Brian Schatz

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Madam President, yesterday Senate Republicans rejected a cloture motion on a strictly party-line basis for a simple measure to prevent default for the United States of America. This bears repeating. Yesterday we voted on whether to proceed to a bill to prevent default, and not one Senate Republican voted for it. I think it is fair to say that many of the Senate Republicans are operating in good faith and have a strong desire to get out of this mess, but they are concerned about embarrassing and undermining the Speaker of the House by moving too quickly on this measure. Too quickly came and went a couple of months ago. Worrying about undermining the Speaker of the House should not be our primary concern given the crisis upon us. We should be singularly focused on protecting the dollars as the reserve currency, maintaining our ability to borrow at the lowest possible rate, and retaining our ability to solve problems as the greatest Nation in the world. The time for worrying about the implications for one or the other political party or a faction within it has long since passed. It is time to reopen the government, to pay our bills, to ensure the full faith and credit of the United States, and to return to the negotiating table on all of the challenges in front of us. In short, it is time to get back to governing in the way we should. I would like to emphasize a point that is not made often enough about the current crisis; that is, there is simply nothing conservative about the behavior of the House Republicans. Conservatives traditionally have been characterized by holding a respect for institutions, a focus on the needs of the private sector, and a desire to not waste money. Are these principles being upheld or subverted by the actions of House Republicans? First, with respect to our Democratic institutions, the procedural violence being done to the Congress is hard to overstate in this case. The idea that a faction of a party is demanding concessions in exchange for ceasing their infliction of pain on America is unbelievable. Why? Because we are all Americans here. We all want to do right by our country. So the idea that one party is willing to inflict terrible pain on our country, or else, was so beyond the pale that there is no rule against it because no one ever contemplated that a major political party would ever behave in such a way. The assumption has always been that elected leaders would find a better way to stand for strongly held beliefs than by threatening to bring the American economy to its knees. Up until now that has been a safe assumption. This is the least conservative behavior imaginable because it throws us into a permanent crisis, unable to solve major problems for the foreseeable future. Second, conservatives traditionally have wanted to protect the free marketplace. Some default deniers surmise that maybe the U.S. Government can service its debt while delaying other payments, that we can simply prioritize. The United States of America cannot do that. Even if it were operationally possible, which the Treasury Department assures us it is not, it would cause such severe harm to markets and undermine our credibility so terribly that even talking like that may be doing damage to our economy. In 2011, Congress's delay in raising the debt limit forced the Department of the Treasury to take extraordinary measures to ensure that our government could pay its bills. GAO estimates that this raised Treasury's borrowing costs by about $1.3 billion in fiscal year 2011. That is $1.3 billion in added government costs just for coming close to defaulting. This does not include the lingering added costs of borrowing that continued beyond fiscal year 2011. It also does not include the wasted time and resources that these extraordinary actions meant. After all, this manufactured crisis took the Treasury Department's focus away from other important cash and debt management responsibilities. The Bipartisan Policy Center projects that the full cost of that crisis to the Federal Government alone, not to the economy, just to the Federal Government, will be around $19 billion over the maturity of the debt. There is nothing conservatively virtuous about defaulting on what we owe. It will cripple free markets. It is Russian roulette played with a bullet in every chamber. There so nothing conservative about that. Finally, there is the conservative principle about saving taxpayers' dollars. Two points: First, with the likely passage of the House bill to provide retroactive pay to Federal employees, let me tell you what is happening. We are paying Federal employees to stay home. We are paying our dedicated Federal workers, who want to do their jobs, not to do their jobs. This is not conservative. This is not liberal, for that matter. It is upside down. We are preventing Federal employees from doing their important work, such as assisting small businesses and combating terrorism. Let me be clear. Federal workers did not cause this shutdown and should not lose pay because of it. That is why I cosponsored Senator Cardin's bill to make sure they receive back pay when the government reopens. Our Nation's furloughed public servants want to work, and many Federal civilian employees are being required to work during this shutdown without pay. While it does not make sense to punish Federal workers for Congress's dysfunction, it makes way more sense to simply reopen the Federal Government. Still, the House refuses to vote on a clean continuing resolution that can reopen the government tomorrow but instead voted to give backpay after the shutdown ends. What is conservative about paying people to stay home? Second, this shutdown is costing us money, not saving us money. In just the first week, it cost the economy $1.6 billion in lost economic output and is estimated to cost an average of $160 million each additional day. This is hurting small businesses and working families across the country, and it is completely avoidable. As the Presiding Officer knows, people are in real pain. This needs to stop. There is nothing good in this shutdown or in the threat of default. As a progressive, I have talked on this floor about how it hurts our economy, the American people, and the priorities I am fighting for. But you do not have to share my priorities to think this is an awful mess. You can be a rock-ribbed conservative too. This is bad for all of us. There is a simple way to move forward: Open our government, pay our bills, and start negotiating on the issues that matter. I yield the floor.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, most people believe in compromise. Coming from Hawaii, I certainly believe in compromise. It is part of who we are. When you live on an island--no matter how contentious issues may get--because of your geographic limitations, you will always see someone the following morning at the Safeway, at the coffee shop, at the bus stop or back at work. So I am deeply personally inclined toward compromise, and so are the people that I represent back in Hawaii. The problem here is that the House Republicans' supposed compromise is not a compromise at all. Absent from their press conferences and their photo ops is the truth. They are attempting to extort the end of the Affordable Care Act in exchange for doing the job that they were elected to do--a job that 800,000 Federal employees need them to do-- which is to simply just pass a bill to fund the government. Passing observers, people who were busy last week may be tempted to cast blame on both parties, but the reality is that there is no question, by any objective measure, of whose recklessness has forced our government to halt many of its most important services. This shutdown is on the Speaker and the tea party. Meanwhile, my friends and neighbors back home are suffering. About 25,000 people in Hawaii are civilian Federal employees, and most of them are going without paychecks. More than 36,000 women and children in Hawaii depend on the Special Supplemental Nutritional Program for Women, Infants, and Children, which makes sure that low-income mothers and infants are fed. Without funding, these families could actually go hungry. More than 3,000 children in Hawaii participate in Head Start programs. Head Start is a program that provides early education and related social services to children and their families. Without funding, these kids will have no place to go every day. Only 3 weeks after 250,000 gallons of molasses spilled into Honolulu Harbor--one of the worst environmental catastrophes in the history of the island of Oahu--Federal support for investigation, cleanup, and restoration activities have essentially had to stop. Those Environmental Protection Agency and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration employees responsible for assisting are not allowed to report to work. At the Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard, 2,600 employees are furloughed. Workers are forced to stay home, causing real economic hardship. This continued uncertainty not only affects them, but affects the decisions of future shipyard workers who may now choose other professions rather than become the naval engineers that Hawaii and our Nation desperately need. With nearly half of their workforce at home, officials at the Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard are forced to make hard choices about what work they can perform. We need to end this shutdown so that the Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard can continue to ensure that our entire naval fleet is ready to respond to any contingency in the Asia Pacific. These are not theoretical hardships or decisions. My constituents have been sharing their situations with me. I have received many letters. Let me give an example of a person from Kailua on Oahu, who wrote to me saying: Let me start by stating that I am a U.S. citizen. I love my country, I love my job, I want to work and am proud to support the war fighters when I can work. But I am truly disappointed and feel a sense of betrayal over the past three months of furloughs, budget cuts and being worried about my job and career. Another constituent of mine from Mililani on Oahu serves in the Reserve. She relies on the money she receives from her monthly unit training assembly to pay her mortgage. She knows she may not be able to meet all of her financial obligations at the end of this month, which is when her paychecks may stop arriving. But she asked me not to give in on the Affordable Care Act because millions of uninsured Americans deserve access to health care. Even residents who do not collect a paycheck from the Federal workforce are suffering. One small business owner from Makawao, on the island of Maui, is suffering because her business relies on traffic to and from the Haleakala National Park, which has been closed since Monday. She says: Many small businesses like mine felt an immediate impact on our sales as tours cancelled their trips into Hawaii's most visited attraction. Last night I got an e-mail from someone who is waiting on a small business loan that is not coming through because of the delay in processing SBA loans. This person is expecting to have to lay off 40 individuals from their small company. So the idea that this is somehow a pro-business shutdown, the idea that they are protecting the rights of employers, the idea that this is in any way good for the economy is just belied by all of the facts. Personally, working with a reduced staff, I began answering phone calls myself this week and many of the stories were similar: Without pay and Federal services, life has become uncertain and worrisome for thousands of families. This is all because House Republicans are throwing a temper tantrum and refusing to take a reasonable vote to reopen the government. This really is a tea party temper tantrum, and it is totally unprecedented. It is a low point for the Congress. But there is a solution to this, and the senior Senator from Michigan pointed it out. It is simple. All that has to happen is for the Speaker of the House to put our legislation on the floor and let the House vote. There is a broad bipartisan majority of Members of the House of Representatives who want to reopen the government. So I have two questions. First, for the media and for the constituents of Speaker Boehner: Please ask him, why in the world--if there is a majority of Members of the House of Representatives prepared to reopen the government--why he would not use his authority to put that legislation on the floor? And I ask everyone to ask all of their Members of Congress to let the House vote. If we let the House vote, this crisis will be done on Monday morning. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the Affordable Care Act. At home in Hawaii we have a saying, ``Lucky you live Hawaii.'' That can mean a lot of different things to different people, but when talking about access to affordable, effective care, this phrase has particular meaning. In the early 1970s, the rate of uninsured in our State was about 30 percent, meaning roughly 1 in 3 in our population would live in fear that sickness or injury could cause financial ruin for themselves or their families. The people of Hawaii knew this was unacceptable. In 1974, the State government passed an innovative piece of legislation, the Prepaid Health Care Act. Now simply known as Prepaid, this legislation requires employers to provide affordable and quality care for hundreds of thousands of individuals and their families. Our uninsured rate is one of the lowest in the country, with only 8 percent of our population lacking any type of insurance. Even though Hawaii has been at the forefront in making health care a right and not a privilege, we still have a way to go. Even with Prepaid, there are more than 100,000 people in our State still uninsured. When the Affordable Care Act passed 3 years ago, I knew it meant that those who are uninsured or underinsured in Hawaii would find some relief. We have already seen major successes since this landmark legislation passed. Yet people are still afraid of ObamaCare. This is because a lot of people have spent a lot of time and money to make the American public believe that somehow this legislation is bad for them and will harm them. That is why, when asked about health care reform as a whole, many Americans say they are concerned, they have anxiety. But when you talk to people back in Hawaii and across the Nation, and even those who think they don't like health care reform, they like what it does. For example, parents like that they can keep their children on their health insurance until the age of 26, which affects 6,000 young adults in the State of Hawaii. People will no longer have to live in fear of lifetime limits on health benefits, which will help more than 460,000 residents of Hawaii, including 115,000 children. More than half a million people in my State will no longer have to worry about being denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition. As a State that has committed to Medicaid expansion, Hawaii will also now be able to provide care to close to more than 68,000 residents starting in 2014. People like these policies. People like what health care reform is already doing for them. While my colleagues across the aisle are looking to repeal this historic legislation, I am looking forward to how we can build on its success. Let me be clear. The fact that health care reform is working is exactly why the detractors of the ACA are trying so hard to stop it from being fully implemented. They know the American people are embracing ObamaCare because of all the good it will do for our families. In particular, I am looking forward to the opening of our marketplace, the Hawaii Health Connector, on October 1. Many of the people I have spoken to want to know what the marketplace may mean for them. Simply, the Hawaii Health Connector is going to provide a consumer-friendly way for residents of my State to view and compare a wide variety of plans. Then they will be able to pick the coverage that best suits them and their families. My office has been in constant contact with the Connector, and their staff in Hawaii has been working tirelessly to set up the online and phone interface, and to provide assistance and navigation in the form of kokua, a word in Hawaiian that essentially means pitching in to help your neighbors and your community with no regard for personal gain. This is reflective of the values we have in Hawaii, that everyone deserves to be healthy and have access to affordable and quality care. That doesn't mean we still don't have a lot of work to do. I am hoping a number of bills I have introduced, including the Rural Preventive Health Care Training Act and the Strengthening Health Disparities Data Collection Act, will be considered and voted on by the full Senate in order to solve some of our worst issues in providing care to rural and underserved populations in Hawaii and across the Nation. I believe ACA is working the way it should be. It is increasing the number of insured Americans, promoting preventive care that will help to reduce the human and financial costs of avoidable illness and lowering the costs of care for everyone. Many of my colleagues in Congress choose not to see any of this. The only option for them is total repeal, with zero tolerance for open discussion or compromise on this landmark legislation, but that kind of thinking is what causes the gridlock Americans are so tired of. I understand there will be parts of this law, which is a sweeping piece of legislation, that will need to be amended over time to resolve any kinks. These kinds of revisions have been done with every other landmark domestic social policy that has been passed in this country, including Medicare and Social Security. I am willing, as are my colleagues on the Democratic side, to come to the table and work with Republicans to make necessary improvements over time, but I refuse to engage in the process of political and parliamentary gymnastics designed to score small, short-term wins at the expense of the American people and the economy. It must be pointed out that anyone who wants to grind the entire government to a halt over the implementation of this several-years-old law will cause harm to the economy and harm to their communities, because Federal funding provides essential services and programs to constituents in every State and every county in every district. If improvements or changes need to be made, they can be done through the regular order with hearings, serious discussions, and bipartisan support. Ultimately, what we are seeing in Hawaii and across the Nation is President Obama's historic health care package is making inroads in improving our health care system. Efforts to stop that cannot be tolerated by Members of Congress and the people of this Nation. I will continue to support its full implementation and look forward to working with all of my colleagues in the Senate to build upon its success. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. I wish to thank Senator Whitehouse for being a leader for so long, for being so forceful and so factual on this issue. I applaud his leadership and look forward to continuing to work together on this important issue. Climate change is real. Climate change is caused by humans, and climate change is solvable. I wish to end on a note of optimism. The urgency of this situation creates a real opportunity. We have a chance to start a second Industrial Revolution that will drive our economy for decades to come. We have the chance and the responsibility to transition into a clean energy economy and leave our world in better shape than we found it. I yield the floor for Senator Blumenthal.

Mr. SCHATZ. As Senator Whitehouse has described, our oceans show the effect of climate change by absorbing much of the heat from our warming planet. But they do more than that; our oceans absorb almost 25 percent of the carbon that humans release into the atmosphere. If they did not, even more greenhouse gasses would warm our planet at an even faster pace. Our oceans and the life in them pay a price for all of this carbon. Increasing carbon dioxide creates a chemical reaction that raises the acidity of the sea water. This is called ocean acidification. So that is a technical term, but what does it mean as a practical matter? In plain terms, ocean acidification makes it difficult for shellfish, corals, sea urchins, and other creatures to form the shells that they need in order to live. As a result, fewer survive, which means entire populations are put at risk. Acidification negatively affects crucial parts of the ocean food chain from shellfish and coral reefs to fisheries. So what does this mean for human beings? Ocean acidification has real economic consequences for communities that depend on the ocean for food, for jobs, and for tourism, such as my home State of Hawaii. Further acidification and warming will hurt our local fishing and tourism industries, industries that make up the backbone of our economy. All the fish and the seafood we depend upon may become scarcer and likely more expensive. If we continue to burn fossil fuels at our current rate, our oceans may become 150 percent more acidic by the end of this century. That is a higher level of acidity than has been seen in the last 20 million years. Today, more than 1 billion people worldwide rely on food from the ocean as their primary source of protein. So without solving the problem of ocean acidification, we will leave people, industries and entire economies, vulnerable, especially in developing countries. Climate change is threatening the basic foundation of many of our economies and especially the State of Hawaii. The Hawaii economy, culture, and history are derived from the ocean. So any dramatic changes to our ocean environment will impact our lives especially. As I mentioned before, sea level rise threatens our beachfront property from Waikiki to Ka'anapali to the North Shore of Kauai. These beaches are important for Hawaii tourism and our economy and to local people across the State. Each year, Hawaii hosts an estimated 8 million visitors, with many of them drawn to our beaches. Tourist receipts alone made up almost $12 billion in revenues last year. So climate change could also usher in a period of more frequent and severe weather, which could make Hawaii's communities increasingly vulnerable to flooding and storm damage. Climate change threatens more than our economy. Our national security institutions face a similar risk from sea level rise and ocean acidification. The 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review, an assessment produced every 4 years by the Department of Defense, concluded that climate change will affect the military and its mission. In particular, low-lying naval installations, such as Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, face similar threats from sea level rise that could leave parts of the base flooded, requiring millions of dollars in costly upgrades. With the United States rebalancing to the Asia-Pacific region, sustaining our naval capabilities and ensuring that they too can weather the effect of climate change will be increasingly important for Hawaii and for our Nation. I know the Senator from Rhode Island has concerns about his own State. I yield to him.

Mr. SCHATZ. Commonsense solutions to the threat of climate change are everywhere. We have been talking a lot about the risks of climate change, but let's talk a little bit about the opportunities--the opportunities to fight climate change, to transform how we produce and consume energy, and to grow a clean energy economy. We know what we need to do. We also know how to do it. Congress may not enact comprehensive climate legislation this year, but it can still take action to make a difference. As I see it, we have an opportunity for common ground in three areas: energy efficiency, tax incentives, and innovative financing structures to promote clean energy deployment. Perhaps the greatest opportunity for compromise is in energy efficiency, the commonsense idea that we ought to save money and reduce pollution at the same time by simply consuming less energy to perform the same tasks. Senators Shaheen and Portman have taken this up and are writing excellent legislation to improve and enhance energy efficiency across the Nation. Their bill includes sensible measures that will help to achieve significant reduction in energy use. Buildings use close to 40 percent of the energy used in the United States. This bill will contain provisions that will update the building codes, increase efficiency goals for Federal facilities, and provide incentives to industrial facilities, commercial buildings, and homes. In recent weeks, we have been hearing that Shaheen-Portman may come to the floor. We are encouraged by that. We encourage both the majority leader and the minority leader, as well as the managers of this legislation, to move it to the floor expeditiously so that we can take care of it before the August break. Second, I urge my colleagues to support tax incentives for clean energy, many of which expire at the end of this year. Senators on both sides of the aisle have repeatedly worked together to extend these incentives, especially the wind credit. We can build on this common ground to support sensible solutions. We not only have the opportunity to extend clean energy incentives as a part of tax reform but to improve upon them. We should focus on creating credits that reward performance and innovation and do not pick winners and losers. They should help industries scale up, bring costs down, and become competitive on their own. Finally, the Federal Government must do more to help new and innovative technologies reach the marketplace. New technologies face significant barriers to market entry; barriers that focused government intervention such as loan guarantees and other financing mechanisms can help overcome. The Senator from Rhode Island may also have thoughts on other commonsense solutions. I yield to him for any comments he may have.

Mr. SCHATZ. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank the Senator from Rhode Island for his kind words. He is a real expert and a leader on climate change, and I look forward to continuing to work together with him and our colleagues on this important issue. He has just discussed the overwhelming evidence that global temperatures are rising. I would like to build on his remarks and add that temperature is not the only indicator that climate change is real and it is happening now. We see the changes in Hawaii and all over the world. One only need to look to the top of the world, where Arctic Sea ice is melting faster than scientists had predicted originally. Just last summer, the ice covering the Arctic Ocean retreated to its smallest size in recorded history, shrinking by 350,000 square miles--an area about the size of Venezuela. Glaciers continue to retreat. The Greenland ice sheet provides a stark example of the rapid recession of the world's ice. For several days in July of 2012, Greenland's surface ice cover melted more than at any time in 30 years of satellite observation. During that month an estimated 97 percent of the ice sheet thawed. Some types of severe weather are also on the rise. While climate scientists are extremely careful not to attribute any single weather event to climate change, there is no doubt that increased climate change has ``loaded the dice,'' which means extreme weather events are increasingly likely. Extreme weather events cost us in lives and in money. Of course, the sea level continues to rise. As water warms, its volume expands. Scientists have observed that the top layer of the world's oceans has stored an enormous amount of heat, raising sea levels in many parts of the world. This ocean warming has contributed to an estimated one-third to one-half of the increase in sea level rise to date. Sea level rise is a serious challenge for my home State of Hawaii in particular. Just a 3-foot rise in sea level, which scientists project for this century, will flood many parts of Honolulu, including the iconic hotels and businesses along Waikiki Beach, leaving beaches eroded and hotels, businesses, and homes possibly inundated by the ocean. My colleague from Rhode Island, an ocean State, is especially aware of these changes.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Madam President, I was very encouraged by the President's speech today for a number of reasons. The main thing I found encouraging is he is obviously done waiting. And there are three reasons to be done waiting. The first is it is very unlikely, given the current composition of the Congress, that the Congress will take action in the 113th. We have to recognize that political reality. The second is from an ecological standpoint, we don't have the luxury of waiting. We don't have 5 or 8 or 12 years to wait and deliberate. We need to take action now in order to reverse global climate change. The third is a matter of law. Under the EPA v. Massachusetts, the Supreme Court didn't just give the authority to the EPA to regulate carbon as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act; it effectively requires that the EPA move forward. So even if this President didn't believe in the science, even if this President weren't as passionate as he is about combating climate change, he would be required under the law to comply with the conditions of the Supreme Court decision. Let's get one thing straight. In a way, it is a little sad this has to be asserted on the Senate floor as a political statement, but here it is: Climate change is real, it is caused by humans, and it is solvable. It is a real threat with a high cost. But if we act now, we can start a new era of economic and scientific leadership for American innovation. I see our young pages here. This is an incredible opportunity for innovation, for partnership, for opportunity, for our economy to grow, and for us to again become a world leader to start a second industrial revolution in clean energy and clean technology. The State of Hawaii was able to move forward with something called the Hawaii Clean Energy Initiative. What we have done is simply breathtaking. In a very short period of time, we have actually tripled clean energy production--and not from 2 percent to 6 percent but, rather, from 6 percent to around 18 percent--in a matter of a few years, all the while driving unemployment down. So the old choice between economic development and economic opportunity and environmental protection, the premise that unfortunately some on the other side of the aisle cling to, which is we have to choose between protecting our health and our environment for future generations and economic opportunity in the short run, has been disproven. We have great opportunities to be a leader in clean technology. That is why we have to support ARPA-E, that is why we have to support our DOE and national energy labs. The Hawaii Clean Energy Initiative is proof that we can do so. I am very encouraged by the President's movement. I am pleased to work on a bipartisan basis with anyone who wants to legislate. If there are problems with the straight regulating of carbon, let's talk about that. But the only way to solve those problems is by legislating. If this body and the body across the Capitol are unwilling to act, I am pleased this administration will take action. I yield the floor.

Mr. SCHATZ. Madam President, through the Chair, I would like to answer the Senator's question and then yield to the Senator from Connecticut. I thank my friend for pointing out that this is not just for those of us who consider ourselves environmentalists, this has become an economic issue as well. This has become a question of our national strategic priorities. There is a reason that Admiral Locklear, the head of the U.S. Pacific Command, gave an address in which he called climate change the strategic threat in the Pacific theater. That is not because he is a member of the League of Conservation Voters or the Sierra Club, it is because he understands what is happening throughout the Pacific theater. There is a reason that Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus is leaning so heavily forward on the question of biofuels and clean energy. Again, it is not because his job is to be concerned with global climate change. His job is to make sure the Navy is as prepared as possible from a fuel standpoint and from a readiness standpoint. He sees new fuels as the way to go. The other part of this equation from the Department of Defense perspective is the amount of money we have to spend forward operating to protect our fuel supplies and fuel lines. To the extent we can have smart grid technology, better battery storage technology, new renewable energy generation, and better efficiency, all of that helps our troops, especially as they are forward deployed. I thank the Senator from Rhode Island for pointing out that there is a broadening recognition that this issue goes beyond conservation or anyone's particular concern with the natural environment narrowly speaking. This is a question about the cost of insurance, how much we have to spend on flood mitigation, and how much we have to spend in terms of disaster mitigation. This is now pervading our entire economy. It is costing the Federal Treasury billions of dollars, and so the cost of doing nothing at this point exceeds the cost of action. I yield the floor for the Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I am here today to briefly discuss an amendment to an important provision in the immigration bill that the Senate is considering concerning Stateless persons. Section 3405 of the comprehensive immigration bill would, for the first time, recognize and provide protections to those people in the United States that have no nationality--they are Stateless. There are countless men, women, and children in the United States today who cannot claim any nation as their home. Many lost their nationality when their country of origin ceased to exist as a result of political upheaval, rampant persecution, or violent conflict. The comprehensive immigration bill would encourage these people in the United States to come forward and apply to be recognized as Stateless persons. Under the proposed law, if an individual is recognized as Stateless, they could seek conditional lawful status, provided they meet the appropriate requirements, and be protected from being deported back to a State they no longer recognize as their home. The amendment I am offering to the immigration bill would advance this important effort to recognize and protect Stateless persons living in the United States. We live in a time when political turmoil, persecution, and war are no longer the only conditions creating Stateless persons. Today, rapid and extreme environmental change threatens to erode national boundaries and make States uninhabitable to people. This is not an abstract challenge. Low-lying island States and atolls in the Pacific and Indian Oceans today face an existential crisis due to inexorable sea level rise that is making them uninhabitable. In Kiribati, for example, rising seas are contaminating local water tables with salt water, denuding fertile land and decimating island crops. The threat of higher seas also makes Kiribati, the Marshall Islands, and other island States more vulnerable to extreme weather that will inundate these countries with swells of storm surge and leave whole communities literally underwater. And in a short time, these island States will disappear beneath the waves. Sea level rise is just one of the dramatic challenges the world faces as a result of climate change. Other environmental stressors are manifesting in States around the world that carry similar consequences as well. In North Africa, for instance, countries such as Morocco, Tunisia, and Libya lose hundreds of square miles of fertile land each year to desertification, driving away farming communities that are accustomed to living off the land. In Southeast Asia, salt water intrusion from sea level rise is destroying aquaculture ponds that communities rely on for economic development and food, uprooting families from their homes and driving them inland in search of new ways to support their livelihoods. And rapidly receding glaciers in the Himalayan Plateau threaten to make the headwaters of the region's major rivers run dry, with consequences for downstream communities that may eventually be forced from their homes in search of new water sources. Scientists expect that climate change will exacerbate these environmental stressors, including drought, glacial melt, and heat waves, transforming once fertile landscape into barren and uninhabitable land. Besides these slow onset challenges, there are more people at risk today of being made permanently homeless by extreme weather events like typhoons, hurricanes, and other storms that threaten to decimate communities. And, unfortunately, the populations most at risk also happen to be the world's poorest people who too often have no other choice but to abandon their homes once disaster strikes. By the end of the century, climate change will eclipse war as the greatest driver of homelessness around the world. We can and must protect those people who are in the United States from being deported to a country that is no longer inhabitable due to sea level rise or other environmental changes that leave the state uninhabitable to people. The amendment I am proposing is quite simple. If enacted, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, may designate individuals or a group of individuals displaced permanently by climate change as Stateless persons. Again, let me be clear about what this amendment does. It simply recognizes that climate change, like war, is one of the most significant contributors to homelessness in the world. And like with States torn apart and made uninhabitable by war, we have an obligation not to deport people back to a country made uninhabitable by sea level rise and other extreme environmental changes that render these states desolate. It does not grant any individual or group of individuals outside the United States with any new status or avenue for seeking asylum in the United States. Finally, the amendment also recognizes that the climate challenges that other States face are not unique to people beyond U.S. borders. Indeed, Hawai'i, Alaska and other States are and will continue to experience increased environmental pressures, with sea level rise, drought, wild fires and extreme weather driving Americans from their homes. As such, the amendment would require the Government Accountability Office to conduct a study assessing the impact of climate change on internal migration in the United States and U.S. territories. The GAO report will assess the impacts and costs on existing Federal, State, and local services of various regions resulting from climate change- induced migration of U.S. citizens. This important study will help the United States chart a path forward for responding to internal persons displaced by environmental change and extreme weather events, and identify what resources the Federal, State, and local governments need to invest in to adequately respond to climate-induced migration. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges the United States will confront this century. But with the kinds of forward-thinking and pragmatic policies I am proposing today, we can put the United States on a path to respond to the challenges the country will face, and help protect those communities most at risk. I look forward to working with my colleagues to advance this important effort.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, today, June 11, marks a public holiday in the State of Hawaii, King Kamehameha Day, celebrated since 1872. We hold a statewide festival and mark the day with lei draping ceremonies, parades, hula competitions, and other festivities. It is a day to honor Kamehameha the Great, who unified the Kingdom of Hawaii, and to celebrate the rich culture and traditions of the Hawaiian people. I chose this day to come to the Senate floor to talk about an issue of great importance to me and to the great State of Hawaii: Native Hawaiian government reorganization. It was a top priority of my immediate predecessors in this body, Senators Inouye and Akaka. For more than three decades, they worked together in the Congress to advance priorities important to Hawaii and to the Nation. They made history at almost every step of their careers--securing dozens of firsts in the House and in the Senate. But for the indigenous people of the United States, Senators Inouye and Akaka will be forever remembered for their work as members and then chairs of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, and for their advocacy on behalf of American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians. I want to acknowledge their legacy and to thank Senator Akaka for the role he continues to play in our great State and in the Native Hawaiian community in particular. Here is the reason I have chosen to carry forward this fight on behalf of Native Hawaiians: Simply stated, it is right to seek justice. Native Hawaiians are the only federally recognized native people without a government-to-government relationship with the United States, and they deserve access to the prevailing Federal policy of self- determination. Opponents have argued that Native Hawaiians are not ``Indians,'' as if the word applies to native people of a certain racial or ethnic heritage or is limited to indigenous people from one part of the United States but not another. This is misguided. Our Constitution makes it clear. Our Founding Fathers understood that it was the tribal nations' sovereign authority that distinguished them from others. It was the fact that tribes were native groups with distinct governments that predated our own that justified special treatment in the Constitution and under Federal law. In what is now the United States, European contact with native groups began in the 15th and 16th centuries on the east coast, and the 16th and 17th centuries on the west coast; while in Alaska and Hawaii, European contact was delayed until the 18th century. Throughout the centuries, a myriad of factors influenced how various native groups were treated. The historical timeframe when policies and programs were applied to native groups may have been different, but what was consistent throughout were the Federal policies and actions intended to strip Native Americans of their languages, weaken traditional leadership and family structures, divide land bases, prohibit religious and cultural practices, and break communal bonds. These policies were as harmful and unjust to Native Hawaiians as they were to Alaska Natives and American Indians. There was a thriving society that greeted Capt. James Cook when he landed on the shores of Hawaii in 1778. Prior to their first contact with Europeans, Native Hawaiians had a population of at least 300,000. They were a highly organized, self-sufficient society, and they had their own rules, laws, language, and culture. In his journals Captain Cook referred to the indigenous people of Hawaii as ``Indians'' because it was the established English term in the 18th century to describe native groups--regardless of their race, ethnicity, or their governmental structure. But just like many Native Americans and Alaska Natives on the continent, the name ``Native Hawaiians,'' chosen in their own language, was ``Kanaka Maoli,'' ``The People.'' From 1826 until 1893, the United States recognized the independence of the Hawaiian Government as a distinct political entity. We extended full and complete diplomatic recognition and entered into five treaties and conventions with the Hawaiian Monarchs to govern commerce and navigation. These treaties are clear evidence that Native Hawaiians were considered a separate and distinct nation more than a century after contact. But on January 17, 1893, the legitimate government of the Native Hawaiian people was removed forcibly by agents and Armed Forces of the United States. The illegality of this action has been acknowledged in contemporary as well as modern times by both the executive and legislative branches of our Federal Government. An investigation called for by President Cleveland produced a report by former Congressman James Blount. The report's findings were unambiguous: U.S. diplomatic and military representatives had abused their authority and were responsible for the change in the government. As a result of these findings, the U.S. Minister to Hawaii was recalled from his diplomatic post, and the military commander of the U.S. Armed Forces stationed in Hawaii was disciplined and forced to resign his commission. In a message to Congress in December 1893, President Cleveland described the events that brought down the Hawaiian Government as an ``act of war, committed with the participation of a diplomatic representative of the United States and without authority of Congress.'' He acknowledged that ``by such acts, the government of a peaceful and friendly people was overthrown.'' President Cleveland concluded that ``a substantial wrong has thus been done which a due regard for our national character--as well as the rights of the injured people--requires we should endeavor to repair,'' and he called for the restoration of the Hawaiian Monarchy. The provisional government refused to relinquish power and in July of 1894 declared itself to be the Republic of Hawaii. The provisional government advocated annexation of Hawaii to the United States and began to lobby the Congress to pass a treaty of annexation. Hawaii's Monarch at the time, Queen Liliuokalani, presented a petition to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a formal statement of protest to the Secretary of State. The petition, signed by more than 21,000 Hawaiian men and women, represented more than half of the Hawaiian census population and was compiled in just 3 weeks. It also included the signatures of approximately 20,000 non- Hawaiians who supported the return of the islands to self-governed rule. The ``Petition Against Annexation'' was a powerful tool in the defeat of the annexation treaty. In the next year, proponents of annexation introduced the Newlands Joint Resolution, a measure requiring only a simple majority. The annexation of Hawaii passed with the much reduced threshold of votes and was signed into law by President McKinley in July of 1898. For almost two centuries after the founding of our Nation, Federal policies of removal, relocation assimilation, and termination decimated Native communities and worsened the economic conditions for American Indians, Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians. The policy of banning native language used in the schools was adopted by the Territory of Hawaii. Native children were punished for speaking Hawaiian, just as American Indians and Alaska Natives were punished for using their own languages in school. The policy of allotting parcels of land to individual Indians began in 1887 as a way to break up the reservations and communal lifestyles. In 1906, it was expanded to Alaska Natives and in 1921 applied to Native Hawaiians. In an attempt to reverse the damage done by these policies since the 1920s, Congress has established special Native Hawaiian programs in education, employment, health care, and housing. Congress has extended to Native Hawaiians many of the same rights and privileges accorded to American Indians and Alaska Natives. The Congress has consistently recognized Native Hawaiians as Native peoples of the United States on whose behalf it may exercise its power under the Constitution. In 1993, the Congress passed and President Clinton signed legislation known as the apology resolution, a formal apology by the Congress. This legislation recognizes that the overthrow of the Hawaiian government resulted in the suppression of the inherent sovereignty of the Native Hawaiian people and the deprivation of the rights of Native Hawaiians to self-determination. It has been 20 years since the passage of the apology resolution. But the Federal Government has not yet acted to provide a process for reorganizing a Native Hawaiian governing entity. This inaction puts Native Hawaiians at a unique disadvantage. Of the three major groups of Native Americans in the United States: American Indians, Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians, only Native Hawaiians currently lack the benefits of democratic self-government. An extensive congressional legislative and oversight record created over the last two decades and dozens of congressional findings delineated in Federal statutes establish these facts: Indigenous Hawaiians, such as tribes on the continental United States, formed a Native community with their own government and this political entity existed before the founding of the United States and Native Hawaiians share historical and current bonds with their community. Similar to tribes in the continental United States, Native Hawaiians have certain land set aside for their benefit pursuant to acts of Congress, including 200,000 acres of Hawaiian Homes Commission Act land and share an interest in the income generated by 1.2 million acres of public trust lands under the Hawaii Admission Act. Although the Congress has passed more than 150 statutes to try to address some of the negative effects of earlier Federal actions, data reveal persistent health, education, and income disparities. Native Hawaiians experience disproportionately high rates of unemployment and incarceration, and Native Hawaiian children are overrepresented in the juvenile justice system. Hawaiian families rank last in the Nation in average annual pay and face high rates of homelessness. Separate is not equal. That is why I urge the Federal Government to treat Native Hawaiians fairly. It is long past time for the Native Hawaiian people to regain their right to self-governance. Two years ago, the State of Hawaii passed a historic measure to explicitly acknowledge that Native Hawaiians are the only indigenous, aboriginal, maoli population of Hawaii, and to establish a Native Hawaiian Enrollment Commission. My good friend and the former Governor of Hawaii John Waihee was appointed as chairman and is leading the effort to register Native Hawaiians. This landmark effort is widely supported by the State of Hawaii, our congressional delegation, and our citizens. I wish to acknowledge the commission, commend its vital work, and urge Native Hawaiians to take advantage of this opportunity to help reorganize a representational government. The actions and commitments of the State of Hawaii and the Enrollment Commission are crucial. But in order to reach our goal, we must all work together. That is why today, on King Kamehameha Day, I call upon all of us to join in the fight for justice for Native Hawaiians. I yield the floor.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.