[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 2603-2616]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2015--MOTION TO 
                           PROCEED--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
recognized to speak as in morning business for such time as I shall 
consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
permitted to use a visible example of the cold weather during my 
remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Climate Change

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I am reminiscent, with the snow on the 
ground, of 5 years ago. The Presiding Officer was not here at that 
time. He does not have the advantage of knowing the story of what is 
behind this. The story that is behind this is that back when they 
started all the hysteria on global warming, there happened to be 
another snowstorm that was unprecedented. It set a record that year.
  There is a charming family of six, I say to my friend in the chair, 
who built this. Their picture is here. That happens to be my daughter 
and her family of six. At that time it got a lot of attention. It 
actually got a lot of national attention.
  In case we have forgotten, because we keep hearing that 2014 has been 
the warmest year on record, I ask the Chair: Do you know what this is? 
It is a snowball. That is just from outside here. So it is very cold 
out, very unseasonable. So, Mr. President, catch this.
  We hear the perpetual headline that 2014 has been the warmest year on 
record. Now the script has flipped. I think it is important, since we 
hear it over and over and over again on the floor of this Senate. Some 
outlets are referring to the recent cold temperatures as the ``Siberian 
Express,'' as we can see with the snowball out there. This is today. 
This is reality.
  Others are printing pictures of a frozen Niagara Falls. And 4,700 
square miles of ice have formed on the Great Lakes in 1 night. That has 
never happened before.
  Let's talk more about the warmest year claim. On January 16, NASA's 
Goddard Institute for Space Studies and the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, concluded that 2014 was the warmest 
year in modern record, which starts in 1880.
  NASA relied on readings from over 3,000 measuring stations worldwide, 
and only found an increase of just two one-hundredths of a degree over 
the previous record. Now an important point that was left out of the 
NASA press release was that the margin of error, which on average is 
0.1 degree Celsius, was several times greater than the amount of 
warming. So, in reality, it is so far within the margin of error that 
it is not really recordable. This discrepancy was questioned at a press 
conference, and NASA's GISS Director backtracked.
  This is the Goddard Institute for Space Studies. He backtracked on 
the warmest year headline saying there was only a 38-percent chance 
that 2014 was the warmest year on the record. Another recent report 
issued by the

[[Page 2604]]

Berkeley Earth surface temperature project, using data from more than 
30,000 temperature stations, concluded that if 2014 was the warmest 
year on record, it was by less than 0.01 degrees Celsius--again, below 
the margin of error ultimately making it possible to conclude that 2014 
was the warmest record on year.
  Additional climate experts, including University of Oklahoma 
geophysicist David Deming, have stated that the warmest year on record 
statement is only as relevant as when the record actually began. Others 
state that record-setting conclusions issued in January require the use 
of incomplete data because the preponderance of the data arrives much 
later from underdeveloped and developing nations.
  The media was quick to ditch the warmest year on record claim as cold 
weather has left most of the country experiencing record low 
temperatures.
  Tuesday's Washington Post highlighted all of the longstanding records 
that were broken in the Northeast and Midwest.
  My State is Oklahoma and that is not even included in this article. 
But we set 146 records--alltime records--in my State of Oklahoma just 
during that time.
  According to the National Weather Service, 67 record lows were broken 
on Monday and Tuesday of this week.
  Whether news cycles or climate cycles, variations in hot and cold are 
really nothing new. Recent climate change discussions like to focus on 
climate trends post-1880, but the reality is that climate change has 
been occurring since the beginning of time.
  The chart behind me is very interesting because it shows two things 
that everyone agrees with. The first is that we had the medieval warm 
period. This is a period of time starting about 1000 A.D. and going to 
about 1400 A.D. This is a major warming period that led into what they 
call the little ice age, which was about 1500 A.D. to about 1900 A.D.
  The interesting thing is that many of us in this room remember that 
when they first started talking about global warming, a scientist named 
Michael Mann developed what they call the hockey stick theory, and that 
had a hockey stick showing that for a long period of time we had 
temperatures that were level, and then all of a sudden they started 
going up like the blade of a hockey stick.
  The problem was they neglected to note that the two periods were, in 
reality, in his sketch of a hockey stick. So in his opinion then, as 
portrayed by the hockey stick, there was no medieval warm period or 
little ice age.
  By the way, this Michael Mann is the same one who was featured as the 
main person who was guilty of violations that created this term called 
the climate change, which was characterized as the most outrageous. I 
don't have it in my notes, but one of the publications in England 
talked about the worst scientific disgrace in national history.
  Time magazine had a chart, and this is interesting because people who 
look at the weather and get concerned about all the warming periods and 
the cold, to them the world is coming to an end. This one shows that in 
1974 another ice age was coming. That is the actual cover of the 
magazine. So everyone is concerned that the world is coming to an end, 
and at the same time they were talking about the fact that there is 
going to be another ice age.
  In the past 2000 years there was the medieval warm period followed 
immediately by the little ice age. These two climate events are widely 
recognized in scientific literature. No one has refuted these. These 
are incontrovertible.
  In 2006 the National Academy of Sciences released its study ``Surface 
Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2000 Years,'' and that 
acknowledged that there were relatively warm conditions during that 
period of time.
  So that is history, and that is behind us.
  While that is still up, I will go on and fast forward. That same 
magazine, Time magazine, had as its cover a short time after that this 
poor, typical, polar bear that is standing on the last piece of ice--
and we are all going to die because global warming is coming.
  This is something that has been happening over long periods of time. 
Every time it does, everyone tries to say that the world is coming to 
an end and that somehow man is so important and so powerful that he can 
change that.
  In 1975 Newsweek published an article titled ``The Cooling World,'' 
which argued that global temperatures were falling and terrible 
consequences for food production were on the horizon--and all of that. 
Well, we know about that.
  This highlights that the climate is changing, and it always has been 
changing.
  In fact, our recent vote during the Keystone XL Pipeline debate 
showed that 97 of us in this Chamber--Democrats and Republicans--agreed 
that climate has always been changing. I made a little talk on the 
floor at that time and I said: You know, I think this is something on 
which we can all agree. If we look at archaeological diggings, history, 
the Scriptures, climate has always been in changing.
  Despite a long list of unsubstantiated global warming claims, climate 
activists and environmental groups will cling to any extreme weather-
related headline to their case for global warming and to instill the 
fear of global warming in the American people. People sometimes ask me 
why. Why do you suppose they are doing this, spending all this time?
  They tried it through legislation. We defeated it. Now it is through 
regulations that would cost between $300 billion and $400 billion a 
year. Yet it wouldn't have any effect on what they perceive to be 
global warming. So that is the question. Why is it?
  There is a scientist by the name of Richard Lindzen. Richard Lindzen 
is with MIT. Some of us have argued he is the most knowledgeable of all 
the climate scientists. He answered that question. He said: You know, 
regulating carbon is like regulating life. If you regulate carbon, it 
is a bureaucrat's dream, because regulating carbon regulates life. So 
it is a power struggle.
  I think that is probably the best answer. I am not a scientist. I 
don't claim to be. But I quote scientists, and they have the answers to 
these questions.


                               Terrorism

  Now, President Obama is using a similar tactic in order to scare 
Americans into supporting his extreme climate change agenda. In a 
recent interview, President Obama agreed that the media overstates the 
dangers of terrorism while downplaying the risks of climate change. His 
Press Secretary, Josh Earnest, later reiterated that President Obama 
believes climate change affects far more Americans than terrorists.
  Now, that is the first time we heard that. But wait until we hear 
later what the President himself and his Secretary of State said. 
According to the President, the biggest challenge we face is not the 
spread of Islamic extremist terrorism in Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Algeria, 
Libya, Tunisia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen or Nigeria. The 
greatest threat that we face is not Russian aggression in NATO and the 
United States, as well as its invasion of Georgia and Ukraine. It is 
not the expansion of Iranian influence and sponsorship of terrorism 
throughout the Middle East or its pursuit of a nuclear weapons system 
to deliver it and to be able to hit the United States of America. The 
greatest threat is not North Korea's continued development of its 
nuclear weapons stockpile and the improving of their delivery systems 
to include the January 23 launch of a sea-launched ballistic missile 
that was called the KN-11. I think we are all aware of that. And the 
greatest threat is not the continued capture and killing of reporters, 
missionaries, businessmen, Christians, and other non-Muslims in what 
has clearly been a religious confrontation being pursued. The 
President's position is that global warming is our greatest threat--
greater than all the things I just mentioned. It is underscored by the 
fact that he won't even publicly state that the 21 Egyptians executed 
by ISIL in Libya were Christians. He won't recognize that, and he won't 
recognize that it has anything to do with radical Islam.
  He goes out of his way to downplay the actions and dangers of ISIS 
even

[[Page 2605]]

though the group continues to terrorize the world. Just this past 
weekend, ISIS abducted over 70 Syrian Christians, including women and 
children from villages in eastern Syria. To my knowledge, we don't know 
what they have done with them yet. But there are 70 of them, and the 
previous 21 were killed because of their Christianity.
  According to the President, our biggest threat is not the continued 
threats made by extremists against the United States and its citizens. 
It is not the successful attacks carried out in the United States and 
other places such as New York, Boston, Fort Hood or potential attacks 
of lone wolves or sleeper cells against soft targets such as the Mall 
of America, which is the most recent subject of an ISIL threat. Even as 
these atrocities are taking place, President Obama is telling the world 
that climate change is a greater threat to our Nation than terrorists. 
This is just another illustration that this President and his 
administration are detached from the realities that we are facing today 
and into the future.
  His repeated failure to understand the real threat to our national 
security and his inability to develop a coherent national security 
strategy has put this Nation at a level of risk that has been unknown 
for decades.
  His failure of leadership and his gutting of our military have 
weakened our ability to influence and respond to crises. This all comes 
at a tremendous cost to our national security.
  The President has accused the media of overstating the problem, 
heightening the fears of the population. As he downplays the threats, 
we see photos of young children standing in military-like formation, 
being brainwashed into ISIS or ISIL extremism. We shouldn't be 
surprised. It is a natural outgrowth of the President's failed 
leadership.
  In 2012 and 2013 President Obama spoke of helping Libya and Yemen 
fight terrorism. Yet as he addressed this Nation, both countries 
spiraled toward chaos, creating terrorist safe havens. Just days after 
his speech, Yemen's Prime Minister and his Cabinet resigned amidst a 
coup by the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels.
  The administration aided instability in Afghanistan by releasing the 
most senior leaders of the Taliban, the Taliban dream team. We all 
remember that.
  We had just passed a law saying that the President cannot release 
anyone from Gitmo--from Guantanamo Bay--without giving 30 days' notice 
to Congress. Yet he totally ignored that and let these people go. Some 
of the terrorists out of Gitmo--I carry this card with me because it is 
really not believable. Of the five that he turned loose, one was named 
Mohammed Fazil, and the Taliban commander said that Mohammed Fazil's 
release ``is like pouring 10,000 Taliban fighters into the battle on 
the side of jihad. Now the Taliban have the right lion to lead them in 
the final moment before victory against Afghanistan.''
  Now, I don't know where these are. I suggest that all five have 
returned to the battle. The record is that of those who have been 
released, some 29 percent have gone back to the battle.
  So that is taking place. Mullah Omar, the Taliban's leader, called 
the release a great victory.
  This action allowed these men to rejoin the fight against our service 
men and women. This is a big deal.
  The President quickly withdrew from Iraq, leaving a vacuum for ISIS 
to fill, which is now requiring our military to return. The President 
wants to repeat our errors with a speedy withdrawal from Afghanistan, 
and that is despite the advice of his commanders on the ground and the 
request by Afghanistan's newest President, Ashraf Ghani, to reexamine 
our withdrawal plan.
  He has de-Reaganized Europe by drastically cutting our forces, 
acquiescing to Russian influences by cutting our ballistic missile 
defense site in Poland and our radar in the Czech Republic. I remember 
when that happened. I was so concerned about that because we put the 
radar site and the ballistic missile defense site in Poland and the 
Czech Republic because--that was for the protection of Western Europe 
and Eastern United States because we don't have the capacity to offer 
protection the American people should expect. But the President did 
that anyway. He failed to provide assistance--apart from the MREs and 
blankets. Instead of sending weapons to the Ukrainians, he sends 
blankets.
  We had Poroshenko, the President of Ukraine, come in and give a 
speech to a joint session of Congress. In that speech he said we need 
to have some defense against what Putin and the Russians are doing with 
the separatists in his country of Ukraine.
  I happened to be over there. I was over there during the 
parliamentary elections. Not many people in America realize that in the 
Ukraine--our very good friends in Ukraine had their parliamentary 
elections in October, and President Poroshenko looked me in the eyes 
and said very proudly how good the outcome was. This was the first time 
in 96 years that the Ukraine had parliamentary elections and didn't 
elect one Communist to a seat in the Parliament. That was the first 
time that had ever happened. Yet the President said in his State of the 
Union message:

       We're upholding the principle that bigger nations can't 
     bully the small--by opposing Russian aggression, supporting 
     Ukraine's democracy, and reassuring our NATO allies.

  That is what he said, standing in the House Chamber, in his State of 
the Union speech. Yet, under the President's failed leadership, we have 
seen two ceasefire failures in the Ukraine, thousands of civilians 
displaced, and approximately 5,000 people killed.
  America's assistance is vital to denying Putin's attempts to 
destabilize the region. Yet it is not happening. It is not happening 
under the Obama administration. This administration is overwhelmed by 
world events and blind to the fact that terrorists are at war with 
America and our way of life. We now live in a world where our allies 
don't trust us and our enemies don't fear us. When will the President 
and his administration take the steps required to minimize the risk to 
Americans and our allies by providing this country with a national 
security strategy--one that addresses today's global security 
environment, grows back our military and its readiness, and deals with 
our enemies from a position of strength, not weakness and not 
appeasement?
  These are the biggest threats facing our Nation today. It is 
decidedly not global warming. The threat of war, terrorism, and 
extremism has plagued the Earth for centuries. The United States is not 
immune. We must take all threats seriously and take every responsible 
action to secure our freedom. Threats to our national security are 
always the most serious threats we face. Issues such as global warming 
or global cooling 40 years ago are simply not what we need to be 
worrying about in the same breath when we are talking about national 
defense.
  I say this because I have a deep concern. I was the ranking member on 
the Senate Armed Services Committee, and I am in a position to see what 
is happening around the world. The threats we are facing are 
unprecedented.
  Just yesterday we had a hearing, and we had James Clapper, the 
Director of National Intelligence. This is one of the things he has 
been quoted as saying:

       Looking back over my now more than half a century in 
     intelligence, I've not experienced a time when we've been 
     beset by more crises and threats around the globe.

  In the hearing we held yesterday, the Director said:

       When the final accounting is done, 2014 will have been the 
     most lethal year for global terrorism in the 45 years such 
     data has been compiled.

  So this goes on and on. This is what the military says. This is the 
threat we face. Everyone understands it except the White House.
  On February 25, just yesterday, Secretary of State Kerry said--and 
keep in mind he said this with all these threats we are facing:

       Today is actually, despite ISIL, despite the visible 
     killings that you see and how horrific they are, we are 
     actually living in a period of less daily threat to Americans 
     and to people in the world than normally--less deaths, less 
     violent deaths today than through the last century.


[[Page 2606]]


  We all know better than that. We know how threatened we are. Everyone 
knows it except the White House, and they are going to have to wake up 
to save our Nation.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Inhofe). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 
to speak for 3 minutes notwithstanding the previous order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                        Tribute To Louis Stokes

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, at a quarter after, I am leading a group of 
seven or eight Senators to talk about the trade promotion authority and 
the transpacific partnership, but I would like to take this opportunity 
while the floor is empty--and I thank my Republican colleagues--to talk 
about Ohio civil rights pioneer Congressman Louis Stokes. I have known 
him for 35 years. We celebrated his 90th birthday on Monday, and I had 
the opportunity to speak to him.
  Lou Stokes is a proud son of Cleveland, the city in which I live. He 
was born in that city nine decades ago and grew up in one of the first 
Federal housing projects in the country.
  Lou rose to prominence as a lawyer and a legislator. His father 
worked in a laundromat and his mother cleaned houses. Lou himself 
shined shoes to earn extra money. He served in the Army during World 
War II and went to college at night on the GI bill. He is the American 
success story.
  Lou was stationed in the Deep South during segregation. He was 
appalled by the discrimination he witnessed, even for those wearing the 
uniform and serving our country. That experience compelled him to 
dedicate his life to fighting injustice.
  He handled matters big and small in his legal practice. He argued the 
landmark case of Terry v. Ohio before the U.S. Supreme Court. The 
Court's ruling in Terry addressed the police stop-and-frisk policy and 
defined what constitutes a reasonable search and seizure.
  As the first African American to represent Ohio in the U.S. Congress 
and the first African American to serve on the Committee on 
Appropriations, his mere presence was groundbreaking. But Lou never 
rested on his laurels. While serving as a Congressman for 15 terms, he 
was a fierce advocate for the city he loves and for civil rights. Lou 
didn't use his success to seek glory for himself; he used his powerful 
position to expand opportunities for men and women, for people of all 
colors, and young people and old people.
  After retiring from Congress, he didn't retire; he returned home to 
Cleveland and played a key role in Cleveland's civic life. His role at 
Squire Sanders was instrumental in the firm's growth. Working alongside 
his longtime friend and my friend John Lewis--the lawyer John Lewis in 
Cleveland, not Congressman John Lewis in Washington--he made a 
difference in so many ways.
  Lou served on the Ohio Task Force on Community-Police Relations. He 
is known always to fight for his neighborhood, the projects where he 
and his brother Carl, who was the first Black mayor of a major American 
city, grew up. Carl was elected as mayor right before Lou was elected 
to Congress. It has been their labor of love to work to improve schools 
and opportunities in Cleveland.
  The Cleveland VA center is named after Lou Stokes, as are buildings 
throughout the Nation. They illustrate his hard work and his 
dedication. It is fitting that as we celebrate his milestone birthday 
this week, the final week of Black History Month, we renew our 
commitment to the cause of Lou Stokes's 90 years.
  Lou means so much to me personally, he means so much to Cleveland, 
and he means so much to our country. I know the Presiding Officer, 
Senator Inhofe, got to serve with him in the House, as I did, and it 
was an honor to do that and a privilege to call Lou Stokes my friend.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cassidy). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                             Climate Change

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, before we get underway with this 
colloquy on trade, I wish to respond briefly to what I understand was a 
presentation made by one of the Republican Senators suggesting that the 
continued existence of snow disproves climate change.
  First, that is not the only measure. We can take a look at sea-level 
rise, which we can measure from Fort Pulaski in Georgia up to Alaska 
where Lisa Murkowski has acknowledged that climate change is causing 
sea-level rise, eroding her native villages, to the sea-level rise in 
my hometown State at the naval station. We can look at the pH changes 
in the ocean which we actually measure. It is not complicated. Kids 
measure the pH in their aquarium all the time. We can measure ocean 
temperature, which is absolutely clear. It involves something called a 
thermometer. It really isn't all that complicated.
  And if we want to understand why the existence of snow might actually 
be consistent with climate change, I urge people to get their personal 
device here--their iPad, whatever it is they have--and load up the 
EarthNow! app. The EarthNow! app is run by a group called NASA. NASA is 
pretty capable. They are driving a rover around on Mars right now. 
These are folks who know a little bit about what they are talking 
about. They map the temperature of the planet, and we can see the cold 
arctic air drawn down to New England, drawn down to our area, and it is 
in large part because the ocean is warming offshore that we have this 
snow.
  So not only does the continued existence of snow not disprove global 
warming--if you actually know what is going on and take the least bit 
of effort to understand it--you would see it is completely consistent 
with global warming as it is understood by scientists such as those 
from NASA.
  I will have more later, but let's get on with this other business.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.


      Trade Promotion Authority and the Trans-Pacific Partnership

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I know there is a UC order for seven or 
eight Senators. Senators Casey, Merkley, Whitehouse, Markey, Warren, 
Baldwin, and Sanders we believe will be here for the next 45 minutes 
under an agreed-to order to talk about our concerns with trade 
promotion authority and the Trans-Pacific Partnership. I will lead off, 
then Senator Casey will speak, and then Senators Merkley and 
Whitehouse. 
  We know a number of things. We know that American workers are the 
most competitive and productive in the world. We also know that far too 
many have been left behind because of wrongheaded trade deals.
  In the 20th century, we built the strongest economy in the history of 
the world by building the strongest middle class in the history of the 
world. We invested in the health and safety of our workforce, 
guaranteed workers the right to bargain for fairer pay and reasonable 
hours. It was a fight to do so and more remains to be done. We expanded 
opportunity for women and people of color, which society had never 
done, to realize their full potential in the labor force.
  Americans up and down the income spectrum reaped the awards. Workers 
got more productive, wages went up, profits were good, communities were

[[Page 2607]]

strong. We led the world with a booming economy fueled by a skilled and 
powered workforce.
  The talent and tenacity of American workers has not changed, but our 
leaders'--including in this body--commitment to those workers, frankly, 
and, unfortunately, has.
  Nowhere has that abandonment been more clear than the free trade 
agreements we now approve with little oversight and minimal debate. 
These binding trade agreements affect all American workers. They cut 
into small business and industry, and they cut to the heart of the 
values we hold dear--or say we hold dear--as a sovereign democracy. Too 
often they are pushed through this body so quickly that the 
corporations pushing them hope we won't notice these agreements are 
loaded with corporate handouts that weaken our Nation's ability to 
chart its own course.
  The last thing we need is another NAFTA. We know what the North 
American Free Trade Agreement did to us 20 years ago when it passed. We 
know the damage it did to workers in Philadelphia. We know the damage 
it did to small companies in Oregon. We know what it did to communities 
in Rhode Island. And I know up close what it has done to far too many 
communities--from Troy to Piqua to Toledo to Dayton--in my State.
  We always talk about American exceptionalism. We give lip service to 
American exceptionalism. Our Nation is exceptional. We see these same 
people who always talk about American exceptionalism--and criticize 
anyone who doesn't talk about it--pushing trade agreements that 
undermine American laws and bypass our legal system. For what end? To 
benefit big companies that can't get what they want through our 
democratic system.
  I urge my colleagues and anyone else to read the article today 
written by Senator Warren of Massachusetts about something called 
``investor-state dispute settlement.'' This is what I want to talk 
about for a moment.
  Take the issue of tobacco. Tobacco use is the world's leading cause 
of preventable death. Tobacco companies have been one of the most 
successful group of companies of any in American history. More trade 
deals give Big Tobacco a new tool to peddle its poison.
  How does that work? Big Tobacco turns to trade deals as the most 
fertile avenue for defeating international public health efforts. Big 
Tobacco knows it can't win in this body, even with a conservative 
majority that too often does the bidding of Wall Street and large 
companies. Senator Merkley and Senator Blumenthal have helped to lead 
this charge to make our tobacco law strong.
  So what do tobacco companies do if they can't win in a democratic 
body here? They use a trade provision called investor-state dispute 
settlement. In the case of Big Tobacco, it uses ISDS to challenge 
public health measures around the globe. Let me give an example.
  Big Tobacco and its supporters are suing Australia for its Tobacco 
Plain Packaging Act 2011. They are challenging under Australian-Hong 
Kong bilateral investment. They have good lawyers. They know how to do 
darned near anything to use these laws--that they helped write under 
trade policy--to benefit them and sell more cigarettes and poison our 
young people in far too many cases.
  The Tobacco Plain Packaging Act in Australia--passed by a 
democratically elected legislative body, signed onto by the executive 
branch in Australia--simply says that tobacco companies can't use their 
market-tested logos; they have to use plain black-and-white packaging. 
Also on the tobacco packet they put pictures of diseased lungs or 
pictures of people who have been sick from tobacco, so when people pick 
that packet up, they get the message.
  Big Tobacco sued Australia under the World Trade Organization despite 
the fact that the Australian courts had already ruled in favor of the 
country of the public health law.
  Tobacco companies have launched similar cases against Uruguay over 
its proposed graphic warnings on cigarette packages. Think about this: 
A big tobacco company is threatening to sue a small, relatively poor 
country such as Uruguay, saying: If you pass a public health law, we 
are going to sue you in court--not in one of your courts, but in some 
international court made up of mostly trade lawyers.
  So what does a country the size of Uruguay often do? They give up. 
They say: We can't afford to defend ourselves in an expensive court 
proceeding. Fortunately for Uruguay, Michael Bloomberg--one of the 
richest men in the world--stepped in and helped them fight back.
  Togo--one of the ten poorest countries in the world, West Africa--
simply gave up when Philip Morris sued them. The people of Togo wanted 
a law to protect their children from the big marketing of tobacco 
companies. Philip Morris came in, threatened to sue them, and the 
Government of Togo backed off. What is good about that? It is 
appalling. It is antidemocratic. It has been left to a comedy show to 
expose the practice of Big Tobacco. Watch John Oliver talk about this 
on HBO.
  Trade policy should ensure a level playing field for all companies 
competing in a global economy, not serve as a tool for the richest 
corporation to overturn laws enacted by sovereign governments--
particularly not when, in this country, we are facing stagnating wages, 
increased middle-class anxiety and insecurity, and rising inequality at 
home.
  So we are going to pass a trade agreement as CEOs' pay reaches record 
highs, as average wages stagnate, as profits go up, as unionization 
goes down, as wages fall as a share of GDP.
  Think about this. Productivity has increased in our country 85 
percent in the past 30 years. It used to be, as productivity went like 
that, wages went like that. But now, productivity goes up 85 percent, 
wages went up 6 percent. The minimum wage in the United States today 
has 30-percent less buying power than it had 35 years ago. That is why 
this trade agreement is a bad idea. We know what has happened to 
manufacturing. We lost 5 million manufacturing jobs between 2000 and 
2010.
  Just look at the impact of trade on U.S. manufacturing for more than 
16 million jobs. It dropped here. We had the auto rescue here, which 
meant a little bit of an increase, but it increases only back to 12 
million manufacturing jobs.
  We know bad trade agreements, bad policies on globalization, bad 
policies on taxes, mean lost jobs--lost manufacturing jobs. That is the 
ticket to the middle class.
  Ever since NAFTA in 1993, taking effect in 1994, we have seen the 
acceleration of that decline in manufacturing jobs. It is bad for our 
communities, it is bad for our families, it is bad for our workers, it 
is bad for the States of Pennsylvania and Oregon and Ohio and Rhode 
Island, and it is bad for our country.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the same topic 
Senator Brown just spoke to. I appreciate what my colleague from Ohio 
brought to this Senate floor today when talking about trade. I 
especially commend him for not just his advocacy and his passion for 
standing up for workers, but for the persuasive case he makes against 
some of our trade policies--not just now but over time.
  We stand now poised to debate a set of issues which we haven't 
debated all that much in the 8 years I have been in the Senate--in this 
case first trade promotion authority, and then of course the Trans-
Pacific Partnership.
  The people I represent in Pennsylvania know what is at stake here. 
Each of us, as American people, will have the chance to review the 
details of these proposals. But based upon past experience with trade 
agreements in our lifetime, and especially in the last 25 years, that 
past experience causes me grave concerns about what is in store, first 
and foremost for our workers, which of course means our economy. Time 
and again Pennsylvania workers and Pennsylvania businesses of all sizes 
have ended up with the short end of the stick on trade deals. The 
question they ask now is, what is in it for them? What is in it for 
workers? What

[[Page 2608]]

is in it for companies across Pennsylvania and across the country? And, 
therefore, what is in it for all of us when it comes to our economic 
bottom line?
  Take the free trade agreement with South Korea just as a recent 
example. That was passed in 2011. I didn't support it. But here is what 
we were told before that. In December of 2010, the administration said 
the agreement would support 70,000 additional American jobs, and it 
would increase American exports by $10 billion to $11 billion.
  During the first 2 years that the agreement took effect, exports 
actually fell by $3.1 billion and imports grew by $5.6 billion, 
contributing to the loss of thousands of jobs. So that is one 
agreement, one example.
  Let's take the impact on a particular industry, the steel industry. 
By any measure, any review of World War II would indicate very clearly 
that the American steel industry and steelworkers played a substantial 
role in our ability to win World War II, to prevail in the most 
difficult of conflicts. What has happened since then? Well, we know 
that, for example, import surges from South Korea caused real damage to 
the steel industry in recent years, which has led directly to job 
losses in places such as Pennsylvania, for example.
  So workers want to know where the benefit is that is promised to 
them. Over and over again we hear these assertions: ``If we pass this 
agreement, this will be the impact on exports and imports'' and ``If we 
pass this agreement, this will be the net benefit to job creation and 
therefore to workers.'' Too often the result is otherwise.
  If you look at the numbers--if you look at the agreement, the 
industry, and then look at the numbers, in the United States we had a 
$66.5 billion deficit with free trade agreement partners in 2013. Our 
trade balance with our largest free trade agreement partners--Canada, 
Mexico, and Korea--is decidedly negative, not positive. So how is this 
time going to be different?
  I am concerned and a lot of Americans are concerned that past 
experience suggests broadly negative impacts on jobs, especially--as 
Senator Brown made reference to by way of the chart and in other ways--
especially as it relates to manufacturing jobs, the ones on which you 
can support a family, the jobs that lead to the kind of innovation that 
allows us to be one step ahead of the world.
  The Economic Policy Institute, for example, estimates that 26,300 
jobs were lost due to the trade deficit with Mexico between 1994 and 
2011 in the aftermath of NAFTA, as Senator Brown referred to, and 
122,600 jobs were lost to China in the 12 years since China joined the 
World Trade Organization. Between these two countries alone, the 
average impact on Pennsylvania was some 148,900 jobs lost in 
Pennsylvania. So we have lost almost 150,000 jobs in Pennsylvania 
directly attributable to two factors: the impact of China joining the 
World Trade Organization and the impact of the trade deficit with 
Mexico.
  When we look at the big picture, we have two possible areas of 
concern with the so-called TPP--the Trans-Pacific Partnership--and by 
proxy the trade promotion authority as a part of that. There are labor 
and human rights concerns as well as currency manipulation.
  Members of Congress and labor groups across the country have 
expressed concerns about the so-called TPP and the countries we are 
negotiating with, in particular Malaysia, Vietnam, Brunei, and Mexico. 
Vietnam, as an example, does not offer the establishment of independent 
labor unions and has opposed the inclusion of any provision that would 
change this aspect of domestic law. The State Department has noted that 
basic labor freedoms are often restricted in both Mexico and Malaysia. 
Brunei has recently implemented a harsh form of sharia law that 
violates basic human rights standards.
  How about currency manipulation? American manufacturers feel the pain 
from undervalued foreign currencies all the time, and they time and 
again have demanded action from both parties and both Houses of 
Congress. Currency manipulation concerns are urgent not just because of 
Japan's policies and the potential future inclusion of China in TPP 
down the road but also because virtually every negotiating partner has 
a currency that is undervalued relative to the U.S. dollar--every 
partner in the proposed TPP.
  As of January of this year, according to the Economist, 10 of the 11 
negotiating partners of the United States had undervalued currency. 
Seven of those countries, including Japan, had currencies that were at 
least 25 percent undervalued relative to the U.S. dollar.
  For far too long this administration has allowed foreign countries to 
stack the deck against U.S. workers when it comes to currency policies 
by manipulating their currencies. We have a chance in the TPP 
negotiations to do something about this. All of us believe our workers 
could out-compete any workers in the world if they were given the 
chance, if they were given basic fairness and a level playing field.
  Pennsylvanians want Congress and the administration to focus on 
policies that lead to both good jobs and good wages. So let's give our 
workers the kind of support we gave past generations. Give our workers 
a level playing field so that they can out-compete and therefore out-
produce any workers in the world. I am afraid these agreements are not 
a step in that direction.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I appreciate the points that have been made by my colleagues from 
Ohio and Pennsylvania and the remarks yet to be made by my colleague 
from Rhode Island.
  We are here on the floor together to raise fundamental issues that 
should be part of the discussion about a proposed trade deal or a fast 
track to a trade deal.
  I love the concept of trade, the idea that our particular economy, 
based on our natural resources and based on our skills, can do certain 
things very well, and we would like to be able to sell those products 
to the world. Other nations do other things very well, and we can 
benefit from their expertise and their products. That is a win-win on a 
level playing field between nations that have roughly the same 
structure of environmental laws, roughly the same structure of labor 
laws, and roughly the same level of wages. That is a win-win for 
nations involved in agreements.
  Indeed, our trade agreements after World War II were very much along 
those lines as we expanded to the economies of Europe. We saw 
substantial prosperity that affected people throughout our economy.
  My parents couldn't believe the difference between their experience 
as children and their experience during the 1950s and 1960s as they 
started to raise children in terms of going from extraordinarily humble 
means--lack of electricity, running water, insulation, and all the 
things that became a part of the basic housing structure in post-World 
War II when they were raising their children. That prosperity came from 
a nation producing things and sharing the wealth throughout its 
economy. My father was a working man, a blue-collar mechanic. He 
brought those mechanical skills to the mill and became a millwright. He 
loved that job keeping the machinery in the mill running and loved 
other jobs. He was able to live the American dream.
  Our recent trade deals have created something quite different. They 
have been based on an unequal relationship. They have been based on a 
relationship between our Nation with strong environmental and labor 
laws and good wages and high enforcement and countries with the exact 
opposite--such as China, for example. Indeed, the result in the period 
since NAFTA--and my colleagues spoke to it, but let me reemphasize it--
there has been a loss of 50,000 factories, a loss of 5 million 
manufacturing jobs. That is logical. If you are a manufacturing company 
making products, you will move that manufacturing to the places where 
it is cheapest to make them.

[[Page 2609]]

  This is how the vision works out. There is a conversation about 
reducing barriers, and companies say: Look at all the additional 
products we can sell to that emerging economy in China. We can make a 
lot more in the United States and sell to China.
  That is stage one.
  Stage two: Hey, now we can move our manufacturing overseas and 
produce things at a much lower price and not only sell them to the 
foreign nation but also sell them back to the customers in the United 
States.
  That is exactly what we have seen, and that is why we have lost these 
5 million jobs.
  So the initial publicity campaign is all about creating jobs through 
increasing American manufacturing, but the reality in an unequal 
relationship is the opposite.
  Let's make sure we create a standard for the consideration of future 
trade deals, a standard that will evaluate whether this deal will 
create good-paying jobs here in America, will expand prosperity to the 
middle class in America or will do the opposite. This is the standard 
we should apply. I would like to evaluate the provisions of the 
proposed deal in that light, but I can't because the negotiations are 
secret. The draft text is secret. We need to demand that there not be 
secrecy about something as important as creating jobs or destroying 
jobs in America--my standard for evaluating what is to come.
  Let's talk for a minute about these eroding promises of enforcement. 
A couple of years ago a group of 10 U.S. Senators took a trip to China 
to meet with the Ambassador. We asked how the Ambassador felt about 
enforcement against China and their currency manipulation. He basically 
said: Here is the deal. We have broad strategic concerns that involve 
China, and we don't want to put ripples in the water.
  So can you really have a level playing field in a situation where you 
are not willing to enforce even the provisions that are on the books? 
Can you really have a fair deal for America?
  During the conversations a couple years ago, I proposed legislation 
that would require China to actually honor what it was responsible for 
doing under the WTO. Under the WTO, it was to notify Americans about 
all the subsidies it provided for items of export, deductions and 
credits. But China had not honored that responsibility. So I proposed 
that we exercise another part of WTO, which was counter-notifications 
by our Trade Representative. Within 2 weeks of putting this idea 
forward, guess what. Our Trade Representative put forward a list of 200 
subsidies through the counter-notification process.
  Looking at those notifications carefully revealed a vast strategy in 
renewable energy to subsidize exports--not allowed under the WTO; to 
subsidize paper--not allowed to subsidize exports of paper under the 
WTO. The result is that paper plants are going out of business in the 
United States of America. The Blue Heron plant most recently has gone 
out of business on the Willamette River at a place where paper has been 
made for a very long period of time. In fact, the energy from the water 
wheel that was first there provided some of the first electricity in 
America. Longtime industrial production, but those jobs are gone. So 
that is a real concern.
  My colleague mentioned the interstate dispute settlement and the fact 
that it gives a foreign investor rights that a domestic investor does 
not have. It puts constraints on consumer protections that can be 
overrun--consumer protections done by a State can be overrun by an 
investor from a foreign nation.
  For example, you have a bill in America to stop producing toxic flame 
retardants and putting them into our carpet. Well, the foreign investor 
says: We built a plant to produce that chemical. Sorry, you can't have 
that consumer protection even though the result would be a lot more 
cancer for American citizens. That is an example of the concerns about 
handing over the sovereignty of our Nation, of our consumer law, our 
environmental law, to an independent board that operates outside of our 
constitutional framework. That is a legitimate concern which needs to 
be addressed in this conversation.
  So on issues of enforcement and issues of secrecy, issues of whether 
we are creating jobs or destroying jobs, I encourage Americans to 
become as familiar as possible with the provisions that have been 
leaked about the Trans-Pacific Partnership and to think carefully and 
give concerns to us here in Congress that we will work to address. When 
we have the legitimate text before us, then we can engage in a more 
detailed debate. But right now we need to push to end this secrecy on 
an issue that is so important to the future prosperity of our Nation 
and of our families.
  Thank you, Mr. President. It is my pleasure to yield the floor in 
anticipation of remarks from my colleague.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I thank the distinguished Senator from Oregon.
  I wish to start by sharing the experience I had when I first started 
running for the Senate and asking people around Rhode Island to give me 
the chance to represent them here.
  One unforgettable day was when I was walking along a factory floor 
and, as I was walking along, I looked down and I noticed there were 
holes in the concrete pad of the factory floor, and I asked: Why are 
the holes there?
  They explained: Oh, well, we used to have manufacturing machinery 
here. Those are the bolt holes, and we unbolted the machinery and 
shipped it overseas to a Central American country where the same 
product is made for the same buyers on the same machine, but it is made 
by foreign workers.
  That is the memory I have when I think about these trade agreements, 
and it is not just that one machine that went overseas. Rhode Island, 
not a big State, has lost more than 50,000 good-paying manufacturing 
jobs since 1990. Our State has been on the losing end of these trade 
deals.
  People say they are going to enforce the environmental and human 
rights and labor and safety requirements of these agreements. I have 
not seen it. I am at the stage where I don't believe it. You will have 
to prove it to me. You will have to establish a record of enforcing 
these things before I will believe it. I have been told that for too 
long. I don't believe the enforcement any longer.
  I have to say I don't like the process very much either. It is 
secret. We are kept out of it. Who is in it are a lot of big 
corporations, and they are up to, I think, no good in a lot of these 
deals. Look at these private deals in private forums where they can 
litigate against a government. They secure that right through these 
treaty agreements. It is outrageous.
  First of all, a lot of it is done for the sake of pollution. It is 
the big folks, such as Chevron, ExxonMobil, Dow Chemical, and Cargill, 
that brought nearly 600 disputes, pursuing billions of dollars in 
damages against governments.
  A former member of the WTO's appellate body said in 2005 the WTO 
agreements ``allow Member Nations to challenge almost any measure to 
reduce greenhouse gas emissions enacted by any other Member.'' So the 
war on the environment continues through this mechanism.
  In March 2013, more than one-third of the disputes pending before the 
World Bank's investment dispute settlement tribunal were related to 
oil, mining, or gas. Guess what they want. The public health around the 
world is suffering because of this.
  In Africa, the tobacco industry has brought these types of claims 
against the Governments of Gabon, Namibia, Togo, and Uganda. They 
probably add up to about $100 billion in total GDP--all 4 countries--
which is probably about a quarter of the revenues of Big Tobacco 
worldwide. So this is a question of pure, raw economic power by massive 
corporate interests being used to make governments knuckle under on 
public health issues such as tobacco. That is just wrong. And it can 
displace the regular governing systems of courts.
  Chevron was asked to clean up contamination it left behind. It lost 
in the courts in Ecuador, it lost in the courts

[[Page 2610]]

in America, and so it went and got a third bite at the apple in front 
of three private lawyers in one of these forums.
  Where do you think the motivation is of private lawyers? Who are 
their clients going to be next? Another government? I don't think so. 
It will be the big corporate companies.
  After many States in the United States created a ban on something 
called MMT, a gasoline additive, as a probable carcinogen, U.S. Ethyl 
Corporation filed a NAFTA investor-state case against Canada which then 
reversed its national ban on the potentially carcinogenic chemical.
  They pick on themselves as well. Under NAFTA provisions, a Canadian 
company sued the Quebec government over a decision to put a moratorium 
on fracking. I guess Quebec can't make a decision about fracking any 
longer because some company can sue it under these agreements which 
involve private lawyers and were cooked up in the dark in these trade 
agreements. It is preposterous.
  Mr. BROWN. Think about what Senator Whitehouse just said. A U.S. 
company that made an additive to gasoline filed suit against a public 
health law that the Canadian legislative body passed because they 
believed in clean air, and under NAFTA that company in the United 
States sued the Canadians. The Canadian taxpayers had to pay the 
company and repeal their public health law.
  I thought this was a democracy. Think about that multiplied by how 
many times--about what Senator Warren talked about her in piece in the 
Washington Post today.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. How long is it until they sue the State of Louisiana 
or the State of Rhode Island or the State of Massachusetts or the State 
of Ohio? It is up for grabs. This is just a private remedy.
  Since I am on Senator Warren's subject, and since her piece in the 
Washington Post is something we have all read today, I yield to the 
Senator from Massachusetts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, the United States is in the final stages 
of negotiating the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a massive free-trade 
agreement with Mexico, Canada, Japan, Singapore, and seven other 
countries.
  I come to the floor today to ask a fundamental question: Who will 
benefit from the TPP? American workers, consumers, small businesses, 
taxpayers, or the biggest national corporations in the world?
  One strong hint is buried down in the fine print of the closely 
guarded draft. The provision, an increasingly common feature of 
international trade agreements, is called investor-state dispute 
settlement, or ISDS. The name may sound mild, but this provision 
fundamentally tilts the playing field further in favor of big 
multinational corporations. Worse yet, it undermines U.S. sovereignty.
  ISDS allows foreign companies to challenge American laws and 
potentially pick up huge payouts from taxpayers without ever stepping 
foot in an American court.
  Here is how it works. Imagine that the United States bans a toxic 
chemical that is often added to gasoline. We ban it because we believe 
it is dangerous for people's health or harmful to the environment. If a 
foreign company that makes this toxic chemical wants to sell it in the 
United States, it would normally have to challenge that in a U.S. 
court. But with ISDS, the company could skip the U.S. court and go 
before an international panel of arbitrators. If the company wins, the 
ruling cannot be challenged in U.S. courts, and the arbitration panel 
could require the American taxpayers to cough up millions, even 
billions, of dollars in damages.
  ISDS has the power to impose gigantic fines, but it doesn't have 
independent judges. Instead, highly paid corporate lawyers go back and 
forth between representing corporations one day and sitting in judgment 
of corporations the next day.
  Now I don't know, maybe that makes sense in an arbitration between 
two corporations, but not in cases between corporations and 
governments. We should have real doubts about how likely it is that a 
lawyer looking to attract high-paying corporate clients will rule 
against those corporations when it is his or her turn to sit in the 
judge's seat.
  It is also a real problem that only international investors--only 
international investors--get to use these courts, investors that are, 
by and large, large corporations.
  If a Vietnamese company with American operations wants to challenge 
an increase in the U.S. minimum wage, it can use ISDS, but if an 
American labor union believes the Vietnamese companies are paying slave 
labor wages in violation of trade commitments, the union has to try to 
wind itself through the Vietnamese courts. Good luck with that.
  These rigged pseudocourts were created after World War II because 
investors worried about putting money into developing countries where 
the legal systems were not as dependable. They were concerned that a 
corporation might build a plant today only to watch a dictator 
confiscate it tomorrow. ISDS was born to encourage foreign investment 
in countries with weak legal systems.
  Now, look, I don't know if these justifications made sense back then, 
but they sure don't make sense now. Countries in the TPP are hardly 
emerging economies with weak legal systems. Australia and Japan have 
well-developed and well-respected legal systems, and multinational 
corporations navigate those legal systems every single day, but ISDS 
would preempt their courts too. And to the extent there are countries 
that are riskier politically, market competition can solve that 
problem.
  Countries that respect property rights and the rule of law, such as 
the United States, should be more competitive. If a company wants to 
invest in a country with a weak legal system, then it should buy 
political risk insurance, which is available.
  The use of ISDS is on the rise. From 1959 to 2002, there were fewer 
than 100 ISDS claims worldwide, but by 2012 alone, there were 58 cases. 
That was in 1 year.
  Here are some examples of recent cases under various treaties with 
ISDS provisions:
  A French company sued Egypt because Egypt raised its minimum wage.
  A Swedish company sued Germany because Germany decided to phase out 
nuclear power after the Fukushima disaster.
  A Dutch company sued the Czech Republic because the Czech Republic 
didn't bail out a bank the Dutch company partially owned.
  American corporations are getting in on the action too. Philip Morris 
is trying to use ISDS to stop Uruguay from implementing new tobacco 
regulations aimed at cutting domestic smoking rates.
  ISDS advocates point out that so far this process has not hurt the 
United States. Our negotiators, who refuse to make the text of this 
trade agreement public, claim it will include a bigger, better version 
of ISDS that will protect our ability to regulate in the public 
interest.
  But with ISDS cases exploding in the last several years and more and 
more multinational corporations headquartered abroad, it is only a 
matter of time before such a challenge does serious damage here. 
Letting a panel of arbitrators replace the U.S. legal system with a 
complex and unnecessary alternative on the assumption that nothing 
could possibly go wrong seems like a really bad idea.
  This is not a partisan issue. I don't often agree with the 
conservative Cato Institute, and I suspect they don't often agree with 
me, but this morning the head of Cato's trade policy program said that 
ISDS ``raises serious questions about democratic accountability, 
sovereignty, checks and balances, and the separation of power.'' He 
went on to say that these concerns about ISDS are ``one[s] that 
libertarians and other free market advocates should share.'' I think 
that is right.
  Conservatives who believe in American sovereignty are outraged that 
ISDS shifts power from American

[[Page 2611]]

courts as envisioned by our Constitution to unaccountable international 
tribunals. Libertarians are offended that ISDS effectively offers a 
free taxpayer subsidy to countries with weaker legal systems, and 
progressives should oppose ISDS because it allows big multinationals to 
weaken labor and environmental rules.
  Giving foreign corporations special rights to challenge our laws 
outside of our legal system is a bad deal. So long as TPP includes 
investor-state dispute settlement, the only winners will be 
international corporations.
  I thank the Presiding Officer.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I thank Senator Brown for putting this 
group together to discuss the important trade issues facing our Nation.
  In Massachusetts, we know what a good trade deal looks like and what 
a bad trade deal looks like. Remember, we are the ones that traded Babe 
Ruth, so we know a bad trade deal when we see one. Right now in 
Massachusetts, we are seeing the United States negotiate two 
significant agreements--the Trans-Pacific Partnership in Asia and the 
Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership in Europe.
  Both of these agreements would establish binding rules on a wide 
range of issues, such as labor rights, energy, the environment, 
medicine pricing, patents, Internet freedom, and innovation. The scope 
goes far beyond the previous trade deals that focused on tariffs or 
access to markets.
  These trade deals need to meet several criteria in order to be 
acceptable:
  No. 1, workers rights. It is critically important that both trade 
deals protect workers rights. When we put goods on a ship, we can't do 
it by casting off workers rights. These deals need to benefit the 
middle class in our country and protect the rights of workers of our 
trading partners. They must also have robust and fully enforceable 
labor provisions that ensure compliance with international core labor 
standards.
  No. 2, protect our environment. If companies want to make more green, 
great, but they have to be green, too, and follow the environmental 
laws to protect our resources and our planet. Both trade deals must 
include new and robust commitments from member countries to protect and 
conserve forests, oceans, wildlife, and obligate member companies to 
comply with both domestic environmental laws and meet their commitments 
under multilateral environmental agreements. These commitments must be 
strong and binding and enforceable.
  No. 3, don't export our oil. Longstanding U.S. law prohibits the 
export of crude oil except in instances in which the President 
determines that exports are consistent with the national interests. 
There should not be any language in the Trans-Pacific Partnership 
agreement requiring the United States to automatically approve exports 
of oil without such a determination. We shouldn't be sending oil abroad 
even as we send young men and women in the military to dangerous 
regions of the world to protect oil shipments coming into our country. 
We still import 5 million barrels of oil a day. We are the largest 
importer in the world. We should not be exporting oil.
  No. 4, no fishy stuff. The Trans-Pacific Partnership should eliminate 
harmful fishery subsidies. It should maintain the ability of 
governments to support conservation of ocean resources, promote 
sustainable development and viable fishing industries and the coastal 
communities that depend on them, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership 
should include strong measures that address illegal fishing.
  No. 5, don't try to sneak through bad sneaker deals. It is my 
understanding that the current Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement 
includes a provision that eliminates all trade barriers for sneakers 
and shoes. This provision would endanger more than 1,350 critical 
manufacturing jobs at the New Balance facilities in Massachusetts and 
Maine. New Balance has decided to keep its manufacturing in the United 
States, despite economic pressures and additional costs. As the last 
remaining U.S. manufacturer of running shoes, New Balance already has 
smaller profit margins on the U.S.-made shoes than most of its 
competitors have on their imported shoes. They should be congratulated 
for making a commitment to American workers, but if the TPP agreement 
is passed by the Congress in its current form, we will not be making 
that same commitment and that is because New Balance will be forced to 
immediately compete with Vietnam running shoe companies which have a 
dramatic advantage with low hourly wages and subsidized businesses. 
Those 1,350 jobs might be lost. That is wrong, and we must do better 
for our manufacturers.
  No. 6, don't go around the U.S. courts. Both the Trans-Pacific 
Partnership and Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership have 
provisions to allow other countries to take legal action if they do not 
like the decisions made by our government and do it outside of our own 
courts. These separate panels could subject American taxpayers to 
billions in taxes, and when they have a problem with decisions in other 
countries, we will have to argue in an independent court or even in 
their home country courts. This double standard is wrong and it should 
not be included. We need trade deals that don't ship workers' rights 
overseas along with their jobs. We need trade deals that don't cloud 
our skies with more pollution or plunder our seas with illegal fishing. 
We need trade deals that keep our oil and manufacturing jobs here at 
home. We need trade deals that don't outsource justice or jobs 
overseas.
  That is why we need to make sure, just as when Babe Ruth was traded, 
that we don't put a curse on our own economy by passing trade bills 
that do not protect the American worker.
  Finally, I understand my good friend from Oklahoma Senator Inhofe 
came to the floor to argue that the existence of winter disproves 
global warming. I know some in my home State of Massachusetts might be 
thinking the same thought right now, because after the first snowstorm 
people look for a good place to sled. After the second snowstorm, 
people look for a place to pile the snow. After the third and fourth 
snowstorms, people stop looking for things to do and just start asking, 
Why? Why so much snow? Why such intense storms? Why won't it stop?
  What if I told my colleagues that it was all part of climate change; 
that the winters we have known have now been supercharged by warmer 
waters and stronger storms; that the carbon pollution that is making 
our summers hotter is also making our winters more unpredictable.
  Here are three facts I want my colleagues to know.
  No. 1, the waters off Massachusetts--and indeed up and down the 
Atlantic coast--have been at record warm levels; in one case, off Cape 
Cod, 21 degrees warmer than normal. Warmer water gives storms more 
moisture. That moisture has to drop at some point, and when it does, it 
means more snow. That is what is going on.
  No. 2, cold air is part of winter. We are New England, after all. But 
new research is suggesting that the melting of the Arctic icecap is 
causing more of those polar vortex situations that send frigid air 
rushing down to Canada and then down to us. That is global warming.
  No. 3, more intense precipitation events have increased by 71 percent 
in New England since 1958--71 percent more intense precipitation. 
Supercharged storms from climate change are a little like Rob 
Gronkowski. They are bigger, they are stronger, and whether they spike 
the ball or drop their snow, it is going to come down harder--a lot 
harder.
  Across the globe temperatures are going up. It is called global 
warming. This last year was the warmest on record across the globe. A 
few weeks of cold in one place does not mean global warming isn't 
happening. That is the difference between weather and climate. Global 
warming does not cancel the seasons. We will still have winter. 
Sometimes it will be still very cold, but overall it is going to be 
warmer--a lot warmer. When warmer water makes

[[Page 2612]]

more moisture and it goes into the clouds, it has to come down, and 
when it does and it is cold, it should be no surprise that we will get 
more snow. If there is one issue we can all agree on regarding the 
climate, it is that every person in Massachusetts would rather be in 
Florida at Red Sox spring training camp right now because this snow is 
still coming down. But it is not just weather, it is climate change as 
well.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, let me congratulate and applaud Senator 
Brown of Ohio for organizing this colloquy on trade. In my view, if we 
look at why the middle class of this country has been in decline for 
the last 40 years, why millions of Americans are working longer hours 
with lower wages, why we have seen a huge shift in the economy from a 
manufacturing economy where people earn good wages to a Walmart economy 
where people are working for very low wages and minimal benefits, one--
not the only one, but one of the significant factors has been our 
disastrous trade policies for a number of decades.
  If people are watching this discussion, there may be some people who 
will say, Trans-Pacific Partnership, what is that? What is that trade 
agreement? What are they talking about? One of the reasons they may ask 
that question is that a study came out recently which looked at how the 
major networks are covering the TPP--the Trans-Pacific Partnership. It 
turns out the major television networks are not covering the TPP. 
Incredible as it may sound, this trade agreement--the largest trade 
agreement in the history of the United States of America--has received 
virtually no coverage--no coverage--on the major networks. That, to me, 
is very amazing.
  I think it was Albert Einstein who made the point that doing the same 
thing over and over again and expecting different results is sometimes 
called insanity. If we think a new trade agreement, based on the same 
principles of the old trade agreements, is going to bring different 
results, I think we are very wrong.
  I remember, because I have been in Congress for many of the major 
debates on trade, that way back when we had a discussion about 
unfettered free trade with China and the argument was, well, look at 
the huge market in China, look at all the jobs we will create in 
America selling to China. In fact, we were told that permanent normal 
trade relations with China would create hundreds of thousands of 
American jobs. Well, not quite. It turns out, as everybody who goes 
into a department store knows, most of the products we buy are made in 
China, and it turns out the permanent normal trade relations trade 
agreement with China has led to the loss of more than 3 million good-
paying American jobs. The reason for that is obvious. Why is a major 
corporation going to pay an American worker $15, $20 an hour, provide 
decent benefits, and obey environmental laws when that corporation can 
shut down here, go to China, pay people very low wages, and bring their 
products back to America? That is why, when we go shopping, most of 
what we buy is made in China.
  We were told that the North American Free Trade Agreement--NAFTA--
would create at least 200,000 American jobs in just a few years. Well, 
not quite. It turns out that NAFTA has led to the loss of about 1 
million American jobs.
  We were told that the Korean Free Trade Agreement would increase 
American jobs. Well, it turns out that it has led to the loss of over 
60,000 American jobs.
  Since we signed NAFTA, the United States has a cumulative trade 
deficit of $8.8 trillion--$8.8 trillion. That is wealth that has left 
the United States and gone overseas.
  While the full text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership has not been 
made public, there have been some leaks of what is included in it, and 
what these leaks tell us is in fact very disturbing. I think it is 
obvious to anyone who has taken a look at this issue that the TPP is 
just a new, easy way for corporations to shut down in America and to 
send jobs abroad. It is estimated the United States would lose more 
than 130,000 jobs to Vietnam and Japan alone if the Trans-Pacific 
Partnership goes into effect. The reason for that is, when we are 
dealing with a country such as Vietnam, my understanding is the minimum 
wage there is 56 cents an hour--56 cents an hour. Maybe I am old-
fashioned, but I don't think American workers should be forced to 
compete against people who are working for 56 cents an hour.
  At a time when corporations have already outsourced over 3 million 
service sector jobs in the United States, the Trans-Pacific Partnership 
includes rules that will make it easier for corporate America to 
outsource call centers, computer programming, engineering, accounting, 
and medical diagnostic drugs. Under the TPP, Vietnamese companies will 
be able to compete with American companies for Federal contracts funded 
by U.S. taxpayers, undermining ``Buy American'' laws.
  If the United States is to remain a major industrial power, producing 
real products and creating good-paying jobs, we must develop a new set 
of trade policies which work for the ordinary American worker and not 
for large corporations and big campaign donors.
  Let me be very frank as an Independent. This is not just the 
Republicans who have been supporting these unfettered free-trade 
agreements; there have been Democratic Presidents as well. Corporate 
America has said we want these trade policies, and the leaders of both 
political parties have said, yes, that is what we will do. But I think 
it is time to stand up and say enough is enough.
  This country now is in a major race to the bottom. Workers are 
working longer hours for lower wages. No American worker should be 
forced to compete against desperate people around the world who are 
making pennies an hour. Corporate America, every night on television in 
every ad we see, tells us buy this product, buy that product. Well, you 
know what. If they want us to buy these products, maybe it is high time 
they started manufacturing those products in the United States of 
America.
  I am opposed to the TPP, Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement. 
That is my view, but I would hope every Member is opposed to the fast-
track process which gives the authority to negotiate these agreements 
in the final terms. That is because nobody has had the opportunity to 
even see what is in the proposed agreement right now. Transparency has 
been minimal, absolutely minimal.
  I think if we are serious about creating decent-paying jobs in this 
country, if we are serious about raising wages, if we are serious about 
dealing with the other issues that have surfaced in terms of 
sovereignty, the idea we would make it easier for tobacco companies to 
sell their deadly products to children around the world and make it 
harder for governments to protect the health of their citizens is an 
absolute outrage. It is an outrage.
  I again thank Senator Brown for helping to organize this event. I 
hope the American people stand and tell the Congress enough is enough. 
We need to create decent-paying jobs in this country for a change and 
not just in other countries around the world.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. President, as President Obama has noted in his State 
of the Union, the American economy is growing again. We are creating 
jobs at the fastest pace since 1999, and unemployment is lower than 
before the financial crisis. American businesses are posting large 
profits and boosting the stock market along with them.
  Yet for many working Americans, this good news is only that, news--
something they see in the paper or on TV, not in their paychecks or at 
the kitchen table. Many of the Wisconsin workers I hear from every day 
are struggling to make ends meet. They are working more, taking home 
less, and worried that for the first time in American history their 
kids will have fewer opportunities than they did.

[[Page 2613]]

  For the last 5 years the Obama administration has been negotiating 
with 11 nations in the Asia-Pacific region on a free-trade agreement 
known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Some of these countries have 
values similar to ours and some do not. I fear this agreement could 
allow some nations to take advantage of the values we as Americans 
place on our environment, on labor laws, on human rights, and on free 
enterprise rules. These nations would be competing against American 
workers on an uneven playing field. This unfair game would continue the 
downward pressure on wages that has plagued American workers since 
before NAFTA.
  The interests of Wisconsin workers are being represented in these 
negotiations by unelected officials in the Office of the U.S. Trade 
Representative. I am here to let these negotiators know that 
Wisconsinites don't want more of the same failed promises from free-
trade deals.
  Wisconsin workers make things. We have been one of the top 
manufacturing States for generations. If we hope to continue making 
things, we think we should continue to have our own government as a 
customer. That is why I have been a big and strong supporter of ``Buy 
American'' provisions that require Federal agencies that use taxpayer 
dollars to purchase American-made products.
  Free-trade agreements have historically allowed foreign nations too 
much leeway when bidding for our government projects and contracts, 
while not affording American companies that fair access, that same 
access. I have asked the GAO to study this and report back to Congress 
so we can know the effect skirting ``Buy American'' laws have and the 
cost it has to American manufacturers.
  Currencies that reflect their true value are also vital to the 
conduct of global trade. When foreign countries cheat by manipulating 
their currencies to price their goods cheaper, Wisconsin workers--in 
fact all American workers--lose.
  Seven years ago, then-Senator Obama, speaking about the Bush 
administration's inaction on currency manipulation said it best:

       Refusing to acknowledge this problem will not make it go 
     away. . . . The Administration's refusal to take strong 
     action against China's currency manipulation will also make 
     it more difficult to obtain congressional approval for 
     renewed Trade Promotion Authority, as well as additional 
     trade agreements.

  That statement is as true today with the Obama administration as it 
was with the Bush administration. Currency manipulation is essentially 
cheating. That is why I support including strong and enforceable 
currency manipulation provisions in any trade agreement. Without these 
rules, we will allow countries to engage in a race to the bottom that 
leaves everybody worse off.
  One of the things that has made America great is our entrepreneurial 
spirit. This spirit has attracted immigrant entrepreneurs from all over 
the world, but all too often I hear from Wisconsin businesses whose 
patented ideas are being stolen and replicated in Asia.
  I believe any agreement must include high standards for protecting 
intellectual property to encourage risk-taking investments that turn 
into profitable companies and jobs in the United States. In the same 
way, I believe our ideas should be protected, I also believe that what 
we call our foods should be protected from foreign interference.
  Let me explain what I mean by that. In fact, the European Union has 
sought to restrict the use of cheese, meat, and alcohol names that 
American producers have used for generations. For instance, cheese 
producers in Wisconsin would not able to call their cheese ``feta'' 
because it is not made in Greece, while a brewer in Wisconsin couldn't 
label his dark beer a ``Bavarian Black'' because it isn't made in 
Bavaria, in Germany.
  I have worked hard to urge the U.S. Trade Representative to reject 
any attempt by the European Union or any foreign nation to restrict the 
use of common food names in order to protect our food manufacturers and 
processors across this country--and especially as Wisconsin is a major 
producer of beer and brats and cheese, this is an issue that is very 
close to home.
  Finally, I have concerns about the value systems of some of the 
nations that are party to the TPP. By way of example, Brunei recently 
adopted new sharia laws that include death by stoning for acts of 
adultery, homosexuality, and forced amputations for other offenses, 
including consuming alcohol. These laws go so far as to outlaw public 
Christmas celebrations. In fact, the act of wearing a Santa Claus hat 
in public could lead to a fine of more than $15,000, a 5-year 
imprisonment sentence or both.
  Amnesty International has called the new rules in Brunei 
``shocking.'' They have been declared illegal by the U.N. High 
Commissioner For Human Rights. We should not be affording our highest 
trading privileges to nations that do not value basic human rights.
  I have heard from so many constituents who are rightly skeptical of 
the promises this new generation of trade agreements offer. I 
appreciate having this opportunity to express my concerns about free-
trade agreements that are currently under negotiation. After seeing 
decades of jobs going overseas while the ones that are left pay less, 
who can blame the critics? Until it is clear to me that the gains from 
these agreements will go to the middle class and not just multinational 
corporations, millionaires or billionaires, I will continue to oppose 
them.
  I thank my colleagues for organizing this opportunity to speak on 
trade.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I rise to talk about the historic vote 
the FCC took today to preserve Net neutrality and maintain a free and 
open Internet. But before I turn to that exciting news, I want to take 
just a moment to talk about the urgent need to pass funding for the 
Department of Homeland Security.
  The Republican leadership has wasted a lot of time over the past 
month politicizing this issue, and now we find ourselves on the brink 
of a completely preventable shutdown of DHS. I think every American 
agrees that funding for Homeland Security is too important to play 
politics with. Last year Democrats and Republicans came together and 
passed a clean bill to fund the Department for a full year, and we 
should do the same this year. I am pleased the Senate Republicans have 
agreed to take up a clean funding bill, and I hope the House 
Republicans will quickly do the same.


                             Net Neutrality

  Turning to today's good news, I am thrilled to report that this 
morning the Federal Communications Commission voted to adopt new rules 
to preserve a free and open Internet. This is a big win for the 280 
million Americans who use the Internet. I want to congratulate FCC 
Chairman Tom Wheeler and thank him for his leadership on Net 
neutrality.
  The FCC has taken a crucial step to ensure that the Internet remains 
the platform for free expression, innovation, investment, and economic 
growth that it has always been. The new rules will offer meaningful 
protections for all Internet users. They promise to preserve the 
Internet's status as an open marketplace, a place where everyone can 
participate on equal footing, free from discrimination by broadband 
providers--the companies such as Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T that 
provide consumers with access to the Internet.
  That is what Net neutrality is all about. Net neutrality isn't some 
radical new idea. It is the simple and longstanding principle that all 
lawful content on the Internet should receive equal treatment from 
broadband Internet service providers, regardless of who owns the 
content or how much money he or she has in the bank. It means broadband 
providers can't pick and choose which Internet traffic reaches 
consumers and which doesn't. This idea has been part of the 
architecture of the Internet from its very start.
  Because of Net neutrality, an email from my constituent in rural 
Minnesota reaches me as quickly as an

[[Page 2614]]

email from my bank. Because of Net neutrality, the Web site for my 
local pizzeria loads as quickly as the Web site for a national chain. 
Because of Net neutrality I can stream videos of my amazingly cute 
grandson just as easily I can stream a hit TV show, and he is amazingly 
cute. It is because of Net neutrality that companies such as Amazon, 
Facebook, and YouTube are household names. Once startups, these are now 
billion-dollar companies employing thousands. Net neutrality gave them 
the chance to compete on a level playing field. Their success is a 
testament to both American innovation and the power of a free and open 
Internet.
  For me, the bottom line is this. The Internet is a vital part of our 
daily lives. Net neutrality is at the core of how the Internet 
operates. It is critical to our democracy and to our economy that it 
continue to operate in this manner. All of the amazing innovation and 
growth on the Internet did not just happen while we had Net neutrality; 
it happened because of Net neutrality.
  This is not the first time the FCC has sought to protect Net 
neutrality. Twice before they have tried to implement rules which were 
then challenged by the big broadband providers and basically struck 
down by the DC Circuit. It was not that the Court thought that the 
rules were bad policy, but rather that the FCC had not invoked the 
proper legal basis.
  Since the second court decision last year, we have seen a lot of 
debate about what the FCC should do. Many of us have called for 
stronger rules. We have argued that those rules must be grounded in the 
FCC's authority under title II of the Communications Act if they are 
going to survive judicial scrutiny and withstand the test of time.
  Of course, the big broadband providers pushed for the FCC to move in 
the opposite direction, to take a weaker approach. Why? Well, without 
Net neutrality they stood to make a ton of extra money. These guys 
wanted the FCC to allow them to charge Web sites access to fast lanes 
to reach consumers. Then only those sites that could afford to pay 
would see their content delivered at the fastest speed ever. Everyone 
else would be relegated to a slow lane. Only those with very deep 
pockets would be able to afford to pay for the fast lanes, and the 
broadband providers would have profited at the expense of everybody 
else.
  I fiercely opposed this. Millions and millions of my fellow Americans 
did too. Consumers and business owners spoke out and urged the FCC to 
adopt rules that would protect--not destroy--Net neutrality.
  They made the case for Net neutrality in clear and compelling terms, 
arguing that strong rules are essential for the future of the Internet. 
With today's vote, the FCC has provided those much-needed rules. The 
new rules are strong, clear, and enforceable. They will prevent 
broadband providers from blocking or throttling lawful online content.
  The rules will stop providers from charging Web sites for access to 
fast lanes. The FCC is implementing these rules within a time-tested 
legal framework that will allow the agency to respond to challenges to 
Net neutrality that arise in the future. Following the commonsense path 
that I and a number of my colleagues have long urged, the FCC has 
recognized that broadband Internet access is a title II service, a 
telecommunications service.
  Last spring, I could not have predicted that we would be celebrating 
this victory today. The best principles of our democracy have won out. 
It is clear that the voices of the American people have been heard. I 
have often called Net neutrality the free speech issue of our time. I 
believe that exercising our free speech right has been key to our 
success and will continue to be the key to our success.
  Today does not mark the end of our work--the work of all Net 
neutrality supporters to safeguard our free and open Internet. Some of 
my Republican colleagues have decried the very idea of Net neutrality. 
More recently others have purported to embrace the concept but at the 
same time have tried to stop the FCC from taking meaningful action.
  My friend Senator John Thune has drafted legislation that would strip 
the FCC of authority to regulate access to broadband Internet services. 
Along with many of my colleagues, I made clear that I regard this as a 
nonstarter. In the weeks and months ahead, I and other Net neutrality 
supporters will need to continue to speak out, to make sure everyone 
understands what is at stake, why we stand by the strong rules adopted 
by the FCC and why we oppose efforts to strip the FCC of its authority 
or to weaken Net neutrality protections.
  This will take a lot of hard work. Some folks really just do not get 
it. Back in November, my friend Senator Ted Cruz referred to Net 
neutrality as ``ObamaCare for the Internet.'' It was a statement that 
seemed to demonstrate just a basic misunderstanding of what Net 
neutrality is and how the Internet works. For that matter, tens of 
thousands have seen a YouTube video of Senator Cruz attacking FCC 
efforts to protect Net neutrality.
  I will just pause to note that the video reached many viewers, and 
the reason it did was that it was uploaded to YouTube, a site that 
would not have flourished were it not for Net neutrality. It was 
because of Net neutrality that YouTube, a company founded by three guys 
in an office over a pizzeria in San Mateo, CA, was able to compete 
against and ultimately overtake the well-funded competitor, Google 
Video.
  In his video Senator Cruz compared an old rotary phone to a modern 
cell phone. He claimed that the landline was an example of stagnation 
due to FCC regulation under title II, while cell phone innovation was a 
product of noninvolvement by the government.
  The attempted comparison fails for many reasons, not least because 
the telephone services on cell phones have long been subject to title 
II. In fact, the FCC is taking the same kind of approach to applying 
title II to broadband access services as they have taken in applying it 
to mobile voice services, where I think we all agree there has been 
robust investment and innovation under title II.
  In the coming months, I expect that we are going to confront a lot of 
this kind of confusion and misinformation or disinformation. We are 
going to encounter plenty of people who oppose Net neutrality because 
they do not understand how the Internet works or do not understand the 
relevant legal authorities or, frankly, are willing to personally 
obfuscate to advance their own agenda. I hope the American people will 
remain engaged on this issue, that they remain willing to speak up, to 
use the Internet to spread solid information, to organize support, and 
ultimately to counter the deep-pocketed ISPs and the politicians who 
may seek to undermine Net neutrality.
  I do believe that with the same energy and determination that has 
gotten us this far, Net neutrality supporters can make today's historic 
vote a lasting win for the American people.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.


                             Climate Change

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I will yield the floor when the next 
speaker comes. But while we have a quiet moment, I just want to 
complete my remarks related to the Senator from Oklahoma and his 
snowball.
  I ask unanimous consent to show the Earth-Now Web site on the iPad 
device that I have.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. If you go to Earth-Now, it is actually quite easy to 
load. You can see how that polar vortex measurably brings the cold air 
down to New England. If you do not want--this is produced by NASA. 
These are pretty serious people. So you can believe NASA and you can 
believe what their satellites measure on the planet or you can believe 
the Senator with the snowball.
  The U.S. Navy takes this very seriously, to the point where Admiral 
Locklear, who is the head of the Pacific Command, has said that climate 
change is the biggest threat that we face in the Pacific. He is a 
career military officer, and he is deadly serious. You can either 
believe the U.S. Navy or

[[Page 2615]]

you can believe the Senator with the snowball.
  The religious and faith groups are very clear on this, by and large. 
I would particularly salute the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, 
which has made very, very clear strong statements. We are going to hear 
more from Pope Francis about this when he releases his encyclical and 
when he speaks to the joint session of Congress on September 24.
  I think it will be quite clear that you can either believe the U.S. 
Conference of Catholic Bishops and Pope Francis or you can belief the 
Senator with the snowball.
  In corporate America there is an immense array of major, significant, 
intelligent, and responsible corporations that are very clear that 
climate change is real. They are companies such as Coke and Pepsi; 
companies such as Ford, GM, and Caterpillar; companies such as Walmart 
and Target; companies such as VF Industries, which makes a wide array 
of clothing products; Nike; companies such as Mars and Nestle.
  So, we have our choice. We can believe Coke and Pepsi and Ford and GM 
and Walmart and Target and VF Industries and Nike and Mars and Nestle; 
or we can believe the Senator with the snowball.
  Every major American scientific society has put itself on record--
many of them a decade ago--that climate change is deadly real. They 
measure it. They see it. They know why it happens. The predictions 
correlate with what we see, as they increasingly come true. The 
fundamental principles--that it is derived from carbon pollution, which 
comes from burning fossil fuels--are beyond legitimate dispute to the 
point where the leading scientific organizations on the planet calls 
them ``unequivocal.''
  So you can believe every single major American scientific society or 
you can believe the Senator with the snowball.
  I would submit the following. I would submit that, if you looked at 
the American population and you removed the conspiracy theorists--there 
are always conspiracy theorists in the American population that come 
out and deny that the moon landing was real. They have their hobgoblins 
from time to time. If you remove the conspiracy theorists--and there 
are people who simply do not accept a lot of scientific truths. They 
think the Earth is only 6,000 years old. They deny that evolution is 
real. Fine, they are entitled to that point of view. But it is not one 
you would want to make much of a bet on. It is not a point of view that 
is likely to get, for instance, a rover onto the surface of Mars and 
driven around successfully by scientists. But if people want to have 
that point of view, they have the right to do it. I just would not put 
very many bets on how productive that point of view is when you are 
trying to accomplish something important.
  Also, remove the people who have financial ties to the fossil fuel 
industry. So take out the conspiracy theorists, take out the evolution 
deniers, take out the people who have a financial tie to the fossil 
fuel industry, and I would be very surprised if you found virtually 
anybody left who was not prepared to be responsible about climate 
change.
  Too many of us see it happening right in front of our faces. The 
science has been too clear for too long. Frankly, what we are seeing is 
the rollout of the famous tobacco strategy to delay and deny the day of 
reckoning because they are making money selling tobacco in the meantime 
while they create false doubt about the damage their product is doing.
  Now is an interesting time for that because in Washington, at the 
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District, we just had oral argument on 
the enforcement of a decision rendered by a U.S. district judge finding 
that that tobacco scam--the deliberate pattern of lies by the tobacco 
industry to convince people tobacco really wasn't responsible for 
cancer and other ill health effects--that that campaign was a civil 
racketeering conspiracy. That is the law of the United States of 
America. I would submit that if we look at the civil racketeering 
conspiracy that the tobacco industry ran, that has been called out by a 
court of law, and we compare that to what the polluters are saying 
about climate change, we will see more similarities than differences.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Remembering Mike Perry

  Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I rise today to honor a dear friend whom 
we have just lost in West Virginia, Mr. Mike Perry. He was a beloved 
community leader, a dear friend to all of us, and truly an inspiring 
West Virginian.
  Mike was a native of Huntington, WV, which is located in beautiful 
Cabell County. He was a tireless champion for his community, for 
Marshall University, and for the entire State of West Virginia.
  Upon graduating from Marshall University in 1958, Mike attended WVU 
School of Law and graduated first in his class. He then spent 20 years 
as a dedicated lawyer with the firm of Huddleston Bolen in his hometown 
of Huntington, becoming partner after only 5 short years. In 1981 he 
entered the banking business and was chairman of the board and CEO of 
the First Huntington National Bank until his retirement in 2001.
  Mike never failed to give back to the Huntington community that he 
loved, which had rewarded him with so much throughout the years--an 
education, endless opportunities to make a successful life for himself 
and his family, and a truly special place he could always call home.
  He served as interim president of Marshall University in 1999, 
donating his entire salary to the university's general scholarship 
fund. His performance at the university was so highly regarded that the 
board of trustees voted to remove the word ``interim'' from his title 
when listing Marshall's presidents.
  Mike woke up every day aspiring to make his community an even better 
place to work and live and consistently encouraged others to do the 
same.
  Throughout the years he was a great confidant of mine. I enjoyed 
speaking to Mike on countless occasions on an array of issues, ranging 
from worldly national and State policies to very localized matters 
concerning beautiful Cabell County.
  Remarkably, despite battling cancer for 1\1/2\ years, Mike never 
stopped working on community projects. He served on countless boards 
throughout the tristate area, including those for the Huntington Area 
Development Council, the Tri-State Airport Authority, and St. Mary's 
Medical Center, among many others.
  Above all, he was a dedicated family man who was truly devoted to his 
wife Henriella, his three children, and his eight grandchildren. Mike 
met Henriella in the fifth grade, and he was certain then that he had 
met the girl of his dreams. He knew even as a youngster that they would 
spend the rest of their lives together. The two married in 1958, and I 
think Mike would agree that Henriella always brought out the best in 
him and made him a better man.
  Together, the Perrys moved to Harveytown in 1973, which was the 
future Heritage Farm Museum and Village. They transported old log 
structures and began reassembling buildings and accumulating a unique 
collection of antiques. Today the farm consists of five houses, a zoo, 
a church, and several buildings that showcase rich Appalachian 
heritage.
  In 2010 both Mike and Henriella were honored with the Donald R. Myers 
Humanitarian Award, which recognizes individuals who have enriched 
Appalachia through their extensive leadership and community service 
endeavors.
  Heritage Farm Museum and Village has become a true mainstay within 
West Virginia and will forever serve as a reminder of a man who lived 
to make his community and the Mountain State

[[Page 2616]]

a better place, a man who was an inspiring leader, a selfless friend, a 
loving husband, father, grandfather, and so much more. He was a friend 
to all, and I personally will always value his friendship and his 
guidance, as will everybody who ever came in contact with Mike Perry.
  So I say farewell to my dear friend and God bless to the State of 
West Virginia and the Perry family.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sullivan). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________