Floor Statements

Mr. President, I see that the Senator from New York and the Senator from Colorado are on the floor. I don't know if they seek recognition. I know this has been a terrific day for them as two of the principal architects of the immigration bill we just passed. It has been a landmark achievement.

I am prepared to speak for about 15 minutes on my climate bill, so I am going to be here for a while. If the Senator from New York would prefer to proceed, then I will allow him to proceed. That will also allow me to relieve the Presiding Officer who I understand needs to go upstairs for a moment.

I will yield to Senator Schumer with the hope that upon the conclusion of his remarks, I will be recognized.

Mr. President, I believe under the pending order I have the floor, but I wish to yield to the Senator from Illinois for a few minutes. Then I ask to be recognized at the conclusion of his remarks.

Mr. President, let me respond to the distinguished Senator. The answer is yes. I also see our distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee and his ranking member on the floor. I understand they have a colloquy they wish to engage in. Do they have an estimate as to how long they wish to engage in that colloquy?

I have about 15 minutes. What I propose to do--I do not know how long the Senators wish to take. What I propose to do is yield to Senator Graham for such time as he may need.

And then----

I yield the floor to Senator Graham.

Mr. President, let me also congratulate our friend Senator Graham for his extraordinary leadership.

Mr. President, it has been an extraordinary day in the Senate. It shows the kind of progress that can be made even on bedeviling issues when persistence and optimism are brought to bear. I hope my continued efforts on climate change will ultimately produce, with the same persistence and optimism, the same success we have seen today on immigration.

This is the 37th time that I will have come to the floor to urge my colleagues to wake up to the threats we face from climate change, to wake up and stop hiding behind the distortions that are spread by the fossil fuel interests, and to start heeding the warnings of scientists, of economists, of insurers, of businesses, of national security officials, of religious leaders. They all say something needs to be done, and fast, to stave off the harm of carbon pollution.

For the first time in this speech, I can say that something at last is being done. This Tuesday President Obama laid out a national plan to reduce carbon pollution and to prepare our country for the effects of climate change. His plan is a bold one, and it is going to challenge the status quo. Most importantly, the administration will regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new and existing powerplants. If we are going to be serious, we need to strike at the heart of the problem, and regulating these big powerplants is the best first step.

And let's face it, until now these big polluters were getting a free ride. They were harming all of us with their emissions and paying no price for it.

Carbon-driven climate change hurts our economy, damages our infrastructure, and harms our public health. Economists call this price we all pay the ``social cost of carbon'' because it represents the cost that polluting corporations offload onto the rest of us, onto the rest of society.

Earlier this month the Obama administration revised its estimate of the social cost of carbon to $36 per ton of carbon dioxide emitted. This new estimate better captures the true harm of carbon pollution to our oceans, to our farmland, to ourselves, and I commend the President for strengthening our economic assessment of climate change.

The administration's measure still falls short of some experts' calculations, however, such as the comprehensive review that prompted far-reaching climate change legislation in the United Kingdom. I think our estimate should be still higher to accurately reflect the costs of climate change, and I think the best way to address the mounting social cost of carbon is a carbon fee.

If we start charging these corporations a fee, based on the social cost of their carbon pollution, that will factor those costs into their business models, and that is economics 101.

A carbon fee, in other words, makes the market work properly by putting the costs of carbon pollution into the price of the product, instead of letting

the big polluters freeload on the general public.

It is a simple choice. Do we want the American people--children and seniors, small business owners and homeowners--to pay the price of carbon pollution or do we want to have the corporations behind that pollution take responsibility for the harm, to balance the energy markets, and to encourage American clean energy technologies?

We are already hearing the familiar refrains of the deniers, the skeptics, and the big polluters, trying to scare us into protecting the status quo. A carbon fee ``slows down our ability to compete,'' claimed one of my Republican colleagues. ``The cost of nearly everything built in America would go up,'' declared another.

The Speaker of the House warned that if we put a price on carbon--and I quote--``the United States economy would suffer, millions of family- wage jobs would be lost, and American consumers would incur dramatically-higher prices for energy and consumer goods--all without any significant environmental benefit whatsoever.''

These are scary predictions, but are they true?

Actually, the World Wildlife Fund and the Carbon Disclosure Project found that investments to reduce carbon pollution yield greater financial returns for companies than do their overall capital investments.

So never mind the huge environmental benefits. Cutting back on greenhouse gas emissions by 3 percent each year would save U.S. businesses up to $190 billion a year by 2020 or $780 billion over 10 years. That supports American leadership in new clean energy technologies, powering our economy. So it should overall be good for business.

What about American families? The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates a carbon fee starting at around $28 per ton of carbon dioxide emitted--which is within the price range recommended by economists--would result in a 2.5-percent increase in costs for the lowest income households, and a 0.7-percent increase for the richest ones. It is higher for low-income families because they are likely to spend more of their budget on home heating, on gas, and on other energy.

What the carbon fee fearmongers overlook is the substantial revenue generated by a carbon fee. According to CBO, a fee starting at $20 per ton would raise $1.2 trillion over the first 10 years. That revenue does not just disappear.

When Senator Schatz, Congressman Waxman, Congressman Blumenauer, and I put forward a carbon fee discussion draft earlier this year, we left the use of the proceeds from the fee open for discussion. We want to work with other Members--particularly with those on the Finance Committee, whose leadership I see here--to find a use for the revenue to put that revenue to work for the American people and to propel the economy. Every penny of that carbon fee revenue could go back to the American people.

There are a lot of ways to do this, so let's consider a few examples. We should start by setting aside about $140 billion--or 12 percent of the total--to help lower income households pay for their 2.5-percent cost increase. That would leave us with more than $1 trillion to send back to people in other ways. That is a lot of money, even by Washington standards, and it can do big things.

For starters, $1 trillion every 10 years would go a long way toward reducing the national debt. Listening to some of the apocalyptic language used by Republicans about our national debt, you would think they might be interested in this.

What are some of the other ways we could return those carbon revenues? Well, you could send out checks directly to the American people for about $900 per household or $360 per citizen every year. I know there are plenty of families in Rhode Island who could use an extra $900 a year, and these dividends would go right back into the economy because those families would spend it quickly. Or we could give seniors a raise. According to the Census Bureau, as many as one in seven Americans over 65 lives in poverty. In 2010 and 2011, seniors saw no Social Security cost-of-living adjustments, even though their costs for food and medicine and heating oil continued to rise. With the revenues from a carbon fee, we could raise the average benefit by $1,600 a year or $130 a month. Last year that would have been an 11- percent raise for every senior. Imagine that. And seniors living on fixed incomes tend to spend every dollar they get, so this money too would come right back into the economy.

What about students? The outstanding government-backed student loan debt in the country rose to a record $958 billion last year. With $1 trillion in carbon fee revenues, we could forgive all the Federal student loan debt American families are now carrying--boom, done, gone. Or we could cut every student's and graduate's debt in half, saving Americans $45 billion a year in loan payments next year alone, and double the maximum Pell grant from $5,500 to a little over $11,000, and still have money left over to permanently set the rate on subsidized government loans for undergraduates at 3.4 percent. That is the rate currently set to double next month if Congress does not act.

Or we could use the $1 trillion to lower the top corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 28 percent. That reduction was Mitt Romney's corporate tax goal, and we could do it, without adding a dime to the deficit. That is why Republicans such as George Schultz, Art Laffer, one of the architects of President Reagan's economic plan, and others have expressed support for a revenue-neutral carbon fee.

I have highlighted these four proposals to show we could do big things with a carbon fee. These proposals, or some combination of them, or other ideas, are all possibilities opened by carbon fee legislation. Shouldn't we have that discussion? Wouldn't that be better and more honest and more productive than trotting out the tired tall tales of climate denial, better than pretending it is a hoax?

President Obama has defined the growing menace of climate change as ``the global threat of our time.'' It is. It is this challenge by which our generation will be judged. The grownups know it, NASA and NOAA and all the major American scientific organizations, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and our military leaders, a who's who of America's top corporate leadership, the property casualty and insurance industry, the Conference of Catholic Bishops--the list goes on.

It is time for us to wake up and meet our solemn responsibility to our country and to its leadership role in the world, and we can do so in a way that allows us to do big things that will help the American people.

As the President said, that is our job. That is our task. We have to get to work.

I thank the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee and his ranking member for their courtesy.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, from the beaches of Rhode Island to the glaciers of Montana, natural ecosystems provide us with life's essentials: clean air and water, crops and timber, recreation and lots of local pride.

Rhode Island's oceans and coasts, for example, are spawning grounds, nurseries, and shelters for nutritious and profitable fish and shellfish. Their natural buffers protect our coastal communities from storms and filter our water. They even provide clean, renewable energy. And, of course, the coastline of the Ocean State boasts world-class beaches.

But climate change threatens to rob us of these essentials. The Government Accountability Office confirms what Americans see with their own eyes: our Nation's ecosystems are at risk from ongoing changes, including--and I will quote GAO: ``increases in air and water temperatures, wildfires, and drought; forests stressed by drought becoming more vulnerable to insect infestations; rising sea levels; and reduced snow cover and retreating glaciers.''

This warning comes from a report released last week on climate change adaptation efforts in Federal agencies. Senator Baucus and I requested this report because of the risk climate change poses to our natural resources and our national economy.

Climate change is not something we can fix later, and it is not something that only will happen to future generations, although our children and grandchildren will surely pay a heavier price.

Scientists tell us that the carbon pollution we have already emitted has locked in changes in the coming decades to our atmosphere, oceans, and weather. So while we must take up the challenge to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we must also begin to adapt, and secure our natural resources against the changes we can no longer avoid.

In this report, GAO examined the U.S. Forest Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park Service, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Bureau of Land Management.

It found that while planning for changes in resource conditions is a main part of the mission of these agencies, addressing the effects of climate change is not. In fact, BLM, which manages 245 million acres of land, has not yet established a climate change adaptation strategy.

That is why Senator Baucus and I introduced the Safeguarding America's Future and the Environment Act, or SAFE Act.

The Federal agencies that manage our natural resources are responsible for protecting, restoring, and conserving the natural resources that underpin our economy. The SAFE Act would require those agencies to adopt climate change adaptation plans that are consistent with the National Fish, Wildlife, and Plants Climate Adaptation Strategy released this year by the, administration.

Adaptation--to shifting conditions, to catastrophic events, even to full ecosystem shifts--is not easy work, and resource managers are often constrained by existing laws and regulations. The SAFE Act puts all climate adaptation tools and approaches on the table, and includes State, local, and stakeholder participation.

I want to thank Senator Baucus for working so hard to protect Montanans, Rhode Islanders, and all Americans.

The SAFE Act has garnered broad support from sportsmen, the outdoor industry, and conservation groups, including American Forests, the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Defenders of Wildlife, Earth Justice, the National Parks Conservation Association, Natural Resources Defense Council, the National Wildlife Federation, the Outdoor Alliance, Trout Unlimited, and The Wildlife Society.

Noah Matson of Defenders of Wildlife said, ``This bill recognizes that responding to climate change isn't just about cutting carbon emissions. It also means ensuring our wildlife and ecosystems are resilient and can withstand the extreme weather and other climate change impacts we are already experiencing. The two go hand in hand for a safe, healthy environment for wildlife, people and future generations.''

I hope the SAFE Act will also garner the support of our colleagues in Congress, and I look forward to working with Democrats and Republicans to pass this important legislation.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 or 12 minutes as in morning business and then have the Senator from Massachusetts, Ms. Warren, be recognized at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. President, I am very pleased to be joined on the floor of the Senate by Senator Warren to introduce legislation we have been working on since 2008.

Astute observers of this body will recognize that was before Senator Warren was even Senator Warren. She has been, for years, a renowned expert in consumer law and a leading advocate of reforms to protect families from predatory lending. It has been a pleasure working with her on this bill, and I am delighted to be working with her as Senate colleagues now.

A little history. During President Obama's first 2 years in office and before the Republicans took control of the House in 2011, Democrats passed two significant landmark bills to protect ordinary consumers from credit card company abuses.

The Credit CARD Act of 2009 outlawed some of the worst tricks and traps that lenders used to squeeze money out of their customers. After that law, big banks can no longer hike interest rates on preexisting balances just because they feel like it, and they can no longer declare that the day ends at lunchtime in order to impose late fees on payments that arrive in the afternoon. As absurd as it sounds, credit card companies routinely engage in those sort of shenanigans, but the Credit CARD Act of 2009 put an end to a lot of it.

A second bill, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act, established the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an essential agency first proposed by Senator Warren when she was a law professor. That body will be for mortgages and credit cards what the Consumer Product Safety Commission is

for toasters and swimming pools. In an age when the fine print in a financial agreement can be the door to a family bankruptcy, this new agency is long overdue.

While the Consumer Financial Protection Board is working to protect American families from many types of unfair and deceptive financial practices, including ones that involve credit card fees, the Board is barred from regulating credit card interest rates. In the final negotiations on Dodd-Frank, the allies of the big credit card companies kept interest rates beyond the reach of this consumer agency.

That is a shame, because unfair interest rates are a big problem for families in Rhode Island and across the Nation. I have heard from so many constituents enticed to sign up for a credit card with an attractive teaser rate of 0 or 1 percent, and eventually the teaser period ends and the rate goes up to 12 or 15 percent, and if the cardholder slips up and misses a couple of payments, the rate can jump to 30 percent or higher.

I think when most of us in this body were growing up, a 30-percent interest rate was a matter you could usually take to the police because it violated State law. A rate at 30 percent would have been illegal under the laws of most, if not all, of the 50 States. But the Supreme Court in 1978 ruled the Civil War-era National Bank Act only required a lender, the credit card issuer, to abide by the law of the State that is their home State and allowed them to ignore the law of the State their customer called their home State. Well, it didn't take too long for the big credit card companies to see the loophole. This meant if they moved their legal home to States with no interest rate limits, with lousy consumer protections, even dealing with those States to reduce consumer protections as a consequence of moving there, well, from these new havens they could lend to people in all 50 States at any interest rate they wanted.

Since that Supreme Court decision, which is called the Marquette ruling, high interest rate credit cards have mushroomed and consumer debt has soared. According to the Federal Reserve, in the year before the Marquette decision, 1977, only 38 percent of families had a bank- issued credit card. By 2010, over 65 percent had credit cards, with about one-third of all families holding four or more credit cards. And the debt numbers coming off those credit cards are even worse. Revolving consumer debt, which is mainly credit card debt, has exploded over twentyfold in the 35 years since the Marquette decision. This little bull's-eye represents the debt beforehand, the giant red circle the debt afterward.

The credit card companies are taking full advantage. Interest rates, as we know, are generally low right now. Banks are lending to one another at less than one-quarter of 1 percent, and 30-year fixed mortgage rates are near 4 percent. Savings bonds pay a paltry 1 percent. The Stafford loans we are discussing will move from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent if we don't act. But credit cards? According to bankrate.com, which tracks lending statistics, the average variable rate credit card now charges over 15 percent, and many consumers pay much higher rates.

At 15-percent interest, it would take a family, paying the monthly minimum, which is often equal to 1 percent of the balance plus the accrued interest, more than 22 years to pay off a $5,000 balance. An emergency comes to your family, and you need to go to your credit card to pay for it, so you have to run up $5,000. It will take you 22 years to dig out from that at a 15-percent rate. Over those 20 years, the total you would pay would be almost $11,000, meaning interest rate charges would be more than the actual balance you owe. That is bad enough, but imagine a family paying 30 percent. For them, it is much worse. It would take 25 years to pay off a $5,000 balance making minimum payments, and the total payments the family would have to make would add up to $17,000, more than the original $5,000 that was borrowed.

Families may turn to credit cards in times of emergency, and then, when they get back on their feet, find the next quarter of a century dedicated to paying off that debt. We should act to ensure that families don't suffer lost decades to unnecessarily--and what would once have been illegally--high interest rates.

The bill we introduce today, the Restoring States' Rights to Protect Consumers Act, would not set a Federal interest rate cap but it would restore to our sovereign 50 States their historic right--a right that dated back to their status as colonies before the Revolution--to determine what interest rate limits should apply and protect their own citizens. This bill is 2 pages long. It is simple. It is a States rights bill. It received bipartisan support when I offered it as an amendment to the Dodd-Frank bill, and I hope Senators of both parties will consider supporting it now.

I will now yield the floor to my lead cosponsor, Senator Warren of Massachusetts, with my thanks to her for her leadership in protecting American consumers and for her help in drafting this measure. It is a privilege to serve with Senator Warren in the Senate.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am very pleased to be joined on the floor of the Senate by Senator Warren to introduce legislation we have been working on since 2008.

Astute observers of this body will recognize that was before Senator Warren was even Senator Warren. She has been, for years, a renowned expert in consumer law and a leading advocate of reforms to protect families from predatory lending. It has been a pleasure working with her on this bill, and I am delighted to be working with her as Senate colleagues now.

A little history. During President Obama's first 2 years in office and before the Republicans took control of the House in 2011, Democrats passed two significant landmark bills to protect ordinary consumers from credit card company abuses.

The Credit CARD Act of 2009 outlawed some of the worst tricks and traps that lenders used to squeeze money out of their customers. After that law, big banks can no longer hike interest rates on preexisting balances just because they feel like it, and they can no longer declare that the day ends at lunchtime in order to impose late fees on payments that arrive in the afternoon. As absurd as it sounds, credit card companies routinely engage in those sort of shenanigans, but the Credit CARD Act of 2009 put an end to a lot of it.

A second bill, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act, established the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an essential agency first proposed by Senator Warren when she was a law professor. That body will be for mortgages and credit cards what the Consumer Product Safety Commission is

for toasters and swimming pools. In an age when the fine print in a financial agreement can be the door to a family bankruptcy, this new agency is long overdue.

While the Consumer Financial Protection Board is working to protect American families from many types of unfair and deceptive financial practices, including ones that involve credit card fees, the Board is barred from regulating credit card interest rates. In the final negotiations on Dodd-Frank, the allies of the big credit card companies kept interest rates beyond the reach of this consumer agency.

That is a shame, because unfair interest rates are a big problem for families in Rhode Island and across the Nation. I have heard from so many constituents enticed to sign up for a credit card with an attractive teaser rate of 0 or 1 percent, and eventually the teaser period ends and the rate goes up to 12 or 15 percent, and if the cardholder slips up and misses a couple of payments, the rate can jump to 30 percent or higher.

I think when most of us in this body were growing up, a 30-percent interest rate was a matter you could usually take to the police because it violated State law. A rate at 30 percent would have been illegal under the laws of most, if not all, of the 50 States. But the Supreme Court in 1978 ruled the Civil War-era National Bank Act only required a lender, the credit card issuer, to abide by the law of the State that is their home State and allowed them to ignore the law of the State their customer called their home State. Well, it didn't take too long for the big credit card companies to see the loophole. This meant if they moved their legal home to States with no interest rate limits, with lousy consumer protections, even dealing with those States to reduce consumer protections as a consequence of moving there, well, from these new havens they could lend to people in all 50 States at any interest rate they wanted.

Since that Supreme Court decision, which is called the Marquette ruling, high interest rate credit cards have mushroomed and consumer debt has soared. According to the Federal Reserve, in the year before the Marquette decision, 1977, only 38 percent of families had a bank- issued credit card. By 2010, over 65 percent had credit cards, with about one-third of all families holding four or more credit cards. And the debt numbers coming off those credit cards are even worse. Revolving consumer debt, which is mainly credit card debt, has exploded over twentyfold in the 35 years since the Marquette decision. This little bull's-eye represents the debt beforehand, the giant red circle the debt afterward.

The credit card companies are taking full advantage. Interest rates, as we know, are generally low right now. Banks are lending to one another at less than one-quarter of 1 percent, and 30-year fixed mortgage rates are near 4 percent. Savings bonds pay a paltry 1 percent. The Stafford loans we are discussing will move from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent if we don't act. But credit cards? According to bankrate.com, which tracks lending statistics, the average variable rate credit card now charges over 15 percent, and many consumers pay much higher rates.

At 15-percent interest, it would take a family, paying the monthly minimum, which is often equal to 1 percent of the balance plus the accrued interest, more than 22 years to pay off a $5,000 balance. An emergency comes to your family, and you need to go to your credit card to pay for it, so you have to run up $5,000. It will take you 22 years to dig out from that at a 15-percent rate. Over those 20 years, the total you would pay would be almost $11,000, meaning interest rate charges would be more than the actual balance you owe. That is bad enough, but imagine a family paying 30 percent. For them, it is much worse. It would take 25 years to pay off a $5,000 balance making minimum payments, and the total payments the family would have to make would add up to $17,000, more than the original $5,000 that was borrowed.

Families may turn to credit cards in times of emergency, and then, when they get back on their feet, find the next quarter of a century dedicated to paying off that debt. We should act to ensure that families don't suffer lost decades to unnecessarily--and what would once have been illegally--high interest rates.

The bill we introduce today, the Restoring States' Rights to Protect Consumers Act, would not set a Federal interest rate cap but it would restore to our sovereign 50 States their historic right--a right that dated back to their status as colonies before the Revolution--to determine what interest rate limits should apply and protect their own citizens. This bill is 2 pages long. It is simple. It is a States rights bill. It received bipartisan support when I offered it as an amendment to the Dodd-Frank bill, and I hope Senators of both parties will consider supporting it now.

I will now yield the floor to my lead cosponsor, Senator Warren of Massachusetts, with my thanks to her for her leadership in protecting American consumers and for her help in drafting this measure. It is a privilege to serve with Senator Warren in the Senate.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, there are a number of my colleagues who are going to be speaking in the next hour about the President's announcement today of his plan to address carbon pollution and the changes it is wreaking on our planet.

We just heard from the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma about the politics and motives behind the President's decision. We can disagree about the politics and motives, but I think we should be past the point of disagreeing about the facts.

The facts are that in the past 15 years, during which the distinguished Senator said we have not seen any increase in temperature, we have actually had the hottest decade on record. I will get the exact figures in a moment, but I think 10 of the 12 hottest years on record have been in the past 15 years. I heard the distinguished Senator say that so I don't have the exact numbers, but there has been a terrific spike.

If you go to the property casualty insurance industry--which is not an industry that is heavily involved with Democratic or liberal politics--these people who do their calculations make their living by trying to predict correctly, and their cold-hearted actuaries have no purpose other than to provide the insurance industry the best possible information. They are showing an exceptional spike in both the number and severity of storms we are seeing, and they are having to adjust their insurance practices accordingly.

I hope we can find a way to work together, because I think the President's step that he took today is one that is long overdue and vitally important to our economy, vitally important to our national security, vitally important to our international credibility and, most of all, vitally important to our children and grandchildren. This is the great issue and responsibility of our time, and I am delighted to see the President has stepped up to it.

I see the distinguished Senator from Hawaii is on the floor. He was at the President's announcement with me, and I know he wants to say a few words.

Trying to do something about this and put a price on carbon has been described as the biggest tax in history, perhaps, and as something that would amount to the crushing of our economy. I think it is pretty safe to show that neither of those statements is accurate.

For starters, there is nothing that says the government has to keep the money when it is in a carbon pollution fee. It could go straight back to American families and be essentially a wash in the economy. In fact, by going back to families 100 cents on the dollar and changing the economic behavior of the industry for the better, I think it will prove to be an economic plus.

Over and over, EPA regulations have been imposed that created more economic benefit for the country than they cost. I am confident this regulation, once it gets going, will create more economic benefit for the country than it will cost. And every dollar of it could go back. It would mean as much as $900 a year for every American family to offset any increase in energy cost and to spend how they will.

But to do something that Republicans ordinarily agree is important, and that is to set the market straight so there isn't an imbalance in which the price of a product doesn't reflect the true cost of a product, that is law 101, it is economics 101, it is fairness 101. It should not be a proposition we are debating.

I intend to stay here until this hour or so we have is concluded, and I yield to the distinguished Senator from Hawaii who was also at the President's announcement in the blazing heat. But since he is from Hawaii, he is more used to the heat than I am.

I yield the floor, whoever seeks recognition.

Madam President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Hawaii. I ask unanimous consent, if he wishes to engage in a colloquy on the Senate floor, if that would be agreeable.

We were both at the President's speech today. One of the things the President mentioned that I think is an important point to bear in mind is carbon pollution isn't free right now. We are not going to suddenly impose a cost on the economy through regulation that otherwise would not be there.

I can speak for Rhode Island. We are paying the price right now in the price of food and goods that are more expensive because of wildfires and droughts. We are paying the price in the cost of repairs to homes and shorelines that have been damaged by floods and storms. We are paying the price in terms of increased taxes for more disaster services--not only in Rhode Island but across the country. We are paying the price in the form of hikes in our insurance premiums. We pay the price in softer ways--in days spent in the hospital with a child having an asthma attack when you could be working or at home. And certainly we pay the price in what you might call the lost victories of innovation we never achieved because we were so busy subsidizing these old fuels.

I wish to ask the Senator from Hawaii to comment for a moment on how he sees the costs in his home State of Hawaii, which is far away from my home State of Rhode Island, both very ocean and coastal States. But I would

love to hear his experience and his views as well.

Then I see the Senator from Connecticut is on the floor, who is welcomed to either join in the colloquy or to make a statement, as he wishes.

Madam President, I know the Senator from Texas is waiting to speak. I wish to, first of all, thank the Senator from Maryland, who is such a wonderful leader and ally and friend. He is very loyal to the needs and concerns of Maryland in this area. He has been terrific.

Earlier, the Senator from Oklahoma said--I think I am quoting him correctly--that in the past 15 years, there has not been any increase in temperature--I guess to suggest this isn't a real problem and we don't have to worry about it. I tried to get the figure right, but I have double-checked it, and I would like to correct myself. In the past 15 years, 13 of those 15 years are the 13 hottest years on record. So the past 15 years has been a period of very unusual heat.

What happens when you have that type of unusual heat? What happens when you have the climate disruption--to use the good phrase of Senator Blumenthal. You end up with added storms.

This is a graph prepared by the insurance industry--not exactly a bunch of liberals. This is how they make their money. They want to get it right. They have graphed the storm activity, starting all the way over there in 1980, coming here to 2012.

So if you go back in the last 15 years here, you will see a significant increase in storm activity--the type of major storms the insurance industry has to pay for, so they care very deeply about this. They get their data right, and I think they can be trusted.

I also think that the 13 out of 15 being the hottest years on record can

be trusted because that is science that comes from NASA. I do not know where the Senator from Oklahoma was getting his data, but I will trust the scientists at NASA. These are people who have put an explorer the size of an SUV on the top of a rocket, fired it off into space, sent it to Mars, landed it on the surface of Mars, and they are now driving it around on the surface of Mars. I do not think these are scientists who are incapable of getting it right. So I trust the insurance industry for these numbers about storms. I trust the NASA scientists for the numbers about temperature.

I think it is pretty clear that we are way out of the bounds of history, as Mr. Merkley, the senior Senator from Oregon, said. The entire history of our species on this planet--until the Industrial Revolution and our great carbon dump--has been within 170 to 300 parts per million. That has been the range for as long as we have been a species on this planet--until this sudden up-surge, and that has now taken us to 400. It is a novelty, if that is not too frivolous a word to use for such an excursion outside of the bandwidth in which our species has inhabited this planet throughout our entire existence.

I see the Senator from New Mexico and the Senator from Texas organizing who is going to speak next, and I will respectfully yield to whichever one of them wishes to proceed. But I do want to thank my colleagues for coming to the floor today to discuss this issue. Senator Murphy from Connecticut, Senator Merkley from Oregon, Senator Schatz from Hawaii, Senator Blumenthal from Connecticut, Senator Cardin from Maryland, and now Senator Tom Udall from New Mexico all have been here on very short notice because we all want to support this President in his decision to move forward on regulating our carbon pollution and beginning to forestall the damage it is doing to our economies, to our States, to our coastlines, to our forests, to our farms. If anything, one could say it is about time, but it certainly is time, and I applaud that the President has stepped so well forward.

I yield the floor.

Objection.

First, over the last few moments I had a chance to listen to the Senator from Louisiana. I just want to applaud the tenacity with which she approaches her duties in this Chamber. She is a terrific colleague. When there is something she thinks is the right thing to do, she will fight very hard to get that done.

I am here to say a word in support of the bipartisan immigration legislation we are looking at. In the months that led up to this debate, I have met with people across Rhode Island to discuss our pressing need for national immigration reform. Rhode Island, like Connecticut--perhaps even more than Connecticut--is a State with a proud tradition of immigration, and our many immigrant communities make our State stronger and more vibrant.

I have heard from leaders of our Latino communities which are the fastest growing share of our State's population and workforce. I have heard from leaders of my State's other immigrant communities, particularly including members of our Liberian community, many of whom fled civil war in their home country but are unable to fully participate in the American

dream because of the uncertainty of their immigration status. I have heard from leaders in Rhode Island's technology industry who often have trouble recruiting talented employees they want to hire to fill a specific need, but the people they are looking for cannot obtain a timely green card. I met with men and women who are struggling to find work after losing their jobs to temporary foreign workers.

From all of those stories, one message comes through loudly and clearly: Our immigration system is broken. There are 11 million people living in the shadows. These are people who want to work to support their families and contribute to our communities. Eligible, legal immigrants can wait years, even decades to gain entry to this country. Then we educate the best and brightest from around the world, but too often we tell them they cannot remain in this country after they graduate.

The bill before us offers a bipartisan solution to these problems. It provides a pathway to citizenship for the undocumented immigrants already in this country, including the DREAMers, the children who were brought here at an early age and who are American already in every meaningful sense of the word.

The pathway that is created by this bill is tough, but it is fair. It prevents dangerous criminals from becoming citizens. It requires undocumented immigrants to pay a fine, to learn English, and to work. But for the vast majority of undocumented immigrants in our Nation, it offers a way out of the shadows. That is why, as this debate continues, we should reject amendments that would place further obstacles in that path to citizenship.

This bill also significantly improves the security of our southern border--a border that is already more secure than at any time in our Nation's history. Under President Obama, the number of Border Patrol agents has nearly doubled. Border crossings are down. This bill will build on these successes by giving the Department of Homeland Security tools to further strengthen border enforcement. This bill makes real improvements to our legal immigration system. It will allow spouses and children of permanent residents to come to this country without unnecessary delay.

I recently heard a heartbreaking story from a woman in Cranston, RI, who told me her husband might be forced to return to his native country while he waits for up to 2 years to receive a green card--leaving her at home alone for those 2 years to care for her disabled child.

This bill will also make our Nation more competitive by helping us to attract the best and brightest from around the world. Two years ago I met with a talented young man named Love Sarin who studied for his doctorate at Brown University and then founded a company in Providence that developed technology to help protect communities from the harm of mercury exposure. But when he applied for a green card, he was denied even though he had been educated at one of our universities, was creating jobs in our country, and was helping to protect our health and environment.

More recently, I received a letter from Charles in East Providence who says this issue is ``close to [his] heart,'' and it is. His girlfriend just finished her second master's degree program at Johnson and Wales University. But unless she finds an employer willing to sponsor her for a visa, she may have to return to her native China. ``These young people want to stay here and want to succeed,'' Charles wrote.

This bill will allow more talented individuals in the sciences and other fields to stay here and contribute to our economy. Let me compliment the eight sponsors of this legislation for their tireless efforts to find a reasonable middle ground. This bill is a compromise. No one can say they got everything they wanted, but on balance this bill is our best opportunity to fix our Nation's broken immigration system. It is our best opportunity in years.

As we now know, this bill will reduce our deficit by nearly $900 billion over the next 20 years.

Let me also compliment our Judiciary Chairman Senator Leahy for his leadership in getting us to this point. The markup of this legislation by Chairman Leahy's committee was thorough, fair, and transparent. The committee adopted 141 amendments--nearly all of them on a bipartisan basis--and the bill is stronger and better today than when it was introduced.

I was proud that three of my amendments were adopted, all of them unanimously, by the committee. My first amendment provided both American workers and workers on H-1B visas with a way of reporting H-1B program violations. At my community dinners back home, I heard stories of Rhode Island workers who were replaced by foreign workers on H-1B visas. One day they are at work, the next day they are gone, and a foreign worker is doing their job. Some were even forced to train their replacements.

These workers had nowhere to turn. My amendment creates a Department of Labor toll-free hotline and a Web site for American and foreign workers to report possible violations of H-1B visa rules and an inspector general audit.

My second amendment expands the bill's INVEST visa, which is issued to qualified foreign-born entrepreneurs so they can come and create businesses in the United States. My amendment added funding from startup accelerators to the INVEST Program criteria.

As many of my colleagues know, startup accelerators help entrepreneurs get off the ground by providing training, support, and often initial funding. In Providence, one such accelerator called Betaspring has helped launch 57 different companies, creating jobs in our State and across the country. So they will now benefit from the INVEST visa.

I also offered an amendment to allow scientists and researchers with unique skills who wish to serve our country by working in our prestigious National Laboratories to obtain citizenship on an expedited basis provided they pass the necessary rigorous background checks.

I want to thank my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee for working with me to include these important provisions on a bipartisan basis. I do believe further improvements can be made on the floor, and I intend to offer several more amendments during this debate.

I am working on two amendments that would leverage our immigration laws to strengthen our Nation's cyber security. One amendment would set aside some entry visas for potential witnesses in investigations and prosecutions of cyber crime. We allow visas to those who help our law enforcement agencies to bring cases against those who are hacking us and trying to steal our intellectual property and potentially even sabotaging our critical infrastructure. Another amendment would ensure that enablers and beneficiaries of hackers who steal our American intellectual property do not benefit from our immigration system. It would allow our government to designate entities and individuals who are associated with criminal hackers and say: Forget it. If you are involved in supporting criminal hacking of our cyber networks, you are not getting a visa. Your employees are not getting visas, and your organizations cannot support visa applications.

I also intend to offer an amendment relating to the E-Verify system, clarifying that employers need not reverify the authorization of workers retaining the same position under the new employers. As new companies take over existing service contracts, workers in certain low- skilled positions can find themselves working for dozens of employers over their careers without ever changing their job. They are not changing their job, the employers are changing, and they should not have to reverify every time. That is a needless burden on both the employer and the employee.

In addition, I filed an amendment to close what is referred to as the terror gap. Right now, believe it or not, nothing in our laws prevents a suspected terrorist from legally purchasing a firearm even if a background check reveals he is on the terrorist watch list. My amendment would give the Attorney General the authority to prohibit the transfer of firearms to suspected terrorists on the terrorist watch list. That seems like common sense, and this amendment was based on legislation introduced by our late colleague, Senator Frank Lautenberg. I am very aware of his presence as I stand here

because with his departure, his desk moved over to the other side of the aisle, and my desk moved into his space. So now I am actually standing in Frank's spot.

Frank was a tireless advocate for protecting our communities from the scourge of gun violence. I know as Democrats and Republicans we are divided on gun issues. But if there is a gun issue we ought to be able to come together on, it is that the people who are on the terrorist watch list should not be able to buy firearms legally in this country. I hope we can at least agree on that.

Finally, Chairman Leahy has also put forward an important and worthy amendment that would provide for the equal treatment of all families under our immigration laws. I was extremely proud to stand with Rhode Island's Governor Lincoln Chafee last month as he signed into law legislation making Rhode Island the 10th State in the country to provide for marriage equality. It is time that our immigration system catches up with States such as Rhode Island, and I was pleased to vote for this amendment in the committee.

I will say I also understand and appreciate and indeed honor the position the group of Senators who put this bill together have taken, that they need to vote to protect their bill and their agreement. So on our side, Senator Schumer, Senator Durbin, Senator Bennet, and Senator Menendez may have to take positions to make sure this bill goes forward and passes, and I wish to be on record as saying that I may vote differently than they do, but I certainly appreciate the position they are in, and I think it is honorable on their part to stick with the deal they have agreed to and to work hard to make sure this immigration bill passes.

Chairman Leahy, the chairman of our committee, has worked for years to ensure that all families are treated fairly under immigration law. I have been very proud to support his efforts. I see no reason why treating all marriages equally should be so controversial, much less a reason for blocking our best hope for comprehensive immigration reform.

I will conclude by saying I look forward to working in earnest with my colleagues toward an immigration system that is worthy of our great Nation. It is time to come together, fix our broken immigration system, and make this a system of which we can be proud. I urge all of my colleagues to join in this important task.

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

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for perhaps up to 20 minutes as in morning business.

Madam President, I am here again--I think it is the 36th time--to speak as I do every week on global climate change, to remind us that it is time for us to wake up and to take action to protect our communities. The risks that we ignore will not go away on their own. The longer we remain asleep, the greater the challenges we leave for our children and grandchildren. The changes we are already seeing--rising sea levels, floods, and erosion, more powerful storms-- are taking their toll in particular on our aging infrastructure which I would like to talk about today--our roads, our bridges, our sewers and water pipes. This kind of infrastructure is designed to operate for 50 to 100 years and to withstand expected environmental conditions. So what happens if expected weather and climate patterns change? Well, they are.

According to the Draft National Climate Assessment:

U.S. average temperature has increased by about 1.5 degrees

Fahrenheit since 1895; more than 80% of this increase has

occurred since 1980. The most recent decade was the nation's

hottest on record.

We are also getting more precipitation with more and more of our rain coming in big, heavy downpours. Between 1958 and 2011, the amount of rain that fell during individual rainstorms increased in every region of the country--up to 45 percent in the Midwest and 74 percent in our northeast.

Last month the Government Accountability Office issued a report revealing the risks posed to U.S. infrastructure by climate change. The report--which I requested, along with finance chairman Max Baucus-- shows we can no longer use historical climate patterns to plan our infrastructure projects.

First, limited resources often must be focused on short-term priorities. Fixing an unexpected water main break, for example, won't usually allow for upgrades to account for climate change. And long-term projects that do include climate change safeguards usually require more money upfront. That is GAO's warning.

GAO also found that local decisionmakers--folks in our home communities--need more and better climate information. The faster someone drives, the better their headlights need to be, and carbon pollution is accelerating changes to our climate and weather. Our communities need the information--the headlights--to see these oncoming changes, and it needs to be local.

When a bridge is constructed in Cape Hatteras, it is more helpful to know how climate change will affect North Carolina than North America. Thankfully, leaders across the country are waking up to the reality of climate change and are making evidence-based, not ideological, decisions about how to best serve their communities.

This is the Interstate 10 twin span bridge that crosses Lake Pontchartrain near New Orleans. During Hurricane Katrina, the storm surge rocked the bridge's 255-ton concrete bridge spans off of their piers, twisting many, and toppling others into the lake. Hurricane Katrina brought the largest storm surge on record for Lake Pontchartrain. Scientists tell us that climate change loads the dice for these stronger and more frequent storms. So the recovery design team decided to strengthen and raise this bridge. They made a larger initial investment in order to reduce maintenance costs in the future. That is smart planning.

In 2012, Hurricane Isaac was the first major test for the new bridge, and it passed. The damage was limited to road signs and electrical components. This is the new higher bridge over here and that is the old bridge down on the left there.

To the south, Louisiana State Highway 1 is the only access road to Port Fourchon. Senator Vitter, who is from Louisiana and our ranking member on the Environment and Public Works Committee, has told us that 18 percent of the Nation's oil supply passes through Port Fourchon. It is a pretty important port, and Highway 1--the only access road to it-- is closed on average 3\1/2\ days a year due to flooding, according to GAO. NOAA scientists project that within 15 years portions of Louisiana Highway 1 will flood an average of 30 times each year. State and local officials raised 11 miles of Highway 1 by more than 22 feet. So when Hurricane Isaac brought a 6\1/2\ foot storm surge up the gulf, those raised portions were unaffected.

Up north in Milwaukee, WI, the metropolitan sewerage district spent $3 billion in 1993 to increase the capacity of its sewer system based on historical rainfall records dating back to the 1960s. But extreme rainstorms in the Midwest have changed drastically. Milwaukee experienced a 100-year storm 3 years in a row. Milwaukee experienced 100-year storms in 2008, again in 2009, and again in 2010. The University of Wisconsin projects these storms will be even more common in the future, so Milwaukee took steps to improve the ability of nearby natural areas like wetlands to absorb the extra runoff from rainstorms. This eased the pressure on the city's wastewater system.

The GAO infrastructure report also found that areas recently hit by a natural disaster tend to get proactive about adaptation. I think it is easy to see how getting clobbered by a hurricane will help people to rethink their emergency preparedness. But waiting for disaster is not risk management, and we can and must do better.

In my home State of Rhode Island, local leaders are wide awake to climate change. For instance, North Kingstown is a municipality with planners who have taken the best elevation data available and modeled expected sea-level rise as well as sea-level rise plus 3 feet of storm surge. By combining these with the models and maps that show the roads, emergency routes, water treatment plants, and estuaries, the town can better plan its transportation, conservation, and relocation projects.

Last week, North Kingstown's efforts were recognized by a grant from the EPA and will be a model for communities throughout the country.

Other coastal States face many of the same risks we are facing in Rhode Island--none more than Florida. A study of sea-level rise on U.S. coasts found that in Florida more than 1.5 million residents and almost 900,000 homes would be affected by 3 feet of sea-level rise. Both numbers, 1.5 million residents and almost 900,000 homes, are almost double any other State in the Nation.

These maps show what 3 feet of sea-level rise means for Miami-Dade County in southeastern Florida. The map on the left shows the current elevation in southern Miami-Dade compared to 3 feet of sea-level rise shown here on the right. The blue regions, which are green here, are the regions that have gone underwater with 3 feet of sea-level rise. They would lose acres and acres of land. This nuclear power station and this wastewater treatment plant are virtually cut off from dry land.

And the flooding won't just be along the coast; low-lying inland areas are also at risk. That is because in Florida, particularly in the Miami metropolitan area, the buildings are built on limestone. Florida stands on a limestone geological base, and limestone is porous. Up in New England, we can build levees and other structures to hold the water back. In Miami, they would be building those structures on a geological sponge. The water will seep under and through the porous limestone.

Rising seas don't just threaten southern Florida. According to the American Security Project, Eglin Air Force Base on the Florida panhandle coast, which is the largest Air Force base in the world, is one of the five most vulnerable U.S. military installations because of its vulnerability to storm surges, sea-level rise, and saltwater intrusion.

Responsible Floridians looking at these projections have decided to take action. Four counties in Florida--Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, Broward, and Monroe--have formed the Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact. Using the best available science, they have assessed the vulnerability of south Florida's communities to sea-level rise. In their four counties in Florida alone, a 1-foot rise in sea level would endanger approximately $4 billion in property--just in those four counties. A 3-foot sea-level rise would endanger approximately $31 billion in property.

In Monroe County, 3 of the 4 hospitals, two-thirds of the schools, and 71 percent of emergency shelters are in danger by a 1-foot rise. That is a lot of infrastructure at risk.

Together, these Florida counties, which are led both by Republicans and Democrats--this is a bipartisan county effort in Florida--have adopted a plan to mitigate property loss, make infrastructure more resilient, and protect those essential community structures such as hospitals, schools, and emergency shelters.

This past October, those member counties signed a 5-year plan with 110 different action items, including efforts to make infrastructure more resilient, reduce the threats to vital ecosystems, help farmers adapt, increase renewable energy capacity, and educate their public about the threat of climate to Florida. Looking at all of those risks to Florida and looking at the bipartisan action taken by those county leaders in Florida, I have to ask: If you are a Member of Congress from Florida, how can you credibly deny climate change?

Studies show about 95 percent of climate scientists think climate change is really happening and humans really are contributing to it. About 5 percent disagree or aren't so sure. Can Floridians here in Congress really take the 5-percent bet? Does that seem smart, cautious, prudent, and responsible? This is the only Florida we have, and the Sunshine State is ground zero for sea-level rise. It is long past time for us to act on climate change, but it is not too late to be ready and it is not too late to be smart in Florida and elsewhere. In Florida, and in other States, infrastructure has to be designed for and adapted to the climate changes we can foresee.

I thank the Government Accountability Office for this report. Nature could not be giving us clearer warnings. Whatever higher power gave us our advanced human capacity for perception, calculation, analysis, deduction, and foresight has laid out before us more than enough information for us to make the right decisions. Fortunately, these human capacities provide us everything we need to act responsibly on this information if only we will awaken.

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

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

Mr. President, I rise today for the 35th time to again bring the message to my colleagues that it is time to wake up to the threat of climate change. There is simply too much credible evidence that climate change is occurring, and there is too much at risk for us to continue sleepwalking.

Our oceans face unprecedented challenges from climate change and carbon pollution. Oceans have absorbed more than 550 billion tons of our carbon pollution. As a result, they have become 30 percent more acidic. That is a measurement, not a theory.

Ocean temperatures are also changing dramatically, again driven by carbon pollution. Sea surface temperatures in 2012, from the Gulf of Maine down to Cape Hatteras, were the highest recorded in 150 years. That is another measurement. Fish stocks are shifting northward with some disappearing from U.S. waters as they move farther offshore. Fishermen who have come here to talk to Senator Reed and myself have noted anomalies, and ``things are not making sense out there'' is the way they have described it.

In my home State of Rhode Island, the Ocean State, we put our lives and hearts into our relationship with the ocean. The day-to-day life on the coast is a proud and rewarding tradition, but it is one that is now threatened by climate change.

The waters of Narragansett Bay are getting warmer--4 degrees Fahrenheit warmer in the winter since the 1960s. Long-term data from the tide gauges in Newport, RI, show an increase in the average sea level of nearly 10 inches since 1930, and the rate of increase is accelerating. Sea level rise is contributing to erosion and allows storm surges and waves to wash farther and farther inland. Last year Hurricane Sandy really sped up that erosion, driving down beaches and dunes and tearing up coastal homes and roads.

The ecosystem damage, erosion, and storms are just part of the price Rhode Islanders pay for unchecked greenhouse gas pollution. We are not alone. Every region of the United States is facing similar costs.

Economists are working to calculate the costs of carbon pollution by adding up those damages of climate change. It is called ``the social cost of carbon'' because it is the cost of pollution the big polluters offload onto the rest of society. When consumers and taxpayers are forced to shoulder those costs, that is a market failure, and it is flat out unfair.

The Obama administration recently revised its estimates of the social cost of carbon. The new calculation does a better job at capturing the most recent projections for sea level rise and agricultural productivity. This is a good step toward recognizing the magnitude of the harms of climate change, and I hope it is an indication that the President is going to do more to address this problem.

Economists and administration officials are not the only ones looking at the cost of carbon pollution. Among those weighing the evidence that our climate is changing are the cold-eyed professionals of the property casualty insurance industry--insurers and the reinsurers. Their industry depends on getting this right. Politics has no place in their calculations. This is how they make their living.

The insurance sector has created a complete data set for natural catastrophes worldwide from 1980 up to 2011, and here is what they see: The annual number of natural disasters is going steadily up. The top three colors of each of these bars show the number of events that are related to weather. On the bottom, this set in red shows the events that are not related to weather. Volcanoes, earthquakes, and so forth, are not climate related.

While the overall number of catastrophes is increasing, we can see the number of these nonclimate catastrophes is constant. It is the climate-driven catastrophes that are increasing.

Here is the chart without those nonclimate catastrophes. These are the catastrophes that are related to climate-driven weather. Insurers and reinsurers are looking more closely at the increase in weather- related catastrophes and are now starting to include climate-change costs in their risk models.

Pricing carbon properly is necessary. Representative Henry Waxman, Representative Earl Blumenauer, Senator Brian Schatz, and I have released a discussion draft of legislation to make the big carbon polluters pay a fee to cover the costs of dumping their waste carbon into our atmosphere and oceans--a cost they now push off onto the rest of us--and return all of that revenue to the American people.

At present the political conditions in Congress are stacked against us. The big polluters and their allies hold sway and Congress refuses to wake up. While Congress sleepwalks through history, States such as my home State of Rhode Island are acting to mitigate and adapt for climate change.

This week I welcomed dozens of Rhode Islanders to Washington for our annual Rhode Island Energy and Environmental Leaders Day. This event brings together Rhode Island renewable energy and sustainable development businesses, community development nonprofits, State and local officials, environmentalists, experts, and academics, to share ideas with national leaders and Federal agencies on promoting green energy, improving resiliency, and combating climate change.

We were joined by my terrific Rhode Island delegation, Jack Reed, Jim Langevin, and David Cicilline. The highlight of the event was hearing from Vice President Al Gore, who is a world leader on environmental protection and alternative energy. Vice President Gore declared that ``We are on the cusp of a fantastic revolution'' in green energy. ``But there is still ferocious resistance,'' he warned, from ``legacy industries that have built up wealth and power in a previous age''-- that is what stops Congress. That is what keeps us sleepwalking, and that is why we don't wake up.

We were also joined by Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, who asserted the Obama administration's dedication to doubling renewable generation by the end of this decade.

Congressman Henry Waxman, the ranking member on the House Energy and Commerce Committee and my fellow cochair of our Bicameral Task Force on Climate Change, also came to address the group, as did our colleague Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts. New Englanders, of course, know Senator Warren as a tireless advocate for everyday Americans, who is unafraid to challenge powerful special interests, and my friend Henry Waxman has carved out a unique role for himself as one of the leading legislators in the House of Representatives on this and a great number of other public health issues. I am so proud to be working with Representative Waxman.

The innovation that is taking place in my Ocean State was on full display at the Rhode Island Energy and Environmental Leaders Day. We are a leader in the development of offshore wind energy. This month the Federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management announced the first-ever auction for renewable energy leases off the coast of Rhode Island and Massachusetts.

Our State's Special Area Management Plan, or SAMP, has balanced environmental, commercial, and military marine interests through a first-of-its-kind marine spatial planning process. This cooperation has protected rich fishing grounds and sped up wind energy development.

Rhode Island is part of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, nicknamed ``Reggie,'' along with eight other northeastern States, including the State of the Presiding Officer, I believe. Our region caps carbon emissions and sells permits to powerplants to emit greenhouse gases, creating economic incentives for both States and utilities to invest in energy efficiency and renewable energy development.

Rhode Island's Climate Change Commission identifies risks to important State infrastructure and reports on the effects of catastrophic events such as Hurricane Sandy and the 2010 flood.

In places such as North Kingstown, RI, the city planners have taken the best elevation data available, and they have modeled various levels of sea level rise and storm surge. By combining these models with maps showing roads, emergency routes, water treatment plants, and estuaries, the town can better plan its infrastructure and its conservation projects.

The Rhode Island Department of Health is using a $250,000 grant from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to help the State prepare for and address health effects associated with climate change.

Most of all, Rhode Islanders are calling for action, especially young Rhode Islanders. When I spoke at a climate change rally on the National Mall earlier this year, busloads of Rhode Islanders had driven down to show support for action on climate change. Right now students at Brown University and the Rhode Island School of Design are pushing their great universities to divest their endowments of coal holdings.

I am proud of the effort we are making in Rhode Island, and I know a lot of States are working just as hard. But I say to my colleagues: Our home States are hampered in these efforts by inaction in Congress. Even the Government Accountability Office, known as Congress's watchdog, has pointed out repeatedly that the Federal Government should be a better partner to States that are trying to adapt to and plan for climate change.

Sadly, Congress seems determined to be the last holdout against good sense. Some in this body choose to ignore the science and put special interests before national interests. They stifle policies that would be economically inconvenient to their special interests. The obstruction may be well funded by the polluters and their allies, but the majority of the American people understand that climate change is a problem, and they want their leaders to take action.

Many in Washington do recognize the need for climate action and ocean stewardship. President Obama declared this June to be National Oceans Month, saying:

All of us have a stake in keeping the oceans, coasts, and

Great Lakes clean and productive--which is why we must manage

them wisely not just in our time, but for generations to

come. Rising to meet that test means addressing threats like

overfishing, pollution, and climate change.

Last week, the National Marine Sanctuary Foundation hosted the 12th Capitol Hill Ocean Week, bringing marine professionals, government officials, and ocean advocates to Washington to discuss strategies for keeping our oceans and coasts healthy.

Also, last week, Secretary of State John Kerry hosted a roundtable discussion about the challenges of and opportunities for ocean sustainability under climate change.

Responsible people are calling for action, such as Rhode Island's energy and environmental leaders, the insurance and reinsurance sector, and virtually every major reputable scientific organization, such as NASA, whose scientists sent a buggy the size of an SUV to Mars and are driving it around right now on the surface of Mars. They may know something when they can do that. Major U.S. corporations are calling for action, including Apple and Ford and Nike and Coca-Cola and organizations such as the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. Heather Zichal, President Obama's Deputy Assistant for Energy and Climate Change, made it clear to the crowd at Rhode Island Energy and Environmental Leaders Day:

Congress has not yet delivered a common-sense, market-based

solution. . . . [I]f Congress will not act, then [the

President] will.

It is time to wake up and to meet the challenge of our time. There is a lot at stake for every State and there is a lot at stake for every generation. It is time to wake up and to take action.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, despite its name, farm bill policies touch the lives of all Americans, not just those who work in the agricultural sector. In addition to reauthorizing farm programs, this legislation deals with domestic and international food aid, conservation and the environment, trade, rural development, renewable energy, forestry, and financial markets, among other issues. This year's reauthorization presented an opportunity to enact significant reforms in these critical areas. While some progress was made, I believe the bill falls short of its potential and, ultimately, I cannot support it.

The farm bill took an important step toward reform by ending the longstanding practice of giving direct payments to farmers of certain commodity crops, regardless of whether a farmer experienced losses or even planted a crop. It also places caps on the amount of farm payments an individual can receive, expands crop insurance opportunities for specialty and organic crops, establishes conservation compliance as a requirement for receiving premium insurance subsidies, and invests in rural broadband.

In spite of these successes, however, the farm bill does not do enough for Rhode Island families.

Of greatest concern to me, it includes a $4.5 billion cut over 10 years to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP also known as food stamps. These cuts could lead to a reduction in food stamp benefits for an estimated 500,000 households across the country, including possibly 20,000 households in Rhode Island. SNAP is our Nation's most important anti-hunger program. In this challenging economic climate, which has affected low-income individuals more harshly than anyone, and from which Rhode Island is recovering very slowly, it is wrong to cut critical food-assistance funding.

I am also discouraged that this legislation provides no funds for fisheries

disasters, including those declared in 2012. Like our farmers, fishermen feed this nation. Americans enjoyed an average of 15 pounds of fish and shellfish per person in 2011, making us second in total seafood consumption in the world. Accordingly, fishing is also a major economic cornerstone of our coastal communities. In 2011, fisheries supported over 1.2 million jobs in the United States.

Despite adhering to strict catch limits, many fishermen and historic fishing communities are suffering dramatic declines in stocks. In 2012, Commerce Secretary Bryson and Acting Secretary Blank issued fisheries disaster declarations ranging from Alaska to Samoa, and from Mississippi up to my home State of Rhode Island. Despite being included in the Senate version, emergency funding for many of these fisheries was left out of final version of the Sandy disaster relief bill ultimately signed into law.

Farm bill programs provide billions of dollars in subsidies and technical assistance to farmers every year. In comparison, fishermen have little access to similar kinds of federal subsidies. Several amendments have been filed that attempt to correct this inequity, including the creation of a pilot program for Farm Service Agency operating loans and crop insurance for shellfish growers. We are a long way, however, from adequately supporting and protecting the role of fisheries in our food supply chain. Fishermen remain second-class citizens when it comes to federal support.

Finally, American agriculture springs from the richness of our land and natural resources, and the farm bill has long supported programs to conserve and protect those resources. As the harmful effects of climate change become more prevalent, our agricultural policy should reflect the threat posed to farming and food production by these changes. In this farm bill, ``climate change'' and ``extreme weather'' are hardly even mentioned. Congress can start by opening the Regional Conservation Partnership Program to climate change adaptation and mitigation projects.

The farm bill is important and wide-ranging legislation. Unfortunately, the bill before the Senate leaves out essential protections for low-income Americans, hard-hit fisheries, and precious natural resources.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Madam President, I would like to yield 5 minutes to my friend Senator Blunt and then reclaim the floor.

Madam President, American summertime is when we celebrate and commemorate the patriots who fought to establish and protect this great Republic. From Memorial Day through Independence Day and on to Veterans Day, communities across this country turn out star- spangled bunting and gather for parades, cookouts, and wreath layings to reflect on the heroes and events that embody our Nation's great spirit.

June in Rhode Island is marked by the annual celebration of Gaspee Days, when we recognize and celebrate one of the earliest acts of defiance against the British Crown in our American struggle for independence. Most Americans remember and I know the Presiding Senator from Massachusetts certainly is well aware of the Boston Tea Party when, in fact, literally spirited Bostonians clamored onto the decks of the East India Company's ships and dumped tea bags into Boston Harbor to protest British taxation without representation.

I am sure throwing tea bags into the harbor is a very big deal, but there was another milestone in the path to the Revolutionary War that is too often overlooked. It is the story of 60 brave Rhode Islanders who, more than a year before the Tea Party in Boston, risked their lives in defiance of oppression more than 240 years ago and drew the first blood in what became the revolutionary conflict.

In the years before the Revolutionary War, one of the most notorious of the armed customs vessels patrolling Rhode Island's Narragansett Bay, imposing the authority of the British Crown, was Her Majesty's ship Gaspee. The ship and its captain, Lieutenant William Dudingston, were known for destroying fishing vessels, seizing cargo, and flagging down ships only to harass, humiliate, and interrogate the colonials.

A 100-year-old report says:

This unprincipled ruffian had ruthlessly ravaged the Rhode

Island coast for several months, destroying unoffending

fishing vessels, and confiscating everything he could lay

hands on. The attack on the ``Gaspe' '' caused the first

bloodshed in the struggle for American independence, and was

the first resistance to the British navy.

How did it come about? Well, on June 9, 1772, Rhode Island ship captain Benjamin Lindsey was en route to Providence from Newport, sailing in his packet sloop the Hannah, when he was accosted and ordered to yield for inspection by the Gaspee. Captain Lindsey had had enough of the Gaspee. He ignored the command and raced up Narragansett Bay, ignoring warning shots fired at him by the Gaspee. As the Gaspee gave chase, Captain Lindsey--who was a wily Rhode Island ship captain-- realized that his ship was lighter and drew less water than the Gaspee, so he sped north toward Pawtuxet Cove, toward the shallows off of Namquid Point. The Hannah shot over these shallows, but the heavier Gaspee grounded and stuck firm. The British ship and her crew were caught stranded in a falling tide and would need to wait many hours for a rising tide to free the hulking Gaspee.

Captain Lindsey continued on his way to Providence and rallied a group of Rhode Island patriots at Sabin's Tavern. Together, the group resolved to put an end to the Gaspee's menace to Rhode Island waters. They may have shared one thing with their Boston compatriots: They may have been spirited themselves.

That night the men embarked down Narragansett Bay in eight longboats with muffled oars. They encircled the stranded Gaspee and called on Lieutenant Dudingston to surrender his ship. Dudingston refused and ordered his men to fire on anyone who tried to board. The Rhode Islanders forced their way onto the Gaspee's deck, and in the struggle Lieutenant Dudingston was wounded, shot with a musket ball. Right there in the waters off Warwick, RI, the very first blood in the conflict that was to become the American Revolution thus was drawn.

The brave patriots took the captive Englishmen ashore and returned to the Gaspee to rid Narragansett Bay of her noxious presence once and for all. Near daylight on June 10, they set her afire. The blaze spread to the ship's powder magazine, and the resulting blast echoed across Narragansett Bay as airborne fragments of this former ship splashed down into the water.

The incident prompted a special commission instructed by King George III to deliver any persons indicted in the burning of the Gaspee to the Royal Navy for transport to England for trial and execution.

Samuel Adams, in a letter published in the Newport Mercury on December 21, 1772, and reprinted in the Providence Gazette on December 26, called it ``a court of inquisition, more horrid than that of Spain or Portugal. The persons who are the commissioners of this new-fangled court are vested with most exorbitant and unconstitutional power.'' A few days later he wrote that ``an Attack upon the Liberties of one Colony is an Attack upon the Liberties of all; and therefore in this Instance all should be ready to yield Assistance to Rhode Island.''

In a letter to a friend in Rhode Island, John Adams, the future President, summed up the tension felt across the Colonies:

``We are all in a fury here about . . . the Commission for

trying the Rhode Islanders for Burning the Gaspee. I wonder

how your Colony happens to sleep so securely in a whole skin,

when her sisters are so worried and tormented.''

King George III offered a handsome reward for information leading to the arrest of those responsible for the burning and destruction of his revenue cutter. But Rhode Islanders are a loyal bunch--the reward went unclaimed.

The site of Rhode Island's opening salvo in the American Revolution is now named Gaspee Point. The annual Gaspee Days celebration has grown to span several weeks each June and includes an arts and crafts festival, a walking tour with students playing the roles of Colonialists, an encampment of local militia, a parade down Narragansett Parkway in Warwick, and, of

course, a mock burning of the HMS Gaspee.

My friend, State Representative Joe McNamara, and the Gaspee Days Committee work each year to make these events the best they can be and to remind our State and Nation of the bravery of those few dozen souls. Indeed, this year another Rhode Islander Mark Tracy, a pediatric neurologist at Hasbro Children's Hospital, was able to acquire original news stories from 1772 that related this incident and gave them to the Gaspee Committee. I will note that he was able to get them rather inexpensively because ``the auction house concentrated on describing the batches of newspapers--from the estate of an unnamed Providence collector--in terms of the coming Boston Tea Party and other events,'' paying no attention to the fact that Rhode Island's greater act and prior act was actually enclosed and described in these newspapers.

This summer will also mark another historic anniversary for Rhode Island because it was in July of 1663--350 years ago this summer--that King Charles II granted a royal charter establishing the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations.

``To hold forth a lively experiment,'' it declared ``that a most flourishing civil state may stand and best be maintained . . . with a full liberty in religious concernments.''

This charter provided in Rhode Island the world's first formal establishment of freedom of religion, distinguishing us from the rigid theocracy of Massachusetts, I am sorry to say, where ideological conformity was enforced by the gallows and the lash.

This charter has been called America's Magna Carta, for it is the first formal document in all of history granting the separation of church and state, along with extraordinary freedoms of speech, to a political entity. This ``lively experiment'' in Rhode Island blazed a path for American freedom of religion, one of our greatest national blessings. And, more practically, this liberty also allowed trading networks of Quakers and Baptists and Jews to connect in Newport and created their abundant wealth and commerce.

That freedom of religion, that freedom of conscience was the great legacy of Rhode Island's founder Roger Williams, who had been banished from Massachusetts for his beliefs about religious tolerance. Williams established his new colony as ``a shelter for persons,'' as he said, ``distressed for conscience.'' His battle for freedom of conscience, won and reflected in the King Charles Charter, is the reason his statue stands right out there, outside the Chamber of the Senate.

I know these events and the patriots whose efforts allowed for their success are not forgotten in my home State. This summer we will gather in these ways to celebrate Rhode Island's independent streak. We will recall the courage and zeal of these men and women who embodied those most American values--freedom of conscience and freedom from tyranny, values that ignited a revolution in the summer of 1776.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes as in morning business.

Madam President, the last week we were here, I gave my weekly ``Time To Wake Up'' speech, as usual. It is a speech I wrote well earlier. In a truly and, unfortunately, almost eerie coincidence, in my speech last week I spoke about a variety of natural disasters, including--and I will quote my own speech--``cyclones in Oklahoma.'' I said that in the same hour the cyclone touched down in Moore, OK.

When people are suffering in the wake of a calamity such as that, they need to hear one thing from Washington; that is, how can we help. That is all they need to hear. No one likes to be chided when what they need is help and comfort.

J.E. Reynolds of the Daily Oklahoman wrote: ``Victims and survivors need help, not a sermon in the first hours following a storm.'' I agree. I agree very much. My thoughts are with the victims of those Oklahoma storms and with everyone who is working to pick up the pieces.

Far from seeking to exploit their tragedy, I had no idea of the weather in Oklahoma that was happening virtually at the time I gave the speech, mentioning Oklahoma cyclones among other examples of extreme weather. But the eerie timing was what it was, and it did not send that single simple message: How can we help? So I am sorry. I have apologized to my Oklahoma colleagues for the unfortunate coincidence of timing of my earlier remarks, and I, of course, stand ready to help them speed relief to their State.

It is, of course, impossible to say that any single weather event is caused by climate change, and that is not something I have ever said. What is true is that climate change is altering weather patterns. Scientists have studied these changes in weather patterns, and they have modeled what is to come. Most are convinced that increases in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather will be a result of the megatons of carbon pollution we continue to emit.

The way I have described it is that climate change ``loads the dice'' for extreme weather. We might not know which roll is caused by the loaded dice. We are going to get a 6 or a 7 or a 12 or a 2 sooner or later anyway, but the extreme weather will come more often because of this. We cannot pretend this isn't happening. We just hit 400 parts per million of carbon in the atmosphere, measured at the NOAA observatory on Mauna Loa in Hawaii.

What does 400 parts per million mean? Well, look at it this way: For at least 800,000 years, and perhaps millions, we have been in a range on Earth between 170 and 300 parts per million of carbon in our atmosphere--800,000 years, minimum. Homo sapiens as a species have only been around for about 200,000 years, but just since the industrial revolution and the ``Great Carbon Dump'' began, we have blown out of the 170- to 300-parts-per-million range and have now hit 400.

This is very serious. We already see the effects. In Alaska, permafrost is melting and native villages once protected by winter ice are being eroded into the sea. In the Carolinas, roads to the Outer Banks have to be raised as seas rise and storms worsen. Coral reefs are fading off in Florida and in the Caribbean. In Rhode Island, we have measured almost 10 inches of sea level rise since the 1930s. Rhode Island fishermen going out to sea from Point Judith are reporting ``real anomalies . . . things just aren't making sense.''

All of these effects from climate change hit our farmers too. Since before the founding of this Republic, our farmers have relied on the Sun, the rain, and the land to provide us their bounty. In 2011, farming and the industries that rely directly on agriculture accounted for almost 5 percent of the entire U.S. economy. But growing conditions in the United States are changing. More and more of our rainfall is coming in heavy downpours. Since 1991, the amount of rain falling in what scientists call ``extreme precipitation events''--the amount of rain falling in extreme precipitation events has been above the 1901- to-1960 average in every region of the country.

In the Northeast where I am from extreme precipitation has increased 74 percent just between 1958 and 2010. That matters to our farmers. The very seasons are shifting. During the last two decades, the average frost-free season was about 10 days longer than during that period between 1901 and 1960. In the Southwest it is an astonishing 3 weeks longer. That matters to our farmers.

Average temperature in the contiguous United States has increased by about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit since records began in 1895. Most of that increase occurred since the 1980s, and 2012 was the warmest year ever. That matters to our farmers.

This chart shows the extent of the U.S. drought in August of 2012. The red and the dark areas indicate extreme and exceptional drought. These conditions lasted most of the year. That matters to our farmers.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture Chief Economist Joseph Glauber testified before the Agriculture Committee that ``the heat and rainfall deficit conditions that characterized the summer of 2012 were well outside the range of normal weather variation.'' That is precisely what scientists mean when they say climate change ``loads the dice'' for extreme weather.

Climate change doesn't cause specific heat waves but the average temperature shifts to warmer weather and the extremes move with it.

The New York Botanical Garden has seen apricot trees blossom in February. The Audubon Society of Rhode Island has reported cherry trees in Providence blooming as early as December. This could affect farmers too.

Jeff Send, a Michigan cherry farmer, explained to the Agriculture Committee that the record warm March temperatures brought his region's cherry trees out of dormancy early and exposed them to later freezes. In Michigan he said:

We have the capacity to produce 275 million pounds of tart

cherries. In 2012, our total was 11.6 million pounds.

A potential of 275 million pounds; actual crop, 11.6 million pounds, less than one-twentieth, all because of that early warming and that early bloom and the freezes that then killed them.

These changes I keep speaking about will continue if we go on polluting our atmosphere with greenhouse gases. As the harmful effects of climate change become more prevalent, our agricultural policies should reflect the threat

posed to farming and food production by these changes. Yet in the farm bill climate change and extreme weather are not mentioned once.

Well, let me correct myself. They are mentioned once. The bill makes reference to an earlier law from 1990, and in the title of that 1990 law the words ``climate change'' appear. So by referring to the 1990 law, the farm bill once mentions climate change. But with all of this going on, that is the only reference. And the reason is that our Republican colleagues will oppose legislation if it even mentions the words ``climate change.''

We can't get around using the name of a statute that passed 20-plus years ago, if ``climate change'' is in the name, so that one had to go in. But, otherwise, climate change is not mentioned in the farm bill, despite all of this activity and effect on farming.

It is not that there aren't things we could do. The Bicameral Task Force on Climate Change, which I cochair with Representative Waxman, Senator Cardin, and Representative Markey, asked stakeholders in the agriculture economy about carbon pollution and our resiliency to climate change.

The National Farmers Union, which represents more than 200,000 family farmers, ranchers, and rural members, responded--this is the National Farmers Union:

Mitigating and adapting to climate change is of significant

concern to our membership and will be a defining trend that

shapes the world.

That is the National Farmers Union on climate change. It will be ``a defining trend that shapes the world.''

Cap-and-trade legislation, the Farmers Union said, would provide a boon to farming and forest lands that take the lead on reducing greenhouse gases. The National Sustainable Agricultural Coalition encouraged a comprehensive approach. An effective policy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, wrote the group, ``should have as its cornerstone the support and promotion of sustainable organic cultural systems throughout USDA's programs and initiatives.''

Even the American Farm Bureau Federation, which has at times opposed climate change legislation, expressed clear support for farming practices that keep carbon out of the atmosphere and for investments in biofuels and in renewable energy.

We are grateful to all of the scientific and industry leaders who have shared their ideas with the Bicameral Task Force on Climate Change. We need active and willing partners in the effort to ensure our farms can meet the needs of a strong nation.

They are not alone. Responsible people across the spectrum want us to act on carbon and climate. Responsible people such as the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the United States of America, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, and dozens of major scientific societies--virtually every major one--and the folks in the corporate sector who run Apple and Ford and Nike and Coca Cola--get it. Republicans such as Ronald Reagan's Secretary of State George Schultz, former House Science Committee chair Sherry Boehlert, former Utah Governor and GOP Presidential candidate John Huntsman--responsible people across the spectrum get it. The scientists at NASA get it, and they are telling us to get serious. They are the ones who took a robot the size of an SUV and sent it millions of miles to Mars where they landed it safely on the surface of Mars and now they are driving it around. Do we think they might know what they are talking about? They get it. All across the spectrum, people get it. They are on one side getting something done about climate change.

On the other side are the polluters with their familiar retinue of cranks, extremists, and front organizations. That is basically it. And for some reason, the Republican Party--the great American Republican Party--has chosen to hitch its wagon to the polluters. I do not get it. I do not see how that works out for them.

Every day the pollution gets worse, and every day the evidence that this is serious gets stronger. I do not know why the Republican Party of Theodore Roosevelt wants to paint itself as the party that went with the polluters and not the scientists; that went with the fringe extreme against the responsible center. It has to be a bad bet. It is a crazy bet.

To make that bet you have to believe God will intervene and perform some magic, in violation of His own laws of physics and chemistry. Is that a bet you want to take? You have to believe that the market will work, even though the market is flagrantly skewed. Is that a bet you want to make? And you have to believe the people who have a vested interest to lie and disbelieve the people who have no conflict of interest, unless you are prepared to think that the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Catholic bishops and all the major scientific organizations all have a conflict of interest. Does that sound very sensible? Does that sound like where you want to hitch the wagon of one of America's great political parties?

Let me close, as we talk about climate change in the context of the farm bill, by quoting our friend Senator Tester, who recently spelled out the crisis facing our farmers in an op-ed in USA Today.

I ask unanimous consent that op-ed be printed at the conclusion of my remarks.

Senator Tester and his wife Sharla have been farming for almost 40 years--the same land that his grandparents homesteaded. This is how our friend from Montana described the changes he sees:

When I was younger, frequent bone-chilling winds whipped

snow off the Rocky Mountain Front and brought bitterly cold

days that reached -30 degrees. Today, we have only a handful

of days that even reach 0 degrees. Changes in the weather are

forcing Sharla and I to change how we operate our farm. It's

now more difficult to know when to plant to take advantage of

the rains.

Some might say the end of bitter winters will be a boon for

Montana's economy. But with milder winters, we've seen the

sawfly come out earlier to destroy our crops before they can

be harvested. Montana's deep freezes also used to kill off

the pine bark beetle, which today kills millions of acres of

trees across the American West.

He writes:

Montanans already understand that climate change is

affecting our daily lives. The argument isn't whether the

world is changing, it's how to respond.

I will say, once again, it is time--it is well past time--for us in Congress to wake up to the urgent challenge of our time. There is a lot at stake. There is a lot at stake for all of us. There is a lot at stake for every State, and there is a lot at stake for every generation, particularly for the generations that are to follow.

So often I hear my Republican colleagues expressing concern about what our debt will do to future generations. Fine. What will a ruined climate do to future generations? What will acidified seas do to future generations? What will worse extreme weather and rising seas do to future generations?

There is indeed a lot at stake, and it is time to wake up. It is time to take action.

I yield the floor.

I thank the majority leader.

Cloture Motion

Mr. President, let me first thank Chairman Levin for the immense amount of work and passion and good thought he has put into trying to accelerate the day when we can say good riddance to the sequester. He sees firsthand, as chairman of the Armed Services Committee, how much damage the sequester is doing to the military, to the soldiers and sailors and airmen and marines who honor us by their service, to the talented and loyal civilians who support their efforts. But families all across the country also are feeling the painful consequences of this sequester.

Just in my small State, Rhode Island, 8,100 folks have already seen their weekly unemployment checks reduced by $50. For a family struggling to get by, losing $50 can hurt. Federal rental assistance has been eliminated for 500 low-income Rhode Island families, which may cause some even to lose their homes.

Economy-wide, our nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that the $85 billion in sequester cuts this year will cost us 750,000 jobs nationwide. We have 12 million Americans out of work already. Why on Earth would we want to cut 750,000 more jobs?

As Chairman Levin said, it does not have to be this way. In fact, Leader Reid tried twice to bring up measures that would get rid of the sequester, but twice Republicans filibustered. Now they refuse even to allow the process to go forward that would negotiate a solution through the regular legislative process. They will not even let us appoint Senators to negotiate a compromise between the Senate and the House budgets.

It has been 61 days since we passed our budget, and each time we try to move the process along, Republicans object. If their rule is: I have to have it my way before I am willing to enter into negotiations and I need a guarantee, I would like some of that deal too. I have some things I feel pretty passionately about, and if they want to play by those rules, then we should all be playing by those rules. If not, then let's follow the regular order and let the process of democracy work.

From government shutdowns to Federal default, the other party has a strategy: to manufacture one crisis after another, each time holding our economy hostage to demands for radical policies that the vast majority of the American people reject.

They demand the end to Medicare as we know it. The American people want no part of that. They demand cuts to Social Security. The American people want no part of that. They refuse to close a single--not one, not a single--corporate tax loophole. Well, huge majorities of Americans want that to happen. But our friends do not care. They are extremists.

It is not just the American public, by the way, that rejects the extremist tea party agenda. So do economists. What economists say has been confirmed in practice by the experiences of other nations that followed the Republican austerity strategy.

Republicans say budget cuts are necessary to reduce the deficit, but their fervor ignores the established economic effect that has during a recovery. Right now, for every $1 we cut, the economy shrinks by more than $1. Their theory is when you cut $1 in government spending, that releases the economy to grow more rapidly. Well, the fact is, during a recovery the exact opposite is true. The way this is measured is through an economic phenomenon called the fiscal multiplier.

There have been a number of recent studies that try to identify what the fiscal multiplier is right now, and they range from 1.4 to 3.7, which means that

for every $1 you cut, the economy takes a $1.40 hit. There is an extra 40-cent harm for each $1 cut to our national economy.

If this one is right, 3.7, then every $1 cut is $3.70 worth of harm to our economy. It is a multiplier of damage from government cuts. So shrink the GDP, which we do if we have a fiscal multiplier of 1, and collect less taxes. Less taxes means less of the deficit reduction that is supposedly achieved by the budget cuts. It is a vicious cycle that could keep our economy weak and our deficits high. We can go backward, and Europe proves it from Spain to Portugal to Greece.

Countries slashed their budgets and things got worse, double-digit unemployment and negative growth. We have a U.S. unemployment rate of about 7.5 percent. That is way too high, but it is way better than 27 percent in Spain, 27 percent in Greece, and 16 percent in Portugal. We had 2.3 percent growth last year. They had negative growth rates. Negative growth rates. Their economies contracted.

The evidence from the austerity experiment is in countries that cut the deepest hurt themselves the worst. As we can see, employment in the eurozone is worse by about 20 percent since the major austerity programs kicked in.

Over that same time period unemployment in the United States is better by about 25 percent. Their policies, unemployment worse by 20 percent; our policies, employment better by 25 percent. A lot of these Republican calls for harmful U.S. austerity cited a 2010 paper called ``Growth in a Time of Debt'' by Harvard economists Reinhart and Rogoff. Republicans loved Reinhart and Rogoff. They cited them at least five dozen times on the House and Senate floors to justify their demands for budget cuts.

They cannot get enough of Reinhart and Rogoff. It turns out there is a big problem. There were numerous errors in Reinhart and Rogoff's computations; math errors, programming errors, dropping a column of data. Oh, oops. With the fiscal multiplier over 1, the best thing we can do to accelerate our recovery is to lift the harmful European-style sequester cuts. The Job Preservation and Sequester Replacement Act of 2013 would do just that, through September 30, giving us time to negotiate a broader compromise.

Cosponsored by Chairman Levin, Chairman Harkin, Senator Lautenberg, Senator Merkley, Senator Schatz, and Senator Warren, it would replace the sequester from the Buffet rule and from closing corporate tax loopholes, sensible tax changes that on their own we should do because they make the Tax Code fairer.

The Buffet rule would ensure that multimillion-dollar earners pay at least a 30-percent effective Federal tax rate. Last year we debated whether the top income tax rate should be 35 percent or 39.6 percent. But the fact is that many at the top, people making hundreds of millions of dollars in a single year, will not pay anything close to that rate. Why? Because the Tax Code is riddled with special provisions that favor ultra-high-income earners.

For example, investment income is taxed at the special rate of 20 percent. The so-called carried interest loophole allows billionaire private equity fund managers to pay this low rate. So many of them pay the same tax rate or even less than a hard-working average firefighter or brick mason in Rhode Island making $50,000 a year. So at $200 million a year, they are paying the same tax rate as folks making $50,000 a year. The Buffet rule follows the common sense that people earning millions of dollars a year, even hundreds of millions of dollars a year, should pay higher tax rates than middle-class families. It would also cut the deficit by $71 billion.

Another loophole, the so-called Edwards-Gingrich loophole, lets high- earning professionals dodge paying payroll taxes by calling themselves corporations. We close that too, saving another $9 billion. We save another $3 billion by going after a deduction that allows private jet owners to depreciate their planes faster than commercial aircraft are allowed to be depreciated, another commonsense change.

The fourth part of the proposal would contribute $24 billion to lifting the sequester by ending tax breaks for Big Oil. Over the past decade, the five largest oil companies have reaped over $1 trillion in profits. That is trillion with a ``t''--$1 trillion in profits. While they are making that massive profit, they nevertheless pull strings in Congress to keep billions of dollars a year that regular taxpayers have to cough up for them in tax giveaways. As with all of the elements in this bill, repealing Big Oil giveaways is something we should be doing anyway, just because it is the right thing to do.

Finally, we end a tax break for companies that ship jobs overseas. Believe it or not, the Tax Code allows manufacturers to indefinitely delay paying taxes on profits in overseas operations. Ending this unfair and un-American advantage would lower the deficit by another $20 billion. Each one of those five reforms would make the Tax Code fairer for all Americans. They are each worth passing for that reason alone. They are embarrassments in our Tax Code. Getting rid of them could stop the sequester while Democrats and Republicans work together on a balanced deficit reduction package; that is, of course, if we could get Republicans to actually work with us and negotiate and go through the regular order they have claimed for so long to seek, to get to a balanced and negotiated deficit reduction package.

But as Chairman Levin pointed out, at the moment they refuse to even appoint conferees to begin the process. They want to be assured they will have it their way before they even begin to negotiate. As I said earlier in the speech, if that is the way they are going to behave, I want some of that action myself. I have many things I feel very strongly about.

I could be in a position to say I will not allow us to go to conference either until we are clear that we are never going to do chained CPI and put that burden on our Social Security-receiving seniors. I could do that and say we are never going to go to conference unless I get a guarantee that we are going to get a carbon fee so the big polluters are paying their share and we are not having to subsidize what they are doing to our atmosphere and oceans. I could say those things. Any one of us could say those things.

That is a guarantee of total gridlock and failure. That is why it is so important that no one in this body try to use that kind of hostage-taking extremist tactic, rather than allowing the regular order to continue.

Yes.

They do.

It can.

Nobody has spent more time and more energy and put more effort into the way in which American income gets hidden offshore so people can avoid paying taxes and corporations can avoid paying taxes than Chairman Levin. He is our expert. There are indeed other loopholes that are exploited, primarily by corporations but also by very high-income taxpayers, hiding money in the Cayman islands, putting assets into Ireland and other tax havens, and refusing to treat them as American, even though it is nominally an American company. There are enumerable tricks.

I will close by making one point. Very often people look at what we are trying to accomplish, and even actually pretty honest reporters will say the Democrats actually want to raise taxes. That is the fight. Republicans want to cut spending; Democrats want to raise taxes. No. We raised taxes once already. We raised the rates for people over $450,000 thousand a year in the last big agreement. What we want to do now is to go into the Tax Code and close down the loopholes. That is all we are looking for.

What most Americans do not understand is that if we look at how much money goes out the backdoor of the Tax Code through loopholes, through special rates, through exemptions and so forth, it is very nearly the same amount of money that is actually collected through the Tax Code and becomes the revenue of the United States of America. We let almost as much money out the backdoor of the Tax Code as we collect through the Tax Code. If we take a look at the areas where Chairman Levin has done so much good research, that money actually never gets into the Tax Code to go out the backdoor.

If we were to count that, in addition to the money that is allowed out the backdoor of the Tax Code, there is actually more that goes out the backdoor of the Tax Code and is avoided coming through the Tax Code than is actually collected as the revenues of the United States of America.

So it is a big number. The refusal of the Republicans to let us attack one single loophole, not one loophole--every loophole is sacred right now to them--I think is unjustified. I hope the people of America understand we are not looking at more tax rate increases; we are looking only at closing these loopholes. It is a rich field to pursue because more money goes through that than actually gets collected. You can bet, if you are an average American, that when those loopholes were being carved into the Tax Code, you were not in the room. The special interests were in the room.

That is why a lot of people want to defend them. But it is also a very good reason for making a more honest Tax Code that gets rid of these loopholes. But our friends want to crisis manufacture. They want to do crisis manufacture so they can force-feed on all of us bad economic ideas that Americans do not want. I think we need to resist that.

I yield to the chairman.

Charitable deductions.

Yes.

Let me thank the chairman for allowing me to join him today. He has shown great leadership in this area, and I am privileged to be here with him today.

I yield the floor.