Brian Schatz

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 3627 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, on the Senate floor we have been focusing on policies that give Americans a fair shot, bills that would help to reverse the growing trend of income inequality and create more opportunities to climb the economic ladder, the idea that if you work hard and plays by the rules, you can do well for your family and you can create a better opportunity for your children and their children. Making college more affordable and reducing student loan debt is central to these goals. In fact, I think it is the middle-class issue of our generation. It is hard to get ahead nowadays without a college degree, but the cost of college is growing faster than the cost of all other consumer goods--twice as fast as health care costs. The growing cost of college is preventing some from getting a degree in the first place and leaving others with unmanageable levels of debt. This is the middle-class issue of our time. Students have taken on more than $1 trillion in debt to cover the cost of college. Student debt is now the fastest growing and highest consumer debt burden behind mortgages. This debt burden is not sustainable. Saddled with this debt, young adults are delaying starting families, buying homes and cars, and starting new businesses. The rate at which students are failing to repay their loans is alarming. Over one-third of borrowers who are in repayment are delinquent on their loans by 90 days or more. One-third of borrowers are delinquent. One of my constituents from Wahiawa, HI, took out a loan to help their son go to college. The loan was for $92,000 in 2006. Today they owe $143,000. This local resident says: The interest compounds. It's like a loan shark, pretty close. There's no way out. No way to pay it, ever. We are hearing these stories far too often from many families in Hawaii and across the country, and they need our help. A college education is supposed to be a path to opportunity and the American dream, not a life of debt. It is clear our current system is not working. The Federal Government is giving $140 billion a year in financial aid to institutions of higher learning in Federal grants and loans. That is good, not bad. Higher education is the straightest line for us to develop the workforce we need and for people to move up the economic ladder, but with that $140 billion we should be making college more affordable for students. Instead, we are getting the opposite result for the $140 billion. Average Pell grant awards have increased by almost 20 percent in the past 10 years. In that same time period, Pell grants covered 25 percent less of the average public school's tuition and fees. We are paying more and we are getting less. There is a growing gap between the financial aid that is available to students and the cost of college. To fill that gap, students are loading up on debt. Last summer, Congress passed a bipartisan student loan compromise that lowered the student loan interest rate for new borrowers, but millions of student borrowers were left out of that deal and are paying much higher rates. I am proud to join Senator Warren in introducing the Bank on Students Emergency Loan Refinancing Act. This bill will allow students with outstanding student loan debt to refinance at the same low interest rates offered to new borrowers under the bipartisan student loan compromise. That is fair. Students struggling with student debt deserve to get the same deal Congress is giving to new borrowers. But when we talk about making colleges more affordable, we need to remember that lowering student loan interest rates is only part of the problem. It is not just the interest; it is the principal. We need a bold long-term plan to bring down the cost of college. That is why I introduced the College Affordability and Innovation Act with Senators Chris Murphy, Patty Murray, and Bernie Sanders. The bill is about holding schools accountable to taxpayers and students. We want to reward those schools that are focused on affordability and give incentives for the rest to make affordability part of their mission. If you are a college, you can have whatever mission you want, but you have no special right to Federal funding. Our bill says, very simply, if you receive Federal dollars, part of your mission must be about affordability and access. There are potentially billions of dollars that are not being used wisely. As we invest in higher education--and we should, through student loan subsidies and Federal financial aid--we should make sure schools are actually fulfilling our Federal public policy goals of making college more affordable and more accessible for all students. Let's work together to make sure a college education is a path of opportunity for all students and not a life of debt.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I understand that there are two bills at the desk, and I ask for their first reading en bloc.

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I now ask for a second reading, and I object to my own request, all en bloc.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that the injunction of secrecy be removed from the following treaty transmitted to the Senate on May 7, 2014, by the President of the United States: the Protocol Amending the Tax Convention with Spain, treaty document No. 113-4. I further ask that the treaty be considered as having been read for the first time; that it be referred, with accompanying papers, to the Committee on Foreign Relations and ordered to be printed; and that the President's message be printed in the Record.

Mr. SCHATZ

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

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, May 8, 2014; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that following any leader remarks, the time until 11:15 be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees; that at 11:15 a.m. the Senate proceed to executive session under the previous order; further, that the cloture vote with respect to S. 2262, the Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act, occur upon disposition of Executive Calendar No. 4560 on Monday, May 12; finally, that the filing deadline for all first-degree amendments to S. 2262 be 1 p.m. tomorrow.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, tomorrow there will be a series of votes at 11:15 a.m and another series at 1:45 p.m.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the important role that energy efficiency plays in our transition to a clean energy economy, and the importance of supporting energy efficiency efforts with strong Federal policy. Today, Senators Cardin, Feinstein, and I introduced comprehensive legislation, called the Energy Efficiency Tax Incentives Act of 2014, to reform, improve, and extend crucial tax incentives for energy efficiency. Our legislation focuses on three key sectors: commercial buildings, homes, and industry and manufacturing. My colleagues have spoken ably about the first two already today, and I would like to spend a few moments discussing the third title of this bill. This bill would create targeted, non-permanent incentives to help the U.S. industrial sector become more globally competitive by employing smart technological improvements to reduce energy use and encourage water reuse. We have continually seen the eagerness of U.S. industries to innovate and improve the processes by which they produce countless high-quality goods. This set of incentives will help U.S. manufacturers accelerate and expand cutting-edge ideas while also reducing costs. Industrial and manufacturing facilities have processes specific to each industry and even to each facility. Therefore, industrial efficiency improvements must be focused on these processes, not building retrofits like we see in commercial and residential efficiency measures. My colleagues and I have worked to develop incentives that target energy-intensive processes common to the industrial sector. They include advanced motors, water reuse, combined heat and power and waste heat recovery, thermal biomass, and efficient chillers. I would like to take a few moments to describe the various sections of the industrial efficiency title of the bill. On average, motors account for over 65 percent of an industrial energy user's electricity use, according to analysis by the International Energy Agency. This bill creates a credit for advanced industrial use motors, including variable speed motors. New advances in power electronics and controls over the past 5 years have advanced the potential for new smart motor technologies to provide a significant energy savings potential if these new motors are placed widely into service. According to the National Water Reuse Association, the U.S. currently reuses only 7.3 percent of its water, and there is significant potential for gains in this area. The industrial sector, which is responsible for 62.5 percent of domestic freshwater withdrawals, is an ideal place to introduce transformative water reuse and water saving technologies. The bill would create a technology-neutral, performance- based investment tax credit for reuse, recycling, and/or efficiency measures related to industrial water reuse in the manufacturing sector. A recent Department of Energy study estimates that achieving the President's goal of 40 gigawatts of Combined Heat and Power, also known as CHP, would save energy users $10 billion a year compared to current energy use. In 2008, Congress enacted a 10 percent investment tax credit for combined heat and power systems. The bill would expand that credit's applicability, from the first 15 megawatts to the first 25 megawatts of system capacity. The bill would also remove the existing overall system size cap of 50 megawatts, allowing a greater number of combined heat and power projects to be financially viable and move forward. Finally, the bill would create two new tiers of the credit for CHP systems that achieve especially high efficiency levels. By encouraging adoption of CHP and waste heat recovery technologies, this bill is a common-sense set of incentives that will help manufacturers to become more efficient, reduce energy costs, create highly skilled jobs, and ensure the delivery of reliable power. New technologies have developed recently that can take advantage of low-grade heat sources. Called Waste Heat to Power, these systems can achieve even greater levels of efficiency from industrial and manufacturing applications. Currently no incentives exist to promote thermal-only biomass use for commercial and industrial applications. Using biomass for thermal applications has numerous advantages over using biomass to produce electricity. Thermal use is significantly more efficient, less polluting, and more appropriately-scaled to biomass resources. Finally, large water-cooled chillers are the engines of air- conditioning systems for almost all large buildings. This bill would establish a tax credit that incentivizes the replacement of older chillers that still use environmentally harmful CFC refrigerants with chillers that are both more efficient and use fewer harmful chemicals. Recent years have seen a resurgence in American industry and manufacturing. As we work to get our economy back on track, become more competitive globally, and fight climate change, we should consider robust efficiency incentives for our industrial sector as a crucial tool in achieving those goals. I would like to commend my colleagues Senator Cardin and Senator Feinstein for their hard work on this bill. It represents the latest thinking in terms of straightforward, performance-based technology- neutral, non-permanent efficiency incentives. As we aim to improve efficiency in the industrial, commercial building, and residential sectors, I urge my colleagues in the Senate to support this critical bill.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the important role that energy efficiency plays in our transition to a clean energy economy, and the importance of supporting energy efficiency efforts with strong Federal policy. Today, Senators Cardin, Feinstein, and I introduced comprehensive legislation, called the Energy Efficiency Tax Incentives Act of 2014, to reform, improve, and extend crucial tax incentives for energy efficiency. Our legislation focuses on three key sectors: commercial buildings, homes, and industry and manufacturing. My colleagues have spoken ably about the first two already today, and I would like to spend a few moments discussing the third title of this bill. This bill would create targeted, non-permanent incentives to help the U.S. industrial sector become more globally competitive by employing smart technological improvements to reduce energy use and encourage water reuse. We have continually seen the eagerness of U.S. industries to innovate and improve the processes by which they produce countless high-quality goods. This set of incentives will help U.S. manufacturers accelerate and expand cutting-edge ideas while also reducing costs. Industrial and manufacturing facilities have processes specific to each industry and even to each facility. Therefore, industrial efficiency improvements must be focused on these processes, not building retrofits like we see in commercial and residential efficiency measures. My colleagues and I have worked to develop incentives that target energy-intensive processes common to the industrial sector. They include advanced motors, water reuse, combined heat and power and waste heat recovery, thermal biomass, and efficient chillers. I would like to take a few moments to describe the various sections of the industrial efficiency title of the bill. On average, motors account for over 65 percent of an industrial energy user's electricity use, according to analysis by the International Energy Agency. This bill creates a credit for advanced industrial use motors, including variable speed motors. New advances in power electronics and controls over the past 5 years have advanced the potential for new smart motor technologies to provide a significant energy savings potential if these new motors are placed widely into service. According to the National Water Reuse Association, the U.S. currently reuses only 7.3 percent of its water, and there is significant potential for gains in this area. The industrial sector, which is responsible for 62.5 percent of domestic freshwater withdrawals, is an ideal place to introduce transformative water reuse and water saving technologies. The bill would create a technology-neutral, performance- based investment tax credit for reuse, recycling, and/or efficiency measures related to industrial water reuse in the manufacturing sector. A recent Department of Energy study estimates that achieving the President's goal of 40 gigawatts of Combined Heat and Power, also known as CHP, would save energy users $10 billion a year compared to current energy use. In 2008, Congress enacted a 10 percent investment tax credit for combined heat and power systems. The bill would expand that credit's applicability, from the first 15 megawatts to the first 25 megawatts of system capacity. The bill would also remove the existing overall system size cap of 50 megawatts, allowing a greater number of combined heat and power projects to be financially viable and move forward. Finally, the bill would create two new tiers of the credit for CHP systems that achieve especially high efficiency levels. By encouraging adoption of CHP and waste heat recovery technologies, this bill is a common-sense set of incentives that will help manufacturers to become more efficient, reduce energy costs, create highly skilled jobs, and ensure the delivery of reliable power. New technologies have developed recently that can take advantage of low-grade heat sources. Called Waste Heat to Power, these systems can achieve even greater levels of efficiency from industrial and manufacturing applications. Currently no incentives exist to promote thermal-only biomass use for commercial and industrial applications. Using biomass for thermal applications has numerous advantages over using biomass to produce electricity. Thermal use is significantly more efficient, less polluting, and more appropriately-scaled to biomass resources. Finally, large water-cooled chillers are the engines of air- conditioning systems for almost all large buildings. This bill would establish a tax credit that incentivizes the replacement of older chillers that still use environmentally harmful CFC refrigerants with chillers that are both more efficient and use fewer harmful chemicals. Recent years have seen a resurgence in American industry and manufacturing. As we work to get our economy back on track, become more competitive globally, and fight climate change, we should consider robust efficiency incentives for our industrial sector as a crucial tool in achieving those goals. I would like to commend my colleagues Senator Cardin and Senator Feinstein for their hard work on this bill. It represents the latest thinking in terms of straightforward, performance-based technology- neutral, non-permanent efficiency incentives. As we aim to improve efficiency in the industrial, commercial building, and residential sectors, I urge my colleagues in the Senate to support this critical bill.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. I yield the floor.

Mr. SCHATZ. I rise with 29 of my colleagues with a simple message for Congress and for our Nation: Climate change is real; climate change is caused by humans; and climate change is solvable. We will not rest until Congress wakes up and acts on the most pressing issue of our time. Why are we doing this? Why are we taking this particular action to take the floor tonight and into the morning right now? The answer is simple: This is the floor of the U.S. Senate, the greatest deliberative body in the world. This is where historically America has addressed some of its toughest challenges. Tonight has to be the historic beginning of us facing the challenge of our generation. The real question ought to be: Why haven't we done this sooner and, perhaps more pointedly, why isn't every single Member of this body down here with us? Tonight is just the beginning. We are going to continue to push throughout the year, and the public is with us--Independents, Democrats, and Republicans. Americans are calling for action. The only place where climate change is still an open debate is within the four corners of this Capitol. I have seen what can happen when there is a real commitment to clean energy and clear goals laid out. In my home State of Hawaii we set aggressive goals and doubled our use of clean energy in just 3 years. Tackling climate change is going to require the entire country working together.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. I wish to speak a little bit about how I believe taking action on climate is consistent with conservative principles. My understanding of conservative principles--and I am a progressive--but my understanding of conservative principles is basically that they value incrementalism, that they understand the importance of institutions, that they try to move slowly where possible, that they try not to make radical changes to communities or societies or organizations unless it is absolutely necessary. There is no more radical change that we could make to our economy, to our physical environment, to our communities, to our government than to allow climate change to move forward. It seems to me what the Senator is saying is exactly right. There are plenty of conservatives who are prepared to take action in this area. Right now what we need is a Republican dance partner. I think we have them. I think there are those who understand and may have quiet conversations with us and nod and agree that the situation is getting increasingly dire and increasingly real and scientifically based in fact, but they don't want to be the first one caught making sense. They don't want to be putting themselves at the tip of that spear. So one of the reasons we are here tonight is to hopefully galvanize the American public to go back to their more reasonable Republican Members and say: Remember when you said you would be a middle-of-the- road Republican. This is the way to demonstrate that you are a middle- of-the-road Republican. This is the way to demonstrate that you are a true moderate. When the Department of Defense is saying this is a real strategic challenge, this is not the province of the League of Conservation Voters anymore. I love them. But listen. This is beyond conservation organizations. This is beyond my particular passion for Hawaii's environment. This is about the future of the United States of America and our economic viability. So there are going to be Republican dance partners, but we all as--not just as a Senate but as a country--have to create a political environment in which they can operate with us and we can get to 60 votes. We don't have those votes right now. But as the Senator from Rhode Island said, it always looks more difficult than it is, and it is always impossible until you get it done. So that is what this is about tonight.

Mr. SCHATZ. I would just add there is another motivation that I think will come to bear among all of our colleagues. Actually, the Presiding Officer spoke passionately along these lines, and that is our conscience. There is no doubt there are people of good will on both sides of the aisle in this Senate and in the House, and what is happening to people as a result of climate change pricks everyone's conscience. I wish to talk a little bit about a small island state that probably most people have never heard of. It is called Kiribati. It has become a cautionary tale for low-lying places across the Asian Pacific region and the world. It is 900 miles south of Hilo. Kiribati's Fanning Atoll is the closest land feature to Hawaii, making Kiribati actually way closer to Hawaii than to California. Put another way, the people of Kiribati are our neighbors. More than 100,000 people live on 21 of Kiribati's 33 corral islands. Thirty-two of those islands are low-lying atolls where most of the population lives just 2 meters above sea level. The close proximity to the sea is already taking its toll, as rising seas contaminate water tables with salt water, denude fertile land, and decimate the few island crops the land can support. Kiribati's President, Anote Tong, has taken great pains to focus attention on his country's plight. His sobering remarks from last November are worth recounting. He said: The outer island communities have been affected, we have a village which has gone, we have a number of communities where the sea water has broken through into the freshwater pond and is now affecting the food crops. That is happening on different islands, it's not an isolated event, serious inundation is being witnessed. These are the realities we are facing, whether they are climate change induced or not. If you travel around Kiribati, it is impossible to miss the long stretch of seawalls people have built to protect their homes from the encroaching sea. Besides the sea level rise, low-lying atolls such as Kiribati face risk of being pummeled by the next tempest. Barely above the water's edge, places such as Kiribati face the risk of having storm surge and sea level rise amplified by the typhoon that roars through the Pacific, washing over runways, roads, and homes lying just above sea level. The risks are even more acute for families living in these Pacific island states where, because of the limited space for agricultural and commercial development, population density remains extraordinarily high. Take South Tarawa, the capital of Kiribati, where the population is close to 5,000 people per square kilometer--one of the most densely populated areas on the planet. These densely populated areas make Mother Nature's destructive power even more devastating. The cards would appear to be stacked against countries like Kiribati, and not surprisingly outside observers have been less sanguine about its fate. Journalist Jeffrey Goldberg described it this way: The apocalypse could come even sooner for Kiribati if violent storms, of the sort that recently destroyed parts of the Philippines, strike its islands. He said: For all of these reasons, the 103,000 citizens of Kiribati may soon become refugees, perhaps the first mass movement of people fleeing the consequences of global warming rather than war or famine. Almost 6,000 nautical miles away, in the Indian Ocean, the Maldives face a similar fate to Kiribati. The island state of nearly 400,000 faces risks of sea level rise and extreme weather events that threaten to inundate its communities with swells of storm surge that leave families and their loved ones literally underwater. In 2009, leaders in the Maldives staged a dramatic demonstration ahead of the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, when they held a cabinet meeting on the bottom of the ocean floor to foreshadow their impending fate if the world failed to act in the face of climate change. Maldives President Mohamed Nasheed told observers: We're now actually trying to send our message, let the world know what is happening, and what will happen to the Maldives if climate change is not checked. If the Maldives cannot be saved today we do not feel that there is much of a chance for the rest of the world. Leaders spent 30 minutes on the ocean floor that day. When later asked about what would happen if the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen failed to produce an agreement among states, President Nasheed simply said: ``We are going to die.'' In addition to sea level rise, island nations face other immense challenges from climate change. Slight changes in ocean temperature from increased warming and increased ocean acidity, which scientists explain as a consequence of oceans observing more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, disproportionately affect communities living on island nations. I would like to ask the Senator from Rhode Island to talk a little bit about ocean acidification and the impact it is having on fisheries in the Northeast. I know it is having a real cultural and economic and environmental impact, and I am not totally sure people are fully grasping how dangerous this is, not just from an ecological standpoint but from a food security standpoint, from a price of food standpoint, from the standpoint of jobs and the economy. I am hoping the Senator from Rhode Island can elucidate this.

Mr. SCHATZ. I ask the Senator, what does that mean as a practical matter for the fisheries industry, for people who like to eat fish? What is the impact of ocean acidification? Because the Senator has, in very plain language, explained the science of this.

Mr. SCHATZ. But what does this mean to a regular person?

Mr. SCHATZ. You should be proud of your Rhode Island oysters. I care about oysters.

Mr. SCHATZ. Well, it is really important to dwell on the question of what is happening to our oceans, not just because it is critically important but because I think that because it is more difficult to see it does not get enough attention. What is happening to our fisheries is every bit as drastic, in some cases more drastic, than what is happening in our agricultural sector. When there is a drought or when there is difficulty in our agricultural sector, it is ably represented in the Senate by its able home State Senators. Yet when there is a fisheries difficulty, it is more difficult to pin down. It does not necessarily become the new story a drought or any difficulty in a growing season may create. This is something we have to talk about both on the recreational fisherman side as well as on the commercial fishing side. I know that in a lot of States in the Southeast, in the northeast, on the west coast and certainly in Hawaii, people who fish, maybe recreationally, maybe for subsistence, or maybe as a commercial venture, it is really part and parcel of the culture of the place. It is not purely an economic issue, it is something you do with your children and their children. It is part of where you live. It is part of what it means to be from Hawaii or from Louisiana or from Florida or from Rhode Island. This is part of the American experience. To the degree and extent we are diminishing that experience, setting aside the economics for the moment, that is very significant. I know people across the State of Hawaii grew up fishing and treasure that opportunity to share what is in the ocean with their families.

Mr. SCHATZ. I thank the Senator from Rhode Island. I am going to talk about something that I think is astonishing. The Senator from New Mexico earlier talked about this, but this is mind- boggling to me, and it may be a surprise that the Senator from Hawaii is talking about this. I have a 10-year-old son and a 6-year-old daughter. It has been at least that long since I have been snowboarding, but I enjoyed it when I was a lot younger and my knees were better. But what is happening to winter recreation is really bad news. One source states that roughly 23 million people participate in winter sporting activities, adding $12 billion to the economy and employing almost 212,000 people. Roughly 20 million Americans over the age of 6 ski or snowboard. The industry generates more than $11 billion across 38 States. You do not have to be a climate scientist to recognize that skiers are dependent upon consistent, plentiful snow. You do not have to be an economist to realize that ski areas are only sustainable in places with plentiful snow and cold weather, aside perhaps from the indoor ski slopes in certain places such as Dubai. So what does it tell you when you see ski resorts struggling to meet their bottom lines due to winters so warm that even with enormous artificial snow systems, they cannot keep snow on their mountain? Mountains cannot move. They cannot migrate. So when the climate warms, ski resorts that depend on them face difficult choices, if they have any choice at all. According to one study on the impact of climate change on the ski and snowboard industry, more than half of all sky resorts in the northeast will no longer be viable by 2039. I will repeat that. More than half of all ski resorts in the northeast will no longer be viable by 2039. Another study of Washington State ski resorts found that almost 13 percent of the ski areas in the Cascades and fully 61 percent of the ski areas in the Olympic mountain range are at risk from the future effects of climate change. Another study of ski areas in southern Ontario Canada cautioned that by the year 2080, with current snow-making technology, the ski season will be reduced by anywhere from 11 to 50 percent. Operators of ski areas do not have too many ways to adapt. They can move their runs to north-facing slopes, landscape trails to reduce the need for snowpack, and move to higher altitudes. All of these efforts, however, involve massive capital investments. It is difficult to know with certainty if these changes are real solutions or just stopgap. Of course, skiing and snowboarding are just two examples of outdoor recreational activities that are increasingly in peril as a result of future climate change. Sportsmen such as hunters and fishers should keep a watchful eye on the changing climate as well. We all know that Americans in every State love to hunt and fish. In 2011, almost 14 million people, or 6 percent of the United States population 16 years old and older, went hunting. Hunters spent $34 billion on trips, equipment, and licenses. More than 33 million people 16 and older fished in 2011, spending almost $42 billion on trips, equipment, licenses, and other items. As the climate warms, hunters and anglers will see decreased opportunities as a result of lower streamflows, population declines, and changing migration patterns. Organizations such as the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership which exist to promote hunting and fishing recognize this trend and believe it is in the best interest of the hunting and fishing communities to take action on climate change. The organization's director, Bill Geer, published a cautionary note in 2012 that is worth recounting: Contentious or not, climate change is real, and it is already affecting our natural resources, fish and wildlife and outdoor opportunities. At the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership we aim to educate sportsmen about the effects of climate change and ensure sportsman involvement in mitigation efforts. This is another example of conservatives, of independents, of progressives, of basically everybody outside of the four corners of the U.S. Capitol recognizing that is what is actually happening is actually happening. It is only in the four corners of this Capitol that the debate rages on, as if we can ignore the facts of the matter. This is no longer confined to conservation organizations or people who are concerned primarily with biological diversity. Look, I am a hiker. I am a surfer. I love Hawaii's natural environment, in particular. So that is the origin of my passion for this issue. But the way this issue has evolved, it is way beyond any of those questions. It is national security; it is economic security; it is our ability to grow our own food and catch our own protein; it is literally the American way of life that is at stake here. I think the reason we have had such great participation last night and well into the morning is because there is a growing recognition on the left, right, and center that we have got to take action.

Mr. SCHATZ. I thank the Senator from Rhode Island. I would like to offer a personal story from a young lady in Hawaii because I think it is very important to think of this in generational terms. Her name is Kara Tanaka, and she is a senior at a school called Hanalani. She wrote me a letter, and I will read it into the Record. She states: Recently, I read that Hawaii is one of two destinations being considered for the World Conservation Congress. The International Union for the Conservation of Nature is the organization that convenes this meeting which brings together nations to discuss conservation on a global scale. As this meeting has never been held in the US, Hawaii hopes to be selected as the host location. For many reasons, Hawaii is the perfect place to hold this meeting. Hawaii is the most remote set of islands in the world and has the most concentrated examples of flora and fauna that are in jeopardy in the United States, our islands could be subjected to rising waters caused by global warming. (Mr. Murphy assumed the Chair.) Continuing: The outer reefs that protect our shores will be in crisis if the current environmental challenges are not addressed and solutions enacted upon. I have been blessed in growing up on the north shore of Oahu and have experienced the beautiful scenery of nature which surrounds me. As a first generation Japanese American, my 92 year old grandpa loves to tell me stories about spending his youth living on the plantation fields in Mokuleia. During our early morning hikes up Peacock Flats and lunches on the beach, my grandpa enjoys telling me about all the edible plants we walk by and can identify all the animals that we hear and see. My grandpa also shares with me the things that are no longer around: dry streams, less wildlife, and lower water levels. Although there may be other factors affecting the environment, I truly believe that climate change is a major reason causing these changes. For both my grandpa and me, climate change is real, he sees the changes. It is a very important thing because Hawaii's wildlife is a very sentimental and beautiful part of our life. Scientists tell us that the effect of climate change could be catastrophic. For example, the rising temperatures will cause loss of habitat, there will be changes in water supply, and it could push certain species to the endangered species list. The animals my grandpa and I look and hear for may soon no longer be there at all. In addition, I can't even imagine how it will be like if our coral reefs die from global warming. Beach erosions will multiply rapidly and people's homes will be prone to destruction. Hawaii's beaches could be gone. Not only would this affect Hawaii's beauty, but it would affect Hawaii's economy because of the heavy reliance on tourism. Climate change is real and in need of full attention. I have seen many programs for sustainability in my community from the recently built wind turbines by my house to programs in elementary schools, like Aina in the Schools, that have raised the awareness of climate change. I believe that there needs to be more research about climate change and its effect on the environment. When I become a parent, I hope I can share the same sounds and sights that my Grandpa has shared with me, to experience wildlife with my children rather than teach them how the environment could have been or was like before. Kara's words, spoken from her heart, reflect the deepest feelings of her generation, not only in Hawaii but throughout the United States. I repeat the most resonant of her thoughts: When I become a parent, I hope I can share the same sounds and sights that my Grandpa has shared with me. Indeed, Hawaii has a remarkably beautiful environment. Yet I think we all agree that throughout our home States, from sea to shining sea, there are lands that define who we are and that call upon us to teach what is right and to rightfully protect them. These thoughts from Kara inspire me. I think they inspire all of us. There is a Kara Tanaka in every community who inspires us to take action. It is time to wake up. That is why we are up for climate, and that is why we are in this fight.

Mr. SCHATZ. If I may, the Senator from Rhode Island has elucidated the problem with respect to climate change deniers. I wish to read a few quotes from Members of Congress, unfortunately. They would be funny if they weren't so alarming. These are direct quotes from Members of Congress who are denying the reality of climate change. The first quote: Is there some thought being given to subsidizing the clearing of rain forests in order for some countries to eliminate that production of greenhouse gases? Second quote: We don't know what those other cycles were caused by in the past. It could be dinosaur flatulence, you know, or who knows. Global warming is a total fraud, and it is being designed because what we have got is you have got----

Mr. SCHATZ. I would hope. Global warming is a total fraud, and it is being designed because what you have got is you have got liberals who get elected at the local levels, want State government to do the work and let them make the decisions. Then at the State level they want the Federal Government to do it, and at the Federal Government they want to create global government to control our lives. Here is one about global climate change. It could just be a shift on the axis. I don't even know what that means. And they are a little humorous except these are sitting decisionmakers. So it is time to wake up. It is time for those folks who are denying the reality of climate change to move off of their position, and for those who are quietly agreeing with us about the sciences but not stepping forward and showing leadership to show leadership. Frankly, I think it is time for those of us who have been passionate about this issue to work together and to redouble our efforts. But I have 20 or 30 pages worth of quite alarming quotes. Again, they would be funny if they weren't from sitting decisionmakers who have real authority over this question.

Mr. SCHATZ. I think the Senator is exactly right. In some ways that is a more dangerous argument than some of the other denier arguments, because it sounds like science. It is not, but it sounds like science. But the most recent, and in my view most absurd, and we have now I think seen it for three or four winters, is every time there is snow-- and at first I thought it was sort of a little jab, a little rhetorical joke--but they are actually saying that because it was snowing last week there must not be climate change. That is an argument they are relying upon. I think because in the face of actual evidence they are now having to rely on anecdotes, on the fact that it is icy in Antarctica or there was a snowstorm in DC, or it was unseasonably cold for a weekend in Georgia or whatever it may be, but to rely on individual anecdotes about the weather I think is pretty tough stuff to take and I want to make sure we don't let that stand; that the idea you get to look out the window and understand what is happening with the climate is a lack of understanding about the climate. Climate is long-term patterns over large swaths of land or ocean. The weather is you get to check it on your iPhone app tomorrow morning. That is the weather. It is not the climate. It may or may not be hot or cold tomorrow. That doesn't tell you a thing about what is happening to climate change. And to the extent someone wants to pick off a day and say: Look, it is 32 degrees in Seattle and, therefore, climate change is not real, I don't think anybody actually believes that argument. But it is important the American public realizes how specious that claim is.

Mr. SCHATZ. I thank the Senator from Rhode Island and the Senator from New Jersey for engaging in such an energetic dialogue about these issues. Allow me to brag about Hawaii a little bit. I would like to speak about the incredible work Hawaii has done in energy transformation. We have taken a problem--high energy prices, no in-state fossil fuel resources--and turned it into an opportunity to transition the State to clean energy. Hawaii, like Alaska and the territories, is geographically isolated from the rest of the country. This relative isolation presents unique challenges. Hawaii has some of the highest energy costs in the country. Our energy mix is heavily reliant on oil and our multiple islands mean we have multiple electric grids. This challenging picture also presents unparalleled opportunity because the high cost of energy makes renewables not only competitive but often the low-cost option. We have abundant natural resources in solar, wind, geothermal, and ocean energy. But that doesn't make a transition to clean energy easy. Current policies, entrenched modes of thinking, longstanding business models, along with high upfront costs for capital for clean energy mean we need to aggressively encourage market transformation using a variety of policy tools. Thankfully, farsighted and committed policymakers have helped Hawaii to develop and implement some of the most aggressive clean energy and efficiency goals in the country. This effort began in earnest in 2008 with a unique partnership between Hawaii and the U.S. Department of Energy that became the Hawaii Clean Energy Initiative. Hawaii Clean Energy Initiative, or HCEI, is a partnership between the state, the Federal Government, the not-for- profit and the private sectors. It helped to lay out a roadmap for Hawaii to achieve our aggressive clean energy goals. Our job is far from done, but as a result of this effort I am optimistic about Hawaii's energy future and our ability to reduce carbon pollution. I strongly believe that despite Hawaii's unique characteristics, opportunities exist for other States and regions to replicate the successes we have had. Already energy regulators and policymakers from other parts of the country and the world are coming to Hawaii to learn what we are doing. I say that with great appreciation for the enormous work others are doing to transition to a clean energy future. I do not claim Hawaii has all the answers, but I do think we have discovered some of them. Let's start with a brief overview of the energy sector. We are the most geographically isolated major population center in the world and we are also internally separated, with seven different populated islands. We are the most oil-dependent State in the Nation. In 2010, 75 percent of the State's electricity came from foreign petroleum. This reliance leads to both high and volatile energy costs. Hawaii's electricity rates are the highest in the Nation at around 37 to 40 cents per kilowatt hour. This is three times the national average and twice as high as Alaska's rate, the country's second highest. Hawaii's multiple islands mean multiple grids that all must be managed independently. Looking forward, the State is considering an undersea transmission cable as one of the key possibilities for sharing renewable energy and reducing rates throughout the islands. A major consequence of our geography is that the best clean energy resources are not located in the same places as our demand center. Oahu is by far the most populated island with the highest electricity demand, with Waikiki and the Pacific Command, and yet technical analysis has shown that Oahu may only be able to realistically generate 30 percent of its own energy. Hawaii has been unable to take advantage of the mainland's natural gas, while our State continues to pursue its clean energy goals. Various groups have begun to explore bringing low- cost LNG to Oahu to further transition away from our dependence of low sulphur fuel oil for electricity. So back up to 2008 with high energy costs and the desire for greater energy security and the pressing need to get serious about reducing carbon solutions. It was clear we needed to do something. HCEI was founded on a memorandum of understanding signed between the State of Hawaii and the U.S. DOE in 2008. This partnership resulted in an ambitious plan to reduce energy consumption by 30 percent and increase electrical generation from renewables to 40 percent of the total mix by the end of 2030. These renewable and efficiency goals are now law. But such goals, even enshrined in law, need a suite of policy tools to help implement them, and they need the political will to relentlessly see them through. One of the key policy tools aiding compliance with the State's RPS, and especially the efficiency standards, is the decoupling of the electric utility's income from fluctuations in sales and revenue. This is crucial in a place such as Hawaii where distributed generation is playing an important role in meeting our goals. This way we can ensure that the utility receives financial incentives for increasing renewable production from independent power producers and decreasing total energy use. Hawaii's decoupling policy began in 2011 and allowed the State utility to be compensated through revenue-balancing rate adjustments approved by the PUC. Like many other States, Hawaii supplements Federal tax incentives to deploy greater technology such as wind, solar, and geothermal. Our incentives create tax incentives for producers at every level for commercial and resident. In June of last year Hawaii passed legislation to establish a green infrastructure financing program. The Green Energy Market Securitization Program, which we call GEM, creates an integrative financing model that will help low-to-moderate-income households, including renters, to take advantage of clean energy improvements and energy efficiency. It aims to address the financial barriers of investing in and installing energy cost-savings products. The heart of the program is an on-bill financing structure backed by state issue rate reduction bonds that allow customers to overcome the high upfront costs of clean energy products. What does that mean? It does this by allowing customers to pay for clean energy investments over time via surcharge on their electricity bill. In other words, you can simply sign up for clean energy. Some of the savings go to the company that is providing you the clean energy, and some of the savings go to you, and all of it gets taken care of by the electric utility on your bill. On-bill financing is a wave of the future whether it is in electricity generation or in energy efficiency. This program will begin by targeting distributed solar, but will quickly expand to other technologies. HCEI also works to promote Hawaii as an attractive place to invest in commercial production of clean energy technologies and serve as a test bed for demonstrating and proving out cutting-edge ideas and energy management practices. Outside groups have looked at Hawaii, especially when it comes to smart grid development. In May of 2011, Japan-based New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization, NEITDO, contributed $37 million as a partner to our Maui smart grid project. This is a demonstration project to reduce peak loads through demand response to integrate intermittent energy sources, to incorporate grid scale battery storage technology. What does that mean? It means on the island of Maui we have lots and lots of wind energy and yet we are lacking in the ability to actually utilize all of that energy at the same time. So we are looking at using distributed electric vehicles to take that energy off of the grid and be stored in electric vehicles. Hitachi Corporation, NEITDO, the U.S. DOE, our Natural Energy Lab, they are all very interested in trying to figure out how to make our grid more intelligent and more efficient. Hawaii's high levels of renewable energy penetration, especially on our neighbor islands, make it an excellent place for utilities on the mainland to come and observe grid operators manage the grid under demanding circumstances. What we are hearing from grid operators across the continental United States is they come to Hawaii to understand the kinds of pressures their grid is going to be under in 3 to 5 to 7 to 10 years depending on where they are from. Public investment and early-stage technology companies continue to play a key role. In September of 2013, the Office of Naval Research provided $30 million to support an energy accelerator startup program. This program has already invested in projects that are attracting private investment including from the local utility. So far it has helped 17 energy companies bring their product to market. These products have subsequently been able to raise over $38 million in follow-on funding. Let's take a quick look at how Hawaii's energy sector has fared in the years since HCEI began. In 2012 Hawaii reached an important new milestone by generating almost 14 percent of its electricity from renewable resources. We are close to our stated goal of 15 percent by 2015, which means we are on track to reach our interim target of 25 percent by the year 2020. In terms of distributed generation--primarily rooftop solar--2012 saw installations more than double from over 5,000 in 2011 to more than 12,000 in 2012. At the end of 2012 the cumulative number of systems sold statewide totaled 22,000, with a total capacity of 138 megawatts. In energy efficiency, Hawaii had reduced consumption by 14.5 percent as of 2012. One of the questions people ask when you make good progress in energy efficiency is whether it is simply tracking the economy. In other words, generally speaking, when the economy goes down, so does energy consumption. But our energy efficiency gains have been made whether or not our economy has been growing or shrinking. They have been extraordinarily strong over the last 5 years because we have a great and aggressive energy conservation program that is really groundbreaking. Rapidly improving energy efficiency efforts, along with increased renewables, have contributed to decreasing energy costs in Hawaii. From 2008 to 2012 electricity use has declined while the State GDP grew by 9 percent. Hawaii's transformation to a clean energy economy has helped to create many of the State's 14,000-plus green jobs. Hawaii ranked third in clean energy job growth nationally. The implementation of HCEI goals has not come without challenges. One of the biggest challenges has been integrating intermittent renewable energy sources into our various grids--grids that are often quite small in scale. Making things even more challenging, much of our renewable energy is distributed, which means that our utility companies don't even know whether they are coming or going. They have no visibility into what is happening with rooftop solar. They are trying to develop technologies to understand what is happening with the grid. For example, wind farms on Maui were recently forced to spill about 28 percent of their energy production due to lack of demand on the island. In other words, 28 percent of our wind energy was actually wasted. Here is a real success story of learning by doing. This fall the Maui Electric Company announced recent operational changes to bring that number down to 9 percent. That is a huge achievement. We didn't have to install any additional wind turbines, but we are now able to use more clean energy on the grid because of technological improvements. In Hawaii we are particularly concerned with ensuring that every citizen can participate in the clean energy economy and benefit from the competitive cost of renewables. I am confident that the State's GEMS Program will be a groundbreaking State-level policy that will make clean energy and efficiency investments available to all. Finally, we need to keep the momentum going in the face of a changing State legislature, State administration, and evolving Federal policies--the latter of which is perhaps the biggest challenge. The recent expiration of the production tax credit and a host of energy efficiency and biofuel incentives have had a profound effect on economics of clean energy technologies. These incentives must be renewed, and Congress must and should act to ensure continued growth of the clean energy sector. I am particularly grateful to the chairman of the Finance Committee for joining the task force tonight in calling for action on climate change and greatly appreciate his leadership on these issues. Many, if not most, States and territories are doing excellent work to encourage clean energy, and I am sure Hawaii has a lot to learn from those States. But the HCEI model can be an effective tool for States, the Federal Government, and for other countries. It is profoundly difficult to get all or even some of the interests in the energy sector to agree. HCEI, especially at the beginning, provided a forum for Hawaii's different groups to come together and find common ground and then move forward. At its core, HCEI is designed to be a collaborative effort between all citizens of Hawaii to leverage their respective strength in achieving a clean energy future. Without the participation and cooperation of all of the key players involved and the support of the general public, HCEI would not succeed. I also can't stress enough the importance of the partnership we have with the U.S. DOE. DOE offers a unique ability to act as convener, facilitator, and an active, long-term partner in HCEI. DOE continues to serve as a conduit between Hawaii and other entities, such as the national labs, Federal programs, R&D groups, other Federal agencies, and national organizations that support the strategic planning process and contribute to the execution of core activities. DOE provides assistance to the State for producing technical and economic tools and analysis necessary to realize the goals of initiatives as well as the implementation of pilot projects. If the States are truly the laboratories of democracy, then we in Congress should provide them with the tools they need to experiment and innovate. The United States faces the same energy and environmental challenges as the State of Hawaii. A majority of energy assets in this country are ready for retirement or replacement, and decisions made today will have lasting impacts. The energy sector faces a wave of new technology, new regulations, and rapidly evolving market and business conditions. These uncertainties will impact investment decisions, policy formulations, and ultimately economic growth. We must meet the challenge of climate change head-on. We have more frequent and intense extreme weather events, and we need to reduce localized pollutants and address the increasing number of cyber and physical attacks on our energy infrastructure. These challenges are not physically constrained by State boundaries, jurisdictions, or even our international borders. Recent blackouts and regional fuel shortages have highlighted the interconnected nature of U.S. energy systems, with energy disruptions starting in one State and extending to neighboring States and regions. This fundamental property of U.S. energy systems means that preparing for uncertainty and threats in a robust and effective manner will require regional and national strategies and plans if we are going to successfully address the challenges we face in the coming years. I yield the floor.