[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3639-3640]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                            THE HOUSE BUDGET

  Mr. SCHATZ. Madam President, today the House released its budget 
proposal. It is a proposal divorced from reality that seeks to balance 
the budget on the backs of those in the country who can least afford 
it. It takes from the middle class and gives to the ultrawealthy.
  Without a doubt, my colleagues and I will have much more to say about 
the Republican budget in the coming weeks and months, but today I want 
to discuss a section of the budget that seeks to deny the very real and 
very current threat of climate change to our public health and military 
readiness.
  The Department of Defense is responsible for protecting the security 
of the United States, and that requires taking into consideration every 
threat and every threat multiplier that affects the global security 
environment and our national interests, including climate change. That 
is why the military spends considerable time assessing the effects 
climate change could have on its facilities, capabilities, and 
missions, and how those effects could undermine its ability to protect 
our national security. It is unfortunate that today in their budget 
proposal House Republicans said that this planning is wasteful 
spending. I am as against wasteful spending as anyone, but preparing 
for threats to our national security planning and operations is the 
opposite of wasteful. It is prudent.
  Today, I want to talk about how a climate change prohibition would 
tie the hands of our national defense strategy.
  Climate change affects our national security in two major ways.
  First, the DOD has warned that climate change is likely to impact the 
military's facilities and capabilities. In particular, America's 
military bases may be particularly vulnerable to climate change.
  According to a 2008 National Intelligence Council finding, ``more 
than 30 U.S. military installations were already facing elevated levels 
of risk from rising sea levels.'' In my home State of Hawaii, for 
example, Navy and Marine Corps installations such as Pearl Harbor and 
Marine Corps base Kaneohe Bay are literally on the water's edge.
  According to the Department of Defense, the combination of decreasing 
sea ice, rising sea levels, and thawing permafrost along the coast of 
Alaska has increased coastal erosion at several Air Force radar early 
warning and communication installations. This coastal erosion has 
already damaged roads, seawalls, and runways at our bases.
  Second, climate change exacerbates the drivers of global instability, 
including drought, food shortages, water scarcity, and pandemic 
disease.
  ADM Sam Locklear III, commander of the USPACOM, said that the biggest 
long-term security threat in the region is climate change because ``it 
is probably the most likely thing that is going to happen . . . that 
will cripple the security environment.''
  I would like to make a point here. The Department of Defense is in no 
position to get caught up in our partisan or ideological battles. The 
Department of Defense has to deal with what is. The Department of 
Defense has to prepare for and contend with reality. And we should have 
debates on the Senate floor. We should talk about whether the 
President's clean powerplant is the right approach. We should talk 
about how we should approach international agreements coming into the 
Paris Accords. Let's have that debate about whether a carbon fee is the 
most prudent approach. But what we should not do is make it impossible 
for the Department of Defense to do its planning and preparation. That 
is what the House budget does.
  In its 2014 QDR, the Department of Defense warned that the effects of 
climate change ``are threat multipliers that will aggravate stressors 
abroad such as poverty, environmental degradation, political 
instability, and social tensions--conditions that can enable terrorist 
activity and other forms of violence.'' The stresses could break the 
backs of weak governments and institutions in countries around the 
world where the United States has enduring interests. In particular, 
the National Intelligence Council stated in its ``Global Trends 2030'' 
report that climate change will pose stiff challenges to governance in 
places such as Afghanistan and Pakistan.
  That is why I find it ironic that many of my Republican colleagues 
who are so committed to slowing the pace of our withdrawal from 
Afghanistan on the premise that doing so will preserve our security 
gains and keep Afghanistan stable are now tying the hands of the 
national security community so that they are unable to study the 
security effects of climate change on Afghanistan and the region. 
Again, I don't think we should tell them how to study it, what 
conclusions to draw, what preparations to make, except to say that we 
should stay out of their way as they do their security planning, as 
they do their security preparation. I am not suggesting that they take 
my view on climate change; I am suggesting that they be allowed to deal 
with what is and that they not be sucked into a partisan ideological 
battle over climate change. They don't have the luxury of getting 
sucked into a partisan ideological battle when it comes to climate 
change. They have to

[[Page 3640]]

deal with what is because they are responsible for our national 
defense.
  Fortunately, while some in Congress play politics, our military 
leaders are clear-eyed about the current and present threats posed by 
climate change, and they are making the necessary investments in 
knowledge of impacts to their readiness and to regional and global 
conflicts. We need to back them up and make sure that climate deniers 
do not tie one hand behind their back while they work to understand the 
threats to defend our country.
  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. LEE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to enter into a 
colloquy with the senior Senator from Illinois and the junior Senator 
from New Jersey, as well as the junior Senator from Arizona.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________