Ed Markey

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, today is a great day to be an oil company in America. Not since August 27, 1859, when Edwin Drake drilled that first oil well in Titusville, PA, has there been a day as good for the oil industry in our country as today. Why is today a great day for Big Oil? Well, I will tell you. Last night at 2 a.m., the Republican leadership released its spending bill. Tucked into that bill on page 1,865 is a provision that would massively reshape our Nation's energy policy. Tucked into that bill is language that would roll back longstanding U.S. law and allow the oil industry to sell American crude oil overseas for the first time in more than 40 years. If this becomes law, it means potentially $175 billion in new revenue for the oil industry over the next decade, up to $500 billion in new revenues for the oil industry over the next 20 years. That is why this provision is in there. It is corporate welfare for the most profitable industry in the history of the world, the oil industry. What does this mean for the American people? Lifting the ban on the exportation of American oil so it goes overseas rather than staying here in America. It will be a disaster for our economy, for our climate, for our national security, and for our consumers. Do you remember the old mantra of the Republican Party, ``Drill here, drill now, pay less''? Now they have changed it. Their new mantra is ``Drill here, export there, pay more.'' The oil industry push to export American oil isn't about helping consumers at the pump; it is about pumping up Big Oil's profits. When has the oil industry ever pushed for policies that would drive down prices and their profits? These are for-profit corporations, not charitable institutions. They are looking to make lots of new money off of selling oil around the world but not here in the United States. If we allow this to happen, it will be a disaster for consumers in many regions of the country--for example, the Northeast. The Department of Energy has said that losing our refineries on the east coast, which could easily happen because of this new law, will lead to ``higher prices,'' ``higher price volatility,'' and the potential for ``temporary [supply] disruptions'' in our region. Right now consumers across America in 2015 are saving $700 because gasoline prices are so low and $500 on home heating oil because prices are so low. That is a stimulus, almost like a tax break in the pockets of working-class and poor Americans all across our country. Exports would wipe out this economic stimulus for average Americans. It would begin to lead to the higher prices that the oil industry wants, both on the global market and here in the United States of America. And the new revenue the oil industry collects from exports is not magically created out of thin air; it will be transferred from American consumers and our domestic refiners into the pockets of the Big Oil companies in our country. This could amount to one of the largest single energy taxes in the history of the world. Remember, Saudi Arabia and their OPEC allies control the global oil trade. They control the price that is paid on the global market, and recently OPEC suggested oil prices may rise again next year, putting in jeopardy the economic benefits that low gasoline prices and the low home-heating oil prices have provided for average Americans. Second, national security. Importing our oil while we export our young men and women abroad--that is what we have right now. We are importing oil from Saudi Arabia, from Nigeria, from Algeria, from Kuwait, and from Iraq. That is what happens every day. That is a big reason we have so many young men and women over in the Middle East protecting those cargo ships of oil coming into our country. We still import 5 million barrels of oil a day. China and the United States are the largest importers. We don't have oil to export. We are still importing 25 percent of our oil into our country right now, and we are importing it from countries we should not be importing that oil from. If we have a chance to back out that oil, to tell those countries we don't need their oil any more than we need their sand, we are doing a big favor for our young men and women in uniform. We are allowing ourselves to step back and be more dispassionate in the decisions we make about our relationships with all of those countries. What this decision says is we are going to export our own oil even as we continue to import oil from the Middle East. This will only heighten our dependence upon oil coming in from countries that we should not be importing oil from if we have a chance to back it out. That is what is wrong with this decision at its heart--oil. It is not like a widget. It is not like a computer chip. You don't fight wars over that. You fight wars over oil. That is why ISIS targets the part of Syria that it does. That is why the part of Saudi Arabia that has the oil is the one now being jeopardized by rebels. That is why Libya is so valuable and being fought over--oil, oil, oil--and the revenues that they produce in order to then create that instability, create that jihadism that we are dealing with. We should be backing out all the oil we are importing from that region if we have a chance to do so, and we do, but not after this bill passes. We are going to be in a situation where we basically are saying we are going to be permanently dependent upon that oil being imported from that region. I listened last night to all the Republican candidates for President debating in Las Vegas about national security. Well, that is what this is all about--this is all about that oil. This is all about that oil revenue that goes into the pockets of people who should not have our money, who spend it in ways we don't feel good about. In my opinion, this decision will dramatically weaken our national security position, weaken our ability to be stronger in the Middle East because we are less dependent upon pretty much the only product they make--oil--and would be able to deal with the national security issues in a much better way, being much more clear-eyed, dispassionate, and protective of American interests and the interests of those we are allied with over the world. Third, this is a tale of two tax breaks. One tax break is for Big Oil. They get $7 to $8 billion a year in tax breaks, and it is permanent--permanent. What happened in this bill is that the $7 to $8 billion for tax breaks for wind and solar are now going to be phased out. We hear constantly from Republicans out here on the floor that they believe in ``all of the above.'' Well, you can't have ``all of the above'' competing fairly if one industry--the oil industry--gets their $7 to $8 billion in tax breaks every year, and wind and solar--the technologies of the 21st century--are going to have their tax breaks phased out over the next 4 to 5 years. That is in this bill. So the oil industry gets $500 billion in new revenues over the next 20 years, $140 billion worth of tax breaks over the next 20 years, and wind and solar watch their tax breaks evaporate over the next 4 to 5 years. Is that a good deal for America, for the climate, for our job creation in America with jobs that are here in America? That is not a good deal. By the way, Big Oil wants their tax breaks so they can export the oil out of our country. Is that a good deal? It absolutely is not. For the offshore wind industry, which has yet to be born, we need the tax breaks to incentivize companies--wind companies from around the world--to come to the Northeast, to come to this incredible place which has been called the Saudi Arabia of wind. Those tax breaks are going to phase out before an industry is even born--the offshore wind industry. Does that make any sense? If we are going to give tax breaks to oil, we should give tax breaks to the offshore wind industry. We should give tax breaks to all these renewable industries on a predictable basis for years to come. That is not happening in this bill. It is just the opposite. For national security, for equality, in terms of all energy resources but especially those nonpolluting energy resources, there should be equality, but there is not. There is not. We could have an America with 40 percent of all electricity being wind and solar by the year 2030, if we kept the same tax breaks between now and 2030--40 percent. The 7 percent we would add in from hydropower and then the power that comes from nuclear power in our country, over 60 to 65 percent of all electricity in America would be noncarbon polluting by the year 2030, but the tax breaks for wind and solar are going away in 4 to 5 years. Does that make any sense? No, not at all. That is what this bill does, and that is why this bill has that provision that was inserted late at night a couple of nights ago that is on page 1,865 in this omnibus bill. The Koch brothers wrote a letter to all Republicans a couple of days ago. They said: Lift the ban on exportation of oil out of our country, even as we still import from the Middle East, and reduce and kill solar and wind tax breaks. Good. We understand the agenda. It is in this bill, and it is not good for America. It is not who we are. It is not this innovation economy which we know is going to have the capacity, like we did with cell phones, to very briefly in history just move from this kind of a phone in 1996, when it never really existed in people's pockets anywhere on the planet, to this kind of phone and now 600 million people in Africa have it today. We did that--America. We can do the same thing with renewable energy, but we need to ensure that those tax breaks are equal to oil's, for oil is the technology of the 19th century, the oil of the 20th century. We have to have a vision of what is possible here in the 21st century. This bill does not include that. That is why it is being added to a must-pass bill. It could not pass if it was not in a must-pass bill with unrelated issues, unrelated appropriations. They needed it to carry it through because they could not do it standing alone down here on the floor of the Senate. So whether it be the impact on our economy, which is going to drive prices higher, or whether it be on our national security, it is going to increase our dependence upon imports from the Middle East. Whether it be the impact on consumers, where they are going to be paying higher prices, or whether it be the environment, where, believe it or not, by the year 2025 this is going to lead to upward of 2 to 3 million new barrels of oil per day being exported out of our country--that is the equivalent of building 150 coal-burning plants in our country and sending those emissions up into the sky. Having a bill pass on the floor of the Senate in the same week that the whole world came together in Paris and signed an agreement saying we were going to have less greenhouse gases going up into the atmosphere and that the United States was going to be the leader--we cannot tell the rest of the world to reduce their dependence on fossil fuels while we announce in the next week we are going to change our policy and start drilling for 2 to 3 million new barrels just to export it out of our country and phase out the tax breaks for wind and solar as we tell the rest of the world they should be moving to wind and solar. That does not work. You cannot preach temperance from a bar stool. You cannot preach temperance from an oil rig and tell other countries to move to renewables. It just doesn't work that way. It doesn't work that way. They might nod. They might say: Oh, don't worry. We are still going to honor our commitments. But you know behind your back as a country they are just going to be saying: I see what they are doing. We will start doing the same stuff. We will build a few more coal-burning ones. We will burn more fossil fuels over here. If they are not sincere, why should we be sincere? If they can preach temperance on Sunday and then on Wednesday say ``bingo'' in the church hall, we can do the same thing. So I am just afraid that on every one of these lines this bill fails: environment, national security, consumers, and the economy. It is bad for America. It is bad policy. We should feel better about our capacity to innovate. I am especially concerned about wind. I am especially concerned about offshore wind. There is a reason we call ourselves the Saudi Arabia of wind. It is because we have the potential to back out the oil from Saudi Arabia. That is why. That is our metaphor because we know how much oil they have and how they have controlled the price of oil in the world every single day since 40 years ago, when they decided to have their first oil embargo. That is when we put this law on the books that we would never export our oil again. We would keep it here. It is 40 years later. The Middle East is in chaos. It is hard for anyone to even describe what the future for the Middle East is going to be. How many of these leaders are actually even going to be in place in 5 years? No one in the world knows, but we do have one thing. We have our own domestic energy source, wind--natural gas, wind, and solar. We should keep it here to protect ourselves. It will make us a better partner with the rest of the world. If we are totally strong, we can project our power diplomatically, economically much better than we are. So for me this is a historic day. I understand what Big Oil wants to do. I understand what the Republicans want to do. Our leader Harry Reid did his absolute best to get the best deal he could for the renewable energy sources that we have, to stand up as long as he could these tax breaks. He did a good job, but the pressure was on him from the Republicans. Unfortunately, in this agreement, the wind and solar tax breaks will expire. Wind tax breaks expire very soon. From my perspective, we should have this debate out here soon. We should have a debate about the Middle East. We should have a debate about oil, about our national security, about our role in the future. It is time for us to have the big debates out here, the big debates in prime time, with everyone participating and everyone understanding that the rest of this century is going to be about the United States over in the Middle East. Whether we like it or not, from the day we invaded Iraq, that was our destiny. So let's have those big debates. In the center of that has to be oil and the revenues that are fueling so much of what is happening over there. I thank the Presiding Officer for giving me the opportunity to speak today. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, on September 11, 2012, militants attacked the Temporary Mission Facility of the United States, and its personnel, in Benghazi, Libya. As the attack unfolded, our people attempted to defend the Mission and protect United States diplomatic personnel. Tragically, they did not succeed and four brave Americans sacrificed their lives. Today, along with Senators Ayotte, Warren, Feinstein, Boxer, Wyden, and Merkley, I am introducing legislation to honor Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, Glen Doherty, Tyrone Woods, and Sean Smith by posthumously awarding them the Congressional Gold Medal in recognition of their selfless service and extraordinary contributions to the nation, at the cost of their lives. These distinguished public servants and warriors made the ultimate sacrifice for our Nation, and their memories will live on as an inspiration to all for their bravery and commitment to our Nation. J. Christopher Stevens was serving as United States Ambassador to Libya and previously served twice in the country, as both Special Representative to the Libyan Transitional National Council and as the Deputy Chief of Mission. He served in the United States Foreign Service for twenty-one years. Public service was his life work. He started his career serving as a Peace Corps volunteer teaching English in Morocco. Glen A. Doherty grew up in Winchester, MA. He was a Navy SEAL for twelve years. He served in Iraq and Afghanistan, attaining the rank of Petty Officer First Class and earned the Navy and Marine Corps Commendation medal. Tyrone Woods was a Navy Seal for 20 years. He also served in both Iraq and Afghanistan, attaining the rank of Senior Chief Petty Officer when he retired. In Iraq, he led multiple raids and reconnaissance missions and earned the Bronze Star. Both Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods were working to protect American personnel abroad when the Temporary Mission Facility of the United States in Benghazi, Libya, was attacked. As the coordinated attack unfolded, Glen and Tyrone exposed themselves to enemy fire as they engaged attackers armed with guns, mortars, and rocket-propelled grenades. Their ultimate sacrifice saved the lives of American personnel who were rescued and safely returned to their families. Sean Smith served in the Air Force for 6 years, attained the rank of Staff Sergeant and was awarded the Air Force Commendation Medal. After leaving the Air Force, he served in the State Department for 10 years on various assignments which took him to places such as Baghdad, Brussels, Pretoria, the Hague, and Tripoli. As their careers attest, all four men served our Nation honorably and with high distinction and utmost bravery. They made the supreme sacrifice for our country, and this medal represents the deep gratitude of a nation that will never forget their heroic service. I ask all Senators to join me in support of this legislation to posthumously award these four brave American heroes the Congressional Gold Medal for giving our Nation their last full measure of devotion.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, on September 11, 2012, militants attacked the Temporary Mission Facility of the United States, and its personnel, in Benghazi, Libya. As the attack unfolded, our people attempted to defend the Mission and protect United States diplomatic personnel. Tragically, they did not succeed and four brave Americans sacrificed their lives. Today, along with Senators Ayotte, Warren, Feinstein, Boxer, Wyden, and Merkley, I am introducing legislation to honor Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, Glen Doherty, Tyrone Woods, and Sean Smith by posthumously awarding them the Congressional Gold Medal in recognition of their selfless service and extraordinary contributions to the nation, at the cost of their lives. These distinguished public servants and warriors made the ultimate sacrifice for our Nation, and their memories will live on as an inspiration to all for their bravery and commitment to our Nation. J. Christopher Stevens was serving as United States Ambassador to Libya and previously served twice in the country, as both Special Representative to the Libyan Transitional National Council and as the Deputy Chief of Mission. He served in the United States Foreign Service for twenty-one years. Public service was his life work. He started his career serving as a Peace Corps volunteer teaching English in Morocco. Glen A. Doherty grew up in Winchester, MA. He was a Navy SEAL for twelve years. He served in Iraq and Afghanistan, attaining the rank of Petty Officer First Class and earned the Navy and Marine Corps Commendation medal. Tyrone Woods was a Navy Seal for 20 years. He also served in both Iraq and Afghanistan, attaining the rank of Senior Chief Petty Officer when he retired. In Iraq, he led multiple raids and reconnaissance missions and earned the Bronze Star. Both Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods were working to protect American personnel abroad when the Temporary Mission Facility of the United States in Benghazi, Libya, was attacked. As the coordinated attack unfolded, Glen and Tyrone exposed themselves to enemy fire as they engaged attackers armed with guns, mortars, and rocket-propelled grenades. Their ultimate sacrifice saved the lives of American personnel who were rescued and safely returned to their families. Sean Smith served in the Air Force for 6 years, attained the rank of Staff Sergeant and was awarded the Air Force Commendation Medal. After leaving the Air Force, he served in the State Department for 10 years on various assignments which took him to places such as Baghdad, Brussels, Pretoria, the Hague, and Tripoli. As their careers attest, all four men served our Nation honorably and with high distinction and utmost bravery. They made the supreme sacrifice for our country, and this medal represents the deep gratitude of a nation that will never forget their heroic service. I ask all Senators to join me in support of this legislation to posthumously award these four brave American heroes the Congressional Gold Medal for giving our Nation their last full measure of devotion.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, here is where we are. The Republicans are holding the government spending bill and tax breaks for businesses hostage unless they can attach a rider to these bills to allow Big Oil to export American oil overseas to the highest foreign bidder. Ten days before Christmas, Republicans want to give Big Oil the biggest of all Christmas presents by lifting the crude oil export ban, and they keep saying no to long-term extensions of the wind and solar tax breaks and protections for consumers as part of the deal. Lifting the oil export ban would be a disaster for our economy, our climate, and for our national security. We should have tax break parity. Let me tell you where we are right now. In America the oil industry gets approximately $7 to $8 billion a year in tax breaks. It is interesting because $7 to $8 billion is what the wind and solar industry receives each year--pretty even: wind and solar; oil--$7 to $8 billion every year in tax breaks. We keep hearing from the other side: Let's have a level playing field; let's have all of the above. Well, what are they asking for right now? Here is what they are asking for. The oil tax breaks will continue forever, and the wind and solar tax breaks will phase out over the next 3 to 5 years. This is on top of the windfall which the oil industry receives from the exportation of the oil that otherwise would stay here in the United States. Under that scenario, the losers are going to be U.S. consumers because we will be exporting the oil that is already here in our own ground, so that the oil industry can get a higher price overseas. It will hurt our national security because we still import 5 million barrels per day. Can I say that again? We still import 5 million barrels of oil a day. We still import 25 percent of all our oil. Some of the countries we import that oil from you may have heard of--Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, Algeria, Nigeria. We are still importing oil, and we are still exporting men and women over to the Middle East to protect those cargo ships of oil, bringing it to the United States. We don't have a surplus of oil in the United States. We have a deficit of 5 million barrels of oil per day. So that is a dangerous policy. On top of that, I will just say that the whole ethanol subsidy program in the United States is premised upon the fact that we do not have energy independence and we need ethanol to get $1.3 billion dollars' worth of tax breaks a year--biodiesel. Well, that whole program starts to get called into question if we are already going to declare energy independence here, even as we still import 5 million barrels a day. Our domestic refiners will be hurt by this unless there are proper protections built in in the Tax Code for those refiners. Otherwise, as that crude oil goes overseas, it is going to call into jeopardy the viability of the oil refineries across the East Coast, Midwest, and West Coast of the United States of America. On the environment, if Brookings Institution is correct and upwards of 3 million barrels of oil will be exported by the year 2025, that is the equivalent of 150 coal-burning plants of additional pollution going up from our own soil. Some people question: Well, will that really happen? Let me give you some other numbers. The Energy Information Administration says that the developing world and its expanding economy are going to require 10 million additional barrels of oil by the year 2025. The expanding economy is going to require 20 million barrels of new oil by the year 2035. What Big Oil in America wants is a piece of that action. They want to be able to export into that market, and they will do so by drilling on American soil, not to reduce our own dependence upon imported oil but to sell it because the price on the global market is higher--much higher than the price they could get in America. Is that truly a good policy, given what we are seeing about the stability of the Saudi government? Well, just look at the governments all across the Middle East from which we import oil. Is this really a good idea? I don't think so. I think it goes to the heart of our national security. What happens to the Big Oil industry over the next 20 years is that they pick up about $500 billion in new tax revenues; that is with a ``b,'' $500 billion. They keep their $7 billion in tax breaks every year over a 20-year period. That is $140 billion more. Meanwhile, the solar and wind tax breaks expire; they run out. The rumors are they run out over the wind in 3 years. Well, the young generation is the green generation. They think wind and solar are the future. They don't think fossil fuels are the future. The whole world, 195 countries, just gathered and signed an agreement to move away from a fossil era to a low-carbon, clean-energy future. So if there was going to be a deal out here, then there should be some equality. If you don't take away the tax breaks from oil and gas, then don't take away the tax breaks for wind and solar--a level playing field, all of the above. Have a competition so that we can know at the end of the day--which is what I think is going to happen--that renewables are actually the future. It is a tale of two tax breaks: one for Big Oil and one for the renewable industry. As I stand on the floor, this is still an unanswered question, but I do know this: The Republicans are pledging that if their Presidential candidate wins in 2016, then in 2017 that Presidential candidate is going to take off the books the clean power rules that President Obama has promulgated. They are going to review the fuel economy standards that push us to 54.5 miles per gallon by the year 2025, which is still the largest single reduction of greenhouse gases in one stroke that any country in the world has ever actually announced. They are also saying, obviously this week, that they are going to allow the wind and solar tax breaks to expire. So just as the world meets, we have the announcements about what their goals are on this issue. I think the world expects more from us, but I actually think the young people of our country expect more from us. They truly think this is the future; this is the revolution: more efficient vehicles, powerplants that have fewer emissions, tax breaks for wind, and solar for fuel cells--the future. It is not having 150 new powerplants of coal equivalents of oil being drilled for in our country without some corresponding, permanent, long-term tax breaks that would offset it. No, it is just the opposite. They are saying: We are coming after the Presidential election for the reductions in greenhouse gases from powerplants. We will take those rules off the books. We are going to review the fuel economy standards. We will take those off the books, and we will make sure there is never again a permanent tax break for wind and solar. That is where we are in the same week that the world just met in Paris to announce the global solution to a global warming problem. So I say equality; I say keep it the same. If you want to keep oil, if you want to keep natural gas tax breaks, keep them. But don't take away ours; that is, not mine but those who believe in a low-carbon, clean-energy future for our planet. The United States must be the leader. We are the innovation giant. We are the country that the world is looking for in order to find these solutions. We passed laws that created this cell phone in 1996. Until then it was the size of a brick, and people didn't have one in their pocket. Then, 8 years later, a new cell phone came along. By the way, 600 million people in Africa have them because we innovated; we went first. We can do the same thing in the energy sector, but there has to be some fair treatment that is put in place, especially when the oil industry receives such an incredible bonanza of those breaks here--$500 billion in new revenues. From my perspective, it is undermining our national security because we shouldn't be exporting oil when we are still importing it from dangerous places on the planet, and they keep all their tax breaks. From my perspective, I look at the Republican mantra from 6 to 7 years ago. It was ``Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less.'' They were saying: The more we drill here, the more energy independence we are going to have. They are replacing it this week with ``drill here, export there, pay more'' here at home. That is their new slogan. Everything they had said about why we should be drilling here is now made obsolete by their commitment to now ensure that oil gets exported. There are two prices: There is an OPEC price for global oil, and there is a Texas price for American oil. It is always cheaper here. They want to get it off into ships to get the OPEC price on the global market. I understand that. What I don't understand is how we can leave behind--with tax breaks that are phasing out and the rumors that the wind tax break expires over the next 3 years--those new technologies that are branded ``Made in America,'' such as these cell phone technologies, these smartphone technologies that have revolutionized countries and continents all across the planet. I come to the floor to say I understand why Big Oil wants this. It is about as great a Christmas gift as any industry would ever have received. In return, I hope before we adjourn that we can find a way of being more generous--much more generous--to those other companies, those other technologies that are the future. I hope the promises Republican Presidential candidates are making that they are going to come back and take the clean powerplant rules off the books--that they are protected because we have the tax breaks. It still signals to industries that they are our future and the past is just a memory, that there is a new 21st century vision that America is going to lead, that the promises President Obama made in Paris on behalf of the American people are, in fact, going to be met, and that our policies are going to reflect the words the President spoke. I thank the Presiding Officer for this time. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 1 minute to speak.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oregon for his leadership, bringing the message of the harm being done to our natural world, I thank Senator Cardin for taking this delegation of 10 Members to Paris, and I thank the Senator for having this session on the floor. We are at an inflection point. We are at a point where the danger to the planet is clear. Mr. President, 2014 was the warmest year ever recorded. This past November was the warmest November ever recorded. October was the warmest October ever recorded. There is now a warming of our planet that is intensifying dangerously, and we have to act in order to avoid the most catastrophic consequences, and that is what is happening in Paris right now. The United States is leading the way. The rest of the world is coming together, and we have a chance to have a very good agreement. We are going to have the President's back because the 1992 treaty, under which he is negotiating, was ratified by this body. The Clean Air Act that he is operating under was passed by this body. The clean power rules and increase in fuel economy standards----

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, this afternoon--and I think it will continue over the next week--the Republicans and the American petroleum industry are going to try to lift the ban on the exportation of American oil, which could lead to more drilling for millions of barrels of oil on our soil, while at the same time not giving a simultaneous, equal extension of wind and solar tax breaks so that we can continue this revolution that we are bragging about in Paris right now to the rest of the world. These two things do not go together. You cannot simultaneously drill for more oil that is not drilled for today and then have an ending of the wind and solar tax breaks as they are kicking in. You cannot preach temperance from a barstool. You cannot preach temperance as you are putting up new oil rigs and simultaneously say that the wind and solar tax breaks are going to end and end soon. We have to have both if there is going to be a deal, and right now that is in question in this Chamber. It is important for the American people to know that answer because in Paris they are waiting for this answer. There are 190 nations that want to know that we are actually going to do what we are saying we are going to do in this agreement that we are trying to reach--the most important agreement for this century in terms of the well-being of the planet. I thank the Presiding Officer for allowing me that courtesy, and I thank the Senator from Utah for his forbearance. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, in September 2012, an attack on the United States facilities in Benghazi, Libya, resulted in the death of Glen Anthony Doherty, a former Navy SEAL who grew up in Winchester, MA, and three others. Mr. Doherty was killed while defending the classified annex near the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi against a terrorist attack that also caused the deaths of U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, former Navy SEAL and C.I.A. contractor Tyrone Woods, and U.S. State Department officer Sean Smith. Mr. Doherty was unmarried and had no dependents. It is my understanding that he activated his mandatory Defense Base Act insurance policy before deploying to Libya in 2012 believing this policy would pay benefits to his estate or next of kin in the event of his death. After his death and despite the Doherty family's extensive efforts, they have been unable to receive financial compensation from the Central Intelligence Agency or from private insurance providers. This issue has compounded the pain the family has endured from the loss of a beloved son and brother. No family in the CIA community should be left uncompensated if a family member falls in the line of duty. That is why I am today introducing the Glen Anthony Doherty Overseas Security Personnel Fairness Act, which was first introduced in the House of Representatives by Congressman Steven Lynch. This legislation will remove a significant omission in federal law that currently prohibits the families of overseas contractors who are killed in the line of duty from receiving full death benefits if the deceased employee is unmarried with no children or other dependents. The bill would amend the Defense Base Act of 1941 to ensure that full death benefits are extended to the families or designated beneficiaries of Federal contractors who have died in service to our country as a result of a war-risk hazard or an act of terrorism. Specifically, it would allow the payment of death benefits otherwise due a widow, widower, or surviving child of an individual employed at a military, air, or naval base outside of the United States who dies as a result of a war-risk hazard or act of terrorism occurring on or after September 11, 2001, when there is no person eligible for a death benefit under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act. The bill requires payment in such a case to a beneficiary designated by the deceased or the next of kin or the estate of the deceased under applicable state law if there is no designated beneficiary. The bill requires benefits to be paid from the Employees' Compensation Fund. More than merely a technical or administrative concern, this issue goes to the heart of the United States government's relationship with the families of those who are killed defending our country. I ask all Senators to support this important legislation for the families of those who have made the ultimate sacrifice for our Nation.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, in September 2012, an attack on the United States facilities in Benghazi, Libya, resulted in the death of Glen Anthony Doherty, a former Navy SEAL who grew up in Winchester, MA, and three others. Mr. Doherty was killed while defending the classified annex near the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi against a terrorist attack that also caused the deaths of U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, former Navy SEAL and C.I.A. contractor Tyrone Woods, and U.S. State Department officer Sean Smith. Mr. Doherty was unmarried and had no dependents. It is my understanding that he activated his mandatory Defense Base Act insurance policy before deploying to Libya in 2012 believing this policy would pay benefits to his estate or next of kin in the event of his death. After his death and despite the Doherty family's extensive efforts, they have been unable to receive financial compensation from the Central Intelligence Agency or from private insurance providers. This issue has compounded the pain the family has endured from the loss of a beloved son and brother. No family in the CIA community should be left uncompensated if a family member falls in the line of duty. That is why I am today introducing the Glen Anthony Doherty Overseas Security Personnel Fairness Act, which was first introduced in the House of Representatives by Congressman Steven Lynch. This legislation will remove a significant omission in federal law that currently prohibits the families of overseas contractors who are killed in the line of duty from receiving full death benefits if the deceased employee is unmarried with no children or other dependents. The bill would amend the Defense Base Act of 1941 to ensure that full death benefits are extended to the families or designated beneficiaries of Federal contractors who have died in service to our country as a result of a war-risk hazard or an act of terrorism. Specifically, it would allow the payment of death benefits otherwise due a widow, widower, or surviving child of an individual employed at a military, air, or naval base outside of the United States who dies as a result of a war-risk hazard or act of terrorism occurring on or after September 11, 2001, when there is no person eligible for a death benefit under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act. The bill requires payment in such a case to a beneficiary designated by the deceased or the next of kin or the estate of the deceased under applicable state law if there is no designated beneficiary. The bill requires benefits to be paid from the Employees' Compensation Fund. More than merely a technical or administrative concern, this issue goes to the heart of the United States government's relationship with the families of those who are killed defending our country. I ask all Senators to support this important legislation for the families of those who have made the ultimate sacrifice for our Nation.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Madam President, very much. I am very proud to be a cosponsor of the SAVE Benefits Act. I think we owe an enormous debt of gratitude to Senator Warren, my colleague from Massachusetts, for the legislation she has introduced because she is going to make sure the Social Security benefits for seniors, for veterans, and for those who are disabled will be protected, and I applaud her for the enormously innovative way she has framed this debate for our Nation. The Social Security Administration has recently determined that seniors will not receive an increase in their benefits for the next year. That means approximately 70 million American seniors, veterans, and the disabled will not receive any increase in their benefits, including the 1.4 million people in Massachusetts who are dependent upon these benefits. That is completely unacceptable. What Senator Warren has done is to say that for these seniors, for many of them, Social Security is their sole basis for having any income at all, and for most seniors it is the majority of their income in their retirement. Those seniors depend on these benefits to pay for food, rent, medicine, and the electricity bill. In their world, prices for food, clothing, and medicine are not going down, they are going up. These are the necessities of life, and our seniors should not have to choose between eating and heating. We have a simple question to ask ourselves: Who contributed most to our country over the last generation? Is it a small handful of CEOs who are now paid exorbitant salaries or is it every American who got up every morning to build us into this incredible country we now live in? I think it was grandma and grandpa. Those are the people who got up every day. Those are the people who built this great country. Right now we are being told that their standard of living is going to stay the same or go down. There will be no increase for them. Well, unfortunately CEOs in America make about 273 times what the average American worker makes. Last year America's CEOs saw their pay increase by about $635,000 to an average of $16 million. A family in the top 1 percent has a net worth 288 times higher than the typical family. That is unacceptable and it must change. Shouldn't our seniors--shouldn't grandma and grandpa who built this country receive an additional benefit from the economy which they created--this incredible wealth which they created in our country. When do they get their raise? They got up every morning. My father worked for the Hood Milk Company. He got up every morning. He worked as hard as a human being can work, and so have hundreds of millions of Americans. They built this country with their hard work. They deserve a Social Security raise. They deserve a wage if they now have disabilities. If they are veterans, they not only got up and worked every single day, but they also saved our country, many of them overseas protecting us against our enemies. So that is what Senator Warren's very wise piece of legislation focuses on. We know grandma and grandpa deserve a raise. We know the system that has been created allows those in the upper 1 percentile to continue to receive per year, on average, $685,000 in raises--up to an average of $16 million for salary. And we are saying to people who did the work: You don't get a raise at all. I think for their sacrifice, for their hard work every single day, they deserve something. They built the greatest country in the history of the world. So let's give our seniors the 3.9-percent raise that Senator Warren has proposed. Let's give them the kind of comfort they deserve for a lifetime of hard work, and let's thank Senator Warren for reminding all of us of the obligation we have to those great Americans, so we don't forget them when it comes time at the end of the year to hand out bonuses. They deserve bonuses in the same way we know CEOs across our country, from Wall Street to Silicon Valley, are going to receive every year. We shouldn't turn our backs on those seniors. Thank you, Senator Warren, for all your great work. Madam President, I yield back.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Mexico for his historic leadership on these issues. The consequences of climate change are evidenced around the world. Temperatures are increasing, sea level is rising, glaciers are receding, rainfall is changing, and people's health is suffering. These impacts can worsen the tensions that are fueling terrorism and conflicts around the world. The Pentagon and the CIA have both issued reports that found that instability from changes in the climate can contribute to conditions that breed insurgencies. As we look around the world, we can see how climate change is a threat multiplier and a catalyst for conflict today. That is why partnering with developing countries so they can grow their economies in a climate-smart way is a crucial part of our foreign policy. That is why we need to support the Green Climate Fund and other financing and aid programs that will help countries increase their resiliency in the face of climate change impacts, because those impacts are very real, and scientists agree that it is humans who are causing them. The year 2014 was the hottest year in a global record that stretches back to 1880. The first half of this year is now the hottest January to June in that same record. As temperatures continue to soar upwards on land, our seas are getting hotter as well. While we have to deal with the consequences of climate change that are already gripping our Nation and our planet, there is still time to prevent future catastrophes. That is why President Obama has been using the tool he has in the Clean Air Act to reduce carbon pollution. He has used it to further increase the fuel efficiency of America's cars and trucks. He has released the historic Clean Power Plan, but Republicans want to undo that plan with the Congressional Review Act. Undoing the Clean Power Plan would be bad for our economy, for our national security, and for our health. The Clean Power Plan captures the scientific urgency and the economic opportunity needed to avoid the worst consequences of climate change. The Clean Power Plan provides flexibility to the States to find solutions to reducing carbon pollution that work best for their situations. The Clean Power Plan will be at the heart of a supercharged renewables renaissance in every single State in the Union. It will create jobs and save consumers billions on their electricity bills. It will avert almost 100,000 asthma attacks a year and prevent thousands of premature deaths. The climate and health benefits of this rule are estimated to be $34 to $54 billion every year by the year 2030. With the Clean Power Plan, we can create wealth and health for our country. In Massachusetts, we know firsthand that by cutting carbon pollution, we can grow our economy and save families money. It is a formula that works. We did it through the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, or RGGI, which is a model for the Clean Power Plan. Since the program went into effect in 2009, the program has added on the order of $3 billion worth of economic value to participating States and it has saved consumers more than $1.5 billion. Massachusetts now has nearly 100,000 people working in the clean energy sector in our State. It is the fastest growing job-creation sector in our economy. All of this has happened just over the last 10 years. As a nation, we have a choice: We can continue to pump harmful carbon pollution into our skies and foreign oil into our cars or we can pump new life into our economy, creating jobs and saving Americans money on their energy bills. Climate deniers call this plan a war on coal, but it is really a war on carbon pollution. The Clean Power Plan is a signal to the marketplace to invest in clean energy, and it is a signal to the world that America will lead the global effort for climate action and be the global leader. You cannot preach temperance from a bar stool. If we want to be a leader, we have to stand up and say: Here is what we are going to do. By reducing U.S. carbon pollution, the United States will be the leader and not the laggard in the international climate negotiations beginning at the end of this month in Paris. U.S. leadership has helped secure climate pledges for Paris from more than 150 countries. We now have the opportunity to forge an international climate agreement that includes all countries doing their fair share for a global solution to global warming. We aren't tackling climate change alone. Efforts are underway in legislatures around the world to develop laws and develop national responses to climate change. But without the Clean Power Plan, America would not be able to have any credibility in Paris in 2\1/2\ weeks in saying: We are going to reduce our greenhouse gases. You must, as another sovereign country, reduce your greenhouse gases. Coal companies, the Koch brothers, and other allies of the fossil fuel industry may oppose the United States and the world acting on climate, but scientific facts, economic opportunity, and history are not on their side. Today we are debating a resolution to overturn the Clean Power Plan, and should it pass, the President will veto it and Republicans won't have the votes to overturn the veto. What the Republicans are doing today is nothing more than a political Kabuki theater. Instead of wasting time tilting at legislative windmills, we should be passing tax extenders to help build more wind turbines and more solar panels in the United States of America. That is what we should be debating out here on the floor of the Senate today. If the Republicans don't like the Clean Power Plan, then I ask them what is their plan to prevent climate change, expand energy, and create jobs. That is the real question we should be debating on the Senate floor today. The reality is that they have no plan. The reality is that as a party they are in denial that the planet is dangerously warming. The reality is that they want to keep the wind and solar tax breaks off of the books, giving incentives for Americans to innovate in this area. The reality is that the fossil fuel industry is still driving the agenda of the Republican Party here in Congress. That is the reality. That is why we are having this vote here on the floor of the Senate today, because the Republican Party is siding with Big Coal and Big Fossil Fuel in order to keep us on a pathway that does not allow us to unleash this renewable energy revolution. The green generation--the young generation in our country--wants to be the leaders. They are innovators and they can find investors to help them with their new technology. They are professors and they are producers who want to work together in order to unleash this revolution. The next generation already did this with telecommunications. They moved us from a black rotary dial phone to an iPhone in about 8 years. The technology was locked up. There was no innovation that was possible. The utility industry that was the telephone industry had a stake in everyone still renting a black rotary dial phone. The utility industry, which is the electrical generating industry, has a stake in slowing down the pace at which we move to wind and solar and to new technologies of the 21st century that are the match for the iPhone in the telecommunications sector. That is what we are debating on the floor--the path to the future. That is what we are debating on the floor--the 19th-century technologies versus the 21st-century technologies. That is what we are debating on the floor--the status quo or an innovation economy where young people are able to move into these new sectors and invent these new technologies and exploit them around the planet. We did that in telecommunications. It is branded Google, eBay, Amazon and YouTube, around the planet. We did it in the blink of an eye once we unleashed the potential. We can do the same in the green energy sector, but defeating the Clean Power Plan vote the Republicans brought out on the floor is the key to unleashing this potential not only in our own country but across the planet. I urge a ``no'' vote on this historic set of regulations that President Obama is putting on the books. It is what will give us credibility when he goes to Paris in the beginning of December in order to negotiate this historic deal. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, tomorrow is Veterans Day, and on Veterans Day it is important that we thank America's veterans and their families for their service to our Nation. Veterans Day is a time to honor all those brave men and women who put themselves in harm's way so we may enjoy the tremendous freedoms and personal liberties that make our Nation the greatest in the world. Such bravery deserves our unending gratitude. We have an obligation to honor them all year-round by fighting to ensure they have the resources, the support, and the protections which they have earned. They fought for us, and now we need to fight for them. When we send our men and women in uniform abroad, we can be confident they will do their utmost to complete their missions. Our mission, as Senators, is to minimize the need to send our armed services members into harm's way. The root causes of overseas conflict are complex and diverse, from religious divisions to natural resource allocations, to democratic yearnings. Increasingly, in the modern era, climate change is straining the strands of stability until they snap. When I was chairman of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, I held a 2007 hearing where one U.S. general told the story of Somalia, how drought in Somalia had caused a famine and how that famine had ultimately then led to and encouraged a conflict. The pattern in Somalia is the same pattern that we see in other countries: drought leading to famine, leading to fights between different tribes or peoples who otherwise had no reason to fight. Aid came in from the United States, warlords started to fight over it, and that is how 18 U.S. service people lost their lives in what we now call ``Black Hawk Down.'' In 2010, terrible droughts in Russia and China and floods in Pakistan decimated wheat harvests and created a global shortage. The price of wheat increased dramatically. The Middle East, home to the world's top nine wheat importers, felt it severely, especially since the region's farmers struggled with their own parched fields. Much of Syria was gripped with the worst drought it had ever experienced. The price of bread skyrocketed across the region and demands for regime change were not far behind. As we look around the world, we can see, hear, and feel how climate change is a threat multiplier and a catalyst for conflict today. While we have to deal with the consequences of climate change that are already apparent, there is still time to prevent future catastrophes. That is why President Obama has been using the tool he has in the Clean Air Act to reduce carbon pollution. He has used it to increase the fuel efficiency of America's cars and trucks, and now he has released the Clean Power Plan, but Republicans want to undo it with the Congressional Review Act. Starting next Monday in this Chamber, Senate Republicans can bring the resolution to the Senate floor at any time to dismantle the Clean Power Plan. Undoing it would be bad for our economy, bad for our health, and bad for our national security. Now, 2014 was the hottest year in global history. Records go back all the way to 1880--the warmest year. The first half of this year is now the hottest January to June in that same record. The Clean Power Plan captures the scientific urgency and the economic opportunity necessary to avoid the worst consequences of climate change. The Clean Power Plan provides flexibility to the States to find the solutions to reducing carbon pollution that works best for their situations, unleashing a clean energy revolution in every single State in the Union. It will create jobs and save consumers billions on their electricity bills. It will avert almost 100,000 asthma attacks and prevent thousands of premature deaths. The climate and health benefits of the rule are estimated to save $34 billion to $54 billion per year by the year 2030. Using the Clean Air Act to reduce carbon pollution is grounded in the Supreme Court's 2007 decision that confirmed the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to regulate carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases as pollutants under the Act. The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that authority in two subsequent cases, and we have used that authority to set carbon pollution standards for vehicles. These standards, along with increasing the fuel economy of our Nation's cars and trucks, are reducing pollution, saving drivers money, and sparking innovation. We will see similar benefits coming from the Clean Power Plan. Some of my colleagues in the Senate say it can't be done. Some will say it will raise electricity bills. Some will say it will kill jobs. The problem for them is their claims are just not true. The Clean Power Plan is a plan to create jobs and to grow our economy. It is a signal to the marketplace to invest in clean energy--in wind, in solar, and other renewable energy resources. That is the 21st century. Too many people on the Senate floor keep looking at the future in a rearview mirror. They keep looking backward instead of ahead, unleashing the technologies of the 21st century. The green generation, the young people in our country, they know we can do this. They know renewables are the technologies of the 21st century. If we do it, it will be a signal to the rest of the world that the United States is going to lead the effort to reduce greenhouse gases, while unleashing a job-creating renewable energy revolution not just for our own country but for the entire planet. Just 2 months ago, in September, Congress had the honor of hearing from Pope Francis, who shared his message of action. He told us the American people can do it. He said: I call for a courageous and responsible effort to redirect our steps and to avert the most serious effects of the environmental deterioration caused by human activity. I am convinced we can make a difference and I have no doubt that the United States--and this Congress--have an important role to play. Now is the time for courageous actions and strategies. He is right. The Pope is right. This is the time for action from Congress--not denial, not obstructionism. Now is the time for the United States, for this Senate, to be the leader in finding the global solutions to this threat of dangerous climate change. So what the Pope did was take the message of Christ and not deliver a ``Sermon on the Mount,'' he delivered a sermon on the Hill--a sermon on the Hill to the Members of the House and the Senate to do everything they can to reduce dangerous greenhouse gases. In saying that to us, he said it as someone who taught high school chemistry, as someone who knows this issue--a Pope who taught chemistry. The Pope did not believe that science is at odds with religion. The Pope believes science and technology is the answer to our prayers, and he called upon us to unleash a technological revolution to reduce these dangerous greenhouse gases. Why do we know that we can do this? It is a moral imperative. The Pope basically said three things: No. 1, the planet is dangerously warming and the science confirms that; No. 2, human activity is largely contributing to the warming of the planet and the science confirms that; and, No. 3, since human beings are causing this problem, they have a moral responsibility and a moral imperative to do something about it. We are the United States of America. We are the global leader in technology. We are the revolution. So let's see how far we have come in a very brief period of time. In 2005, we installed 79 megawatts of solar in the United States. Solar technology had been around for generations. Einstein actually won his Nobel Prize for breakthroughs in solar research. Yet this is where we were in 2005; a tiny 79 megawatts was all we were able to install. Then we began to change policies in the United States. We began to have States across the country, 30 States, which said we are going to have more renewable electricity in our States. We put tax breaks on the books, and look what happened in that very brief period of time. By 2014, nearly 7,000 megawatts in solar were installed in 1 year, up from 79, 100 times more solar, after not doing anything for generations. Policies were put on the books. All the deniers, all those doubters-- all of a sudden everything they said about how solar wasn't practical, solar couldn't solve the problem--were confronted with this reality. This year nearly 8,000 megawatts are going to be installed; next year, 12,000 megawatts of solar. We are going to have 40,000 megawatts of solar installed by the end of next year in the United States-- 40,000--and we were doing 79 total in 2005. That is how rapidly it is changing. That is how many new jobs are being created in America. The same thing is happening in wind. Wind is going to be producing 20,000 new megawatts in just 2015 and 2016. So here is the good news, and it is incredibly great. There will be 300,000 jobs in the wind and solar sector by the end of next year, 300,000 people working. There will only be 65,000 coal miners, but we will have 300,000 people with these incredible jobs in wind and solar. That is a revolution that wasn't on the books just 10 years ago. All the experts said it can't happen, it won't work, and it will never be successful. So these revolutions are the things on which we have to continue to be the leaders to ensure that we put on the books and keep on the books so that we are successful. There is a technological imperative that we lead, there is an economic imperative that we lead because these jobs get created, and there is a moral responsibility that the United States has because we were the leading polluter for 100 years on the planet. China has now caught up to us, but a lot of that CO2 is red, white, and blue. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.

Mr. MARKEY. So here is where we are: The President is going to use all of his legal authority to reach a deal in Paris. He will do it pursuant to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change that was signed by President George Herbert Walker Bush and ratified by the Senate in 1992, so everything he is doing in Paris is completely pursuant to a treaty that was agreed to by this body. He is doing the Clean Power Plan to reduce greenhouse gases by 30 percent by the year 2030 in the electric utility sector, by the Clean Air Act of 1990, a law passed by the Senate. He increased the fuel economy standards to 54.5 miles per gallon by the year 2025, still the largest reduction of greenhouse gas in the world's history, pursuant to a law passed in 2007 by the U.S. Senate. Underlying it all is an authority given to him by the Supreme Court in 2007, in Massachusetts versus the EPA, which mandated the EPA had to act if they found there was an endangerment of an environment. All of this is legal, all of it is authority the President is using, and all of it is working to create a new era of clean energy jobs all across our country so that we are no longer preaching temperance from a barstool to the rest of the world. We can now say to China and to India: You too must put your reductions on the books. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Hawaii for her eloquent statement on this very important issue, and I thank the Senator from Massachusetts Senator Warren for once again, as usual, putting her finger right on the heart of a huge issue in our country. We have seniors, veterans, and SSI recipients across our country who will receive zero this year in terms of an increase in their benefits that they have so rightly earned by their service to our country. What Senator Warren is essentially saying is, Who really built this country? Who made this great country the place that we live in today? The truth is grandma and grandpa built this country. Grandma and grandpa got up every single day, went to work, built this incredible economy, and now that they are in retirement, grandma and grandpa are being told for the next year they don't get a raise. They don't get anything. They don't get a cost-of-living adjustment. They don't get any increase at all. They built this country. The veterans who are seniors, they protected this country. The veterans who are disabled, they built this country, they protected this country. What Senator Warren has done so accurately is essentially point out that there was a big loophole in our laws, and that loophole is a corporate compensation loophole that allows unlimited corporate deductions for executive performance pay. What have we learned over the last 20 years in America? The rich are getting richer, but the people at the bottom are not. All this bill says, quite simply, is, Let's have the raise go to the seniors for 1 year. Let's have the raise go to grandma and grandpa. Let's give them a reward for the incredible benefits that have been flowing disproportionately to the upper 1 percentile. Let's give them the 3.9- percent raise. Let's give them the kind of comfort and thanks they deserve for all of their hard work. What happens too often in Congress is that grandma and grandpa just get forgotten. There is a constant debate over whether grandma and grandpa are getting too much in Medicare, too much in Medicaid, and too much in Social Security benefits. ``We must solve that problem,'' say too many people here and around the country. No, grandma and grandpa are not the problem. By their hard work every single day for their entire lives, by getting up, going to work, and creating these great families who make us the greatest country on the planet, they are the ones who created this incredible wealth that we have in our society. I think we all owe an enormous debt of gratitude to Senator Warren because she has found a quite brilliant way to frame this debate on the Senate floor and for our country because it really does force us to all step back and ask the question of who contributed the most to our country over the last generation--a small handful of people at the top or everyone in the country who got up every single day who are the people we now call grandma and grandpa. I don't think we should be shortchanging them. I think Senator Warren's bill is the right way to solve that problem in order to make sure they get what they deserve. I thank Senator Warren for her great leadership on this issue. I yield to the Senator from Montana.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, Boston's sports teams have had their share of great moments. After a win, you can hear the crowd celebrating by singing a song by the Standells that goes like this: Yeah, down by the river, Down by the banks of the river Charles. Well I love that dirty water, Oh, Boston, you're my home. While dirty water signals a win for a Boston team when that is sung, the real victory has been beating the pollution in the Charles River and Boston Harbor since the passage of the Clean Water Act. That victory is thanks to the implementation of that law, which protects sources of our drinking water from pollution and restores dirty waters back to health. We need to keep the Clean Water Act's winning streak alive. Unfortunately, the bill the Senate may consider today could end the record of wins for the Clean Water Act. Its history of success has made the Clean Water Act one of the greatest American success stories. Before the Clean Water Act, there was no Federal authority to limit dumping, set national water quality standards, or enforce pollution rules. City and household waste flowed untreated into rivers and harmful chemicals were poured into wetlands and streams from factories and powerplants. Back then, we were all on the honor system. Water supplies were managed by a patchwork of State laws and an appeal to the common good. The result: mass pollution on a historic scale, oozing rivers so toxic that they could ignite into flames, fish dead by the thousands. America's riversides became a theater of public hazards and chemical death. In short, before the Clean Water Act and the Federal involvement that was necessary, America's waterways were its sewers. Then, in 1969, a public firestorm was touched off by a Time magazine photo of the Cuyahoga River on fire in Ohio. With full-throated support from the public, Congress mobilized and produced the Clean Water Act, one of the most important pieces of environmental law in the history of the United States. The ultimate goal of the Clean Water Act--making waterways safe for the public and wildlife--was so popular that in 1972 a bipartisan Congress overrode a veto by Richard Nixon. The successes and the benefits yielded by the pursuit of the goal of clean waterways would prove tremendous in the years ahead. The Clean Water Act guards the Nation's natural sources of drinking water by guiding how we use them. It protects the wetlands, the streams, and other surface waters that ultimately provide us with drinking water. The Clean Water Act has slowed the loss of wetlands, known as the ``kidneys of the landscape'' because of their ability to remove pollution from the water. They do this for free, making wetlands the most fiscally responsible water system in the world. The only alternative to this free service is to put our waters on dialysis by constructing filtration plants for billions of dollars in long-term maintenance and building costs. Our wetlands support the $6.6 trillion coastal economy of the United States, which comprises about half of the Nation's entire gross domestic production and includes our nearly $7 billion annual fishery industry and $2.3 billion recreational industry. The Clean Water Act has doubled the number of swimmable and fishable rivers in the United States. It has saved billions of tons of fertile soil from being washed off of our farms. It has fostered State and Federal collaboration, giving States a key role in managing poisonous runoffs from cities and farms. It established a permitting system to control what gets dumped into America's waterways. It developed fair and objective technology-based pollution control standards to help industries plan their compliance investments in advance. It sets science-based water quality standards and requires well-thought-out plans to meet them. Its environmental monitoring requirements prevent rehabilitated waterways from backsliding into unusable condition. It provides $2 billion annually in critical funding to States for water quality and infrastructure improvements. Among its most important contributions, it empowers citizens to enforce its provisions and actively guard the health of their families. For all of its benefits and successes, however, the Clean Water Act has still not reached it goal. One-third of our rivers still have too much pollution. When these drain into coastal waters, they add to the problems being caused by ocean acidification and warming. The pollution can cause dead zones off of our coasts and in the Great Lakes, putting drinking water supplies at risk and threatening sea life. While the act has slowed their loss, wetlands continue to disappear, and gone with them are millions of wetland-dependent creatures, such as ducks and turtles and most of the species of fish we find on our plates. Clearly, clean water must be preserved for the health of the public, the environment, and the economy. That is why the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps have spent so much time developing the recently finalized clean water rule. The clean water rule clears up confusion caused by two U.S. Supreme Court rulings on the reach of Federal water pollution laws and restores protections that were eliminated for thousands of wetlands by President George W. Bush in his administration. Specifically, the rule revises the definition of ``waters of the United States,'' a term that identifies which waters and wetlands are protected under the Clean Water Act. The rule was written in response to requests for increased predictability and consistency of Clean Water Act permitting programs made by stakeholders such as the National Association of Home Builders and the National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association. The clean water rule restores clear protections to 60 percent of the Nation's streams and millions of acres of wetlands that were stripped away under the previous Republican administration. The EPA estimates that returning the clean water protections will provide roughly half a billion dollars in annual public benefits, including reducing flooding damage, filtering pollution, supporting over 6 million jobs in the over half-a-trillion-dollar outdoor recreation industry. The rule protects public health by closing pollution loopholes that threaten drinking water supplies to one-third of Americans. In Massachusetts, the drinking water of nearly 3 in 4 people will now be protected. The rule enjoys broad support from local governments, small businesses, scientists, and the general public, who submitted over 800,000 favorable public comments. Eighty percent of Americans support the clean water rule, and when asked if Congress should allow it to go forward, they responded with a resounding yes. Despite public support for clean water and this commonsense rule, the Republicans want to bring a bill to the floor that would undermine the national goals and policy written by the Clean Water Act. If enacted, this water-polluting bill would undermine the legal framework that protects our water. It would once again leave one-third of the Nation's drinking water vulnerable to dangerous contamination. It would set up a fight over technical details that would prevent us from protecting the public health by preventing the dumping of toxic chemicals into natural public drinking water sources. The critics falsely claim that the clean water rule overreaches because it enables broader Federal jurisdiction than is consistent with law and science. So, ladies and gentlemen, I support the work the EPA and the Army Corps have done in putting together the clean water rule. It will continue the string of victories our Nation has enjoyed under the Clean Water Act. I urge my colleagues to oppose any legislative efforts to overturn the clean water rule. We need to keep the Clean Water Act working for all of America. I want to make sure that the only place in Massachusetts people are talking about dirty water is after one of our great Boston sports teams have chalked up another victory. That is the only time we should be singing about dirty water because otherwise the health and well-being not just of people in Massachusetts but all across our country will be harmed. I yield the floor.

Mr. MARKEY

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

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I come to bring a very important subject to the attention of my colleagues. ``Sequestration'' is just a fancy word for cuts, mindless cuts. That is why I have always opposed sequestration. This thoughtless, across- the-board approach to the Federal budget has harmed States across the country, but its effect on Massachusetts has been disproportionate. Sequestration significantly reduced Federal research and development funding for science and medicine. That is Massachusetts. Investments in those fields are critical to our economy with its world-class universities, medical centers, industry-leading bio- and high-tech companies, and clean-tech industries exploding with new technologies. This is the future of our country. This is the future of the 21st century. This is what we must be investing in: research and technology, research and science. I am pleased that for the next 2 years this budget agreement will give us desperately needed relief from sequestration and will extend the debt limit. This legislation will also protect vulnerable Americans who rely on Medicare and Social Security. It will ensure that for the next 7 years, millions who depend on the Social Security disability program do not face a benefit cut. The legislation will also help millions of seniors by avoiding a Gronk-like spike in Medicare premiums. But this bill comes with a price: more unwanted calls and texts to Americans. Back in 1991, consumers were constantly harassed by unwanted telemarketing phone calls that interrupted their family dinners. In 1991, my bill, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, stopped these intrusive and unwanted calls from telemarketers. Yes, this budget being debated today actually makes it easier to harass consumers on their mobile phones. That is wrong, just plain wrong. Current law contains important safeguards against abusive practices. Before a caller can make autodialed or prerecorded calls or send texts, that caller must have the consent of whoever is being called. Section 301 of this legislation before this body today removes that precall consent requirement if someone is collecting debt owed to the Federal Government. The provision opens the door to potentially unwanted robocalls and texts to the cell phones of anyone with a student loan or a mortgage, calls to the cell phones of delinquent taxpayers, calls to farmers, to veterans, or to anyone with debt backed by the Federal Government. That is why, once the Senate takes action on this budget bill, I plan to file a bill that strikes that provision. I also intend to ask the majority leader for a vote on my bill at the earliest possible time. We must protect American students and consumers. That rollback of protections against abusive telemarketers is not the only problem with this legislation. The bill also would sell off part of our Nation's oil stockpile simply to raise revenue. The Presiding Officer is an expert in this area. Our Strategic Petroleum Reserve is there to protect American consumers and our security in the event of an emergency, but now it is increasingly viewed as a piggy bank to fund other priorities. If we are going to sell oil from our strategic reserve, we should at least do so strategically to get the best deal for our taxpayers, but the budget deal that we are considering would require the sale of a specific amount of oil each year from 2018 to 2025 regardless of its price. When the majority attempted to use similar Strategic Petroleum Reserve sales to fund the highway bill, Senator Cassidy of Louisiana and I authored a bipartisan amendment to fix the problem. Our commonsense amendment gave the Secretary of Energy flexibility to sell more oil when prices are high and thereby maximize the return for taxpayers. Unfortunately, that bipartisan fix is not part of this legislation, but I will continue to work with Senator Cassidy on this important issue. You know that we are right when a conservative Republican from Louisiana and a liberal Democrat from Massachusetts agree on an issue. It is foolish to buy high and sell low. That is essentially what this legislation is now mandating. Rather than saying to the government that you have to find just the right time when the price of oil is high to sell it over the next 7 years, it says sell it on this schedule regardless of whether or not you are going to get a good return on your investment. That is not the way this government should be operated. We should be using some common sense, especially since the Senator from Louisiana and I had already drafted the legislation and had already attached it to the Transportation bill when that was going to be the place where they use the Strategic Petroleum Reserve money. This is a very bad provision that is in a bill which is going to pass--and it should pass--but this is a flaw. It is going to lose a lot of money if it continues on with the language that is in this bill. I am going to continue to work with the Presiding Officer, the Senator from Louisiana, so that we can correct it. It will save a lot of money if we do it the correct way. We need to ensure that we have a rational approach to budgeting-- unlike sequestration--which will finally allow us to get back to the business of legislating instead of lurching from crisis to crisis. That is not possible unless we begin a new era in this institution. Hopefully, that is what today and perhaps tomorrow will represent. Maybe we can work together again across the aisle the way I think all Americans want us to. I pledge to work on these two pieces of legislation going forward to correct real flaws that are built into this legislation. Thank you for allowing me to have the floor at this time. I hope the Presiding Officer and I can partner to correct at least one of the problems in this bill. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. MARKEY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal, and Senator Merkley, thank you for organizing this. Thank you to Senator Warren and to everyone who is here. Mr. President, with Halloween just days away, I would like to share some scary facts about nicotine. Nicotine is the main ingredient in cigarettes and is also found in the new cigarettes, the e-cigarettes. Four decades of scientific research have proved the following: First, nicotine is addictive; second, nicotine affects brain development; third, nicotine combined with tobacco is responsible for claiming millions of lives. These facts are true, but for years Big Tobacco willfully, consistently, publicly, and falsely denied them. Those lies were exposed at congressional hearings, and thanks to the tireless efforts of anti-smoking and public health advocates, traditional cigarette smoking has declined from 50 percent of all adults to 18 percent of all adults in the United States. How many millions of lives have been saved because of that? Big Tobacco and the e-cigarette industry are like the undead. Traditional cigarettes are being supplanted by e-cigarettes. Today e- cigarette sales in the United States alone topped $1 billion, and e- cigarette use is growing as fast as the students who are smoking them. The use of e-cigarettes among middle and high school students has skyrocketed, tripling from 2013 to 2014, accounting for upwards of 13 percent of all high school students. That is when my father began to smoke two packs of Camels a day. My father died from smoking two packs of Camels a day. Nearly 2.5 million young Americans currently use e-cigarettes. Why the explosion in youth e-cigarette smoking? It is because Big Tobacco and the e-cigarette industry are marketing their dangerous nicotine delivery product to children and teens. Big Tobacco would have our young people think that e-cigarettes are a treat, but they are a cruel trick on those children. The younger a person is when he or she starts using products containing nicotine, the more difficult it is to quit. We know from years of research that flavors attract young people. That is why Congress explicitly banned cigarettes with flavors like cherry and bubble gum, because of their appeal to young people. So it is very disappointing, but not surprising, that new nicotine delivery products are available in a myriad of flavors, from cotton candy to vanilla cupcake to Coca-Cola. I wonder what this industry is trying to do. Flavors were outlawed from the traditional cigarette industry. You don't have to be a detective to figure it out because over the past decade we have made great strides in educating children and teens about the dangers of smoking, and now we can't allow e-cigarettes to snuff out the progress we have made in preventing nicotine addiction and its deadly consequences. We need to ban the marketing of e-cigarettes to kids and teens. We need to ban the use of fruit and candy flavoring clearly meant to attract children. We need to ban the online sales of e-cigarettes to keep them out of the hands of children. The dangers of e-cigarettes are clear. Every day we wait is another day that young Americans can fall prey to harmful products pushed by the tobacco industry. Last year at a commerce committee hearing, when I asked several e- cigarette company leaders to commit to ceasing the sale of these types of flavored products, a few agreed, but the vast majority have not and will not. Just today the e-cigarette industry trade group, the Tobacco Vapor Electronic Cigarette Association, threatened the FDA after posting on its Web site what the association purports is leaked draft industry guidance under the new deeming rule, tweeting: ``The FDA needs to know we mean business.'' The association got it partially right. The e-cigarette industry should be put out of business. My father smoked two packs of Camels a day. Back then it was a cool thing to do. For decades Big Tobacco denied that there was any linkage between smoking and cancer. My father died because of that denial of the tobacco industry and the cooperation of the U.S. Congress. Today electronic cigarettes are no better than the Joe Camels of the past. Through e-cigarettes, children and teens are still getting addicted to nicotine and putting their health and futures at grave risk. I urge OMB to give America's youth a real Halloween treat by finalizing the deeming rule and stopping the sale of these candy- flavored poisons. Thank you, and I yield back.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I thank the Senators from New Mexico and Oregon for their leadership on this issue. It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity. . . . There is a certain Dickensian quality to the Senate floor today. We rarely have debate on environmental bills that enjoy not only token bipartisan support but overwhelming bipartisan support. Today is the best of times, the age of wisdom, and the epoch of belief because we can debate not just one environmental bill that has overwhelming bipartisan support but two bills that have overwhelming bipartisan support. Yet today is also the worst of times, the age of foolishness and the epoch of incredulity because a handful of Senate Republicans have just prevented both of these bills from even getting a vote. First, we had a request to reauthorize the Land and Water Conservation Fund, a program conceived of by John F. Kennedy, who presented Congress with draft legislation for it in 1963. I am proud to be counted among the more than 60 Senate supporters of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Next, we had a request to consider reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act that helps to protect the American people against these dangerous toxic chemicals. I am proud to be a supporter of the language the Senate is expected to vote on, and some have predicted upward of 85 Senate votes in favor of that environmental bill. First, a handful of Senate Republicans will not allow a vote on the Land and Water Conservation Fund because they don't like the program, and then other Senate Republicans who do like the Land and Water Conservation Fund will not allow a vote on TSCA because we couldn't act on the Land and Water Conservation Fund. This is nothing short of absurd. It is hard enough to reach a consensus in the U.S. Senate on any issues, much less environmental issues, but some of our colleagues seem determined to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Shouldn't we be able to make this the best of times on both of these bills while we have the chance to do so instead of perpetuating the worst of times view that Americans increasingly have of the ability of Congress to get its job done? I hope all of my colleagues can come together so we can agree that here, where there are far more than 60 votes on the Senate floor for two historic environmental bills--that we do not allow for a small handful of Members to be able to stop both bills from being able to even be considered on the Senate floor. Yesterday's agreement on the debt ceiling and on having the budget go forward is how Congress should be operating. We should take the big issues, try to work together, and understand that there are going to be differences of opinion, but when there is overwhelming support for legislation, we should be able to move forward. I thank the Senator from New Mexico. I thank all who have worked on this issue on a bipartisan basis. This bill has vastly improved the TSCA bill from where it was months ago, and I highly recommend it to my colleagues on the Senate floor. The Land and Water Conservation Fund is something that goes back so many decades, and it is central to a continuation of the commitment that each and every State in our country is able to make on two environmental programs. I hope we can find a way of resolving this issue because it is time for us to take action on the Senate floor on these two critical environmental issues. I yield back to the Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I am a cosponsor of a resolution the Senate is likely to pass this evening honoring the lives of the 33 crew members aboard the El Faro which sank near the Bahamas during Hurricane Joaquin earlier this month. I want to take this opportunity to express my deepest sympathy and sincere condolences to the family of El Faro crewman Jeffrey A. Mathias of Kingston, MA. He was just 42 years old. Jeff loved the sea. When he attended Tabor Academy, he learned how to sail aboard the school's sailing ship the Tabor Boy. Jeff followed his passion to the prestigious Massachusetts Maritime Academy, where in 1996 he graduated with a degree in marine engineering. Upon graduation, he worked at Seamass and then Altran, where he was involved with nuclear power plants. In 1998, he landed his dream job on a cargo vessel. Jeff sailed to Africa, Europe, North Korea, Alaska, Hawaii, California, and the Caribbean. He reached the officer's position of chief engineer and was responsible for shaft repairs on many vessels. Jeff leaves his beloved wife, Jennifer Brides Mathias; his 3 adored children, daughters Hayden, 7, Heidi, 5, and son, Caleb, 3, all of Kingston. He also leaves behind his parents, J. Barry and Lydia Jones Mathias, of Kingston and his brother John. Another son of Massachusetts who loved the sea was President John F. Kennedy. He famously stated, ``I really don't know why it is that all of us are so committed to the sea, except I think it's because in addition to the fact that the sea changes, and the light changes, and ships change, it's because we all came from the sea. And it is an interesting biological fact that all of us have in our veins the exact same percentage of salt in our blood that exists in the ocean, and, therefore, we have salt in our blood, in our sweat, in our tears. We are tied to the ocean. And when we go back to the sea--whether it is to sail or to watch it--we are going back from whence we came.'' I also offer my condolences to the family, friends, and loved ones of every member of the El Faro crew.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Madam President, Congress has failed to protect the American people from the tragic gun violence that is plaguing our Nation. The mass shooting in Roseburg, OR, was the 297th in the United States this year alone. That is more than one mass shooting per day so far this year in our country. In fact, every year more than 30,000 Americans are killed by guns. Yet the Republicans have blocked any legislation to prevent future tragedies. It is past time for us to act. It is time for us to listen to the American people, who overwhelmingly support commonsense legislation on guns. Ninety percent of Americans support background checks before someone can buy a gun. Ninety percent of Americans support background checks before someone can buy a gun--90 percent of Americans. So let's close the loopholes that allow online gun sales and sales at gun shows without a background check. Ninety percent of Americans want background checks. Let's close the loophole that allows already proven domestic abusers to buy guns. That is overwhelmingly supported by the American people. Let's close the loophole that allows straw purchasers to buy guns and flood our streets with them. Overwhelmingly, Americans don't want these kinds of illicit sales with no background checks to be conducted across our country. Let's close the loophole that allows a gun sale before a background check is completed. At least let's complete it. Let's take our heads out of the sand on the causes of gun violence and how to prevent it. We have the power here on the floor of the United States Senate to pass legislation that pretty much all of America expects us to pass. It is time to end the NRA's vise-like control of this Chamber. The NRA says it is the National Rifle Association. Well, our goal should be, on this floor, to say that the NRA stands for ``Not Relevant Anymore'' in American politics. We should do this now. There is an epidemic of gun violence in our country. It is not preordained; it is preventable. I am proud to join with my colleagues in support of these commonsense gun safety measures. I yield the floor.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized for up to 10 minutes; that following my remarks, Senator Schatz be recognized for up to 10 minutes; and that following his remarks, Senator Whitehouse be recognized for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, the evidence and impacts of climate change are clear and they are undeniable. Scientists can measure the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. They can measure the rising temperatures. They can measure the increasing level of the sea. They can measure the increase in extreme rainfall. All of this increases the risk for extreme weather events that threaten people and the economy. While addressing the challenges of climate change will take a comprehensive approach, we have many of the policies, the workforce, and the technologies we need to address the problem already. To illustrate that point, I want to tell you a tale of two tax policies--one for wind and solar and one for oil, gas, and coal. Let's look at the last decade of our tale of two tax policies. In 2005, we, the United States, installed 79 total megawatts of solar in the United States. Seventy-nine megawatts was a teeny amount back in 2005. Last year we deployed nearly 100 times that amount--7,000 new megawatts in the year 2014. Look at that. We have nearly 100 times more solar. Well, what happened? First, technology costs plummeted. Everybody has heard of a Moore's law for semiconductors. It told us that today's iPhones would be more powerful than last generation's supercomputers. We all know Moore's Law. We knew we would move from this pocket phone to an iPhone because the technology keeps getting more powerful. There is a Moore's law for solar as well. Every time solar panel deployment doubles globally, the cost of solar falls by 18 percent. It is predictable. It is why we are seeing the cost of a solar panel drop 70 percent since the year 2010, and it is why costs will continue to fall. Next, 30 States enacted renewable electricity standards. Yes, now more than half of the States in our country have a standard to get a sizable portion of their electricity from renewable sources, and finally, and most importantly from a national policy perspective, we passed an 8-year extension of the Solar Investment Tax Credit in 2008. We gave this industry and these companies certainty. We now have more than 20,000 megawatts of installed solar capacity in the United States. More than 60 percent of it was added in just the last 2 years, and we are projected to double that installed solar capacity over the next 2 years. We are forecast to add 8,000 megawatts this year and 12,000 megawatts next year, and that is because we put smart tax policies on the books 7 years ago. Look what happened. If we go from the beginning of the American Revolution until 2005, we were still only installing 79 megawatts--just a teeny, tiny amount of solar energy. But when we started putting State renewable electricity standards on the books and a new tax policy, it started to explode 100 times--1,000 times more solar in America, by the way, with all the experts saying: This can't happen. Solar isn't real. Wind isn't real. You Senators, you House Members, you have to get real. Well, this is the proof that bad policies had stopped this explosion of these technologies. By the way, the same thing is true for wind power. We are projected to add 9,000 new megawatts of wind power in our country this year, and we are projected to add another 8,000 megawatts of wind power next year. We can see what is happening with the combined totals of wind and solar once we put the new policies on the books. It was basically an era where almost no electricity in the United States was generated by wind and solar to the next year having 5 to 6 percent of all the electricity in America coming from wind and solar. It is like the explosion of cellphones that turned into smartphones. People didn't have anything in their pockets just 20 years ago--it was like the wind and solar industry--but we changed policies in the United States. We said: We can do it. We can untether ourselves from a telephone line in our living rooms. We can let people walk around with their phone, and we began to make the same decisions on wind and solar. We can untether ourselves in the United States from coal-generated electricity that emits greenhouse gases that dangerously warm our planet, and we are now doing it. It is accelerating, and that is the beautiful part of the story. By the end of next year, there are going to be 300,000 people employed in the wind and solar industry in the United States. Right now, there are 73,000 people building these wind turbines. Steel and iron workers are out there doing this work right now, and it generates clean, renewable, nonpolluting energy. We can do this. We are the United States of America. We are the innovation giant on the planet. We can solve this problem. What has happened with the wind industry? Well, their tax break has now expired. Has the tax break for the oil industry expired? Oh, no. Has the tax break for the coal industry expired? Oh, no. Those tax breaks have been on the books for 100 years. They will never expire--never. There are too many people who want to help the fossil fuel industry here in the Senate and over in the House of Representatives, but the tax breaks for the wind and solar industry-- the ones that are showing the tremendous growth, innovation, and capacity to develop new technologies that we can export around the planet--are expiring. If we look at the green generation--young people within our society-- which technology do they want us to invest in? Do they want black rotary dial phones and coal-burning powerplants or do they want the new technologies of the 21st Century, their generation? Do they want the past dirty carbon pollution or do they want future clean energy? It is not even close. This is a choice that has to be made by this generation. The green generation expects us to be the leaders on this issue. The oil and gas industry get $7.5 billion a year in tax breaks. The oil industry doesn't need a subsidy to drill for oil any more than a bird needs a subsidy to fly or a fish needs a subsidy to swim. They are going to do it anyway. What they do though is lobby to take away the tax breaks for solar and wind because they know that will displace them. Our goal, of course, should be to have a massive ramping up of these energy technologies. Do you want to hear an incredible number? The Chinese government, while the Pope was in town here in Washington, announced that China was going to deploy wind and solar and other renewable technologies by the year 2030 that would equal the total of all electrical generation capacity in the United States of America. They are going to deploy all their coal, natural gas, hydropower, wind, and solar. Again, I said earlier that every time there is a global doubling of the deployment of solar on the planet, the price of solar drops by 18 percent. China is going to be doing that. Last week India announced that they are going to have a massive increase in their renewable energy resources as well. Unfortunately, the tax breaks in our own country have already expired or are going to expire for the wind and solar industries. Our country is supposed to be the leader. We are supposed to be the technological giant on this planet. All I can say is, if we want the jobs, this is the sector where the jobs are being created. There will be 300,000 jobs in this sector by the end of next year. If we want to reduce greenhouse gases, this is the sector that can make it possible for the United States to be the leader. If we want to be the leaders to ensure that we are acted on the message that Pope Francis delivered to the Congress just 2 weeks ago, we have to move toward these technologies. The Pope asked us to use our technological capacity in order to solve this problem. The Pope pretty much said three things. No. 1, the planet is warming dangerously, and the science is clear. No. 2, the cause of the warming is largely by human beings, and the science is clear. No. 3, we have a moral responsibility. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a huge day because we have Members coming out to the floor to talk about this revolution and how we can find a solution so we can deal with this issue in a positive, affirmative job-creating way. We can engage in massive job creation in order to save all of God's creation. We can do it, but we have to decide that we are going to be the leaders in this sector, and all I can say is that in the end we are going to win because technology always triumphs--always. You can hold it back for a while, but in the end it is going to ultimately change our world. By the year 2100 people will look back and wonder why we ever did generate electricity by the use of fossil fuels on our planet. I thank the Presiding Officer, and I see that Senator Schatz and Senator Whitehouse have arrived. With that, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. MARKEY

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