[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 9557-9570]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

 NOMINATION OF M. HANNAH LAUCK TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR 
                    THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

                                 ______
                                 

NOMINATION OF LEO T. SOROKIN TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE 
                       DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                                 ______
                                 

NOMINATION OF RICHARD FRANKLIN BOULWARE II TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT 
                    JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations, 
which the clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read the nominations of M. Hannah Lauck, of Virginia, 
to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of 
Virginia, Leo T. Sorokin, of Massachusetts, to be United States 
District Judge for the District of Massachusetts, and Richard Franklin 
Boulware II, of Nevada, to be United States District Judge for the 
District of Nevada.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the cloture motion 
having been presented under rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to 
read the motion.

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of 
     M. Hannah Lauck, of Virginia, to be United States District 
     Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia.
         Harry Reid, Patrick J. Leahy, Christopher A. Coons, 
           Sheldon Whitehouse, Christopher Murphy, Al Franken, Jon 
           Tester, Richard Blumenthal, Jeff Merkley, Richard J. 
           Durbin, Kirsten E. Gillibrand, Benjamin L. Cardin, Bill 
           Nelson, Dianne Feinstein, Elizabeth Warren, Tom Harkin, 
           Mazie K. Hirono.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
nomination of M. Hannah Lauck, of Virginia, to be United States 
District Court Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia, shall be 
brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Begich), the 
Senator from Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu), the Senator from Missouri (Mrs. 
McCaskill), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy), and the Senator 
from Hawaii (Mr. Schatz) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran), the Senator from South Carolina 
(Mr. Graham), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), the Senator from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), the 
Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), 
the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. 
Risch), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts), and the Senator from 
Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Johnson) would have voted ``nay.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Donnelly). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 52, nays 32, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 176 Ex.]

                                YEAS--52

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Collins
     Coons
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Levin
     Manchin
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Walsh
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--32

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Coats
     Coburn
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Flake
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Johanns
     Lee
     McConnell
     Paul
     Portman
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Begich
     Cochran
     Graham
     Isakson
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Landrieu
     McCain
     McCaskill
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Risch
     Roberts
     Schatz
     Vitter
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 52, the nays are 32. 
The motion is agreed to.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the next two 
votes be 10 minutes in duration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of 
     Leo T. Sorokin, of Massachusetts, to be United States 
     District Judge for the District of Massachusetts.
         Harry Reid, Patrick J. Leahy, Christopher A. Coons, 
           Sheldon Whitehouse, Christopher Murphy, Al Franken, Jon 
           Tester, Richard Blumenthal, Jeff Merkley, Richard J. 
           Durbin, Kirsten E. Gillibrand, Benjamin L. Cardin, Bill 
           Nelson, Dianne Feinstein, Elizabeth Warren, Tom Harkin, 
           Mazie K. Hirono.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
nomination of Leo T. Sorokin, of Massachusetts, to be United States 
District Judge for the District of Massachusetts shall be brought to a 
close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.

[[Page 9558]]

  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Begich), the 
Senator from Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu), the Senator from Missouri (Mrs. 
McCaskill), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy), and the Senator 
from Hawaii (Mr. Schatz) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran), the Senator from South Carolina 
(Mr. Graham), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), the Senator from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), the 
Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. 
Murkowski), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch), the Senator from Kansas 
(Mr. Roberts), and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Johnson) would have voted ``nay.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 52, nays 33, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 177 Ex.]

                                YEAS--52

     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Levin
     Manchin
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Walsh
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--33

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Flake
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Johanns
     Lee
     McCain
     McConnell
     Paul
     Portman
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Begich
     Cochran
     Graham
     Isakson
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Landrieu
     McCaskill
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Risch
     Roberts
     Schatz
     Vitter
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 52, the nays are 33. 
The motion is agreed to.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, pursuant to rule 
XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, 
which the clerk will state.

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of 
     Richard Franklin Boulware II, of Nevada, to be United States 
     District Judge for the District of Nevada.
         Harry Reid, Patrick J. Leahy, Christopher A. Coons, 
           Sheldon Whitehouse, Christopher Murphy, Al Franken, Jon 
           Tester, Richard Blumenthal, Jeff Merkley, Richard J. 
           Durbin, Kirsten E. Gillibrand, Benjamin L. Cardin, Bill 
           Nelson, Dianne Feinstein, Elizabeth Warren, Tom Harkin, 
           Mazie K. Hirono.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
nomination of Richard Franklin Boulware II, of Nevada, to be a United 
States District Judge for the District of Nevada, shall be brought to a 
close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Begich), the 
Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), the Senator from Louisiana (Ms. 
Landrieu), the Senator from Missouri (Mrs. McCaskill), and the Senator 
from Hawaii (Mr. Schatz) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran), the Senator from South Carolina 
(Mr. Graham), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), the Senator from 
Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), the 
Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts), 
and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 53, nays 34, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 178 Ex.]

                                YEAS--53

     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Levin
     Manchin
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Walsh
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--34

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Flake
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Lee
     McCain
     McConnell
     Paul
     Portman
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Begich
     Boxer
     Cochran
     Graham
     Isakson
     Landrieu
     McCaskill
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Risch
     Roberts
     Schatz
     Vitter
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 53, the nays are 34. 
The motion is agreed to.
  The Senator from Nevada.


                         Violence in Las Vegas

  Mr. HELLER. Mr. President, before I begin, I would like to take a 
moment to address the unsettling events that occurred yesterday when 
two members of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and an 
innocent civilian were victims of a terrible act of violence. While 
words offer little comfort at this difficult time, I would like to 
express my sincere condolences to the victims' families. The Las Vegas 
community is grateful to these police officers for their service and 
joins their families in mourning their loss. I would also like to thank 
the men and women of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department who 
sprung into action following the tragic events, even after losing 
members of the law enforcement community.


                          Boulware Nomination

  With that said, Mr. President, I wish to speak in favor of a fellow 
Nevadan's nomination that is currently pending before this body; that 
is, the nomination of Richard Boulware to be a U.S. district judge for 
the District of Nevada.
  One of the most important and unique responsibilities we hold as 
Members of the Senate is to provide for the advice and consent of the 
President's judicial nominations and subsequent confirmations.
  I believe each judicial nominee who comes before this body must not 
only be qualified but also must demonstrate fairness and commitment to 
upholding the Constitution and the laws of the United States.
  In Nevada, it is critical for us to work together to find qualified 
candidates who will uphold America's principles of impartiality under 
the law.
  Richard Boulware is an excellent example of an accomplished nominee 
who should be confirmed on a bipartisan basis. I believe Mr. Boulware 
embodies the characteristics of a nominee who is prepared to serve and 
that he will make an excellent district court judge for the State of 
Nevada. After sitting down with him and discussing his nomination at 
length, I found him to be an extremely impressive nominee. A graduate 
of Harvard University, Mr.

[[Page 9559]]

Boulware went on to earn his law degree from Columbia University. He 
currently serves as assistant Federal public defender for the District 
of Nevada in Las Vegas. He also has extensive experience arguing before 
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. This trial experience, coupled with 
his impressive academic accomplishments while clerking for the U.S. 
district courts, will serve him well on the bench. Outside of his 
professional duties, he currently serves his local school system as a 
member of the Superintendent's Educational Opportunities Advisory 
Committee.
  I am glad to see the Senate moving forward with this nomination, and 
I look forward to voting tomorrow to confirm Mr. Boulware's nomination 
to the Federal bench in Nevada.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.


                             Climate Change

  Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request?
  Mr. MARKEY. I will yield to the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the 
conclusion of the remarks of the Senator from Massachusetts, Senator 
Whitehouse, and two or three others at his choosing, that I be 
recognized as in morning business for such time as I shall consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. It is not an objection at this point, but I think it 
is our understanding that the Senator from Oklahoma will speak for 20 
to 30 minutes but that the time would revert to me at the conclusion of 
his remarks after 20 to 30 minutes. If that is an acceptable amendment 
to the unanimous consent request, then I will agree to it.
  Mr. INHOFE. Let's just amend the Senator's amendment that it be 20 to 
35 minutes.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Perfect.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. President.
  We are at a very important historical juncture, where the science is 
now conclusive that in fact the planet is dangerously warming.
  Since we last met on this floor a lot has happened. The global 
temperature for April 2014 tied with 2010 for the warmest April ever 
recorded in the history of the planet. This goes back to 1880.
  In May, the third National Climate Assessment presented the 
scientific evidence that climate change is already impacting the United 
States.
  The good news. The good news is that the President last week 
promulgated new rules to control greenhouse gases coming out of 
powerplants in the United States of America.
  Here is the very good news--the Senator from Rhode Island, the 
Senator from Vermont, the States across the Northeast--nine States have 
already had a regional greenhouse gas initiative over the last 9 years. 
In Massachusetts, we are already 40 percent lower now in 2014 than we 
were in 2005--40 percent lower. We know a flexible system such as this 
can and will work across the country.
  It is absolutely necessary for the United States to be the leader. We 
cannot preach temperance from a bar stool. The United States cannot 
tell the rest of the world they should reduce their greenhouse gases 
when we are still continuing on our historic path.
  The good news is we are going to create a green energy revolution. We 
can save creation while engaging in massive job creation in the United 
States.
  We can unleash this green energy revolution. We can reduce greenhouse 
gases. We can give the leadership to the rest of the world. We need to 
have a big debate here on the Senate floor. This is the place where the 
United States of America expects us to have this debate and where the 
rest of the world is watching.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, the issue we are discussing tonight, 
frankly, is perhaps the most important issue facing our entire planet. 
The issue has everything to do with whether we are going to leave a 
habitable planet for our kids and our grandchildren. I want to thank 
the Senate Climate Action Task Force, led by Senator Boxer, Senator 
Whitehouse, Senator Heinrich, and others for helping to bring us down 
here tonight to discuss this issue.
  While it goes without saying that Senator Inhofe and many of us hold 
very different points of view regarding global warming, I want to 
congratulate him for having the courage to come down here and defend 
his point of view. That is what democracy is about. I think he is 
wrong, but I am glad he is here.
  Virtually the entire scientific community agrees that climate change 
is real, that it is already causing devastating problems in the United 
States and around the world in terms of floods, droughts, wildfires, 
forest fires, and extreme weather disturbances. The scientific 
community is also almost virtually unanimous in agreeing that climate 
change is caused significantly by human activity.
  According to a study published in the journal Environmental Research 
Letters in May of last year, more than 97 percent of peer-reviewed 
scientific literature on climate supports the view that human activity 
is a primary cause of global warming.
  What disturbs me very much about this debate is the rejection of 
basic science. We can have differences of opinion on health care, on 
the funding of education, on whether we should have a jobs program, on 
many other issues. But what the U.S. Senate should not be about is 
rejecting basic science. It saddens me very much that most of my 
colleagues in the Republican Party are doing just that.
  We do not hear great debates on the floor of the Senate regarding 
research in terms of cancer, in terms of heart disease, in terms of 
other scientific issues. But for whatever reason--and I happen to 
believe those reasons have a lot to do with the power of the coal 
industry, of the oil industry, of the fossil fuel industry--we are 
suddenly seeing a great debate on an issue the overwhelming majority of 
scientists agree on; that is, climate change is real; it is caused by 
human activity.
  2012 was the second worst year on record in the United States for 
extreme weather. Across the globe, the 10 warmest years on record have 
all occurred since 1998. The global annual average temperature has 
increased by more than 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit between 1880 and 2012. 
Last month the White House released the National Climate Assessment, 
emphasizing that global warming is already happening, and warning--and 
people should hear this--that global warming could exceed 10 degrees 
Fahrenheit in the United States by the end of this century--10 degrees 
Fahrenheit.
  That is extraordinary. If that in fact happens, if we do not summon 
up the courage to transform our energy system, the damage done by that 
severity of increase in temperature will be huge.
  Also last month scientists reported a large section of the West 
Antarctica ice sheet is falling apart, and that its continued melting 
is now unstoppable.
  Bloomberg reported on the 1st of June that Australia hit new heat 
records in May. The 24-month period ending in April 2014 was the 
hottest on record for any 2-year period, and the 24-month period ending 
with May of 2014 is expected to exceed that.
  But it is not just Australia; it is my home State of Vermont. The 
Associated Press reported last week that the average temperature in 
both Vermont and Maine rose by 2.5 degrees over the past 30 years. This 
is the second highest of any State in the lower 48, after Maine. Maine 
and Vermont are at the top.
  Lake Champlain provides one telling illustration of these changes. It 
freezes over less often and later in the winter than it used to. 
Between 1800 and 1900, Lake Champlain froze over 97 out of 100 winters, 
97 percent of the time. That number began dropping after 1900. In

[[Page 9560]]

the past 40 years, Lake Champlain has only frozen over 17 times. These 
changes impact the ski industry. They weaken our maple industry. They 
allow pests to survive the winter unharmed and to become more damaging 
to trees and crops as a result.
  These impacts are expected to worsen. According to the 2014 National 
Climate Assessment, temperatures in the northeast could increase an 
additional 10 degrees Fahrenheit by 2080 if emissions continue at their 
current rate. By the end of the century, summers in Vermont--our 
beautiful summers--could feel like summers in Georgia right now. I love 
the State of Georgia. It is a great State. But the State of Vermont 
would prefer to have our summers the way they have been, not Georgia's.
  The thing is these new proposed carbon pollution standards are 
actually quite modest. It is clear to me that if we listen to the 
scientific community, what they are telling us is there is a small 
window of opportunity, and it would be rather extraordinary--
extraordinary--for us to look our kids and our grandchildren in the eye 
and to say: You know what. We rejected the science and we let this 
planet become less and less habitable for you and your kids.
  We have a moral responsibility not to do that. It seems clear to me 
what we should be doing--and I think the scientific community is in 
agreement--first, we need to aggressively expand energy efficiency all 
over this country in terms of older homes and buildings. We can save an 
enormous amount of fuel, cut carbon emissions, lower fuel bills, and 
create jobs if we do that.
  Furthermore, we must move aggressively to such sustainable energies 
as wind, solar, biomass, geothermal, and other technologies. We must 
invest in research and development to make those technologies even more 
efficient. In my view, it is a no-brainer to say we must reject the 
proposed Keystone XL Pipeline once and for all. We need to end tax 
breaks and subsidies for oil and coal companies, which amount to well 
over $10 billion a year. We should not be subsidizing those companies 
that are helping to destroy our planet.
  Finally, we need to price carbon through a carbon tax or some other 
approach so the real cost of burning carbon is reflected in the price. 
I am very proud Senator Barbara Boxer, the chairperson of the 
environmental committee, and I introduced such legislation last year.
  The bottom line is we are in a pivotal moment in history. This 
Congress has got to act. It has to act boldly. When we do that, when we 
cut greenhouse gas emissions, when we transform our energy system, we 
can save many people money on their fuel bills, we can cut pollution in 
general, we can cut greenhouse gas emissions significantly, and we can 
create good-paying jobs all over this country.
  The bottom line here is we cannot afford to reject basic science. We 
have to listen to what the scientific community is saying. We have got 
to act aggressively, and let's do it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, as an engineer one of the things I 
learned early in my education was that science does not care if you 
believe in it or not; you can deny science as much as you want, but the 
data suggests that the scientific method works pretty darn well.
  The corollary to that fact is whether you believe in climate change 
has no bearing on whether it is actually occurring. Unfortunately, the 
data shows a warmer and warmer planet, characterized by weather 
fluctuations that are more extreme and oftentimes more destructive. In 
my home State of New Mexico, too often we find ourselves dealing with 
the impacts of climate change today, not at some theoretical future 
date.
  For example, we are already seeing the effects of climate change and 
how it manifests itself in more extreme drought conditions, larger and 
more intense wildfires, shrinking forests, and increased flooding when 
it finally does rain. The longer we wait to act, the more difficult and 
expensive the solutions will be, and the more unpredictable our weather 
will become.
  2012, as the Senator from Vermont mentioned, was our Nation's second 
most extreme year for weather on record. In my home State of New 
Mexico, we experienced the hottest year in our entire historical 
record. With humidity levels lower and temperatures higher, we are 
dealing with fire behavior in our forests that is markedly more intense 
than in the past.
  We also see climate change take a toll directly on our economy, 
especially in my State. That is an important point, because inaction 
has its costs too. The costs already being borne in New Mexico are 
substantial. With less snowpack, communities that rely on winter sports 
tourism take an economic hit. Fewer people lodge in hotels, shop in 
stores, eat in restaurants.
  Climate change is also having a devastating impact on New Mexico's 
agricultural industry, where farmers and ranchers are often the very 
first to see the direct impact of extreme weather. The agricultural 
sector is highly vulnerable due in large part to the sustained threat 
to the water supply, the soil and vegetation from continuous drought.
  Things are only going to get worse if we do nothing. If we take our 
moral responsibility as stewards of this Earth seriously, it is 
imperative that we face the challenge of reversing the effects of 
climate change head on and have a sober discussion about what actions 
we will need to take now and in the future. America clearly has the 
capacity to become energy independent. But we also need to transition 
from our current energy portfolio to one that produces as much or more 
power with substantially less carbon pollution per kilowatt hour.
  That will require innovation, something that historically our country 
has done better than any country in the world. But additionally, we 
will need political will, something we have grown short of as climate 
denial and pseudoscience have made their way into the halls of 
Congress.
  If history is our guide, we should know that investing in cleaner 
energy will not be without cost, but little of value is ever free. The 
question is, are we willing to make the modest investments now 
necessary to create the quality jobs of tomorrow and to protect our 
Nation from the serious economic and strategic risks associated with 
our carbon reliance, our reliance on both foreign and carbon pollution-
intensive energy sources?
  Since we are looking at history, let's take a moment and look at the 
Clean Air Act of 1990, and compare the rhetoric of debate with the 
reality of its implementation. In 1989, the Edison Electric Institute 
predicted a significant rise in energy costs due to the Clean Air Act. 
Yet the reality, according to a recent study by the Center for American 
Progress, actually showed a decrease of 16 percent over those years. In 
1990, the U.S. Business Roundtable claimed that passage of the Clean 
Air Act would cost a minimum--a minimum--of 200,000 jobs. But a recent 
study released by the EPA revealed the reality. The Clean Air Act 
resulted in a net creation of jobs and new industries created to reduce 
pollution, good-paying jobs in industries such as engineering, 
manufacturing, construction, and maintenance.
  By 2008 the environmental technology sector supported 1.7 million 
jobs in this country.
  The time has come to address climate change rather than embracing the 
pseudoscience and denial that is embraced by far too many in Washington 
today. The Nation has never solved a single problem by denying the 
facts. Let me be clear. Inaction is not a solution to this very real 
crisis. Denial is not a strategy.
  Consequently, if my Republican colleagues have a better way to 
address carbon pollution than what the President has proposed, I would 
ask them to join the debate. If they have a pollution solution that is 
more efficient or more effective, now is the time to have that 
discussion.
  Through American ingenuity we can slow the impact of climate change 
and

[[Page 9561]]

unleash the full potential of cleaner energy. We can create a 
healthier, more stable environment for future generations, but we must 
have the will to recognize the facts as they are. We will need to make 
the investments that are necessary, and we will have to find the 
political will to act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator from Rhode Island withhold for just a 
moment.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I would gladly withhold.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I express my appreciation to my friend from 
Rhode Island, who is so courteous to everyone, and I appreciate it.


            Unanimous Consent Agreement-- Executive Calendar

  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that on Tuesday, June 10, following 
disposition of Executive Calendar No. 734, the Lauck nomination, the 
time until 12 noon be equally divided between the two leaders or their 
designees and the Senate proceed to vote as under the previous order; 
further, that following disposition of Calendar No. 736, the Sorokin 
nomination, and Calendar No. 739, the Boulware nomination, the Senate 
stand in recess until 2:15 p.m.; that at 2:15 p.m. the time until 2:30 
p.m. be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees and 
at 2:30 p.m. the Senate proceed to vote on cloture on Calendar No. 769, 
the Brainard nomination, Calendar No. 771, the Powell nomination, and 
Calendar No. 767, the Fischer nomination; further, that if cloture is 
invoked on any of these nominations, all postcloture time be expired 
and the Senate proceed to vote on confirmation of the nominations on 
Thursday, June 12, 2014, at 1:45 p.m.; further, that any rollcall vote 
after the first in each sequence be 10 minutes in length; further, that 
if any nomination is confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered 
made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate; 
that no further motions be in order to the nominations; that any 
statements related to the nominations be printed in the Record; and 
that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. With this agreement, there will be one rollcall vote at 
approximately 10 a.m. tomorrow, two rollcall votes at 12 noon, and 
three additional rollcall votes beginning at 2:30 p.m. We had to move 
these votes around for a lot of reasons. One is there that is a bill 
signing, another is that there is a funeral, and another is that one of 
our Senators wants to attend his son's graduation. So we will wind up 
at the same place--even though it won't be as orderly--at the end of 
the week.
  Thank you again, my friend from Rhode Island.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.


                             Climate Change

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Mr. President.
  First, I thank Senator Sanders of Vermont, Senator Markey of 
Massachusetts, and Senator Heinrich of New Mexico for their remarks. I 
look forward to the remarks of Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma.
  Viewers may wonder what we are doing here. As some will recall, 
several weeks ago a number of Democratic Senators--I think we ended up 
being 31 in total--participated in an all-night event to raise the 
awareness of and the discussion of climate change in this body. At that 
time only one of our Republican colleagues appeared to join the 
discussion, and that was the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma, who 
is here again this evening.
  We heard some rumblings that some of our colleagues didn't feel they 
were included or wished they would have had the opportunity to 
participate. So taking them up on that offer, a number of us sent a 
letter on May 30 that says, in part:

       Dear Colleague . . . We would welcome an opportunity to 
     engage with our Republican colleagues in a discussion of how 
     to address the problems of climate change. Indeed, we think 
     our Republican colleagues could have a lot to offer if they 
     wished to join us in exploring solutions.
       Republican colleagues have co-authored bipartisan climate 
     legislation, voted for the comprehensive Waxman/Markey 
     climate legislation in the House, spoken out in favor of a 
     carbon fee, and campaigned for national office on climate 
     action. Republican senators represent states with great 
     coastal cities inundated by rising tides, states with 
     farmlands swept by unprecedented floods and droughts, states 
     with forests lost to encroaching pine beetles and wildfires 
     unprecedented in season and intensity, states with 
     disappearing glaciers and reduced snowpack, and states with 
     dying coral reefs and shifting habitats and fisheries. 
     Republican senators represent home-state corporations with 
     international brand names, corporations that urge action on 
     climate. Republican senators represent great universities 
     that contribute to the scientific understanding of climate 
     change and how human activities are changing it. We look 
     forward to the opportunity to discuss climate change and how 
     to respond to it with Republican senators.

  I ask unanimous consent the letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                     Washington, DC, May 30, 2014.
       Dear Colleague,  As you may know, thirty-one of us recently 
     took to the floor of the Senate for a ``climate all-nighter'' 
     to express our concern over Congress's inaction on carbon 
     pollution. We have heard some feedback expressing concerns 
     that Republican colleagues were not invited to join in. We 
     would welcome an opportunity to engage with our Republican 
     colleagues in a discussion of how to address the problems of 
     climate change. Indeed, we think our Republican colleagues 
     could have a lot to offer if they wish to join us in 
     exploring solutions.
       Republican colleagues have co-authored bipartisan climate 
     legislation, voted for the comprehensive Waxman/Markey 
     climate legislation in the House, spoken out in favor of a 
     carbon fee, and campaigned for national office on climate 
     action. Republican senators represent states with great 
     coastal cities inundated by rising tides, states with 
     farmlands swept by unprecedented floods and droughts, states 
     with forests lost to encroaching pine beetles and wildfires 
     unprecedented in season and intensity, states with 
     disappearing glaciers and reduced snowpack, and states with 
     dying coral reefs and shifting habitats and fisheries. 
     Republican senators represent home-state corporations with 
     international brand names, corporations that urge action on 
     climate. Republican senators represent great universities 
     that contribute to the scientific understanding of climate 
     change and how human activities are changing it. We look 
     forward to the opportunity to discuss climate change and how 
     to respond to it with Republican senators.
       For any colleague who felt left out of our climate all-
     nighter we invite you to come to the floor. We've requested 
     from leadership that time after votes on June 9th be reserved 
     to engage in a robust exchange of views.
       We earnestly believe that the stakes of failing to exercise 
     American leadership and solve this problem are very high, 
     with ramifications for our health and safety, our economic 
     well-being, our food and water supplies, and our national 
     security and standing. We hope you will join us in a sincere 
     discussion.
           Sincerely,
     Sheldon Whitehouse,
     Barbara Boxer,
     Bernard Sanders,
     Jeff Merkley,
     Edward J. Markey,
       U.S. Senators.

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. That sets the frame for what we are doing. We have 
had four Democratic Senators speak. We will be joined, I believe, by 
Chairman Boxer and perhaps others later on in the evening.
  Pursuant to the unanimous consent we have agreed to, I yield to the 
Senator from Oklahoma for his remarks and will seek recognition 
pursuant to the unanimous consent at the conclusion of his remarks.
  Pursuant to that understanding, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. First, I thank my good friend for yielding. I think we 
will have several people coming down and talking about this tonight.
  I want to say something about Senator Sanders from Vermont. I 
appreciate very much his comments. I think they were very appropriate.
  I remember one time when he and I had a difference of opinion on an 
amendment. It had to do with the amount of money one of the large oil 
companies made. He and I debated on floor for something like 3 hours. A 
vote

[[Page 9562]]

was taken, and I did win the vote. Afterward, he came up to me and he 
said: I want you to know that since I have been here from the House, 
that was probably the most enlightened debate we have ever had, and you 
won and I lost, and I really do appreciate it.
  We have been very good friends since then.
  Well, the comments he made are real because I don't have any doubt in 
my mind that Senator Sanders and the rest of you have strong feelings 
about this.
  What I want to do is something a little bit different. I have heard 
several people talk, and they talk about what is the hottest year and 
the coldest year and all of that. I am very careful to document 
anything I say, and I will continue to do that tonight.
  Last Monday, the EPA released the long-awaited global warming 
regulations for the Nation's existing fleet of powerplants. We had 
already talked about the new powerplants and what we are going to do. 
We have seen the evidence of the increased pricing of energy in this 
country as a result of that. Now, of course, we are going to be talking 
about the existing program.
  The interesting thing about this--this is what they are talking about 
doing through regulation after they have lost every single issue on the 
floor of this Senate--and so trying to do it now by regulations.
  The EPA's proposed rule requires powerplants to reduce their 
CO2 emissions by 25 percent by 2020 and by 30 percent by 
2030. I do believe there will be major legal challenges facing this 
rule if it goes final, and I will talk about that in just a minute.
  Over the past decade the Senate has debated a number of cap-and-trade 
bills. The first one was the McCain-Lieberman bill of 2003--I am going 
from memory now. I think Republicans had a majority at that time. I 
think I chaired either the subcommittee or the committee of 
jurisdiction. We defeated the McCain-Lieberman bill. It came up again 
slightly changed in 2005. We defeated it at that time too. Then the 
Warner-Lieberman bill came up in 2008, and we defeated that even by a 
larger margin. The Waxman-Markey bill--and keep in mind that this was 
when the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts was in the House--
came up in 2009, but it never did reach the floor.
  All of these bills would have established greenhouse gas regulations 
for the Nation's largest manufacturing power-generation facilities, but 
once the American people learned how much these cost, Congress ran away 
from these bills and they were defeated.
  Each and every one of these bills would have cost the economy between 
$300 and $400 billion in lost GDP every year. These figures are not 
disputed. The first time they were calculated was back when the first 
bill came up. At that time everyone assumed that global warming was 
real, they assumed that the end of the world was coming and that 
manmade gases were responsible for it, and that was something which was 
kind of accepted.
  At that time, though--and I remember hearing the first speculation as 
to the cost--the Wharton Econometrics Forecasting Associates came out 
with the range of between $300 and $400 billion a year. Then the 
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, MIT, and Charles River 
Associates and others came out with the same range--between $300 and 
$400 billion a year.
  When you break this down to each household--every time there is some 
big regulation that comes along, I take the number of people from my 
State of Oklahoma who filed a Federal tax return, number of families, 
and then I will calculate, do the math, and it turns out about $3,000 a 
family. That would make cap and trade the largest tax increase in 
American history.
  It is not surprising that these bills did not become law. They were 
defeated. The McCain-Lieberman bill of 2003 fell 43 to 55; then the 
McCain-Lieberman bill in 2005--an even wider margin--38 to 60; and the 
Waxman-Markey fell because they didn't have the votes to do it.
  What I am saying is that the trend is not going the way my good 
friend from Rhode Island would like to have it go. Instead, more and 
more people are opposing this.
  Part of what is motivating the EPA's rule is that they want to say 
they leveled the playing field between parts of the country that don't 
have cap-and-trade programs. I think one of the previous speakers 
talked about the fact that many places like--I see the Senator from 
California is here now--California and the Northeastern States have cap 
and trade. These regions are hurting economically in part because of 
the onerous environmental regulations, including cap-and-trade programs 
they have been working to implement for so many years.
  But the real result of this has been higher electricity prices. In 
fact, the average price of retail electricity in New England, according 
to the Energy Information Administration, is 17.67 cents per kilowatt 
hour. That is almost 18 cents a kilowatt hour. Compare that to 
Oklahoma. We are at 9 cents per kilowatt hour. We are one-half the cost 
in my State of Oklahoma for electricity. You see we have a real 
competitive advantage. There is nothing that keeps the Northeast from 
bringing their electricity costs down, but they are unwilling to do it. 
They are unwilling to do what we did; that is, utilize a diverse, 
inexpensive fuel supply we can source from right at home in Oklahoma.
  California implemented its own cap-and-trade program just over a year 
ago, and it applies to both heavy industry and power generation. The 
State boasts that its program is second in size only to the European 
cap-and-trade program. Today, however, California's electricity prices 
are 15.94 cents--in other words, 16 cents per kilowatt hour--a stunning 
70 percent more than they are in my State of Oklahoma.
  Knowing this, it isn't surprising we constantly hear about all the 
jobs and companies and manufacturing facilities that are moving from 
places such as California and New England to States such as Oklahoma 
and to the South where we don't have these same kinds of regulations. 
What we want to do in Oklahoma is develop a nurturing environment for 
business to thrive, and a big part of it is having inexpensive, 
reliable energy. That is what we have in Oklahoma. EPA's rule threatens 
all we have worked so hard to accomplish, and it is all because so many 
politicians are beholden to the radical environmentalists.
  What is interesting to me is the more and more the other side talks 
about global warming and all of the purported solutions here in 
Washington, the less and less people care.
  In March, when Senate Democrats hosted their first global warming 
slumber party, Gallup released the results of the poll I believe the 
same day, showing Americans rank global warming as the 14th most 
important issue out of 15. I believe this was on March 9 or 10 when 
they had their last slumber party. It used to be No. 1 or No. 2, and 
now it is nearly last. We can see on this chart Gallup's poll numbers 
over time showing Americans care less about environmental issues than 
they ever did before. We can see the changes that have taken place. 
What people really care about are the economy and government spending. 
Those are the top two issues across party lines.
  If enacted, this rule is going to cause serious damage to the 
economy. The Chamber of Commerce last week put out a study on 
regulations similar to the EPA's new greenhouse gas rules and found 
they will cost the economy $51 billion in lost GDP and 224,000 lost 
jobs each year--not just once but each year.
  The Heritage Foundation put out separate analysis calculating that 
the rule would enact a cumulative hit of $2.23 trillion in lost GDP and 
destroy 600,000 jobs. By their measure, the average income for a family 
of four would decrease by $1,200 a year. I believe it is actually 
closer to $3,000 a year. Nonetheless, there is the consistency.
  If we want to see where these regulations will ultimately lead, we 
need look no farther than the modeling President Obama uses. We need to 
be, as he says, more like Germany. Starting a few years ago, Germany 
began implementing an aggressive alternative energy agenda where they 
hiked

[[Page 9563]]

subsidies and set a goal of generating 35 percent of their electricity 
from renewables by 2020. By 2050, this goal would increase to 80 
percent. In doing this, the price of German retail electricity has 
doubled from where it was before. It is now 3 times--300 percent--
higher than ours.
  The next chart is Der Spiegel, a major publication in Germany. They 
recently had this on the cover of the magazine with the heading 
``Luxury Electricity: Why energy has become more expensive and what 
politicians must do about it.''
  In this, they talk about the politicians and others who are wishing 
Germany had not done what it was doing. And while industry, utilities, 
consumers, and some politicians are calling for reforms to the laws, it 
may be too late because everything is already on the books. This is 
what they are finding in Germany--and we all know how hard it is to 
repeal a law once it becomes implemented. So the Germans started this, 
and we are now emulating Germany, and their cost of electricity has 
doubled. When we talk about doubling, to a lot of people--maybe a lot 
of us who serve in this Chamber--that is not a big deal. But take a 
poor family that is spending 50 percent of their income on energy. It 
is something they can't handle.
  EPA's rules will push us in the same direction as Germany--which 
makes sense, when we consider the EPA's recent rules such as utility 
MACT and the 316(b) rule, and the NRC's incessant overregulation of the 
nuclear power industry. We have perfectly good powerplants being forced 
to shut down all over the country. Now we have this rule coming out of 
EPA that will force even more shutdowns and push the Nation to more 
aggressively adopt renewables, and over a very short period of time. 
This is going to cause reliability and affordability issues.
  We have been talking about affordability. Reliability is another 
thing too, because we have to have a reliable source that doesn't stop. 
There is no way around it. It is not just me saying this. FERC 
Commissioner Phil Moeller recently predicted that because of EPA's 
overregulation, the Nation could face rolling blackouts by next summer. 
Renewables will only make this risk more severe. If a substantial 
amount of electricity is being provided by renewables, then we will 
become vulnerable to reliability risks.
  What I mean by that is we don't always know when the Sun is going to 
be shining or when the wind is going to be blowing, but there is always 
a demand for power. The demand is always there, but the wind stops. I 
understand this. I am from Oklahoma. We can have a very windy day and 
all of a sudden it stops, and the Sun maybe stops shining. If the wind 
is blowing really hard one day and then stops the next, significant 
strains are put on the electricity grid.
  To compensate for that, we have to have backup power ready to come 
online at a moment's notice--where it is turned off 1 minute and then 
on the next. Having that kind of capacity sitting around waiting for 
the Sun to stop shining is incredibly expensive, which is one of the 
reasons Germany's power is so much more expensive than others.
  So when I hear the President and EPA saying this rule could actually 
lower electricity bills, it makes me wonder if they ever sit down in 
the same room with FERC and NERC and NRC to tell it like it is. 
Honestly, they are not telling the truth.
  The President and Administrator McCarthy have also been touting the 
human health benefits this rule will deliver. To help announce the new 
rule, President Obama did a conference call with the American Lung 
Association and said it would help reduce instances of childhood 
asthma. Gina McCarthy made the same point in her remarks about the 
rule. But this completely contradicts what EPA previously said.
  In this chart which the Agency has published, in official 
documentation, it says greenhouse gases ``do not cause direct adverse 
health effects such as respiratory or toxic effects.'' I know others 
will stand up to refute this, but this is what the EPA said.
  What is even worse is this rule will not have any impact on global 
CO2 emissions. We know this because of the President's first 
EPA Administrator, Lisa Jackson. This is kind of interesting. I asked 
her the question during the committee hearing, on live TV: If we were 
to do away, either pass cap-and-trade or by regulation, would this 
reduce the overall CO2 emissions worldwide?
  And she said: No, it wouldn't. Her quote is: ``U.S. action alone will 
not impact world CO2 levels.'' This is because the largest 
tax increase in history, without any benefits--because once you 
implement these regulations, our manufacturing base would go someplace 
where they can find it; maybe China, maybe India, maybe Mexico. But 
they will go places where they don't have the stringent emission 
requirements we have in this country. So in that case, emissions would 
actually go up instead of down.
  Add to all of this the fact that there has been no increase in global 
surface temperature between 1998 and 2013. This is according to the 
journal Nature, the Economist, and even the Intergovernmental Panel on 
Climate Change that is the United Nations. They are the ones who 
started this, and even they say there has not been any increase in 
global surface temperature between the years of 1998 and 2013.
  This pause was totally unexpected by the scientific community. After 
all, CO2 concentrations went up by 8 percent over the same 
period of time--which, according to the models, should have led to 
significant temperature increases. This chart shows the difference 
between actual temperatures--the blue and the green lines down here--
and the temperatures that were predicted by ``consensus'' scientific 
community--the red line. They said this is where the heat was coming, 
and it didn't happen. It is clear the scientific community, which 
everyone puts so much trust in, did not predict a pause would actually 
happen.
  Add to this the fact that the U.S. Historical Climatology Network is 
reporting that this is the coldest year so far on record for the United 
States. Others will say, no, that is not true. So I quoted this source, 
the U.S. Historical Climatology Network, that if things continue as 
they are so far, this will be the coldest year on record in the United 
States.
  Normally, putting all this together would make me wonder why the 
President is pushing these regulations. But then I remember Tom Steyer. 
Let me introduce him.
  This man, who made billions in the traditional energy industry, is 
the new poster child of the environmental left. He is the one who 
promised to direct $100 million to resurrect the dead issue of global 
warming. He has the President and others on board with his plan, and 
they are following through. Tonight's slumber party is proof enough.
  I can hear it now. A severe case of righteous indignation is going to 
show up, and they are going to say: Are you saying Tom Steyer is 
putting 100 million in these races?
  No, I am not saying that. That is what Tom Steyer is saying.
  I have a quote here from him: It is true that we expect to be heavily 
involved in the midterm elections. We are looking at a bunch of races. 
My guess is we will end up being involved in eight or more races. And 
that is with $100 million.
  But that is what this all comes down to--a key constituency of the 
Democratic Party wanting to see the Nation completely change the way we 
generate and consume energy--for no environmental benefit. The only 
benefit here is a political one.
  In closing, I wish to highlight a few of the legal issues I mentioned 
a minute ago that will likely come up once the rule is finalized. There 
are three main reasons why I do not believe this rule, from a legal 
perspective, is an appropriate construct of the Clean Air Act. I always 
supported the Clean Air Act amendments, and good things happened from 
them.
  The first is the Clean Air Act was never designed to handle 
greenhouse gas emissions. We know that. This is a bipartisan 
perspective. Congressman John Dingell, one of the principal architects 
of the Clean Air Act over in the House, said last week:


[[Page 9564]]

       I do not believe the Clean Air Act is intended, or is the 
     most effective way, to regulate greenhouse gases.

  The second legal reason is this rule relies on an outside-the-fence 
approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Section 111 of the Clean 
Air Act should only allow the EPA to establish a process where the 
States determine the most appropriate emission reductions on a 
facility-by-facility basis. Instead, the EPA has set statewide emission 
reduction mandates, without regard to the technical feasibility of 
actually accomplishing the goal.
  Cap-and-trade proposals will emerge under this, which will ultimately 
pit industries against one another. So the real impact of this rule 
could far exceed its advertised intent of targeting only powerplants.
  Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt has effectively made this case 
and will lead the charge challenging the legal authority of this rule, 
should it become final. I am very proud of the attorney general, 
because he has been very effective in leading other attorneys general 
around the country to join in this effort.
  The third reason this rule is inappropriate is because the Clean Air 
Act states that section 111(b) regulations cannot be pursued in the 
event the facilities are already regulated under section 112, which 
governs air toxins. Powerplants are already regulated under this 
section. So the fact they are trying to regulate them under 111(b) is 
inconsistent with the law, and that of course will be on our side on 
this.
  There are a number of major reasons why this rule may not stand up in 
the courts. But it is my expectation that it will not come to that 
point. The largest tax increase in history. The Earth's surface has not 
gotten warmer in 14 years. Polling shows Americans don't believe it is 
a huge problem. It is huge for job losses. Stopping CO2 in 
the United States won't affect world CO2 emissions. That is 
what we have from the Administrator of the EPA. So we will be hearing a 
lot of things tonight, all about what is going on, and they will be 
discreet with me. That is the reason I always document things.
  Let me predict what I think is going to happen. A lot of people are 
not aware that there is something called the CRA, the Congressional 
Review Act. The Congressional Review Act is something where people say: 
Yes, there is a crisis in this country. Don't blame me. I am a Member 
of Congress. I didn't vote for it, but the regulators did this. This 
puts them where they should be in having to take a position.
  The CRA is something introduced with 30 cosponsors. I already have 30 
cosponsors to file a CRA on every one of these regulations, if they do 
become final. You cannot do it until they become final. Then it is a 
simple majority. So people are going to have to get on record, and to 
me that is really all we really need to get people on record on this.
  I think you are probably going to hear some issues and people will 
assume that these are really happening. You will hear that extreme 
weather is increasing. The reinsurance company and global-related 
disaster losses have declined by 25 percent as a proportion of GDP. 
They will say that hurricanes are happening. Yet the Washington Post 
says the United States has not been witness to a category 3 or higher 
major hurricane landfall since October of 2005 when Wilma hit Southwest 
Florida as a Category 3 storm.
  They will be talking about drought, in spite of the fact that even 
the IPCC has stated that in the United States droughts have become less 
frequent, less continuous, or shorter in central North America. Nature, 
the well-respected publication, says drought for the most part has 
become shorter, less frequent, and covered a smaller portion of the 
United States over the last century.
  Flooding--the IPCC comes in again talking about this. The USGS says 
floods have not increased in the United States in frequency or 
intensity since at least 1950. NOAA says flood losses as a percentage 
of GDP have dropped by 75 percent since 1940. You are going to hear 
about flooding. That is why it is necessary to document these things.
  NOAA, talking about tornadoes, says: Tornadoes have not increased in 
frequency, intensity or normalized damage since 1950. Some data shows 
that there has been a decline. So we have all these issues that I am 
sure we will be discussing sooner or later.
  Polar bears--the chairman of the Environment and Public Works 
Committee gave me a polar bear coffee cup, which I use frequently, and 
we display that very prominently. But they say in the 1950s and 1960s 
there were between 5,000 and 10,000 polar bears. Today there are 
between 15,000 and 25,000.
  So we have all these issues that are a reality on the glaciers. You 
can record the hurricanes and all these other items, and, yes, they are 
going to be talking about them, I am sure, during the course of the 
evening.
  Let me just mention one other item from memory on this, but I know it 
is right because the I have said it so many times and it has recently 
been documented. We go through these 30-year cycles all the time. We 
have been going through them for a long time. If you take in 1895, all 
of a sudden everything started getting cooler, and that is when the 
term ice age first came along. They said another ice age is coming. 
That lasted until 1918. In 1918, all of a sudden it started getting 
warmer, and that was the first time you heard about global warming. 
That was 1918 to 1945. In 1945 it turned again--you see, every 30 
years--and all of a sudden it got cold. They talked about another ice 
age coming. I remember Time magazine had a cover talking about the ice 
age. Then in 1970 another warm period came along. That is the one that 
people have been talking about.
  Here is the thing. In 1945 we had the largest amount of increase in 
CO2 emissions of any time in the recorded history of this 
country, and that precipitated not a warming period but a cooling 
period. Now as they have said, we haven't been warming for the last 15 
years. So this is always a difficult issue to deal with. I know the 
effort is there. I know it is renewed now and people are excited about 
it, and I could assure you the trend is in the wrong direction, and it 
is not going to happen.
  With that, Mr. President, my time has expired, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Under the unanimous consent request, the floor 
reverts to me, but the distinguished Member from California, my 
chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, has joined us, 
and I will yield for the Senator from California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Presiding Officer, and I also want to thank 
my friend Senator Whitehouse, such a great leader on this issue.
  I am really glad that Senator Inhofe, my good friend, came down to 
the floor. He deserves a thank you because he has laid out why he 
denies the obvious, and that is that this planet is warming and it is 
due to human activity. Frankly, it is his right to turn his back on 97 
percent of the scientists just like the deniers did when we learned 
that it was, in fact, smoking that was causing an epidemic of lung 
cancer. I respect Senator Inhofe. I am glad he came. But I have to say, 
I am sad that we haven't seen any Republicans come here except for 
Senator Inhofe who has written a whole book on this--and we know his 
views--but we don't see anybody else.
  Let me tell you what we know from our other colleagues. Let's just 
take the Speaker--the Republican Speaker of the House, who said when 
asked about climate change--he kind of has a different view than 
Senator Inhofe, as does Senator Rubio. This is what they said when 
asked what they think about climate change. Their answer is: Well, I am 
not a scientist. What do I know?
  Well, right. They are not. Why don't you listen, then, to 97 percent 
of the scientists, if you admit that you are not a scientist?
  What are Speaker Boehner or Senator Rubio or the others who are these 
deniers saying? They are now saying they are not a scientist. Let's say 
they went to the doctor and the doctor said: Look, you have a serious 
liver condition, and I have a new drug that has

[[Page 9565]]

been created to cure your disease. I don't think we should wait, and 
let's go.
  And you didn't say: Well, I want a second opinion; I want to go to 
another doctor. You said: You know what. I am not a doctor. I don't 
think so.
  Does that make sense?
  What if you went to a dentist and the dentist said: Senator, you have 
an abscess. It is pretty straightforward. I can fix it. If you let it 
go, you are going to get an infection. I don't know what can happen.
  Now, if I said to the dentist that I am going to check with a couple 
other people, then that is fine. But no, if I said: Oh, I am not a 
dentist, but I don't think so. As my friend told me before, you take 
your car in for repair, and they say: You know, there is something 
wrong with the brakes here, and we have to tighten those brakes. Can 
you leave the car here?
  Well, I am not a repairman.
  Ninety-seven percent of the scientists--they are all peer reviewed 
and are telling us what is happening to our planet.
  Here is the thing about these deniers. If they want to jump off the 
climate change cliff and just go by themselves, that is their choice, 
but they are going to take everybody with them; OK? My grandkids, your 
grandkids, and their kids--and we are not going to let it happen. 
Senator Whitehouse isn't going to let it happen. I am not going to let 
it happen. The President isn't going to let it happen.
  Climate change is all around us. We must take action to reduce 
harmful carbon pollution, which 97 percent of scientists agree is 
leading to dangerous climate change that threatens our families. We 
cannot be bullied by those who have their heads in the sand, and whose 
obstruction is leading us off the climate change cliff.
  One week ago the President released his new proposal to control 
dangerous carbon pollution from existing power plants, and it is a win-
win-win for the American people. Power plants are the largest source of 
the Nation's harmful carbon pollution accounting for nearly 40 percent 
of all carbon released into the air. Unlike other pollutants, right now 
there are no limits to the amount of carbon pollution that can be 
released into the air for power plants. The President's carbon 
pollution reduction plan will protect public health and save thousands 
of lives. It will avoid up to 6,600 premature deaths, 150,000 asthma 
attacks, 3,300 heart attacks, 2,800 hospital admissions, and 490,000 
missed days at school and work.
  The President's plan to reduce harmful carbon pollution will also 
create thousands of jobs. By reducing carbon pollution we can avert the 
most calamitous impacts of climate change--such as rising sea levels, 
dangerous heat waves, and economic disruption.
  As the recent Congressionally-required National Climate Assessment 
report tells us, we could see a 10 degree Fahrenheit rise in 
temperature if we do not act to limit dangerous carbon pollution now.
  The President's proposal is respectful of the States' roles and 
allows major flexibility, while ensuring that big polluters reduce 
their significant contributions to climate change. The plan will allow 
the States to work with the EPA to analyze costs, and ensure carbon 
pollution standards continue to promote innovation and continue 
America's leadership in pollution control technology.
  By cutting carbon emissions from power plants by 30 percent 
nationwide from 2005 levels, the President's plan will also help 
American families and businesses. The President's plan is projected to 
shrink electricity bills roughly 8 percent by increasing energy 
efficiency and reducing demand in the electricity system.
  The American public wants action. According to a Washington Post-ABC 
poll released today, a bipartisan majority of the American people want 
Federal limits on carbon pollution. Approximately 70 percent say the 
Federal Government should require limits to carbon pollution from 
existing power plans, and 70 percent--57 percent of Republicans, 76 
percent of Independents, and 79 percent of Democrats--support requiring 
States to limit the amount of carbon pollution within their borders.
  The President's proposed carbon pollution standards for existing 
power plants is supported by the Clean Air Act. Congress gave the 
President the ability to control air pollution in the Clean Air Act. In 
1990, revisions to the Act overwhelming passed by a vote of 89-11 in 
the Senate and 401-21 in the House. In 2007, the Supreme Court 
confirmed in Massachusetts v. EPA that as passed by Congress, the Clean 
Air Act in no uncertain terms gave the Environmental Protection Agency 
authority to control carbon pollution. Four years later, the Supreme 
Court in American Electric Power v. Connecticut, specifically found 
that the Clean Air Act has provisions in place to limit carbon 
pollution from power plants--the very provisions the President is using 
in his proposed power plant carbon standards.
  We have long known that air pollution contributes to climate change. 
During the debate on the 1970 Clean Air Act Amendments, Senator Boggs 
introduced into the record a White House Report stating that: ``Air 
pollution alters climate and may produce global changes in temperature. 
. . . [T]he addition of particulates and carbon dioxide in the 
atmosphere could have dramatic and long-term effects on world 
climate.'' And the Clean Air Act has a proven track record.
  The U.S. has shown we can continue to protect the environment and 
grow the economy. Over the last 40 years since the passage of the Clean 
Air Act, air pollution has dropped 68 percent and America's GDP has 
grown 212 percent. Total private sector jobs increased by 88 percent. 
Between 1980 and 2012, gross domestic product increased 133 percent, 
vehicle miles traveled increased 92 percent, energy consumption 
increased 27 percent, and U.S. population grew by 38 percent. During 
the same time period, total emissions of the six principal air 
pollutants dropped by 67 percent.
  It is in America's DNA to turn a problem into an opportunity, and 
that is what we have done by being a pioneer in the green technology 
industry. These new carbon pollution standards are no different. 
Landmark environmental laws have bolstered an environmental technology 
and services sector that employs an estimated 3.4 million people, 
according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. And many of these jobs, 
like installing solar roofs and wind turbines cannot be outsourced.
  We must take action to protect families and communities from the 
mounting impacts of climate change. Just look at China, which has 
hazardous levels of air pollution and toxic emissions. According to a 
scientific study from the Health Effect Institute on leading causes of 
death worldwide, outdoor air pollution contributed to 1.2 million 
premature deaths in China in 2010, which is nearly 40 percent of the 
global total. Officials in China have recently suggested that they plan 
to take steps to address their carbon pollution, but the U.S. cannot 
wait for China to act. The President's new power plant standards are a 
major step forward. They show that America will finally lead on a path 
to averting the most dangerous impacts of climate change.
  On Friday the White House released a report on the harmful health 
impacts of climate change, especially on our most vulnerable 
populations like children, the elderly and low-income Americans. The 
report cited impacts like increased ground level ozone which could 
worsen respiratory illnesses like asthma, increased air pollutants from 
wildfires, and more heat-related and flood-related deaths. The first 
line in this new report sums up why we must take action to reduce 
carbon pollution:

       We have a moral obligation to leave our children a planet 
     that's not irrevocably polluted or damaged.

  The American people want us to protect their children and families 
from dangerous climate change. We must safeguard our children, our 
grandchildren, and generations to come.
  The people of my home State of California and the American people 
deserve these new protections, and the President should be lauded for 
moving forward and tackling one of our Nation's greatest challenges.

[[Page 9566]]

  I am going to spend the rest of my time summing it up by refuting 
some of the things Senator Inhofe said.
  I have to say the President deserves a lot of credit for his plan. 
What is really interesting is it is supported by 70 percent of the 
American people, who ``think the Federal Government should limit the 
release of greenhouse gasses from existing power plants in an effort to 
reduce global warming.''
  That includes amazingly 57 percent of Republicans, 79 percent of 
Democrats, and 76 percent of Independents who support the President's 
plan. They are not stupid. They are smart.
  Look what happens when you throw the environment under the bus. 
People walk around in air that you can see. You don't want to see the 
air. You don't want to wear a mask when you go outside. The American 
people get it.
  Then my colleague says: They are going to scare you. They are going 
to scare you. There is no problem with carbon in the air. There is no 
problem at all.
  Well, let me tell you who disagrees with Senator Inhofe, who 
disagrees with the Republicans: the American Medical Association, the 
American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Thoracic Society, the 
American Public Health Association, the American Lung Association, the 
National Nurses Union. They all have statements that say climate change 
is a threat to public health.
  Who are the people going to listen to? Us politicians or people who 
spend every day of their life waking up in the morning and thinking of 
ways to protect our health? Yes, if the deniers want to jump off the 
cliff and they only hurt themselves, I suppose that is their option. 
But they are taking my kids, and they are taking all the kids of our 
American families, and we are not going to let that happen.
  I will close with this. The Senator from Oklahoma started to say: 
This is going to kill you. It is going to raise your prices of 
electricity. Jobs are going to be lost. He cited a U.S. Chamber of 
Commerce study that has been so rebuffed that the Washington Post gave 
it their most Pinocchios--in other words, four Pinocchios for the U.S. 
Chamber of Commerce because they were responding to something that 
never came about.
  This plan of the President's makes a whole lot of sense. He has 
courage to do it. We are going to stand behind it. And, yes, the 
Republicans are going to try to repeal it. Let me give them the bad 
news from their perspective. They have sent over dozens and dozens of 
environmental riders. I want to say over 90--over 90--and we have 
beaten back every single one of them. For colleagues to stand there and 
say Senator Sheldon Whitehouse and I are doing this because it is an 
election year is a joke. We have been doing this for years.
  I daresay Senator Sheldon Whitehouse has made more speeches on the 
floor than anyone on this subject. When I had the gavel for the first 
time in 2007, I had to fight to keep it in my hand because, guess what. 
We had Al Gore before the committee. Remember? Senator Inhofe was so 
stressed he tried to grab the gavel. We have kind of a funny picture in 
our office in which I said: ``Elections have consequences.'' And they 
do. But to say that we are doing this because there is some donor is 
the most absurd thing I have ever heard.
  I will put in the record a statement by Lyndon Johnson. This shows 
how far back Democrats have warned about this. This is amazing. My 
staff discovered this. He said this in 1965.
  In his ``Special Message to the Congress on Conservation and 
Restoration of Natural Beauty'' President Lyndon B. Johnson stated 
that, ``The Clean Air Act should be improved to permit [EPA] to 
investigate potential air pollution problems before pollution happens, 
rather than having to wait until the damage occurs, as is now the case, 
and to make recommendations leading to the prevention of such 
pollution.''
  ``Air pollution is no longer confined to isolated places. This 
generation has altered the composition of the atmosphere on a global 
scale through radioactive materials and a steady increase in carbon 
dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.''
  So don't come on this floor and say suddenly the Democrats care about 
this because it is an election year. It is ridiculous. We have known 
about this for years. We have been trying to get the attention of our 
colleagues.
  I thank Senator Whitehouse. He and I signed a letter with several 
others inviting our colleagues to the floor. All we got was Senator 
Inhofe--not that we don't love him, and we appreciate he came over 
here, but we have to now assume he speaks for everybody on that side, 
which is scary, because they have turned their backs on the doctors. 
They have turned their backs on the scientists, and they have turned 
their backs on the American people.
  Thank you, Senator Whitehouse, and I would yield back to the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, the hope for this evening was that by 
extending a formal invitation to our colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle, somebody would come to the floor who was not just outright 
denying that climate change is happening.
  For a while Senator Inhofe's was focused on the economics of various 
types of regulation during his remarks. At that point I thought maybe 
we could have a conversation about the best way to solve the climate 
change problem, but toward the end of his remarks, he got back to 
denying that it is happening at all, which makes a tough place to begin 
negotiations.
  There are plenty of other Republican Senators in this body, many of 
whom have worked on this issue in the past. I don't know whether it is 
a coincidence, but the level of activity by Republican Senators on 
climate change collapsed shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court's 
decision in Citizens United. As many of my Republican friends have 
pointed out to me on the floor, there have been times when the big, 
dark, anonymous election money that has been thrown around since that 
decision has been made has been spent against Republicans more than 
against Democrats.
  We hope that as we resolve that issue, some of our friends find a way 
back to the positions they have held in the past, back to campaigning 
nationally on climate issues, supporting bipartisan climate 
legislation, supporting a carbon fee, and voting for a cap-and-trade 
bill. That is where they had been before Citizens United, and we had 
hoped to bring them back. But the champion sent by the Republican side 
to represent their point of view tonight was Senator Inhofe, who has 
written a book that said this is all just a big hoax. In that sense it 
was disappointing.
  I have heard these arguments before, and as we go down the list, I 
think it is worth taking a moment to knock them aside. One of my 
personal favorites is that the EPA is doing this after the issue was 
repeatedly blocked in Congress. Well, yes, it has been blocked in 
Congress by coal and oil and polluter interests. So the interests that 
have blocked a highway don't get to complain when traffic has to take a 
detour.
  We would be delighted to work on serious climate legislation in this 
body. We would be delighted to have it here. For a lot of reasons, we 
would get a better result if we addressed climate change legislation 
here rather than through the EPA rule. This is where the conversation 
should take place, but when oil and coal and polluting industries take 
the position that this is not real and force the Republican Party into 
that position--that climate change is not real--then we are obviously 
not going to have a very meaningful discussion about solving a problem, 
and that is what forces it go to the EPA. It is a little rich for those 
who have shut down this forum for solving this problem to complain when 
it gets solved in another and less efficient way. They don't very well 
get to do that.
  The high cost of the solution is--I think Senator Inhofe said--$300 
to $400 billion and that it is not disputed. Well, yes, it is totally 
disputed. It is absolutely disputed. In fact, it is not even true.
  The best way to solve this problem is with a revenue-neutral carbon 
fee.

[[Page 9567]]

What does revenue neutral mean? Revenue neutral means that for every 
dollar that comes in from the carbon pollution fee that the polluters 
have to pay, it goes right back out to the American people and straight 
back into the economy; 100 cents on the dollar goes back to the 
American people. That is what I would like to see. It can be done 
through tax deductions.
  A conservative organization, the American Enterprise Institute, has 
coauthored a report with the Brookings Institution on what they call a 
carbon tax. I call it a carbon pollution fee, because when we are 
giving all the money straight back to the American people, it is not 
truly a tax. It is not general revenue to the government. The money 
goes straight back out. When we do that, I think there is a case to be 
made that that actually propels the economy.
  Investing in innovation, supporting and creating different types of 
energy that we can build in America is inevitably going to be better 
for our economy than having to use fossil fuels, clean up after the 
pollution, and deal with the foreign countries that traffic in fossil 
fuels. It would all lead to a better circumstance for our country.
  The Senator from Oklahoma also said this is the product of what he 
called the radical environmental movement. One group that speaks very 
strongly on climate change is NASA. Right now NASA is driving around a 
Rover on the surface of Mars. They built a Rover that is about the size 
of an SUV, launched it into space, landed it successfully on the planet 
Mars, and they are now driving it around. Do you think these people 
know what they are talking about? Do you think NASA is a radical 
environmentalist movement? Really? That is a conspiracy theory that has 
run amok if you think NASA is part of a radical environmentalist 
movement.
  How about our military? ``National Security and the Accelerating 
Risks of Climate Change'' by the CNA Military Advisory Board. The CNA 
Corporation is a corporation largely comprised of retired military who 
are kept on in that role to advise the military on emerging issues. It 
is sort of a think tank for the U.S. military that has been there 
through Republican and Democratic administrations alike. This report, 
``National Security and the Accelerating Risks of Climate Change,'' was 
done by this military advisory board with some very interesting people.
  How about BG Gerald E. Galloway, Jr., the former dean at the U.S. 
Military Academy. Do you think the dean from West Point is part of a 
radical environmental movement?
  How about Lee Gunn, a former inspector general of the Department of 
the Navy. He doesn't seem like a very radical environmentalist to me.
  ADM Skip Bowman, former Director of the Naval Nuclear Propulsion 
Program; Gen. James Conway, former Commandant of the Marine Corps--now 
there are some radical leftwing environmentalists for you, the U.S. 
Marines.
  This is so far beyond that. Organizations such as Walmart, Coke and 
Pepsi, Ford and GM, UPS and FedEx, Target, Nike, VF Corporation, one of 
the biggest apparel manufacturers in the country located in North 
Carolina--all are totally on board with this.
  The military is totally on board with this. NASA is totally on board 
with this, as is the National Science Foundation and every major 
scientific organization in the country--every single one. So let's not 
pretend this is a fringe group of radical environmentalists trying to 
foist an idea on the country. This is a fringe residue of oil and coal 
and polluting interests trying to prevent the end of a long holiday 
they have had from any responsibility for all the harm their carbon 
pollution has caused.
  Let me tell you firsthand there is harm happening in my home State of 
Rhode Island, and it is not deniable. The deniers will never talk about 
the oceans. They will never talk about the oceans. They will talk about 
distant climate theory all day long, but when we go to the sea, the sea 
does not bear false witness.
  The sea level is rising, and we measure that with essentially a 
yardstick nailed to the end of a pier. A tide gauge is not a complex 
instrument, and off the Naval War College in Newport, RI, the seas are 
up 10 inches since the 1930s. Why is that? We have known since 
President Lincoln was President that when we add carbon dioxide into 
the atmosphere, it warms the planet. That is not a hypothesis. That 
science has been established since Abraham Lincoln in his stovepipe hat 
drove around Washington in a carriage.
  We know billions of tons of carbon dioxide have gone up there. We 
know further that virtually all the heat has gone into the oceans. 
Unless somebody wants to deny the law of thermal expansion--and I have 
not heard anybody willing to deny that yet--when we warm up the ocean, 
guess what. It expands and rises. We in Rhode Island have seen seas 10 
inches higher thrown at our shores by a big storm or hurricane. It 
makes a big difference.
  I challenge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to give me 
just 5 minutes of their time and go to Google and look up the images of 
the hurricane of 1938. Look at the pictures of what happened in my 
State when the sea level was 10 inches lower.
  Senator Inhofe mentioned the U.S. Chamber of Commerce study. I am a 
little surprised he did that because he is not the first Republican to 
mention the U.S. Chamber of Commerce study. Speaker Boehner mentioned 
the U.S. Chamber of Commerce study too. He earned a false from 
PolitiFact for referencing that study. The Washington Post gave it four 
Pinocchios. You know Pinocchio, his nose would grow longer when he 
would not tell the truth. So that was a strange place to go.
  He said there has been no temperature increase. He said: ``It didn't 
happen.'' It did happen. It absolutely did happen. It happened in the 
oceans where more than 90 percent of the heat goes. It happened in the 
oceans, and it can be measured with thermometers. It is not 
complicated.
  If you go to Narragansett Bay in Rhode Island, you will see that the 
mean winter water temperature is 3 to 4 degrees warmer, and it has a 
real effect on Rhode Islanders. Men used to go out on boats with trawls 
and catch winter flounder in Narragansett Bay, and it was a cash crop. 
It was a fishery that fed their families. It has crashed 90 percent, 
and a significant part of that is because the bay is no longer 
hospitable to winter flounder when it is 3 to 4 degrees warmer. It 
simply doesn't work.
  The public is with us, and we will get this done. Tonight we have 
seen what we are up against. Not one Republican in this building would 
come tonight at our invitation and say one word about climate change 
being real--not one Republican, not one word. So that is what we are up 
against. But they have lost the American public, and so the fall of the 
denial castle is inevitable. It is built on sand, and the sand is 
eroding. It is eroding.
  Even among young Republican voters--self-identified Republican voters 
under the age of 35--the hypothesis offered by the deniers that climate 
change is not real is viewed as--and these are the words from the poll, 
not my words--``ignorant, out of touch, or crazy.''
  I submit that a party whose own voters under the age of 35 view that 
party's position of denying climate change as ``ignorant, out of touch, 
or crazy'' is a party that needs a new position on climate change. They 
are not even selling their own young voters, and they are certainly not 
selling the general public, which wants the President to do something 
about this in enormous numbers--70 and 80 percent, depending on whether 
one is looking at Democrats, Independents or the full population.
  I will close with two specifics because we often have these debates 
sort of at the IPCC versus the Sierra Club level.
  I have been going around to different States, and I have been looking 
at what is going on State by State. I have been to seven States 
already. I wish to mention two tonight. I just got back from New 
Hampshire, the most recent trip. What is going on in New Hampshire? New 
Hampshire, as many people

[[Page 9568]]

know, has a big ski industry. It is a winter holiday destination, a 
winter vacation and tourism destination, and skiing is a big part of 
that. I met with the guy who runs the Cranmore ski mountain. They have, 
I want to say, tripled, or thereabouts, the number of snowmaking guns 
they have on their slopes. They have gotten better at it. They have 
made it more efficient so they make more snow. So as there is less 
snowpack in the mountains, they are able to get around it by making 
more snow. But the reality of this is proven by the fact that they have 
to go out there and make more snow. As a New Hampshire official said, 
that is fine for the slopes. They can get out there, and they can roar 
those guns all night long and make snow on those mountain slopes. But 
if a person is a Nordic skier, they have to go out on trails, and there 
is no economic way to blow snow onto trails. If a person is a 
snowmobile enthusiast, they go out on snow trails, and there is no 
economic way to blow snow onto snowmobile trails. They are seeing a 
dramatic falling off in Nordic and snowmobile tourism as a result and 
of the availability of that important market for them.
  They talked about two animals. I will start with the moose. It is a 
pretty iconic species for New Hampshire, I was told. There are moose 
tours. Who knew? People go up to New Hampshire to look at moose. Moose 
touring is a multimillion-dollar industry. I learned something new on 
that trip. That industry is suffering from a couple of things. First of 
all, sometimes they do the moose tours on snowmobiles--no snow, no 
snowmobile moose tours. But worse--indeed, eerily, horrifyingly, 
creepily--the moose are dying off because they are being overwhelmed by 
ticks. Now, picking a tick off my dog is enough to give me the heebie-
jeebies, and if I find one myself, it is a little creepy. We are not 
talking about one tick on these moose. We are not talking about 100 
ticks. We are not even talking about 1,000 ticks on these moose. We are 
talking about 50,000 to 100,000 ticks per moose--so much that they 
can't keep themselves healthy. The blood is being sucked out of them by 
tens of thousands of ticks.
  So the expert in that area who spoke to me said the reaction from the 
mothers is to just have one calf instead of two. That keeps the 
population from growing, and the calves basically starve. They die of 
anemia. They can't feed themselves.
  They can't keep a blood system running that feeds themselves and the 
thousands of ticks. These things grow to be the size of a blueberry or 
a grape. It is really appalling. This is an emblematic mammal of New 
Hampshire, and this is what is befalling it.
  What do the New Hampshire folks say is causing it? The retreat of the 
snow. The ticks, when they are falling and breeding and laying their 
eggs--whatever the heck they do to reproduce; I am no tick expert. But 
they do it on Earth now, whereas when they fell on snow, boom, that was 
it. So the explosion in the tick population and the disgusting 
infestation on those poor animals is directly related to the retreat of 
the snow.
  The last point on New Hampshire, the State bird is evidently the 
purple finch. The purple finch has a very particular kind of habitat. 
Because of the way the climate is changing, that habitat is shrinking, 
and one of the bird experts I spoke to said they are looking at the 
prospect of the purple finch being a species that New Hampshire folks 
have to go to Canada to find. It is their State bird, but they have to 
go to Canada to find it.
  The other State I will close with is Florida. Florida is ground zero 
for climate change. In Florida, great cities are flooding at high tide. 
The systems that used to drain water out of the cities in a rain storm 
are now flooding salt water into the cities because of sea level rise 
at high tides. I have met with former mayors and county commissioners 
who have shown me pictures of people riding their bicycle hub deep 
through water, on a bright sunny day. It is not raining; it is salt 
water. It has come up. One picture was of a yard where the homeowner 
had hammered a sign into the yard, ``No wake zone,'' so that cars 
driving by on the flooded road wouldn't create a wake and wash more 
salt water into their yard. Some weren't so lucky, and the water was 
right through the front door and into the house.
  The Republican mayor of Monroe County has made climate change a 
priority. She has instructed her county government to do a climate 
change report, looking particularly at sea level rise--the Republican 
mayor of Monroe County. Yet, what do we hear from the Republican side 
here? Not a peep. Not a peep.
  She said something else that is interesting. I will close with this. 
I asked her how the coral reefs were doing. A lot of people go to 
Florida to snorkel and to scuba dive and to see the wonders of the 
world under the sea. I said: Mayor, how are your reefs doing? I have 
heard a lot about what acidification and warming temperatures are doing 
to reefs. She said: They are still beautiful. Then she paused and said: 
Unless you were here 10 or 20 years ago. Ten or 20 years, and we see 
that change.
  What is happening to the reefs is really catastrophic.
  My friends on the other side never want to talk about this. They want 
to talk about climate modeling. We don't need a model to go to the end 
of the dock at Fort Pulaski and see how much the sea level has risen. 
We measure it. It is simple. It is the same thing at the Naval War 
College. We measure it. It is simple. We don't need complex computer 
models to go to Narragansett Bay and see it is nearly four degrees 
warmer mean water temperature and all the changes that happen as a 
result. We use a thermometer. It is not complicated. And the 
acidification of the oceans that is affecting the coral reefs and so 
many other creatures--it wiped out the northwest oyster spat. People 
grow oysters in the Pacific Northwest, and the sea water that came in 
was so acidic, it dissolved the shells of the baby oysters and wiped 
out a huge percentage of their crop. That we measure with the same kind 
of litmus tests kids do with their aquariums. It is not complicated. 
But they always want to talk about where it can be confusing. They 
never want to confront the problem.
  We are going to find ways to continue to insist on confronting this 
problem. They may not be here tonight, but as the old saying goes, you 
can run, but you can't hide. There are too many of my colleagues who 
have been helpful and good on this issue before--as I said, before 
Citizens United. If we look at the Republican Senate activity on 
climate change before Citizens United and after, it is like looking at 
a heart attack. We see steady activity until Citizens United, and then 
it is a flat line. Citizens United, dark money, polluter money has done 
as much damage polluting our democracy as they have done polluting our 
planet. But we are going to continue to do something about it, and the 
American public not only is with us, they are going to insist on it.
  I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              Gaspee Days

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I am so glad to have you here 
because a recurring tradition on the Senate floor is about to take 
place, and it is always particularly good for a Senator from Rhode 
Island to have a Senator from Massachusetts presiding while I talk 
about this.
  Today I am here to recognize and celebrate one of the earliest acts 
of defiance against the British Crown in our great American struggle 
for independence. Most Americans remember the Boston Tea Party as one 
of the major events building up to the American Revolution. We learned 
the story of spirited Bostonians--and when I say ``spirited,'' I mean 
that in several senses; I gather that spirits had been served to those 
Bostonians before they embarked on this adventure--clambering onto the 
decks of the East India

[[Page 9569]]

Company's ships and dumping bales of tea into Boston Harbor as a 
protest of British ``taxation without representation,'' which was a 
fine and worthy stunt, and I am certainly not here to defend taxation 
without representation.
  However, there is a milestone on the path to revolution that is 
frequently overlooked, and it is the story of 60 brave Rhode Islanders 
who challenged British rule more than a year before that Tea Party in 
Boston, and they did a little bit more than throw tea bags overboard. 
So every year I honor those little known Rhode Island heroes who risked 
their lives in defiance of oppression 1 dark night more than 240 years 
ago.
  In the years before the Revolutionary War, as tensions with the 
American Colonies grew, King George III stationed revenue cutters, 
armed customs patrol vessels, along the American coast. They were there 
to prevent smuggling, to enforce the payment of taxes, and to impose 
the authority of the Crown.
  One of the most notorious of these ships was the HMS Gaspee. Its 
captain, Lieutenant William Duddingston, was known for destroying 
fishing vessels, seizing cargo, and flagging down ships only to harass, 
humiliate, and interrogate the colonials.
  Outraged by this egregious abuse of power, the merchants and 
shipmasters of Rhode Island flooded civil and military officials with 
complaints about the Gaspee, exhausting every diplomatic and legal 
means to stir the British Crown to regulate Duddingston's conduct.
  Not only did British officials ignore the Rhode Islanders' concerns; 
they responded with open hostility. The commander of the local British 
fleet, ADM John Montagu, warned that anyone who dared attempt acts of 
resistance or retaliation against the Gaspee would be taken into 
custody and hanged as a pirate, which brings us to June 9, 1772, 242 
years ago.
  Rhode Island ship captain Benjamin Lindsey was en route to Providence 
from Newport, in his ship the Hannah, when he was accosted and ordered 
to yield for inspection by the Gaspee. Captain Lindsey ignored the 
Gaspee's command and raced away up Narragansett Bay--despite warning 
shots fired by the Gaspee. As the Gaspee gave chase, Captain Lindsey 
knew a little something about Narragansett Bay and he knew a little 
something about the Hannah. He knew that she was lighter and drew less 
water than the Gaspee. So he sped north toward Pawtuxet Cove, toward 
the shallow waters off Namquid Point. His Hannah shot over the shallows 
there, but the heavier Gaspee grounded and stuck firm. The British ship 
and her crew were caught stranded in a falling tide, and it would be 
many hours before a rising tide could free the hulking Gaspee.
  Presented with that irresistible opportunity, Captain Lindsey 
continued on his course to Providence and there enlisted the help of 
John Brown, a respected merchant from one of the most prominent 
Providence families. The two men rallied a group of Rhode Island 
patriots at Sabin's Tavern, in what is now the east side of Providence. 
So perhaps something the Bostonians at the Tea Party and the Rhode 
Islanders at the Gaspee had in common was spirits. Together, the group 
resolved to put an end to the Gaspee's threat to Rhode Island waters.
  That night, the men, led by Captain Lindsey and Abraham Whipple--
later to become a commander in the Revolutionary navy--embarked in 
eight longboats quietly down Narragansett Bay. They encircled the 
Gaspee, and they called on Lieutenant Duddingston to surrender his 
ship. Duddingston refused and ordered his men to fire upon anyone who 
tried to board.
  Undeterred, the Rhode Islanders forced their way onto the Gaspee's 
deck--in a hail of oaths and sword clashes and musketfire--and 
Lieutenant Duddingston fell with a musket ball in the midst of the 
struggle. Right there in the waters of Warwick, RI, the very first 
blood in the conflict that was to become the American Revolution was 
drawn.
  As the patriots commandeered the ship, Brown ordered one of his Rhode 
Islanders, a physician named John Mawney, to head to the ship's 
captain's cabin and tend to Duddingston's wound--a humane gesture in 
their moment of victory to help a man who had threatened to open fire 
on them only moments before.
  Brown and Whipple took the captive English crew back to shore and 
then returned to the Gaspee to rid Narragansett Bay of her despised 
presence once and for all. They set her afire. The blaze spread through 
the ship, and ultimately to the ship's powder magazine, which went off 
with an explosion like fireworks, the blast echoing through the night 
across the bay, the flash lighting the sea up like daylight, and 
fragments of the ship splashing down into the water all around.
  The site of this audacious act is now named Gaspee Point in honor of 
these brave Rhode Islanders. So I come again here to share this story 
and to commemorate this night so many years ago--June 9, 1772--and the 
names of Benjamin Lindsey, John Brown, and Abraham Whipple, and those 
men not known to history who fought beside them that night.
  The Gaspee Affair, as it was called, generated furor in the British 
Government, which appointed a royal commission of inquiry based in 
Newport to gather evidence for indictment. The indicted men were then 
to be sent to England for trial.
  Well, not so fast. Rhode Island's colonial charter guaranteed its 
citizens the right to a trial in the vicinity in which the crime was 
alleged to have occurred. And beyond that, these Rhode Islanders 
presumed they were entitled to the same rights as Englishmen in their 
mother country. Some went so far to say that this proposal to try them 
overseas violated ancient rights outlined in the Magna Carta.
  This breach of the rights that colonists believed were enshrined in 
the British Constitution created continent-wide uproar. Young members 
of Virginia's House of Burgesses, such as Thomas Jefferson and Patrick 
Henry, yearning to protest, pushed the body to create a committee of 
correspondence to gather information from around the Colonies 
concerning the British Parliament's actions, while also urging other 
Colonies to do the same. By December 1773, 11 Colonies had set up 
committees of correspondence. These committees played a vital role in 
enflaming discontent. They were the first permanent modes of 
communication among the Thirteen Colonies and allowed abuses by 
Parliament to be quickly known throughout the Colonies.
  John Allen, a little-known visiting minister in the Second Baptist 
Church in Boston, gave a sermon on the Gaspee Affair. It went the 
revolutionary equivalent of viral--widely published. In this sermon, 
Allen rejected the proposition that Parliament had a right to tax and 
enforce laws like the ones implicated in the Gaspee Affair on Americans 
without the consent of their colonial representatives--a position that 
would come to define colonial discontent and reverberates to this day 
through the slogan ``no taxation without representation.''
  Allen concluded his sermon with the provoking and revolutionary 
question whether the British King had a right to rule over America in 
the first place. Reverend Allen asserted there was no parliamentary 
right to reign as in Britain, nor a right by conquest, as the American 
colonists had only signed compacts with the Crown for protection of 
their religious and civil rights. Allen espoused Enlightenment ideals 
of social compacts and political rights, stating that if the British 
Government enacted laws that were oppressive to the rights of American 
colonists, as it had with the creation of a commission of inquiry 
intending to send the Gaspee raiders to England for trial, then it lost 
its right to rule over them.
  The sermon was published eight separate times in three different 
colonial cities and spread widely through the Colonies. Through that, 
the Gaspee Affair sparked in the minds of Americans ideas about 
parliamentary abuses and the King's right to rule that would seed a 
spirit of discontent and eventually boil over into revolution. The 
sermon,

[[Page 9570]]

along with fiery editorials published in the wake of the affair, 
inspired colonial leaders to speak openly about the British 
Government's abuses, instigating conflict that would culminate in the 
battles of Lexington and Concord.
  The Gaspee Affair galvanized colonial discontent and led to greater 
unity among the Thirteen Colonies. After Rhode Islanders defiantly set 
fire to the Gaspee, the American Colonies came together for a common 
cause for the first time in their history, a formative step in the 
birth of our new Nation.
  I know these events, and the patriots whose efforts allowed for their 
success, are not forgotten in my home State. Over the years, I have 
enjoyed marching in the annual Gaspee Days Parade through Warwick, RI, 
as every year we recall the courage and zeal of these men who fired the 
first shots that drew the first blood in that great contest for the 
freedoms we enjoy today.
  They set a precedent for future patriots to follow, including those 
in Boston who more than 1 year later would have their tea party. But do 
not forget, as my home State prepares once again to celebrate the 
anniversary of the Gaspee incident, Massachusetts colonists threw tea 
bags off the deck of their British ship. We blew ours up and shot its 
captain more than 1 year earlier. We are little in Rhode Island, but as 
Lieutenant Duddingston discovered, we pack a punch.

                          ____________________