Brian Schatz

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, there are two problems here. Normally, when something is a waste of taxpayer money, it is not usually also harmful to individuals across the country, but this is a double whammy. This is harming students, causing them to collectively incur tens of billions of dollars' worth of debt, and it is a waste of money, so this really is a double whammy. I will make this final point: The Obama administration has done the right thing in terms of going after malfeasance in this space, but they are split among their executive agencies. We have the Department of Justice who understands the fraud and deception. We even have parts of the U.S. DOE that understands what is going on, yet they have been slow on the uptake in terms of using the authority under the statute to make the accreditation process a little more reliable when it comes to students. I think that is one of the key things that we are going to be able to accomplish in the next couple of years. The U.S. DOE has to understand that there are separate accrediting agencies, but under the higher education statute, U.S. DOE has the authority to make sure that no institution that is providing a low-quality education and no institution that is engaging in fraud and deception ought to avail themselves of tens of billions of dollars in Federal financing.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for explaining to the public and this body what we are all becoming increasingly aware of. The technology is there. This is no longer pie in the sky. This is not hopeful ecological utopia thinking. This is real stuff. These are real jobs that are being financed by banks and financial institutions. This is already upon us. I wish to tell the story of Hawaii's clean energy transformation. Of course the clean energy transformation is taking place across the country, but it is especially true in Hawaii. For decades--since the demise of the sugar plantation--Hawaii relied on imports of fossil fuel for our energy needs. As recently as 2010, we derived nearly 90 percent of our electrons from burning oil. In just 4 years we have driven this number down to around 80 percent, and we are on our way to a 100 percent clean energy target. Hawaii's reliance on imported fuels isn't just bad for the climate, it is also bad economics. We have the highest electricity rates in the country. Our rates are three times higher than the national average. For the privilege of burning LSFO, low sulfur fuel oil, we are paying higher prices than anywhere in the Nation, and so something had to give. In order to bolster our own energy security and economic prospects, we made the decision to transition away from fossil fuels to solar, wind, and geothermal. Clean energy is Hawaii's future, but it is important to point out that in the beginning we had naysayers on the left, right, and center, much like the current debate in the Congress. There are those who think that what we do in the clean power plan or with the carbon fee will not be nearly enough, and there are those who think that we are doing too much too fast. I remember having this exact conversation in Hawaii in 2001. In 2001, we started small and passed a voluntary renewable portfolio goal that encouraged utilities--didn't mandate--to generate 9 percent of their electricity from clean energy by the year 2010. The target, frankly, was unambitious. It was voluntary and it was unenforceable, but it was important because it was a start. For some it was little and for others it was too radical, but it was a start. So we kept pushing. In 2004, we replaced the original goal with a requirement of 20 percent clean energy by 2020. Two years later, we added incentives for compliance and established penalties for noncompliance. In 2008, Hawaii partnered with the USDOE to identify the technical, regulatory, and financial barriers preventing the State from reaching its clean energy potential. This partnership, the Hawaii Clean Energy Initiative, was crucial to helping Hawaii realize that a 100 percent clean energy goal was actually realistic. A year after starting this partnership, the State increased its Clean Energy Standard to 40 percent by 2030, establishing an energy efficiency standard of 30 percent and enshrining into law the requirement to reduce emissions from the power sector by 70 percent by the year 2030. I want to give context here. People thought this was totally unrealistic and that we would even at the first 2- or 3-year increment already miss our goals, but what happened was the opposite. We started exceeding our interim targets, and then we ratcheted up our goals. Progress toward these goals demonstrated that an even more ambitious, audacious goal of 100-percent clean energy was a real possibility. So this year Governor Ige in Hawaii signed the law requiring utilities to generate all of their electricity from renewable sources by 2045. We are currently meeting or exceeding our interim targets, thanks in large part to big increases in wind power and in distributed generation, especially solar rooftops. It is important to say that progress towards our clean energy goals hasn't impeded economic growth. Hawaii's unemployment rate is among the lowest in the Nation and 1.5 percent below the national average. Strengthening this law required consistent efforts by advocacy groups, businesses, and government agencies to bring about the change. It also showed the importance of taking those first steps down the road to a low-carbon economy. Whether they seem too small to make a difference or too large to be possible, we have to start. Once we do, ambitious goals are more within reach than they may have originally seemed. Now, Hawaii is blessed in a number of ways, including with ample sunlight, steady winds, and volcanic energy. But Hawaii is not unique in its ability to generate substantial quantities of electricity from clean renewable resources. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory analyzed clean energy potential across the country and found that ``[r]enewable electricity generation from technologies that are commercially available today . . . is more than adequate to supply 80 percent of the total U.S. electricity generation by the year 2050.'' That is with technologies available today. As these technologies improve and the cost of clean energy continues to fall, wind and solar power will be increasingly competitive with electricity generated from fossil fuels in States across the country. As my home State of Hawaii illustrates, we just have to start. This is a lesson that we must take to the international context as well. As the world meets in Paris later this year, I urge representatives from all countries to think of Hawaii's experience moving towards a zero carbon energy system. The climate negotiations in Paris are shaping up to be at least a moderate success. But whatever agreement emerges from Paris will likely be a political Rorschach test, which is to say that some will say that we are promising too much and others will say that we should be offering more. Whatever one's predisposition about climate, Paris will prove it to the world. But what truly matters is not exactly what the particulars of each agreement in Paris are but what happens next. It is doing the work. It is power purchase agreements. It is public policy. It is tax incentives. It is permits. It is public utilities commissions. It is actually getting the work done across the country and across the planet. When something as consequential as climate change is on the table, it is going to require global capital, technological breakthroughs, and political will. That political will will only occur if people understand that, yes, this is a problem. It is real. Yes, it is urgent, and yes, it is caused by humans. But, most importantly, we can, in fact, fix it. I yield the floor.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Madam President, last Friday, China announced its decision to implement a national cap-and-trade program beginning in 2017. It will cover the majority of China's greenhouse gas emissions, including those from power generation, iron and steel production, cement, chemicals, and manufacturing. In creating the world's largest market-based program that puts a price on carbon pollution, China is showing that it knows that climate change and economic growth can be addressed at the same time. China stepped up on climate finance as well, matching the United States' contribution to the Green Climate Fund. China's announcement directly counters the arguments made by opponents of climate action here at home. The original idea was that essentially we should wait for China, that our actions would not make a difference without China, or worse, that we would be harming our own economic growth while they kept burning fossil fuels. That argument, originally--that idea that on the challenge of our generation we should wait for other countries--was ridiculous on its face. After all, the United States must always lead. We are the indispensable Nation regardless of what the other countries may or may not be doing. But even if you subscribe to that argument, everything changed last week. The world is taking action around us. We are now at risk of being left behind, both in terms of our energy systems and our international standing. China's recent announcement to peak its coal use, reduce emissions from superpollutants, and now its decision to implement a cap-and-trade program throw the old arguments out the window. Those who oppose climate action have also said that addressing climate change would slow economic growth. Of course, we have known for years that this is not true. Consider the plummeting cost of clean energy or savings at the pump due to higher fuel economy standards, both of which are good for consumers and good for the climate. Now we have further confirmation that countries can reduce emissions without sacrificing economic growth. China obviously has no interest in putting the brakes on its growth. By including in its cap-and-trade program many sectors that are vital to its future growth, China is showing the United States and the rest of the world that it means business. China does not have a monopoly on ideas to reduce carbon pollution. In fact, most of their good ideas are still coming from us. The Senate has a long history of proposing market-based solutions to climate change, dating back to the 2003 Climate Stewardship Act from Senators McCain and Lieberman. Earlier this year, Senator Whitehouse and I reintroduced our American Opportunity Carbon Fee Act. Our bill would impose a price on carbon pollution and use the revenues to cut a $500 check for all Americans, while lowering the corporate income tax rate from 35 percent to 29 percent. Economists from across the political spectrum agree this is good policy. Putting a price on carbon in a revenue-neutral way will provide numerous benefits above and beyond the significant cuts in carbon pollution. It will give companies the policy certainty that they need, and it will send a price signal to polluters. By using revenues to lower tax rates and provide dividends to every American, we can stimulate economic growth and protect the most vulnerable among us. Carbon pollution entails costs, but right now taxpayers are footing the bill. By making polluters responsible for the damage they cause and returning all of the revenues to individuals and employers, we will send a signal that innovation in clean energy and other low-carbon technologies will be the driving force behind the global economy of the 21st century. The United States should not cede leadership in those sectors to China, Germany or any other country. We always lead. It is what Americans do best. American ingenuity led to some of the most exciting developments in the last century--from the airplane and the assembly line to the microprocessors and solar cells. With the right policies, we can assure American leadership for the next century as well. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. SCHATZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Thank you, Mr. President. A President of the United States once said of his Nation's enemy that we cannot ``wish away the differences between our two societies and our philosophies, but we should always remember that we do have common interests and the foremost among them is to avoid war.'' In pursuing that cause, he said: We will be prepared to protect our interests and those of our friends and allies, but we want more than deterrents. We seek genuine cooperation. We seek progress for peace. It was President Reagan who seized the opportunity during the Cold War and President George H. W. Bush who carried it forward. Together they achieved commitments from the United States and the Soviet Union, enemies through and through, to reduce their stockpiles of nuclear weapons, bringing us ever closer to a world free of the threat of nuclear annihilation. It ingrained in us a tradition of pragmatism--the idea that even with countries we deeply distrust and whose behavior we abhor, we cannot ignore the opportunity to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The Joint Comprehension Plan of Action that the United States negotiated with Iran and the other members of the P5+1 preserves that tradition, to ``seek progress for peace.'' This deal is not perfect, as the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee so ably explained. We had to make concessions, and that is because it was negotiated between sovereign countries pursuing diplomacy and not unconditional surrender. I hear complaints about one provision or another, and some of those criticisms are valid, but we don't have the luxury of sending our negotiators back to Vienna. If we do that, things will fall apart. Every ambassador from the P5+1 has made clear that the multilateral sanctions that brought Iran to the table will be upended. We would be isolated diplomatically, Iran's nuclear program would be unconstrained, and Iran would get most of its money too. Of course, we could levy harsh unilateral sanctions ourselves, and that would be emotionally satisfying to many, but they won't bite. They did not when Iran went from 300 centrifuges to more than 18,000, and they won't now. The question in this debate is whether to approve the deal or dump it. There is no door No. 3, but we don't need to feel resigned because, as a deal, it is quite a good one. Experts in the nonproliferation space almost unanimously affirm that it is a strong deal. It blocks each one of Iran's pathways to the bomb and places its nuclear program under strict international supervision. There is no alternative to this agreement, and certainly no military option, that eliminates 98 percent of Iran's fissile material or two- thirds of its operating centrifuges. Now, I will grant that critics make a few very persuasive arguments that have more to with how we view Iran than how we view this deal. First they say that it places too much trust in Iran, but the opposite is true. This agreement is not based on trust or shared values, and we have no reason to assume that Iran will comply with its terms in good faith. That is why the agreement adopts a robust inspections and verification regime that will be in place for up to 25 years. We will be monitoring Iran's entire nuclear supply chain--from uranium mining, milling, and enrichment to the manufacturing and replacement of centrifuges--so we will know if Iran is diverting uranium or centrifuges to secret facilities. If Iran does try to break out to acquire the bomb, all options remain on the table to stop it, including the use of military force. And because the agreement provides us more information about Iran's nuclear program, our military options will be more effective and have the backing of the international community because we will have exhausted diplomacy first. The other concern, and I think this is a valid one, is that this deal should not be overstated in terms of its impact on our priorities and alliances in the region. It is important on the nuclear issue, but in October we will have many of the same challenges in the Middle East that we have in September. Iran is still the world's leading state sponsor of terror and nothing in this deal will deter us from working to contain Iran's regional aspirations, including its support of Hamas and Hezbollah. But our efforts can now occur with a nuclear-armed Iran off the table. I wish to personally offer some words to those Americans who love Israel with a personal passion and commitment that I share. Your skepticism is well earned and based in faith and history--based in familial relationships and culture. It is core of who we are. My colleagues rightly want to know what happens next. What is the United States prepared to do to protect loved ones in a dangerous neighborhood? Whether one supports this deal or not, we can all agree that America's commitment to Israel remains unshakeable, and we will continue, Democrats and Republicans united, to stand with Israel. Even as we work to restrict Iran's nuclear ambitions, we will continue to thwart Hamas and Hezbollah. We are committed to cooperating with Israel on intelligence and security at the highest levels ever and continuing to ensure that Israel's qualitative military edge is protected. When this debate is over, we must find new ways to enhance our joint efforts to counter threats that endanger Israel every day. We are debating what may be the most important foreign policy choice of the decade. Our decision will have consequences for the security and the stability of the new Middle East. If Congress chooses to oppose this agreement, we will witness an unraveling of the international sanctions that brought Iran to the negotiating table, with Iran moving ever faster toward the bomb and our country left with few choices besides another war in the Middle East. We have shown as a country that we have the will to protect ourselves, our allies, and our interests--using military force when truly necessary. We will continue to stand with Israel despite whatever temporary disagreements our governments may have. We do not underestimate or understate the challenges we have and the role of our military in shaping events for the better, but in this instance, with eyes wide open, we ought to pursue peace first. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Through the Chair, I understand the time for the colloquy is about to expire. Just to respond to the Senator from California, if there is no objection, I would just say that we really do need Republican leadership here. Prior to about 10 years ago, the Republican Party had a long history and an august history of working with Democrats to protect our air and our water, and we are all sincerely hoping we can get back to that place. I yield the floor.

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts and Senators Whitehouse and Boxer for their great leadership. I am really appreciative of the senior Senator from New York for taking the time to come to the floor to demonstrate his commitment to this issue. There is an incredible opportunity here for American leadership. In Hawaii, in various places across the State, in 1 month we had 33 record highs--in the month of July. So we all know this is the challenge of our generation, and we all know the next most important step is the full implementation of the President's Clean Power Plan. I wish to make a couple of points about the particulars of the plan. The first is that this is really done well. Normally, regulatory functions can be a blunt instrument. They can be a little less than careful in terms of how they are going to impact the economy. But this is done with great precision, with great care, and with great interaction with the incumbent utility companies and distribution and generation companies. So this is done with enough flexibility to say: Whatever your mix in terms of energies, we are not going to dictate exactly how you do it at a powerplant level, at a county level, at a city level. All we are saying is you have to meet these targets. And if you meet these targets through distributed generation or wind or solar or geothermal or hydro, that is not the Federal Government's concern. Our concern is that carbon is a pollutant--and that has been determined by the courts, and it has been determined by scientists--and the Clean Air Act requires that airborne pollutants are regulated. So we are simply going to tell every State: This, like all other pollutants, has to be reduced over time. I think the EPA took great pains to make sure this was done in a way that wouldn't cause too much upheaval in the economy. This is legally sound. There is no question that the EPA doesn't just have the authority and the discretion to move forward with carbon pollution regulations, they are actually required to under the last Supreme Court decision. And it is doable. Hawaii has a 100-percent clean energy goal. The Northeast has its RGGI program. California has a cap-and-trade program. And all of our economies continue to grow. It is not that individuals and companies don't continue to have their challenges, but it is not because of our leaning forward into clean energy. I will make one point about the kind of layering of obstruction. The first layer, which I think we have been successful in the last 6 months at breaking through, is the whole ``I am not sure whether climate change is real.'' Then they sort of pivoted to ``Well, I am not a scientist.'' So I don't think that is going to last for very long. I think the next layer of obstruction is going to be ``I think climate change is real. I am not sure what percentage of climate change is caused by humans and how much of it is naturally occurring.'' I think we will be able to punch through that opposition. The next layer of opposition will be this: ``America should wait.'' They will tell us that America should not lead in this, that we should wait for China, that we should wait for India, that we should wait for Germany, that we should wait for Japan. So let me ask this question: Since when does the United States wait for other countries to lead? This is the challenge of our generation, and it strikes me as preposterous that anybody who believes in American leadership would be willing to say ``Let's see what other countries do about this problem first. Why don't we give this a few years?'' We don't have a few years. This is an incredible opportunity for America to display the leadership it has always displayed in the international community. We finally have the high ground going into the Paris discussions. We are on legally sound ground, we are on morally sound ground, and I think politically we are increasingly on sound ground. I am a full supporter of the President's Clean Power Plan. The one thing that causes me great dismay and I think causes some of the other participants in this colloquy dismay is that we are not even having a debate. This is the Democrats asking you to come down to the floor and disagree with us. Disagree with the President. Disagree with Gina McCarthy. Tell Sheldon and me that our bill is a piece of garbage and this is what should be done instead. But let's have the great debate in the world's greatest deliberative body. Right now, it is entirely one- sided. If we are going to display American leadership, we need some Republican leadership as well.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I want to talk a little about the particulars of the Clean Power Plan and address some of the questions that have been raised by some of the opponents. I think the first premise has to be that carbon is an airborne pollutant; that the Clean Air Act doesn't just give the EPA the authority to regulate airborne pollutants, it actually requires that all airborne pollutants that can cause a public health risk get regulated. That is the basis of the Supreme Court decision. This doesn't give the EPA the discretion--this doesn't give the Obama administration the discretion to regulate carbon pollution, it requires that they do so. So the only question is not a legal one. The legal one has been settled. The EPA is required to regulate pollution under the Clean Air Act. The only question remaining is, Is carbon a pollutant? I don't think there is anybody credible in this Chamber who thinks carbon is not a pollutant. Look, I think we are actually making progress. Over the last 6 to 12 months, we have seen a sea change among Republican Members of Congress who are increasingly concerned, I think, about being on the wrong side of history, about being on the wrong side of science, about being on the wrong side of a whole generation of young voters--Republican, Democratic, and Independent--who understands this is one of the great challenges of our generation. So we are seeing some movement. We are seeing some openness to at least concede that this problem, in fact, exists. We have this incredible law in the Clean Air Act. We don't need to pass a new law. Of course, Senator Whitehouse and I have been working very hard with Senator Boxer and others on a carbon fee, but we also have the tools at our disposal to regulate carbon pollution. Like methane and other airborne pollutants, it is causing environmental and health damage. The Clean Power Plan is very simple. It is treating this as though it is the pollutant that it is. Originally, I think there were some legitimate concerns about how this thing was going to get administered. I will give a ``for example.'' If you are in a very small rural State and you are going to regulate not a State's total carbon emissions but an individual powerplant's carbon emissions, that is a very tough sell. There are instances where, because of legacy infrastructure, because of distance--for instance, in Hawaii we have remote and relatively small islands. So it is very difficult to ask the island of Lanai, which is running on diesel-fired generators, or the island of Molokai, to, at an individual powerplant level, reduce carbon emissions. That is tough. They can make improvements in efficiency, but they may not be able to meet the standard. So the idea is to allow all of it to aggregate. What Hawaii did, we have a Hawaii Clean Energy Initiative, recognizing that there are going to be some places that will have incredible challenges economically and in terms of the financing of the projects, incredible challenges complying at the micro level, at the site level, at the power generation level, but if we provide flexibility to States--and I know in California with the Cap-and-Trade Program and the Northeast with the RGGI Program, there is a flexibility regionally or within States of energy systems to say that as long as you, in the aggregate, are making sufficient progress, we are going to allow you to figure out how to make that progress on your own. So we anticipate these rules will provide sufficient flexibility to allow economies to thrive. I will make one final point on this before hearing from the great Senator from California; that is, all of the hue and cry, all of the panic, all of the heartburn about what is going to happen to our economy doesn't have to be an abstract question anymore. We have States currently exceeding the anticipated thresholds in the clean powerplants. So we don't have to imagine what is going to happen to various economies if we comply because we have States such as California, we have the Hawaii Clean Energy Initiative. Two years ago, I was on the floor talking about the Hawaii Clean Energy Initiative with a 40-percent renewable portfolio standard, and the legislature in the last 3 or 4 months just passed the first 100 percent clean energy statute in the United States. Our unemployment rate is 4 percent, and we have exceeded our previous goals. California, with its Cap-and-Trade Program, and all the hue and cry and panic about what would happen to our economy--California is booming. Hawaii is doing well. People still have their economic challenges, but it is not because of our desire to drive an innovation economy and to try to solve this great challenge of our time. We can create clean energy jobs. We can innovate into the future. America has an incredible opportunity to lead in this space. I am so pleased to be part of that innovation and part of that leadership. We are putting our marker down as a country. We understand this is going to take a global effort, but now America has the credibility to lead on climate. Mr. President, I yield the floor to the great Senator from California.

Mr. SCHATZ

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

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, the facts are undeniable. Climate change is real, it is caused by humans, it is happening now, and, it is solvable. Today I would like to talk about a noncontroversial way to reduce 10 percent of the world's carbon pollution: fighting deforestation. Of course, no single action will solve climate change, but stopping deforestation is underrated as a solution, with a high impact and a low cost. While we have been on this floor for years in an intense, often partisan, debate over pipelines and the EPA's rules on coal-fired powerplants, forest conservation is an area where we have always had strong bipartisan support. As forests are cut down, two things happen. First, carbon stored in trees is released. Second, the trees stop absorbing carbon from the atmosphere. Each year, the world loses forests the size of Ohio, and that rate is increasing. Unless we act, an area twice the size of Texas will be lost by the year 2030. Of course, most deforestation is happening in tropical forests, in the Amazon, the Congo River Basin, and in Southeast Asia. But global demand, including demand from the United States, for palm oil, soy, beef, and timber products greatly contributes to forest loss in these regions. This is why the United States has to lead in stopping deforestation. There are three things that we can do: First, we have to fully implement and fund the Lacey Act. This law prohibits the import of illegally harvested wood products but has only been in place since 2008. Congress hasn't given the USDA and other agencies the tools to fully implement it. We are good at catching raw products like lumber from illegally harvested forests, but we still need more tools to catch illegal wood, which is in processed products such as furniture. Full enforcement of the Lacey Act could keep 27 million metric tons of carbon pollution out of the atmosphere each year. This is equivalent to the emissions from more than 5 million cars every year. The Lacey Act is also good for the U.S. timber industry because illegally harvested wood products undercut this industry by $1 billion in 2013 by reducing the competitive advantage of legal timber. Second, we have to support private sector commitments to stopping deforestation. We have had some recent very good news in this space. Driven by consumer demand, 34 corporations recently committed to cutting deforestation from their products in half by 2020 and ending it by 2030. These are big companies--Walmart, McDonald's, and Unilever, among many others. These businesses were joined by 35 governments, 16 indigenous groups, and 45 NGOs. This was the first time that leaders from developed and developing countries have partnered around a timeline for ending deforestation. One challenge in meeting these commitments is that we don't have a robust standard to verify that they are being met. Without this, we are merely taking everyone's word for it, but the United States can lead in monitoring and verifying these commitments. Publicly available satellite imagery from NASA and USGS has already allowed forest scientists to measure the magnitude of global deforestation, but we still need more accurate, real-time monitoring of the carbon content in forests, and the technologies do exist. Finally, we have to provide forested countries with technical and financial support to protect and grow their forests. Absorbing carbon with trees is more cost-effective and more energy efficient than doing so from coal or gas powerplants. This is because trees capture carbon using energy from the Sun and powerplants capture carbon using additional energy from a powerplant. Despite the ability of forests to capture and store carbon, we can't just tell landowners to stop cutting down their trees. They are often in a very dire financial situation on a personal level. We have to share with them our expertise in sustainable forest management--how to prosper from a forest without cutting it down and moving on to the next stand. The State Department, USAID, and USDA bring sought-after knowledge in this area from how to fight forest fires to how to combat illegal logging. We also have to provide financial incentives for landowners to protect their forests. The economic benefit of forests is real. They store carbon, filter water, keep soil healthy, and protect against erosion. The value of a forest's ecological services, not just its raw materials, must be recognized in the global economy. REDD-plus programs--shorthand for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation--provide a mechanism for financially rewarding countries that reduce emissions from deforestation. If we want to lead in solving climate change, we have to contribute our fair share to these programs. Thankfully, forests in the United States absorb more carbon than they release. However, the U.S. Forest Service estimates that the loss of forests through urban growth and wildfires could make our forests a source of carbon pollution as soon as 2030. We have to ensure that our forests continue to absorb more carbon than they release and work with our allies to protect our forests abroad. We have solutions on climate change. Stopping deforestation is one of them, and it is one of the solutions I am most excited about because it is an opportunity for bipartisan work. We know what we need to do, and we know how to do it. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I want to join my colleagues in voicing my support for President Obama's proposal to extend overtime benefits to nearly 5 million people across the country. These new rules will significantly enhance family budgets and add over $1.2 billion nationwide to workers' pockets. Once implemented, the proposal would more than double the salary threshold for overtime eligibility from the current level of $455 per week to $970 a week next year. That means employees earning an annual salary of around $50,000 or less will automatically become eligible for overtime pay. Today, the annual salary threshold for earning overtime pay is around $24,000. That is well below the poverty level for a family of four, particularly so for families in Hawaii. The overtime salary threshold is long overdue for an update. Since 1975, it has been updated only once. Forty years ago, nearly two in three employees benefited from overtime pay--two in three. Today, it is one in nine. I appreciate the priority this administration and especially Secretary Perez have placed on work and family issues, policies that directly impact the lives of average Americans. According to the Department of Labor, approximately 20,000 workers in Hawaii would become eligible for overtime pay with this rule change. By increasing the overtime salary threshold, current employees would be able to earn more money and employers could hire more workers, creating more jobs for our economy. Housing, transportation, and food costs in Hawaii have made Hawaii one of the most expensive places to live in the country. The high cost of living requires a large percentage of people in Hawaii to work more than one job. The new overtime rules could allow workers to make a liveable wage with one job. If a worker is able to live without a need for a second or third job, it creates more employment opportunities for individuals struggling with unemployment or underemployment to find work. The potential change in overtime rules can offer more than financial benefit to Americans. If a business does not want to pay overtime, the employees' hours would be limited to 40 hours a week. Since they are salaried and not paid by the hour, they would have more time off with no loss of pay. This would allow individuals to better balance their work and family obligations and give them the opportunity to spend more time with their family, a chance to volunteer in their community, or perhaps further their education. The new rules will be subject to a 60-day public comment period. I encourage my constituents from Hawaii to let their voice be heard. This change in overtime rules is appropriate and will help to lift our national and state economy, offer families more choices, and foster greater fairness in the workplace. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SCHATZ

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

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, the facts are undeniable. Climate change is real. It is caused by humans. It is happening now and it is solvable. One solution to climate change is putting a fair price on carbon pollution. Last week, Senator Whitehouse and I introduced a bill, S. 1548, to do just that and to return all of the revenue to American families and businesses. I thank Senator Whitehouse for his leadership on this bill, but we want a Republican dance partner. We want conservative leadership on this great challenge of our time. Climate change increases the severity and frequency of storms and natural disasters. This is not only a humanitarian problem but also an economic issue. A heat wave in Texas in 2011, for example, caused $5 billion in livestock and crop losses. Climate change makes events like this 20 times more likely to occur today than in the 1960s. Climate change's impact on the economy is particularly damaging because it creates so much uncertainty. There is a role for the government here. The administration is doing everything it can to reduce carbon pollution within the statutory constraints of the Clean Air Act, but it will not get us to the reductions we need. Congress needs to step in and legislate to get the reductions we need to make sure we are protecting low-income and working families and growing our economy. Regulations like the Clean Power Plan and market mechanisms such as a price on carbon are not mutually exclusive; in fact, they work together. They are mutually reinforcing. If powerplants reduce emissions under the Clean Power Plan, they will pay less in carbon fees. Market mechanisms for reducing pollution work. In the 1990s, President George H.W. Bush used cap and trade to reduce emissions from sulfur dioxide in order to combat acid rain. The program was successful in slashing emissions, which not only meant healthier lakes and waterways but healthier communities. The health benefits for humans linked to lower sulfur dioxide emissions were estimated at $50 billion annually by 2010.

Mr. SCHATZ. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. SCHATZ. I thank the Senator from California. Through the Chair, I will answer the first question. First, when it comes to the Pope's encyclical, it seems to me that he is displaying the moral leadership that is going to be necessary in all sectors--in the private sector, in the public sector, among Democrats, Republicans, Independents. People across the planet are starting to understand the magnitude of the climate challenge. One of the reasons I have been coming to the floor so frequently is not to lambaste the other party, but rather to encourage that there be conservative leadership in this space. There is certainly progressive leadership in this space. There is increasingly corporate leadership. There is leadership in the Department of Defense, in the scientific community. But what we really need is for conservatives to step up and to acknowledge the reality of this problem and propose their own set of solutions. They may disagree with a carbon fee or a cap-and-trade program or the President's Clean Power Plan. But let's have that debate out in the open. Come down and beat up on our bill or beat up on the President's proposal. That is fine. But we need to have this great debate in this great Chamber because this is one of the greatest challenges of our time. To the Senator's second question, talking a little bit about how cap and trade has worked in California but also how market-based mechanisms have worked all over North America and across the planet, the Senator is right. There is a cap-and-trade program in California, and the economy has continued to improve. The State's fiscal situation has continued to improve. We have the Hawaii Clean Energy Initiative. We have tripled clean energy in a very short period of time, all while unemployment has gone down. In 2008, British Columbia became the first and only jurisdiction in North America with an economy-wide price on carbon emissions. Seven years later, evidence shows that even going it alone, British Columbia was able to reduce petroleum consumption more than the rest of Canada and without any negative impact on growth. So the Senator from California is right. We can do this and grow our economy. But we are going to need bipartisan leadership. Market mechanisms are one of the most straightforward solutions to climate change. They have growing support across the ideological spectrum. The carbon fee in our bill is predictable. It can start right away. There is no new government program to administer or to run and no need for complex financial transactions or trading. It is simple and relatively easy to administer, and it gets the reductions that we need: an estimated 40 percent of greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2030. The bill, importantly, is revenue neutral. The original carbon fee legislation poured back the new revenue into a bunch of goodies that I liked in terms of dealing with the challenge of climate change. But we understand that if we are going to get Republican support, this needs to be revenue neutral or close to it, and we need to use the revenue to ameliorate the challenges that are going to occur as we transition into a clean energy economy. It also lowers corporate tax rates, which will make our Tax Code more competitive with other countries. But reducing carbon emissions and growing our economy ought to go hand in hand. This bill lays out a clear framework for how to accomplish that. Climate change demands leadership from both progressives and conservatives. A price on carbon is a market-based solution that can appeal to people of multiple ideologies but share a common goal of solving one of the great challenges of our time. In the tradition of Margaret Thatcher and Barry Goldwater, we need conservatives to embrace their own market-based solutions to our climate challenge. There is nothing conservative about ignoring the collective knowledge of the scientific establishment. There is nothing conservative about ignoring the warnings from our Department of Defense. There is nothing conservative about shirking our responsibility for global leadership. There is nothing conservative about conducting a dangerous experiment on the only planet that we have. So we have no desire for this to continue to be an issue where only one party is on the floor talking about it. Let's have the argument about what the right solution set ought to be. But let's have it out in the open, and let's have it together. I yield the floor.

Mr. SCHATZ. Yes, I will be pleased to yield to the Senator from California.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee for his gentlemanliness and for our ability to work together in spaces where we agree and when we have to disagree, to be agreeable about it. I really appreciate that relationship. Mr. President, I wish to talk about climate change, and I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, climate change is real, it is caused by humans, it is urgent, and it is solvable. Climate change is real, it is caused by humans, it is urgent, and it is solvable. This year we have had some debates about climate change on the Senate floor and a majority of Members, including more than a few Republicans, have admitted that climate change is real and caused by humans. We have passed bipartisan amendments calling for the United States to reduce carbon pollution and to fight human-induced climate change. That is a necessary step in the right direction, but it is not enough. We need to take real action. We need to focus on real solutions, and here is the exciting part. There are plenty of real-world cost- effective solutions to climate change. A lot of them empower every day Americans, giving them more control in terms of how they get their energy. One of these solutions is distributed energy generation, or DG. DG is creating a real revolution in the energy sector by putting individuals and homeowners in control. The ability to own carbon-free power generation is helping everyday Americans realize that even though Washington is slow in the extreme on these questions, they can be part of the solution. DG systems are small, but they provide major benefits. They can be more efficient, help promote national security, reduce electricity and fuel bills, and provide power during blackouts. Most important for fighting climate change, distributed generation lets us take advantage of major advances in clean energy. Through the use of renewable DG, such as small-scale wind, solar, and geothermal, Americans can take simple steps to reduce their carbon footprint. This is the important thing about distributed generation, and we are seeing it across the country in red States and blue States, among conservatives and liberals. You don't have to be as passionate as I am about climate change to be enthusiastic about distributed generation, because nobody wants to pay more than is necessary on their electricity bill. The idea of generating your own electricity is very attractive to individuals--regardless of their ideology, regardless of their partisan affiliation. This has tremendous potential to save individuals, business, and institutions real money. DG is changing the nature of the U.S. energy system. It is especially true in Hawaii, where more than 12 percent of our residents have rooftop solar, which is by far the highest rate in the United States. Rooftop solar is the most well-known renewable DG resource--and for good reason. The price of solar panels has come down 80 percent since 2008, and the cost to install residential systems has dropped by about half since 2010--80 percent cheaper since 2008 for the panels and about half as expensive just to get them on a roof since 2010. The prices are going down and down, and the economics are changing. What we thought was possible with respect to distributed generation a couple of years ago is changing everything we know about the U.S. energy system. In 2006, about 30,000 homes in the United States had rooftop solar. By 2013, that number had risen to over 400,000 homes. According to the Energy Information Administration and the Department of Energy, as many as 4 million homes could have solar panels within 5 years. But DG is far more than just rooftop solar. Small wind systems sized for homes, schools, farms, and remote communities are taking off, with over 74,000 turbines installed in all 50 States. One family in upstate New York installed a small wind turbine on its farm in 2012. Rated at 50 kilowatts, it will actually run at 60 or 70 when the wind is strong. They liked it so much, three branches of the family decided to lease three 10-kilowatt turbines for their homes, expecting to make back their initial investment within 5 years and to make a profit after that. Ed Doody, one of those farmers, says: My wife says it's like change in your pocket. When it's running, you make a little money. Small-scale biogas systems offer farmers and ranchers opportunities to save money on energy and reduce methane emissions. Over 250 farms in the United States have made this investment, and the economics work for many more. One dairy farm in California has installed a system that uses manure to create and capture gas to run a 700-kilowatt generator. The farm saves $800,000 per year in electricity and propane expenses and will earn back the money from its initial investment in just 4 years. As you know, I am passionate about climate change, but you don't have to care about climate change to be excited about distributed generation. This is going to save people money, and that is the exciting thing about it. There are many factors that are adding to the dramatic growth of distributed energy, including evolving State-level incentives and interconnection standards. But the most important reason has been the reduction in cost, especially when it comes to solar. It is simply getting cheaper for a homeowner or a farmer to see real savings by investing in clean energy. A major reason for these cost reductions has been consistent, predictable, Federal and State support. From about 2005 until recently, Congress has done a fairly good job of providing consistent support for clean energy and distributed generation. We provided long-term tax credits that helped industries scale up and appropriated funds for the DOE necessary to spur real innovation and bring down the costs. But that consistent support has tapered off in recent years with the expiration of a number of important credits. The clean energy industry will suffer further when the business and homeowner tax credits for renewable energy expire at the end of next year. That is why I plan to introduce, in the coming weeks, a bill that would extend the homeowner tax credit for solar, wind, and geothermal. This credit allows Americans to take control of their own energy futures, and Congress should extend it. The explosion in DG does pose real challenges. Electric utilities must adjust to a world where power flows in all directions, and the lines between ratepayers and generators become blurred. This challenges the traditional utility business model, and there is nowhere that is facing this challenge more seriously than the State of Hawaii, where we have a series of island grids and we have unprecedented penetration of renewable energy into the grid. The old standard used to be a maximum of 15 percent of intermittent energy onto the grid, but we have parts of our grid that are in the 25 to 35 percent intermittent energy. So there are real challenges in upgrading our grid system, upgrading our electricity system, and creating a smart grid that can accommodate all of this distributed generation. But it also provides opportunities for innovation and the development of new American markets. This is not in the distant future, this is happening now. Each home, each business, each farm is now within reach of controlling its own energy future, often with carbon-free clean energy. Distributed energy is a real solution to climate change, both in the United States and around the world. It has created a revolution in energy production that we must harness and accelerate for the challenge of climate change, but it is a challenge we meet. What excites me so much about distributed generation is that as much as we were fighting about Keystone several months ago, as much as we are likely to have a fight over the Congressional Review Act, having to do with the President's Clean Power Plan, as much as I am, with Senator Whitehouse's leadership, going to introduce a carbon fee, there are lots of things where we are, frankly, not going to be able to find agreement any time soon, there are spaces where we can work together. Allowing individuals to generate their own electricity and reduce their power bills seems to be a good place to start in terms of bipartisan energy legislation. I thank the Presiding Officer for the time to speak about this exciting new possibility, and I yield the floor.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I am deeply honored to represent Hawaii-- my home State is second to none when it comes to patriotism, public service, and personal sacrifice. I thank the Senate for so swiftly passing S. Res. 109, a resolution I authored to acknowledge the deeds of 130 brave young men from Hawaii who answered the call to serve our country at a perilous time in our Nation's history. Passage of this resolution commemorates the 80th anniversary of the landing of the first Native Hawaiian colonists on remote equatorial islands in the Pacific. It also marks the 79th year since President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued an Executive order to proclaim the islands of Jarvis, Howland, and Baker under the jurisdiction of the United States. This was a 7-year colonization effort from 1935 to 1942 to secure and maintain the islands under the jurisdiction of the United States. The vast majority of the 130 individuals involved in colonization efforts were Native Hawaiian--many recent high school graduates of the Kamehameha Schools. Later colonists included those of Asian ancestry and recent graduates from high schools across Hawaii. These young men left their homes and families to be transported to barren equatorial islands, and were then largely left to fend for themselves and each other. They caught fish, constructed rudimentary lodgings, and throughout the years demonstrated great courage and self- reliance. What started as a dual purpose commercial and military venture, however, quickly evolved into a wartime strategy to extend American jurisdiction into the equatorial Pacific, establish radio communications and monitoring outposts, and prevent further Japanese encroachment in the region. Three young men lost their lives and others sustained permanent injuries during their service. Jarvis, Howland, and Baker were distant from each other and located hundreds of miles away from any major landmass. One colonist died due to the lack of access to medical treatment. Two others were killed on December 8, 1941, when the islands came under attack by Japanese submarine and military aircraft. The islands were targeted by the Japanese military numerous times. The U.S. Navy, consumed by the bombing of Pearl Harbor and official entry into World War II, could not rescue the surviving colonists until 2 months after the initial onslaught of Japanese military attacks. Upon their arrival home, the colonists shared little about their experiences or the hardships they endured on those remote equatorial islands. They returned to Hawaii to enlist in the U.S. military, join the civilian workforce, pursue higher education, raise families, serve their communities, and live out their days in relative anonymity. In 1956, participants of the colonization project established an organization in Hawaii called Hui Panalaau, in part to preserve ``the fellowship of the group'' and ``to honor and esteem those who died as colonists.'' Still, few outside of that group were even aware that colonists had served on equatorial islands in the Pacific in the years before and during the advent of World War II. A chance discovery of first source documents found in the possession of the Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum, including handwritten journals and logs of colonists, led to an exhibition in 2002 and later the release of a documentary in 2012, based in part on those discoveries and supplemented with the personal recollections of a number of surviving colonists. This film introduced the subject to many in Hawaii. People in our State and across the Nation learned about a significant but previously unknown part of our history. Last year, President Obama signed an Executive order expanding the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument to include Jarvis, Howland, and Baker, and I worked to ensure that his proclamation cited the ``notable bravery and sacrifice by a small number of voluntary Hawaiian colonists, known as Hui Panalaau, who occupied the islands from 1935 to 1942 to help secure the U.S. territorial claim over the islands.'' And now the Senate has taken the formal action to extend our Nation's deep appreciation to the Hui Panalaau colonists as well as condolences to the families of the three men that lost their lives in service of their country. It is my hope that the story of the Hui Panalaau colonists will be shared even more widely in Hawaii. It is also my sincere hope that the sacrifices and valor of the 130 sons of Hawaii will be understood in the context of the broader geopolitical strategy of World War II and that their deeds will be more fully understood and appreciated by Americans across the Nation. I would like to thank the chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee and the majority and minority leaders of the Senate for their support of this resolution, and their efforts to expedite committee consideration and floor passage. I also want to thank the entire Hawaii congressional delegation-- Senator Hirono, Representative Takai, and Representative Gabbard--for supporting this coordinated effort. The fact that the Senate chose to recognize the legacy of the Hui Panalaau colonists today, during the month of May--Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month--holds great significance. May is a time of year we celebrate the vibrant diversity and rich heritage of Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians, and Pacific Islanders and reflect on their contributions to our Nation's progress, and their prospective role in America's continuing promise.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Madam President, I wish to join my colleagues in voicing my opposition to granting fast-track authority. I oppose the procedures contained in the bill, and I am seriously concerned about using fast- track to pass trade agreements that don't reflect the best interests of the American people and can undermine the prerogatives of the Congress. Some who support fast-track would have us believe that opposing this bill and TPP means opposition to a free market, to trade, and to commerce; but that is not true. Commerce is essential, and we should be promoting it. But corporate interests should not be the driving force for public policy decisions on public health, consumer safety, and the environment. Just this week, a WTO ruling on our country-of-origin food labeling law provided a striking example of how what is called free trade can be used to erode consumer protection. The country-of-origin labeling law was passed by Congress, and it requires producers of meat and chicken to provide information to consumers on where the animal was raised and slaughtered. If we ask most people, they would say they want to know if their beef is from Texas or from Taiwan. And even if one isn't particularly passionate about that issue, I think most people would agree that it is squarely within the prerogatives and the constitutional duties of the U.S. Congress to decide. Consumers in the U.S. want to know where their food comes from. Through a legitimate, democratic process, we passed a law to provide consumers with this information. But no matter how we have revised the rule pursuant to the law, it is apparently still not in compliance with our WTO commitments. It seems that we will have to repeal the law to avoid trade sanctions. While our WTO obligations are not the same as our commitments under a free-trade agreement, it doesn't require too much imagination to see how other U.S. laws will buckle under future trade agreements. This is why the deal-breaker for me is the investor-state dispute settlement, or ISDS for short. ISDS provides a special forum outside of our well-established court system that is just for foreign investors. These investors are given the right to sue governments over laws and regulations that impact their businesses--a legal right not granted to anyone else. This forum is not available to anyone other than foreign investors. It is not open to domestic businesses. It is not open to labor unions, civil society groups or individuals that allege a violation of a treaty obligation. The arbitrators that preside over these cases are literally not accountable to anyone, and their decisions cannot be appealed. To date, nearly 600 ISDS cases have been filed. Of the 274 cases that have been concluded, almost 60 percent have settled or have been decided in favor of the investor. It is true that when a tribunal rules in favor of the investor, the arbitrators can't force the government to change its law, but they can order the government to pay the investor, which has the same effect. There is no limit to what compensation foreign investors can demand. The largest award to date was more than $2 billion. For a developing country that must pay this award, sometimes it represents up to a third of their GDP. Most governments cannot risk such a settlement and end up avoiding this kind of conflict altogether. The government often agrees to change the law or regulation that is being challenged and still pays some compensation. The threat of a case can be enough to convince a government to back away from legitimate public health, safety or environmental policies. ISDS cases cost millions of dollars to defend and take years to reach their final conclusion. The high profile cases filed by Philip Morris International challenging cigarette packaging laws have had a chilling effect around the world. Several countries have been intimidated into holding off on passing their own laws to reduce smoking. Every year of delay is a victory for tobacco companies. They get 1 more year to attract new, young smokers. In the case of tobacco, the cost of ISDS could be human life. I would hope that if we empower corporations to challenge democratically elected laws and regulations, that we would be doing so for an extremely compelling reason. But here is the thing: The rationale behind ISDS is extremely thin. Advocates claim that investor protections such as ISDS draw foreign investment into a country, but no one has actually been able to demonstrate that this link exists. Studies have not even been able to show a significant correlation between investor protections and the level of foreign investment in that country. Instead of driving decisions to invest, ISDS provisions are being manipulated by multinational corporations. Some companies seem to be setting up complex corporate structures explicitly for the purpose of taking advantage of existing ISDS provisions. This is what Australia is alleging that Philip Morris did to challenge Australia's tobacco laws. The Philip Morris Hong Kong entity bought shares in Philip Morris's Australian company just 10 months after Australia announced its cigarette plain packaging rules. It seems that Philip Morris did this for no other purpose than to gain access to the ISDS provision in the Hong Kong-Australia Bilateral Investment Treaty. ISDS is just another arrow in the quiver of legal options available to multinational corporations and no other entity or person. The consequences for public health, safety, and the environment far outweigh any real or imagined benefit of ISDS. For these reasons, I oppose fast-track and any trade agreement that contains an ISDS provision. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President. I wish to commend the courageous actions of Gregory Leach, a transportation security specialist- explosives at Lihue International Airport and a resident of Hawaii. Mr. Leach helped to rescue three swimmers who were in danger of drowning. His heroism and selflessness deserve to be recognized on the Senate floor today. Mr. Leach moved to Hawaii from Arkansas earlier this year to work as a transportation security specialist-explosives at Lihue International Airport. As a transportation security specialist-explosives, he supports screening operations to protect our transportation system from explosive threats. This past March, on the beach in Wailua, Kauai, Mr. Leach noticed three swimmers who were struggling to return to shore. He acted quickly and decisively, grabbing a rescue buoy and swimming out to the group. One of the swimmers was unconscious, and Mr. Leach brought the man back to shore. He returned to the water to help the remaining two swimmers, and once all the swimmers were safely on the beach, Mr. Leach conducted chest compressions on the unconscious man until rescue personnel arrived. Mr. Leach's selfless efforts ensured that two of the swimmers survived. Unfortunately, the unconscious man later passed away. According to Mr. Leach's supervisor, lead transportation security specialist-explosives Duane Samiano: Transportation Security Specialist-Explosives Leach did not hesitate to render aid in a life threatening situation to individuals he did not know. His actions speak greatly to his courage, selflessness and dedication to others. I am very proud to have him on my team. He is a great asset as a Transportation Security Specialist-Explosives and represents himself and this agency with excellence. I commend Mr. Leach for his actions, and I hope that his courage serves as an example for others.

Mr. SCHATZ

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