Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I am here now for the 66th consecutive week the Senate has been in session to ask my colleagues to wake up to the threat of climate change. The topic has become taboo for Republicans in Congress, and so the discussion on climate change is somewhat one-sided around here, but the recent comprehensive National Climate Assessment released this week shows Americans are witnessing the effects of climate change in every State of our Nation.

Colleagues, read the assessment. Find out how climate change is affecting every region of the country.

In March I visited Iowa, where I heard over and over that Iowans are awake to the threat of climate change and are actually ready to hold Presidential candidates accountable on climate when they go there for the first-in-the-Nation Presidential caucus.

Over the April recess I spent 5 days traveling down the southeastern coast of North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. I went there to talk to people on that coast firsthand. I met with scientists, students, outdoorsmen, faith leaders, and State and local officials-- people of diverse backgrounds, but all of them have one thing in common: their concern for the coastal communities they love. These folks know climate change is real because they see it where they live. They are not waiting around for this Chamber to get organized. They are acting.

Last week I spoke here about the business owners, community leaders, and researchers I met in North Carolina. From there I headed into South Carolina. My first stop was the University of South Carolina's Baruch Institute for Marine and Coastal Sciences.

At the Baruch Institute, I learned how salt marshes--the ocean's nurseries and our first line of defense against storms and hurricanes-- have to adapt to rising sea levels. These marshes retain sediment as the tide goes in and out, and they slowly increase their elevation as the sea level rises, if given enough time.

Dr. Jim Morris, director of the Baruch Institute, has been studying these marshes for decades. He is a renowned expert. He explained that sea level rise is starting to happen so fast that the marshes may not keep up. If they can't keep up, then the marsh deteriorates to mudflat, and the mudflat deteriorates to open water, which is already happening in places I visited. That deterioration from marsh to mudflat can devastate coastal property, infrastructure, and wildlife.

Business as usual means sea level rise increases of 3 feet or more by 2100. This chart illustrates what the Baruch Marine Institute and surrounding marshes would look like after this sea level change--before and after. It would be pretty much a goner.

Next I visited the Cape Romain National Wildlife Refuge, which extends for 22 miles and encompasses more than 6,000 acres of barrier islands, salt marshes, intricate coastal waterways, sandy beaches, fresh and brackish water impoundments, and maritime forest. Sea level rise threatens this area as well.

One signal: Last year over 70 percent of endangered loggerhead turtle nests had to be relocated by people in order to prevent them from being flooded. This is a place where these turtles have been nesting for centuries, but now look at how coastal erosion is affecting their nests. These are the turtle eggs, and the coast has eroded. National Park Service officials there told me:

This is not just about wildlife. This is about the

community. It's about your livelihood and well-being.

They are right.

According to a foreword in the report titled ``Climate Change Impacts to Natural Resources in South Carolina'' by Alvin Taylor, director of the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources--I mean, tell me how people from South Carolina are denying climate change is real when the State published a report called ``Climate Change Impacts to Natural Resources in South Carolina.''

Here is what the report says:

Climate-related changes may adversely affect the

environment in many ways, potentially disrupting or damaging

ecological services, water supply, agriculture, forestry,

fish and wildlife species, endangered species, and commercial

and recreational fishing . . . Fishing, hunting, and wildlife

viewing contributes almost $2.2 billion annually to South

Carolina's economy and supports nearly 59,000 jobs.

How can they pretend it is not real? Business owners and executives in South Carolina are starting to take action on climate change. There is a South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce, headed by Frank Knapp, who has organized something called the South Carolina Businesses Acting on Rising Seas to raise awareness among businesses and their customers of the threat posed to the Palmetto State. In cities including Charleston and Myrtle Beach, coastal businesses threatened by rising sea levels are displaying strips of blue tape in their window fronts where the water level would be to show their support for taking action.

I continued down the coast and visited Charleston's Fort Johnson, where marine research facilities are located for NOAA, the College of Charleston, the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, and the Medical University of South Carolina. The tide gauges in Charleston are up over 10 inches since the early 1920s. Deny that all you want. It is a measurement, it is not a theory.

This chart shows what Fort Johnson would look like with 3 feet of sea level rise, which is projected for 2100. Nearly all the research facilities at Fort Johnson would be lost ironically to the very seas their research helps us understand. Three feet could actually be on the low end of sea level rise by 2100. This chart of Fort Johnson demonstrates what 3 feet of sea level rise looks like.

During my visit at Fort Johnson, I heard from students, faculty, elected officials, and Federal and State employees all working at the leading edge of climate change and adaptation research. One scientist, Dr. Peter Moeller, described how climate change is allowing algae species to grow in waters where they were previously not found. As these algae species migrate to new areas, they encounter bacteria, fungi, and other unfamiliar algae. As Dr. Moeller explained to me, under these conditions, previously nontoxic algae can make dangerous toxins that are novel to science and nature. It almost sounds as if science fiction, but these are the consequences of human-caused climate change.

My last stop in South Carolina was at a roundtable discussion at the Coastal Conservation League. There I heard from a diverse group of South Carolinians--researchers, environmental advocates, business owners, and faith leaders--about their efforts to raise awareness to the threats of climate change and to promote clean energy. I learned this: South Carolinians are not afraid to talk about climate change and how it is affecting their State--at least not until they get to Washington.

When WCBD-TV in Charleston asked Representative Mark Sanford about my visit to his State, he actually said something quite nice. He said:

At our family farm in Beaufort, I've watched over the last

50 years as sea levels have risen and affected salt edges of

the farm. I applaud Senator Whitehouse for getting people

together in the Lowcountry today to discuss this problem, and

while we would likely approach solutions differently,

building the conversation is a necessary first step.

That is a helpful opening, and I appreciate that.

Jim Gandy, chief meteorologist for WLTX Columbia, has been forecasting South Carolina weather for 28 years. He is affectionately known as South Carolina's weatherman. Jim was at the White House this week to interview President Obama about the National

Climate Assessment. Through his blog, ``Weather and Climate Matter,'' and his broadcasts, Jim makes weather and climate understandable for his viewers. I spoke with him while I was in South Carolina, and I learned that his TV station thought it may actually take some heat for Jim's discussing climate change on the air, and they were braced for the flow back. It never came. South Carolinians have their eyes open. It is only taboo here in Washington.

I continued down into Georgia, to the heart of the Savannah Historic District. Audrey Platt, the former vice-chair of the Garden Club of America's Conservation Committee, invited me to her historic home in Savannah for a local meeting of the Garden Club joined by Savannah Mayor Edna Jackson. Also there was Reverend Mary Beene from the Faith Presbyterian Church who talked about the M.K. Pentecost Ecology Fund they run for ecological stewardship of natural resources.

We headed out to Fort Pulaski and Tybee Island. There is a tide gauge at Fort Pulaski. It takes measurements. It is not complicated. It produces clear, irrefutable facts, not theories. At Fort Pulaski, NOAA measures that sea level has risen over eight inches. Projections for 2100 put most of this region under water. This chart shows that sea level rise of 3 feet will devastate the area.

Here is Fort Pulaski, GA, and the coast around it. That is what is left with 3 feet of sea level rise.

On Tybee Island I had lunch with city officials and council members, representatives of the Georgia conservancy, NOAA scientists, Georgia Garden Club members, and local sustainability directors. The message was clear: Sea level is rising. Oceans are warming. Infrastructure and ecosystems that Georgians depend on are being threatened. One example: According to a University of Georgia biologist, sea level rise will affect the State's oyster crop. The oysters in Georgia thrive at the tidal edge, sometimes above water, sometimes below water, as the tide goes up and down. As rising sea levels come up, it will cause the oyster habitat to shift or leave them vulnerable to predation as they spend more time under water. Being out of the water actually protects them from underwater predators.

The people of Tybee Island are preparing. Councilman Paul Wolff showed me the storm-water tide gate, which the City of Tybee put in place to accommodate higher tides and rising seas. He explained to me that the road out to Tybee Island--Tybee Road--which is, by the way, the island's only access road, will be flooded as much as 45 times per year with just one foot of sea level rise, and the city has already put in place a short-term plan for 14 to 20 inches of sea level rise by 2060. What does that do to an island's economy if, 45 days of the year, people can't get there?

Down the coast, I visited the University of Georgia's Marine Institute at Sapelo Island and its director Dr. Merryl Alber. Sapelo is a barrier island off the coast of Georgia managed by the Georgia Department of Natural Resources. The Marine Institute is a world renowned field station for research into coastal ecosystems. Here I learned how they measure what they call blue carbon, the amount of carbon stored in the salt marsh. They are doing that as part of the National Science Foundation's long-term ecological research program.

Salt marsh, as it turns out, are huge carbon sinks. They absorb massive amounts of carbon. But the carbon that is stored there may be returned to the atmosphere and add to the climate problem if salt marshes succumb to sea level rise and have nowhere to migrate. We also heard how the intruding salt water is changing local marsh ecosystems and jeopardizing fresh water supply.

Georgia actually runs a Coastal Management Program Coastal Incentive Grant Program to increase knowledge about sea level rise. If Georgia runs a Coastal Management Program Coastal Incentive Grant Program on sea level rise, how can people who represent Georgia in Washington pretend this isn't occurring?

I ended the day in Georgia out on the water with Charlie Phillips, who is a terrific character, a great guy to be with--a local, very successful clammer. We went out on his air boat over the marshes that he built himself. He is also very knowledgeable. He is a member of the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council that runs the regional fishery. He has been an outdoorsman his whole life, and he needs fresh, clean water for his Georgia clams. Unfortunately, Charlie says that changes in climate are hurting the ecosystem that supports his livelihood--his and his employees. He worries about the future of his business.

This is South Carolina and Georgia. When you actually go there, what do you find? Business owners, researchers, faith leaders, and elected officials, all responding to changes that they are witnessing. They understand. They see the risks that climate change poses, and they hope their representatives in Congress will wake up to the danger of climate change, the home-State danger that their constituents are already seeing happening right around them.

After seeing the beauty of both South Carolina and Georgia along those lovely coasts, it is painful to see there the early warning symptoms of climate change. It called to mind President Theodore Roosevelt's message from more than 100 years ago to America's schoolchildren. It is sort of old fashioned language, but that was 1907. He said this:

[I]n your full manhood and womanhood, you will want what

nature once so bountifully supplied and man so thoughtlessly

destroyed. And because of that want, you will reproach us,

not for what we have used, but for what we have wasted. . . .

[A]ny nation which in its youth lives only for the day, reaps

without sowing, and consumes without husbanding, must expect

the penalty of the prodigal. . . .

The people I met in South Carolina and Georgia, along with a huge majority of Americans nationwide, know that climate change is real. They see it happening in their lives, and they want us to take action. It is time for Congress to listen to their voices. It is time for Congress to listen to the fishermen who see the fisheries moving around and the oceans warming. It is time for us to listen to the clammers at the seashore who see the changes in the sea level and know what it means for them. It is time for us to listen to the foresters who see the pine beetle killing forests by the hundreds of square miles, and the firefighters who fight fires in those forests who see the fire season expanding by 60 days. It is time for us to listen to the farmers who see unprecedented drought and flooding. It is time for Congress to listen to the voices of their constituents before we all, in our foolishness and in our folly, must pay the penalty of the prodigal. Indeed, it is time for Congress to wake up.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, last week, Armenians and friends of Armenians around the world solemnly remembered the horrific dislocation and slaughter that began in 1915 and resulted in more than 1.5 million deaths and another half million Armenians driven from their ancient homeland. The Armenian Genocide was carried out by the Ottoman Empire in its waning years amidst the chaos of World War I. For what was an undeniably gruesome period in human history, Theodore Roosevelt called the Armenian Genocide ``the greatest crime of the war.''

It is this terrible chapter, more than any other single event, that led to the Armenian diaspora, including in the United States and my home State of Rhode Island. For generations, the Armenian community has been a strong and hardworking part of our Rhode Island family, producing great leaders in both government and business. Whether at flag raising ceremonies, church festivals, the wonderful St. Vartanantz Annual Bazaar at Rhodes on the Pawtuxet, or at commemorations of the Armenian Genocide at the monument in the North Burial Ground in Providence, Armenians are part of the fabric of Rhode Island.

Since achieving independence after the fall of the Soviet Union, Armenia has at last established a foothold for democracy in the Caucasus after centuries of outside domination and totalitarian rule. I have long supported foreign assistance to Armenia to help grow its economy and strengthen its Democratic institutions, and I will continue to do so.

But perhaps the most meaningful thing we can do for Armenia and for Armenians in Rhode Island is to help cast a light on that brutal genocide 99 years ago. To this day, too many people are unaware of this tragedy, due in part to the unwillingness of some to call it what it was. But make no mistake; the slaughter of innocent Armenians was genocide, plain and simple. Indeed, our modern term ``genocide'' was first coined to describe both the Jewish Holocaust and the plight of the Armenians under Ottoman persecution.

Along with my Rhode Island colleague Senator Jack Reed, I have proudly cosponsored resolutions in the Senate condemning the genocide and calling on the President of the United States to ensure that U.S. foreign policy appropriately and without equivocation reflects the realities of the Armenian Genocide. This solemn recognition is important not only to so many Armenians in Rhode Island and throughout the world, but to our human obligation to the truth.

I ask unanimous consent that all time be yielded back.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business for up to 20 minutes.

Mr. President, I am here, as regular viewers of the C-SPAN network know, for the 65th time, every week that the Senate is in session, to ask my colleagues in the Senate to wake up to the realities of climate change that surround us.

Here is what we know: We know the oceans and atmosphere are warming. By the way, that is measurement, not theory. We know sea level is rising. Again, that is measurement, not theory. We know oceans are becoming more acidic--again, a simple measurement. The potential that these changes have to disrupt economic growth and to disrupt global commerce is the subject of my remarks today, and it is those changes that make investors and corporate executives take climate change seriously.

We may not take climate change seriously, but corporate executives do. A world of shifting seasons and extreme heat hurts their bottom line. The world of drought-stricken farms and flooded cities, of raging wildfires and migrating diseases is not good for business. A

recent article from the World Bank conveys the corporate outlook this way:

In corporate boardrooms and the offices of CEOs, climate

change is a real and present danger. It threatens to disrupt

the water supplies and supply chains of companies as diverse

as Coca-Cola and ExxonMobil. Rising sea levels and more

intense storms put their infrastructure at risk and the costs

will only get worse.

Earlier this month executives from major American companies came to Washington for a roundtable discussion at the Bicameral Task Force on Climate Change, which I lead with Congressman Waxman. Each of the companies present had signed the climate declaration of the Business for Innovative Climate and Energy Policy or BICEP. They see a low- carbon economy as a smart way to create new jobs and stimulate economic growth. More than 750 companies, nameplate American corporations such as eBay, Gap, Levi's, Nike, Starbucks, and many others have signed BICEP's climate declaration.

Kevin Rabinovitch is global sustainability director at Virginia-based candy company Mars, Incorporated, makers of the famous M&Ms, among other things. At the roundtable he told us Mars has a goal of eliminating fossil fuel energy use and greenhouse gas emissions companywide by 2040. In fact, just yesterday Mars announced it will build a 200-megawatt wind farm in Texas that will generate enough energy to power all Mars operations in the United States. I applaud this exciting step for Mars and the bold vision it represents.

But Mr. Rabinovitch told the Bicameral Task Force on Climate Change:

. . . if other companies and governments don't adopt

similar science based targets, our efforts will have limited

effect on climate change. We cannot do it alone. This is why

the business community needs Congress to get off the

sidelines, to quit denying rudimentary science and abundant

evidence. Improving energy efficiency reduces climate-

altering carbon emissions, but it also--these businesses

find--reduces operating costs.

Colin Dyer, the president and CEO of Jones Lang LaSalle, Incorporated, the second largest publicly traded commercial real estate brokerage firm in the world said:

Cost savings alone represent a compelling benefit of

sustainable design, construction, and management. Jones Lang

LaSalle put smart building management technology to work for

the consumer goods giant Procter & Gamble.

According to Dyer:

P&G earned back its initial investment in the technology in

three months and saw average energy cost savings of 10

percent annually. The program, which is being expanded, also

improved building systems reliability, supported the

company's broader sustainability programs, and actually

increased employee productivity.

Smart executives also understand how much their customers care about this. Rob Olson, vice president and chief financial officer of IKEA, said this:

From talking to our customers, we know that Americans are

increasingly concerned about climate change as they

experience events like Hurricane Sandy and the drought in

California. They want to reduce the amount of energy they use

in their home and they care about reducing waste and using

less water.

This is not a new message from America's corporate sector. Last year the Bicameral Task Force on Climate Change wrote to over 300 businesses and organizations about carbon pollution and climate change. The response was encouraging. Coca-Cola, headquartered in Georgia, wrote:

We recognize climate change is a critical challenge facing

our planet, with potential impacts on biodiversity, water

resources, public health and agriculture. Beyond the effects

on the communities we serve, we view climate change as a

potential business risk, understanding that it could likely

have direct and indirect effects on our business.

Walmart, founded and headquartered in Arkansas, wrote this: ``We're committed to reducing our carbon footprint and we're working with our suppliers to do the same.''

Here is what Walmart said in its 2009 sustainability report:

Climate change may not cause hurricanes, but warmer ocean

water can make them more powerful. Climate change may not

cause rainfall, but it can increase the frequency and

severity of heavy flooding. Climate change may not cause

droughts, but it can make droughts longer. Every company has

a responsibility to reduce greenhouse gases as quickly as it

can. Currently, we are investing in renewable energy,

increasing efficiency in our buildings and trucks, working

with suppliers to take carbon out of products and supporting

legislation in the U.S. to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Serious business leaders are looking for serious answers to the looming economic crisis of climate change. An article last month in the Harvard Business Review entitled ``How to Survive Climate Change and Still Run a Thriving Business'' outlines recommendations for companies looking to strengthen their supply chains and better understand their consumers.

Serious business leaders are also fed up with the denial apparatus that is run by the big carbon polluters. Major utilities PG&E, the Public Service Company of New Mexico, and Exelon all quit the U.S. Chamber of Commerce after a chamber official called for putting climate science on trial similar to the Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925. Large tech companies such as Apple and Yahoo also left the chamber.

One of the companies that came in to the Bicameral Task Force was North Carolina-based VF Corporation. You may not have heard of VF Corporation, but you have sure heard of their major brands. They make Lee, Wrangler, Nautica, North Face, and many other name brands. Letitia Webster is their director of global corporate sustainability, and they have a global perspective on climate change. Their customers around the world are concerned about climate change, particularly their younger customers, and VF wants to meet those customers' expectations for good citizenship. VF also needs cotton for all their clothing and they are worried about climate disruption to the cotton supply chain. ``Research tells us that continued climate change will make it more and more difficult for farmers to manage cotton crops and for companies to manage their supply chains.''

VF also provides very high performance clothing and equipment to high-performance outdoor athletes who train and compete in places where climate changes are already evident. Those athletes see the same changes as the 100 winter Olympic competitors from 10 countries who signed a letter of warning about climate change. Letitia Webster mentioned in particular the Khumbu Icefall which has closed Mount Everest to climbers for the first time. She is not the only one.

John All, a climber, scientist, and professor of geography at Western Kentucky University told the Atlantic magazine:

I am at Everest Base Camp right now and things are dire

because of climate change. . . . The ice is melting at

unprecedented rates and [that] greatly increases the risk to

climbers. You could say [that] climate change closed Mt.

Everest this year.

Tim Rippel is a climbing guide, and he blogged from Everest's base camp:

As a professional member of the Canadian Avalanche

Association, I have my educated concerns. The mountain has

been deteriorating rapidly the past three years due [to]

global warming and the breakdown in the Khumbu Icefall is

dramatic.

Ms. Webster warned of the costs of inaction, saying, ``It's too expensive not to take action.'' This is a North Carolina company, and I hope its message gets through to elected officials who represent North Carolina.

Senator Hagan has already spoken passionately about the need to act on climate change. She gets it, but her colleagues on the other side of the aisle remain silent.

I visited North Carolina over the recess as part of a tour of the effects of climate change along the southeast coast. I flew out to where sea level rise is gnawing away at North Carolina's Outer Banks.

I visited the marine science facility at Pivers Island, where scientists from Duke University, the University of North Carolina, North Carolina State, East Carolina University, and of course NOAA, are studying aspects of sea level rise in North Carolina and the effects of ocean acidification on microbes that form the basis of the food web.

These are some of the world's leading scientists. They all know that these changes are driven by carbon pollution. There is no doubt. Unless North Carolina's elected officials think that their own universities are part of the big hoax some of our colleagues talk about, they had better pay attention to what is happening on the North Carolina coast.

I met with the North Carolina Coastal Federation at their coastal education center in Wilmington, NC. It

was a bipartisan group joined together in concern over the exposure of their coastal communities to the rising seas. The ``North Carolina Sea- Level Rise Assessment Report'' prepared in 2010 by the North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission's Science Panel on Coastal Hazards says:

The most likely scenario for 2100 AD is a rise of 0.4

meters to 1.4 meters (15 inches to 55 inches) above present.

By the way, that is what they call bathtub measures. That doesn't take into account what 55 inches of extra sea will do when it is heaped against the shore by a storm surge from a big tropical storm or hurricane.

I hope their congressional delegation in Congress is listening.

The biggest power producer in North Carolina is Charlotte-based Duke Energy. Duke worked through the U.S. Climate Action Partnership for climate change legislation. Duke actually pulled out of the National Association of Manufacturers because of that organization's denial of climate change. Duke's then-chief executive officer Jim Rogers said:

We are not renewing our membership in the NAM because in

tough times, we want to invest in associations that are

pulling in the same direction we are.

He said that NAM, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and Republicans ``ought to roll up their sleeves and get to work on a climate bill. . . . '' Duke Energy might want to also consider whether North Carolina politicians are pulling in the same direction.

This is not complicated. Load up carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere and you load up heat in the atmosphere. We have known that since Abraham Lincoln was President. This is not a new discovery. Load up the heat, and the oceans warm up. That is not some theory either. You can measure it--with thermometers. When liquid warms, it expands, unless my colleagues want to repeal the law of thermal expansion. As the ocean expands and ice melts, up goes the sea level. It is up 6 inches at the tide gauge in Wilmington, NC, since 1954.

If my colleagues want to deny the 6-inch increase in the tide gauge in Wilmington, NC, let me explain to them what the North Carolina assessment says about how you measure sea level rise:

[Sea-level rise] can be directly measured in a

straightforward way. The longest record of direct measurement

of sea level comes from tide gauges. A tide gauge is a device

built to measure water level variations due to tides and

weather, and to eliminate effects due to waves. A tide gauge

can be as simple as a long ruler nailed to a post on a dock.

More sophisticated instruments, like those used by NOAA, are

usually placed in a stilling well, or a pipe, that protects a

float connected to a recording device from waves. As tides

rise and fall, the float's motion is recorded.

It is not complicated. Good luck denying that. When you fly over the North Carolina coast, you see lots of investment along the seashore. There are lots of houses, lots of hotels, condominiums, restaurants--an entire seafront economy that the larger North Carolina economy very much depends on.

What are my colleagues from North Carolina going to tell them about climate change: Don't worry. It is not real? Good luck with that. They are already measuring the sea level rise.

Those small businesses in North Carolina want to protect their storefronts from sea level rise just as VF Corporation wants to protect its cotton supply from drought. These North Carolina companies get the economic threat that climate change presents.

The frustrating thing here is that we can strengthen our economies and businesses by tackling the problem of climate change and sea level rise head-on, and we can leave things better, not worse, for the generations that will follow us--perhaps the simplest obligation that we hold, and one, by the way, at which we are presently failing. But if we are going to stop failing at that obligation and tackle this problem head-on, we have to wake up to reality. We have to put aside, once and for all, the toxic polluter-paid politics that infect Washington.

The denial campaign that is run by these polluters is as poisonous to our democracy as carbon pollution is to our atmosphere and oceans. America is suffering as a result of Congress being tangled in a web of lies and surrounded by a barricade of special interests. We have to break through that. It is a matter of truth, it is a matter of honor, and it is a matter of being effective at these real problems.

I yield the floor and thank the Presiding Officer, and I note the absence of a quorum.

I understand the time is controlled now by the Republicans. When Senator Hoeven arrives, I will yield the floor to him. But in the meantime, I thank Senator Nelson for his leadership in this area.

Let the record reflect that although Rhode Island may call itself the Ocean State, Florida has its fair share of coastline as well. The effects on Florida's coast are really very significant.

Because time is short and because I see Senator Hoeven has arrived and because Senator Nelson is a modest individual who would not want to brag on himself, let me say one thing and then I will come back later and discuss my Easter southern climate tour at greater length.

The Miami Herald is a very significant newspaper in Florida, and it attended and reacted to the Commerce Committee hearing Senator Nelson led in his home State. I want to read from two short sections that opened by saying:

For South Floridians, the topics of climate change and

rising sea levels are no longer to be dismissed as tree-

hugger mumbo-jumbo.

Pause next time you hear that parts of Miami Beach or the

intersection of A1A and Las Olas Boulevard have flooded

because of . . . high tides?

Let the light go off atop your head: It's science, stupid.

On Tuesday, Florida Democratic U.S. Senator Bill Nelson

brought illumination to Miami Beach--Ground Zero for our

unique coastal battle with Mother Nature.

It concludes with these last few words:

South Florida owes Senator Nelson its thanks for shining a

bright light on this issue. Everyone from local residents to

elected officials should follow his lead, turning awareness

of this major environmental issue into action. It is critical

to saving our region.

If we don't, we'll soon have water--not sand--in our shoes.

I yield the floor.

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

Thank you very much.

Climate Change

Madam President, I am now here for the 64th time to ask my colleagues to wake up to the threat of climate change. It was almost exactly 2 years ago in April 2012 that I began speaking on the floor every week that the Senate is in session.

I have tried to make a compelling case for my colleagues. First and foremost I have relied on the overwhelming scientific evidence and the near unanimity of the scientific community.

Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that the increase of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere due to human activities is driving unprecedented changes, and, of course, they are changes that Americans see all about them in their lives now. If 97 doctors told you that you needed surgery, who among us in our right mind would heed the advice of the three doctors who said they were unsure and we should delay the treatment?

I have talked about global warming. I have talked about the weirding of the weather--heat waves, extreme downpours, drought, shifting seasons. I have talked at length about the devastating toll on our oceans, which hold such peril in my home State, Rhode Island, the Ocean State. Our oceans are warming, rising, and becoming more acidic, and all of that is undeniable. It is measurable. It threatens our coastal communities and marine species alike.

I have described the potential for deep economic disruption in industries such as fishing and farming or inundation or wildfire. I have looked at the threat to human health. I have conveyed the deep concerns of corporate

leaders who understand that climate change is bad for business and of faith leaders who appeal to our moral duty to conserve God's creation and to spare those who are most vulnerable to catastrophe. I have answered the claims of those in this Chamber who deny the reality of climate change and the need for action, and I have called out the network of fossil fuel propaganda that seeks to mire this Congress in phony manufactured doubt.

I have been joined by colleagues who share my commitment to rouse this Congress from its oil- and coal-induced slumber, including the historic all-night stand on the floor that reached hundreds of thousands of Americans. But unfortunately, it seems we still have some ways to go. I could stand here until I am blue in the face supplying the Chamber with reasoned arguments and scientific facts on climate change, and some here in Congress would ignore it because they reject information from scientists and they ignore empirical evidence.

So maybe it is time to bring in some muscle--the American military. Climate change threatens our strategic interests, our military readiness, and our domestic security in many ways. It is a serious national security issue. Don't take my word for it. Our top military commanders and strategic planners at the Department of Defense say so.

Four years ago the Department of Defense released the Quadrennial Defense Review, clearly linking for the first time climate change and national security. The 2010 review concluded that the effects of climate change can contribute to increases in regional instability driven by demand for food, water, and natural resources, and to extreme weather events which will increase the need for humanitarian aid and disaster relief, both within the U.S. and abroad.

Then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen put it this way. I will quote him:

The scarcity of and potential competition for resources

like water, food, and space, compounded by the influx of

refugees if coastal lands are lost does not only create a

humanitarian crisis, but it creates conditions of

hopelessness that could lead to failed states and make

populations vulnerable to radicalization.

That is the U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Last year 9 retired generals and admirals joined 17 former members of the House and Senate and several former cabinet level officials and issued this warning. They said:

The potential consequences to climate change are

undeniable, and the cost of inaction, paid for in lives and

valuable U.S. resources will be staggering.

The 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review was released last month in tandem with the Department of Defense budget request, and it is just as straightforward in its warnings on climate change.

I will quote:

Climate change poses another significant challenge for the

United States and the world at large. . . . Climate change

may exacerbate water scarcity and lead to sharp increases in

food costs. The pressures caused by climate change will

influence resource competition while placing additional

burdens on economies, societies, and governance institutions

around the world.

The second installment of the current Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment report, released just last week, echoes what our own military leaders are already telling us. According to the report, ``Climate change can directly increase risks of violent conflicts in the form of civil war and inter-group violence by amplifying well-documented drivers of these conflicts such as poverty and economic shocks.''

In response to our changing climate, the Department of Defense is conducting a comprehensive assessment of the risks to U.S. military installations. This is not a trivial effort and it is not being undertaken without cause.

The Pentagon is also working with other nations to strengthen the network of humanitarian assistance for disaster response. The reach of our military stretches to every corner of the globe and so do the effects of climate change. Our commanders recognize the need to adapt in every theater.

Much has been made of the U.S. military and diplomatic pivot to the Pacific region. While ADM Samuel J. Locklear, commander, U.S. Pacific Command, has called climate change the biggest long-term security threat in the Pacific because it ``is probably the most likely thing that is going to happen . . . that will cripple the security environment, probably more likely than the other scenarios we all often talk about.'' The head of our Pacific command is describing this as the most likely thing to happen to cripple the security environment.

The threat extends from pole to pole. Former Supreme Allied Commander and Commander of U.S. Forces in Europe James Stavridis is wary of the ongoing reduction in Arctic sea ice. He states, ``This will present potential problems, from oil spills, dangers to wildlife, search and rescue for commercial shipping and tourist boats, and open zones of maneuver for the navies of the Arctic nations to interact.''

Our American military leaders are clear in sounding this alarm. In Congress some of us are taking these warnings seriously. The Bicameral Task Force on Climate Change, which I lead with Congressman Waxman, invited national security experts to share their perspective on climate change. Retired Marine Corps Brig. Gen. Stephen Cheney is CEO of the American Security Project, founded in 2005 by former Senators John Kerry, Chuck Hagel, Gary Hart, and Warren Rudman. He stressed that climate change is not a new issue within national security issues and that the United States must engage the world on this issue, which of course we cannot do while we are paralyzed by false denial.

Retired Army BG Gerald Galloway spoke of the risk extreme weather events pose to military installations. He said:

When communities and installations are unaware of their

vulnerability to these events, the results can be disastrous.

A failure to be prepared shifts the military's focus from

maintaining a constant level of readiness to dealing with

each of these climate change impacts as they occur. Both

floods and increased temperatures can bring training to a

halt or restrict critical movements.

This message was echoed by retired Army CPT Jon Gensler, who described the difficulty of maintaining our readiness, particularly in responding to ever-increasing requests for disaster-related humanitarian assistance.

The consensus is clear from the people to whom we have entrusted our national security: Climate change is a serious threat to national security and to global security for which we need to plan and prepare. That is the message Secretary of State John Kerry brought to an audience in Jakarta, Indonesia, earlier this year. He said:

In a sense, climate change can now be considered another

weapon of mass destruction, perhaps the world's most fearsome

weapon of mass destruction. . . . The fact is that climate

change, if left unchecked, will wipe out many more

communities from the face of the earth. And that is

unacceptable under any circumstances--but it is even more

unacceptable because we know what we can do and need to do in

order to deal with this challenge.

Yet Congress sleepwalks, refusing to listen, refusing to speak of it, refusing to act when duty calls us to act, when history calls us to act, and when decency calls us to act.

I have a book in my office written by Geoffrey Regan. It is entitled ``Great Naval Blunders: History's Worst Sea Battle Decisions from Ancient Times to the Present Day.'' It is an interesting book to read. It is a long history of episodes of folly and error that have ended in disaster. It contains the account of a fleet of British naval ships docked at harbor as a great typhoon bore down on them. The ships' captains knew the typhoon was so strong that it would tear the ships loose from their anchors and wreck them. They knew their only safe strategy was to up anchor, head out of the harbor, and try to weather the storm at sea, but none of the captains wanted to be the first ship to leave the port so they all stayed and the typhoon swept down and they were destroyed.

Regan calls this ``an error of judgment that will forever remain a paradox in human psychology.'' We can make those kinds of errors of judgment, and for those captains and crews, the error was fatal. Facing certain destruction, those sea captains refused to take the action that they knew was necessary to save their ships, to save themselves, and to save their crews.

I think of that story as we stand in the Senate unable to respond to what

is looming down on us from climate change. The science could not be clearer. It is grownup time around here, and we need to take it seriously. The fact that one side of the aisle can't even use the word ``climate change'' is a terrible sign.

John Wayne, a great American actor whom we all know, had a number of wonderful roles in his life. One of John Wayne's roles was to play Sergeant Stryker in the movie ``Sands of Iwo Jima.'' In that movie, Sergeant Stryker had a memorable phrase: ``Life is tough, but it's tougher if you're stupid.'' We have all the information in front of us that we need to avoid being stupid. Collectively, that is what we are being. Similar to those captains, knowing what is bearing down on us, we are somehow unable to take the action that will protect us, our country, and will protect our children and future generations. There is no better way to describe it than through the words of Sergeant Stryker: ``Life is tough, but it's tougher if you're stupid.''

It is time to wake up.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak and that Senators Murkowski, Begich, and Wicker be allowed to join me in a colloquy as they come to the floor.

Mr. President, thank you very much.

Pirate Fishing

Mr. President, we are coming to the floor today because the four of us serve as the cochairs of the Senate Oceans Caucus. I know the Presiding Officer from Delaware has a keen interest in oceans issues as well, and we appreciate his support for the caucus.

We have worked very hard in this caucus to find bipartisan common ground on issues that relate to the seas and to our oceans, and one of the areas we have worked on is the area that is described in the jargon as IUU fishing, which means illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing. The better word for it, the clearer word for it, the more accurate word for it is pirate fishing.

These are fishermen around the world who go to sea and they fish above legal limits, they fish out of season, they fish for catches they are not allowed to catch, they fish in waters they are not allowed to fish in, and then they come to shore and market their illicit product. When they do that, they hurt legitimate fishermen and they hurt American fishermen in two ways. First of all, fish migrate around the globe. If they are knocked down, damaged, and caught illegally in other areas, then the American fishery for that same species is hurt. The second is that depresses the global price for fish. These people can flood the market with illegal fish. That drops the price through the law of supply and demand, and now our American fishermen--who are fishing lawfully, who are abiding by the catch limits, who are fishing in the right seasons and places--suffer a disadvantage in the pricing when their fish get to market.

So this is an important issue for our States, and it is not for nothing that we are all coastal State Senators who are here to express our support for action on these treaties.

In the United States, commercial fish landings are over $5 billion in revenue a year. Recreational anglers spend more than $25 billion a year. So this is big business, and pirate fishing is a big hit to our big business. Pirate fishing losses have been estimated at between $10 billion and $24 billion every year. When you consider that our whole recreational fishing industry is only roughly $26 billion--and this is a $24 billion raid, basically, on the international fisheries--it is important that we can do this.

So there is a package of treaties that has come out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. There are four of them. Three of them are traditional fishing treaties covering the South Pacific, the North Pacific, and the Northwest Atlantic fisheries. You can only imagine what the North Pacific fishery means for Alaskan fishermen and what the Northwest Atlantic fishery means for our northeastern fishermen. It is very important that we get these treaties cleared through the Senate.

I am delighted that Chairman Menendez and his ranking member Senator Corker have passed these bills through the Foreign Relations Committee with very strong bipartisan support. I think we have a really good chance to get something done in a bipartisan fashion that is good for our industry and also the right thing to do.

It is simply unfair when international pirate fishers are able to knock down the fisheries market internationally and take away product that we would otherwise catch.

I see the senior Senator from Alaska has joined me on the floor. I just mentioned the North Pacific treaty, which I know has specific relevance to her State.

We are in a parliamentary position where we have unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy--Senator Murkowski and I and Senator Wicker and Senator Begich as they arrive. So I now yield the floor to Senator Murkowski. Let me say how much I appreciate her leadership. She has been the cochair of the Oceans Caucus. It was significantly her initiative that we should focus on pirate fishing, and I applaud all the work she has done, together with Senator Wicker, who has now joined us.

I yield to the Senator from Alaska.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Mississippi and the two Senators from Alaska for participating in this bipartisan effort. Let me conclude by reading something that Chris Lischewski, who is the CEO and President of Bumble Bee Foods, wrote to me:

Everybody loves a tuna fish sandwich. And Bumble Bee has

been in that industry for a long time. They are a proud

American company. But tuna travel great distances. They are a

fish, that if foreign pirates go after them and fish them

illegally, and fish them unsustainably and knock that

population down, that comes home to roost for good old Bumble

Bee Foods.

Here is what the CEO of that company said:

IUU fishing is a multi-billion dollar industry that

undermines our global conservation and sustainability

efforts.

By that he means his company.

Illegal fishing penalizes legitimate fishermen and

processors and it must be stopped. While the United States

has done a good job at developing laws to detect and deter

IUU fishing, other nations have not. We strongly support the

agreement on Port State Measures to prevent, deter and

eliminate the illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing,

because it creates an obligation for other nations to take

action against IUU fishing.

I yield the floor. If any of my colleague wish to speak, let me just say that they do so with my gratitude for this bipartisan moment in the Senate and in support of the jobs that the fishing industry provides for our constituents.

It appears that we will shortly be able to do that. This is a happy coincidence in which four Senators in bipartisan fashion have come to the floor to support action on four treaties that will help protect our fishing industry, and it turns out that at this moment the treaties have been cleared for ratification on both sides of the aisle. In a moment I will be able to take us through those parliamentary steps, but on behalf of all four of us, I should express my appreciation to Chairman Menendez and to his ranking member Senator Corker for the leadership they have shown in getting these treaties through the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I know it was in a strongly bipartisan fashion. I think it was in a unanimously bipartisan fashion.

The Presiding Officer is a member of that distinguished committee, and I want to express my appreciation to the Presiding Officer, Senator Coons of Delaware.

It is good to be able to do these kinds of things in a bipartisan fashion. It reminds me a little bit of our friend Senator Enzi's 80/20 rule: We get 80 percent done in the Senate without incident, but then, of course, nobody notices. The other 20 percent we fight over, and the fight gets 80 percent of the attention.

So it is a happy moment when we can do something good for our industry, good for our fisheries, do it in a bipartisan fashion, and do it smoothly.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider Calendar Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4, treaty document Nos. 112-4, 113-1, 113-2, 113-3, en bloc; that the treaties be considered as having advanced through the various parliamentary stages up to and including the presentation of the resolutions of ratification; that any committee declarations be agreed to as applicable; that any statements be printed in the Record as if read; further, that when the votes on the resolutions of ratification are taken, they be in the order reported, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon

the table en bloc; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative session.

I ask for a division vote on each of the resolutions of ratification.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

If there is no further business regarding these treaties, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I am on the floor for the 63rd consecutive week we have been in session to ask my colleagues to finally wake up to the threat of climate change. The evidence mounts of unprecedented and dangerous changes, from the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report to the recent warning from the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

The American people demand action in ever-greater numbers. Yet Congress continues to sleepwalk, lulled by special interest influence and polluter propaganda. The influence and propaganda are spread through an apparatus of denial. This apparatus is big and artfully constructed--phony-baloney organizations designed to look and sound as if they are real, messages honed by public relations experts to sound as if they are truthful, payroll scientists whom polluters can trot out when they need them. The whole thing is big and complicated enough that when we see its parts, we could be fooled into thinking it is not all connected. But it is just like the mythological Hydra: many heads, same beast. And this denial beast pollutes our democracy just as surely as its sponsors pollute our atmosphere and oceans. Some editorial pages spread the polluter party line so consistently that it appears they have gone over and actually joined the apparatus.

The climate denial network controls the political arm of the multinational corporations, the so-called U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Polluter-funded super PACs target officials who don't fall in line-- interestingly, often Republicans, in an effort to purify the party in a coal-fired crucible.

The whole deniers' castle can look pretty daunting, but it is based on rejecting science and ignoring empirical evidence. That is a weak foundation. It won't stand. The castle is built on sand and its fall is inevitable. Remember from Apocrypha: ``But above all things Truth beareth away the victory.'' And it will.

There are cracks in the foundation already. Some leading news sources have begun to put climate denial into their policy against printing misinformation and discredited theories. They just won't print that nonsense. Many executives recognize the significance of climate change and are distancing their companies from the policies and politics of climate denial. They don't want any part of that nonsense. Many local officials are doing all they can to protect their communities from the effects of climate change. They know climate denial is nonsense.

It has been wrong that the climate change denial campaign has been so ignored by major media outlets. Media Matters found that all the major network Sunday TV talk shows in all of 2013 discussed climate change for a grand total, all combined, of 27 minutes. NBC News's ``Meet the Press'' mentioned climate change once. When several of the Sunday shows discussed climate change on February 16 of this year for a grand total of 46 minutes combined, it was more climate coverage than in the past 3 years.

It has been wrong that polluters so often got their way on the editorial page. Whether through a desire to appear fair and balanced or a willful effort to help polluters, newspapers still publish editorials or letters to the editor that dispute consensus science, disparage scientists or journalists who report the truth about climate change, and exaggerate the costs of taking action to stop it. Often, their authors have direct ties to coal and oil interests, and rarely is the connection disclosed.

As we can see from this chart, some papers do it more than others. The denier champ is the Wall Street Journal editorial page, with eight denier letters in the first 10 months of 2013. That is one every 5 weeks. I think they have actually joined the denier apparatus and are now a part of the scheme, but they are on the wrong side of history.

On the right side is the Los Angeles Times, whose editorial page last year released a note from editor Paul Thornton announcing they would no longer print climate denial letters.

Thornton's note read:

I do my best to keep errors of fact off the letters page;

when one does run, a correction is published. Saying

``there's no sign humans have caused climate change'' is not

stating an opinion; it's asserting a factual inaccuracy.

Reddit is one of the Internet's most popular social and news Web sites, ``the front page of the Internet.'' According to the Pew Research Center, 1 in every 17 American adults uses Reddit. Reddit science has 4 million subscribers. That is about twice the circulation of the New York Times. Reddit Science has banned posts on climate denial because, as its moderator, Dr. Nathan Allen, explained, ``We require submissions to [Reddit Science] to be related

to recent publications in reputable peer-reviewed journals, which effectively excludes any climate denial.''

The L.A. Times and Reddit Science are not alone in seeing that the climate denier castle is built on lies. More and more American corporations are responding to the facts, understanding that they are ultimately responsible to their shareholders and customers. Major utilities--for example, PG&E, the Public Service Company of New Mexico, and Exelon--all quit the U.S. Chamber of Commerce after a chamber official called for putting climate science on trial like the Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925. The chamber may have been infiltrated and captured by the polluters, but major corporations get it: Coke and Pepsi, UPS and FedEx, GM and Ford, Google and Apple, Walmart--we can go on and on. The denier castle is crumbling.

Many of the businesses getting serious about reducing carbon pollution are actually based in States that are represented in Congress by Members who won't take the problem seriously at all. Coca-Cola, headquartered in Georgia, says:

We recognize climate change is a critical challenge facing

our planet, with potential impacts on biodiversity, water

resources, public health and agriculture. . . . Beyond the

effects on the communities we serve, we view climate change

as a potential business risk, understanding that it could

likely have direct and indirect effects on our business.

Texas- and Maryland-based Lockheed Martin states:

From 2007 through 2011, Lockheed Martin reduced its

absolute carbon emissions by 30 percent, and continues to

focus on carbon emission reductions by championing energy

conservation and efficiency measures in our facilities.

Sprint, the mobile carrier headquartered in Kansas, gets it.

We understand that climate change is a critical issue and

that reducing greenhouse gas emissions is an important goal.

Because Sprint is a large corporation with thousands of

locations, millions of customers and billions of dollars in

operating costs, we have many opportunities to reduce global

greenhouse gas emissions.

The denier castle is crumbling at the local level too. Scores of locally elected officials are fighting to slow climate change and protect their residents, even if in Congress their Congressman won't listen. One of those local leaders is Mayor Frank Cownie of Des Moines, whom I met on my recent trip to Iowa. Iowans are taking climate change seriously, and Mayor Cownie is one of over 1,000 mayors represented on this map all across the country who have signed the U.S. Conference of Mayors Climate Protection Agreement. Their pledge is to meet or beat the Kyoto Protocol emission reduction targets in their own cities and press their State governments and the Federal Government to enact meaningful greenhouse gas reduction policies.

Seventy-eight current and former mayors from Florida have signed on. With over 1,000 miles of coastline, Florida is at serious risk from sea-level rise. According to the World Resources Institute, of all the people and all the housing in America threatened by sea-level rise, 40 percent is in Florida.

Thirty-one former and current mayors from Texas have also signed on to the climate agreement. Texans are waking up to the threat of climate change. A recent poll showed that roughly 55 percent of Texans say the United States should reduce greenhouse gas emissions regardless of whether other countries do the same.

Kansas Governor Sam Brownback, our former Republican colleague from this Chamber, understands the benefits of cleaner energy. He fought to keep in Kansas his State's renewable portfolio standard, which encourages utilities to ramp up generation of renewable electricity. The standard has already helped create thousands of Kansas jobs.

Governor Steve Beshear of Kentucky, a coal-producing State, has taken a commonsense stance on climate change that defends the well-being of his State. He said:

[W]e have to acknowledge our commitment to address

greenhouse gas emissions, while stressing the need for a

rational, flexible regulatory approach.

I have to say I agree with him. I stand ready and many of us stand ready on this side to work with coal-State colleagues to ease their transition away from a polluting fossil fuel economy.

When we think of what the costs are going to be to all of us of failing to address this problem, the cost of easing the transition for those who will suffer from it is easily worth undertaking. But to do any of that, we first have to break through the barricade of lies built around Congress in Washington. We can't keep pretending this isn't real. That is why once a week for over 60 weeks I have come to the floor to press this point. It is real. It is happening. It is not going to go away if we ignore it.

There is one thing and one thing only that prevents our action, and that one thing is the politics of the Republican Party. There is one thing and one thing only that makes this the politics of the Republican Party, and that one thing is the special influence of the polluters. But against the relentless facts and science, against Mother Nature's relentless truth, that castle is built on sand and will fall. But above all things, truth beareth away victory.

For the sake of our democracy, for the sake of our future, for the sake of our honor, it is time for us to wake up.

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

Mr. President, I rise on behalf of my colleagues, Senators Harkin, Alexander, Casey and Isakson to submit the following statement for the Record.

On October 30, 2013, the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee unanimously reported the Children's Hospital GME Support Reauthorization Act of 2013, S. 1557, out of Committee. On November 12, 2013, the Senate passed S. 1557 by unanimous consent.

This legislation is the product of years of bipartisan negotiation, a process which resulted in broad Senate support for the Act. The list of original Senate cosponsors for S. 1557 demonstrates this point. This list includes Senators Casey, Isakson, Harkin, Alexander, Blumenthal, Blunt, Brown, Kirk, Murphy, Reed, Roberts, Warren, and Whitehouse.

Prior to the enactment of the Children's Hospital Graduate Medical Education, CHGME, Payment Program, there was significant disparity in federal graduate medical education, GME, support between adult teaching hospitals and children's teaching hospitals. In 1998, children's hospitals received less than 0.5 percent of the level of federal GME support that adult teaching hospitals received. In the 2001 final rule for the CHGME Payment Program, the Department of Health and Human Services, HHS, wrote, ``The intent of the CHGME Act is to create parity in GME payments among all hospitals providing GME. It is clear that primarily two factors cause this disparity in children's hospitals: (1) low Medicare utilization; and (2) Prospective Payment System (PPS)- exempt status.''

The CHGME Payment Program has made considerable progress in achieving parity in GME payments, increasing the number of pediatric training positions at participating children's hospitals. However, a small number of freestanding children's teaching hospitals remain ineligible for the program. In 2003, Senate Committee on Appropriations noted the following:

It has come to the Committee's attention that a limited

number of freestanding perinatal hospitals and children's

psychiatric hospitals have been excluded from participation

in this program despite the fact that these teaching

institutions are not eligible for Graduate Medical Education

funding under Medicare. The Committee expects [the Health

Resources and Services Administration (HRSA)] to explore the

appropriateness of including these hospitals in the

Children's Hospitals Graduate Medical Education Program and

to offer recommendations that might allow for their

inclusion.

Senate Report 108-81.

HRSA responded in a 2004 report to Congress which concluded that addressing this eligibility issue would require Congress to amend the statue governing the CHGME Payment Program. S. 1557 addresses this long-standing issue. The reauthorization legislation authorizes the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, HHS, to make available up to 25 percent of CHGME appropriations that exceed $245 million for ``qualified hospitals'' that: (1) have a Medicare payment agreement and are excluded from Medicare inpatient hospital prospective payment system; (2) have inpatients that are predominantly individuals under 18 years of age; (3) have an approved medical residency training program; and (4) are not otherwise eligible to receive payments from the CHGME Payment Program or the Medicare program. The total amount the Secretary can make available for these purposes in any fiscal year is limited to $7 million, thus ensuring that adequate resources remain available for the children's hospitals that currently participate in the program.

The Children's Hospital GME Support Reauthorization Act provides the Secretary with the necessary authority to address the disparity in GME payment facing certain children's teaching hospitals. These changes are in keeping with the intent of the CHGME Payment Program. As such, these hospitals should have the opportunity to apply for support through the CHGME Payment Program in order to sustain and build their teaching programs, and ultimately increase the supply of much-needed pediatricians and pediatric specialists. We urge the Secretary

to weigh these benefits in using the new authority under S. 1557 should funding be available.

Mr. President, we are here to point out that there are an awful lot of Americans who are winning because of the Affordable Care Act--whether it is a mom with kids who have gotten out of college but couldn't get health care on their own who can now stay on mom and dad's policy. That is one less thing for her to worry about--her 22- or 23-year-old children; that is a pretty big win.

Olive, who has been in touch with me, is a Rhode Islander from Woonsocket. She used to go into the doughnut hole every year because her husband has Alzheimer's and needs expensive medication. She saved $2,400 in the first year alone. That is a significant benefit for Olive.

We have people who are trapped in their jobs because they couldn't get away. They were chained to their jobs because of the need of insurance. Alana, from Warwick, was one such person. She was working at one of our universities. She liked her job, but she really wanted to be a Web entrepreneur. She was tied to her job by employer-supplied health care. She went to HealthSource Rhode Island back in December and found a plan that worked for her. The plan's premium was so low she told me it sent her ``over the moon.'' She has become the proud owner of her own Rhode Island small business because she had the confidence she could go forward. Stories such as Alana's abound not just in Rhode Island but across the country.

When I first came into our Rhode Island health exchange, the first person I saw who was ahead of me in line had boxes of Dunkin' Donuts and two big boxes of coffee. They had been there earlier in the afternoon, and the people who worked there were able to help them sign up for health insurance for the first time for their family. They were so thrilled they brought in doughnuts and coffee as a thank-you. That is the story we see.

I have to say that we have to look at what the problem was with health care. This is where we should be working together. Look at where the costs are

going; that is health care costs. In 1960, $27 billion, and $2.7 trillion in 2011. This was out of control. This was not going to be sustainable. Something absolutely, positively has to be done to get health care under control.

The unsung part of the Affordable Care Act is the part that begins the change in our delivery system reform so we can make our system affordable. Do we do it by taking things away from people? No. We do it by making the system better. How do we know that will work?

Here is a graph of all the major countries that are various kinds of competitors with us: Switzerland, Norway, Netherlands, Great Britain, Japan, and basically the rest of the major industrial nations. If you plot their life expectancy in years and their population against how much they spend per capita on health care, you get a pretty solid grouping through here, and you get a pretty clear curve that can be drawn through that.

Well, here is the U.S.A. We are way more per capita than the most expensive country--better than $2,000 per person more per capita than the other most expensive countries in the world. Look at us for life expectancy. We come in around Chile and the Czech Republic, and we are below all of our competitors.

There is huge room for improvement--better health care at lower costs that will extend our lives and reduce the costs. If we just move back into this pack, we would save $1 trillion a year in health care in this country--not just the government, but across the country. It would help businesses, it would help taxpayers, and it would help everybody.

There are different ways to do it. Here is one little example. This is people who are readmitted after they have gone into the hospital. What was happening was that after people got out of the hospital and went back to their nursing home or back to their house, their discharge plan was not very good. Their doctor may not have even known they were getting out, and they didn't know what to do with their medications. So what happens? Two weeks or a month later, they are back in the hospital again. We decided to do something about it in the Affordable Care Act.

This is the readmission rate. It was rocking along around 19 percent, and then along comes our bill in 2011, and it starts to drop. It starts to drop pretty dramatically. If we can keep that up, we save the money of all of those readmissions. You don't pay for a readmission that never happens. It is an absolute economic savings. Plus, the family doesn't have to worry about grandma going back into the hospital again and picking up a hospital-acquired infection or some other cost like that.

I thank the Senator from Connecticut, Senator Murphy, for organizing us on the floor today.

I want to summarize that there is a great human interest story to tell about the Affordable Care Act that is helping families not only in Rhode Island but across the country; and moreover, it is a great tool for us as I hope we can work together to improve our delivery system of health care so we are delivering better health care to Americans for a lower cost. We know we can do it. For crying out loud, if Greece and these other countries can do it, then by God so can the United States of America.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I am now here for the 62nd weekly effort to have my colleagues wake up to the threats of climate change. Congress continues to remain sound asleep, I suspect anesthetized by the narcotic drip of polluter money into our veins. But the signs of change around us continue.

These are the Mau Loa monthly carbon dioxide concentrations. We have just passed, again, 400 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This is the second year in a row this has happened. This year it happened 2 months earlier than last year. So why does it matter that we are at 400 parts per million? What does that mean to anybody?

We have actually gone back and measured where the carbon concentration in the atmosphere has been going way back. We can measure back in ancient ice so we know that for at least 800,000 years, our carbon concentration is between 170 and 300 parts per million. That is a long run for a species that has only been homo sapien for about 250,000 years. That has been a long and hospitable window, during which our species has developed from very primitive hunter-gatherers into the complex people that we are now.

So when you take something like that, the carbon concentration, and you bust out of a range that has sheltered us for 800,000 years, that is not nothing. It is particularly not nothing when you know that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere raises the temperature of the Earth. We have known that since Abraham Lincoln was President. This is not something that is debatable. This is not new news. This is established science for 150-plus years.

We also know--because you can replicate it in the laboratory--that when you put higher concentrations of carbon in the air over seawater, it acidifies the seawater. If you doubt any of that, you can go out and measure that it is actually happening--the known provable theories, the known principles, I should say. In fact, laws of science are actually manifest in sea level rise from the warming oceans, in warming ocean temperatures, in increased acidification. These are measurements.

As this continues, we continue to do nothing about it, but we let the big polluters continue to spew carbon pollution into our atmosphere. Some of us in Congress are tired of waiting for folks to wake up. This month 31 Senators from every part of the country held the Senate floor through the night to sharpen this Chamber's focus on the threats of climate change. I thank Senator Schatz of Hawaii for leading us through this wake-up call, and to Senator Boxer for her leadership of the Senate Climate Action Task Force, and to the Presiding Officer, the senior Senator from Massachusetts, for her enthusiastic participation and support in that effort.

The American people tuned in, tweeting over 54,000 times at the hashtag up4climate in the 24-hour period of this effort. Also, Americans added more than 200,000 signatures to online petitions urging Congress to get with it and do something about this climate problem. The public knows it is a problem and has been pushing us to act now for years.

I have heard it from Rhode Island fishermen who now have to chase their catch further offshore into cooler waters because our coastal waters have warmed. The Presiding Officer has heard it from her Massachusetts fishermen as well. I have heard it from homeowners in South Kingston, RI, whose houses are falling into the ocean as the sea level rises and they encroach further inland into what had for generations been family homes.

Rhode Island does its part to try to address climate change. We are participating in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, and we are everywhere readying our coastlines for worse storms and higher seas. But the Ocean State cannot do this alone. The health, the safety, the prosperity of the people I represent in Rhode Island's communities depend on national action. We need a national groundswell of citizens and elected officials from every State.

So last week I went to Iowa to share with that State Rhode Island's climate change stories and to listen to Iowans tell me their climate change stories and how it is affecting their communities. I was invited to Iowa by Senator Rob Hogg, who is a passionate defender of the Iowan environment and way of life and a very knowledgeable expert on climate change.

I want to thank him and I also want to thank the Iowa legislature, particularly house minority leader Mark Smith and senate majority leader Michael Gronstal for their warm welcome. I also want to thank my colleague Senator Harkin and his staff for

their assistance in planning and coordinating my visit.

Farming is not a big deal in Rhode Island. We are not known as an agricultural State. We have farms and we love them. But it is not quite the same as Iowa. Farming is the cornerstone of Iowa's economy. Disruption of agricultural productivity is one of the great climate risks in Iowa. The recent National Climate Assessment draft finds this:

In the long term, combined stresses associated with climate

change are expected to decrease agricultural productivity,

especially without significant advances in genetic and

agronomic technology.

But we do not have to wait for the long term. Iowans are already being hit by extreme weather. In 2013, just last year, 155 science faculty and research staff from 36 Iowa colleges and universities--home State Iowa teachers from their colleges and universities, 155 of them-- signed the Iowa Climate Statement, concerning the losses that farmers across the State are already experiencing due to climate change.

I ask unanimous consent that the Iowa Climate Statement be printed in the Record following my statement.

Iowa has had 20 Presidential Disaster Declarations since 1990 due to flooding. Damage has been more than $20 billion. Although no one particular flood can be directly connected to climate change, we know that carbon pollution loads the dice for the extreme downpours that provoke these floods in Iowa and in the Midwest.

I call it the Barry Bonds rule. You do not know which home run was caused by the steroids, but you know for sure he was hitting extra home runs because of the steroids and you can measure that. In 1993 in Iowa, a flood exceeding once-in-500-year flood levels hit Des Moines. Ted Corrigan of Des Moines Water Works told me during my visit that the city's infrastructure was overwhelmed, leaving Des Moines without clean water for more than 2 weeks.

The Des Moines Register reports that Iowa has endured at least 10 so- called 500-year floods since 1993--10 500-year floods since 1993. That includes the big 2008 flood that cost $10 billion statewide in Iowa.

Doug Newman, the executive vice president at the Cedar Rapids Economic Alliance, told me what it was like to live through that unprecedented flood. Doug explained that in Cedar Rapids, flood levels had never, for as long as they have measured it, exceeded 21 feet. This flood maxed out at 31 feet, 10 feet above the all time previous ever recorded record.

A thousand businesses were flooded. One-fifth of them were lost. More than 1,000 people lost their jobs. So it was tough. But what I saw was Iowans taking action--from college students to business leaders, from activists of the Iowa Citizens Climate Lobby to the conservationists to the Izaak Walton League. Iowans are preparing for the effects of climate change, and they want to see Federal action.

Like Rhode Islanders, they are tired of trying to carry this themselves. Des Moines Mayor Frank Cownie is one of over 1,000 mayors represented on this map all across the country who have signed the U.S. Conference of Mayors Climate Protection Agreement, pledging to meet or beat the Kyoto Protocol targets in their own cities and to press their State governments and the Federal Government--us--to enact meaningful greenhouse gas reductions.

I visited with TPI Composites. TPI Composites has a development and manufacturing facility in my home State, in Warren, RI. They are part of our composites cluster in Rhode Island. But they are also a leading Iowa manufacturer of wind turbine blades. In 10 years, TPI has manufactured more than 10,000 wind turbine blades. So when the Maytag headquarters closed, leaving as many as 4,000 workers jobless in Newton, IA, this helped the town get back on its feet.

If we allow the production tax credit or the PTC to lapse, loss of that tax incentive for wind energy producers will jeopardize the business that TPI has built. So the Iowa State Senate unanimously passed a resolution in January supporting the extension of the production tax credit--unanimously, bipartisan.

There is bipartisan support for the extension of both the production tax credit and the investment tax credit, and we should get that done in this Congress. I also heard in Iowa from Warren McKenna, the manager at the Farmer Electric Cooperative in Kalona, IA. Kalona is a town of about 2,400 people. It has Iowa's first community solar garden, with 25 kilowatts of capacity. For the co-op's 800 owner-members, that 25 kilowatts of energy helps reduce their monthly bills. And for members who have their own solar panels, they also get paid for the energy they add into the co-op's system. And this year, off of those successes, the co-op is breaking ground on an 800,000-kilowatt solar installation, taking advantage of a State solar tax credit that was passed by a Democratic senate and a Republican house and signed into law by a Republican Governor.

This body could learn a thing or two from the Iowa State legislature. It shows what can happen when the polluter money doesn't have a Democratic institution locked down the way Congress has been.

I also visited BioProcess Algae. This is a Rhode Island-based company. The CEO, Timmy Burns, is right here--a Quidnick Islander like myself. They design, build, and operate commercial-scale algae bioreactors. The commercial demonstration project shown here is located down in the southwest corner of Iowa in Shenandoah.

BioProcess Algae uses the wastewater and the waste heat and the carbon dioxide emissions from the nearby ethanol refinery to grow algae. The algae can then be used for animal feed, can be used for biofuels, and, while it is growing, it eats up the carbon dioxide that would otherwise be emitted to pollute the atmosphere. Here in Shenandoah, American ingenuity is turning carbon pollution into economic opportunity.

I also visited this wind turbine. This is the base of a wind turbine. This is the stairway up into where you can go inside to serve it. You can see it is pretty big. There is the arc of the round steel base, and it towers up hundreds of feet. I think the blade diameter was 160 meters. It is a pretty serious-sized wind turbine. It is located in one of five wind parks which have a combined 500 wind turbines that are operated by a company called MidAmerican Energy.

Thanks to pioneering companies such as MidAmerican, and to the State tax incentives that encourage these projects, more than a quarter of Iowa's electricity is generated by wind. They are leading the country. More than a quarter of their electricity is generated by wind. It measures in the gigawatts. That is a lot of wind power. And they love it. The farmers get paid for having the wind turbine on their farm. If you look--I don't know how well the camera can see this--this is the turbine itself, the stand that it rises up on, the column. That is the doorway into it. We are standing on a gravel sort of service road ring around it so that equipment can be pulled up to it for maintenance purposes. But look right here. That is not too far away. That is maybe 25 feet. They are farming right up to 25 feet away from this thing. So you farm and you get paid for having the wind turbine located on your farm. It is a wonderful two-fer.

The conclusion I drew from all of this--from the exciting new types of energy being grown from algae, from the huge commitment to wind, from the audiences that came out and expressed their support for getting stuff done on climate, for the bipartisan support from so much of this clean energy stuff--is that Iowans have awoken to the threat of climate change. And that is important. Because Iowa plays a key role in our politics. Iowa helps determine which issues our Presidential candidates will be judged on. In 2016, I will bet that Iowans are going to insist they all address carbon pollution and they are not going to accept a lot of nonsense denial out of those candidates.

In fact, I believe if the Republican Party tries to nominate a climate denier for President, they are in big trouble. Of course, the carbon fuel-funded denial machine will do its best to change the subject, to muddy the waters, to create doubt, to use its anonymous dark political money to keep candidates quiet. But all the money in the world can't change the fact that Iowans know, just like Rhode Islanders do, that climate change is real. And those Iowans are going to put those Presidential candidates on

record. If you are a denier, good luck in Iowa. Iowans see the changes taking place and they are speaking up. Farmers in Iowa and fishermen in Rhode Island may be miles from each other geographically, but they both see in their lives around them the facts of the changes that are already happening.

The time to sit on the sidelines is over. If we fight hard, if we are willing to have this fight, I am confident we can do a strong climate bill in Congress and soon--a climate bill that will strengthen our economy, because it will; a climate bill that will redirect our future, as it must; a climate bill that will protect our democracy, because the pollution of our atmosphere and oceans that the carbon polluters are doing is matched by the pollution of our democracy that they are doing with their dirty and anonymous money; and finally, a bill that will honor our duty to the generations that will follow us, because each American generation takes that duty as a very high duty. Right now we are dishonoring that duty and we are not leaving for future generations the kind of country we should.

I went recently to Ukraine. I met with one of the leaders of the Ukrainian freedom movement. His name is Vitali Klitschko. If you are a boxing fan, you know who Vitali Klitschko is because he is a huge guy who was the world heavyweight boxing champion for years, and he has now thrown himself into the struggle of Ukraine for freedom; first of all, freedom from Russian influence and control, and more recently freedom from the oligarchs who basically robbed the country blind but were finally run out after that long bloody siege at the square in Kiev, the Maidan.

Vitali has an interesting phrase that he uses. Because when he started this fight, it wasn't the least bit clear that anybody could win this thing. The oligarchs are billionaires. They have immense resources at their disposal. And they keep stealing, so there is always more. And, of course, the Russians are right there with their baleful influence, trying to make sure there is as little freedom and opportunity as possible and to keep Ukraine under their thrall. Those are some powerful forces. So people would ask him: Can you win? And he had a very simple answer. I can't imitate the good Slavic accent, and I can't imitate the basso profundo voice of a man that big, but his phrase was memorable: No fight, no win.

Well, we have had no fight in us for too long on climate. It is time to put some more fight into this thing, because I think on climate the opposite is true. This isn't a no-fight, no-win situation. This is a ``if we fight, we will win'' situation. The facts are there. The public is ready. There is nothing between us and doing our duty other than the barricade of lies, the polluter-funded denial beast that is out there shopping their nonsense, and we can outdo them. It doesn't take much. Because, among other things, it is always easier for the truth to win over a lie. You just have to be willing to go out there and have that fight. So we have to wake up. When we do, we will win. I am more confident than ever, having been back from Iowa.

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

Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.

The problem of carbon pollution could not be more real for my home State of Rhode Island. It is real for our country's future. I will be here in the wee hours and I will yield my time so we can compress this. We have a lot of Senators who want to speak in a short period of time.

I want to yield my time and express my gratitude to Senator Schatz of Hawaii who has coordinated tonight's event.

Mr. President, how much time remains under the control of our side?

That is kind of the distinguished Senator, but I think we have managed to come within our time.

As we close, I wish to thank so many colleagues who have participated in this early lightning round of statements by Senators. We expect to have 30 Democratic Senators speaking on this issue during the course of the night, through the night, and into tomorrow morning.

It is a matter we are overdue in addressing. It is a matter that is really beyond legitimate scientific dispute--at least as to the fundamental truth of the planet warming and why. Indeed, Abraham Lincoln was the President when a scientist named Tyndall--over in England--first presented to the Royal Academy of Sciences his work showing that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere warms the Earth as it increases its density. We are now more carbon dense.

As Senator King said, we spent about 800,000 to 3 million years in a zone of 150 to 300 parts per million. We had never been at 400 parts per million in the history of human habitation on the face of this planet until just a few months ago when the first 400-parts-per-million reading was recorded. We have to pay attention to this.

I will close by saying that not only is this a vital point for our home States, it is vital for California, which is riven by drought. It is vital for New Mexico and Colorado, which have also seen drought and wildfires. It is also vital for New York, which was clobbered by Superstorm Sandy. It is vital for Hawaii, which is seeing sea level rise and acidification. It is vital for Massachusetts, where the sea level is up 10 inches, and we are beginning to see fisheries move north and away from our waters to avoid the warming seas. It is vital for Connecticut, which has virtually lost its lobster fishery because of its warming season. And, of course, it is vital for Rhode Island. My Narragansett Bay is 3 to 4 degrees warmer in the winter, and that means that fisheries, such as the winter flounder fishery, are simply gone-- 90-plus percent crashed.

We have to face this as States, we have to face this as a nation, and if we fail, we will have failed the fundamental test of every American generation. The fundamental test of every American generation is, will you bring the reputation of this country and the integrity of this democracy forward through your time so the next American generation can carry it forward with honor?

We received our democracy from the ``greatest generation.'' They fought world wars to make it safe for us. If we fail now, we will not be the greatest generation; we will be a disgraced generation. I intend to do everything I can to make sure we do not get there.

I yield back the rest of the Democrats' time

Madam President, Senator Feinstein is scheduled to speak next, and we are delighted that she is.

Dinner Invitation

I just wanted to make a public service announcement at this point in the evening. Any staff, Senators who are here through the night, any floor staff, Republican floor staff as well, all are invited; and for any of the parliamentary staff who are interested, there is dinner available in Room S. 219, and better to get it while it is hot.

That is the end of the public service announcement.

Madam President, may I thank the distinguished Senator from California for her speech. For those who know of her history with this issue and her leadership on pollution issues over many years, this was an important speech, and I thank the Senator very much.

Before we turn to Senator Boxer, I wish to say a few things about the comments the Senator from Oklahoma made earlier, I suppose in an effort to suggest climate change is not all that we shake it up to be. The first point he made was about a group of emails that came out of East Anglia University, which the climate denier community seized on and nicknamed climategate, as if like Watergate there was a big scandal in those emails. There were some probably not entirely appropriate comments that were said in the emails, but the question is, Was the science underlying it affected or compromised in any way?

So-called climategate was actually looked at over and over again. Because it was at the University of East Anglia, the University of East Anglia did an investigation. Because it involved scientists at Penn State, Penn State did an investigation. Both of those universities gave a complete clean bill of health to the underlying science that was at the base of this.

The House of Commons--the British House of Commons did its investigation. That is how much fuss the deniers kicked up about this. They came back and they said: Nothing wrong with the science there. Nothing wrong with the science. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and National Science Foundation also did investigations, as did the inspector general of the Department of Commerce. Three for three, those investigations came back as well, saying: If they did say anything inappropriate, nothing wrong with the science.

After all that, after six published reviews whose results confirmed that there was nothing wrong with the science as a result of these emails, for people to continue to come to the floor and to suggest that the email chain revealed some flaw in the data or some flaw in the science, it is untrue. It is as simple as that. It is just not true.

In fact, if you wanted to nickname this properly, you would actually call it climategate-gate because the real scandal is the phony scandal that was whipped up about these emails when the underlying science had been confirmed by every single investigation that followed. So much for climategate or climategate-gate, more properly said.

He also indicated that because the IPCC report had said the Himalayan glaciers were retreating, but they weren't, that there was something obviously wrong with the science. Let us start with some glaciers closer to home. This is Grinell Glacier in Montana. Here is what it looked like in 1940. That is all snow. Here is what it looks like in 2004. It is melted down to this little puddle of snow and ice.

We are indeed losing our glaciers. Have a look in Washington at Lillian Glacier in Washington's Olympic National Park. This is in 1905. Look at the size of that glacier. Here it is, the same bowl, virtually dried of snow--glacier gone.

The fact that glaciers are disappearing is something people see in front of them all around the world. All you have to do is go to mountains with glaciers and look. I went with Senator Boxer to the glaciers in Greenland. You could see the glaciers retreat. You could see the increased speed as the ice moved more rapidly down and out to sea because of the melt.

Now the question of the Himalayan glaciers has also been reviewed. A recent article in Nature said:

The Tibetan plateau and surroundings contain the largest

number of glaciers outside polar regions. These glaciers are

at the headwaters of many prominent Asian rivers and are

largely experiencing shrinkage. . . .

Which is exactly what one would expect from the science of climate change.

Now the National Academy of Sciences recently did a report on this very subject about 6 months ago, and a quote on that report says:

The report examines how changes to glaciers in the Hindu

Kush-Himalayan region, which covers eight countries across

Asia, could affect the area's river systems, water supplies,

and the South Asian population. The mountains in the region

form the headwaters of several major river systems--including

the Ganges, Mekong, Yangtze, and Yellow rivers--which serve

as sources of drinking water and irrigation supplies for

roughly 1.5 billion people. So the irrigation and drinking

water for 1.5 billion people is nothing to laugh about.

Here is the conclusion:

The entire Himalayan climate is changing, but how climate

change will impact specific places remains unclear. . . . The

eastern Himalayas and Tibetan Plateau are warming, and the

trend is more pronounced at higher elevations. Models suggest

that desert dust and black carbon, a component of soot, could

contribute to the rapid atmospheric warming, accelerated

snowpack melting, and glacier retreat.

The Senator also mentioned the cost of a carbon fee. Just to make the record completely clear, I would propose a carbon fee whose every dollar of revenue was returned to the American people if as a result of a carbon fee they end up paying more in their energy bill somewhere.

Every dollar of that should come back to the American people. It could come back in the form of a check to the head of a family. It could come back in the form of lower tax rates. It could come back in a variety of ways, and I hope soon we are actually having that discussion. But do not think there is any need for this to be a net cost to the economy. Every dollar can go back to the American people. Because of the nature of this tax, it is actually probably more efficient than others, so it should create economic lift for a net economic gain if you are truly offsetting the revenues. So I reject the proposition that this would create a cost. It would be easy to design it in such a way that it is actually net improvement.

Finally, I will agree with something Senator Inhofe said. He said this has to be international; and indeed it does have to be international. India has a vote. They have a lot of powerplants. China has a lot of powerplants. They have to work together. We can do that.

America can lead in the world. If the others are slow to come, we can erect tax adjustments at our border that protect us and our products. We can make this happen, and we should.

The last is job loss claims. If you go back through the history of regulation of big industries, every time you roll something out they say it is going to be a huge economic disaster. They said this about the ozone layer; the Clean Air Act; the Clean Water Act. In fact, in some cases such as in the Clean Air Act, subsequent review showed the

amount that is saved from not being polluted exceeds the cost of compliance by as much as 30-to-1. Why would we not want a deal like that, particularly where the costs of climate change are going to be so severe?

The Senator said it is important to look at what has happened since the original IPCC report. Here is what happened since the original IPCC report. They doubled down. They are even more sure than they were of their findings on climate change. Other scientific organizations such as NASA have chimed in in unflinching language. I happen to have a lot of respect for NASA. If you can put a vehicle the size of an SUV up and out of our atmosphere, into orbit, send it to Mars, land it safely on Mars, and then drive it around, I think there is a pretty safe bet that you have some good scientists who know what they are talking about. I will put them up against the scientists paid for by the polluters every day.

I will yield the floor first to Chairman Boxer.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

The Senator's point about China makes me think that if you look at the behavior of the Chinese with respect to this power, you see a couple things. You see, first of all, that they have worked very hard to try to undercut our domestic innovation by dropping prices on solar artificially. You see that particularly if you are involved on the Intelligence and Armed Services side, the extraordinary efforts they have made to hack into our intellectual property and to try to steal it back to China so their companies can compete unfairly against ours.

When you see this activity, particularly in the area of solar and renewables, and you see the extent to which the Chinese are investing in solar and renewables, what conclusion must one draw about what the Chinese see as the future of solar and renewables?

On the point the Senator from New Jersey makes about economic power being the foundation for military power and the power of persuasion around the globe, one really does not have to look any further than back to the decline and fall of the Soviet Union, which is widely viewed as being based on a country that spent so much on its military without an underlying economic engine powerful enough to support it that it finally fell in.

So when we are looking out at a clean energy market that has been estimated to be a $6 trillion market, the idea that it is in America's interest to cede that entire market to the Chinese, to let them be the manufacturers, to trust that we will be fine if they are manufacturing solar and wind and all of the new battery technologies and that we are just consumers of that, is crazy. That economic weakness has national security overtones.

In addition, as the distinguished Senator from New Jersey pointed out, in addition to Admiral Locklear--and the distinguished Senator from Hawaii mentioned Admiral Locklear as well, but he is not alone. Secretary Mabus, Secretary of the Navy, has pointed out the same thing. We are at risk from global warming from a national security perspective. The Joint Chiefs of Staff is on record about the national security consequences of climate change to our country. As the Senator from New Mexico knows from his time on the Intelligence Committee, there are NIEs--National Intelligence Estimates--that speak to the danger climate change presents for America, for our national security interests when it happens in other lands. The Defense

Quadrennial Review, which is the key document that drives our defense policy, has over and over again emphasized climate change as a national security risk, as a liability for our country. So, yes, it is very important that we deal with this.

I had a conversation with Henry Kissinger the other day. He was speaking generally. He used an interesting phrase. He said that the big upheavals and revolutions in the world have always come from a confluence of resentment--a confluence of resentment.

So I would add to the immediate risk of climate change causing upheaval and causing military problems that threaten our national security interest the larger problem is that America stands for something in this world, and we all benefit because America stands for something in this world, and the rest of the world knows it. If we come to the point where around the world people are seeing in their homes, in their lives, in their villages, in their hamlets, and on their shores the effects of climate change and it is bad for them--the fish they used to catch are not there; the crops they used to grow will not grow any longer; the river they used to irrigate is not running as strong any longer; and their lives have been hurt as a result of that, and they look around, what greater resentment could there be than a resentment of the country that knew this was coming, that said it was a leadership nation, and that did nothing about it when it knew.

Now, there is a confluence of resentment around the world. That, too, creates a national security risk for our country.

I am just waiting to hear what character I remind the Senator of, because this could be for good or it could be for very ill.

I appreciate that very much.

Let me say for the Record I would be Morgan Freeman all day long and all night long, for that matter.

Will the Senator yield?

Michael Brune, who is the head of the Sierra Club, came in to see a number of Senators the other day. He told an interesting story that lines up with what Senator Schatz said about how solar is a pocketbook issue and not a political issue.

This story involves Atlanta, GA, which is not exactly a hotbed of liberal sentiment. In Atlanta, the cost of solar on a residential rooftop--the cost of putting a solar panel on your home--has now leveled out with the cost of electricity at the plug in your home. As a result, residential installations of solar energy started to boom.

Now, for economic reasons, the fossil fuel polluters were against that, and so the Koch brothers and the polluters got behind this group called ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council, which is basically a front group for them. They tried to put through a tax on rooftop solar installations so that if you put a solar panel on your roof, you would get taxed for it because they didn't like the fact that solar had actually caught up to polluting fossil fuel power at the plug.

Who came together to fight that tax? The Sierra Club and the tea party. The Sierra Club and the tea party worked together to beat that tax and to beat ALEC and to beat the Koch brothers and the polluters back on that. Again, if you have the Sierra Club and the tea party pulling side by side, you know it is not ideology. You know at that point it is a pocketbook issue, and that people are starting to see savings from putting solar on their own home and they don't want anybody to interfere with that. That is a story that is a long way from Hawaii, but it helps to illustrate that point.

It is interesting that my friend should mention his Chamber of Commerce. In Rhode Island, we too are seeing very active participation by our local Chambers of Commerce in green, solar, alternative energy, energy efficiency, and other such endeavors. They see it is a pocketbook issue. They see it makes sense.

It is a stark comparison with the so-called U.S. Chamber of Commerce--the national organization--which tends to represent the multinational corporations which have very little, if any, allegiance to this country and the big polluters. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has been an absolute menace in terms of any responsible dealings with climate change. But as soon as you get away from the so-called U.S. Chamber of Commerce--the multinational Chamber of Commerce is what it should probably be called--and get down to these Chambers of Commerce that are grounded with our States, grounded with local businesses, grounded in commonsense, you immediately see that they step right up and want to be a part of this solution.

Let me mention one thing. The Senator from Hawaii was good enough to mention that our hashtag tonight is up4climate, with the ``4'' being a numeral, so up numeral 4 climate. There was a remark made earlier that we are just going to be up late at night talking to ourselves and that nobody is going to be paying attention. The reports I have are that the League of Conservation Voters is tracking this with a Web site and 70,000 people have gone to their Web site to support us in our effort tonight. 350.org has 15,000 people who have gone to their Web site to support us. Our own Web site has 40,000 people, for a total of 120,000 signatories just on these Web sites. We also have people who have been going out on Twitter on this. We have people such as Leader Pelosi from the other side of the Capitol. They are locked down hard by the polluters over in the House right now. Nevertheless, Leader Pelosi wanted her voice to be heard, and so she has tweeted out and put out a release about this. OFA has tweeted out about what we are doing tonight, and they reach 42 million people.

So if anybody thinks nobody is listening to what is going on tonight, wrong. Millions of people are following this on Twitter, have been notified about it on Twitter, and literally over 100,000 people have joined these Web sites with more to come, I hope.

I think this is an important turning point, an important launch point for the final phase of getting to responsible climate legislation. We were so close. We were heartbreakingly close when the House passed Waxman-Markey and in the Senate we failed to bring up any bill that could have gone to conference. We just failed to do it.

There was a period after that when the White House would barely mention climate change. It was deeply discouraging for people across the country to see the Senate fail that way and the White House retreat that way, but that has changed. The White House is back. The President is reengaged. He has announced a very strong climate action plan that has as a critical element putting some regulation on the big powerplants that are doing so much of the polluting. By the way, when I say big powerplants that are doing so much of the polluting, I mean 50 top polluting powerplants in this country put out more carbon than Korea, which is a very industrialized country, put out more carbon than Canada. That is just the top 50 polluting powerplants.

So that was a big shift when the White House did that, and this signals a shift that is coming to the Senate. The next big shift we need to get to is one where this line in the Senate, marking Democrat from Republican, is not such a harsh line on this issue. There is no need for it to be. This has in the past been a bipartisan issue.

Senator Lieberman on our side and Senator Warner on the Republican side did one of the early climate bills. This is an issue where Republican candidates for President who served here still campaigned for President on the issue of climate change. There is a Member on the other side of the aisle who was the original cosponsor of a climate fee bill. There are Republican Members who when they were in the House voted for Waxman-Markey. There are a number of Republican Senators who have publicly said they think a carbon tax or a carbon fee is a sensible idea or is an idea they would support under the right circumstances.

So there is a great opportunity to reach out to colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Once we get past people who are elected politically, we see Republicans in abundance supporting doing something about climate.

The Presiding Officer, the distinguished Senator from New Jersey, discussed earlier the Republican former EPA Administrators who came forward to say: Hey, guys, time to wake up. This is serious. You have to be responsible about it.

George Schultz has campaigned for a carbon fee, to put a proper price on carbon so we can deal with this issue. Former Representative Bob Inglis is out barnstorming around the country arguing that there should be a Republican conservative carbon fee proposal.

So even though that side of the Senate has been empty all night since Senator Inhofe left--and he was here to deny there is a problem--so there has been no voice for doing anything responsible about climate change all night from that side of the aisle. It has been absolutely silent, absolutely empty. But it is closer than it looks when we actually look at the history of Members on that side of the aisle, when we look at the position of Republicans who are not up for election.

Here is a fairly well-known Republican conservationist; indeed, perhaps the greatest conservationist President in American history: Theodore Roosevelt, a Republican. He had two very important characteristics that there is no reason the Republican Party should not be following today; one was he cared about America as a physical and spiritual space. It wasn't just about the money. It wasn't just about who could make money buying and selling what, who could make money extracting this or doing the other. He cared about America as a physical and a spiritual place. He would go out and camp in the forests with John Muir to get the experience and to embody the value of America as a physical and a spiritual space.

So that was one characteristic that was very important.

Here is the other one: He was willing to stand up against the big money. He was willing to tell the big money, basically: I am against you. I am willing to have a fight with you. The fact that you are big money is not alone enough for your argument to prevail with me. He went after the big trusts and he stuck up for the little guy against the big money. There is nothing that says the Republican Party couldn't do that again, although right now that is not their situation.

I mentioned earlier how we had a former Republican Presidential candidate who campaigned on climate change, how we have a Republican Senator who was a cosponsor of a climate fee bill, how we have a Republican Senator who voted for Waxman-Markey when he was in the House, how we have Republican Senators who have spoken for a carbon fee. All of that happened before 2010. What happened in 2010 that drove every Republican back underground on this issue? I will tell my colleagues what happened. The U.S. Supreme Court decided a case called Citizens United, and the instant they decided Citizens United, the Koch brothers and the big polluters put enormous amounts of money into elections. They didn't just put the money into elections between Republicans and Democrats, they put money into elections between Republicans and Republicans. They went into primary elections and they went after Republicans who were not consistent with their orthodoxy on climate change. Unless you are a denier, they either punish you or threaten you.

Since that time, that is why there has been silence on the Republican side. It is not because there is not a tradition of Republicans caring about the environment. The Environmental Protection Agency was established by a Republican President. Theodore Roosevelt was our greatest conservationist. There is a Republican tradition of this. There is a Republican tradition of standing up to the big money and sticking up for regular people but not since Citizens United, not since that baleful decision cast an absolute avalanche of dark money--of unlimited money and anonymous money--into the elections. I will speak more about that later, but that is what the problem has been. The only thing it takes to cure that is for the Republican Party to become more worried about the reality of climate change and the opinion of the American public than they are about the Koch brothers' millions and what is going to be spent against them.

If the American public makes it clear in the coming months that they are tired of Congress being stuck, if the American public decides it is time to wake up here in Congress, then the choice becomes inevitable. As the Senator from Hawaii said, the dance partners on the Republican side have to come off the wall and come back onto the dance floor. There is a conservative way to do a carbon fee, as Secretary Schultz and Representative Inglis and Reagan's budget officer, Laffer, have all come forward to say.

I would love to. But before I do that let me follow up on the point Senator Schatz was making because you do not have to go to faraway island nations to see people who are being hurt by rising sea levels and eroding shorelines. You do not have to go to island nations. You can go to Rhode Island and you can see it.

Here is a photograph of some homes at Roy Carpenter's Beach on the south shore coast of Rhode Island in Washington County after Hurricane Sandy.

This is Governor Chafee, former Senator Chafee, who used to serve in this body. These homes--I remember speaking to a lady who was with us that day, and I do not remember if it was this house in the picture or this house that was hers. But she had started coming as a very little girl. Her childhood memories were on this beach. This house used to have a lawn in front of it. She can remember playing badminton on the lawn in front of her house. On the other side of the lawn was a road-- just a dirt road--so cars could come in and out. On the other side of the road was a parking lot, where the cars could park, and on the other side of the parking lot began the beach.

She can remember, as many little children who have been to the beach can remember, that when that hot Sun beats down on the sand, it gets hot, and on the child's little feet that heat can hurt. So she would have to run. She would have to run across this long, expansive beach. She can remember the distance running across the hot sand until her feet got into the cool, sparkling waters of the ocean.

Those were her memories of a Rhode Island summer: playing on the lawn, seeing the cars come to the beach, running across the hot sand to the cool water.

In her lifetime the beach is gone, the parking lot is gone, the road is gone, the lawn is gone, and the ocean is tearing out the underpinnings of these homes.

You can go as far away from Rhode Island in the United States as you can get on the mainland and where do you end up? Alaska. What do you see? A very similar phenomenon of houses falling into the sea. This is a town called Shishmaref. It is a little bit different in Alaska as to the reasons. It is often because the ice that protects the shore from winter storms--because the waves break against the ice and not the shore--the ice is not there. The ice has melted away. So now the winter storms beat directly against the shore.

There are villages like Shishmaref that have been at their location for as long as the memories and the traditions of the indigenous tribes who live there go. For as long as the memory of man runneth in those areas, those villages have been there. But now, in a generation, they are going.

We see it in comparisons like this. This was, again, after Sandy. Here is a beachfront building at the South Kingstown Town Beach in Rhode Island. You can see the ocean right up against it.

That is what it used to look like not too long ago, as shown in this picture, in just 1994. This building is that building now shown in this other picture. This walkway is that walkway. As you can see, this walkway was broken up by the storm. The ocean has now come to here. The entire beach has gone.

So we see it in Rhode Island, I say to the Senator, as much as we do in faraway island kingdoms. But to the Senator's point about acidification, the seas are an honest witness. The oceans do not lie. You can measure what the oceans are telling us about climate change, and they are telling us they are getting warmer. It is not complicated. You measure that with a thermometer. They are getting bigger, higher. The law of thermal expansion means that when you warm fluids, they expand and the seas, therefore, rise. You measure that with, more or less, the equivalent of a yardstick. Thermometers and yardsticks--it is not complicated. It is undeniable.

The third piece, as the Senator mentioned, is ocean acidification, which everybody who has an aquarium knows how to measure acidity. It is a litmus test. You can do it in any laboratory. You do it in school. It is not complicated. You can take measurements like that of the ocean and you can see it is acidifying.

It is acidifying for very simple reasons. One-third of the carbon that goes into our atmosphere gets absorbed by the oceans. Ninety percent of the heat from climate change gets absorbed into the oceans; 30 percent of the carbon. The oceans bear witness to what is happening, and right now, if you look at the rate at which the oceans are acidifying, it is happening--here is a graphic on the effects. Where does the heat go? Mr. President, 93.4 percent goes into the ocean; 2.3 percent goes into the atmosphere. The oceans are getting bombarded with this heat, and they are also acidifying.

Yes.

When the carbon is absorbed by the ocean, it makes it more acidic; and when the ocean becomes more acidic, it makes it more difficult for all the little critters that live in the oceans that have a shell to make that shell. Because shells are made out of something called calcium carbonate, and the calcium carbonate is eaten away by acidic waters. So it means a small creature such as a pteropod has a harder time making its little shell, so they do not grow as well, and ultimately they could be eliminated by acidified waters.

Who cares about the humble pteropod? Most people have never heard of the humble pteropod. I will tell you who cares about the humble pteropod. Salmon care about the pteropod. For some species, it is a huge part of their diet.

So if they are not there, then the salmon are in trouble. If the salmon are in trouble, the salmon fisherman and the salmon industry are in trouble. It really hit home on the west coast of America a few years ago when oyster fisheries--on the coast of Washington I think it was, but Oregon was hit as well--literally got wiped out when a sudden upwelling of Pacific waters that had become heavily acidified washed into where the young oysters were being grown. The waters were so acidic that the little baby oysters, the little spat, could not grow their shells. The water was too acidic for them to grow their shells.

Again, you can say: Who cares about an oyster? Well, people who grow oysters care a lot about them. It is a big industry in a lot of places. We are actually rather proud of our Rhode Island oysters.

I will turn it back to you. Because one of the things that Hawaii is famous for that we do not have much of in Rhode Island is tropical coral reefs. Coral reefs are affected by acidification, by runoff, by warming, and they can bleach. When they do, what once was a healthy reef, rich with fish, a nursery for all of the

species that we end up consuming, can end up looking like this, dead remnants of what was once living coral. I know Hawaii faces that problem. So why don't I turn to you to discuss that.

May I tell you story about a Rhode Island fisherman. There is a fishing captain, Christopher Brown, who came recently to testify before the Environment and Public Works Committee. He has been fishing all of his life. He is a real Rhode Island fisherman. He used to go out with his dad, who was a Rhode Island fisherman. When he was probably 20 years old, he built himself a fishing boat and then went out and began fishing on his own. He fished that fishing boat he built for 30 years. He is the real deal when it comes to fishing.

He can remember as a boy fishing offshore with his dad, dragging nets behind them, trawlers. Now he goes out to those same waters, and he gets completely different fish. He says he pulled up a net full of spot. When he was out with his dad, his dad virtually never saw a spot. He said now he is catching fish like grouper and tarpon that his dad never saw in his life. The waters are changing.

When you have regulations over what you can and cannot catch that are not keeping up with the changing fisheries, it is a nightmare for fishermen. So we are going to do our best to update our fisheries laws, but the underlying problem is that fisheries that have existed for as long as Rhode Island fishermen remember them are changing in unprecedented ways.

I will close. As one fisherman said to me when he came to visit here in Washington maybe a year ago, he said something unforgettable. He said, ``Sheldon, it's getting weird out there.''

To follow up on Senator Schatz's point in terms of the

bipartisanship we can hope for here sooner or later, on the skiing question and snowboarding question that was raised, the Park City Foundation in Utah, which runs all of the Park City resorts, the Park City Foundation in Utah predicts an annual local temperature increase of 6.8 degrees Fahrenheit by 2075. That would cause a complete loss of snowpack in the lower Park City resort area--a complete loss of snowpack. The foundation--this Utah foundation--estimates it will result in thousands of lost jobs, tens of millions in lost earnings, and hundreds of millions in lost economic growth.

We have to be able to find a way to work with Senators from Utah on that. The point that Senator Schatz made about the northeast comes home because when you drill down into the report a little further, they say the number of economically viable ski locations in New Hampshire and Maine will be cut in half; that skiing in New York will be cut by three-quarters. I do not know what that does to skiing in New Jersey, but I will say that they said there will be no ski areas in Connecticut or Massachusetts. They overlooked Rhode Island. They did not mention Rhode Island. But I can promise you, knowing geography, if there is no ski area that can survive in Connecticut or Massachusetts, then Yawgoo Valley in Rhode Island is in trouble. That is our sky slope. So this really does hit home.

I want to mention, the bicameral task force that Henry Waxman and I run brought in all of the major sports leagues to talk about how climate change is affecting their sports. We had the National Basketball Association, we had Major League Baseball, we had the U.S. Olympic Committee, we had the National Football League and the National Hockey League. They all agreed we need to take action on climate change. In particular, the NHL talked about the history of their sport, with kids growing up and playing on frozen ponds. Many of those frozen ponds do not freeze any longer or they freeze so little that a child does not have a chance to learn to skate and develop that skill out on the pond. So the NHL has been active. I appreciate that.

The other point I wanted to mention is a lot of these winter sports are part of the Winter Olympics. There was a study done by the University of Waterloo that took a look at all of the different locations in which there have been Winter Olympics, all of the way up to Sochi. The green shows that from 1981 to 2010, all of these locations for the Winter Olympics were climate reliable for snow conditions.

Then they run a couple of different scenarios, 2050s with low emissions, 2050s with high emission; 2080s with low emissions, 2080s with high carbon emissions; and one by one the sites of previous Winter Olympics fall away as reasonable sites. If we go to the 2050s low- emissions scenario, there goes Sochi and there goes Grenoble. If we go a little bit further, Vancouver, Squaw Valley, Sarajevo are in trouble. When we go to this part of the chart, a number of the sites where we have had Winter Olympics are no longer climate suitable for Winter Olympics, including Lillehammer, Nagano, Torino, Innsbruck, Oslo, Sarajevo, Squaw Valley, Vancouver, Chamonix, Grenoble, and on.

So the people who are involved in these winter sports know about this. One hundred athletes of the Sochi Olympics from 10 different nations wrote a letter saying we have to take climate change seriously. They particularly focused on the small towns in the mountains where skiers and snowboarders train and where the economy is based on snowboarding, skiing, and winter sports, and the devastation that would happen in those small towns if that economy collapsed because of climate change.

I yield to the Senator from Hawaii.

If I may, let me ask people who are listening to think back in time. Think back in time to many years ago when Abraham Lincoln was President of the United States, when this room was just under construction and soldiers coming down occupied it, camped here, camped in the lounge, and actually made fires in the lounge across the way to cook their bacon. One could hear cannon fire from the Capitol. The Civil War was happening in America.

When that took place, there was a scientist named John Tyndall who delivered a paper that showed that when you added carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, it warmed the Earth. That is how long it has been that we have known that when you add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, it warms the Earth.

Since that time, we have probably added close on 2,000 gigatons, 2,000 billion tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. What happens when we do

that? This goes back to 800,000 BC. That is nearly 1 million years. We can see that in the time we have measured here, 800,000 years, there has been a very clear range of carbon concentration in the planet.

We kicked in around 200,000 years ago as human beings. This is about where homo sapiens showed up. So long before there were homo sapiens, the Earth stayed between about 170 and 300 parts per million of carbon dioxide. For every single year human beings have inhabited this planet, we stayed within that window. But then that 2,000 gigatons started to kick in, and here it goes, up through 250, up through 300, up through 350, and for the first time it hit 400 parts per million. So that is very real.

If people are worried about deniers out there, we can't deny Tyndall's theory. Nobody denies that when we add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, it has this effect. Nobody denies that we have put roughly close on 2,000 gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere since then, and nobody denies these measurements. These are measurements. This isn't theory; these are measurements.

It is one thing if the Republican Party wants to be the party that is against science. I doubt they want to go so far as to be the party that is against measurement, but here we are at 400.

Sure enough, some strange behavior is showing up, and this shows where all the land and ocean temperature anomalies are showing up. If we look, starting in 1880 it goes from blue--the cold anomalies--to red, and we can see a very distinct line.

People who look at it say: Well, that is that undeniable climate change happening. That is that 400 parts per million. That is the increase in carbon dioxide.

How many people think that? Well, about 14,000 peer-reviewed articles think that; 24 reject global warming. That is the little red line if you are comparing the two. The blue is the universe of peer-reviewed articles on climate change, and that tiny little red line is the 24 out of 14,000 who reject climate change.

I ask my friends on the other side of the aisle, you are betting the reputation of the Republican Party on your current de facto premise that climate change isn't real? Do you really want to take a 24 out of 14,000 article bet? Is that the smart place to put the reputation and the honor of the Republican Party? I don't think so.

That is another reason I am confident we can get to a bipartisan solution. I don't think it is smart for Republicans to take the reputation and honor of their party and bet it on a theory that is 24 out of 14,000.

If we look a little bit behind the climate denial operation, we will see that it is actually very sketchy. It is very sketchy. A lot of these organizations have a tradition of denial. They denied that the ozone hole was growing. They denied that tobacco caused cancer. Heck, some of them probably even denied that seatbelts made auto travel safer. That has been their industry. They have been in the denial industry. But that is a dangerous place to be, particularly because the oceans don't lie. The oceans tell the story, and they tell it in ways we can't deny.

It is big--what happens in the oceans--because 93 percent of the heat goes into the oceans. What do we see? We know perfectly well what happens to liquids when they get warmer. That is a law of science. It is called the law of thermal expansion. When liquids get bigger--get warmer, they get bigger. Sure enough, when the ocean gets bigger, the sea level rises.

Here is a time series showing the sea level rise taking place.

So we have the principle of carbon dioxide warming the temperature of the Earth. We have the addition of the carbon dioxide. We have the measurement in the atmosphere of the effect of that addition. We have the laws of nature which show what happens when the ocean warms and rises. Then we go back out, measure, and we see it coming through exactly as predicted.

By the way, it is 93 percent of the heat, but it is 30 percent of the carbon.

We can go into a regular chemistry lab and we can do the experiment of adding carbon dioxide to saltwater and watching its acidification go up. Sure enough, we can go to the ocean and do this as well. Again, this isn't theory; this is measurement.

Does the Republican Party want to be the party that doesn't just deny science but denies measurement? I don't think so. There is no future in that.

Responsible people who back the Republican Party need to bring their party back from the brink of one of the most embarrassing fiascos any political party could get itself into.

May the record reflect that this is perhaps the first reference in the history of the Senate to dinosaur flatulence.

The one we hear the most often right now is: Don't worry, climate change has leveled off. Global warming and the temperature increases have leveled off.

Well, as you just saw, 93 percent of the heat goes into the ocean. So if you are measuring just the atmosphere, a tiny wobble in the 93- percent share the oceans take up will make a massive effect in the atmosphere.

But more to the point, if you take a graph, here is the leveling they show over the last 15 years. The problem is, if you go back through the data, you can show it leveled here, and then it leveled here, and then it leveled here, and then it leveled here, and then it leveled here, and then it leveled here. There are constant levels in an upward-going staircase. If you cherry-pick the data, you can say: OK, it has gotten level for that period. But if you really look at the trend of the identical data, that is the real trend. That is the actual trendline through the data.

So when somebody comes to you and says: Ignore that trendline; instead look at it having gotten flat. And by the way, forget all those other times it got flat before. What do you think about somebody who makes an argument to you like that. It is a ridiculous argument. It ruins the credibility of the person who makes it. How you can believe that is astonishing.

Climate science doesn't tell you that every day is going to get a tiny little bit warmer. Climate science tells you that putting that extra energy into the system will make the weather extremes worse, both warmer and colder. So the fact there have been cold snaps is actually perfectly consistent with climate science. Not only does that argument ignore the difference between weather and climate, it also takes advantage of people who haven't drilled into the climate science. Because if you knew the least little bit about the underlying science, you would know the point made no sense because that is exactly what the people who predict global warming predicted would happen. If anything, it confirms the argument that people are trying to rebut. So it really, really is a dishonest argument.

We are seeing the same thing in Rhode Island. Indeed, Newport, RI, is known for being a summer destination. The first summer visitors to Newport, RI, the first people who made it the summer capital of the United States were traders from the Carolinas, who sailed up the coast with their families to get away from the baking fetid heat of the Carolinas and enjoy the cool shores of Narragansett Bay.

Well, what is happening is that due to climate change and the warming climate, that very climate those Carolina traders sailed up to Newport, RI, to get away from is inching its way up the coast and will soon be the climate in Newport, RI.

The Senator knows better than I what is happening in New Jersey. You know how hard New York and New Jersey in particular were hit by Sandy. You have our sympathies, because we had some Sandy damage in Rhode Island but we just caught a glancing blow. The full thrust of that hit was on New York and New Jersey, and you guys paid the price.

In the recovery, FEMA and other Federal agencies and your State agencies are starting to look at this in a whole new way. They are saying: We can't build back the same. The same didn't work last time. And by the way, with that sea level rising, the same is probably going to not only not be enough for the last time, it is going to be way less than is necessary for next time. So the very way in which the U.S. Government, the State of New York government, the State of New Jersey government, the city of New York government are taking a look at how they respond to Sandy and how they recover and how they rebuild for the future is a perfect living example of the point my colleague is making. For that purpose, it doesn't matter whether this is manmade. The fact that it is happening, the fact you can predict it means it would be reckless and foolish not to take that into account as you rebuild.

The bipartisan work I think is mostly being done at the local level--at the level of Governors and mayors, at the level of local city councils.

One example which comes to mind is the City of Miami. Miami is really ground zero for climate change. On high-tide days, their streets already flood with water which is pushing up through what should be ways for water to flow off the streets but comes up into the streets-- saltwater. The freshwater supply is already being inundated by saltwater as it pushes through the porous limestone the Miami area is built on. They realize they have a real problem. So four county governments came together to deal with this. The four counties are led two by Democrats and two by Republicans.

I mentioned earlier we used to have bipartisanship on this issue until Citizens United was decided by the Supreme Courts, until all the big money came in, until all the dark money came in, until people on the Republican side who were willing to speak up about climate change were punished and threatened so badly they could no longer do it. The Citizens United effect hasn't worked its way down to Governors and counties, so they still see the real action.

I think the Senator as a mayor will also remember there were reality- based problems to be dealt with--not every day but 10 times a day or 15 times a day.

Abraham Lincoln in the movie ``Lincoln'' said: I like to get my public opinion bath by having real people in. The Senator got a reality bath every day as mayor, and every mayor out there is getting a reality bath every day. Here, we don't deal with that. Here, it is different. We don't have to live in the same real world. We live in a more political world. So people can say things which are, frankly, irresponsible, untrue, and get away with it longer. The intimidation factor of big money is worse here.

So where is the bipartisanship? It will be back here. It is inevitable. But we know there can be bipartisanship here by looking at bipartisanship live and healthy and in action on climate at the municipal, State, and county level.

It is a win. The only thing I would distinguish a little bit is the example of the boy who went into the pool filled with piranhas and alligators and snakes.

And the particularly vicious looking duck. The solution on climate is not the equivalent of piranhas, alligators, snakes, and a vicious duck. The solution on climate is actually a triple win.

The Senator mentioned the earlier limits on pollutants. We found over and over that despite the regular claims by the industry that this was going to be the end of civilization as we know it and an economic catastrophe would ensue, when we actually look back, people saved money because of the harm they were spared. I think the Clean Air Act is $30 saved for every $1 we had to invest in cleaning up. So the limits actually saved money.

In this case, we will add--as the Senator mentioned before--the growth in new industries, the $6 trillion clean-energy industry we want to be in rather than trailing behind and buying from China. Finally, if we believe in market theory, if we believe markets are the most efficient way to make choices, then we have to set up a market which is a fair one. This business the Senator mentioned of a business being able to externalize its costs by saying, ``That is not my responsibility. I don't have to pay for that. I am just going to dump it.'' This is no more fair than a New Jersey neighbor or a Hawaii neighbor or a Connecticut neighbor or a Rhode Island neighbor, instead of cleaning up their lawn, just shoveling their leaves over to the next guy's wall. We don't get to do that. We are responsible for cleaning up our own lawn when the leaves fall, in the same

way these companies that are making this mess are responsible for cleaning it up.

So it is actually a triple win. We have markets which work correctly, limits which save money for people in the long run, and the proper investment in green industries which are going to grow. So if that is alligators, snakes, and piranhas, I think it is the exact opposite. It is abundance and opportunity and innovation.

The energy is definitely out there. There is no doubt about it. Poll after poll shows how strongly Americans feel about climate change.

My favorite one, because it involves Republicans, is a poll taken of self-identified Republican voters under the age of 35--young voters, the future of the party, the future of the country, the future demographic they need to reach out to. When asked what they feel about climate denial, 53 percent of young Republican voters described climate denial with three words: Ignorant, out of touch or crazy.

So there are lots of reasons to have confidence. But one reason to have confidence is young people in this party view the climate denial strategy which we heard here earlier this evening from the one Republican who came--they view that theory as ignorant, out of touch or crazy. If this is what the young people in their own party think about it, that is not a position they can hold. Up against the common sense and the reality, up against the force of public opinion, and up against the effort of this evening which Senator Schatz has done so much to make happen, there shows a new spirit of stirring in the Senate. Then I think we win. I think the American people win, more to the point.

If you have two factories working side-by-side and one factory is paying attention to making its products and doing the best it can and being as efficient as it can and making a great product and going out and selling it, and then the factory next to it has figured out a way to take a big chunk of its costs and push them off on to other people--let's say one factory has to clean up its effluent, and the other one just dumps it in the river; let's say one factory has to pay for cleanup of its trash and disposal and the other just shovels it in the neighbor's yard at night; no matter how that second factory is cheating by offloading costs onto other people instead of putting them in, you do not have a fair market between those two factories. You have one that is playing by the rules, playing by market theory, and you have one it cannot compete with because the other one is cheating.

When fossil fuels dump carbon into our atmosphere and we now know the harm it causes, and it comes home to folks at Roy Carpenter's Beach in Rhode Island, and people's homes are falling into the water; when it comes to storms that smash on the shorefront of New Jersey; when it comes to the wildfires and droughts that we heard of tearing through New Mexico and Colorado; when it comes to ocean acidification, those are real costs to real people, and they have been pushed onto the rest of us by those polluters, and it simply isn't fair. It is a violation of basic market theory. So, if as the Republican party so often says, ``We want to be the free market party,'' fine, be the free market party, but have it be a fair market. It cannot be a racket of a market. It has to be a free and fair market in which the costs of a product are in the price of a product. Otherwise it is just picking winners and losers.

Here are two families. Here are two families who paid a price. That wasn't built into the price of fossil fuels, but they sure as heck paid it and they just didn't pay it in the wrecked front of a building and entirely ruined their little house there. They paid it also in the loss of all the memories of all the summers where they grew up back when this was their summer home. That is a real price. People paid a lot when this happened. And to write that off as if it is nothing, and have the polluters just keep going at it--no, that is not right.

I yield the floor.

Senator Schatz, I know you have some remarks you would like to make, and let me take another opportunity to thank you again for your leadership in bringing us together.

May I inquire through the Presiding Officer if the Senator from Connecticut would be willing to engage in a brief colloquy. If the answer to that is yes, I would propound the following question:

I know the senior Senator from Connecticut to be a very deeply believing patriot. He spoke in his remarks about how each American generation takes upon itself a covenant. I also know the senior Senator from Connecticut serves on the Armed Services Committee and has to consider, as part of his responsibilities in the Senate, the power that America projects around the world, which is sometimes military power, but also sometimes the soft power that comes from our role.

I know also, as a student of history, Senator Blumenthal knows that President Lincoln described the United States of America as the ``last best hope of earth'' and that Thomas Jefferson, in his first inaugural, described this American government as the ``world's best hope.''

Finally, I heard the Senator say that climate change will have consequences. I wonder if he would care to comment on what a failure to address climate change by the United States of America, knowing the information we know, would mean in terms of the kind of hope America is to the world, in terms of the kind of credibility America needs to project its soft power. Is there a consequence the Senator could foresee in our foreign policy and in our national security from fumbling and dropping this ball at this time?

Mr. President, before I yield the floor to Senator Udall of New Mexico, this may be my last chance to speak before the all-night session comes to its end, because I am about to relieve the Presiding Officer. In fact, I am overdue for that.

But I did want to take this moment to say a few thank-yous. As one of the instigators of this episode, I thank my staff in particular for all the work that went into this. I thank the parliamentarians and the Senate clerk staff, who had a long night with us, and I appreciate it very, very much. There is only one page I see on the floor remaining-- no, there is another one. I want to thank all the pages. Many of them stayed here through the night, and it was a very long night for them, and I appreciate very much their effort. Then throughout the building, because

the Senate had to be kept open, there were people who were kept here-- the Capitol police and others--and it is much appreciated.

One of the things about the Senate is when we are in session, the light on the top of the Capitol stays on. So all night last night, people across the city could look and see that the light on the Capitol stayed on. I hope that wasn't the only light that was shed last night, but at least it is an example, and I just express my appreciation to all of the people who we have inconvenienced in order to make this point.