Floor Statements

Mr. President, there are many signs of the fundamental, measurable changes we are causing in the Earth's climate, mainly through our large-scale emission of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels. These are irreversible changes, at least in the short run, so we should take them very seriously.

Over the last 250 years, the global annual average concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased from 280 parts per million to 390 parts per million. That is a 30-percent increase. We have recent direct measurements that the carbon dioxide concentration increased by 15 percent since 1980 when it was 339. In 1980 it was 339 and now it is 390. That is just a dozen years in which the concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere has increased by more than 50 parts per million. Fifty parts per million is a big shift if one is not aware of the scales we are talking about here. For 8,000 centuries--800,000 years--longer than homo sapiens have existed on the face of the Earth, we can measure that the carbon concentration in the atmosphere has fluctuated between 170 and 300 parts per million. A total range of 130 parts per million has been the total range for 8,000 centuries. We are now outside of that range up to 390, and we have moved 50 points since 1980, in a number of decades. So the consequences are going to be profound, and perhaps no consequence of that carbon pollution will be as profound as the increasing acidification of the world's oceans.

Science, of course, has known since the Civil War era, and most of us understand, that excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere creates a warmer atmosphere known as the greenhouse effect. There is nothing new about that. But not all of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activity--by our use of fossil fuels--stays in the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is soluble in water and the oceans cover 70 percent of the Earth. Where the atmosphere is in contact with the oceans, a portion of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere dissolves into the oceans, reacts with the sea water to form carbonic acid and increases the overall acidity of the oceans.

There is sometimes quarrel and debate about complex modeling of climate and atmospheric projections, but evidence of ocean acidification is simple to measure and understand. Indeed, even the small noisy chorus of climate change deniers and corporate polluters is noticeably quiet on the issue of ocean acidification because they simply cannot explain away the facts.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientists gauge that over the past 200 years, hundreds of billions of tons of carbon dioxide have been absorbed into the oceans. NASA, which is able to put, for instance, a man on the Moon and a Rover on Mars and has reasonably good scientists working there who can accomplish those achievements, reports that:

The amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the upper layer of

the oceans is increasing by about 2 billion tons per year.

NOAA scientists say the oceans are taking up about 1 million tons of carbon dioxide per hour. So in more or less the time my remarks are concluded, the equivalent of more than the weight of the Washington Monument of carbon will have been dumped into our oceans. All of the extra carbon dioxide humans have pumped into the oceans has caused the global pH of the upper ocean water to change--a nearly 30-percent increase in the acidity of the oceans.

As my colleagues can see, the curve is not only moving upward but is steepening. Where is it headed? By the end of this century, it is projected we will have a 160-percent rise in ocean acidity. As we can see, not only are the oceans becoming more acidic, but they are becoming more acidic at a very rapid pace. The rate of change in ocean acidity is already thought to be faster than at any time in the past 50 million years.

I talk, when I give this weekly speech from time to time, about the 800,000 years our planet has had a carbon dioxide concentration between 170 and 300 parts per million and how long a time period that is compared to say humankind having the mastery of fire, humankind having engaged in agriculture, humankind even existing as homo sapiens. It is longer than all of those things. But that is just measuring in the hundreds of thousands of years. We are talking about a rate of increased carbon concentration and ocean acidity climbing faster than at any time in the past 50 million years.

What does that mean? Well, a paper published in the journal Science, which is a mainstream, noncrank publication, earlier this year concluded that the current rate of carbon dioxide emission could drive chemical changes in our oceans that are unparalleled in at least the last 300 million years. We are back into geologic time now since we saw that kind of an effect. The authors warn that we may be ``entering an unknown territory of marine ecosystem change.'' Well, when our range of review is in the hundreds of millions of years and the authors are talking about entering unknown territory, that is really saying something.

Here is what Dr. Peter Brewer, the senior scientist at the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute, has to say. Let me quote him:

The outcome is very clear that we are in uncharted

territory in the entire span of Earth history. The primary

cause of this is simply the rate of CO2 change; we

are changing Earth far, far faster than any recorded geologic

shift ever.

Repeat: ``We are changing Earth far, far faster than any recorded geologic shift ever.''

What does this mean for marine life? Well, as the pH of sea water drops, so does the saturation of calcium carbonate, which is the compound found in the sea water that aquatic animals use for the construction of their shells and of their skeletons. Some sea creatures absorb calcium carbonate directly from the water; others ingest it as food and then through their bodies it works out to build their shells. At lower saturations of calcium carbonate, calcium carbonate is not as available to these species, and it becomes more difficult for them to make their shells; species such as oysters, crabs, lobsters, corals, and the plankton that comprises the very base of the oceanic food web. We have seen this happen in real life already with the disaster that befell the Pacific Northwest oyster hatcheries when acidic water came in and killed off all the juveniles that were being grown.

Over 1 billion people on this planet rely on marine protein as their primary source of protein, and then, of course, there are the countless jobs that depend on fisheries, on tourism, on restaurants, boat building, maintenance, shipping, and the list goes on. The Presiding Officer is from Maryland, which is another ocean State. He is clearly aware of the importance of that ocean economy.

As things get harder for the species to survive and thrive, sooner or later it will get harder for the economies they support. Let me give my colleagues a specific example: the tiny pteropod, a type of snail, which is about the size of a very small pea. It is also known as the sea butterfly because its foot has adapted into two butterfly-like wings which allows it to propel itself around in the ocean. These images show what can happen to the pteropod's shell when the creature's underwater environment is lacking in those compounds and becomes more acidic. That is not good for the pteropods.

Another study compared pteropods incubated in sea water with today's pH to pteropods incubated in water with the acidity and chemical conditions projected for the year 2100. The study found a 28-percent decrease in shell growth. Maintaining their shells against that acidity requires energy--energy that would otherwise go into other biologic processes such as growth or reproduction. So increasing ocean acidity is an external stress that makes it harder for species such as the pteropod to survive.

Who cares about the lowly pteropod? Well, salmon do. Forty-seven percent

of the diet of some salmon species in the Pacific is pteropods. The salmon fisheries that support coastal jobs and economies also care about the salmon. Ocean fishing in the United States overall is a multibillion-dollar industry connected to hundreds of thousands of livelihoods, and we should care about our fisheries industry, even if one doesn't care about the salmon or the lowly pteropod.

These unprecedented changes in ocean acidity are not happening alone, unfortunately.

These changes come along with dramatically changing ocean temperature, which is also driven by the same carbon pollution. Just recently, NOAA proposed listing 66 species of coral as endangered or threatened, citing climate change as the driver of those species' three key threats: disease, warmer seas, and greater ocean acidification. When you add to those three conditions the preexisting stressors, such as nutrient pollution and destructive fishing practices, well, 35 percent of the world's reefs are classified as in a critical or threatened stage.

Scientific projections indicate that coral reef ecosystems could be eliminated in 30 to 50 years. The young pages who are on the floor of the Senate listening to this speech may very well live into a time when coral reefs and the ecosystems surrounding them are extinct. The death and decline of coral reefs, which are the most diverse ecosystems on the planet, in turn wounds hundreds of other species that call the reefs home. When a reef ecosystem collapses and does not recover, it quickly becomes dominated by algae, and the rich mix of species developed over hundreds of millions of years that was once present there then disappears.

Scientists think the coral reefs off the coast of Papua, New Guinea offer a window into future effects of ocean acidification because there are natural emissions of carbon dioxide which bubble up from the sea floor through the ocean and raise the concentration making the sea water more acidic. Researchers have found that many species, especially the more complex framework-building corals, which provide shelter to other organisms, do not thrive where the pH is lower.

These are two photographs taken in the same reef. We see how rich and vibrant this reef looks away from the carbon dioxide. Here, near the carbon, where the acidification is higher, it is a shadow of the healthy reef. The human-driven acidification of the ocean is capable of causing--indeed is destined to cause if we do nothing--a serious imbalance in the ocean's complex ecology. The external stress of carbon pollution will result in a new equilibrium in ocean ecosystems.

When we consider what this portends for our food security, for our planet's biodiversity and economically for ocean-based industries, we cannot afford to ignore these changes that are happening, that are measurable in our oceans.

Unfortunately, ignoring it is exactly what we are doing by failing to curb carbon pollution. There are high stakes involved. Our oceans cover 70 percent of the planet. We cannot change their chemistry without expecting profound consequences. It is time we realize we are, in fact, part of the very food chain being disrupted by the mounting acidification of the ocean.

The disruption of international fishing due to climate change and acidification threatens to destabilize local and global economies and compromise a major basic food source. How much? How much are we willing to sacrifice for the luxury of letting corporate polluters foul our planet with unchecked CO2 emissions? Carbon pollution from fossil fuels is depleting the health of the oceans as well as affecting the atmosphere. Unless we take serious action to reverse course, the consequences may be dire. We are sleepwalking through history. I implore my colleagues to heed the clear and persistent warnings that nature is giving us: to acknowledge the responsibility presented to us in this moment and to respond appropriately before it is too late.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate continue in morning business until 7 p.m.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent morning business be extended until 2 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, last week I came to the floor and spoke about our Nation's military and intelligence leaders acknowledging, along with our Nation's scientific leaders, the clear evidence that carbon pollution is changing our climate. Unfortunately, there continues to be some confusion among many Americans regarding the clear scientific consensus, but that is confusion caused by coordinated and deliberate attempts to mislead the American people.

For more than two decades now, the climate denial movement has been well-organized and funded by the fossil fuel industry and conservative ideologues and foundations. The mission of these paid-for deniers is to ``manufacture uncertainty,'' to manufacture doubt so the polluters can keep on polluting.

This isn't a new strategy. We have seen self-serving strategies such as this before. These strategies questioned the merits of requiring seat belts in cars. They questioned CFCs causing deterioration of the ozone layer. They questioned the toxic effects of lead exposure for children. They questioned whether tobacco was really bad for people-- the same strategy to manufacture

doubt, and often, actually, the same cast of characters was involved.

While the Congress of the United States has been distracted and deceived by these ploys, climate change marches on. The laws of chemistry and the laws of physics don't care about the nonsense we are up to in this building. They do what the laws of chemistry and physics say. Precious time is wasting. In the balance hangs lives and jobs. This nonsense has gone on long enough.

The public is being misled. Special-interest dollars pull the strings of sophisticated campaigns to give the public the impression that there is a real scientific debate regarding whether climate change is happening. Well, there isn't. There just isn't. The real scientific debate is about how bad the changes will be.

Here is one example out of my home State, the Warwick Beacon, in an article entitled, ``Sandy: A wake up call to climate change.'' It describes the head of our Coastal Resources Council, saying--he is talking about the sea level rise:

I can tell you that it is real. I can't tell you how fast

or how bad it is.

That is what I said. The real scientific debate is actually about how bad the changes are going to be.

To manufacture doubt to allow the polluters to keep polluting, skeptics with little training in climate science are promoted as experts. Front groups such as the Global Climate Coalition, Information Council for the Environment, Heartland Institute, Annapolis Center and Cooler Heads Coalition are created or enlisted to propagate this message of doubt. Deniers question the motives and engage in harassment of the real credentialed climate scientists.

Well, for the record, there has been scientific debate regarding climate change. Ideas have been tested, theories have been ventured, and the evidence keeps coming back to the same conclusion: Increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from human-related sources is strengthening the greenhouse effect, adding to recent warming and acidifying the oceans.

Actually, the evidence coming in tends to confirm the worst and most dangerous projections. Claims, for instance, that solar activity is causing recent global warming, and even about whether the atmosphere is really warming, have been settled. But when the scientific research doesn't work out for the skeptics, they turn to straw man arguments. One straw man is that extreme weather events such as hurricanes and droughts aren't proof of climate change.

Well, let's be clear. No credible source is arguing that extreme events are proof of climate change. But extreme events are associated with what has been staring us in the face for years: The average global temperature is increasing, average sea level is rising, and average ocean acidity is increasing. When averages change, extremes usually change with them, and a warming climate, to use the best example, loads the dice--loads the dice for extreme weather.

So let's look at some of the games that the deniers display to try to manipulate public opinion. One gimmick they have reverted to is the observation that there has been no warming trend in the last 10 years-- no warming trend, they say, in the last 10 years.

In 2010, a Republican Senator said: I don't think that anyone disagrees with the fact that we actually are in a cold period that started about 9 years ago.

Well, let's look at the facts. Let's start with the green line on this graph. The green line is the global surface temperature data. It is not a protection, it is not a hypothesis, it is a measurement. This is global surface temperature data. As you can see, it changes monthly.

The red line that goes through it is the trend line that is mathematically developed from that data. That trend line is the product of basic and undeniable mathematics.

The trend is extremely clear.

So let's look at what the deniers do with the very same data. Here they take the very same data, and the green line is unchanged. It is exactly the same data, and this is how they get to saying that we have had a cooling period for the past 10 years. They pick a high point, and they pick a low point out of this data, and they say that is their 10- year cooling period.

The problem is, if you go back, here is another one, here is another one, here is another one, and here is another one. It is interesting how all the cooling periods stack up to an increase.

It is a little bit like--who was the guy on the radio? He explained something to you, and it didn't seem quite right. Then he would say: ``Paul Harvey, what's the rest of the story?''

So the rest of the story is that if someone picks one piece of data out of a line that is going like this and then they go forward and pick a lower one later, they can manufacture the hypothesis there has been no warming trend in the last 10 years. But if we do it legitimately, if we run an actual trend line with mathematical precision through the data, it shows this theory is nothing but misleading bunk--misleading bunk--designed for the purpose of creating confusion.

This period, of course, is only a recent portion of the temperature record. When skeptics and deniers look deeper into the past, they find even more strawmen--that the Earth's climate always changes; that it has been warmer in the past. Yes, the Earth has seen different climates in the past, not all ones we would necessarily want to live in, by the way. The reason we know about these climates is because of the excellent work done by scientists--the same scientists who tell us that recent climate change can only be explained by increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The final classic is that more carbon in the atmosphere is good because it provides more food for plants, the old plant food theory.

The fact is we have changed the composition of our atmosphere, pushing the concentration of carbon dioxide beyond the range it has been in for 8,000 centuries. For 8,000 centuries, it has been between 170 and 300 parts per million. For the first time this past year, it touched 400 parts per million in the Arctic. To give a time scale of what 8,000 centuries means, the practice of agriculture has been around for about 100 centuries. That is 8,000 centuries in this safe zone of carbon concentration of our atmosphere, with only 100 centuries of those with the human species, even farmers. Modern humans began to migrate out of Africa 600 centuries ago. Once again, 8,000 centuries of this safe climate belt of carbon concentration and 600 centuries of our species leaving Africa and migrating to populate the rest of our planet. Homo sapiens, our species, appeared around 2,000 centuries ago.

We are messing with planetary concentrations of atmospheric carbon that go back four times longer than our species has inhabited this planet. In all that time, in those 8,000 centuries, the Earth has never reached carbon dioxide concentrations as we have caused now through human activity.

Deniers also tend to just flat ignore the facts they can't explain away or gimmick the data for. For example, the increased acidification of the oceans, that is something that is simple to measure. It is undeniably chemically linked to carbon concentrations in the atmosphere. So we hear nothing about ocean acidification from the deniers. But ocean acidification is possibly the most disastrous consequence of our carbon pollution. The rate of change in acidity of our oceans is already thought to be faster than at any time in the past 50 million years.

I was talking a moment ago about being outside a boundary of carbon concentration or atmosphere that has persisted for 8,000 centuries. We are talking now about a rate of change of acidity in the ocean that hasn't been seen on this planet in the past 50 million years. A paper published this March in ``Science'' concluded the current rate of carbon dioxide emissions could drive chemical changes in the ocean unparalleled in the last 300 million years.

We are effecting changes in our atmosphere and in our oceans that only compare to ancient periods of geologic time. When we consider the implications for food security, biodiversity, and ocean-based industries, we cannot ignore these changes in our oceans.

Coincidentally, just last Friday, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration proposed listing 66 species of coral as endangered or threatened and cited climate change as driving three key threats: disease, warmer seas, and more acidic seas.

It might be worth reminding the deniers what NASA says. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration--NASA--says this about climate change and our global temperature rising.

All three global surface temperature reconstructions show

that Earth has warmed since 1880. Most of this warming has

occurred since the 1970s, with the 20 warmest years having

occurred since 1981 and with all 10 of the warmest years

occurring in the past 12 years. Even though the 2000s

witnessed a solar output decline resulting in an unusually

deep solar minimum in 2007-2009, surface temperatures

continue to increase.

On ocean temperatures and sea level rise, NASA said:

The oceans have absorbed much of this increased heat, with

the top 2,300 feet showing warming of 0.302 degrees

Fahrenheit since 1969. Global sea level rose about 6.7 inches

in the last century. The rate in the last decade, however, is

nearly double that of the last century.

On ocean acidification, this quote from NASA:

Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the

acidity of surface ocean waters has increased by about 30

percent. This increase is the result of humans emitting more

carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Let me say that again:

This increase is the result of humans emitting more carbon

dioxide into the atmosphere. The amount of carbon dioxide

absorbed by the upper layer of the oceans is increasing by

about 2 billion tons per year.

NASA scientists put a man on the Moon. NASA scientists have a rover right now driving around on the surface of the planet Mars. They are not the quacks. Our Nation's best and brightest minds accept the evidence of climate change and they are urging us to act.

Yet still, for some in this body, the deniers carry the day. Why? In a weekend editorial entitled ``Flight from Facts''--``Flight from Facts''--my home State Providence Journal said:

[The] GOP is winning the race to avoid evidence--some of

this escapism based on a desire to hold on to what had been

comforting, if error-based, traditional beliefs, and some of

it to avoid policies that might be economically and otherwise

inconvenient.

Whatever the reason, the price of our folly will be very high for future generations.

One of the things I have noticed on this floor is that when it is a question of putting the cost of taking care of their grandparents on our children and grandchildren, oh, how the Republican crocodile tears flow about that unfair burden on children and grandchildren. In one of their attacks on Medicare and Social Security, which the Republicans like to call entitlements, we heard this:

We have got a serious spending problem here . . . and we

need to have an impact on entitlements . . . if we're going

to have entitlements for our children and grandchildren when

they reach retirement age, we have got to change the

trajectory.

The minority leader has also spoken about what appears in his remarks to be the health care bill--the ObamaCare bill--and he worried about it ``creating a more precarious future for our children.''

The minority leader has said this about the stimulus effort to get our economy back on its feet: ``This needs to stop for the future of our country and for our children and for our grandchildren.''

When it is the deficit, he has urged us ``to make sure we have the same kind of country for our children and grandchildren that our parents left for us.'' He has even talked about ``the Europeanization of America,'' and as a result of that Europeanization of America-- whatever that is--he has said, ``Our children and grandchildren could no longer expect to have the same opportunities that we've had.''

On virtually every traditional anti-Obama Republican tea party bugbear--Medicare, ObamaCare, the stimulus, the deficit, even this Europeanization of America--out come the children and grandchildren. Let's assume they are sincere. Let's assume they have a sincere concern for what we are leaving to our children and grandchildren.

So when it comes to big corporate polluters of today leaving our children and grandchildren a damaged and more dangerous planet, where then is the concern for those children and grandchildren? To have children and grandchildren pay for the care of their grandparents through Medicare and Social Security is some kind of sin or outrage, but to force on those same children and grandchildren the untold costs and consequences of the harms done by today's corporate polluters, what do they have to say about that? For that, the future generations' interests receive nothing from the Republican Party but stony silence or phony and calculated denial.

But the cost will be on them. The cost of our negligence and folly in not addressing our carbon pollution will fall on our children and our grandchildren. The cost will be on them and the shame will be on us.

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

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

Madam President, tens of millions of middle-class families face the distinct possibility of higher tax rates in January. With so many Americans who are still struggling to find their economic footing after the deepest recession of our lifetimes, these looming tax hikes would be hard for those middle-class families, and they are completely unnecessary.

Newspaper stories day after day on the so-called fiscal cliff often omit that the Senate has passed legislation to shield 98 percent of families and 97 percent of small businesses from the income tax part of this so-called fiscal cliff.

We passed the Middle Class Tax Cuts Act on July 25 of this year. We sent the measure to the House of Representatives. Did Speaker Boehner and the Republicans in the House promptly pass this popular bill and send it to President Obama for his signature? Did they move to protect 98 percent of middle-class families from this tax hike in January? No. They decided to hold the middle-class tax cuts passed by the Senate hostage in an attempt to push for tax cuts for the folks they care about the most, the top 2 percent of the highest earning households.

Republicans fighting for millionaires and billionaires is not a new story. In 2001 President George W. Bush decided to spend a large portion of the surpluses he inherited from President Clinton to cut tax rates. Many Democrats opposed him then because the tax cuts were unfair by favoring the highest income Americans. To overcome that obstacle, the Republicans resorted

to a parliamentary technique of budget reconciliation, a maneuver that allowed for passage of their tax cuts but forced them to expire after 2010, at the end of the 10-year budget window.

So we scroll forward to 2010. As 2010 ended, President Obama and many Democrats in Congress, including myself, wanted to extend the tax cuts for middle-class families but let rates on income above $200,000 for an individual and $250,000 for a family revert to the Clinton-era levels. Our Senate Republican friends filibustered that effort, refusing to allow the middle-class tax cut without a tax cut for the highest incomes as well. Their hostage strategy worked that time, and the President and Senate Democrats reluctantly agreed to extend the tax cuts for 2 more years.

Now the 2 years is up and these tax rates are again set to expire. That is why Senate Democrats passed the Middle Class Tax Cut Act in July. This measure balanced our desire to keep tax rates low for middle-class families against the urgency of addressing our national budget deficits. By keeping tax rates low for 98 percent of Americans and letting the tax rates go up very modestly for families earning over $250,000 a year, the Democrat plan would cut the deficit by as much as $1 trillion over the next decade. Now, that alone doesn't cure our budget imbalance, but along with fair and sensible tax reforms and smart cuts in spending, it is part of the solution.

Let's be clear about one thing: the Middle Class Tax Cut Act would still benefit high-end taxpayers. Families making over $250,000 a year would pay lower tax rates on their first $250,000. So if a family made $255,000, they would only see an increase on the top $5,000, and only to the Clinton-era rates that were in effect during the 1990s, when, as we all recall, our economy was thriving. Under the Senate-passed plan, a family earning $255,000 a year would pay an extra $150 in taxes.

In opposing the Middle Class Tax Cut Act, Republicans claim that it would hurt the economy to raise tax rates on the top 2 percent of income earners. Speaker Boehner reiterated that line last week saying: It'll hurt small businesses. It'll hurt the economy.

Well, that is vintage Republican political theory, but it is just not supported by the facts. In a recent report, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that extending the middle-class tax cuts would boost our national GDP, gross domestic product, by 1.25 percent next year. It said the economic effects of extending only the middle-class rates are similar to those of extending all of the rates. Why? Because upper income taxpayers are less likely to spend their tax savings and put it back into the economy.

In other words, CBO reports we would get virtually no economic bang for our Federal buck by extending the upper income tax cuts for which the Republicans are fighting. CBO's analysis is confirmed by the experience of real-world businesspeople.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the Record at the conclusion of my remarks an op-ed by former Stride Rite CEO Arnold Hiatt entitled ``Smite the myth that tax cuts create jobs.''

Mr. President, Arnold Hiatt founded a successful small business before selling it to Stride Rite and then becoming CEO. He says:

As every good businessman knows . . . the soundness of a

company and its ability to create jobs do not rest on lower

taxes or tax avoidance--for the company or its senior

management.

He continues:

It is a fiction, pure and simple, that taxing so-called

``job creators'' will have an adverse effect on the economy.

Mr. Hiatt goes on to explain:

In the years we were creating so many jobs, my federal

income taxes on the top slice of my income were sometimes as

high as 70 percent, but these rates never discouraged me or

anyone else from hiring workers or growing a company. Today

we're paying about half of that on the top portion of

salaries and fees, and a meager 15 percent on the big chunk

of our income that comes from investments. That's why I . . .

and many other millionaires pay a lower income-tax rate than

many working American families.

He continues:

Many millionaires never create any jobs at all. Those who

do will create them regardless of the tax rate, and certainly

won't be dissuaded by the small increase of about 5

percentage points that the president has proposed.

He concludes this way:

The myth of millionaires as job creators being turned off

by higher taxes is the creation of some members of the U.S.

House and U.S. Senate who are funded by these same

millionaires. They know little of what makes companies

successful.

That is the CEO of Stride Rite shoes.

If we extend the upper income tax cuts for another year, it would add over $49 billion to the deficit. Even in Washington, $49 billion is real money, money that would have to be borrowed and would add to our debt problem. Believe it or not, Republicans who voted to turn Medicare into a voucher program in the name of deficit reduction support adding to the deficit with high-end tax cuts. In Rhode Island, at least, those are lousy priorities when it comes to deficit reduction. We should let the tax cuts at the top expire for reasons also of fairness. Loopholes and special provisions allow many super-high income earners to pay lower tax rates than many middle-class families.

According to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, 65 percent of individuals earning $1 million or more annually pay taxes at a lower rate than median income taxpayers making $100,000 or less. Sixty-five percent--nearly two-thirds--of individuals earning over $1 million a year actually pay a lower tax rate than median income taxpayers. That is a tax system that is turned upside down and needs to be fixed.

Earlier this year a majority of Senators voted to advance my Paying a Fair Share Act, the Buffett rule bill to ensure that multimillion- dollar earners pay at least a 30-percent effective Federal tax rate. The rate they are supposed to pay is 35 percent under the income tax laws. But because of all these loopholes and special rates, IRS statistics show the top 400 taxpayers in 2008 who earned, by the way, an average of $270 million each that year, paid the same 18.2 percent effective tax rate as paid by, for instance, a truckdriver in Rhode Island. The single biggest factor driving this inequality is the special low rate for capital gains that allows, for instance, hedge fund billionaires, through the carried interest loophole, to pay taxes at lower rates than their secretaries and chauffeurs. If we let the tax cuts at the top expire, those rates revert to 20 percent instead of 15 percent. Twenty percent is still a low rate for someone making $100 million a year, but it is closer to what a middle-class family is expected to pay.

In short, allowing the Bush-era tax cuts to expire for income above $250,000 is the fiscally responsible thing to do and the fair and proper thing to do. Why, then, hasn't Speaker Boehner called a vote on the Senate-passed Middle Class Tax Cuts Act? Because threatening middle-class families with higher taxes is their strategy, to push for breaks for millionaires and billionaires--the hostage strategy--with the middle class as the hostages as Republicans fight for whom they truly care about.

If Speaker Boehner continues to ignore the Senate-passed bill, I urge President Obama to stand firm on his opposition to extending the upper income tax cuts. The American people support that approach, and we should not cave in to pressure.

I would also urge the President and congressional leaders to work to include the Buffett rule principles in any deficit deal. Letting the upper income tax cuts expire and ensuring multimillion-dollar earners pay a fair share will assure the American people we are working for them and not the special interests as we allocate the burden of addressing our deficits.

Exhibit 1

[From the Providence Journal]

Smite the Myth That Tax Cuts Create Jobs

Providence Journal Edition

(by Arnold Hiatt)

As every good businessman knows--including former

Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, with whom I had been

associated as a limited partner at Bain Capital Ventures--the

soundness of a company and its ability to create jobs do not

rest on lower taxes or tax avoidance--for the company or its

senior management.

If the now defeated presidential candidate Romney and

congressional Republicans continue to insist on renewing the

special Bush

tax cuts that go only to the wealthiest 2 percent of

Americans like me, it will do nothing to create jobs. It is a

fiction, pure and simple, that taxing so-called ``job

creators'' will have an adverse effect on the economy.

Just the reverse is true. Instead of spending nearly $1

trillion on tax cuts to make millionaires even richer, those

tax dollars can be used more constructively to retain

teachers, police officers and firefighters, and repair roads

and bridges. These are all essential services that will

rebuild our economy and maintain a civil society. In

addition, these tax dollars will contribute to deficit

reduction.

The son of a Lithuanian immigrant to this land of now

diminishing equal opportunity, I had the good fortune to

start a small company that enjoyed a measure of success and

that was eventually acquired by Stride Rite Corp. Twelve

months later I was asked to become president of Stride Rite.

Throughout the last 10 years of my tenure, the company's

return on investment was in the top 1 percent of all

companies listed on the New York Stock Exchange. We created

thousands of new jobs. By the time I left, we had over 5,000

employees. Our success rested on the quality of the product

and service provided to consumers. It was a reflection on the

quality of the workforce as well as the management. My

success could not have been possible without the people whom

we continued to hire and to train as we grew. I depended on

them as much as they depended upon me.

In the years we were creating so many jobs, my federal

income taxes on the top slice of my income were sometimes as

high as 70 percent, but these rates never discouraged me or

anyone else from hiring workers or growing a company. Today

we're paying about half that on the top portion of salaries

and fees, and a meager 15 percent on the big chunk of our

income that comes from investments. That's why Governor

Romney and I and many other millionaires pay a lower income-

tax rate than many working American families.

Many millionaires never create any jobs at all. Those who

do will create them regardless of the tax rate and certainly

won't be dissuaded by the small increase of about 5

percentage points that the president has proposed.

The myth of millionaires as job creators being turned off

by higher taxes is the creation of some members of the U.S.

House and U.S. Senate who are funded by these same

millionaires. They know little of what makes companies

successful.

Romney knows better. It is a matter of record that during

the time tax rates, both corporate and personal, were so much

higher, our economy was booming. Conversely, the slowest job

growth since World War II took place between the Bush tax

cuts for millionaires and the 2008 economic meltdown.

A few months ago, every Republican in the House and Senate,

along with 19 House Democrats and two Senate Democrats, voted

against a bill ending the Bush tax breaks for the richest 2

percent, but extend them for 98 percent of Americans and 97

percent of small businesses. I hope they will take a fresh

look at the facts. That's why I joined with over 100 other

millionaires in signing a Voices for Progress letter to all

members of Congress, appealing to them not to renew these tax

breaks. Allowing the richest 2 percent to withhold tax

dollars robs children of health and education. It is not only

immoral, it is bad economics. They are the future of our

country, which has begun to fall behind our competitors. It

is also destroying the American Dream, which brought my

father to this country alone at the age of 15.

Both he and the Founding Fathers would agree that the

future of this nation should not be compromised by the

shortsightedness of those so well off in the present. These

are not the values that made this country great.

Arnold Hiatt is a former chief executive of Stride Rite

Corp., based in Lexington, Mass. This article previously

appeared in The Boston Globe.

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

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

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

Madam President, as cochairs of the International Conservation Caucus, Senator Tom Udall and I stand together on Wildlife Conservation Day, December 4th, to emphasize the need for governments, organizations, and individuals to protect the world's endangered species, which face threats from poaching, illicit trade, pollution, and improper land use.

The International Conservation Caucus has focused attention this Congress on poaching and the illegal wildlife trade, a lucrative and illicit global market worth anywhere from $5 to $20 billion annually. This trade threatens biodiversity, stability, and the rule of law.

New initiatives proposed by the U.S. State Department are needed to protect wildlife, combat trafficking, and reduce demand. We applaud the State Department's commitment to strengthening a global system of wildlife enforcement and the work of the U.S. Agency for International Development to strengthen regional antitrafficking networks.

In addition, we and our allies should investigate and prosecute wildlife crime more aggressively, but we should not see the seizure of ivory, rhino horns, and other wildlife products as the sole measure of success. We must also reduce demand, take down trafficking kingpins through international law enforcement efforts, and protect wildlife populations to prevent environmental devastation. Advanced technologies and modern forensics can aid these efforts.

On the diplomatic front, our Ambassadors must increase the pressure on countries to ensure members of their militaries and law enforcement agencies do not look the other way or participate in trafficking of wildlife and that enforcement is rigorous. Public education programs both abroad and here in the United States must be expanded to reduce demand for trafficked wildlife and products.

We look forward to continuing to promote policies that protect natural resources and wildlife. Wildlife conservation is vital to maintaining biodiversity, global stability, and economic vitality across the world.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 528, S. Res. 543.

Madam President, I further ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported amendment be agreed to and the Senate proceed to a voice vote on adoption of the resolution, as amended.

Madam President, I further ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported amendment to the preamble be agreed to, the preamble, as amended, be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements relating to the measure be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m., on Wednesday, December 5, 2012; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that following leader remarks, the Senate be in a period of morning business for up to 4 hours, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, except where noted below and the time be divided as follows: the majority controlling the first 30 minutes, the Republicans controlling the next 30 minutes, Senator Grassley controlling the next 45 minutes, the majority controlling the next 45 minutes, the Republicans controlling the next 45 minutes, and the majority controlling the following 45 minutes; and that following morning business, the Senate proceed to the consideration of H.R. 6156, the Russia trade bill.

Madam President, I am informed that we expect to complete action on the Russia trade bill during tomorrow's session of the Senate.

Madam President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn under the previous order.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

I would say just 2 or 3 minutes.

But I do believe that the Senator from Oklahoma wishes to respond.

Mr. President, may I ask the chairman if he wishes the amendment called up now and made pending or are we simply going to have discussion on it?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside in order to call up amendment No. 3180.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to dispense with further reading of the bill.

Mr. President, I thank Chairman Levin and Ranking

Member McCain for their patience and persistence in allowing us to get to this vote. I think once I have discussed the bill for a moment, it might not seem as though it would have required much patience or persistence to get here, but it did. They have been very kind and very attentive, and I appreciate it.

The history of this amendment is that it began as a bill in the Senate. This bill passed out of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee by unanimous consent. An identical bill passed through the House of Representatives under suspension. So in many respects it is noncontroversial.

I also thank Chairman Harkin and Ranking Member Enzi of the HELP Committee for their help getting it through the HELP Committee unanimously and for clearing it for a vote here today on the floor.

The bill at this point has nearly 60 cosponsors. It has 18 Republican cosponsors, and I thank them individually and by name: Senators Blunt, Boozman, Brown of Massachusetts, Chambliss, Cochran, Collins, Crapo, Grassley, Heller, Hutchison, Isakson, Kirk, Lugar, Moran, Murkowski, Rubio, Snowe, and Wicker, in addition to all my Democratic cosponsors.

This is a bill that also has the support of the American Cancer Society, the Pancreatic Cancer Action Network, the Lung Cancer Alliance, and the American Association for Medical Research, as well as the American Association of Medical Colleges.

What the bill does is asks that the National Institutes of Health convene and evaluate a discussion about what we call recalcitrant cancers. This actually began as a pancreatic cancer research bill, but it became apparent that there were some other cancers that we group now as what we call recalcitrant cancers in that they have not responded to treatment and research, and they remain cancers for which there has been little progress and survivability. And because they are so deadly and so lethal, we are trying to direct a little more attention out of NIH toward research on these cancers.

For me, this has a personal component, as I know it does for many people who have been touched by pancreatic cancer. My mom died of pancreatic cancer, and I have a number of friends who have been touched by it in their families as well.

I know the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma has opposition to this. If he would like to state his piece, I will be delighted to yield the floor so he may do so now. I hope at the conclusion of his remarks we could move this by a voice vote rather than calling all of our colleagues back for another vote. But if he objects to that, then that is within his prerogatives.

I yield the floor.

With the permission of the chairman, may I ask for a voice vote at this time?

I would like to be recognized at the conclusion of the remarks of the Senator from Vermont for about 10 minutes.

Madam President, we are working toward a national defense authorization act, and as we do that, I rise to discuss the importance of assessing and planning for and mitigating the national security effects of climate change.

Our changing climate is not simply a green issue invented by environmentalists and conservationists; climate change threatens our strategic interests, our military readiness, and our domestic security in many ways. It is a serious national security issue--so says not just me but the U.S. Department of Defense and, indeed, our national intelligence community.

In 2011 the Defense Science Board provided the Secretary of Defense guidance for a governmentwide approach to preparing for the effects of climate change, concluding that ``climate change will only grow in concern for the United States and its security interests.''

The 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review by the Department of Defense noted that climate change is one of the things that ``will play important roles in the future security environment.''

The White House's 2010 national security strategist stated that ``climate change . . . threaten(s) the security of regions and the health and safety of the American people.''

Back to 2008, Dr. Thomas Fingar, then Deputy Director of National Intelligence for Analysis and the Chairman of the National Intelligence Council, said that ``global climate change will have wide-ranging implications for U.S. national security interests for the next 20 years.''

In a report requested by the CIA, the National Research Council wrote this year that ``while climate change alone does not cause conflict, it may act as an accelerant of instability or conflict.''

In 2006 the Center for Naval Analysis, a federally funded research and development center that has advised the Navy and Marine Corps since 1942, convened a military advisory board of retired three-star and four-star admirals and generals and asked them to report on national security and the threat of climate change. The report stated:

While uncertainty exists . . . regarding . . . the future

extent of projected climate change, the trends are clear. The

nature and pace of climate changes being observed today . . .

pose . . . grave implications for our national security.

And, of course, as the Presiding Officer knows, in the 5 years since, the evidence has tracked the worst of those climate change projections, not the most gentle.

Our Nation's top military strategists, our Nation's top researchers, the National Research Council, and the National Academy of Sciences all have recommended that our national security institutions prepare for threats caused by climate change.

On the other hand, we have a tiny fringe of scientists, many of whom are funded by industry, that denies these facts and urges us to maintain the status quo. In effect, that little fringe urges us to do nothing. This is the same strategy, often the same organizations, and in some cases even the same people who denied in the past that cigarettes are bad for us or that lead paint harms children. They are professional, industry-paid deniers at large.

The choice is a clear one, and I recommend we follow the findings of our military leaders. They have determined that climate change is real and that our national security requires us to reject the false science of the climate deniers.

The National Intelligence Council has identified more than 30 U.S. military installations that are threatened by risks associated just with rising sea levels. One is Diego Garcia. It is a small island south of India and home to a logistics hub for U.S. and British forces in the Middle East and to Air Force Satellite Control Network equipment. The Navy reports that the average elevation of Diego Garcia is approximately 4 feet. Even absent a

storm or tsunami, this installation is threatened by inundation from slow and steady sea level rise.

The Norfolk Naval Air Station and Naval Base on the southern end of the Chesapeake Bay is the Navy's largest supply center and home to the U.S. Atlantic fleet. A New York Times analysis this past weekend using U.S. Geological Survey and NOAA data showed that a 5-foot sea level rise would permanently flood portions of that base. The base is at continuing risk, of course, from storm surges. By the way, a 5-foot sea level rise is now predicted to be a possibility in this century.

Eglin Air Force Base on Florida's gulf coast, the largest Air Force base in the world, is threatened by storm surge, sea level rise, and saltwater infiltration. We know that climate change loads the dice for more and more severe extreme weather.

Retired Brigadier General Steven Anderson and retired Lieutenant General Daniel Christman recently used Hurricane Katrina as an example of how extreme weather can cause what they call ``negative operational impacts'' to our military. In response to Katrina, the National Guard mobilized 58,000 National Guard members to the relief effort at the same time that 79,000 Guard members were deployed fighting the war on terrorism. The generals pointed out that although Louisiana's physical infrastructure did not hold, our National Guard did hold. But the limits of even our exceptional National Guard would be tested by these changes in extreme weather, and it is imperative that we prepare our emergency management and responders for a new normal of new extremes.

Climate change will also create new strategic challenges. Climate events such as droughts and heat waves, floods and storms exacerbate political and military tensions in areas around the world with fragile governments and instability. This can result in violent conflict and in refugee problems.

It is not just the shock of extreme weather that portends danger. As the temperature of the air and ocean steadily rises, the amount of moisture in the atmosphere will change and the composition of the oceans will change. Habitats will change, growing conditions will be altered, and the snows and glaciers that feed great rivers will change, changing the seasonal flows of the rivers. The world's great agricultural deltas will face both those changes in the rivers and rising sea levels. All of these changes will disrupt food supplies and water resources. Many poorer regions are unprepared to deal with the effects of famine, drought, crop failure, flooding, and disease that can be anticipated. These slower moving climate disasters will create migration, competition for resources, and government instability that in turn sets the stage for more international unrest.

Last, the changing environment will affect our military's operating environment. Sea ice in the Arctic is already vanishing, and new Arctic waterways are opening. In September, Reuters reported that the first Chinese icebreaker crossed the Arctic, with the expedition leader explaining how surprised he was to find the route to be so open. In addition to new shipping routes, the reduction in Arctic sea ice makes oil, gas, and mineral exploration more likely there. These new operational challenges will expand the Coast Guard's mission along our Arctic borders and the Navy's mission in the Arctic Ocean.

The Department of Defense and our intelligence community have accepted the science of climate change and the fact that we need to prepare for it. We customarily rely on the professional judgments of the sober and thoughtful leaders of these great national security organizations. Their assessments are based on sound and comprehensive science and analysis. I respect the solemn mission our national security institutions have to protect the United States and its interests, and I trust their judgment.

Their judgment is echoed by significant Republican leaders. Our former colleague, Senator John Warner, Republican of Virginia, who was the chairman of the Senate Armed Services committee, has said:

Leading military and security experts agree that if left

unchecked, global warming could increase instability and lead

to conflict in already fragile regions of the world.

He continued:

We ignore these facts at the peril of our national security

and at great risk to those in uniform who serve this nation.

George Shultz was Secretary of Treasury and Labor and Director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Nixon, and the Secretary of State under President Reagan. He leads the Hoover Institution's Shultz-Stephenson Task Force on Energy Policy and has also served on the advisory boards of Stanford's Precourt Institute for Energy and MIT's Energy Initiative. In his words, ``. . . the globe is warming, which is not a matter of opinion, but a matter of fact. The arctic is melting. If you could bring together the constituencies concerned with national security, the economy and the environment--both local and global--that would be a potent coalition.''

So I hope Members on both sides of the aisle can agree that when it comes to protecting our American interests at home and abroad, we should believe our national security institutions when they warn us of the security and strategic implications of climate change rather than align ourselves with a questionable fringe of industry-allied deniers. Ultimately, as I have said before on this floor, we are beholding to our children and grandchildren to do something about the carbon pollution that is causing this climate change. And history's verdict for our failure will be harsh.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.