Sheldon Whitehouse

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, the premise of this is that climate change is not real and not urgent, which puts that side of the aisle at odds with NASA, the Department of Defense, every major American scientific society, corporate leaders in their home States, and probably every single State university in their home States.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, just to get things in order here, I ask unanimous consent that first Senator Paul be recognized to call up an amendment and then after that, that Senator Wyden be recognized to call up an amendment and for 3 minutes; that Senator Coons be recognized to call up an amendment and for 3 minutes; that Senator Baldwin be recognized to call up an amendment and for 2 minutes; that Senator Manchin be recognized to call up an amendment and for 3 minutes; and then I be recognized to call up an amendment.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Can we let Senator Paul, who is simply calling up an amendment, proceed first?

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I so modify my request.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside; further, that three amendments be called up en bloc. They are amendments Nos. 700, 867, and 895.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I will be even briefer than that.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be added as a cosponsor to Senator Warren's amendment.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Rhode Island is the very proud location of some of the best universities in the country. We have very high university density in our small State. We have everything from Brown University in Providence, to our wonderful State universities led by the University of Rhode Island, to leading Catholic colleges such as Providence College and Salve Regina in Newport, RI. To support kids in getting their college educations and to bring down the cost is a priority for us in Rhode Island. I am proud to cosponsor this amendment. I yield back any further time.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Just a clarification. As I understand it, the order I asked will be the order on the Democratic side. There will be an interspersing of Republicans as they come to the floor, but everybody is going to be kept to 2 or 3 minutes rather than there being long speeches because if someone is going to give a long speech, they should go to the end. We are just trying to call up a lot of amendments quickly.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed on behalf of Senator Wyden, Ranking Member Sanders, and myself to set aside the pending amendment and call up amendment No. 471.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, for my colleagues, this is an amendment which relates to protecting Social Security. Social Security is a program that has been an enormous success, that is at the heart of the American middle class, and that represents a solemn promise our seniors have earned over a lifetime of work. It makes a real difference in real people's lives. It is the difference between comfort and poverty for over 20 million Americans. Rhode Island is a State where we count on Social Security. We value Social Security. We know how important it is. What I have heard firsthand from Rhode Island seniors over and over again is they want to make sure this program is solid and remains strong, not just for them but for their children and their grandchildren. Sadly, for decades, the history of the Republican Party has been one of repeated attempts to undermine this bedrock of middle-class retirement security, proposing over and over again various types of security cuts and, believe it or not, even turning Social Security's assets over to Wall Street to manage. This Democratic amendment establishes a point of order against any legislation that would reduce Social Security benefits, that would increase the Social Security retirement age, or that would privatize the program. This would help our moderate friends protect Social Security from rightwing attacks, and it would ensure that seniors, as a part of their American experience, can continue to count on benefits they have earned. Social Security is at present projected to remain fully solvent through 2033. It does not drive our current budget deficits and should not be sacrificed to the quarrels over the budget. Ultimately, I think we will need to strengthen Social Security, and when we do, simply asking the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share into the system can make that difference. Simply asking the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share into the system can extend it another 50 years, while also making our tax system fairer to the middle class. So it is a true win-win. And we want to make sure we do not have to watch Rhode Island seniors and seniors across the country pay the price for a deficit they had no part in creating. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Vermont. I wish to add my support to our ranking member's remarks. At present, somebody making $110 million a year--and there are people who make $110 million a year in this country--will make the same contribution or less to Social Security as somebody making $110,000 a year in salary. At best, they will pay the same despite the fact that they are making 1,000 times more. At worst, they will pay even less into it because they have treated their income as capital gains and they have dodged the payroll tax on it. To me, that makes no sense, particularly when more and more of our national income is moving up into the top 1 percent, the top 2 percent, the top one-tenth of 1 percent. In fact, there has been a pronounced effect on Social Security's balances just from the increased income inequality. More and more of the income generated in the United States of America is moving to the wealthiest people, and that means the amount of income under $110,000 that is subject to taxation for Social Security is a smaller fraction of the total income package than it was before, which means there will be less income to support Social Security, and that is a significant part of why Social Security is underfunded and why it may only last for the next 18 years instead of longer. First of all, I think Social Security is so important that even if there were not this fairness discrepancy, it is worth it to our country to have people know that they and their aunts and their uncles and their grandparents have the security of Social Security, and we should protect it at virtually all costs. But even if that alone were not sufficient, the fact that everybody making under $110,000 supports Social Security and the billionaires make no greater contribution and perhaps less of a contribution than regular working folks is completely backward and completely wrong, but, unfortunately, that is the principle of primacy in this Republican budget. The principle of primacy in this Republican budget is that every tax loophole is sacred. Every tax loophole is nonnegotiable. Every tax loophole is to be defended at all costs. It doesn't matter what you have to cut, it doesn't matter what harm you have to do to Social Security or to other programs, nothing matters as much to this Republican budget as protecting every tax loophole. When we consider who has the clout around here in this country to get tax loopholes, guess what--it is the corporations and it is the wealthy. Those are the guys who really do the mischief. There are other tax protections for the middle class, and nobody wants to change those. But these tax loopholes that move jobs overseas and pay for that and allow companies to pretend their intellectual property is in another country when they only have half-a-dozen employees there and they are running big time across our country because they locate themselves for tax purposes in a tax haven--there is no benefit to that. We should fix that. But in this budget, all of that is kept sacred. It is the highest primary principle of this budget to defend every corporate tax loophole and every loophole that helps millionaires and billionaires, and I happen to think that is wrong. We brought this up over and over again in the hearings in the Budget Committee. We have heard from experts--not only experts brought in by the Democrats, we even heard from experts brought in by the Republicans who said that revenue has to be part of the solution to our deficit and that many of these tax loopholes are--there is no justification for them. Even with this testimony and that support in the record, this budget still stands by its principle of Republican primacy, and that is that every tax loophole is sacred. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, in response to the colloquy that just transpired, I would simply say that for all of the earnest and I am sure sincere spirit behind it, there is no willingness to even close one corporate tax loophole to support our Nation's defense, which I think puts into some context the priority in which that is held as a practical matter, as opposed to a theoretical matter. Climate Change Mr. President, I have come to the floor today to urge this Chamber to wake up to the urgent threat of climate change. I have done this every week the Senate has been in session for nearly 3 years. Today is my 94th time. I have asked my colleagues to heed the warnings from our scientists, from our military and national security professionals, from many of our leading American corporations and executives, from their own home-State universities, and from so many of our faith leaders. Since it is budget week, we would do well to also consider that for years the Government Accountability Office has placed climate change on its biannual high-risk list of the greatest fiscal challenges facing the Federal Government. But even so, there is no attention from the other side. This risk is particularly great in coastal areas, such as in my home State of Rhode Island, where sea levels rise ever closer to infrastructure and property, and extreme weather exacts an ever heavier toll. Secretary of the Treasury Lew put it pretty plainly: If the fiscal burden from climate change continues to rise, it will create budgetary pressures that will force hard tradeoffs--larger deficits or higher taxes. And these tradeoffs would make it more challenging to invest in growth, to meet the needs of an aging population, and to provide for our national defense. My Republican colleagues want to slash spending. Indeed, they have almost a fixation on slashing spending. They say they do not want to leave a financial mess for future generations to bear, but they ignore the need to slash our carbon emissions and don't care a bit about leaving an environmental mess for future generations to bear. They refuse because the polluters and their allies have built a fearsome political machine in Citizens United, and the polluters demand that the Republicans follow their denier script. Well, unfortunately, nature won't wait for our politics to sort themselves out, and nowhere are these changes occurring more clearly than in our oceans. The changes in our oceans are real, and they are measurable. They follow the laws of biology, of chemistry, and of physics. Our steady flood of carbon pollution has real consequences. Scientists from the University of California, Stanford, and Rutgers recently published a peer-reviewed paper in Science magazine on marine defaunation. ``Defaunation'' is a big word for the widespread loss of animal life in the ocean. Human activities, they argue, including overfishing, pollution, and carbon emissions, are wiping out sea life. Populations of marine vertebrates, including sea birds, mammals, and turtles, have decreased by an average of 22 percent over the last 40 years. Fish have declined by nearly 40 percent. Major fish species have crashed 90 percent. Coral is having massive bleaching and die-off. We are living, the authors say, in a time of ``empty reefs,'' ``empty estuaries,'' and ``empty bays.'' How is it that carbon pollution changes the ocean environment? Pretty simply, greenhouse gases in the atmosphere trap heat. That is not news. We have known that since Abraham Lincoln was President. Much of that heat goes right into the ocean. Globally, oceans absorb 90 percent of the heat captured by greenhouse gases. Well, all that heat disrupts marine life. Corals, for example, will expel the algae living in their tissues when water is too warm, causing the coral to turn completely white and die in what is known as coral bleaching. Other species that aren't stuck in one place like coral are literally swimming away. We have seen fish, accustomed to specific temperatures, migrating to cooler waters. Along the entire Northeast seaboard, the movement of fish farther north and into deeper waters is well documented. NOAA has even developed tools to allow fisheries managers and scientists to go online and track the movement of different species through time. I have had fishermen back home tell me they are catching fish their fathers and grandfathers never saw come up in their nets. One Rhode Island fisherman told me: ``Sheldon, it's getting weird out there.'' Forty percent of fishermen in the Northeast reported catching new fish species in places where they wouldn't expect to find them. In a recent Center for American Progress survey, those who believe climate change is happening outnumber deniers four to one. Just last week, the Providence Journal, my own home State paper, reported on the continuing loss of ice smelt from the waters of the Northeast. The smelt live in estuaries and bays in the wintertime, once making it a favorite for ice fishermen. But now where the ice-fishing cottages used to cover the ice, there are very few. That fishery has crashed. In Narragansett Bay, the winter flounder fishery has crashed. From Maine comes a recent news article from our former Republican colleague, Olympia Snowe. It is titled, rather bluntly, ``Lack of Action on Climate Change is Costing Fishing Jobs.'' Senator Snowe reports that the shrimp fishery in the Gulf of Maine was closed this winter for the second year in a row because the shrimp are nowhere to be found. The shrimp fishery has crashed, and the crash has been precipitous. As recently as 2010, shrimpers in the Gulf of Maine hauled in 12 million pounds of northern shrimp. By the time they had to close the fishery, the catch was down to less than 600,000 pounds. One likely culprit is warming seas. The Gulf of Maine is at the southern end of the shrimp's range, and the Gulf of Maine is warming exceptionally fast. An estimate from the Gulf of Maine Research Institute shows that water temperatures in the gulf rose eight times faster than the global average in recent years. The rapid changes in the Gulf of Maine are causing things to get strange for the other fisheries as well. Our colleague Angus King has come to the floor repeatedly to describe the northward march of the iconic Maine lobster. Cod populations in the Gulf of Maine suffered for years from overfishing. Now the cod are struggling to recover as temperatures in the gulf increase. The cod might not return, instead seeking out cooler water elsewhere. Another scientific fact: Warmer temperatures make oxygen less soluble in water. When oxygen is too low for marine life to flourish, that creates dead zones, which are growing around our oceans in size and in number. If carbon pollution continues at pace, global oxygen levels in the ocean are predicted to drop by more than 3 percent over the century. Do we tell the fish to hold their breath while we wait to wake up? Carbon pollution also makes the oceans more acidic--another scientific fact. Ocean water has absorbed roughly a quarter of all historic carbon dioxide emissions, driving up the pH level of the oceans at rates not seen in perhaps the last 300 million years. To put 300 million years in context, that is more than 1,000 times as long as our species has been on this planet. We are gambling with very big changes that we have never seen in human time and that are a long way back in geologic time. Acidifying waters make it harder for animals such as oysters or even the humble pteropod--a main component of the salmon diet--and a lot of other creatures at the base of the oceanic food chain to make their shells and develop properly from juveniles to adults. Increasingly, those acidic oceans are hurting U.S. shellfish, and shellfish are a $1 billion American industry. More acidic waters have already cost the oyster industry in the Pacific Northwest nearly $110 million, putting 3,200 jobs at risk. The Pacific Northwest is being hit first by ocean acidification, but the effects are expected to be felt hardest in the Northeast--my home--according to a recent article in the journal Nature Climate Change. Conditions in the Northeast will jeopardize the $14 million annual mollusk harvest in my State of Rhode Island, putting my home State's coastal communities at real risk of economic harm. Bill Mook, president of Mook Sea Farm in Maine, testified before the Environment and Public Works Committee last summer about the decline in oyster larva that he has linked to more acidic water. As he said, delicate shellfish hatcheries are ``canaries in the coal mine,'' the first victims of a growing menace. Yet we still don't listen. From coast to coast and pole to pole, the oceans are warning us, and we still do not listen. The authors of the Science magazine paper warned that we are headed into ``an era of global chemical warfare'' on the oceans--and we don't listen. We must wake up to the warnings that are coming from our oceans. The evidence is there for everyone to see. It is a matter of measurement, basic measurements of temperature, of pH, of sea level--real high school science class stuff--that are showing us these changes. Yet we won't listen. Fishermen in Rhode Island and across the country are already feeling these changes. They see them around them. Colleagues, if you are not a scientist, go ask the coastal and ocean scientists at your home State university. They will give you the answer. I conclude by going back to what Senator Snowe wrote: The loss of Maine's $5 million shrimp fishery should serve as a warning. A similar blow to our $300 million lobster fishery must be avoided at all costs. That will require honest, fact-based discussion and a genuine bipartisan commitment to solutions. Well, we have had neither around here for a long time. There has been no honest, fact-based discussion, and there has been no bipartisan commitment to solutions. That has to change. I hope Senator Snowe's fellow Republicans in the Senate will join with us Democrats in that honest, fact-based discussion and in a genuine bipartisan commitment to solutions. I hope our colleagues will unshackle themselves from the fossil fuel industry--which is an industry riddled with appalling conflicts of interest on this subject-- and wake the heck up. I yield the floor.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, to change the subject from sentencing reform to climate change, I come to the floor today for the 93rd consecutive week that the Senate has been in session to urge that my colleagues wake up to the urgent threat of what results from our levels of carbon pollution. It is an opportune time now to consider a step-up in American corporate responsibility on climate change. Call it corporate climate responsibility 2.0. Americans can celebrate and applaud the fact that America's corporate leaders have taken so many important steps on climate change. Companies such as Walmart and Coca-Cola, to pick just two, see the problem clearly and have done great things. Walmart, for instance, has taken exemplary responsibility for its carbon footprint not only within its facilities but out beyond its corporate walls into its international supply chain. Walmart has led the move for consumers away from incandescent bulbs and into high-efficiency lighting. If you have ever used that machine where you have to crank electricity in order to light up an incandescent bulb and then do the same thing for a high efficiency bulb, you have an unforgettable experience of how much more efficient those modern bulbs are. Walmart has strong and responsible carbon policies and Walmart has made a successful business model of saving money by reducing carbon emissions. Walmart even has an internal price on carbon so it can properly evaluate its internal processes in its own facilities against its climate standards. This is not new for Walmart. A decade ago, Walmart's then-CEO Lee Scott said: The science is in, and it is overwhelming. We believe every company has a responsibility to reduce greenhouse gases as quickly as it can. Coca-Cola, the other company I mentioned, has exemplary carbon policies too. Coca-Cola knows how disruptive climate change can be on the water supply that is Coca-Cola's most basic need in its bottling facilities. They, too, have found the sweet spot of saving money by reducing their carbon output. As the Arctic melts, Coca-Cola even put a polar bear on its iconic Coke can. Muhtar Kent, Coca-Cola's CEO, has said: It is absolutely imperative that our commitment to a low- carbon future be fully understood. We're here to lend a Coca- Cola voice to the public and political debate on getting to a fair framework, an inclusive framework, and an effective framework so that we can achieve climate protection. Many other major corporations have too. There is Google and Apple, apparel giant VF Corporation and Nike, Mars, Nestle, and Cargill, General Motors and the Ford Motor Company, UPS and Federal Express, Unilever and Starbucks. All are in different ways clear-eyed and responsible climate champions. So there is a lot to celebrate from America's corporate leaders, but there is also more to be done. We are right now at a societal and political tipping point on climate change, where corporations that are already good on climate change--corporations that are sensible and responsible on climate change--can make a big difference by taking it up one more step and putting their politics where their policies already are. So what is putting your politics where your policies are? First, it is making climate change an issue, something we talk about when we come to Congress. I don't know whether Walmart has ever spoken to Senator Boozman or Senator Cotton, from their home State of Arkansas, about climate change. I know they never spoke to Senator Pryor when he was in the Senate because he told me so. I don't know whether Coca-Cola has ever spoken about climate change to Senators Isakson or Perdue from Coca-Cola's home State of Georgia. It is not just them. I pick out Walmart and Coca-Cola because they are two of the best companies on carbon reduction. I actually don't know of one major American corporation that makes climate change a priority when it comes here to Washington and lobbies Congress, not one. America's corporate leaders have great carbon reduction policies, but when they come to Congress, that is not on the agenda of their politics. If it were, it would make a difference. I know it is not easy. Senior corporate leaders in major American companies have told me and others that they fear retribution if they lobby Congress on climate change; that they will be punished on tax or trade or liability or regulatory or other issues they have in Congress. That is how ugly and rough the fossil fuel lobby plays around here. But there is an answer: group up. The fossil fuel industry and its allies in Congress cannot punish everyone. They cannot punish Coke and Pepsi and Walmart and Target and VF Corporation and Nike and Apple and Google and Ford and GM and Mars and Nestle and Unilever. They cannot punish them all. So, please, I ask our corporate leaders: Make an agreement with one another that you will not abandon your climate principles when you come to Congress. If good corporations will not speak up, the only corporate force lobbying and politicking Congress on climate change is the fossil fuel industry. You will get exactly what you have now: a Congress in which Members fear to take action on climate because they know one side, the fossil fuel boys, will punish them. They do not know any other side that will help them. So the first part of corporate climate responsibility 2.0 is: Do not abandon hope all ye who enter here. Do not check your principles at the door. A second part of corporate climate responsibility 2.0 would be to stand by your principles with those who advocate for you. The best corporate citizens push their good climate policies out beyond their corporate walls into their supply chains. They insist that their suppliers comply with those climate principles. They will not do business with suppliers that do not abide by their climate principles. So it would be consistent to push their good climate policies out into their advocacy organizations, too, and insist that their advocates comply with those same climate principles, just like their suppliers must. They ought not to do business with advocacy groups that will not abide by their climate principles. What am I talking about? I have described how good Coca-Cola has been on climate issues. It is terrific on climate issues. Coca-Cola and its bottlers are also important vital members of the American Beverage Association, which sits on the board of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which is one of the worst climate denial organizations and which is a persistent obstacle to any responsible action on carbon emissions. Similarly, Verizon, 3M, and Ford, all with good climate policies, all sit on the board of this organization with opposite policies. If they would not put up with it from their suppliers, if their suppliers flouted their principles, why put up with it from a corporate mouthpiece they support but that flouts their principles? If corporate climate change policies are important enough to push beyond the corporate walls and into the supply chain, they should be important enough to push beyond the corporate walls and into the corporation's advocacy organizations. It does not make sense for corporations to speak out of one side of their mouths on climate change and then contradict themselves, through their corporate mouthpieces, their advocacy organizations. Some do not. Nike resigned from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce board of directors over the chamber's horrible climate policies. Apple left the chamber altogether. So have big electric utilities such as Exelon and PG&E and so have many local chambers of commerce. Google left the American Legislative Exchange Council, known as ALEC. When Google left ALEC last year because of that group's bad climate position, Google CEO Eric Schmidt said of the group: ``They are literally lying'' about climate change. You do not need to support an organization that is ``literally lying'' about climate change--not under corporate climate responsibility 2.0. It is not necessary to have your own trade association or legislative organization arguing against you. The same should be true of opinion outlets. For decades, the Wall Street Journal editorial page has been an important and respected voice of the business community. But now on climate change, the Wall Street Journal editorial page never reflects the views on climate change of most of America's corporate leaders, only its fossil fuel corporate leaders. That page has become exclusively the voice of the fossil fuel industry, and of their climate denial front organizations. In fact, in some ways we could say the Wall Street Journal editorial page has actually become a climate denial front organization. The fossil fuel companies have co-opted the Wall Street Journal editorial page. Where is the objection from American corporations, big well-known American corporations that have spent millions and millions of dollars addressing their carbon emissions, that have spent enormous corporate effort, all the way up to the CEO level, dedicated to a carbon solution and that have developed great policies on climate change? Why be silent when the voice of the business community is saying the exact opposite of what you have worked so hard for and care so much about? Under corporate climate responsibility 2.0, companies such as that could stand up for their own well-established climate principles and against the opposition to their own corporate principles from the Wall Street Journal editorial page. I feel we are so close to getting something done, something big done on climate change. Our corporate sector has shown so much leadership. The great American corporate leadership on climate change aligns exactly with what America's science leadership is also saying. The great American corporate leadership on climate change aligns exactly with what America's military and national security leaders are also saying. The great American corporate leadership on climate change aligns exactly with what so many of our religious leaders are saying all the way up to Pope Francis. Of course, American corporate leadership on climate change aligns with what Americans, the customers of these corporations, want and expect. So let's take it up a step. Let's ask our corporate leaders to step it up to corporate climate responsibility 2.0 and take their existing good policies and line them up with their politics, take what they demand of their suppliers and demand the same of their advocates. That would be a big way for America's corporate leaders to help this body wake up. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Senator Lee. I am glad to be a part of this conversation. I share the concern that we all have for a Federal prison system that is 30 percent over capacity and costs $6 billion a year already. We have to add, if we are going to take care of the 30 percent over capacity--that is $6 billion under the present circumstances, and that $6 billion comes out of law enforcement budgets and community support budgets that could be making our streets safer. At the beginning of every sentence, a judge imposes the duration of the sentence, and at the end of every sentence, a prisoner makes a decision about how he or she is going to engage with the public upon their release. There is a bill that deals with the latter part, helping prisoners make better decisions and be better prepared to reengage with the public once they are released. I hope very much the bill Senator Cornyn and I are leading in the Senate Judiciary Committee can, as this moves forward, be connected because the two are linked thematically, and it makes a big difference. The reason we care about how people at the end get back into regular society is because if they reoffend they go back to prison again and add to the prison population and add to the costs. If they are in longer than they should be, then we are not getting any public safety benefit out of all of this. So I look very forward to working with all my colleagues to try to see if we can get together in the Senate a comprehensive piece of sentencing reform legislation. Having been a prosecutor myself, having used mandatory minimums, I appreciate that they can, in certain circumstances, have value, but I think if one looks at the big picture, this sentencing reform legislation is important and will serve the public interest in a great variety of respects, including safer communities. So that is why I am cosponsoring it and that is why I am an ardent supporter of it. In closing, let me thank Senator Durbin and Senator Lee for their leadership as the lead coauthors of this legislation and Senator Flake and Senator Booker for their efforts on behalf of this as fellow cosponsors.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, there are a lot of people--scientists, doctors and health professionals, our military and security leaders, the insurance and reinsurance industry, most of our major utilities, even faith leaders--who agree that climate change is a serious problem and an important priority. In the private sector, many corporate leaders see climate change as both a moral challenge and a financial opportunity. Indeed, as I rise today for now the 92nd time to urge my colleagues in Congress to wake up to the urgent threat of climate change, major American companies have already begun to take action. They are not waiting around for Congress. Ceres, for instance, is a nonprofit organization that helps to mobilize investors and business leaders to build a sustainable global economy. Ceres reports that nearly half of Fortune 500 companies now have their own clean energy targets. Institutional investors are also committed to fighting climate change. In 2003, there were just 10 of them. Ten years later, by 2013, there were 110, holding $13 trillion in assets. Walmart uses about 25 percent renewable energy, Google is at 35 percent, and Apple nearly 75 percent. More and more companies are seeing the benefit of cleaning up their energy sources and investing in the future, and it is not just out of the goodness of their hearts. These are our most profitable corporations. They have made a successful business model of saving money by reducing their carbon footprint. Coca-Cola, for instance, knows how disruptive climate change can be to the water supply that is the most basic need of its bottling facilities. Apparel giant VF Corporation understands the threat of changing conditions to agricultural commodities such as cotton. And, yes, these companies also know that four out of five Americans support action on climate change. In other words, climate-friendly corporate practices are a hit with consumers, particularly younger consumers. Since consumers want climate friendliness, there are also companies that try to have it both ways. They try to look like good actors on climate change without really being good actors. It is called green washing, and the major oil and gas companies are classic green washers. Look at their public statements and their ad campaigns, and we might think they were helping to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. But what they say and what they do, do not match up. Look at the green ad campaigns that have been run by the big oil companies. Some of these multimillion dollar campaigns still run today. Here is Chevron saying, ``We agree,'' it is time for oil companies to get behind renewable energy. This campaign started in 2010 and is still around. For years Chevron said renewable energy was part of its business plan. It actually once built utility-scale solar and geothermal projects, and it even made money doing it. But in the end, Chevron's core business of drilling up oil and gas prevailed, and last year Chevron sold off almost all of its renewable energy business, but they still pretend they are green. They still say ``We agree,'' but in real life they don't. Not too long ago, BP styled itself ``Beyond Petroleum'' and told us to think outside the barrel. The company made industry-leading investments in wind farms and solar power in the billions of dollars. But BP, too, has exited the solar business and has attempted to sell its U.S. wind farms in what a company spokesperson called ``part of a continuing effort to become a more focused oil and gas company.'' They were just pretending to be green. Here is their logo. Look at this ridiculous little green and flower/sunshine thing from oil extractors. It is a total phony. The pick of the fossil fuel industry litter is actually Shell. Public pronouncements from Shell Oil have been sensational. Shell ads told us of the effort to ``broaden the world's energy mix.'' Well, in 2012, Shell reported investing about $400 million into low-carbon alternatives, which seems like a lot until we realize that was out of nearly $23 billion that year spent by Shell--less than 2 percent. Comparing that $400 million in 2012, Shell has spent at least $5 billion in recent years to expand oil and gas drilling operations in the Arctic. Shell is one of the largest holders of filthy tar sands rights in Canada. But here is the champ when it comes to climate doublespeak. ExxonMobil excels. Since at least 2008, the oil giant has run ads such as these, with scientific formulas and Lucite molecules and all these technological-looking things. I remember one with folks in lab coats. Exxon executives and engineers tell us about the need to protect the environment and to move toward cleaner, more diverse energy sources such as wind and solar, as images behind them of wind turbines twirl in the distance. Exxon does not report transparently enough for a solid case to be proven, but there is at least a reasonable inference that could be drawn that they spend more on advertising their green research than they spent on their green research. The Wall Street Journal wrote: ``Exxon's ads are part of a growing effort by the industry to counter a political backlash against rising oil prices and global warming worries.'' Faking it is not a solution, and this campaign is still running. The latest ads are right there on Exxon's Web site, where the public is watching. The Exxon Web site also tells us ``rising greenhouse gas emissions pose significant risks to society and ecosystems''--again, for public consumption. But when they filed comments with the regulators, in 2009, Exxon wrote: ``Support for the effects of climate change on public health and welfare is almost nonexistent and engulfed in an extremely high degree of uncertainty.'' For years Exxon has been devoted to propping up climate denial and climate deniers. The Union of Concerned Scientists found that between 2002 and 2010 ExxonMobil contributed to and lobbied anti-climate Members of Congress over pro-climate Members at a ratio of 10 to 1. Recent disclosures show that even after vowing that it would no longer bankroll groups that deny climate change, Exxon continued for years to fund the work of climate skeptic Willie Soon, an astrophysicist whose research is under investigation for failure to divulge his oil industry backing. Which Exxon are we supposed to believe? Remember the words of the Exxon vice president who testified before Congress in 2008 that ``the pursuit of alternative fuels must not detract from the development of oil and gas.'' ExxonMobil's ads boast that the company is ``taking on the world's toughest energy challenge.'' The toughest challenge we face is finding a way to fuel the global economy without driving the climate to the breaking point with our limitless, endless carbon pollution. ExxonMobil is committed to an oil economy that has no future. If only Exxon and the other oil giants would devote more of their advertising budget to research and to the development of renewable fuels, we might be better off. If you don't think that the big oil companies are bad enough on their own, once they get together they are downright dirty. These companies-- Chevron, BP, Shell, and ExxonMobil--are all members of the American Petroleum Institute, the oil and gas industry trade association. As we all know around here, the American Petroleum Institute is dedicated to obstructing action on climate change and even to spreading false doubt about its existence, and API in turn funds some of the worst and most irresponsible climate denial front organizations. Chevron, BP, Shell, and ExxonMobil also support something called the American Legislative Exchange Council or ALEC. ALEC is an organization which works to undercut climate science and undermine climate progress at the State level, interfering in our State legislatures. ALEC has tried to roll back State renewable fuel standards and has handed out model State legislation to obstruct and tie up the President's Clean Power Plan. So which way are they going to have it, the way they sell themselves in the ads with funny little sunbursts and Lucite molecules or their real presence in State legislatures and in Congress spending money to shut down the climate debate and keep pumping the oil? Major companies such as Google, eBay, Facebook, Yahoo, and even Occidental Petroleum have disassociated themselves from ALEC because of its destructive position on climate. Google's CEO Eric Schmidt has said ``they are literally lying about climate change.'' But they keep getting funding from Chevron, BP, Shell, and ExxonMobil. The reality is these major fossil fuel companies are dedicated to a fossil fuel future that puts basic operating systems of our planet at risk. All these ad campaigns and all these public statements to make the companies look good are just a way to paper over that basic, dirty, continuing fact. It is a sham. It is a false front. It is phony PR, and all the green washing in the world shouldn't be able to cover it up. But I will conclude by saying it does seem to be having its effect. We have seen recently in the news in Florida that Florida Department of Environmental Protection officials have been ordered not to use the terms ``climate change'' or ``global warming'' in any official communications, emails or reports. That is according to DEP employees, DEP consultants, DEP volunteers, and State records, all dug out by the Florida Center for Investigative Reporting. Governor Scott of Florida has repeatedly said he is ``not convinced that climate change is caused by human activity,'' despite the scientific evidence to the contrary. It is apparently a gag order about climate change that was well known and distributed verbally statewide. I guess Governor Scott has told reporters that he had not been convinced about climate change and that he would need something more convincing than what I have read. I would be interested to know what his reading list was. So here we are in a world of fantasy in which the big oil polluters put on this pretense that they are clean, that they care about clean energy, that they are interested in a nonfossil fuel future, while they are supporting the very organizations that undercut that work here in Congress and they are able to get behind people such as the Governor, apparently, in Florida--certainly his administration-- who are so paralyzed about climate change that they not only won't say the words, but they won't allow State employees to even say the words. That is a pathetic state of democracy. I yield the floor, and I now turn to my friend from Georgia.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of my remarks Senator Isakson be recognized.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, may I say that for many of our States, climate change is a reality and even a daunting one. We look forward to working on the question posed by the Energy and Natural Resources Committee chair: What do we do? But in order to do so we need something from the majority to work with. With that said, I do not object, and I thank the majority leader for his courtesy.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I thank Senator Baldwin for sharing this time with me this evening, and for all the wonderful work she does on behalf of her home State. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I am back now for the 91st consecutive week the Senate has been in session to urge my colleagues to wake up and pay attention to the threat of climate change. I am delighted and proud to be joined today by my colleague and friend Senator Baldwin from Wisconsin to consider the effects of carbon pollution in her State. According to scientists at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, weather stations around the State show that average temperatures in Wisconsin increased by about 1.1 degrees Fahrenheit between 1950 and 2006. During the same period Wisconsin got wetter. Annual average precipitation increased by almost 3 inches. These changes are likely to continue and intensify as carbon pollution continues to pile up in the atmosphere. Researchers at the University of Wisconsin-Madison estimate that by midcentury the State could warm by 4 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit. By the end of the century the climate in Wisconsin may look more like that of present-day Missouri or Oklahoma, raising the possibility of a dramatic shift in the Wisconsin economy and way of life. This winter has been pretty cold in the Eastern United States and in Wisconsin. So was last year. Cold arctic air dipping down over North America drops the mercury. As we continue into a time of what has been called global weirding, scientists say that climate change may make these cold blasts more common as it alters patterns in the atmosphere. In a nutshell, on top of the long-term warming trend lies weather disorder. But the long-term warming trend is apparent. New research from UW-Madison's Professor Jonathan Martin shows that last year the so-called cold pool of frigid air that accumulates in the Northern Hemisphere each winter was the smallest since records began in the winter of 1948 to 1949. This year it is on track to be even smaller. Sadly, some of our colleagues just can't face up to the role that human activity--such as our carbon pollution from burning fossil fuel-- plays in the changes we are seeing around us. One colleague--indeed, the senior Senator from Wisconsin--is among this group. In January he voted against amendments to the Keystone XL bill stating that climate change is real and that humans contribute to it. Well, in 2013 the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel--his State's largest paper--noted that this type of denial was at odds with both Wisconsin opinion and Wisconsin scientific evidence. The senior Senator from Wisconsin, wrote the paper's editorial board, ``is just flat-out wrong.'' The paper went on to say, ``We elect politicians to make tough decisions and find solutions, not to shut their eyes and cover their ears, as Johnson repeatedly has done on this issue.'' The article continued: ``[S]tubbornly denying the facts on climate change may be akin to denying the facts on evolution or whether the Earth is flat.'' Professor John Kutzbach of the University of Wisconsin--an elected member of the National Academy of Sciences--was among a group of climate scientists who in 2011 wrote to us in Congress imploring us to take action on climate change. Here is what the letter said: Congress needs to understand that scientists have concluded, based on a systematic review of all of the evidence, that climate change caused by human activities raises serious risks to our national and economic security and our health both here and around the world. It is time for Congress to move on to the policy debate. Well, I welcome that debate. Indeed, the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Senator Murkowski, recently said on the floor of the Senate that she hopes we can ``get beyond the discussion as to whether or not climate change is real and talk about . . . what do we do.'' So where is that debate? Where are the other Republicans? Let's finally talk about the cost of action and the cost of inaction. The Wisconsin Initiative on Climate Change Impacts was formed in 2007 by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and the University of Wisconsin Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies. The scientists and public officials in this program are doing important work to help the State of Wisconsin understand and prepare for climate change. They are studying how it will affect wildlife, water resources, public health, and important Wisconsin industries such as forestry, agriculture, and shipping and tourism on the Great Lakes. Climate change threatens iconic aspects of the Wisconsin environment and economy. The Wisconsin Initiative on Climate Change Impacts Agriculture Working Group reports that higher summer temperatures and increasing drought will create significant stress on livestock, even touching--dare I say it--Wisconsin's famed cheese industry. Victor Cabrera, an assistant professor in the University of Wisconsin-Madison Dairy Science Department--they have one--says heat stress interferes with fertility and milk production. Dairy cows could give as much as 10 percent less milk. The U.S. Department of Agriculture predicts that by 2030 climate change will cost the U.S. dairy sector between $79 and $199 million a year in lost production. When opponents say reducing carbon pollution will cost too much, they conveniently leave out the cost of doing nothing, such as these costs. Well, the dairy State is not waiting for Congress to take action. The University of Wisconsin is leading a USDA-funded effort to identify dairy practices that minimize the emission of greenhouse gases and make dairies more resilient to the effects of a changing climate. Some Wisconsin dairy farmers are burning excess methane in enormous manure digesters--that is a frightening concept--to generate their own renewable electricity. Wisconsin sportsmen know that Wisconsin has more than 10,000 miles of trout streams--some of the best trout fishing in the country. Cold- water fish, such as the brook trout, are there, but they are highly sensitive to temperature increases in streams. Under the worst cases analyzed by the researchers at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, ``brook trout are projected to be completely lost from Wisconsin's streams.'' Even the best-case scenarios see losses of as much as 44 percent of the brookies' current range by midcentury. Other cold-water species, such as the brown trout, are not much better off. Trout Unlimited--sportsmen and conservationists working to protect trout streams in the Driftless Area in southwest Wisconsin and parts of Minnesota, Illinois, and Iowa--did a 2009 study showing fishing in the Driftless Area adds over $1 billion per year to the surrounding economies. We have heard of loggers having trouble getting to the timber because the ground is thawed and too soggy to hold up logging equipment. For Wisconsin's loggers, the hard, frozen winter ground is what lets them move logging equipment. According to a study out of the University of Wisconsin, that period of frozen ground has decreased by 2 to 3 weeks since 1948, shortening the working window for loggers before their gear bogs down. And then there is the badger. The Upper Midwest and Great Lakes Landscape Conservation Cooperative even lists the great Wisconsin badger as one of the species at risk from regional climate change. Senator Baldwin knows that, done right, action on climate change saves Americans money, spurs American innovation, and creates new American industry and jobs. Focus on Energy, Wisconsin's statewide energy efficiency program, has been helping Wisconsin families and businesses save money and reduce energy use since 2001. The Wisconsin Public Service Commission expects this program to inject over $900 million into the State's economy, and net over 6,000 new Wisconsin jobs over the next decade. I am very grateful to my friend Senator Baldwin for her strong leadership on behalf of the people of Wisconsin to stave off the worst effects of climate change in her home State. I yield to her now.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

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

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I move to reconsider the vote.