[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 1976-1978]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                             CLIMATE CHANGE

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I might point out that not only are 
Delaware and Rhode Island both small and mighty, but they are small, 
mighty, and coastal, which is relative to the topic of my remarks this 
afternoon. I am now here for the 89th consecutive week that Congress 
has been in session to urge the Senate to wake up to the risks of 
climate change and to address the carbon pollution that is causing 
climate change.
  We have a particular context for this conversation this week. The 
Founding Fathers in article I, section 8 of the Constitution granted to 
Congress a sacred duty, as the Constitution says, to ``provide for the 
common defense and general welfare of the United States.''
  To that end, we have built the world's greatest military and the most 
sophisticated intelligence and national security services. After the 
attacks of September 11, 2001, we undertook the largest reorganization 
of the Federal Government in half a century to stand up the Department 
of Homeland Security. We trust these national security agencies and the 
dedicated professionals who lead them and serve in them to ascertain 
and prepare for the risks facing our country in an uncertain world. But 
the tea party wing of the Republican caucus has chosen to hold up 
appropriations for vital Homeland Security programs--programs that 
protect Americans from terrorism, programs that help our States prepare 
for disasters--all to have a quarrel with the President on immigration.
  Well, when we get to immigration--if our friends on the House side 
ever get to immigration--we could certainly debate the merits of the 
President's action. Certainly, we should pass legislation to fix our 
broken immigration system so the President's Executive actions are no 
longer necessary. And, by the way, in the Senate we did our job and 
passed a strong bipartisan bill. But to deny the Department of Homeland 
Security the resources it needs to safeguard the Nation is foolhardy.
  Now, it is precisely because of that duty to safeguard the Nation 
that we should take our homeland security and military professionals 
seriously when they take seriously the threats posed by climate change. 
I think we should have a vote on a resolution highlighting the fact 
findings of our national security, military, and intelligence services 
about the climate threat. This resolution would express the sense of 
the Senate that the conclusions of our security professionals are not 
products of some hoax or deception perpetrated on the American public 
and that they deserve our respect.

[[Page 1977]]

  That ought to be something every Senator can get behind. Let's look 
at some of the information. Just last week the administration's 2015 
National Security Strategy classified climate change as ``an urgent and 
growing threat to our national security.'' It is because this is 
serious that the United States is out there actively cutting pollution 
and strengthening resilience at home and leading the international 
community towards stronger carbon pollution standards.
  The challenge that climate change poses to national security and to 
emergency preparedness is clearly laid out in the Department of 
Homeland Security's 2014 Quadrennial Homeland Security Review. It 
describes the effects of climate change as threat multipliers, with the 
potential to aggravate hazards to American safety and health. For 
example, higher temperatures may change patterns of disease and the 
spread of pests and pathogens.
  Competition for resources can contribute to the kind of social 
destabilization that engenders terrorist activity all around the world.
  You don't have to look far to see that today. Extreme weather and 
temperatures endanger the infrastructure that underpins our economy and 
way of life--from roads and bridges that now run too close to rising 
seas, to power and water treatment plants, to telecommunications and 
cyber networks.
  As Assistant Secretary David Heyman of the DHS Office of Policy and 
Assistant Secretary Caitlin Durkovich of the Office of Infrastructure 
Protection explained to our own Senate Committee on Homeland Security 
and Governmental Affairs just last year:

       The projected impacts of climate change, including sea 
     level rise and increasing severity and frequency of extreme 
     weather events, can cause damage or disruptions that result 
     in cascading effects across our communities, with 
     immeasurable costs in lives lost and billions of dollars in 
     property damage.

  Why would we not want to take that seriously?
  We heard just the same message in the Budget Committee just last week 
from OMB Director Shaun Donovan.
  Already, the annual number of costly weather-related disasters is 
going up. According to NOAA, in the 1980s--in that decade--if you look 
at the number of natural disasters costing $1 billion or more, in each 
year of the 1980s there were between zero and five. That was the range 
for the 1980s--between zero and five $1 billion weather events. In the 
1990s that rate rose to between three and nine events each year. Then 
in 2000 it went up to between 2 and 11 events per year. Since 2010, in 
the category of $1 billion disasters each year, the range has been 
between 6 and 16.
  So from the 1980s, it was 0 to 5, until this decade when it is 6 to 
16. If people can't take that seriously, they are simply not meeting 
their responsibilities.
  Superstorm Sandy caused tens of billions of dollars in damage, 
including terrible losses in my home State of Rhode Island. Across New 
England, Sandy destroyed thousands of homes, left millions without 
electric service, and caused more than 100 deaths across nine States. 
Of course, we cannot say this one devastating storm was specifically 
caused by climate change, but we do know that carbon pollution loads 
the dice for more and more severe extreme weather such as Sandy.
  Sandy sure showed how vulnerable we are to this kind of catastrophic 
change. Climate change presents security challenges in every corner of 
the homeland. To the south, DHS predicts that more severe droughts and 
storms could increase both legal and illegal movements across the U.S. 
border--from Mexico, from Central America, and from the Caribbean.
  My Republican colleagues insist that protecting our border is a top 
priority--fine. I hope that means they will take seriously the warnings 
from our national security professionals about the destabilizing 
effects of climate change and its effects, in turn, on our border.
  If you move up north to the State of Maine, our former colleague, 
Olympia Snowe, has just written an article in Newsweek magazine. I will 
read the opening:

       In late 2014, fishery regulators announced that for the 
     second consecutive year, there would be no shrimp fishery in 
     the Gulf of Maine this winter. The culprit: principally 
     warming ocean waters caused by climate change.

  She goes on to describe another phenomenon that scientists dubbed an 
ocean heat wave in the spring of 2012 that led to an early molt and 
migration of lobsters that caused a supply glut and subsequent price 
collapse. Now if you know anything about Maine, you know lobsters are 
pretty important to Maine. Senator Snowe's conclusion: ``The message 
here is clear: climate change is taking dollars and jobs away from 
fishing communities.''
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that her article be printed at 
the conclusion of my remarks.
  To the far north, melting sea ice opens the Arctic for shipping, 
tourism, and resource extraction, but also for smuggling and illicit 
resource extraction and environmental disasters. It is a whole new 
frontier to be patrolled and protected by our Coast Guard, part of the 
Department of Homeland Security, at taxpayer expense.
  Former Coast Guard Commandant ADM Robert Papp, Jr., is now the U.S. 
Special Representative to the Arctic Region. He has got the job to help 
manage risk in this remote but increasingly accessible region in the 
world, and he had this to say about managing the consequences of 
climate change. Admiral Papp said:

       I am not a scientist. I can read what scientists say, but I 
     am in the world of consequence management. My first turn in 
     Alaska was 39 years ago, and during the summertime we had to 
     break ice to get up to the Bering Strait and to get to 
     Kotzebue. Thirty-five years later, going up there as 
     commandant, we flew into Kotzebue at the same time of year. I 
     could not see ice anywhere. So it is clear to me that there 
     are changes happening, but I have to deal with the 
     consequences of that.

  The men and women of our homeland and national security forces deal 
in real-world consequences. They don't have the luxury of skirting the 
evidence or shrugging off serious adult risk analysis.
  It is just as true at the Department of Defense as it is at the 
Department of Homeland Security. As ADM Samuel J. Locklear, III, the 
Navy Commander of the U.S. Pacific Command, puts it, it is ``. . . not 
my venue to debate the politics of any issue. All I do is report what I 
see and what I think I see, and the implications.''
  Admiral Locklear, our chief naval officer in the Pacific Command, has 
called climate change the biggest long-term security threat in the 
Pacific, because as he sees it, ``it is probably the most likely thing 
that is going to happen that will cripple the security environment.''
  Our colleagues may think it is funny to ignore climate change in this 
body while they depend so heavily on funding from the fossil fuel that 
is behind the pollution. They should listen to admirals who are 
responsible for our security when they tell us it is probably the most 
likely thing that is going to happen to cripple the security 
environment.
  Last May, the CNA Corporation released a report on the risks climate 
change poses to our national security. This report was led by 15 
generals and admirals from all 4 branches of the United States 
military. Here is what they said:

       The national security risks of projected climate change are 
     as serious as any challenges we have faced.

  That is what they wrote. They continued:

       We are dismayed that discussions of climate change have 
     become so polarizing and have receded from the arena of 
     informed public disclosure and debate. . . . Time and tide 
     wait for no man.

  Our military intelligence and homeland security services have been 
warning Congress for far too long about the risks of climate change. It 
is a dereliction of duty for this body to continue to ignore this 
problem. It is time to heed the warning. It is time to responsibly 
prepare for the clear risk before us, and it is time to wake up.
  I yield the floor. I see the majority leader is present on the floor.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


[[Page 1978]]

                     [From Newsweek, Feb. 9, 2015]

        Lack of Action on Climate Change Is Costing Fishing Jobs

                       (By Senator Olympia Snowe)

       In late 2014, fishery regulators announced that for the 
     second consecutive year, there would be no shrimp fishery in 
     the Gulf of Maine this winter. The culprit? Principally, 
     warming ocean waters caused by global climate change.
       Maine in particular is feeling this climate pinch: The 
     water temperature in the Gulf of Maine increased eight times 
     faster than the rest of the world's oceans in recent years, 
     according to a 2014 study by Andrew Pershing, chief 
     scientific officer at the Gulf of Maine Research Institute.
       As a result, while the shrimp fishery is the first to close 
     in New England primarily as a result of our changing climate, 
     it is unlikely to be the last. Some of the Gulf of Maine's 
     depleted stocks of groundfish, particularly Gulf of Maine 
     cod, have been slow to rebuild from overfishing in the 1980s 
     and 1990s in part as a result of warming water. Lobster has 
     been disappearing from its traditional habitat in southern 
     New England.
       Meanwhile, the iconic lobster industry in Maine has 
     experienced record landings in recent years, but more and 
     more of the catch is coming from areas further down the coast 
     toward Canada. And a phenomenon that scientists dubbed an 
     ``ocean heat wave'' in the spring of 2012 led to an early 
     molt and migration of lobsters that caused a supply glut and 
     subsequent price collapse.
       The message here is clear: climate change is taking dollars 
     and jobs away from New England's fishing communities.
       Scientists, fishery managers and industry members recognize 
     the necessity of better understanding this phenomenon, and 
     numerous research projects are already underway. For example, 
     the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and 
     Rutgers University have partnered to analyze data from 
     oceanographic and fisheries-dependent studies. Their project, 
     OceanAdapt, has confirmed that fish species off the northeast 
     United States are collectively moving to higher latitudes and 
     deeper water in search of the cooler temperatures they 
     require to survive.
       Of course, fishermen are the ones who know their ocean the 
     best. So in order to get their perspective on what they are 
     experiencing on the water, the Center for American Progress 
     (CAP) commissioned a poll of participants in the 
     groundfishery as well as the lobster fisheries in Maine and 
     Massachusetts.
       The CAP poll shows that majorities of all these fishermen 
     and women believe climate change poses a significant risk to 
     their industry, as warming waters lead to lower profits and 
     lower catch limits. Respondents are deeply concerned these 
     impacts could force them from the fishery or result in the 
     disappearance of traditional markets for their product.
       This perspective is consistent with the findings of the 
     ``Risky Business'' report released last June by a bipartisan 
     committee co-chaired by Michael Bloomberg, Hank Paulson and 
     Tom Steyer. I was involved as a member of this project's 
     ``Risk Committee,'' which found that the American economy 
     faces significant and diverse economic threats from the 
     effects of climate change--rising seas, increased damage from 
     storm surge, and more frequent bouts of extreme heat--all of 
     which will have measurable impacts on our nation.
       Each geographic region analyzed by the project faces 
     distinct and significant economic risks. Here in the 
     northeast, projections are already showing that temperature 
     increases in Gulf of Maine waters will restrict habitat for 
     commercially vital species such as cod and lobster. In 
     addition, sea levels are likely to rise by two to four feet 
     in Boston by the end of the century threatening to swamp 
     coastal infrastructure, including the wharves and fish houses 
     critical to sustaining our fishing industry.
       These numbers fail to reflect the potential for dramatic 
     ``storm surge'' events, in which higher sea levels combine 
     with more intense weather activity to increase flooding and 
     storm damage. The Risky Business research finds that these 
     kinds of impacts, combined, could increase annual property 
     losses along the northeast coast from $11 billion to $22 
     billion--a two- to four-fold increase from current levels.
       As vigorous policy debates continue in Washington, the 
     economic impact of addressing climate change and 
     transitioning to a lower carbon economy is understandably a 
     key issue--and one that is not the domain of one side versus 
     the other. Here in New England's fishing communities, there 
     is serious and legitimate concern for the fishing jobs that 
     will be lost if we don't act to rein in the emissions warming 
     and acidifying our waters and causing sea levels to rise.
       The loss of Maine's $5 million shrimp fishery should serve 
     as a warning. A similar blow to our $300 million lobster 
     fishery must be avoided at all costs. That will require 
     honest, fact-based discussion and a genuine bipartisan 
     commitment to solutions.

                          ____________________