources.
  Finally, I support the National Integrated Drought Information System 
Reauthorization Act, which President Obama signed into law on March 6. 
As the White House noted in its official statement, ``This bipartisan 
legislation ensures that the federal government can continue to provide 
timely, effective drought warning forecasts and vital support to 
communities that are vulnerable to drought. States, cities, towns, 
farmers, and businesses rely on tools and data from the National 
Integrated Drought Information System to make informed decisions about 
water use, crop planting, wildfire response, and other critical 
areas.''
  Mr. President, I am joined tonight by many of my colleagues, who also 
understand what is happening to our planet and what will continue to 
happen if we do not address the causes and effects of climate change. 
As I conclude, however, let me speak not just as a Member of Congress 
but as a father. Every parent worries about the future that their 
children face, and I am particularly troubled about the planet we are 
leaving for our children.
  Several decades from tonight, when my son and daughter are the same 
age I am now, will they have adequate water resources? And if they have 
chosen to live in Hawaii or any of the other communities in the United 
Sates with water resource issues, will there even be any useable water 
left at all?
  Despite my worries, I am hopeful that this scenario will not play 
out. It has been said that water seeks its own level. I see this as 
true both literally and figuratively. Those who are convinced that 
climate change is real and who also have real solutions are seeking 
each other out. And someday, in the not too distant future, I am 
confident we will reach that critical mass of people who firmly believe 
that we can no longer sit idly by in the face of climate change and 
that the time to act is not tomorrow but now.


                          Emergency Management

  Mr. President. I now will use some time to discuss the impact of 
climate change on our Nation's security and resiliency.
  The effects of climate change will require additional investments in 
our communities in order to protect our most critical infrastructure, 
such as our roads, bridges, and powerplants. As extreme weather events 
become more frequent and severe, there will be a need for increased 
disaster assistance and mitigation efforts.
  These events will have a direct impact on our economy. One need only 
look at the $1 trillion dollars in damages that the United States has 
accumulated since 1980 due to extreme weather events, which scientists 
know are becoming more frequent and severe. This is one of many reasons 
why Congress must wake up and take action now to address climate 
change.
  We know we cannot attribute any one event to climate change, but what 
science is telling us is that with each passing day, as we pump more 
carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, we are increasing our chances of 
extreme weather events that carry with them dangerous consequences.
  Global average temperatures have risen by more than 2 degrees in the 
last 50 years. Climate scientists caution that this warming increases 
the chances of more intense and frequent droughts and heat waves. 
Rising temperatures in various parts of the country could also increase 
the severity and frequency of wildfires.
  Precipitation levels have increased by an average of 5 percent and 
heaviest downpours have increased by 20 percent over the last 50 years. 
These higher levels of precipitation can lead to more flood events 
throughout the country.
  A changing climate could cause hurricanes to become more intense and 
severe. And this is particularly worrisome in the Pacific, where 
hurricanes have increased in strength since the 1980s. Moreover, sea 
levels have risen in the past 50 years along our coastlines and will 
continue to do so as the Earth warms. As a result, our coastal areas 
are becoming increasingly vulnerable to flooding, erosion, and damage 
caused by storms. The combination of sea level rise and increased 
strength of hurricanes amplify the destructive force of Mother Nature 
by putting more coastal communities at risk of dangerous storm surge.
  My home State of Hawaii is expected to experience worsening severe 
weather. Last year, researchers at the University of Hawaii found that 
warming temperatures and changing storm patterns will lead to fewer but 
stronger tropical cyclones that will track more toward Hawaii in the 
future.
  Across the country, we are seeing an increasing number of disasters. 
The number of Presidential disaster declarations has increased from 65 
in 2004 to 98 in 2011.
  During that time, FEMA provided more than $80 billion in disaster 
assistance. As the severity and frequency of weather-related disasters 
continues to increase, FEMA will need to spend more to help communities 
respond to and recover from disasters. For instance, disaster 
assistance for Hurricane Sandy totaled around $60 billion.
  In addition, due to the increasing potential of flood related events, 
more funding will be needed for the National Flood Insurance Program. 
This program is currently $24 billion in debt due to increasing costs 
and payouts because of extreme weather events.
  Last year, the Government Accountability Office added managing 
climate change risks to its high risk list. According to GAO, ``Climate 
change creates significant financial risk for the federal government, 
which . . . provides emergency aid in response to natural disasters.'' 
Overall, the fiscal impact of climate change on the United States 
economy could top more than $1 trillion by the year 2050. Emergency 
managers at all levels of government would have to stretch their 
budgets even further to prepare for and respond to such devastating 
events.
  We know how severe weather-related events can endanger our 
communities and put lives at risk. But these events also threaten our 
critical infrastructure. Last month, the Department of Homeland 
Security's Office of Infrastructure Protection testified before the 
Senate Homeland Security Committee that ``higher temperatures and more 
intense storms may damage or disrupt telecommunications and power 
systems, creating challenges for telecommunications infrastructure, 
emergency communications, and the availability of cyber systems.''
  Many of our roads, bridges, water systems, and electrical grids are 
already very old and in need of repair. According to GAO, 
``Infrastructure is typically designed to withstand and operate within 
historic climate patterns. However, according to the National Research 
Council, as the climate changes

[[Page 4080]]

and historical patterns--in particular, those related to extreme 
weather events--no longer provide reliable predictions of the future, 
infrastructure designs may underestimate the climate-related impacts to 
infrastructure over its design life, which can range as long as 50 to 
100 years. These impacts can increase the operating and maintenance 
costs of infrastructure or decrease its life span, or both, leading to 
social, economic, and environmental impacts.''
  Additional funding will be needed to spend on adaptation, which is 
the process of adjusting systems to possible climate risks. This is to 
ensure that businesses and communities are protected against changes in 
the climate.
  FEMA has already established an Agency-wide directive to integrate 
adaptation planning into its policies and operations. Federal agencies 
are working to develop guidelines that incorporate climate change into 
risk-based analysis to ensure that infrastructure is more resilient.
  Emergency managers will be required to better coordinate with all 
levels of government for better mitigation, preparation, response, and 
recovery. Federal emergency managers are trying to mitigate the impact 
of climate change by raising awareness. But it is important that 
Congress promote these policies too.
  We need a unified national approach to encourage investments in 
making our infrastructure more resilient to extreme weather events 
brought on by climate change. We need to promote weather-ready planning 
and ensure that funding is available to emergency managers to 
effectively prepare for these types of events. We also need to equip 
individuals to be prepared by increasing their awareness.
  Congress needs to wake up and act now. Failure to do so puts our 
Nation at risk.


                          International Action

  Mr. President, the only place where people continue to debate whether 
climate change is real is right here in Congress. But while Congress is 
paralyzed by inaction, the rest of the world is acting.
  People around the world are concerned about what the science is 
telling them. A Pew Research Center poll published last year found that 
a majority of publics in many of the countries surveyed said that 
global climate change is one the greatest challenges facing their 
countries. Concerned communities spanned from Latin America and Europe, 
to Sub-Saharan Africa and the Asian-Pacific.
  Not surprisingly, leaders in these countries are already acting to 
confront climate change with the sense of urgency it deserves. Some of 
them have focused on efforts to mitigate climate change by placing caps 
on their greenhouse gas emissions; others have focused on efforts to 
adapt to climate change with targeted investments in coastal defense 
and other programs that will make them more resilient in the face of 
climate uncertainty in the future.
  The steps that these representatives have taken to confront climate 
change are proof of what is possible when we cast aside partisanship 
and decide to act on the science.
  Just across the Atlantic, our allies in the United Kingdom have 
demonstrated what is possible. In 2008, leaders in London made the 
United Kingdom the first country in the world to adopt legally binding 
targets that required the country to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 
and the first country to require businesses to report their carbon 
emissions. The 2008 Climate Change Act was a seminal piece of 
legislation that has put the United Kingdom on track to confront its 
contribution to climate change, with a goal of reducing greenhouse gas 
emissions at least 80 percent from its 1990 levels by 2050 below the 
nation's projected baseline.
  In 2012, Mexico followed in the United Kingdom's footsteps, becoming 
only the second country in the world to set legally binding reductions 
on greenhouse gas emissions. The landmark bill signed into law that 
year committed Mexico to cutting its greenhouse gas emissions 30 
percent by 2020 and by 50 percent by 2050.
  What is most remarkable about the legally binding targets that the 
United Kingdom and Mexico enacted and have continued to advance is that 
it proves that both developed and developing countries are both capable 
of cutting carbon pollution.
  While greenhouse gas targets are important, that is only one activity 
that countries across the world are undertaking to address climate 
change. Given that climate change is already happening, many countries 
are being forced to take matters into their own hands and adapt to the 
reality around them.
  We have heard numerous accounts tonight about how one of the most 
pernicious impacts of climate change is sea level rise.
  Sea level is expected to rise nearly one meter by 2100. This seems 
like a distant challenge. But with each passing year, as the seas inch 
higher, tides grow more threatening and storm surges more dangerous. 
Even slight changes in sea level rise pose serious dangers to coastal 
communities, from the Pacific Island nation of Kiribati to the mangrove 
villages along the Bay of Bengal in eastern India.
  The Netherlands is wasting no time in preparing for sea level rise. 
The seawall of the Netherlands is 42 feet high and 50 yards thick at 
its base. The people have raised the wall several times since 1976, 
when it stood half as tall. Over the next 100 years, the Netherlands 
plans to invest $25 billion in strengthening existing sea defenses. 
With $2.5 trillion worth of existing infrastructure, the seawall is 
vital to the Netherlands's future.
  The Netherlands is just one dramatic example of how countries are 
working to adapt to the challenges of climate change.
  In addition to leading the world in crafting national greenhouse gas 
legislation, the United Kingdom is working to assess its climate 
vulnerabilities. In order to better examine the risks that climate 
change poses to its communities, the government has produced its first 
Climate Change Risk Assessment and plans to release an updated 
assessment every 5 years, informed by the best available science.
  Denmark has, in recent years, increased wind power to generate over 
30 percent of its electricity and aims to be 100 percent fossil fuel 
free by 2050. While these efforts are in part to help the country 
reduce its greenhouse gas emissions, its embrace of renewables is also 
likely to make it more resilient to climate change in the future by 
diversifying their energy portfolio. It is no wonder that Denmark is, 
according to the Climate Change Performance Index, No. 1 in taking 
actions against climate change.
  Efforts to confront climate change head on are not unique to 
developed countries either.
  In 2013, Kenya launched its National Climate Action Plan, which 
outlined options for low carbon emissions, climate resilient 
development, and ways to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. Like most 
developing nations, Kenya's greenhouse gas emissions are low compared 
to those of developed nations. However, Kenya feels the effects of 
climate change and is planning for increased uncertainty in the future. 
Indeed, leaders in Nairobi know too well that climate change will 
disproportionately impact the world's poorest, and they need to be 
prepared.
  Developing countries have long understood the risks of a warming 
planet, even though the world community has continued to debate who, 
precisely, is responsible. In the 1990s, the government of the African 
state Seychelles prepared its own Environmental Management Plan.
  The purpose of the plan was to conform to the United Nations 
Convention on Climate Change. Part of the plan was dedicated to 
sustainable development of the islands, to ensure that proper 
environmental protections were taking place throughout the country's 
development.
  Leaders in the Seychelles, which at the time had a population of only 
70,000, took it upon themselves to make sure they took the necessary 
steps to protect their home. Today, Seychelles, comprised of 115 
granite and coral islands, is at risk from sea level rise.

[[Page 4081]]

Seychelles has been dumping granite boulders on sand beaches to prevent 
them from washing away.
  Ronald Jemeau, Seychelles' Ambassador to the United Nations and the 
United States, offered these sobering remarks in 2010 that are worth 
repeating at length:

       We're having the problems of the coral reefs. And coral 
     reefs are central to our economy, central to our culture, 
     central to our way of life. What many people don't realize 
     about coral reefs is not--it's not that they're just 
     beautiful for diving and, as we call them, the rainforests of 
     the ocean. But coral reefs are where many of the deep sea 
     fishes spawn and grow up. It's a nursery for small fish. So 
     if coral reefs die, you are affecting fish in the deep seas, 
     which we use for--which we fish. Also, coral reefs are the 
     first defense--natural defense of violence against ocean 
     waves. When the coral reefs die because of--after they're 
     bleached, they break down, and they allow the waves to hit 
     the shore.
       For some time now, our islands are being--have been eroded 
     away, islands actually changing shape because of the problem 
     of--on the one hand, the dying reefs. On the other, you have 
     much more serious, much more intense storm events, higher 
     tides, very strong tides which have been really eroding our 
     beaches. And the only defense we've been able to do--we have 
     a lot of granite. We are the oldest oceanic islands because 
     we have a lot of granite. And we've been dumping granite 
     boulders on our sand beaches to prevent them from being swept 
     away. That's not exactly the reason tourists come to 
     Seychelles. They come to see beaches with white sand, not 
     beaches strewn with boulders.

  Mr. President, I want to take a moment to address opponents of action 
who say: Well, China is the biggest polluter of them all, and they 
aren't doing anything, so even if the United States does act, it 
wouldn't mean a thing.
  By the way, notice how that argument implicitly accepts the realities 
of climate change. It is no longer a scientific argument; it is a 
collective action argument.
  Well if that is all that is holding some Americans back from taking 
action, then I have news. China is working to fight pollution and 
climate change. The United States is the laggard.
  Last week at the opening of China's annual meeting of Parliament, the 
Chinese Premier said that China will ``declare war on pollution'' in 
the coming years. China faces the twofold challenge of extreme local 
pollution and the effects of climate change and recognizes that 
transitioning to clean sources of energy is a decision that has 
enormous implications for its economic and political stability.
  In January, the Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework 
Convention on Climate Change said that China is ``doing it right'' as 
it begins to tackle climate change. She continued to say that the 
Chinese are ``not doing this because they want to save the planet. 
They're doing it because it's in their national interest.'' Regardless 
of their motivations, the Chinese are acting.
  So what exactly is China doing? Last September, the Chinese State 
Council released its Atmospheric Pollution Prevention Action Plan, 
which called for a reduction in the construction of new coal-fired 
powerplants and a goal of generating 13 percent of its electricity from 
renewable sources by 2017.
  In 2013, China installed 12 to 14 gigawatts of solar panels and 
expects to do it again this year. Prior to 2013, no country has ever 
added more than 8 gigawatts of solar in a single year. A price 
guarantee for utility-scale solar projects known as a feed-in-tariff, 
as well as low-cost panels, drove this dramatic growth.
  The argument that the United States shouldn't act until China acts 
doesn't fly anymore because China is taking action.
  Chinese officials have announced that they plan to institute a tax on 
carbon pollution in 2015 or 2016. Certain regions have also started to 
implement pilot cap-and-trade programs and are beginning to develop 
plans to create a national carbon market by 2020.
  How about current investments? In 2012 the United States spent about 
$35 billion on renewable energy, while China spent $64 billion.
  The overwhelming buzz of climate action that we hear coming from 
capitals around the world is a stark contrast to the deafening silence 
here in Washington.
  I worry about the message that Congress's inaction sends to the rest 
of the world, that while so many countries are going to great pains to 
confront climate change, too many Members of Congress would deny that 
change exists at all.
  Many of these world leaders are looking for American leadership. They 
want American leadership. European Commission President Jose Manuel 
Barroso acknowledged this ahead of the 2007 United Nations Climate 
Change Conference in Bali when he said, ``We can succeed only if we 
have the United States with us.'' We must meet our partners on this 
issue. We risk conceding our credibility on this issue to others who 
are rising to the occasion.
  I am grateful that we have a true champion on climate change in 
President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry. Despite our neglect 
here in Congress, Secretary Kerry has been America's ambassador to the 
world on climate change, working hard to preserve our leadership 
position on this crucial issue.
  Secretary Kerry has thoughtfully said before that ``those who deny 
the science or choose excuses over action are playing with fire.'' I 
have no doubt that leaders in these countries know, through their 
dialogue with him, that he is committed to tackling climate change and, 
through him, America's commitment is real. I have no doubt that despite 
Congress's stubbornness, America understands the challenge.
  Washington might be paralyzed, but the rest of the world is not. Once 
you get outside of Washington, outside the grip of special interests, 
the rest of America is further ahead in confronting climate change.
  Take my home State of Hawaii.
  Besides being on the cutting edge of climate science research, 
policymakers in Hawaii have shown incredible leadership in adopting 
pragmatic and principled legislation to confront the challenge of 
climate change.
  In 2007, Hawaii became only the second State in the country to adopt 
binding targets for greenhouse gas emissions. The bipartisan Global 
Warming Solutions Act committed Hawaii to an aggressive goal of 
reducing its greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.
  At the time, skeptics of the legislation thought that the legislation 
would doom Hawaii given the State's outsized reliance on fossil fuels 
for electricity. But, in fact, it is working in concert with the 
aggressive greenhouse gas targets that legislators adopted that year 
with a burgeoning partnership between Hawaii and the Department of 
Energy that became the Hawaii Clean Energy Initiative.
  The Hawaii Clean Energy Initiative has been perhaps one of the most 
successful partnerships between the State, Federal Government, 
nonprofit, and private sector. It helped lay out a road map for Hawaii 
to achieve its aggressive greenhouse gas emissions goals with clean 
energy as the means for doing it. Our job is far from done, but as a 
result of this effort I am optimistic about Hawaii's energy future and 
our ability to reduce carbon pollution.
  Hawaii is just one example of the many efforts under way outside of 
Washington to confront climate change. All across the country, cities, 
counties, and State representatives are waking up to the reality of 
climate change, just as international leaders already have.
  The only people who are asleep on this issue are here, right here in 
Congress. It is time for them to wake up.


                          Ocean Acidification

  Mr. President. I will now address another impact of rising carbon 
dioxide: ocean acidification, or OA. The ocean absorbs CO2 
gas from the atmosphere based on its concentration level: the higher 
the levels of CO2, the more the oceans will absorb. When 
this happens, the CO2 reacts with water to become more 
acidic.
  Although acidity levels vary from place to place, NOAA scientists 
estimate that since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the 
acidity of

[[Page 4082]]

surface ocean waters has risen approximately 30 percent.
  Future predictions indicate that the oceans will continue to absorb 
carbon dioxide and become even more acidic. Estimates of future carbon 
dioxide levels, based on business as usual emission scenarios, indicate 
that by the end of this century the surface waters of the ocean could 
be nearly 150 percent more acidic, resulting in acidity levels that the 
oceans haven't experienced for more than 20 million years.
  Scientists have been studying rising CO2 levels and ocean 
acidification for years, and I am proud to report that Hawai`i in 
particular has been at the forefront. Our Mauna Loa observatory sits at 
an elevation of over 11,000 feet above sea level on the island of 
Hawai`i, and has been recording CO2 levels since the mid-
1950s, making it the oldest continuous CO2 measurement 
station in the world. As such, it is the primary global benchmark site 
for monitoring the increase of this gas that contributes to both global 
warming and ocean acidification.
  In addition to watching CO2 levels at Mauna Loa, Hawai`i 
has also kept track of ocean chemistry at Station ALOHA, just north of 
Hawai`i where the University of Hawai`i monitors a variety of 
oceanographic conditions in a project known as HOT--the Hawai`i Ocean 
Time-series. With continuous observations of ocean waters at Station 
Aloha since October 1988, scientists have learned that the surface 
ocean grew more acidic at exactly the rate expected from rising levels 
of CO2 in the atmosphere. Their research indicated the need 
for further inquiry, however, because the year-to-year rate of change 
varied considerably.
  For marine animals, ocean acidity is similar to humans living with 
air pollution: the increased acidity can cause health issues--
particularly for shellfish and coral. Most species of coral, oysters, 
clams, and mussels experience slower shell and skeleton growth as the 
waters become more acidic, which will have significant impacts on 
coastal communities and their economies.
  The stakes from ocean acidification are high. According to NOAA: In 
2009, U.S. shellfish accounted for about half of the Nation's estimated 
annual seafood revenue of $3.9 billion. Coral reefs provide habitat for 
an estimated 1 million species, and offer food, income, and coastal 
protection for about 500 million people globally.
  Unfortunately, the negative impacts of OA are not speculative. The 
shellfish industry has already started to feel the effects of OA along 
the Pacific Northwest, where failures at oyster hatcheries beginning in 
2007 have been confirmed as a result of the growing acidity of coastal 
waters.
  To get a sense of the impacts, consider this: NOAA estimates that 
Washington's seafood industry is estimated to contribute over 42,000 
jobs and at least $1.7 billion to the gross State product through 
profits and employment at businesses such as restaurants, distributors, 
and retailers.
  This is not an abstract, theoretical problem, so to illustrate, I 
would like to highlight the efforts of several firms that are finding 
ways to adapt to adversity brought on by the changing climate.
  Penn Cove Shellfish, Coast Seafoods, Taylor Shellfish and Goose Point 
Oyster Company--among the largest shellfish farms in America--provide 
sustainably farmed shellfish products to customers nationally and 
across the world: as seed mussels, clams, and oysters for other farmers 
to grow out, and as fully grown shellfish, ready to eat.
  After their hard work to develop their businesses, I can only imagine 
the panic they must have felt when suddenly, some of their mainland 
shellfish hatcheries started to see production rates declining sharply, 
and it appeared that something was affecting the health of the larvae.
  Working with scientists and researchers, the problems were diagnosed 
as being caused by ocean acidification. The researchers found that as 
more and more atmospheric CO2 was absorbed by the ocean, the 
special form of calcium used by shellfish to create their shells--known 
as aragonite--declined. This lack of aragonite prevented the shellfish 
larvae from creating their protective shells, and so many of them died 
as a result.
  Fortunately, research on ocean acidification is not just science for 
science's sake, so when the shellfish industry's hatchery problems were 
definitively linked to ocean acidification, Federal science agencies 
like NOAA found ways for businesses to adapt to increasing 
CO2 conditions. Together, scientists from NOAA, academia, 
and the shellfish industry formed a strong partnership to help industry 
to adapt.
  Here's how NOAA described the team's efforts:

       Together these researchers determined that acidification 
     was threatening oyster production and offered an approach to 
     address it. They installed carbon chemistry monitoring 
     equipment at shellfish hatcheries. Real-time data from 
     offshore buoys now serves as an early warning system for 
     shellfish hatcheries; these buoys are capable of signaling 
     the approach of cold, acidified seawater 1-2 days before it 
     arrives in the sensitive coastal waters where larvae are 
     produced. The data have enabled hatchery managers to schedule 
     production when water quality is good and avoid wasting 
     valuable energy and other resources when water quality is 
     poor.

  These efforts solved the immediate problem, but the experience set 
them thinking about long-term environmental risk to their businesses.
  First, they recognized that based on the best available science, 
ocean acidity levels can vary greatly--so to find a way to insulate 
themselves from changes to the waters in coastal Washington, they 
figured they should look to a different State altogether.
  That State wound up being my own home: Hawai`i. It happens that we 
had existing infrastructure at the Natural Energy Lab of Hawaii; NELHA, 
to support shellfish aquaculture in Kona on Hawai`i Island, and so Penn 
Cove and Coast Seafoods negotiated and moved in at Kona Coast 
Shellfish, and Taylor Shellfish followed suit with a separate hatchery 
at the same facility. More recently, the Goose Point Oyster Company has 
developed a new hatchery known as Hawaiian Shellfish near Hilo. Now, in 
addition to having more security for their supply chain, the increased 
production has allowed them all to expand sales to reach new North 
American and Asian markets, and grow their business.
  Their case is an object lesson on how adaptation can create economic 
opportunity, and I am grateful they chose Hawai`i to locate their 
backup facilities! But it's also a stark reminder of how changes in 
ocean chemistry have already disrupted the ability of shellfish to live 
in their native habitats and why there is so much urgency to act now.
  Hawai`i is also connected to the other side of ocean acidification: 
its effects on coral reefs. Unfortunately, ocean acidification is not 
the only pressure on coral reefs.
  Warming ocean waters, pollution and sedimentation from the land, and 
overfishing all reduce coral growth and vitality, making it harder and 
harder for reefs to survive into the future. Like the impacts on 
shellfish, the threat to corals from ocean acidification is invisible--
unless you work with them on a daily basis, like coral scientists do. 
However, considering that coral reefs provide the habitat for an 
estimated 1 million species, and offer food, income, and coastal 
protection for about 500 million people globally, it is a problem that 
everyone should care about.
  Because it's their daily bread, coral scientists at the University of 
Hawai`i see vividly how ocean acidification is changing our reefs and 
they are doubling down to refine scientific understanding of corals and 
to find solutions. For others, like Dr. Bob Richmond, it's about 
maintaining strength in science, while reaching out to elected 
officials, community leaders, and members of the public to share what 
researchers have learned.
  The Honolulu Star Advertiser recently recognized Dr. Richmond's 
efforts:

       Ocean scientists were urged . . . to go beyond their own 
     scientific research and inject themselves into the political 
     realm to give politicians and decision-makers the information 
     they need to make the best policy decisions.
       Robert Richmond, director of the University of Hawai`i's 
     Kewalo Marine Laboratory,

[[Page 4083]]

     used his own research on coral reefs to illustrate how it can 
     be done in a speech before hundreds of scientists from around 
     the world at the 2014 Ocean Sciences Meeting at the Hawai`i 
     Convention Center.
       Richmond, president of the International Society for Reef 
     Studies, said there's a need to teach scientists to be better 
     communicators.
       In discussing his own research, Richmond described talking 
     to chiefs in Palau, community members in Guam and Pohnpei and 
     to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in East Honolulu to 
     accomplish successes in support of coral reefs on the local 
     level.
       He urged the scientists to work with local organizations, 
     elected and traditional leaders, and stakeholders to effect 
     change. ``It requires partnerships. I've worked with groups I 
     never intended to, from economists to cultural 
     practitioners.''

  Dr. Richmond's approach to bridge science and policy led him to work 
with colleagues to develop a Consensus Statement on Climate Change and 
Coral Reefs, which has been signed by over 3,000 coral reef scientists 
from all over the world.
  The consensus statement expresses the shared conclusions of the 
science community about the impacts of greenhouse gases on the world's 
coral reefs, along with their best predictions about the future. The 
statement is intended to assist people like us--government officials--
to make decisions with a firm foundation of objectively verifiable 
science.
  The science presented in the consensus statement is clear and 
sobering: If CO2 emissions continue at the current rate, the 
combination of warming and acidification of ocean waters will reach 
levels that have not occurred since 55 million years ago. At that time, 
there was a ``coral reef crisis'' where environmental conditions caused 
a dramatic reduction in reef development, and scientists fear that we 
will face a similar situation in our lifetimes.
  The situation is grave, but the consensus statement also details the 
science-based steps we can take to improve the outlook for our corals.
  The topline item, however, is one that my colleagues here tonight and 
I have long suspected: that we need a dedicated and consistent effort 
to reduce climate change through reduction in CO2 and other 
greenhouse gas emissions throughout the world. This is simply the only 
long-term, comprehensive solution to the problems of climate change.
  Scientific research shows that we can also make a difference by 
taking steps to reduce the damage done by local actions. For example, 
communities can: Rebuild fish stocks; Reduce runoff and pollutants 
coming from the land; Rebuild populations of iconic species like 
turtles, whales, seals, and dolphins; Identify and protect the most 
resilient reefs; and Promote aquaculture without increasing pollution 
and runoff.
  Unfortunately, these steps alone will not solve the challenge facing 
coral reefs, but they will empower individuals to claim a role in 
protecting their reefs.
  Another notable Hawai`i coral scientist, Dr. Ruth Gates, who is based 
at the University of Hawai`i's Hawai`i Institute for Marine Biology, 
has focused on a different science-based approach: finding resilient 
corals that can stand up to the pressure of global warming and ocean 
acidification. Her work was featured in the Honolulu Star Advertiser 
last week:

       ``We can confirm that reefs are declining. There's no 
     disputing that,'' Gates said on a recent morning, a cool 
     breeze blowing off a cloudy Kaneohe Bay behind her. ``But 
     it's not all doom and gloom.''
       Using the popular Oahu bay's turquoise waters as a 
     laboratory, Gates has spent the past several years scrambling 
     to find the hardiest, strongest coral--the ``professional 
     athletes'' of the bunch--that can endure the warmer and more 
     acidic seas of the future.
       The idea is to then take those corals' traits and breed 
     them on a large scale similar to breeding preferred traits in 
     dogs and other animals.
       In Hawai`i, a State that has become a flash point in the 
     debate over the use of genetically modified organisms, the 
     Hawai`i Institute of Marine Biology researcher is quick to 
     stress that her concept of selective coral breeding is 
     something entirely different.
       ``We're looking for the supercorals that already exist'' 
     several feet from a stretch of coral just offshore, Gates 
     explained. The approach would not introduce foreign DNA into 
     coral, as is done in the controversial GMO process.
       It's more than just scientists who are working to save 
     reefs in the face of ocean acidification and global warming. 
     Community leaders, cultural practitioners, scientists, and 
     the general public have all come together to designate a 
     National Estuarine Research Reserve in O`ahu's He`eia estuary 
     in Kane`ohe Bay, and I am doing all I can to support their 
     efforts. When we succeed, the He`eia site will provide a rich 
     base of information from diverse knowledge bases: Native 
     Hawaiian cultural practitioners; The University of Hawai`i's 
     Hawai`i Institute of Marine Biology, which specializes in 
     coral research, and is located on a small island in Kane`ohe 
     Bay; and The local community of Kane`ohe.

  Because the site lies within the footprint of Kane`ohe town, we can 
use it to learn how best to live with coral reefs so that we can 
preserve the economy and the environment at the same time.
  As legislators in the national Congress, we have a role to play as 
well. My distinguished colleague from Florida, Bill Nelson, has 
developed an impressive reauthorization of the Coral Reef Conservation 
Act. In addition to continuing the strong efforts already present in 
the Federal Government, this bill would empower local action and 
mandate the development of an international strategy for coral 
conservation. I am a proud cosponsor of his bill.
  We can also continue to support the Federal Ocean Acidification 
Research and Monitoring Act, or FOARAM, which provided the science that 
helped the shellfish industry. I understand that my friend from 
Washington State, Maria Cantwell, is working hard to develop a 
reauthorization of this bill. She is a real ocean champion, and I am 
grateful for her leadership on this important issue. I look forward to 
supporting her efforts.
  Finally, we need to continue to support NOAA's Integrated Ocean 
Observing System, which provides critical data that coral scientists 
rely on to understand how the changing acidity of the ocean impacts our 
reefs.
  I was glad to help organize a bipartisan coalition of 15 colleagues 
from this Chamber to express support of the program to our 
distinguished colleague, Appropriations Chairwoman Barbara Mikulski.
  Friends, the threat of ocean acidification is real and imminent, but 
we can still take action. Thank you for your time to hear me out on 
this issue of great national and global significance.


                   Big Business and Economic Impacts

  Mr. President, when the financial crisis hit, global economic output 
dropped 1.3 percent. It was catastrophic.
  The world now faces the risk of another major blow to global GDP--
climate change. By some estimates, the impact could be several times 
the size of what we saw during the financial crisis.
  Climate change could be the biggest shock to the global economy we 
have ever seen.
  To put the cost in context, consider what the United States spent 
trying to recover from the financial crisis. We committed almost $500 
billion to stabilize the financial system, and the Federal Reserve 
continues to pump trillions of dollars into the economy to stimulate 
growth. That investment will seem tiny in comparison to what it will 
cost to deal with the fall-out from climate change.
  Climate change is not a new challenge. What is new is that big 
business is finally starting to pay attention.
  Big businesses are vulnerable to changes in our climate--and they 
know it.
  Already, these changes are affecting their bottom lines by driving up 
the price of inputs, disrupting global supply chains, and introducing 
uncertainty into their business plans.
  Now that we have the attention of multinational corporations, it is 
time to harness those powerful economic interests to drive solutions to 
climate change before it is too late. It is time to get the attention 
of those in Congress who would even deny a problem exists.
  The impact of climate change on our global economy will be massive.
  Climate change is likely to hurt industries that are sensitive to 
changes in the environment--such as agriculture, fisheries, forestry, 
and tourism.

[[Page 4084]]

  The global economy will also be hit by higher costs as we need to do 
more to cool our environments. We will spend more to get the water 
needed for industry and human consumption, and to repair the damage 
caused by extreme weather, which will continue to disrupt global supply 
chains. The cost of these disruptions will ripple throughout the world 
economy.
  We can also expect to see negative impacts on capital flows, 
investment, and savings as a result of lower economic output and 
uncertainty about the future.
  The economic impact of climate change will not just be felt in our 
markets. We will face rising healthcare costs as a result of the spread 
of infectious diseases and health problems associated with intense heat 
waves, droughts, and floods.
  So what do we know about the actual cost of climate change? Quite a 
bit, actually.
  Just within America's borders, we have seen how costly extreme 
weather events can be--Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Sandy, record 
droughts on the west coast, wildfires and floods in Colorado, 
devastating floods in the Midwest, and record heat waves in the 
Northeast.
  The price tag is not just the cost of rescuing people from harm's 
way, repairing the damage, and rebuilding communities. There is also 
the cost of higher food prices, lower tourism revenue, and the loss of 
economic productivity when people can't work.
  A recent study was commissioned by 20 governments of countries that 
are highly vulnerable to climate change. The study estimated that, in 
2010, climate change cost the world over $1.2 trillion, or 1.6 percent 
of global GDP. It also showed that, by 2030, climate change will cut 
global economic growth by over 3 percent.
  The International Monetary Fund is paying close attention to the risk 
that climate change poses to the world economy. In its view, studies 
that attempt to estimate the global economic damage of climate change 
tend to be underestimates.
  That is because these studies are based on fairly conservative 
estimates of changes in global temperatures. And they have a hard time 
taking into account the multifaceted and far-reaching impact of climate 
change.
  As an example, Lord Nicolas Stern, author of the most respected study 
on how climate change will impact the economy said the following:
  ``I got it wrong on climate change--it's far, far worse.''
  Keep in mind that his initial study predicted dire economic 
consequences for the world. And now, just 6 years later, he's saying 
those predictions were not dire enough.
  Americans are taking action. Former Mayor of New York Michael 
Bloomberg and former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson teamed up with the 
founder of a global investment capital firm in a nonpartisan effort to 
conduct an assessment of the economic risks of climate change to the 
United States.
  In Mayor Bloomberg's words, ``If the United States were run like a 
business, its board of directors would fire its financial advisers for 
failing to disclose the significant and material risks associated with 
unmitigated climate change.''
  Big business is finally paying attention.
  Unlike Congress, big business has finally woken up to the reality and 
urgency of climate change.
  A recent article in the New York Times ran with the headline 
``Industry Awakens to Threat of Climate Change.''
  According to the article, senior officials at Coca-Cola and Nike are 
joining a growing group of American business leaders who see climate 
change as a major challenge to global economic growth.
  A senior official at Coca-Cola listed risks to the company's bottom-
line: in his words, those risks include ``increased droughts, more 
unpredictable variability, [and] hundred-year floods every two years.'' 
These risks are not hypothetical--Coca-Cola has already seen the 
effects in real time. In 2004, Coca-Cola lost a major operating license 
in India because of a serious water shortage.
  Likewise, Nike has seen its supply chain disrupted by changes in 
climate and extreme weather. Floods have shut down Nike's factories in 
Southeast Asia. Droughts have lowered production of the cotton the 
company relies on to make its athletic clothes. Nike, like many other 
corporations, now includes the risks posed by climate change on its 
financial risk disclosure forms to the Securities and Exchange 
Commission.
  Recently, Chipotle made headlines when its annual financial report 
disclosed that climate change could have a significant impact on the 
price or availability of its avocadoes. The company warned that if 
costs went up too much, it could have to stop serving its much beloved 
guacamole.
  Starbucks also has its eye on how climate change will impact its 
bottom-line. The company sources nearly two-thirds of its coffee from 
small-scale producers in Latin America, Africa, and Indonesia. These 
regions are vulnerable to both droughts and excessive rain. Changes in 
weather patterns are likely to reduce their coffee yields and hurt the 
quality of their beans. Extreme weather is also likely to affect the 
roads that the company relies on to move its goods around the world. 
These risks are not far-off or theoretical. They affect the company 
today.
  Some deniers accept the science but say we're better off doing 
nothing. They should start listening to the business world.
  They say it's too expensive: regulations will kill jobs and hurt the 
economy, driving up prices on everything from gasoline to bread and 
milk.
  We have heard this argument before; many times in fact, and it is 
always proven wrong. Over and over again, large-scale collective action 
on environmental problems has helped to grow the economy and improve 
human health.
  For example, a 2011 peer-reviewed EPA study found that programs 
established by the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments will yield direct 
benefits to Americans vastly in excess of the costs. In just a couple 
of decades, the study estimates that the benefits of this legislation 
will exceed the costs by a margin of 30 to 1--and may even approach 90 
to 1.
  What kind of benefits am I talking about? The study estimated that in 
2011 alone the cleaner air we now enjoy avoided more than 160,000 
premature deaths from things like heart attacks. It also avoided 
millions of cases of acute bronchitis and asthma attacks. These meant 
13 million fewer lost workdays and 3.2 million fewer lost schools days.
  National vehicle efficiency standards, put in place in 1975--have 
achieved a major reduction in pollution and significant economic 
benefits to consumers, despite dogged resistance from opponents. And 
new standards implemented by President Obama are projected to not only 
reduce our consumption of gasoline but also yield significant savings.
  One study finds the following: ``The standards will save consumers 
$140 billion in 2030. When compared to a typical vehicle on the road 
today, a new car buyer will save more than 8,000 dollars over the 
lifetime of a new 2025 vehicle, even after paying for the more fuel-
efficient technology.''
  The Department of Energy efficiency standards for appliances are 
another great example of Federal standards that both reduced pollution 
and saved consumers money. As a result of the standards under this 
program, the Department reports that consumers saved close to $40 
billion on their utility bills, just in 2010 alone. They estimate that 
by 2030, total cost savings from these standards will be well over 1\1/
2\ trillion dollars--and will reduce carbon pollution equivalent to the 
annual emissions from 1.4 billion cars. And yet still today, members of 
Congress waste time and effort trying to get rid of efficiency 
standards for things like light bulbs--standards that the lighting 
industry itself has requested.
  The removal of lead from gasoline has had enormous positive impacts. 
In the 1960's, scientists began to establish that humans were 
contributing enough lead to the environment to have an effect on human 
health. And scientists

[[Page 4085]]

and doctors were showing that lead pollution was contributing to IQ 
deficits in children, nerve damage, anemia, and mental retardation.
  Industry, as you can imagine, resisted strongly. In 1965, the 
American Petroleum Institute responded to reports that lead was 
increasing in the environment with the following quote:
  These findings ``have no real bearing on the public health aspects of 
lead . . . the mass of evidence proves unquestionably that lead isn't a 
significant factor in air pollution and represents no public health 
problem in any way.''
  It took over 10 years and a major court decision for the EPA to even 
begin phasing out lead in gasoline, and that's due to outright 
falsehoods such as this one.
  By 1986, studies showed that the health benefit to cost ratio was 10 
to 1. Blood levels of lead across the country dropped significantly as 
soon as the lead phase-out began.
  From 1978 to 1991 they dropped 78 percent.
  If you remember one statistic from this speech, remember this one. 
Largely as a result of government regulations, between 1970 and 2011, 
total air pollution dropped 68 percent, while the U.S. gross domestic 
product grew 212 percent.
  The evidence is overwhelming. Well-designed solutions to 
environmental problems aren't harmful; they contribute to a healthier 
and growing economy. A warming planet and changing climate is what will 
hurt the economy.
  For many multinational companies, climate change has moved from a 
corporate social responsibility issue to a bottom-line issue. They are 
starting to see the impact of unpredictable and extreme weather and 
realize that investing in environmental protection means investing in 
the economy. Climate change affects the supply of key inputs, disrupts 
factories, demolishes infrastructure, and drives up prices.
  The economic calculus has shifted--business as usual will lead to no 
business at all.
  Businesses have woken up to the risks of climate change, and they are 
calling out for Congress to act. It is time for Congress to wake up.


                     Ascent Conference Mini-Speech

  Mr. President, finally, I wish to report on activities in my home 
State of Hawaii that show how our Nation is making progress toward 
sustainability and adaptation to climate change. Back at home, we see 
the effects of climate change up close and personal. Our coral reefs, 
our beaches, and the lush vegetation that greens our landscape--it's 
all imperiled by climate change, and people are standing to take 
action.
  They recognize that the rhetoric of denial will not hold back rising 
sea levels. They understand that junk science will not save our coral 
reefs--or bring back the tradewinds and rain that supplies our water 
when climate change has traded it for cycles of hurricane and drought.
  That is why they have come together to host a first-of-its-kind 
conference in Hawaii on sustainable development and climate adaptation. 
From transportation to energy to community development, the conference 
will bring local and national leaders together to share stories of 
success, and inspire action for the future. We call it ``Ascent'' to 
recognize our upward progress, and to challenge ourselves to aim higher 
and higher.
  Our Ascent conference will be held on April 15, 2014, when University 
of Hawai`i Sea Grant College Program, University of Hawaii Chancellor 
Tom Apple, and I will hold a 2-day-long conference and Senate field 
hearing featuring world-renowned experts from across the State and 
Nation. These experts will address key underlying issues of 
sustainability, and engage directly with high school and college 
students who are poised to lead these efforts in the future.
  We will be happy to welcome Mr. Nainoa Thompson, president, 
Polynesian Voyaging Society; Mr. Geoffrey Anderson, president, Smart 
Growth America; and Mr. Jeff Seabright, vice president, Environment & 
Water Resources for The Coca Cola Company, among other visionaries at 
the conference. They will be partnering with State and local experts as 
well as Hawai`i's youth to examine risks and propose solutions to 
energy and water resource security, and the complexities of climate 
change.
  That evening, we will also welcome former U.S. Vice President Al 
Gore, who will present a free public lecture on sustainability and 
climate at the University of Hawai`i.
  The Ascent conference was created because we recognize that the only 
way to solve a problem is to own it, and act. I respect our colleagues 
from across the aisle for their work to focus on the fiscal issues our 
Nation faces. Together we have rolled up our sleeves and found 
solutions. Now we need to do the same on climate change. Denying the 
problem and trying to muzzle the opposition will not make environmental 
change go away. Owning up, and facing it together will.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues to bring 
attention to the important issue of climate change. It is time to wake 
up and take action--we owe it to our planet, to our country, and to 
generations to come. I thank the organizers of this event, Senator 
Boxer, Senator Whitehouse, and Senator Schatz, for their leadership on 
this issue. This is a problem that must be addressed, and this call to 
action is long overdue.
  Maryland is one of the most vulnerable States to climate change. Our 
expansive coastline is greatly affected by rapidly rising sea levels 
that are eroding our shoreline and causing flooding. We are also 
starting to see the effects of more frequent extreme weather events, 
such as flooding, heavy precipitation, heat waves, and droughts. This 
will cause environmental damage to our shoreline, the Chesapeake Bay, 
and our water and air quality. It could impact our health by increasing 
respiratory illnesses. And this will cause economic damage by costing 
our coastal cities billions of dollars in lost tourism, our farmers 
heavy losses from droughts and heat waves, and many Marylanders 
property damage from flooding.
  Maryland is leading the way in responding to the dire problem of 
climate change. Maryland has developed a Climate Change Plan that will 
reduce greenhouse gases 25 percent by 2020, contribute $1.6 billion to 
Maryland's economy, and create 37,000 jobs. I am very proud of my State 
for setting an example and tackling this problem head-on.
  The Environmental Protection Agency is also moving forward with its 
efforts to put forth commonsense rules for curbing greenhouse gas 
emissions. This has included standards to promote a new generation of 
clean vehicles, which are expected to save more than 6 billion barrels 
of oil through 2025 and reduce more than 3,100 million metric tons of 
carbon dioxide emissions. It has also included an effort to limit 
emissions from new powerplants, and the EPA has pledged to hold 
listening sessions as it develops rules for existing plants. I support 
the EPA's actions--they are offering tailored solutions to a complex 
problem, and working within the Clean Air Act to protect public health.
  Even though Congress hasn't been able to agree on a long-term 
solution to combat climate change, I have worked hard to fund the 
research that informs us about climate change and will help us develop 
solutions. As the chairwoman of the Appropriations Committee and the 
Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations Subcommittee, I funded 
over $3 billion for climate-related research in the Consolidated 
Appropriations Act of 2014. This includes $226 million for NOAA, which 
uses peer-reviewed research initiatives and partnerships with 
universities to study regional climate data and make climate 
predictions. It includes $1.85 billion for NASA's Earth Science 
program, which examines the Earth on a global scale and develops data 
that is used for climate prediction models. It also includes $958 
million for climate-related research at the National Science Foundation 
within the Geosciences Directorate and the National Center for 
Atmospheric Research. I commend the employees at these outstanding 
institutions who are

[[Page 4086]]

working every day to develop long-term solutions for climate change, 
and I will continue to fight hard for robust funding for these 
agencies.
  Climate change is an enormous problem, but it is not enough for us to 
just recognize the problem. When it is a problem of this magnitude, we 
must truly rise to the occasion. The science is sound, and the reasons 
to act are numerous. Let's move it on climate change--the time is now.

                          ____________________