Sheldon Whitehouse

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, we are always wise in this Chamber to reflect with reverence and gratitude on those who risked their lives fighting to establish this great Republic. Today I would like to recognize and celebrate the 240th anniversary of one of the earliest acts of defiance against the British Crown in our American struggle for independence. Most Americans remember the Boston Tea Party as one of the major events building up to the American Revolution. I see the pages in front of me nodding knowledgeably: Yes, I do know about the Boston Tea Party. We learned that story of the spirited Bostonians--literally spirited Bostonians, I am told--clamoring onto the decks of the East India Company's ships and dumping those tea bags into Boston Harbor to protest British taxation without representation. However, there is a milestone on the path to the Revolutionary War that is too often overlooked, and that is the story of 60 or so brave Rhode Islanders who challenged British rule more than a year before the Tea Party in Boston. Today I rise to honor those little-known heroes who risked their lives in defiance of oppression on one dark night in Rhode Island 240 years ago. In the year before the Revolutionary War, as tensions with the American Colonies grew, King George III stationed revenue cutters, armed customs patrol vessels, along the American coastline to prevent smuggling and force the payment of taxes and impose the authority of the Crown. One of the most notorious of these ships was stationed in Rhode Island's Narragansett Bay. The HMS Gaspee and her captain, Lt William Dudingston, were known for destroying fishing vessels, seizing cargo, and flagging down ships only to harass, humiliate, and interrogate the colonials. Outraged by this egregious abuse of power, the merchants and shipmasters of Rhode Island flooded civil and military officials with complaints of the Gaspee, exhausting every diplomatic and legal means to stir the British Crown to regulate Dudingston's conduct. Not only did British officials ignore the Rhode Islanders' concerns, they responded with open hostility. The commander of the local British fleet, Adm John Montagu, warned that anyone who dared attempt acts of resistance or retaliation against the Gaspee would be taken into custody and hanged as a pirate, which brings us to June 9, 1772, 240 years ago this week. Rhode Island ship captain Benjamin Lindsey was en route to Providence from Newport in his ship, the Hannah, when he was accosted and ordered to yield for inspection by the Gaspee. Captain Lindsey and his crew ignored that command and raced northward up Narragansett Bay--despite the warning shots fired by the Gaspee. As the Gaspee gave chase, Captain Lindsey knew that his ship was lighter and drew less water, so he sped north toward Pawtuxet Cove, toward the shallow waters off Namquid Point. The Hannah shot over the shallows, but the heavier Gaspee grounded and stuck firm. The British ship and her crew were caught stranded in a falling tide and would need to wait many hours for a rising tide to free the hulking Gaspee. Spotting this irresistible opportunity, Captain Lindsey proceeded on his course to Providence and enlisted the help of John Brown, a respected merchant from one of the most prominent families in the city. The two men rallied a group of Rhode Island patriots at Sabin's Tavern in what is now the East Side of Providence. Together, the group resolved to put an end to the Gaspee's reign over Rhode Island waters. That night, the men, led by Captain Lindsey and Abraham Whipple, embarked in eight longboats quietly down Narragansett Bay. They encircled the Gaspee and called on Lieutenant Dudingston to surrender his ship. Dudingston refused and ordered his men to fire upon any who tried to board. Refusing to yield to Dudingston's threats, the Rhode Islanders forced their way onto the Gaspee's deck, wounding Dudingston with a musket ball in the midst of the struggle. Right there in the waters of Warwick, RI, the very first blood in the conflict that was to become the American Revolution was drawn. As the patriots commandeered the ship, Brown ordered one of his Rhode Islanders, a physician named John Mawney, to head immediately to the ship's cabin to tend to Dudingston's wound. In their moment of victory, Brown and his men showed mercy to a man loathed for his cruelty, a man who had threatened to open fire on them only moments before. Allowing the Gaspee's crew time to collect their belongings, Brown and Whipple took the captive Englishmen to the shore before returning to the despised Gaspee to rid Narragansett Bay of her presence once and for all. They set her afire. The blaze spread to the ship's powder magazine, setting off explosions like fireworks, the resulting blast echoing across the bay as airborne fragments of the ship splashed down into the water. The site of this historic victory is now named Gaspee Point in honor of these audacious Rhode Islanders. So I come again to this Senate floor to share this story and to commemorate the night of June 9, 1772, and the names of Benjamin Lindsey, John Brown, and Abraham Whipple, a man who went on to serve as a naval commander in the Revolutionary War. I do know that these events and the patriots whose efforts allowed for their success are not forgotten in my home State. Over the years, I have enjoyed marching in the annual Gaspee Day Parade in Warwick, RI, as every year we recall the courage and zeal of these men who fired the first shots that drew the first blood in that great contest for the freedoms we enjoy today. They set a precedent for future patriots to follow--including those in Boston who more than a year later would have their Tea Party. But don't forget, as my home State prepares once again to celebrate the anniversary of the Gaspee incident, that while Massachusetts colonists threw tea bags off the deck of their British ship, we blew ours up and shot its captain more than a year before. We are little in Rhode Island, but, as Lieutenant Dudingston discovered, we pack a punch. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I ask permission to speak as in morning business.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the courage of Katie Beckett, whose recent passing bids us pause to remember the challenges faced by families with children with long-term care needs, and the support we can provide to them. Katie and her family will forever be known as heroes who fought for fair Medicaid benefits for every child. Before their advocacy work, Medicaid did not cover at-home treatment for children with disabilities or special health care needs. As a child suffering from viral encephalitis, Katie was forced to live in a hospital in order to receive treatment under Medicaid. Her mother went to work lobbying on behalf of Katie and other children in the same situation. As a result of her efforts, President Reagan passed a waiver that would allow children on Medicaid the option to receive medical care in their homes. To this day, the waiver--which is referred to as the ``Katie Beckett Waiver''--enhances the quality of life of thousands of children across the Nation, including many in my home State of Rhode Island. Caroline Friedman of Portsmouth, RI weighed 2 pounds, 15 ounces when she was born. In order to survive, Caroline must receive cardiac medicine through a central line in her heart. Because of the Katie Beckett Waiver, Caroline receives her life-sustaining treatment outside of the hospital. She is now 9 years old, and is living a full life attending school, joining Girl Scouts, and even taking karate classes. Because of the Katie Beckett Waiver, Jacob Vandal of Little Compton, RI, who suffers from a rare genetic disorder, was able to receive home- based therapy services. Receiving this treatment at home made a huge difference to his developmental progress. Now, Jacob is a well-adjusted 27 year old who works in a supported employment program--something his parents say would not have been possible without the at-home care afforded to him by the Katie Beckett Waiver. Katie Beckett and her family paved the way for Caroline, Jacob, and so many others like them to receive their treatment at home with their family, where they most wanted to be. I know these individuals and their families will be forever grateful for the difference the Beckett family has made to their lives. On behalf of all Rhode Islanders, I extend my heartfelt condolences to the Beckett family for their loss.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent the Senate adjourn under the previous order, following the remarks of Senator Sessions. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, it has become sort of a personal tradition of mine to come to the floor each week to report on the status of the dangers to our Earth and climate from the relentless carbon pollution that we have to face, and this is a bellwether week. This is our first week back in session in the Senate since our break last week, and during that time we have had a first. There were reports from the atmospheric measuring station that the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere broke 400 parts per million. The Christian Science Monitor has reported on this, stating monitoring stations across the Arctic this spring are measuring more than 400 parts per million of the heat-trapping gas carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The number isn't quite a surprise because it has been rising at an accelerating pace. Years ago, it passed the 350 parts-per-million mark that many scientists say is the highest safe level for carbon dioxide. It now stands globally at 395. The story continues, saying it has been at least 800,000 years-- probably more--since Earth saw carbon dioxide levels in the 400s, according to the climate scientists involved. They point out that the Arctic is the leading indicator in global warming, both in carbon dioxide in the air and in its effects. Pieter Tans, a senior NOAA scientist, says this is the first time the entire Arctic has been that high. He calls a 400 number ``depressing.'' The Christian Science Monitor also reported that global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels hit a record high of 34.8 billion tons released in 2011. Another report from the Sustainable Business News said readings are coming in at 400 parts per million and higher all over the Arctic. They have been recorded in Alaska, Greenland, Norway, Iceland, and even Mongolia; and 400 parts per million is beyond what scientists consider ``safe'' in terms of human society. It goes on saying in reporting of a 2009 paper in the journal Science, researchers concluded ``the only time in the last 20 million years that we find evidence for carbon dioxide levels similar to the [then] modern level of 387 parts per million was 15 to 20 million years ago, when the planet was dramatically different.'' It also says: How different? It says that ``Global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today. The sea level was 75 to 120 feet higher than it is today, there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on Antarctica and Greenland.'' According to NASA's leading climate scientist, James Hanson, ``that level of heat-trapping gases would assure that the disintegration of the ice sheets would accelerate out of control. Sea levels would rise and destroy coastal cities. Global temperatures would become intolerable, and 20 to 50 percent of the planet species would be driven to extinction. Civilization would be at risk. So this was a somber benchmark to have passed. As I have said before, we have had the experiences--humankind--of living within a bandwidth between 190 and 300 parts per million of carbon dioxide for about 800,000 years, which is going back into the very early days of our species--even before then. I think the famous Lucy, the prehistoric human, was 150,000, 160,000 years ago. So this goes way back before then. We started agriculture about 10,000 years ago. Before then, we were picking things off of trees and hunting small animals. We weren't even farming yet. When we go back 800,000 years, that is basically for as long as we can imagine on this planet, without going back into previous geologic eras. That has been the bandwidth--800,000 years, 190 to 300 parts per million. We rocketed out of that and blew through 350 several years ago, and now we have gone through 400, at least in the Arctic, and that is where we will go global-wide if this continues. There is no reason it will not continue because we keep increasing the amount of carbon pollution we emit into the atmosphere. I regret I have to come here every week and continue to bring grim news, but that is the fact, and the day will come when we are going to have to deal with it. I hope it is not too late for us when we finally get around to it. There is the prospect that it is too late because once the carbon is up in the atmosphere, it continues to do its work. The campaign that has been deployed to try to diminish the science of climate change, to try to confuse the public, and try to create a disabling measure of doubt has been reprehensible. It is based on falsehood. It is steeped in impropriety and special influence. It is inhibiting the ability of the Congress to do its job for the American people--not because there is any real doubt about the science but because the special interests that benefit from the status quo have entirely inappropriate levels of influence in this body, and they are insisting either directly or through phony front organizations, such as the Heartland Institute, which has recently put itself in jeopardy by comparing people who think climate change is actually happening to the Unabomber--now, there is a responsible public debate. That blew up in their faces because they had gone too far. The lying, the phony science, taking money from the polluters, and the phony operation they ran didn't go too far. The comparison to Ted Kazinski, the Kazinski billboard was that one step too far. There is some pushback on that, but that doesn't lift the burden on the polluting industries that are manipulating and maneuvering in Washington to prevent us from doing what needs to be done and doing so through false and phony organizations. Even if the Heartland Institute is gone, there are plenty of others, and the process continues. I think it is going to be a very harsh judgment that history brings to bear on this generation of Representatives and Senators that, as a body, we were willing to step away from our duty when the signal was clear. We were willing to listen to the siren song of special interests. We put their money in our pockets. We put our consciences on hold. We put the blinders on about the facts, and we marched forward foolishly when we should have been preparing. I am going to continue to do this. I hope the point comes soon when we can begin to realize that putting a price on carbon pollution, developing American clean energy that creates American clean energy jobs and begin to take care of this world as it increasingly sends us warnings about the damage that we are doing is the right and wise and proper thing to do. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 484, which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

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

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

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, let me first thank the distinguished Senator from Illinois for his determined efforts, as well as my senior colleague in this body, Senator Jack Reed, for his determined efforts in trying to get to a resolution that will prevent the student loan interest rates from doubling. The Highway Bill I am here to speak about another problem--something very important to ordinary Americans that is also being jammed up as a result of obstruction and intransigence--and that is the highway bill. We had a March 31 deadline, the House and the Senate, to get a highway bill done. The Senate did its job; we got a highway bill done by March 31. The House did not do its job; they failed to get a highway bill done. Let me point out that we have been doing highway bills in Congress back since the Eisenhower administration, and this is not rocket science. So it is telling that the body at the other end of this building could not get a highway and bridge bill done by the March 31 deadline. So what did they do? They extended it and took us to conference on the Senate bill. Now, let's say a word about the Senate bill. The Senate bill is very hard to criticize. People sometimes criticize bills around here because they get jammed through; there isn't enough time; there aren't enough amendments; it is not bipartisan. None of those criticisms apply to the Senate bill. The Senate highway bill came out of my Environment and Public Works Committee--thanks to the leadership of Chairman Boxer and Ranking Member Inhofe with the unanimous support of every Republican and every Democrat. It came to the floor. We had a wide-open process here on the floor. I think nearly 40 amendments were accepted either in floor votes or by agreement. Everybody had their chance, everybody had their day, and the net result was that the bill cleared out of the Senate with 75 Senators on record supporting it. That is a pretty impressive majority around here. So we have a 75-to-22 Senate bill that has the support of the chamber of commerce, the Association of Manufacturers, and it has the support of labor unions and the environmental community. There is really nothing to criticize about it either substantively or in terms of the process by which it was adopted, and yet our colleagues on the House side won't accept the bipartisan Senate bill. They have it bottled up in this conference. And the reason that I am on the floor today is that we are being told now that the House is going to ask for another extension past the end of June to continue to dawdle and stall the bipartisan highway bill. What is the effect of that? What is the effect of dawdling and stalling the bipartisan Senate highway bill? The effect is loss of jobs. The Presiding Officer is from New York, I am from Rhode Island, and the distinguished Senator from Utah is here on the floor. All of us have a common situation in our State, which is winter. In winter, it is really hard to build and repair highways and bridges. There is a summer construction season, and as we dawdle and delay and as the House jams up the bipartisan Senate highway bill, that summer season gets whittled away. We are now to the point where my director of transportation in Rhode Island, Mike Lewis, says that he had 97 jobs on his roster to be done in this summer construction season, and if we can't get this done earlier than when we anticipate doing it now, at the end of this month, at the end of June, 40 of those projects will drop off the roster and all of the jobs associated with them will be lost. Rhode Island is a small State. Those numbers are going to echo eastward and northward across the country in job losses this summer because of the delay of a bipartisan Senate highway bill by the House. These are real jobs. It is not just me making this observation and it is not just the Rhode Island director of transportation. Standard & Poor's Global Credit Portal RatingsDirect service has put out a publication: ``Increasingly Unpredictable Federal Funding Could Stall U.S. Transportation Infrastructure Projects.'' They say the following: With the March 31st expiration looming, Congress passed on March 29th yet another extension to fund U.S. highway programs. This latest continuing resolution, the ninth, provides funding through June 30, 2012. As construction season begins in the northern half of the country, this continuing uncertainty in funding could force states to delay projects rather than risk funding changes or political gridlock come July. That is exactly what we are seeing. They said: In addition, the political gridlock in Washington, D.C., and the doubt surrounding federal funding are making it difficult for issuers throughout the infrastructure sector to define long-term plans for funding necessary capital projects. If we get this turned around, then what happens? Well, according to Standard & Poor's, ``Once a long-term authorization is approved, we believe it will provide an impetus for transportation agencies to reconsider high-priority projects that had been shelved because of lack of funding.'' So we can put people to work in this country. We can put people to work in this country on roads and bridges and highways-- something every American understands. We can do it under a bipartisan Senate bill that has the support of everybody, from the business community, to the labor community, to the environmental community, to, perhaps obviously, the highway construction community. But the House of Representatives, which couldn't pass a highway bill, is jamming us in this endless conference. I don't know if it is their intention to knock out these jobs in this preelection period. I don't know if they just can't get their house in order over there to do the basic legwork of passing a highway bill. But as we approach the end of this month, as we approach this second deadline--which it looks like they are going to miss again--I will urge my colleagues, let's hold their feet to the fire. There is no excuse for not passing the bipartisan Senate highway bill that is widely supported and that will create or defend nearly 3 million jobs in this country--2.9 million, to use the exact number that has been identified with this bill. So I think it is very important that we stick to our guns on this one. In Rhode Island, we have projects such as Highway 95, where it comes through the city of Providence, it comes through as a bridge. It is a raised highway. If you go underneath that bridge to, say, drive into the back entrance of the Providence Place Mall or to look where the highway goes over the Amtrak rails that connect the Northeast Corridor, what do you see? You see wooden planks that have been laid between the I-beams so that the highway falling in doesn't land on cars underneath, doesn't land on Amtrak trains or train tracks underneath. This is a project that needs to be rebuilt. It needs to be rebuilt now. It is connected to where State Routes 6 and 10 come in and connect to 95. If you go under State Route 6 and State Route 10--as Senator Reed and I did recently with the mayor of Providence and with the transportation director--you see that those highways are propped up by wooden supports. You see that pieces of the metal infrastructure have crumbled and fallen off onto the ground. This is highway work that needs to be done. These are not bridges to nowhere. Every American driving across our bumpy roads knows we have work to do, and I call on my colleagues in the House to quit dawdling, to let this conference go. If they don't have an answer, if they can't pass a highway bill, if they can't do the basic legwork of governance to do something as simple as a highway bill, then get out of the way. At least get out of the way and let the bipartisan, widely supported Senate highway bill go. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m., on Thursday, June 7, 2012; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the majority leader be recognized; that the time until 10:30 a.m. be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees; further, that following the cloture vote on the motion to proceed to S. 3240, the next hour be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the Republicans controlling the first half and the majority controlling the final half.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 485, submitted earlier today.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, to our colleagues, I announce that it is the intention of the majority leader to resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 3240, the farm bill, when the Senate convenes tomorrow. At 10:30 a.m., there will be a cloture vote on the motion to proceed to the farm bill. We hope to reach an agreement on amendments to the bill during Thursday's session.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I want to take a few moments this afternoon to do something that has become a bit of a ritual with me; that is, to try to take some time each week to speak about the damage we are doing to our atmosphere, to our oceans, and to our climate with the relentless carbon pollution we are discharging. As each week goes by, the information continues to pile up about the harms we are causing. A recent story says rising temperatures could eliminate two-thirds of California's snowpack by the end of this century. The snowpack that helps provide water for California cities and farms could shrink by two-thirds because of climate change, according to new research submitted to the state's Energy Commission. Higher temperatures appear likely to wipe out a third of the Golden State's snowpack by 2050 and two-thirds by the end of the century, the Scripps Institution of Oceanography found. Science Daily reports: Black carbon aerosols and tropospheric ozone, both humanmade pollutants emitted predominantly in the Northern Hemisphere's low- to mid-latitudes-- That is basically us-- are most likely pushing the boundary of the tropics further poleward-- North and south-- in that hemisphere, new research by a team of scientists shows. . . . The lead climatologist, Robert J. Allen, says: If the tropics are moving poleward, then the subtropics will become even drier. If a poleward displacement of the mid-latitude storm tracks also occurs, this will shift mid- latitude precipitation poleward, impacting regional agriculture, economy, and society. The American people have not been taken in by the campaign of propaganda that primarily the polluting industries have put out. There have been significant reports in the past on ExxonMobil's funding of essentially phony research agencies so they can offer their opinions on this issue without having it be ExxonMobil's opinion. They either create or take over or subsidize organizations that then put out the message, and they sound legit--Heartland Institute, Annapolis Center. But the American people are not fooled, it turns out. Seventy-one percent of visitors who have come to the Nation's wildlife refuges say they were personally concerned about climate change's effects on fish, wildlife, and habitat. Seventy-four percent said that working to limit climate's effects on fish, wildlife, and habitat would benefit future generations. And 69 percent said doing so would improve the quality of life today. One of the original researchers on climate change--I quoted an article earlier, describing how over time the facts have proven his initial predictions accurate--is James Hansen. He wrote an article a few weeks ago in the New York Times headlined ``Game Over for the Climate.'' It begins with these two sentences: Global warming isn't a prediction. It is happening. Clearly we see that in measurements and observations around the planet. But what happens if it keeps going? He is talking about the tar sands up in Canada, and he says this: If we were to fully exploit this new oil source, and continue to burn our conventional oil, gas, and coal supplies, concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would eventually reach levels higher than in the Pliocene era, more than 2.5 million years ago, when sea level was at least 50 feet higher than it is now. That level of heat- trapping gases would assure that the disintegration of the ice sheets would accelerate out of control. Sea levels would rise and destroy coastal cities. Global temperatures would become intolerable. Twenty to 50 percent of the planet's species would be driven to extinction. Civilization would be at risk. That is clearly, as he admits, a long-term outlook, but it is an outlook that deserves our attention, because when he has given us long- term outlooks in the past, as time has marched forward they have been proven over and over to be true. It is convenient around here to pretend that none of this is happening. And it would be nice if we could wait until the disaster, the wolf was at the door and then do something about it, but there is a strong likelihood that by the time we take action, it will be too late. In September of 1940, there was an American living in the Philippines with his wife and son. He looked at what was happening over in Europe. He looked at the threat to Britain. He cabled back to the United States his recommendation. He said: The history of failure in war can almost be summed up in two words--``too late.'' Too late in comprehending the deadly purpose of a potential enemy. Too late in realizing the mortal danger. Too late in preparedness. Too late in uniting all possible forces for resistance. Too late in standing by one's friends. The author of that cable was GEN George MacArthur. He continued later on in the cable: The greatest strategic mistake in all history will be made if America fails to recognize the vital moment, if she permits again the writing of that fatal epitaph ``too late.'' Of course, General MacArthur was talking about what was becoming World War II, he was not talking about climate change. Yet his warning rings very true against this threat as well. ``Too late'' will be the epitaph if we do not prepare now. And I very much regret that we are in a situation in which we do not seem able as a body to take this threat seriously. The House shows no indication whatsoever of taking this threat seriously. Even the White House has dialed back its expressions of interest and concern on this issue, probably for the practical reason that the Republican-controlled House does not want to deal with this issue at all. Period. End of story. But it is happening out there. It is happening out there. People see the dying forests of the West as the pine bark beetle works its way more and more north because winters are no longer cold enough to kill off the larvae. People see the habitat of quail, of trout, of pheasant, of game animals, change in their lifetimes. They see the places where they used to be able to go to fish with their grandchildren no longer available. Farmers see changes. Gardeners see changes. Plants that could not grow in certain zones now can. Tropical plants can grow in northern areas because of changes. In Rhode Island we have had winter blooms of some of our fruit trees because it has gotten so warm. My wife did her dissertation on the species called the winter flounder, which was a very significant cash crop for the Rhode Island fishing industry. It was not very long ago. She wrote her dissertation about it because it was such an important part of the Rhode Island fishing industry, and because it had an interesting connection with a shrimp, Crangon septemspinosa, in which one fed on the other until it got big enough, and then the predatory cycle reversed itself and the winter flounder began to eat the shrimp instead of vice versa. Well, landings of winter flounder in Rhode Island have crashed catastrophically. The reason? The mean winter water temperature of Narragansett Bay is up about 4 degrees. That is enough of an ecosystem shift that the winter flounder is gone. Fishermen now catch scup instead, which is a far less remunerative crop and frankly not as good a fish to eat, in my opinion anyway. So these changes are happening. It is regrettable that we are unable to address them. The science has been discredited by propaganda campaigns that are deliberately and strategically designed to create doubt in the minds of the public where no doubt should exist. The fact is this science is rock solid. The notion that when you put lots of carbon dioxide up into the atmosphere it warms the atmosphere has been around since the Civil War. The scientist who discovered it was an English-Irish scientist named John Tyndall. He first reported this phenomenon in 1863. For 150 years we have known this. This is nothing new. We can measure the gigatons of carbon that we are discharging into the atmosphere. Of course, it is going to make a difference. The notion that it does not has been a public relations and propaganda campaign by well-heeled special interests to protect pollution, because it makes money for those companies. But with the damage it is doing to our future, it is very hard to honestly look my children in the eye and say I am doing my job for them here in Washington while we do nothing on carbon pollution. In fact, we continue to subsidize the biggest polluters. ExxonMobil makes more money than any corporation has in the history of the world and they still claim a subsidy from the American taxpayer. It is a ridiculous subsidy. And yet we subsidize them. I see the distinguished chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee is here on the floor. I want to conclude my remarks and thank him for the amazing work he and the ranking member, Michael Enzi, did on the FDA bill we just passed with such a strong vote, virtually a unanimous vote. There was a lot of very good work that was done there, so that proves there are areas where we can do good work. I hope the day comes when we can begin to do good work on the damage we are doing to our atmosphere and to our oceans with our relentless discharge of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, with our relentless subsidy of the polluters. One day we will be called into account for our inaction, and we will have earned the condemnation of history. I yield the floor.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I would suggest that it is more than just that we are drifting. I would suggest we are being drifted by politics and by the money in politics, particularly the big money the big polluters can throw into politics, not only directly by giving campaign contributions to people but by flooding money into phony so-called scientific organizations that then parrot their message, but without people being able to say: Wait a minute, this is ExxonMobil telling me; maybe I should be a little more guarded about it. So they launder it through a legitimate-sounding organization--not one, dozens--and we get bombarded with false propaganda. Scientists are not good at propaganda. It is not why they went to graduate school. It is not why they got their Ph.D. It is not what they do when they are out in the field taking measurements. So you put them up against a company such as ExxonMobil with all of its money and its propaganda skills and it is not an even contest. As the Chairman points out, by the time we are looking around and seeing, oh, my gosh, what have we allowed to happen--now we are awake-- we reject the propaganda. We have to do something about this, and it will probably be, as General MacArthur said, too late. That is the great danger. I thank the chairman for his recognition.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the Food and Drug Safety and Innovation Act. This measure includes a number of important reforms to promote the development of new treatments for patients in need and to ensure that drugs and other medical products are safe and effective for American families. I commend Chairman Harkin and Ranking Member Enzi for their hard work and leadership on this bill. As a participant in the drug supply chain integrity working group, along with the chairman and ranking member and Senators Bennet, Burr, and Grassley, I am especially proud of the strong, bipartisan measures to protect patients that have been included in this bill. The not-too- distant incidents concerning adulterated Heparin and counterfeit Avastin demonstrate the critical importance of protecting Americans from unsafe medical products manufactured overseas. The new tools and authorities in this law should help safeguard Rhode Island families from dangerous drugs, while leveling the playing field for U.S. manufacturers and providing more transparency and accountability across our drug supply chain. I particularly want to thank the chairman and ranking member for working with me to include the Expanding and Promoting Expertise in Rare Treatments Act of 2012, or EXPERT Act, which I introduced earlier this year, in the bill on the floor. During my time in office, I have been moved by the personal stories of dozens of Rhode Islanders with rare conditions. In the last year, I have met with Rhode Island advocates who have or whose family member has a rare disease, like Fragile X, spinal muscular atrophy, and CLOVES syndrome, among many others. Treatments for these rare conditions often do not exist or are so early in the development pipeline that it will take years for patients to benefit. Rather than simply waiting for the products to come to market, these families want to play a role in educating others about the rare disease that affects their loved one and working toward a successful treatment. The EXPERT Act is intended to give patients and experts a role in strengthening and expediting the FDA's review of new treatments for rare diseases. The measure encourages the agency to take advantage of the wisdom and insights of rare disease experts in order to speed the development of therapies for patients suffering from rare diseases. The bill also gives rare disease patients and their advocates a role in consulting with the FDA on topics like the severity of the disease, unmet medical needs, and the benefits and risks of therapies to treat the disease. We have seen that when the FDA gets the technical and scientific assistance it needs from rare disease experts, incredible progress can be made. The Cystic Fibrosis Foundation's recent work with Vertex Pharmaceuticals on a treatment named Kalydeco, which specifically targets the underlying causes of the disease in some patients, is a good example. As a result of close consultation with the CF Foundation and renowned experts, FDA approval for this treatment was one of the fastest in the agency's history. Rhode Islanders are already benefiting from Kalydeco. Sheri, a former resident of Narragansett, was diagnosed with cystic fibrosis when she was 16 years old. This past year, Sheri was surprised with the news that she is one of the 4 percent of cystic fibrosis patients who can be treated by the newly approved Kalydeco. For the past months Sheri has been on Kalydeco and says that she already feels the difference in her health, and, most importantly, it has given her hope to start thinking about her future. Recently engaged in February, Sheri shared, ``I can think about having children and seeing them grow up . . . even living to see my grandchildren!'' I hope the EXPERT Act will lead to more good stories for other Rhode Island patients and families afflicted with rare diseases. I have great admiration for the determination and optimism of the Rhode Islanders with rare disease I have met over the years, and I wanted to share a few more of those stories here today. I heard from Susan, a Providence resident and mother of 3\1/2\-year- old Phoebe. Susan describes her daughter as a ``bright, happy, and beautiful'' child. When Phoebe was 5 months old, Susan and her husband noticed that their daughter did not reach for or look at objects placed on the left side of her body. After numerous tests and doctor's visits, Phoebe was finally diagnosed with developmental dyspraxia, a motor- processing disorder. Because of the rarity of their daughter's condition, Susan and her husband found that specialists ``looked at us like we had two heads when we told them what her diagnosis was.'' Phoebe is reaching milestones in her development and is continuing to improve, but because so little is known about dyspraxia, Susan and her husband have encountered several hurdles to getting Phoebe the treatment and therapy she needs. Susan said, ``It breaks our hearts to think that Phoebe is being held back from reaching her full potential because of lack of awareness and education about her disease.'' Dorrie, from Warwick, wrote to share her family's story with me. Her youngest son was diagnosed with an extremely rare disorder called atypical non-ketotic hyperglycinemia, or NKH, when he was 4 years old. He is the only child living in Rhode Island with this disorder, which has no known cure or treatment. However, doctors have found several products can be used off label to improve their son's speech and alertness. Dorrie notes that ``he has progressed farther than we could ever have hoped possible. He is not only walking, but riding a two-wheel bicycle and playing kickball with his peers.'' Because they are using products off label, their private insurance will not cover their costs, and so they are forced to shoulder the burden of paying for their son's treatments out-of-pocket. This has caused anxiety and extreme stress on their family. As her son grows older, Dorrie is faced with more uncertainty about his future and says they are ``living on eggshells'' as he experiences increased and more severe symptoms. For these Rhode Islanders and others like them, the challenge of having a rare disease or having a family member with a rare disease comes not just from the symptoms of the disease but the loneliness of having something that so few people understand, let alone have. The EXPERT Act is one step toward empowering patients and their families with an opportunity to participate in a process that is critically important for their future. I am pleased that the act is supported by 64 national organizations, including the Rhode Island Rare Disease Foundation. I again thank the chairman and ranking member for including this measure in this legislation so that more families in Rhode Island and around the country can receive the same kind of good news that Sheri and many other cystic fibrosis patients received earlier this year.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Not only did they not wrestle with it, it is not clear they even thought about it. When there are people who have come out of the judicial monastery--not quite the right word because they are men and women alike--but out of the separate province of high-end adjudication, they are not familiar with this. They did not think of this. They didn't think of that, and the other thing they didn't think of was that the threat of launching a multimillion-dollar negative attack against a candidate could have a corrupting effect, even if no dollars were ever spent. If the threat is successful, if the scheme works, there is no trail left to it. Before Citizens United, if someone wanted to make a threat, their threat was limited to a big PAC contribution, having a big fundraiser, things like that. It was not a real threat in the sense it could knock somebody out of their office. Now the idea that a corporate identity can hide its identity, can launder its identity through 501(c)(4)s and then launch a multimillion- dollar attack in somebody's State is a credible threat, and I think that is a threat, among others, they overlooked completely.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. The great experiment that the Founders of this country embarked upon when they founded this country was to allow for a democratic form of government that was governed by the people--not kings, not lords, not pharaohs, by the people. It has been a consistent thread throughout our history at important times. As the Civil War came to a close and our beloved President Lincoln stood at Gettysburg to give his great address, he talked about the importance of a government ``of the people, by the people, and for the people.'' That has always been the core, heart, and hallmark of the American form of government. It has lit a blaze that has illuminated the rest of the world as well. It is not just an American value. People from around the world look at this and say: You know, it can be that way.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I believe it is. We operate in a modern world in which we are bombarded by media. The average person, the average, ordinary member of ``the people,'' does not have much access to that media, cannot get his or her voice much heard in that bombardment. But if someone has enormous amounts of money, either because they are a corporation with a vast treasury or because they are a billionaire, they can take a big chunk of that media and can use it to broadcast their view. That will drown out other voices that do not have that power. So it really does attack the basic premise of ``we the people.''

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I think three things went wrong. First of all, this is a Supreme Court that, unlike most if not all other Supreme Courts, has no political experience. None of them have ever run for office, so they do not have a practical sense of how politics engages in an election. Second, because they sort of invented this question, they did not have a record where people who did know about politics and did know about elections and did know about corruption could assemble a record from which they could then learn. So they were operating in a much greater vacuum than the Supreme Court usually does. Finally, they made two presumptions that supported it. One was that the super PACs and all these big entities would be independent from the candidates. We have seen that was a false assumption. That was a wrong premise. Now the super PACs are connected to a candidate. They have one purpose: to get the candidate elected. They have funds raised by the candidate, they share staff with the candidate, they share consultants with the candidate. They use the same footage as the candidate. The idea that they are independent has been made preposterous by the facts. The second was that there would be disclosure so the public could at least evaluate, OK, this is the coal mining industry coming after somebody who is fighting for climate change. We get that. We can make an appropriate judgment about that use of corporate money to attack a candidate. They were wrong about that as well. That is why we are here on this DISCLOSE 2.0, and we have been working so hard to make sure this bill has gotten to the floor in the good shape it has been.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, while we are waiting for the next speaker to arrive, I wanted to take a moment and discuss the brief Senator McCain and I filed in the Supreme Court last week. It can be found at http://www.whitehouse.senate.gov/download/?id=e3ba7f1b-d132 4aef-b5bc-c49fd711fc51. The Supreme Court in the Citizens United decision was in a difficult situation. No member of the Court had ever run in an election for office. It may be the first time in the history of a country that no member of the Supreme Court had ever run for office, so it is a Supreme Court that as a corporate group was uniquely inexperienced in the actual ins and outs of elections and politics. Moreover, the way the Citizens United case came up to the Court, the question they ended up deciding is one that they asked for additional briefing on. It is a question that, in many respects, the Court raised itself. And so the Court did not have the benefit of the usual process of a case beginning in the trial court and amassing a record of evidence, of testimony, of witnesses, of a review of all of that at the appellate court level, and then final review at the Supreme Court. So they did something very unusual. They actually made a finding of fact. A finding of fact is not something Supreme Courts are supposed to do in the first instance. That is the job of the trial judge and the jury, if there is a jury trial. Those are the fact-finders in our system of law. And certainly for a Supreme Court that has an appellate tribunal between it and the trial branches, as our Federal system does, it is very unusual for them to be making findings of fact. They made findings of fact in this case. And, unfortunately, because they had no experience in elections, any of them, and because they had no record, they made a finding of fact that was not in fact a fact. They made a finding of a false fact. The mistake they made was to determine that no amount of corporate spending in an election could create either the risk or the appearance of corruption, and I think the practical facts of that are pretty easy to rebut. They stood that finding of fact, that premise, on two subordinate premises and we rebut both of them in the brief. If I have further time, I will come back to that, but I see that the Senator from New Hampshire is here and I do not want to cut into her time, so I yield to the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire, and I appreciate her great work through the long period of discussion and draftsmanship that brought 2.0 to the floor with its now 43 cosponsors.

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

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about a subject that I know is dear to the heart of the Presiding Officer, which is the sorry state of our campaign finance system and the need for the DISCLOSE Act of 2012, which we call DISCLOSE 2.0. The Supreme Court's 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission opened the floodgates to unlimited corporate and special-interest money in our elections, bringing about an era in which corporations and other wealthy interests can drown out the voices of individual voters in our political system. Worse still, much of this spending is anonymous, so we don't even know who is spending millions to influence our elections. Here is how my State's newspaper, the Providence Journal, explained it when the ruling came down: The ruling will mean that, more than ever, big-spending economic interests will determine who gets elected. More money will especially pour into relentless attack campaigns. Free speech for most individuals will suffer because their voices will count for even less than they do now. They will simply be drowned out by the big money. The Providence Journal had a lot of foresight with that warning. What has happened since then has proven them right. Senator John McCain recently said this: I predicted when the United States Supreme Court, with their absolute ignorance of what happens in politics, struck down the law-- Referring to the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law --That there would be a flood of money into campaigns, not transparent, unaccounted for, and this is exactly what is happening. Senator McCain, is it ever. In the 2010 midterm election, the first after Citizens United, there was more than a fourfold increase in expenditures from super PACs and other outside groups compared to 2006, with nearly three-quarters of political advertising coming from sources that were prohibited from spending money in 2006. Also in 2010, 501(c)(4) and (c)(6) not-for-profit organizations spent more than $135 million in unlimited and secret contributions. This anonymous secret spending rose from 1 percent of outside spending in 2006 to 44 percent in 2010. We are already seeing the influence of money on the 2012 elections. Super PACs and other outside groups have spent around $140 million in this election cycle. That is about twice what was spent over the same period in 2008 during the last Presidential election. In the 2 weeks leading up to Super Tuesday, outside PACs that supported the Republican Presidential candidates spent three times as much on advertising as the campaigns did themselves. There are already signs things are going to get even worse. The Washington Post reported: Groups that do not reveal their funding sources have spent $28.5 million on advertising related to the November presidential matchup, or about ninety percent of the total. Ninety percent. And these are groups that don't reveal their funding sources. Our campaign finance system is broken. Action is required to fix it. Americans of all political stripes are disgusted by the influence of unlimited, anonymous corporate cash in our elections, and disgusted by campaigns that succeed or fail depending on how many billionaires the candidates have in their pockets. More and more, people believe their government responds only to wealthy and corporate interests. As they see their jobs disappear and their wages stagnate and bailouts and special deals for the big guys, they lose ever more faith their elected officials are actually listening to them. Over the deafening roar of secret special interest spending, they get harder and harder to listen to. This growing consensus across the political spectrum was reflected in the brief Senator John McCain and I filed with the Supreme Court last week in American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock. In that brief, we urged the Court to reconsider the flawed central premise of its decision in Citizens United: the proposition that independent expenditures do not lead to corruption or the appearance of corruption. As the statistics about anonymous spending and public perception make clear, this premise is discredited. I am proud to have worked on the brief with Senator McCain, who has long been a leader in Congress on campaign finance issues. I hope our partnership will mark the beginning of greater cooperation across party lines on this issue of vital importance to the integrity of our great American democracy. I also hope the Supreme Court will take heed of the nearly universal opinion that the system they have unleashed in Citizens United puts our very democracy in jeopardy. Until the Court acts, or until we enact a constitutional amendment to repair what they have done, we are left with one weapon in the fight against the overwhelming tidal wave of money from special interests-- and that is disclosure. At least make them fess up to who they are. That is why I stand here today in support of the DISCLOSE Act of 2012 or, as I said, DISCLOSE 2.0, in recognition of Senator Schumer's great work on the DISCLOSE Act. This legislation will shine a bright light on these powerful interests and their spending. With this legislation, which now has 43 cosponsors in the Senate, every citizen will know who is spending these great sums of money to get their candidates elected and to influence those candidates. I would like to give particular thanks to the previous Presiding Officer, Senator Franken, and the current Presiding Officer, Senator Tom Udall, as well as Senators Chuck Schumer, Michael Bennet, Jeff Merkley, and Jeanne Shaheen for their hard work on developing this legislation. Senator Schumer, as we all know, has been leading the charge for disclosure since Citizens United upended and fouled our campaign finance system. In 2010, with Senator Schumer's leadership, we came within one vote of passing the original DISCLOSE Act. Since then, the problem of anonymous, unaccountable special interest money has become much worse. We must redouble our efforts and pass DISCLOSE 2.0. DISCLOSE 2.0 says two very simple things: First, if you are an organization, such as a corporation, a super PAC, or a 501(c)(4), and you are spending money in an election campaign in support of or in opposition to a candidate, you have to tell the public where that money came from and what you are spending it on in a timely manner. That should not be a controversial idea to anyone, at least to anyone who is not seeking secret special influence. This chart shows how easy it is under our current system for wealthy interests to anonymously spend millions on election ads. This amounts to a form of legalized money laundering or identity laundering. Super PACs are supposed to disclose their donors under current law. But if someone wants to avoid that disclosure, they can set up a shell corporation, which may be nothing more than a P.O. box, and send the money to the super PAC through that. Worse still, instead of using a shell corporation, they can pass the money through to a 501(c)(4), a so-called ``social welfare'' organization set up just for the purpose of spending money in elections. Think about that. The IRS gives nonprofit status to groups whose primary purpose in many cases is to shield billionaires and corporations spending money in elections from having their identities disclosed. In many cases, these 501(c)(4) groups are so closely affiliated with their super PACs they have all the same staff and all the same office space, and the (c)(4) groups still don't have to disclose the identities of their donors. On this chart we see the money raised through the end of 2011 by two political groups started after Citizens United by Republican political operatives. These two organizations have the same staff and the same office space, and they run negative ads against many of the same candidates. One, American Crossroads, is a super PAC and is supposed to disclose its donors. The other, Crossroads GPS, is a 501(c)(4) group and doesn't have to disclose donors. Guess which one has raised more money. Of course it is the 501(c)(4) group which doesn't have to disclose its donors. That group has raised $76.8 million as compared to only $46.4 million by its sister super PAC. This is, by no means, a unique situation. For corporations trying to buy influence through spending in elections, ``nondisclosure is always preferred,'' as an unnamed corporate lobbyist recently told Politico. Why? Well, for one thing there is no accountability--not to the company shareholders, not to their customers, and not to the public. Nondisclosure is ``preferred'' because it makes it impossible for the public and for law enforcement to track the corrupting influence of the money these corporations spend in elections. DISCLOSE 2.0 would put an end to using 501(c)(4) groups and shell corporations to shield the identities of big campaign contributors. One thing that shouldn't be lost in this discussion of anonymous spending is the fact there is one person to whom this spending is certainly not anonymous, and that is the candidate--the elected official. The donors manage to hide their identities from the public, but they can sure tell the candidate how much money they put into that candidate's super PAC and what positions they want the candidate to take on issues. What this creates is a perfect formula for corruption: wealthy corporations and individuals spending millions of dollars to influence a candidate without any oversight or public accountability or scrutiny. Also, as a former Attorney General--and I know the Presiding Officer, the Senator from New Mexico, can appreciate this as well--a well-heeled donor doesn't have to make the contribution necessarily, doesn't have to launch the ad necessarily. They can also secretly threaten a massive expenditure against a candidate if the candidate doesn't vote right on their issue. Political scientist Norm Ornstein recently said: I have had this tale told to me by a number of lawmakers. You're sitting in your office and a lobbyist comes in and says, ``I'm working with Americans for a Better America. And I can't tell you who's funding them, but I can tell you they really, really want this amendment in the bill.'' And who knows what they'll do? They have more money than God. If the candidate complies and does the right thing by the amendment or the right thing by the bill, the expenditure is never made. There will be no paper trail; no trace of the threat that drove that vote-- that corrupted that vote--was ever made. The whole rationale for unlimited spending was that it was going to be done independently of the candidate's campaign. That has proven false. The reality is that super PACs are anything but independent. Campaigns and super PACs share fundraising lists, donors, former staff, and consultants. Candidates appear at fundraisers for their super PACs, and super PACs recycle ads originally run by the candidates. They are free to act as the ``evil twins'' of candidate campaigns, as one FEC Commissioner put it, raising unlimited, anonymous money and then spending it on massive amounts of advertising--most of it negative-- which further hides the identity of the interest behind the ad because if all you are doing is trashing a candidate, you don't even have to show what your interest is, let alone your identity. About 70 percent of ads in this election cycle have, as a result, been negative ads, up from only 9 percent in 2008. This brings us to the second thing DISCLOSE 2.0 does. If someone is a top executive or a major donor of an organization spending millions of dollars on campaign ads, they have to take responsibility for their ads, just the way we do as candidates. These are reasonable provisions that should have wide support from Democrats and Republicans alike. As Trevor Potter, a Republican former Chairman of the Federal Election Commission, said in a statement submitted to the Rules Committee of the Senate: [DISCLOSE 2.0 is] . . . appropriately targeted, narrowly tailored, clearly constitutional, and desperately needed. We have made every effort to craft an effective and fair proposal while imposing the least possible burden on covered organizations. Passing this law would remove a dark cloud of unlimited, anonymous money from our elections, and it would prove to the American people that Congress is capable of fairness, equality, and following the fundamental principle of a government ``of the people, by the people, and for the people.'' I urge my colleagues to support the DISCLOSE Act of 2012. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.