Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I rise today as a mother, a grandmother, and a Senator--a Senator whose State has been touched far too many times by gun violence, including mass shootings. I also wish to reiterate my support for the people of Boston who are dealing with the aftermath of senseless, tragic, and cowardly violence.

I think I need to put into context why I have for so long been an advocate of gun safety measures. In January 1989, a gunman stepped onto the grounds of Cleveland Elementary School in Stockton, CA. He fired at least 106 bullets from an AK-47 rifle across the schoolyard. He killed 5 children, ages 6 to 9, and 1 teacher, and he injured 29 other students before fatally shooting himself. This horrific crime led California to enact an assault weapons ban and, of course, we know that assault weapons ban in California is still in place. I so appreciate Senator Feinstein's leadership in trying to, once again, authorize at the Federal level an assault weapons ban.

Californians still remember this tragedy in Stockton, just as the Nation will always remember the victims of the horrific events of Friday, December 14, 2012, at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

I flash forward to from 1989 and the Stockton tragedy to a law office in San Francisco in 1993, where a crazed gunman--I remember his name, but I will not say it--with an assault weapon killed eight people and wounded six. One of those people was a brave lawyer who threw his body over the body of his wife, sacrificing his own life to save hers. That young man was one of my son's best friends, and I know personally how these horrific and senseless tragedies live on with the survivors--the parents, the spouses, the children, the families, and the friends. It changes their lives and it pierces their hearts forever.

I have told you a couple of stories about California. But let me say this: Let's look at what has happened across this Nation since Sandy Hook. In the 120 days since Sandy Hook, more than 2,200 Americans have been killed by gun violence. Hardly any place was spared.

We know there are many, many firearms in America. There are 300 million firearms in the United States. If you were to divide that up, that would be one gun per person, of course. There are many people who have many, many guns.

This is a 50-percent increase--the number of guns in circulation-- since 1995, when there were, as I say, about half that number.

When I go home and I speak about this--and I write about it--I say: There are 31,000 reasons why we need to pass sensible gun laws because--31,000--that is the number of people who die every year in America from gun violence. That is 87 people every single day, on average.

You look at this: 31,000 people dying every year from gun violence. So how do you get a sense of what that is? I think back. One of the reasons I got into politics in the first place was the war in Vietnam and trying to end it, first as an activist and then, actually, as an elected leader in my country. I think about how many people died in the 10-year war of Vietnam and it was

a little bit more than 50,000 in that 10-year period and it turned our country upside down--upside down. I can tell you, I lived through it: generation against generation. It was a very tough time in this Nation. People lost faith in the country. It was tough.

Yet we have 31,000 people killed every year in America from gun violence, and it is something where we all kind of just say: OK, that is terrible, but we do not do anything about it. But we are about to do something about it that is very important. It may not be everything I would want to do, given my history on this issue, but I will say, if we can move forward with sensible background checks--and I thank Senators Manchin and Toomey so much, so much, for their work--and if we can do something about straw purchasers, and if we can do something about making our schools safer--which I am pleased to say I wrote the legislation that is in the underlying bill before us--if we can do a few of these things, it would be a big step forward.

Do I want to see more done? Yes. Do I want to see the ban on assault weapons reinstated? I do. But I do feel we are at a point in time where we may be able to get something done that matters.

I think we ought to look at mass shootings in the last 30 years. First of all, 40 percent of mass shootings have occurred since 2006. So if you go back 30 years, you see 40 percent took place since 2006.

According to the Washington Post, in 2012 alone, 175 people were killed or wounded from mass shootings. People who should not get these weapons are getting these weapons. People with severe mental illness are getting these weapons. We know that.

Today, we got to see in the Democratic Caucus lunch a heroine, someone who is unbelievable, Gabby Giffords, struggle with each step, with every word. Why? What did she do? She held a townhall meeting so she could bring government to her people in the most personal of ways. And someone who was very sick got access to weapons, and the rest we know.

In the name of those who were lost, Gabby Giffords and her husband Mark Kelly have been truthtellers. These people--Mark and Gabby--are gun owners, proud gun owners. They are not coming from a different place. Yet they are standing for sensible gun laws. I am so grateful to them for dedicating their lives to this, and I am so grateful to the parents of the children and all the victims at Sandy Hook for putting a human face on these numbers.

Madam President, 175--what does that mean? If you saw the faces you would know what it means. And sometimes the wounds, as we see with Gabby, are so hard to deal with.

We can make it harder for people who are criminals, who have no right to have a gun, we can make it harder for them by making sure they have to undergo a background check.

Today, I learned from Mark Kelly that we, through the background checks that we already have--that is when people go to a regular retail store--we have stopped well over a million gun sales, well over. Yet we do not have that same system in place for gun shows or private sales.

So Joe Manchin and Senator Toomey have been working together, and they have crafted a way to move toward a sensible background check-- yes, protecting family members who want to give a gun to the next, but they have preserved, the most important part of their bill, which is to simply make a uniform standard for a gun sale wherever you purchase your gun.

Some of the strongest proponents of this are people who run retail stores who go through the laborious situation--although it is pretty quick now--of doing a background check. Yet somebody can go across the street to a gun show and make a deal and never be asked, and they could be a criminal, they could be mentally unbalanced, they could be a terrorist, OK, and still get a gun.

I want to look at the issue of school shootings in America. The tragedy that took place at Sandy Hook is a tragedy that far too many of our Nation's communities have faced in recent years.

I have in the Chamber a chart that shows that since the year of Columbine, 262 students, teachers, and others have been killed or wounded in K-12 school shootings. People go to school. It is supposed to be a protected zone. Who thinks about this? Look how many people since Columbine. And we swore we would never allow that to happen again. It is happening. So we have to do more.

I tell you, this is just K-12. But if you look at America's colleges and universities, in my own State, at California's Oikos University, in 2012--it is in Oakland--a former student returned to the campus and killed seven people and injured three. We have these horrible violent incidents at colleges and universities.

School shootings are on the rise in America. I am telling you. I have the numbers to show it on this chart. Divided up by decades, we go back. From 1979 to 1988--this is the number of incidents at schools; not the people killed, but the number of school shootings--there were 27. This is just for K-12. This does not include the universities. So for K-12, from 1979 to 1988, 27 incidents; from 1989 to 1998, 55 incidents; from 1999 to 2008, 66 incidents.

This is a number we do not want to keep going up. In so many of these cases it could have been prevented. I am not saying every case, but certainly in some cases. If we were able to do something about the magazine capacity here, that would have a big impact on the numbers as well. So we are moving up, and that is not a good number.

The parents of the fallen children at Sandy Hook and Oikos in my home State have joined countless other parents who have lost their children in violent assaults on our Nation's schools and colleges. They have joined with parents of Colorado's Columbine High School, California's Santana High School, Minnesota's Red Lake Senior High School, West Nickel Mines School in Pennsylvania, Virginia Tech, and so many others.

The shooting at Sandy Hook is another reminder that we have failed our children. I do not know how to put it another way. I am so sad about it. This topic is so heavy in my heart because I know we can do some things to change it. I believe we are on the brink of doing some things--not enough in my view but some things to change it.

I could tell you, Madam President--because the Presiding Officer was there today--we had quite a caucus today. Our colleagues who stood up, who have seen these tragedies in their States, were beyond eloquent. Our colleagues--who are trying to do something that, yes, may be politically difficult--are showing courage.

It is one of those moments when you say: I am blessed to be here, and I can do something about this. I think more and more of our colleagues are beginning to realize this, as they meet with the parents and they meet with colleagues and they sit down one-on-one.

We have to keep our children safe.

One of the pieces of legislation that is less controversial that is included in the base bill before us is the School and Campus Safety Enhancements Act that I have authored with Senator Collins, Senator Warner, and Senator Kirk to help secure our Nation's schools.

For years, we had the very successful Secure Our Schools program. Basically, we build from that program and we make some changes to it that I think will make it better.

I want to explain the way it would work. What we say is, if a local entity--and this could be a police department; it could be school districts--if they feel they want to secure their schools, they will have to put some funds on the line, about 50 percent of the funding. But we would supplement that funding by 50 percent. We would help to pay for security-related capital improvements at the school plant.

A lot of our schools are old. When they were built, no one thought 5 seconds about some of these issues. Classroom locks, lighting, fencing, reinforced doors, security assessments, training for students and teachers and administrators, coordination with local law enforcement-- there are so many things we can do. But we know our school districts and our local police departments are stretched right now.

We want to help them pay for some of these things--perimeter fencing, for example, and cameras. You could see someone coming onto the campus and take action to either alert your school officers who may be there or your local police department to prepare.

We have had a similar program in place since 2002, but the authorization

expired in 2009. In the past, 5,500 schools have received these funds, but the funds were not even sufficient. Fifty-four percent of the entities that applied for these grants were turned away. So we know this is a program the schools like because they took advantage of it. But we ran out of funds. We want to make sure we reauthorize this. In the past, programs such as the one in the bill passed with a 307-to-1 vote in the House and the Senate 95 to 0.

What we do is reauthorize the Safety in Schools Program for 10 years. We increase the authorization to $40 million a year. We allow more flexibility. We do not say what they have to use it for. By the way, they do not use it for more cops in schools. That is another issue. It is not in this particular piece. It is something I care about and want to work on. It is not in this bill.

What is in this bill is making capital improvements to the facilities. It is not a one-size-fits-all. Some people do not need a fence or a camera or a door. We leave it up to the schools. Flexibility. We also do something Senator Warner truly wanted. We create a Department of Justice and Department of Education task force to develop advisory school safety guidelines. We include language from Senator Grassley to ensure adequate grant accountability. Senator Warner and Senator Kirk also wanted to create a National Center for Campus Public Safety, which will serve as a clearinghouse for education, training, and best practices. Here is the thing. Some of our campuses know how to do this and others do not. So we want to make sure there is a central place one can find out the best practices.

I was going to go through, in closing, some of the ways these funds were actually used on the ground before this program expired. In Sulphur Springs, TX, which is a school district made up of nine schools, they wanted to do a safety assessment. They were able to make that safety assessment so they knew what they had to do to make their schools safer.

When they did their study, they found they needed to replace older security equipment and technology, expand restricted access keyway systems, and placed classroom security levers on all doors, which allowed teachers to lock doors from the inside. Simple point. You may say: Oh, that is not expensive. Why do you need to spend money? It sure adds up when you truly want to secure a door and want to do it right. So if you have many doors, we can help them do these things. If they wanted to make sure they hardened their facility, that is what the money is for.

There is a township in New Jersey that used funds to secure perimeter and playground areas by installing security gates at elementary and intermediate schools to create a safer learning environment. The new exterior fences defined school boundaries, making the school grounds safer for students. Interior gates were placed at schools, providing the ability to lock off specific areas of the schools during emergencies.

Again, it is common sense. But when these schools were built, no one thought about this. Everything was open. It is similar to the Capitol when I came here. I am dating myself. A long time ago, you could go anywhere--no metal detectors, no fences, walk up the steps to the Capitol. We have lost a lot of that freedom. Our world is now to balance our freedom in the greatest country in the world with security. That is what we are trying to do with this.

In Minnesota, we saw grants used to conduct security assessments and institute safety training classes. In Palmer High School in Colorado, they implemented a new surveillance, lockdown, and evacuation procedure. They doubled the number of doors that are operated by security cards, so it reduced the number of outside individuals able to gain building entry. It makes it harder for people to get in. It might be annoying for some parents, but I think right now people realize this is what is needed. It is this balance.

In Florida, in Leon County, which is responsible for 50 schools, they had no central point of contact to coordinate communication across all school facilities. So they set up, with the funds from this program, a 24-hour emergency operations center which has significantly reduced emergency response time. There is one point of contact.

So what we have done in this bill is not a one-size-fits-all. We do not say in here: You have to do 10 things. We say: You come up with the plan. You send it to the Department of Justice. They look at the plan. They work with you to make it good. If they think it is worthwhile, we will fund it 50 percent.

My final point. I want to show who supports school safety provisions in the bill: Fraternal Order of Police, Security Industry Association, National Sheriff's Association, National Association of School Resource Officers, International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators.

I ask unanimous consent to have the list printed in the Record.

I have left out PTAs, National School Board Association, the NEA, and so on. We have a long list.

Look, we will never be able to stand here and say we have solved every problem. We cannot. But we have to be able to say, we have to be able to know we did everything we could to reduce these tragedies. As I stand here I think, what will people say who do not vote for this and the next tragedy comes? What will they say? How can they look at their kids and their grandkids and say: I did not think it was right.

We need to do commonsense things around here, not put ideology ahead of practicality. The slaughter of innocents must stop. I am going to support the Toomey-Manchin amendment. It closes the gun show and Internet loophole. It is not the perfect background check I would write. We know that. But it is good. It is solid. It moves forward. I am going to support Senator Leahy--his amendment which will outlaw the abusive practice of straw purchasing and gun trafficking. I will support Senator Feinstein's important amendment on assault weapons, to ban those weapons. She has worked so hard to make it fair and just and right. It would also take high-capacity clips off our streets.

Senator Feinstein will have much more to say on assault weapons. I will withhold my remarks on that until that debate. Clearly, we have work to do. Clearly, we all carry from our State and in our hearts stories of this violence. Now we have a moment in time where we can actually act. I truly appreciate this opportunity.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the time until 6 p.m. be for debate only; that at 6 p.m. the Senate recess subject to the call of the chair; that when the Senate reconvenes the majority leader be recognized.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

I wish to add my voice in stating it is wonderful to have Senator Fischer on my committee, where we are doing good work. We like to say in the committee the public works side is a very collegial side and the environmental side is a little less. I am proud to have her with us working on the new Water Resources Development Act. I look forward to working closely with her. I congratulate her on her maiden speech. It is like getting the first scratch on your car: You need to just do it, and you did it very well.

Climate Change

I have been coming to the floor on Monday evenings--I don't know how many people have actually taken note of the fact--every Monday the last several months to speak about an issue no one in the Senate wishes to speak about very much. I shouldn't say no one; maybe 25 of us do. The issue is climate change. I think it is very important we have in the Record and place in the Record everything we know about climate change so future generations will see at least a few of us understood the issue. We are willing to step forward and do something about this issue.

Gun Control

I wish to say I personally am very grateful to the people of Connecticut for responding to the Sandy Hook tragedy with such focus, intelligence, compassion, and common sense. I include in that ``thank you'' the Democrats and Republicans who came together to pass some of the most sensible gun laws which balance gun rights with the need for people to be safe. They need to be safe in a movie theater, safe in the schools, and safe in their homes. I think the American people totally understand when 90 percent of them support background checks. I am so proud of my colleague Senator Feinstein. She and I have been working on this issue for a long time.

A very long time ago, in the early 1990s, there was a crazed gunman who walked into a law office with an automatic weapon. He killed people. One of them was my son's very dear, good friend, killed while protecting his wife from the shooter. I know from that experience and watching my son's loss at a relatively young age--right out of law school--what it did to my son, let alone what it did to the families of those who were gunned down by this Gian Luigi Ferri, who walked into 101 California Street and sprayed those bullets as fast as he could.

After this tragedy the State of California passed an assault weapons ban, which has been in place since. Senator Feinstein brought the issue of the U.S. assault ban to the floor of the Senate. I will never forget standing here watching the vote, because it was such a close vote. We did in fact ban those weapons of war. When George Bush was President, the ban expired and was never put back in.

Where do we stand today? I would say, just to be rhetorical with you, there are 31,000 reasons to pass sensible gun legislation. This is how many people die a year at the hands of a gun.

I watched very carefully the Judiciary Committee take up this issue as they looked at various provisions. I wish to thank them for passing the provision I worked on with Senator Collins, a bipartisan bill. This will ensure we have grants to school districts that wish to make some capital improvements to their plants to, for example, build a perimeter fence or put in some cameras or hot lines. That particular provision received strong bipartisan support. I am actually working with Senator Graham now to expand it even a little more.

However, this is not enough. I think securing our schools is very important. You should not do so in a one-size-fits-all way. Wouldn't it be helpful to this great country if we were able to keep guns out of the hands of known criminals? Wouldn't it be wonderful for our great Nation if we could keep guns out of the hands of the severely mentally ill? Wouldn't it be important to expand background checks so people don't go around the current system and slip through with the consequence of facing the families who will never, ever be the same because of what they have lost?

I wish to thank our President. People have said he needs to do so many things, too many things. A President needs to do a lot of things. Every day he wakes up there is something else which needs his attention, but he has never forgotten the promise he made to those parents of Sandy Hook. It is my understanding they are coming to Capitol Hill and visiting various Senate offices. They are looking into the eyes of the Senators if they are able to arrange a meeting with them and saying: Please, we know you may not like every aspect of the bill, but don't filibuster the bill. Allow us to take it up and then vote your conscience. You owe the country.

What would we say to our children who were gunned down? Anyone who knows a 6-year-old, 5-year-old, 7-year-old child knows the beauty and joy of that age with everything in front of them. The fact anyone could hurt a child is beyond our capacity to imagine. To take a gun into a school and slaughter these children is beyond belief. We must respond. The way to respond is not to say we are not going to take up this legislation because we love the National Rifle Association. The National Rifle Association has a right to its opinion. I will say that over and over. They have a right to their opinion, as does the ACLU and each one of us. We all have the right to our opinion. At some point we need to come together on commonsense legislation when 90 percent of the people support background checks to keep those weapons out of the hands of the people who shouldn't have them.

What is taking so long to vote on this and do this for 90 percent of the people? I listened to one commentator today who said 90 percent of the people wouldn't even agree today was Monday. When 90 percent of the people agree with background checks, let's embrace this idea. Who cares whose idea it was? Who cares who wrote the legislation? What we need to care about are those children and the thousands of people who are killed every single year.

I suspect the Presiding Officer, along with me, remembers the Vietnam war and what it did to this country. It was a tragic war which killed about 50,000 of our beautiful young people over a 10-year period. It tore this country apart. It stood this country on its head. We lose 31,000 people every year to gun violence. We should be chomping at the bit to do this legislation.

Having said that, I know there is some very good work going on right now across the party lines on the background check. I hope Senator Manchin and Senator Toomey come together on this issue, because it would be a breakthrough.

I certainly believe, whether the agreement is forthcoming or not, we need to take up this bill. This bill is not controversial. It talks about making sure there are no straw purchases where someone comes in who is qualified to buy guns, receives them, and turns around and sells them to someone who isn't qualified. It doesn't pass the test. We have to increase the penalties for that.

Of course, as I said, the school safety provisions I will be supporting. As to the ban on assault weapons of my colleague Senator Feinstein, I have not heard one person explain to me why weapons of war should be on our streets. I don't see it. I mean the most I can get out of the other side is, well, that is just a start. If we start there, we will go there, we will go there, and we will go there. That is a ridiculous argument to me. We don't need weapons of war on our streets. We don't need high-capacity clips on our streets.

So I commend the Judiciary Committee for doing its work: Senator Leahy--I know how hard other Senators on that committee are working-- Senator Schumer and Senator Feinstein. I, myself, and my staff are working with Senator Graham to even boost up the school security piece. But we need to respond to 90 percent and 85 percent of the people; otherwise, I don't know whom we represent. We are sent here by the people, and the people are looking at this in their sorrow and their determination to do something about it, and we cannot fail the test.

President Obama, as I started to say before, has not taken his eye off this ball, just like he hasn't taken his eye off the immigration ball, the North Korea ball, and the Syria ball. You name it--this economy, jobs, getting our fiscal house in order--this President has been handed quite a deck of cards, and he is working on all of it. I believe he has done what he promised he would do when he made those promises to the parents of the Sandy Hook Elementary School. I know he is bringing them here to the Hill, and let me tell them now: You don't have to come and see me. I am with you, and I will do everything I can. Don't worry about stopping at our office, just tell us what we can do to help.

When I watched the Judiciary Committee I was so interested because Senator Cruz made the point: This is a right to bear arms; it can't be messed with, period, end of story. The committee pointed out to him-- which I

thought was quite right--that no right is unlimited. Mr. President, we have the freedom of speech, but we can't scream out in a theater there is a fire unless there is a fire. You can't do that. You can't slander somebody. You can't libel somebody. With every right comes responsibility.

So my belief is there is a right to bear arms. People who are qualified to have a weapon can have it. They want it to defend their families, they want it certainly for hunting, that is fine. That is fine with me. I support the sensible gun laws we have in California. If you want to carry a concealed weapon in our State, you have to go to the sheriff or the police chief and make your case. I support that. Other colleagues don't support that. I respect that.

The bill they have worked so hard on in the committee is really not anything radical. They are commonsense steps so people who have a severe mental illness can't get their hands on a gun, and someone who knowingly sells guns and ammunition to a criminal or someone who is not qualified gets punished. That is important. We make sure there is a background check if you buy a gun at a gun show.

So I guess you can tell I am a little perplexed as to why it is taking us so long to bring this up. But the good news is Colorado passed sensible gun laws, Connecticut did, and California has sensible gun laws. I am so proud of those States. But let's face it, it doesn't do much good if you live in a State that has these protective laws when the State next door has no laws and so the most violent criminal can go and get whatever kind of gun, whatever kind of clip that he wants. I say he; I don't say she. I don't want to ever have to say she, so I will say he.

It is time. I just came back from California where I spent the break and listened to people. They are rooting for us to get something done, quite clearly. We have had our tragedies--oh, my God--in schools, in restaurants, in law offices, and we understand. We have 38 million people in our State. It is crowded. We have to learn to live together in peace. If we have disagreements, we have to work them out. So sensible gun laws are at work in our State, but we sure would like to see those sensible gun laws across the country so that our people are truly safe.

People talked to me about that, and they talked to me about immigration reform. I had an incredible meeting in Los Angeles with the groups of people who are going to be impacted by that. Again, we are so hopeful we will have that legislation before us soon. In our committee, the Environment and Public Works Committee, which I chair, we are ready to go to work with the Water Resources Development Act. This is a little lighter topic. It deals with our water infrastructure and making sure our ports are dredged, making sure we are protected from storms. With the extreme weather we have had--and Hurricane Sandy was certainly just the latest example--we need to pass this Water Resources Development Act. So we are ready to go as soon as we finish the gun debate.

I spoke to Senator Reid, and we are hopeful we will be able to go to the WRDA bill.

Climate Change

I will close with my Monday night talk on climate. And I have to say, we face a lot of threats. I have talked about one huge threat we face-- a society that has too many deaths from gun violence--but we also have a very different kind of threat you don't see as clearly called climate change, and it is dangerous.

This is my fourth speech on climate. The first time I took to the floor I talked about the fact that USA Today is doing a year-long report on climate, and they call their report ``Why You Should Sweat Climate Change.'' It describes how climate change--they call it climate disruption--is happening all around us.

I talked about a report on another talk entitled the ``2013 High Risk List'' that was released by GAO, the Government Accountability Office, which is a government watchdog agency, and it informs us that climate disruption and the increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather events such as Sandy threaten our Nation's financial security. Look what it cost. Sandy was $60 billion, $70 billion, $80 billion, and we stepped to the plate and helped, as we should have. We can't keep doing this. We are struggling to get this economy on track.

I also spoke about another aspect, which is the effect on public health of too much carbon in the air. Today I want to talk about another issue that I find kind of intriguing because whenever I try to bring the subject up to colleagues--except for the 25 or so of us who really care about this--they say to me something like, well, it is ridiculous for America to act. China has to act first because they are a terrible actor. If they do not act, what is the point of our taking the lead?

Well, I have to say that is an argument I find insulting to America. I don't want to wait for China to take the lead on anything because they do not share our values. We don't wait for China to act on issues such as human rights before we protect human rights. We don't wait for China in terms of the way they treat their workers. We have read about that. We don't wait for China, especially on environmental issues. We have to act. China is not a role model. We should be the role model.

China is already suffering serious consequences for failing to address pollution in the course of its economic development. Remember, our colleagues are saying: Wait for China. You may not be able to see anything on this photograph--I can hardly see it and I am standing next to it--because of the smog and the filth that is in the air in China. When I made a trip there on climate change and other issues, I never saw the Sun. One day we went out and our guides were so excited, they said: It is sunny today. No, it wasn't. There was this layer of smog and a little bit of light was shining through.

So I say to my colleagues who tell us to wait for China, we should wait for them--the worst actor on the world stage--before we take up the most dangerous challenge that we face in terms of science?

China now has hazardous levels of air pollution and toxic emissions. They do not care. The only reason they are trying to do something about it now is people don't even want to go there and people are getting sick and dying there. They need to work their people to their last breath, and their last breath is coming a little too early.

According to a new scientific study from the Health Effect Institute on leading causes of death worldwide, outdoor air pollution contributed to 1.2 million premature deaths in China in 2010, which is 40 percent of the global total. Here it is. Outdoor air pollution contributed to 1.2 million premature deaths in China in 2010 because their air is so filthy.

What makes my friends believe they will go after carbon pollution any more than they went after smog or soot or anything else? They are not. It is going to get worse.

Urban air pollution is set to become the top environmental cause of mortality worldwide by 2050, ahead of dirty water and lack of sanitation. It is estimated that 3.6 million people could end up dying prematurely from air pollution every year, mostly in China and India.

I am so excited to have this Presiding Officer in the Senate. He is such a strong supporter of our landmark environmental laws. But we face the rollback of those laws every day right here in the Senate. I feel like saying to my colleagues: Go to China.

Let's have another picture of that again. Go to China. This is what you want America to be? I represent Los Angeles. It used to look a little like this, not quite as bad. But we did what we had to do. We said to the polluters: Clean up your act. You have to. It is part of the cost of doing business, just as emitting carbon has a cost, carbon is the cause--too much carbon. We need some carbon, but too much carbon is the cause of climate change, so we have to put a price on it. People who pollute should have to pay for it, and that will drive us to clean energy. That is the way it works.

The cost of environmental degradation in China was $230 billion in 2010 or 3.5 percent of the Nation's gross domestic product. The people there are very afraid to speak out, so when they do speak out you know something is really bad. In January, outrage boiled over as air pollution in China reached record levels--well beyond what Western environmental agencies consider hazardous. The cost of environmental

damage in China is growing rapidly amid industrialization.

I saw myself the U.S. Embassy in Beijing has used air quality monitoring technologies in and around their compound so they know if their little kids can even go outside to play.

We are working to help the Chinese understand what happens when you have too much pollution. We know it because we are the leader. They are not the leader; they are the culprit. My colleagues say don't do anything about carbon pollution because they have to do it first. Don't wait for them. They don't get it. Maybe by now they are starting to get it, but I am not waiting for them. We have to do what the President said, which is take the initiative.

Decades ago, the Cuyahoga River in Ohio was on fire, massive air pollution hung over our cities, and our lakes were dying from pollution. The American people demanded action. We didn't wait for China or anybody else. We passed landmark laws: the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, Superfund, all these great landmark pieces of legislation that came from the committee on which I serve. I stand on the shoulders of those former chairmen-- Republican and Democratic--including John Chafee, whom I loved, who was so strong, and, by the way, strong on sensible gun laws too.

People say, oh, they predicted terrible things would happen to our society when we passed these landmark laws. But guess what happened over the last 40 years. America's gross domestic product has risen by over 200 percent. So this is not a choice between economic development versus environmental cleanup. They go hand in hand, because if we can't breathe, we can't work. If we can't breathe, we can't go to school. When you are in your State and you visit a class--any age but particularly the younger ones in the elementary schools--ask them how many of them have asthma or know someone with asthma.

It is a shocking thing that happened to me in an area that has very clean air--San Francisco--but not clean enough, obviously, because at least one-third to one-half of the children raised their hand.

We know we are doing the right thing, but we have to protect and defend against these constant environmental riders. We face them on the budget. We face them constantly. They want to turn back the clock, and it makes no sense because we have seen a lot of environmental technology and growth of jobs--3.4 million people employed in clean technology. So it is in our Nation's DNA to turn a problem into an opportunity and not say: Well, yes, this is bad. Superstorm Sandy was bad. We know it is bad when 99 percent of the scientists say this is bad and we see what is happening in Greenland and we see what is happening in the Arctic and we see what is happening with heat waves and we see and we see, but we just sit back because the oil companies like to do business the way they are doing it. They don't want to lose any business. They don't want to see us move to those clean cars, the clean energy. It is sad.

To say wait for China, the next person who tells me that, I am going to make them look at this picture. I am going to force them to look at this picture. Wait for China? They can't see anything there. We have to rise to this challenge.

According to the National Oceanic Administration, in 2011, there were 14 extreme weather events. What do I mean by extreme weather? Terrible floods, droughts, storms, wildfires. Each of them cost at least $1 billion. And we had 11 such disasters in 2012. I heard Governor Cuomo of New York say: We prepared for a once-in-50-years flood, and we are getting them every year. That is what is happening on the ground. These extreme weather events reflect an unpaid bill from climate disruption, a tab that will only grow. I talked about the $60 billion tab from Superstorm Sandy.

We have started to address carbon pollution. That is the very good news. President Obama, working with Senators Snowe and Feinstein, did something very important to make sure we have better fuel economy, and the standards go into effect between 2012 and 2025. They will provide huge benefits. Guess what. When this program is implemented, consumers will save $8,000 over the life of their car. Why? Because they are getting better fuel economy.

I drive a hybrid Prius in California. I am getting about 140 to 150 miles a gallon because I do my little trips and then I come home and I plug it in. It is truly remarkable. It is saving our family money and it is helping to save the environment. This is a win-win-win. But if we listen to my friends, they look at it as lose-lose-lose. They are dour about the idea of taking the lead. We have to take the lead.

What we do impacts the world. When our Nation reduces its carbon pollution, it makes a difference. We account for 20 percent of the global pollution. China accounts for about the same, but I am not waiting for our society to look like this.

Here is the great news: When we reduce carbon pollution, there are side benefits. The side benefits are we are not going to look like this because we are also going to shift over to those clean technologies, have less smog, less soot, and our people will be able to breathe.

Peer-reviewed science has forecasted the United States could significantly contribute to reducing the likelihood that we will avoid extreme impacts of climate disruption. We know we are already facing some disruption, but the quicker we move, the more we cut back on that carbon pollution, the better. Addressing climate change will have many investments in solar and wind and clean energy, strengthening our domestic renewable energy sector. I am so proud of California. We are moving in that direction and doing well.

According to the Pew Charitable Trust, clean energy policies could provide up to a $2.3 trillion market--not billion but trillion--for investments in renewable energy. So we can ignore this opportunity to be a market leader in renewables and then take those inventions all over the world or we can do it and benefit our economy.

I saw today that former Secretary of State George Schultz, a resident of my great State and who was part of the Reagan administration, penned an important article about why we should go to a carbon tax. A carbon tax, a simple thing: If someone produces carbon pollution, they have to pay for every ton. His idea is give that back to the American people. Help them pay for those transition periods of time where we are going to move toward that clean energy. I am very pleased he wrote that article, and I am hoping to get him before our environment committee to talk about it.

We have to step up to the plate on climate. Every one of us has an obligation to do it. I know it is hard, because with the exception of a storm such as Sandy and then heat waves that are outrageous, we don't think about it. I understand why. It is not pleasant. We have so many challenges on our hands--budget challenges, education challenges, immigration challenges, gun violence challenges. So if it is not right in front of us where we see it every day or read about it every day or it is not hitting our State every day, I understand why some people would prefer to ignore it. But we owe it to our kids and our grandkids to be leaders. This is our time. We didn't pick this time to be born to live, but here we are, and here are these scientists telling us: Wake up, do something or we are facing a planetary emergency.

Every Monday night that I can be here, I will be here. I want to make a record, at least for history if not for political action--which is what I truly want--that we do something. The President visited San Francisco recently. I hope he will continue to do the right thing. It is lonely for him because he doesn't have a legislature that gets it.

But let me say to colleagues who are definitely, I can assure you, not watching this but who may read about this speech: Don't ever say to me: Let's wait for China because that is an insult to America and it is an insult to our people. We are going to wait for a country that doesn't care about its people enough so that the people have to run around in masks, and they can't even see anything, it is so smoggy and dirty there. So don't tell me: Wait for China, because that argument-- or as they would say in certain parts of the country, that dog don't hunt. I don't say that in my part of the country. What I say is that makes no sense whatsoever.

I will continue to come here in the hopes that we can come together on this issue, in the hopes that President Obama will keep on moving, in the hopes that my State and the Northeast and other States are going to move on this issue. I will protect their right to do it. I will defend against anyone who comes to roll back the Clean Air Act--which, unfortunately, Senator Inhofe came at us with an amendment in the budget that said the Environmental Protection Agency should no longer have the ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions--imagine--and we had

more than 40 votes for that position. That is scary. That is akin to saying we should stop worrying about smoking and get 45 votes to say it is no big deal. This is a big deal.

I will just keep on making the talks on Monday nights, if I can. I wish to thank my staff. They are working so hard to put this together in a coherent way, so perhaps after 6 months of making these speeches, we have a story to tell from beginning to end that would be compelling enough so no one will ever say to me: Let's wait for China to fix their problem, and people might actually come up and say: Put me on as a cosponsor on that Sanders-Boxer bill or the Sheldon Whitehouse bill that puts a price on carbon.

I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 622.

Mr. President, my amendment simply ensures important issues will be addressed, such as how much oil will stay here versus how much will be exported and, therefore, will we suffer from higher energy prices? How much steel will be made in America? How many private property rights suits will result from this pipeline? We have had a lot of them on the southern lake.

How will this affect our national security, the dirty tar sands oil? Our American national security experts warn us against the instability worldwide caused by climate disruption.

I urge an ``aye'' vote on this amendment, regardless of how you feel about Keystone. These are essential issues which must be addressed.

Well, Mr. President, the handwriting is on the wall. I see it. But I do believe when my colleague argued against my amendment--and he was quite successful--it was not an accurate argument.

The fact is his amendment has already made the decision for us that everything is hunky-dory with this pipeline. Well, it is not true that all the work has been done. We don't know how much of the steel will be American; we don't know how many of the jobs will be American; we don't know if our national security people think that dirty tar sands is going to create climate disruption.

Wake up. This is the only place in America where people don't understand that real climate disruption is very dangerous.

You want to talk about polls? Look at what the people think about extreme weather. Look at what the people think about too much carbon pollution. So there will be another day to fight, but I want to say to my friend--he is a good guy, and we have worked well together on this. But I hope we will vote no and allow the process to continue.

Mr. President, the Rubio amendment hurts families. It is opposed by respected doctors organizations and many women's groups.

Colleagues, under the Rubio amendment, a doctor and a grandmother would go to jail if the grandmother brought her grandchild across State lines, say, after she was raped. Senator Rubio insists that only a parent be there. But what if the mom is ill or the dad is in Afghanistan or she is scared to death to tell her mom or her dad? Colleagues, there are cases of daughters dying due to their desperation and fear of telling their parents. Let's not endanger our children and place government against our grandmothers. Please vote no.

Mr. President, I raise a point of order that the pending amendment is not germane to the underlying resolution. It, therefore, violates section 305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 278

Madam President, the Coats amendment allows open-ended exemptions to the mercury air toxic rule. This is not a 1-year extension, it is a permanent extension if any President, now or in the future, simply decides it. It doesn't even require any finding.

Let me tell my colleagues a little bit about mercury. It is dangerous. It is poison. It harms the brain, the nervous system, and childhood development. It is especially damaging to infants and pregnant women. Mercury harms a child's ability to speak, to hear, to walk, to see, and to think. Can't we protect our children?

I want to give my colleagues 11,000 reasons to oppose the Coats amendment. That is how many premature deaths will be avoided with the rule he wants to eviscerate. Just last June we held on this rule. Let's vote no on the Coats amendment.

Thank you very much.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 273

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 705

Parliamentary inquiry: May I ask the Chair how many amendments we have voted on in this budget, both voice and actual votes?

I have the answer. It is 61.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 338

I thank Senator Coons so much for including me in this opportunity to speak about the choices we have before us.

Mr. President, may I ask how much time remains for Senator Coons so I have some idea?

We all know a budget is critical because it is not just a bunch of numbers, it is a statement as to who we are as a people--what are our values, what we think is worth investing in, what we think we should cut, and so on. It is interesting because we have been attacked--Senator Murray and the Democrats--for backing a budget the Republicans say is not in balance. Well, I want to argue the point. I think it is, in fact, the only budget, between this budget and the Republican budget in the House--which is the one embraced by the Republicans--that is balanced in many ways.

The first way this budget is balanced is between investments--the things we need to invest in for our Nation; in innovation, education, investing in our kids, investing in their health--and commitments we have made over the years to our senior citizens. I am going to talk more about that in a minute, about what the Republicans do to Medicare in their budget--by the way, they kill it. I will explain how and why. Our budget also moves us toward numerical balance in a way that economists of all sizes and stripes believe is wise, which is to get the deficit down below 3 percent of GDP.

My colleagues don't think that is good enough, although I never heard one word from them--not one word--when George W. Bush came in and shredded the budget. He took a surplus that Bill Clinton and the Democrats, with the help of some Republicans, had put in place, and they shredded it under George Bush by giving tax breaks to the wealthiest, putting two wars on the credit card, adopting a prescription drug plan that didn't allow Medicare to negotiate for lower prices, and the deficit went wild. And it didn't even make sense. I am an old--well, I am old--economics major, and I remember the basics. You don't go into such deep debt because, if there is a recession, you can't really help but spend your way out of it.

So what happened when President Obama got elected is he faced the worst deficit crisis, and that deficit went up to well over $1 trillion. He has gotten it back to $850 billion. It is still too high, but the fact is I never heard a word from my really good friends on the other side of the aisle when they were racking up those debts. It was, oh, this supply side stuff is going to be great. Well, it wasn't great. It wasn't good. And I am glad this budget takes us back to the notion of the Clinton years, which is we have a balanced approach between revenues, investments, and commitments to our people.

If we look at the Republican budget--that Ryan budget over there that passed with huge Republican support--we can see what he does. I have to tell the people something they may not know. The Ryan budget, the Republican budget, includes more tax breaks for the people at the top. Surprise. I thought we had an election about this. That didn't seem to matter to the Republicans. A new tax break of $200,000 a year for people making over $1 million. Just what we needed, Mr. President. More tax breaks for the people at the top. This is per year. Think about that. The average income is about $50,000 a year, and the Republicans are giving $200,000 a year to millionaires. Forget it. That is why they want us to send this budget back--to come out with that kind of a budget? No way. I want a balanced budget.

By the way, how do they pay for this? With unspecified closing of tax loopholes. Well, let me tell you, the amount of money they are putting in these new tax breaks--$5.7 trillion--is so high they will have to end the home mortgage deduction, which the middle class really needs. The wealthy people don't need mortgages, they can buy their homes outright. The middle class, the upper middle class need this tax break. Charitable deductions, which our charities count on, is another of their loopholes; and making sure you can write off State and local taxes, which helps our States and our cities. That is what they are going after. They do not say it because it is ``unspecified.''

I hope I have made the point that the Republican budget is basically a sham because I don't know any Senator on either side of the aisle who would vote today to do away with the charitable deduction, the home mortgage deduction, or State and local tax deduction. Maybe a couple of them would, but I can tell you, hearing from my folks at home and the charities that depend on that deduction and the real estate people who are finally seeing a little recovery, what a time to do that. So I say that budget is a sham. It doesn't balance and, worse yet, it hurts our people.

I have only one more point to make and then I will yield back the time to my friend.

How much time remains?

If the Chair will advise me when I have used 5 minutes.

So let me now tell you about Medicare. In the Republican budget, if you are younger than 55, instead of getting the same Medicare your parents had and the same Medicare you have paid into and the same Medicare that you counted on, it is over, folks. It is over. You will get a voucher. There is no more Medicare. They tell you to go out with that voucher and find your own insurance.

Now, we know, because studies have shown us, that plan says you will be paying $6,000 a year more out of your own pocket for health care. That is what this so-called Medicare--new Medicare--Program is. It is not Medicare. Medicare is a guaranteed benefit where you take the card and go to the doctor. Here you take a voucher.

So now you are 55, and then you get older. If you are lucky enough to get health insurance, and you get older and now you are 70 or 80, and you are taking an insufficient voucher--you are retired--this is a giant nightmare. These are supposed to be the golden years. Well, the people who lose this will have lost the golden Medicare guarantee, I will tell you that.

Here is the final point. The Republicans say if you have Medicare, don't worry. You are fine. Baloney. If you end Medicare, destroy it like the Republicans do, the people left in it are part of a dying program that is being phased out. Who is going to try to improve the quality of that program? It is going to be like fixing an Edsel or fixing your typewriter. There is no more Medicare. It is going to be a program that is dying, that is being phased out, and that will hurt current senior citizens.

So let's be clear. The Ryan budget, the Republican budget, takes the Medicare promise and shreds it, destroys it, and it is the end.

When President Johnson signed the Medicare law in 1965, here is what he said:

No longer will older Americans be denied the healing

miracle of modern medicine. No longer will illness crush and

destroy the savings they have carefully put away over a

lifetime. No longer will young families see their own incomes

eaten away because they are carrying out their deep moral

obligation to their parents, to their uncles and their aunts.

So I am saying to Senator Murray: Thank you, thank you, thank you, for your leadership. I am saying to Democrats such as Senator Coons, who has organized this today, thank you for your leadership, thank you for a budget that recognizes our obligations to our seniors, to our veterans, to our children, to this Nation, to make sure this is a Nation of innovation, and thank you for protecting transportation, an issue that I care deeply about as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee. Without being able to move people and move goods, our Nation will not be a leading economic power.

So I thank you, and I yield back to Senator Coons.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 297

Madam President, I wish to add my words to those eloquently spoken by our Budget Committee chairman Patty Murray and by one of our leaders here, the able Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer.

We have been waiting for hours and hours. I can only imagine what the public thinks when they look down on this floor and absolutely nothing is happening.

I came down here not knowing my friend and colleague was going to be here. I guess we both had the same sense of it, that we had to explain to the American people why this is happening. There is only one reason: Republicans are stalling and stalling and stalling and filibustering and filibustering and filibustering. But they are not doing a talking filibuster; they are just letting the clock tick. They are filibustering a very important bill to keep this government open. They say they want to keep the government open and they don't want to shut down, so why not get that vote done with?

Senator Mikulski has led us, in a beautiful way, with Senator Shelby, in a very bipartisan fashion--let's vote on that bill, keep the government open, and, as Senator Mikulski said, show the country we can work together and get to the one thing the Republicans have been saying not for months but for years; that is, a budget.

The truth is, instead of doing a budget, we did the Budget Control Act, so of course we did a budget. As a matter of fact, the Budget Control Act was actually in many ways more specific than a budget.

But setting that aside, they went out on the campaign trail and attacked Democrats: Where is your budget? Where is your budget? Well, guess what. Under the able leadership of my friend from Washington Senator Murray, there is a budget, and it is well done, and it has strong deficit reduction and strong investments. It is balanced in a way the Ryan plan is not. It saves Medicare where he destroys it. It invests in education and infrastructure where he destroys that. His budget is a wrecking ball. Our budget, under the able leadership of Senator Murray, is an optimistic path to our future, not the pessimistic, painful plan Mr. Ryan put forward in the name of the Republican Party.

Now the people are witnessing a filibuster. It is possible that we could end it, but I will tell my colleagues this: We are trying for some friendship and comity across the aisle right now. We want to keep the government open.

The Senator from Kansas stood here last night and said the reason he is filibustering--he never used that word, but the reason he is insisting that we spend 30 more hours, 40 more hours, 50 more hours on this last year's business, which is last year's appropriations bill, is because he demands to have a vote

on his amendment, about which he feels very strongly. It has to do with making sure the sequester doesn't hit our air traffic control towers, meaning they can stay open. I agree with the Senator from Kansas; we should keep those air traffic control towers open. But I want to say to him--and maybe we have a chart here, if I can get to it--I want to say to my friend who isn't here who is leading the filibuster that this is where we are.

We want to restore those air traffic controllers. But I will tell my colleagues what I want to restore in addition to the air traffic controllers and the towers--he is right--I want to restore Head Start for 70,000 children. I want to restore 10,000 teacher jobs. I want to restore 7,200 special education teachers who are working with kids who desperately need help. I want to restore the title I funds that impact 1 million kids. I want to make sure we can conduct 424,000 HIV tests that are administered by the CDC. How does it make us a better country when people don't know if they are HIV positive and they spread that virus? How about the 25,000 breast and cervical cancer screenings that are not being done? These are the consequences of the sequester, in addition to the terrible consequences to the FAA.

I was here when the Republicans shut down the FAA, if my colleague remembers that. They shut it down, but suddenly they care about it. Good. I am glad they care about it. I care about it too. I haven't talked about the 804,000 outpatient visits to Indian health centers or 2,100 food inspections that are going to save lives. These are not happening because of sequester: 4 million meals served to seniors; 600,000 women and children who are not getting nutrition assistance because of sequester; national science grants cut, 1,000 of them; and $902 million cut from loans to our small businesses, which are the job creators; and even 1,000 FBI agents and other law enforcement personnel.

So, yes, I say to my friend who is not here who is leading the filibuster, the Senator from Kansas--I hope he comes and shows up--I hear him. I feel the pain he feels for his State. I have a list I won't bore my colleagues with that just shows the cuts to my State. It is painful. But how do we solve it? Not by amendment after amendment after amendment on a must-pass bill that the House has said to keep simple or the government shuts down--not that way but by turning to the Democratic budget, where Senator Murray and colleagues on her committee have restored those cuts, and they have found other ways to cut, better ways to cut, sensible ways to cut.

So I call on my friends on the other side of the aisle: If you want to wait 10 hours, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80 hours, it is your call. We will be here. We will be here. But we are not going to put off the passage of the budget. It is too important. We will be here until it is done.

I yield back the remainder of my time. I thank my colleague Senator Murray so much for her leadership.

Madam President, today I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to Jeremiah MacKay, Michael Crain, Monica Quan, and Keith Lawrence--four extraordinary members of Southern California's public safety community who were tragically killed by the same deranged gunman. It is heartbreaking to lose these brave heroes, who dedicated their lives to protecting our families and our communities.

Jeremiah MacKay, a San Bernardino County sheriff's deputy, was a 14- year veteran of the force. He served at the Yucaipa sheriff's station and was a bagpiper and officer in the Inland Empire Emerald Society, which provides financial assistance for the families of fallen law enforcement officers. A native of San Bernardino and a graduate of Rim of the World High School in Lake Arrowhead, Jeremiah was a proud husband and father known for his love of family and his infectious laugh.

Michael Crain was a Riverside police officer who served as a patrol officer and a member of the Special Weapons and Tactics, SWAT, Team. During his 11-year tenure with the Riverside City Police Department, Officer Crain also served on the University Neighborhood Enhancement Team and as a Helicopter Observer, Field Training Officer, and Firearms Instructor. A decorated retired Marine sergeant, Officer Cain is remembered by his colleagues as a consummate family man who loved nothing more than coaching his son's baseball team or attending his daughter's dance recitals.

Monica Quan was the daughter of attorney Randal Quan, a former captain with the Los Angeles Police Department who had represented the shooter during his unsuccessful appeal of dismissal from the Los Angeles Police Department. Monica, a former high school and college basketball star, was the assistant women's basketball coach at California State University, Fullerton.

Keith Lawrence, Monica Quan's fiance, was a public safety officer at the University of Southern California who had attended the Ventura County Sheriff's Academy and trained with the Oxnard Police Department. He and Monica met when both played basketball at Concordia University, and they had recently become engaged.

On behalf of the people of California, whom they served with such valor and distinction, I send my deepest condolences to the families and friends of

Jeremiah MacKay, Michael Crain, Monica Quan, and Keith Lawrence.

Madam President, today I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to Loran ``Butch'' Baker and Elizabeth Butler, two members of the Santa Cruz Police Department who were recently killed in the line of duty. These extraordinary officers dedicated their lives to their family, community, and Nation. Their courage and dedication inspired all who were lucky enough to know them, and they will be deeply missed.

A 28-year veteran of the Santa Cruz Police Department, Detective Sergeant Baker was one of the most experienced and respected officers in Santa Cruz. He loved his job and served as a friend and mentor to many Central Coast law enforcement officials, including his son, Adam, who in 2010 joined the department as a community service officer. Detective Sergeant Baker was in turn inspired by his son, noting that he saw in Adam glimpses of himself when he had first started police work. Father and son relished working together. Adam called his dad ``Sarge'' at work, and the two had mailboxes next to each other marked ``Baker'' and ``A. Baker.''

Detective Sergeant Baker, a graduate of San Jose's Bellarmine College Preparatory and Fresno City College, patrolled Pacific Avenue, Santa Cruz's downtown strip and he was easy to spot. As one friend noted, ``Even in the dead of winter, he always wore his signature shorts.'' Detective Sergeant Baker also worked in community services and hostage negotiations, served as a field training officer, and was one of the founding members of the DUI Enforcement Team. He was well known for his fantastic sense of humor, his infectious laugh, and his commitment to the community that loved him so much.

Detective Butler, a 10-year veteran of the Santa Cruz Police Department, grew up in Los Angeles and moved to Santa Cruz in 1992 to attend UC Santa Cruz, where she graduated as a community studies major. Filled with idealism and a passion for helping others, she first focused her talents on community development lending with the nonprofit Opportunity Fund and then Wells Fargo Bank, before settling into her career with the Santa Cruz Police Department. During her tenure, she worked as a patrol officer, hostage negotiator, downtown foot and bike officer, and agent assigned to the Santa Cruz County drug task force.

Detective Butler dearly loved living and working in Santa Cruz. She savored the morning buns rolled in sugar from Kelly's French Bakery and the sweeping views of Santa Cruz from atop a roller coaster at the Santa Cruz Beach Boardwalk. ``I enjoy living and working in Santa Cruz because one can enjoy the ocean, the mountains, interesting people, and a healthy lifestyle all in one spot,'' she once wrote. Detective Butler was known by friends and family as warm, caring, and funny. Above all, she loved spending time with her partner and two young sons.

On behalf of the people of California, whom they served so valiantly, I extend my deepest sympathies to Detective Sergeant Baker's wife, Kelly, and three children, Adam, Ashley, and Jillian; Detective Butler's partner, Peter, and two sons, Joaquin and Stellan; and their extended families, colleagues, and friends.

Madam President, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the memory of Albert ``Cap'' Lavin, a high school and college basketball star, dedicated English teacher, and loving husband, father, and grandfather. Cap passed away on February 10, 2013 at the age of 82.

Cap Lavin was a San Francisco Bay Area native through and through. Growing up in San Francisco's Richmond District, Cap played pickup basketball games at Rochambeau Playground before becoming a star player and All-City guard on St. Ignatius College Preparatory's basketball team. He was so good that he was named St. Ignatius's player of the decade for the 1940s. He continued to hone his basketball skills at the University of San Francisco, where he played for two Hall of Fame coaches in the early 1950s and was later inducted into the USF Dons Hall of Fame.

Following college, Cap turned his love of reading into a 43-year-long career as an English teacher at the University of California Berkeley, San Francisco State University, Dominican University, and Drake High School in San Anselmo, his true home, where he taught English for 40 of those 43 years. Though his students at Drake kept him busy, Cap also found the time to author 19 books and co-found the Bay Area Writing Project at UC Berkeley. After inspiring generations of students, Cap retired from Drake in 1997.

In retirement, Cap and his wife, Mary, enjoyed exploring the Bay Area, hiking, biking, taking tai chi classes, and going to the opera, the symphony, and lectures in San Francisco. Those who knew Cap will always remember him as a generous, inspiring, and passionate man full of zest for life. His contributions to the sports world, academia, and the San Francisco Bay Area community will never be forgotten.

I extend my deepest condolences to Cap's loving wife, Mary; his children Rachel, John, Mark, Ken, Suzanne, and Steve; and his many grandchildren.

Do you object?

Mr. President, I have come to the floor to talk about a very important issue called climate change or climate disruption.

Before I do, I wish to address the issue my colleague has raised. He did not want to stop debate on the continuing resolution bill because he wanted to offer an amendment to ensure we cut somewhere as well as keep the FAA able to keep open air traffic control towers.

As someone who fought a partial government shutdown which shut down the FAA, my friends on the Republican side--my friend wasn't here then--I can tell you I was instrumental in making sure we passed that FAA authorization bill. It was a great bill.

It breaks my heart to see this sequester in action. This is not the way to govern.

I respect my colleague's point of view. He has a right to his opinion, but to say this is the only opportunity to stop the sequester is absolutely incorrect. The President has said he is ready to sit down with the Republicans, pass a balanced plan which would fix the sequester, get the FAA back up to snuff, take care of all of our problems which were caused because of the sequester, deficit reduction, and balance our budget. If this happens, this sequester will end not only for the FAA--my friend is right, this is ridiculous--but for the 70,000 children who are being cut out of Head Start. Why isn't there more discussion about that when we know every dollar invested in a child in Head Start saves $10 because they get that head start in life?

Where is the outrage of the 421,000 fewer HIV tests? This is a public health emergency when 421,000 people can't get their HIV test. They don't know if they are HIV positive and could spread the virus. This is what is happening with this sequester.

There are 10,500 teacher positions lost and 2,700 will lose title I funds, which amounts to 1 million children who will lose special reading help because of the sequester.

I think we all agree the sequester is no way to govern. We can get to a balanced budget without a sequester. We did that under Bill Clinton. We had a balanced approach. We made investments in our people, we cut out unnecessary spending, and we had a fair Tax Code.

I could go on with the problems. There are 25,000 fewer women who will not receive breast cancer screening. I could offer an amendment on that. I want to offer an amendment on that. I understand we need to keep the government running, and that is what this continuing resolution does.

I praise the Republicans on the other side who crossed over to vote with Democrats. Thank you very much for seeing we can't turn this bill into everyone's favorite amendment to restore something which is cut because of the sequester, which none of us ever thought was going to move forward.

I want to repeat this. My friend speaks about the FAA. I agree with him. I hope he would agree with me on Head Start, on teachers, on title I, on HIV tests, and on breast cancer screenings. What about the $540 million which is cut from the Small Business Administration loan program which is so critical to our small businesses and job creation? There are 600,000 children losing their nutrition assistance because of the sequester.

Let's all agree. The sequester is bad, and we need to stop it. Why not do it in the right way, which is to sit down with the President, ensure we can get the deficit reduction the sequester is

bringing in in a better way. He is offering this. He is offering a balanced plan. All of these cries about, oh, they are cutting this, that, and the other--it is all bad. Sequester is not the way to budget or to govern.

We have 1 week to keep this government open. The House has told us not to start a series of amendments or we are never going to be able to keep the government open. Let's do our work and keep this as clean as we can. Let's make sure we all listen to our President, who was reelected in a huge victory. He said he wanted to move us toward balance with a balanced plan, cuts in spending, new revenues. Patty Murray's budget, the Democratic budget, does that.

I am very pleased we are moving toward keeping this government open. This is the basic thing we need to do--keep this simple and move on.

As you know, I am the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee. It is a joy for me to have that job, truly. My whole life I have cared about environment and about infrastructure. The way the Senate works, they put those two together. Not only am I able to speak about clean air, safe drinking water, cleaning up Superfund sites, and protecting the health of our families, but I also get to talk about jobs which are created when we build roads, highways, and water systems.

There is something which does not bring us together on that committee, and that is the issue of climate change. What I have decided to do is come down to the floor every Monday possible when the floor is available to speak a few minutes about the devastating consequences of unchecked climate disruption. I wish to discuss and put into the Record every week the latest scientific information. On March 4 I began these talks and spoke about a front-page story in USA Today which spotlights the impacts of climate change unfolding around us. The story is the first in a year-long series called ``Why You Should Sweat Climate Change.'' It describes how climate disruption is happening all around us. Last week I discussed a report entitled ``The 2013 High Risk List,'' which was a GAO study, Government Accountability Office study, which said climate disruption is leading to intense weather events, such as Superstorm Sandy, which threaten, our Nation and the finances of our Nation. Plus, I told colleagues of an Oregon State study which appeared in Science which said that we have had the warmest decade in over 11,000 years--the warmest decade in over 11,000 years. Now, not 11 years, not 1,100 years, but 11,000 years. So Earth to my Republican colleagues, please wake up to this fact and let's do something about it.

Today I want to talk about the impact of unchecked climate change on the health of our people. This is a statement made by Dr. Cecil Wilson--and let's look at this chart--the former president of the AMA, the American Medical Association:

The scientific evidence clearly indicates that our climate

is changing, air pollution is increasing, weather is becoming

more extreme, and with these changes come public health

consequences.

That is why our President made a finding there actually is a danger to public health. It is called an endangerment finding for a reason. It is putting our people in danger. Wake up, colleagues. Please, wake up before it is too late.

The fact is the Bush administration found--and we got this through documentation--that climate change was a threat. The CIA has found that climate change is a threat. The defense establishment has found that climate change is a threat. The only place that doesn't seem to get excited about it is right here, in a bipartisan way, in the Senate.

Again, we know temperatures are continuing to increase. The Draft National Climate Assessment of January 11, 2013, said this:

Heat caused by climate disruption is especially harmful to

our children.

Now I want to talk to colleagues who might just be listening. They might not be because it is 7:20 at night, but if they are, you all say you want to protect our kids. You all love your children and your grandchildren and your nieces and your nephews. This is according to the American Academy of Pediatrics Committee--and I think we have a chart on that:

Anticipated direct health consequences of climate change

include injury and death from extreme weather events and

natural disasters, increases in climate-sensitive infectious

diseases, increases in air pollution-related illness, and

more heat-related, potentially fatal illness. Within all of

these categories, children have increased vulnerability

compared with other groups.

Again, I say to my colleagues, if we were sent here to do anything, it is to protect the health and safety of our children, for goodness' sakes, and they are one of the most vulnerable groups if we don't act on climate change. And if that doesn't move you, I say to my friends, what about the elderly? They are particularly vulnerable. This is from the Draft National Climate Assessment.

Older people are at much higher risk of dying during

extreme heat events. Preexisting health conditions also make

the elderly susceptible to cardiac and respiratory impacts of

air pollution and to more severe consequences from infectious

diseases.

So if I didn't touch your heart with your kids and grandkids, how about your grandmas, your grandpas, your great-grandmas, and your great-grandpas. They also are terribly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.

Laurence Kalkstein, a University of Miami professor, who studies the effects of heat on health, said:

Climate change is a silent killer. Heat can cause

fatalities among even the fittest.

It is a silent killer. And he knows because he studies the impact of heat on our health.

So let's not be silent. Maybe climate change is a silent killer, but we can't be silent in the face of the information we have. Continuing to quote Laurence Kalkstein:

The warming planet can cause many other serious health

problems that are harmful to our families. Scientists predict

they will get worse.

Scientists believe it will only get worse. Listen to what they say:

Heatwaves are also associated with increased hospital

admissions for cardiovascular, kidney and respiratory

disorders. Extreme summer heat is increasing in the U.S., and

climate projections indicate that extreme heat events will be

much more frequent and intense in coming decades.

Is this the future we want for our people, increased hospital admissions for cardiovascular, kidney, and respiratory disorders? I think not. But, boy, part of me thinks so. I can't seem to get anybody excited about this in the Senate.

You might ask me why that is? I have my theories. There is a lot of power on the other side. There is a lot of power on the other side-- people who don't want to move off coal, people who don't want to move off oil. There is a lot of power on the other side.

The increase in temperatures can lead to respiratory illnesses associated with air pollution, such as asthma. Have you ever seen a child with asthma gasping for breath? I say to my colleagues, asthma is a leading cause of hospital admissions for kids at school. I go around and visit the schools, and I ask a simple question: How many of you kids have asthma or know someone with asthma? Almost 50 percent of the room has hands up.

If you saw a child gasping for air on the street, you would hold them close, you would calm them down, you would get them oxygen, you would do everything in your power. You would call 9-1-1, you would take them to the hospital, you would sit by their side, you would hold their hand, you would nurse them back to health.

We have a situation, folks, where climate disruption is going to bring us more cases of asthma. Let's not stand with the giant polluters. Let's move to clean energy. Let's clean up our act and save our children, save our grandparents.

We are not talking about a remote possibility sometime in the near future. Climate disruption is here. It is happening before our eyes. More American children are getting asthma and allergies, more seniors are suffering from heat strokes. And let me tell you about what is happening in New York right now. They are seeing indications that extreme weather events such as Superstorm Sandy are linked to health problems.

They have already given a name to a cough that has developed in that part of the country known locally as the

Rockaway cough because it is in Rockaway. The Rockaway Peninsula on Long Island, NY, was devastated by Sandy. Lives were lost, homes and businesses were destroyed, and now local residents are experiencing health problems from the flooding--coughing, which is a common symptom, health officials said, that could come from mold or the haze of dust and sand kicked up by the storm and demolitions. Governor Cuomo said they are seeing these so-called 100-year storms--supposed to come once in 100 years--all the time.

I say to my colleagues: Wake up to the truth. Look out the window. Figure it out.

Look at this. Is this what we want to see in our country?

I was speaking to Senator Warren about what happened recently, and I was shocked to see houses in Massachusetts on the beach, beautiful homes, being totally razed and taken away because the ocean is moving so close they can't stay there. It is happening before our eyes. Right here.

With the haze of dust and sand kicked up by the storm and demolitions, the air in the Rockaways is so full of particles the traffic police wear masks, though many recovery workers do not, and that worries people who recall the fallout of another disaster.

Another real threat we are seeing more and more in the West is wildfires. Wildfire smoke contains dangerous compounds. Why do we see this? The droughts that are coming. Smoke exposure increases respiratory and cardiovascular hospitalizations, emergency department visits for asthma, bronchitis, chest pain, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, respiratory infections, and medical visits for lung illnesses, and has been associated with hundreds of thousands of global deaths annually.

That is the bad news. Now, if I stopped here, I wouldn't sleep very well tonight, having gone through all this. But there is good news. We can take steps now to address climate change, and those steps will benefit public health. We have an opportunity to turn this crisis into a win-win situation. When we reduce carbon pollution from powerplants to address climate disruption, we reduce dangerous air pollutants, such as soot and toxic metals that are harmful to our health.

Here is a chart: Policies and other strategies intended to reduce carbon pollution and mitigate climate change can often have independent influences on human health. For example, when you reduce carbon emissions, you reduce air pollutants, such as particles and sulfur dioxides.

We call that cobenefits, Mr. President. When you go after one kind of pollution--carbon pollution--you get the cobenefits of going after the soot, the small particles that lodge in our lungs. So we know when we reduce carbon emissions, we reduce those small particles and sulfur dioxide.

Here is the other good news. As we move away from the very dirty power sources of, what I hope will be, the past, and we move toward clean energy, we help our families' budgets because we move away from polluting automobiles. I drive a hybrid, a plug-in hybrid car. I have to tell you, it is pretty amazing. I get the first 12 miles on electricity, and if I do a few chores and come home and plug the car in again, then when I go past the 12 miles, it goes to a hybrid, which is part gas, part electric. So overall I am getting about 150 miles to the gallon. You know what. That feels pretty good when you don't have to stop and fill up your car all the time and get the sweats because of what it costs to fill up that car.

President Obama and my colleague Senator Feinstein, and my former colleague Senator Snowe, I have to compliment them because in a bipartisan way they moved us toward fuel efficiency. So we are moving toward 50-miles-per-gallon fuel efficiency, and that will help us. But we have to do more.

We have to do more because the health costs associated with climate change are heartbreaking and expensive. Taking steps to reduce carbon pollution will lower our doctors' bills when we don't have kids wheezing and gasping for air. The evidence is clear: Climate change is a public health threat.

We have moved before when we have seen threats to public health. We did it on cigarettes. I was here when the Congress voted to ban smoking on airplanes. Let me tell you, that was a hard vote. We had all the money of the cigarette and tobacco companies against us. And I want to compliment Senators Lautenberg and Durbin. Senator Durbin was in the House. This was a long time ago, but I can tell you what it was like because I do so much travel across the country.

Mr. President, I would get off the plane where there was smoking, and I would reek of smoke. You felt it all over, and you certainly were breathing it in. It was unhealthy. Everyone said it would never happen; that we would never, ever ban smoking on the airlines. But guess what. We did the right thing.

Now some people say: Well, how do you know that human activity and the kinds of power we are using, the dirty oil and so on, the coal, is causing this? Let me tell you how I know. Because 98 percent of the scientists tell me so.

People say, what if they are wrong. Ninety-eight percent of the scientists agree that human activity is causing this climate disruption. If you stand with the 2 percent, you are standing with the 2 percent who said smoking never caused lung cancer. I would say, if we went to the doctor and the doctor looked at us and said there is a 98- percent chance if you don't change your eating habits or your smoking habits you are going to die an early death, you would say, 98 percent chance? OK, I will change my ways. Well, 98 percent of the scientists are telling us to change our ways when it comes to carbon pollution.

How do we do that in a way that is smart? We have several bills to put a price on carbon. We have the Sanders-Boxer bill. We have the Whitehouse bill. There will be other bills. Once we put a price on carbon, it makes sense because we are factoring in the true cost of carbon pollution, which I just explained is enormous in public health alone and economics related to superstorms and the rest.

So we need to put a price on carbon. What Bernie Sanders and I do is we take the funds that come in from that and we give it right back to the people and say: Here is a check, and now you can pay for your new clean energy. It is kind of capping the carbon and giving a dividend to the people. With the rest of the money we lower the deficit, we invest in solar rooftops, and a little bit in solar transportation. It is the way to go.

Some say wait. We can't wait. We wasted 8 long years when George W. Bush was President. Do you know why? He said carbon pollution wasn't covered in the Clean Air Act. All one had to do was read the Clean Air Act. I am not an attorney, but it is right there. It says, in essence, here are the following pollutants that are covered, and it listed greenhouse gas emissions. But, oh, no. He took it all the way to the Supreme Court and wasted 8 long years while the problem got worse and worse.

So here is the deal. Here is a quote from Washington School of Public Health, University of Washington, Dr. Howard Frumkin, who says:

In public health, when faced with threats to entire

populations, we act. For infectious diseases, we vaccinate.

If 98 percent of the doctors say vaccinate to prevent illness, there is always 2 percent who are going to say don't do it. But we go with 98 percent.

For lung cancer, we ban smoking.

We didn't stand with the doctors who were paid off by big tobacco. We stood with the doctors who had an independent judgment, and we banned smoking on airplanes and in close quarters and in the Senate cloakroom and all the other places in government buildings.

For injuries, we install seat belts and air bags.

Another big battle. Remember that battle? The auto companies said: We don't want to spend the money installing airbags or seatbelts. We said: You have to do it. You know what. It is worth the cost, and so many lives are saved.

For obesity, we promote physical activity and healthier

eating.

The First Lady has taken this on as a cause and we are starting to see a change. We have a long way to go. Why do that? Because we know the connection between obesity and diabetes and heart disease and stroke. So even

though it is a difficult issue, we have tackled it.

For climate change, we need to act.

We surely do. I am talking to pretty much an empty Chamber, but I am glad the Presiding Officer is here, and I feel a few people are watching. It is good. But there are a few of us who are determined to keep on bringing the facts to the floor of the Senate. Everyone has the right to act or not act, but I believe we need to make the record now, because when my grandchildren grow up, I want them to look back and say: Wow. That was great what grandma's generation did. They took care of this issue. I don't want them to look back and say: What were they thinking? What was wrong with them? Why didn't they act when they could have made a difference?

So next week I will be back. I will be talking about national security threats. This is one of the biggest national security threats we face. That doesn't come from me. That comes from the Pentagon. It comes from the CIA. It comes from the national security teams. So we can just close our eyes to this and we can wish it goes away, but it is not going away or we can ease the pain of climate disruption by moving to clean energy, energy efficiency, and we will face a win-win as we eventually have better public health, save money, and save the planet.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

I just 2 minutes ago got a copy of what my dear friend is going to offer, and here we go again with a series of environmental riders that have nothing to do with this bill, that would change laws that protect our rivers and our streams, and involve the EPA making sure we prevent oilspills.

Frankly, I am objecting to this at this time unless I know we are going to have a 60-vote threshold; otherwise, I will put us in a quorum call at this time.

Mr. INHOFE addressed the Chair.

I have the floor because I am reserving the right to object.

All right. Go ahead.

Thank you so much.

Amendment No. 29 to Amendment No. 26

Does the Senator wish to have time?

Well, now is the time.

Will the Senator yield?

Go ahead.

If I could ask my colleague a couple questions, if he would engage in a colloquy with me.

I know the Senator from Rhode Island--and I appreciate what he said about how sweeping this is. The Senator has the amendment in front of him, does he not?

I need to say here, please, colleagues, this is not any kind of an extension of time. This says:

No funds made available under this Act shall be used to

implement or enforce with respect to any farm. . . .

And it goes through the Spill, Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure rule.

Does my colleague read it the way I do? This is not an extension of time. This is a prohibition on EPA implementing the rule. Am I correct?

Exactly.

I want to ask my colleague a couple other questions.

Farmers are exempted if they store less than 1,320 gallons of oil aboveground or less than 42,000 gallons underground. That is the rule.

Is my colleague aware of that?

Will my colleague yield for one more question? I know my colleague, Senator Inhofe, wants to speak. By the way, we have a deep friendship. But this is something we have never agreed on.

I want to make a point about the EPA rule. Farmers storing any amount of oil, I say to my colleague, are exempted if an oilspill could not reasonably be expected to reach rivers and streams.

My colleague was talking about this as some Draconian rule. The fact is, even one quart of oil, used oil, can contaminate up to 2 million gallons of drinking water.

I am a little blindsided on this, I have to say to my friend. If he is going to keep on doing these riders on here that threaten the health of the American people, I wish he would take it to me and at least give me a personal heads up because this is something that is very serious, and I will be speaking more on it tomorrow.

I thank my colleague for yielding.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each, and I ask unanimous consent that I have up to 20 minutes.

Mr. President, I am very pleased to see that we have confirmed a couple of judges. We have judges all over this country, nominees waiting to be confirmed and judicial emergencies all over the country, so I hope this is a start of a new day. We will see what happens.

Mr. President, I stand here as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee to talk about one of the greatest threats facing our Nation; that is, climate change, dangerous climate change, or you could call it climate disruption. It seems as though the only people who do not get it are Members of Congress. They do not get it.

Last week I talked about a front page story in USA TODAY that highlighted the impacts of climate change unfolding around us. The story I talked about is the first of a yearlong series called ``Why you should sweat climate change.'' Everyone else is sweating about it but not here, not in this Senate, not in this Congress.

Since last week, additional information concerning climate change has been released that I want to talk about today. I want to build a record in this Senate on an issue that threatens the very lives of our grandchildren. It is hard to imagine that this country is facing a question of our own survival and so few people seem to care about it.

I am going to talk about another report. A study published last week in Science reports that average global temperatures were higher in the past decade than over most of the previous 11,300 years. Let me repeat that. Let me repeat that for any colleagues who might be listening. Average global temperatures were higher in the past decade than over most of the previous 11,300 years. Yet the Senate does very little.

Senator Sanders and I have a bill--a very important bill--to put a price on the pollution that is causing the climate to be disrupted and to change. Let me say that we do not have a slew of sponsors.

The lead author of the study in this Science report said average global temperatures were higher in the past decade than most of the previous 11,300 years. He is a paleoclimatologist at Oregon State University. Here is what he said:

What's different is the rate of change. . . . What we've

seen over the past 150 years is much greater than anything we

saw in the past 11,000.

That is Shaun Marcott, Ph.D., the lead author of the study.

Some people may ask, why is this study important? What does it mean for our kids? What does it mean to our grandkids? Let's go to the quote.

If the scientists' forecasts are correct, the planet will

be warmer in 2100 than it has been for 11,300 years.

The scientific evidence continues to mount. Study after study has concluded that the planet is warming and the impacts have already started. Yet the only place that doesn't seem to get this message is right here in Washington, DC--not at the White House; they get it. President Obama understands it. That is why he worked with us to increase fuel economy, to keep that carbon pollution from automobiles out of the air, and we are moving to a 55-miles-per-gallon standard.

That is going to help, but that is not enough. We need to put a price on pollution so polluters turn away from dirty energy and turn toward clean energy. That will save us from most of the ravages of the changing climate. But the window is closing on the timeframe because impacts have already started. Another study released last week by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, found there was a dramatic jump in the amount of carbon dioxide in the air in 2012. It was the second highest increase since 1959, when record-keeping began.

The increase in carbon in the air is yet another signal that scientists' predictions about climate change and climate disruption-- those predictions are coming true. We have already seen the devastating and far-reaching consequences of unchecked climate disruption in the extreme weather events.

The Government Accountability Office--the GAO; they are not partisan, and they are not ideological--recently released a report entitled ``2013 High Risk List'' that discusses how climate disruption and extreme weather events threaten our Nation. This is the Government Accountability Office. We, the taxpayers, support the Government Accountability Office. They are nonpartisan, and they are straight- from-the-shoulder analysts. They say:

Climate change could threaten coastal areas with rising sea

levels, alter agricultural productivity, and increase the

intensity and frequency of severe weather events such as

floods, drought, and hurricanes.''

I guess they look out their window in addition to looking at the numbers. Anyone who looked out their window who lives in the area of Superstorm Sandy understands this.

Climate change could threaten our coastal areas--it is already doing it. I don't know if anybody saw those homes being removed from a beach in Massachusetts--gorgeous homes. They were there for a while--gone, because the ocean was going to envelope them.

According to the GAO, extreme weather events have cost the Nation tens of billions of dollars already, just over the past decade. As these extreme weather events increase, so will the cost to American taxpayers. This is more from the Government Accountability Office. This is not from the EPA. This is not from NOAA. This is not from Barbara Boxer. This is not from Bernie Sanders. This is not from Sheldon Whitehouse. This is not from the Environment Committee. This is from the GAO.

[T]he impacts and costliness of weather disasters--

resulting from floods, drought, and other events such as

tropical cyclones--will increase in significance as what are

considered ``rare'' events become more common and intense due

to climate change.

When I started in this work a very long time ago, we talked about the 100-year flood, and we could protect ourselves against the 100-year flood. Now--as Governor Cuomo has stated so eloquently--we are seeing the 100-year flood every couple of years. Now taxpayers are on the hook due to extreme weather events such as Superstorm Sandy and because the Federal Government owns buildings across the Nation and insures property and crops and provides disaster assistance.

Let's see what else the GAO says:

Climate change . . . impacts pose significant financial

risks for the federal government--

Which, by the way, means us, the taxpayers--

which owns extensive infrastructure, insures property through

federal flood and crop insurance programs, provides technical

assistance to state and local governments, and provides

emergency aid in response to natural disasters.

So our Federal finances are significantly at risk.

[T]here is a growing recognition that the cost of inaction

could be greater and--given the government's precarious

fiscal position--increasingly difficult to manage given

expected budget pressures.

We are going to see a couple of different budgets emerge--one from the Democrats in the Senate and one from the Republicans in the House-- and they will have different visions for America. One budget, the Democratic budget, is going to get to a deficit reduction, but it will invest in our people. It will say to the very wealthiest: You have to do your share so our kids can go to Head Start, get their education, job training, and clean up the environment.

The other budget is going to be hurtful. It is going to be painful because the other budget--the Republican budget--is going to protect and defend one group of people in this country, which is the wealthy few. Therefore, we will not have the resources to do what we have to do, and we are going to see cutbacks in the areas that we need in order to make sure we plan for this extreme weather and make sure we can avert this climate disruption by investing in clean energy.

The GAO report is clear: Unchecked climate change comes at a very high price, but that is what is happening in this Congress. The President is doing his best. Some of us over here are pushing hard. In the House they passed a bill. We fell short because of a filibuster. We had 54 votes, and we needed 60 votes. As a result, a price on carbon never happened, and now we are seeing hotter days, a hotter climate, and more severe, extreme weather. We need to take these steps. We need to make these investments. As these budgets come down, let's take a look.

I can assure everyone that when we have a travesty and tragedy such as Superstorm Sandy, we are never going to turn away from our people whether it happens to your State, Mr. President, due to a severe drought or certain types of pests that arise because of a change in the weather. We know such events happen. It is happening all over the country, and it can happen anywhere.

There is extreme weather where we have fires and droughts. We have snow when we never expect it, torrents of rain that we cannot even believe is happening, not to mention these high temperatures. We owe it to our children and our grandchildren not to turn away.

Now, let's see what else the GAO tells us. This is a call from them to us. Is anybody listening? Is anybody who gets to vote in this Senate listening?

The GAO calls for ``a government-wide strategic approach with strong leadership and the authority to manage climate change risks that encompasses the entire range of related federal activities and addresses all key elements of strategic planning.''

That is a lot of words for something so simple. What the GAO is saying to us is, you guys better act because this thing is getting out of control. Every time I get a chance on a Monday evening, I intend to come down to the Senate floor and take a few minutes to build a case-- and I hope an indisputable one--that we put a price on carbon pollution just like we made sure other pollution had a price on it. It didn't matter if it was a regulatory price or if they had to go buy scrubbers to keep dangerous pollutants out of the air. Carbon pollution is dangerous. It is putting our people at risk, but no one would know it from what is happening around here.

I want to close by thanking my colleague Bernie Sanders, with whom I am so proud to serve. I am the chairman of the Environment Committee,

and he is a great member. Together we have come up with an excellent bill. The bill takes the proceeds of that carbon tax and invests it in our people, invests in clean energy, makes sure our middle class and working poor have the funds they need to pay the higher prices of electricity in the early years, and it will create jobs.

There is no question as far as what is happening to our coastal States. There is no question as far as what is happening to our farms. There is no question as to what is happening to our natural resources. There is no question what is happening to our species. Scientists predict that 50 percent of God's species will be gone if we do nothing.

When people stand here and laugh off this notion that we are facing severe climate change, I tell them: Look at some of the church groups who are supporting us. They have come together. They are with us. They understand that God's creation is at stake. There is no doubt about it.

We are the stewards of this environment. We are the ones who are supposed to protect it. Yet in this Senate, it is shrugged off as if it is a nothing burger. There are young people who are here whose future is at stake. They want to enjoy the same opportunities my generation enjoyed. We owe it to them to do better.

This nonpartisan GAO report tells us clearly that we better have a ``government-wide strategic approach with strong leadership.'' I have to say I hope we have more people on this floor who will show that kind of leadership because the clock is ticking.

I say to every Member here--we have old ones, young ones, and middle ones: You are here at the moment that we can do something. You are here at the moment we can still do something. The Bush administration wasted 8 years by going to the courts and arguing that the Clean Air Act did not cover carbon pollution. They did nothing for 8 years. Finally, the Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 and said: Yes, of course, it covers carbon pollution. God bless the Obama administration for moving forward in every way they can--unfortunately, without us at this point.

We will be judged harshly if we turn away. We are here now. We didn't choose this time to be born. We didn't choose the fact that this is an issue that is upon us. I don't know what is going to wake up this place, but I am going to do my best to ring the bell as often as I can.

I thank the Chair.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I was unavoidably absent from the votes related to the nomination of John Brennan to be Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Had I been present, I would have voted yea on the motion to invoke cloture and yea on the nomination.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Berryessa Snow Mountain National Conservation Area Act. Congressman Mike Thompson and I introduced this legislation in the 112th Congress, and I am glad to continue working on this effort with him in this new Congress.

This important legislation designates close to 350,000 acres of public lands in Lake, Mendocino, Napa, Solano, and Yolo Counties as the Berryessa Snow Mountain National Conservation Area, or NCA. The area is a haven for hiking, camping, rafting, and horseback riding, and is home to a diverse array of wildlife including black bears and bald eagles.

My bill does not add any new lands to the Federal Government, the lands included in this NCA are already managed by the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the U.S. Forest Service and it does not apply to state or private lands. A National Conservation Area designation will require these three agencies to develop a multi- agency management plan in consultation with stakeholders and the public, improving coordination on wildlife preservation, habitat restoration, and recreational opportunities. Creation of the NCA will also help the agencies take a more coordinated approach to preventing and fighting wildfires, combating invasive species and water pollution, and stopping the spread of illegal marijuana growth.

By unifying these individual places under one banner, my bill helps put the Berryessa Snow Mountain region on the map as a destination for new visitors. This region is one of the most biologically diverse, yet least known regions of California. By raising its profile, an NCA designation will boost tourism and increase business opportunities in the region's gateway communities. The Outdoor Industry Association has estimated that outdoor recreation supports 732,000 jobs and contributes $85.4 billion annually in consumer spending to California's economy, underscoring the immense potential of sites such as the proposed Berryessa Snow Mountain NCA to drive local economic growth. Additionally, the region will become recognized by more people as uniform signage and publications are created to reach more diverse audiences, allowing them to learn more about this beautiful area.

Creation of this proposed National Conservation Area has strong support from a large coalition of local governments, elected officials, business owners, landowners, farmers, private individuals, and many conservation and recreation groups. This bill is the culmination of a grassroots effort of concerned citizens taking the initiative to care for the beautiful areas in their communities, and I am proud to support their work and commitment.

The Berryessa Snow Mountain region deserves national status and recognition, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this effort.