Sheldon Whitehouse

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, reserving the right to object, let me start by pointing out that this is a national security bill. And the reason that it is a national security bill is because--to paraphrase a famous author--the United States is engaged in a clash of civilizations. And I describe that clash of civilizations as between rule of law countries like the United States and countries that are run by kleptocrats and oligarchs and criminals or subject to control by traffickers and international criminal organizations. Now, if you are an oligarch or a kleptocrat or international criminal, the thing you want more than anything else is to be able to hide what you stole. And you don't want to hide what you stole in your own corrupt and crooked country. You want to hide what you stole behind rule of law. And the result is that the United States and other countries on the rule of law side of this clash of civilizations are giving aid and comfort to our enemies by helping them hide their crooked assets. The concern for the United States was made pretty clear by Treasury Secretary Yellen, who admitted ``there's a good argument that . . . the best place to hide and launder ill-gotten gains is actually the United States.'' So we are trying to clean that mess up. And it is not just this administration. Under President Trump, Secretary Mnuchin said: Treasury's ability to combat tax evasion and to detect, deter, and disrupt money laundering and terrorist financing would be greatly enhanced through reporting of beneficial ownership information. The suggestion that this magically appeared in some bill? No. It was worked through two committees in the Senate. It has been bipartisan from its earliest days, both in the Judiciary Committee and in the Banking Committee. It has been through enormous effort. And, in fact, the last Trump administration, working with us on this bill in 2019, released a statement of administration policy condemning this bipartisan ``measure that will help prevent malign actors from leveraging anonymity to exploit these entities for criminal gain.'' Are there examples of what has been going on? Well, terrorist groups like Hezbollah, Putin's oligarch cronies, North Korean foreign operatives, and fentanyl traffickers all need shell companies to hide what they have stolen. Viktor Bout, the Russian arms dealer known as the ``Merchant of Death,'' used a global network of anonymous shell companies, including at least 12 incorporated in Delaware, Florida, and Texas. Anonymous LLCs impeded New York City's ability to trace the terror finance scheme that funded the 9/11 attacks--again, shell corporations that we didn't know who was really behind. An anonymous New York company served as a front for the Iranian government in violation of U.S. sanctions, with millions of dollars in rent illegally funneled to Iran. A DOJ indictment last year said that cartel operatives designed a network of shell companies in Wyoming to launder illegal millions for the Sinaloa cartel. Narco traffickers in New Jersey were charged with using an American shell company to buy fentanyl-related supplies from China. So this is a real problem, which is why the Trump administration's Statement of Administration Policy was supportive. Now, we went through a lot of effort to get here. The first group that stood up against it was the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and when it was exposed what they were arguing for, they actually ended up backing off and going to neutral on the bill, because they are bank members and they are anti-money laundering members. And other Members of the Chamber said: What are we doing here? And as soon as when that entity disappeared, up came the American Bar Association, doing the same thing. And their banking session and their anti-money laundering session and their former prosecutors and their national security folks all said: What are you doing? And so the American Bar Association backed off. The third in this game of political special interests whack-a-mole was NFIB, which came in to present the same stale argument to Senator Graham, Senator Grassley, and myself that were so stale and so flagrant that--well, I am not going to name names. Let's just say the NFIB had a very bad day facing down this bipartisan group. So a lot of work has gone into this. The stakes are very high. This actually is a national security bill. And against that risk of being the loser in the clash of civilizations, because we are giving aid and comfort to our enemies by allowing them to use American shell corporations to hide what they get selling fentanyl to our citizens, here is what we ask: When you set up a corporation, you tell us your name. That is not very complicated. You can do that pretty quickly. You tell us your address. That doesn't take more than a couple of seconds to remember. What is my address? Yeah, write that down. Your date of birth? That is pretty simple too. And then either a passport or driver's license number. It is, literally, that simple. Where it gets complicated is where you have complex networks of joined shell companies in a complex corporate structure. But if that is what you have got, the very same lawyers who put that complex structure together can easily add this information. So, in my view, delaying the Corporate Transparency Act would empower criminals who are operating through American shell companies, who outcompete and defraud honest small business owners, while emboldening and facilitating terrorist groups, foreign adversaries like Russia and China and Iran, North Korean weapons of mass destruction financing, fentanyl trafficking, and a whole array of grotesquely bad actors. So I object. With great regard for my friend Senator Lankford, I object.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and the waiver provisions of applicable budget resolutions, I move to waive all applicable sections of that act and applicable budget points of order for the purposes of the pending measure. I ask for the yeas and nays, and for the sake of our retired police officers, firefighters, and teachers, I would urge you to provide a lot more yeas than nays.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I rise today to honor my constituent Pam Rubinoff. Pam is the coastal resilience lead for the Rhode Island Sea Grant and the University of Rhode Island Coastal Resources Center. She has spent three decades engaging with coastal communities, helping them implement science-informed coastal management and shoreline protection measures. Pam started her career working with coastal communities in Latin America and Africa but has focused her outreach in Rhode Island for the past 10 years. She has helped coastal communities address a range of challenges, including flooding and rising sea levels caused by climate change. Pam's steadfast commitment to coastal communities in Rhode Island and beyond will have a lasting effect and protect people and communities from flooding and erosion. Pam worked with the city of Providence to pilot a near-real-time storm forecasting and infrastructure impact assessment tool, which has helped prioritize public emergency personnel response to flooded urban neighborhoods. With Pam's help, the Providence Resilience Partnership catalyzed $2.3 million in Federal funding for a range of projects, including a climate risk assessment of the Fox Point Hurricane Barrier, the neighborhood's main line of defense against major storms. She created the first-ever Military Installation Resilience Review plan for Naval Station Newport, a U.S. Navy property located in a flood zone that is at growing risk for coastal inundation. Pam has also advanced scientific and community engagement through solutions like MyCoastRI, an app-based tool to gather and analyze photos of flooding and storm impacts. In addition to her scientific work, Pam is great mentor for the next generation of coastal management professionals. Countless undergraduate and graduate students who Pam mentored are now local partners in emergency management, sustainability, and other professions where they put climate science to use. Her ability to clearly communicate the need for shoreline protection makes her highly sought after by government advisory committees, industry groups, community organizations, and the media. I applaud Pam's work and thank her on behalf of all the Ocean State.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

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

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, this is, I think, my 295th ``Time to Wake Up'' speech, with my increasingly battered graphic, which the Smithsonian has asked for as the most used graphic in Senate history, but I wouldn't let them have it until we solve the problem, so it just gets increasingly dented. But what I want to talk about now is the trip that I just took with Senator Markey to the COP, the Conference of the Parties, the COP 29 in Azerbaijan, where Senator Markey and I heard a similar message from almost everyone there: The transition to clean energy is happening and will continue to happen no matter who occupies the White House. China's auto market will achieve a milestone this year with electric and hybrid vehicles half of all vehicles sold. China is also installing record amounts of wind, solar, and nuclear. Europe is rapidly and irreversibly weaning itself off fossil fuels, with greenhouse gas emissions projected to fall by 8 percent this year--enormous progress. In Australia, one-third of homes have rooftop solar, and they are growing dramatically. More than 40 percent of Australia's electricity comes from renewables, headed for 80 percent by 2030. So while America's energy policy has been sold out to Trump's fossil fuel donors, the world will go on, leaving America more and more behind. Nor does Trump being for sale mean that there won't be leadership on climate change coming from the United States. California as the fifth largest economy in the world and New York as the 10th largest economy in the world, joined by other States like New Jersey and Rhode Island, can pursue together ambitious decarbonization policies. These States can move markets, and they will win economically against States that are left stuck with expensive, polluting fossil fuel. The European Union is driving forward on climate change, particularly with its carbon border adjustment mechanism, or CBAM. Europe's power and industrial sectors already work under a domestic carbon price. The CBAM extends that carbon price beyond EU borders to imports that are entering the European Union. American exporters are going to start paying a tariff if their exports aren't up to EU carbon emission standards. Given the size of EU markets, the CBAM amounts to a global carbon price for energy-intensive industrial goods. Not just the EU but the UK has announced that it is joining the CBAM also. We spoke with Australia, which is in detailed negotiations to join as well. Because of the CBAM, even economies that aren't joining, like India and China, are looking at domestic carbon pricing to reduce the tariff burden. After all, why pay tariffs to get into EU, UK, and Australian markets when you can keep the same revenue at home via a domestic carbon price? Washington State voters just approved a carbon price by an overwhelming margin. New England's Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative is a small but successful multistate carbon price. Carbon pricing is coming, and that is good news because there is no longer a pathway to climate safety without a price on carbon. We heard from business leaders about the economic havoc that climate change is causing, particularly now in insurance markets. It is a subject that my Budget Committee has examined closely, and our committee is going to release several more reports on the climate economic threat before I relinquish that gavel. As I said frequently at the COP, we have gone through three stages on climate change. The first stage was the science phase. Scientists did their job, and they gave us accurate warnings about the dangers of fossil fuel emissions to the planet and to humanity. Then we came to the political phase. We did not do our jobs. Despite the warnings of science, politicians yielded to an unprecedented campaign of obstruction and disinformation orchestrated and funded by the fossil fuel industry through a flotilla of dark money front groups and captured trade associations. One rare bright moment in this political failure came when Democrats passed the Inflation Reduction Act, but despite its now proven benefit to Republican districts, not one Republican would vote for it. Now we enter the third phase of climate change: the economic phase, the time of consequences. In this phase, climate change warnings start coming home to roost in household economies. We see it immediately in the insurance crisis in climate risk areas, with Florida being ground zero for exploding home and car insurance rates in a collapsing insurance market. We also see it in grocery aisles as droughts and floods hammer agricultural commodities. Shipping is constricted in dried-up waterways, like the Panama Canal or the Mississippi River; supply chains unravel; and for good measure, Big Oil adds to the cost problems by jacking up gas prices. Let's review that for a moment. When Russia invaded Ukraine in early 2022, gas prices spiked, assisted by the OPEC cartel. Big Oil had a two-part strategy ready to go: One, raise their prices to meet the new cartel price, pushing high prices at the pump for Americans, and two, blame the high prices that they put at the pump for Americans on Joe Biden. That campaign of blame was pure theater. Obviously, oil companies set their own gas prices; government doesn't. The surge in oil profits coming from their price gouging shows their multibillion- dollar motivation. Falsely blaming Joe Biden--well, that helped their politics. The red line on this graph shows inflation-adjusted oil prices. Two things are clear: One, oil prices are dangerously volatile, and two, they keep getting higher, even adjusted for inflation. This blue line here shows the average postwar oil prices. This green line here shows the average price per barrel since 1980, up $13 from the postwar average. So behind all of this volatility noise is an actual, persistent increase in cost, even inflation-adjusted. This brown line up here shortens the timeframe further. It shows the average price since 2000, and it is up another $12--a total $25-per- barrel increase. The lesson? Stay addicted to oil, and our future will be volatile, increasingly expensive, and dangerous. Where fossil fuel denies us energy security and drives inflation, renewable energy offers us stable, affordable energy, powered by fuels that are free--sunlight and wind and flowing water and geothermal heat. None depend on tyrants' whims or foreign cartels' greed. Then add the economic costs of climate change--not just the cost of the product but the cost to life of burning that product. Fossil fuel emissions are driving up the cost of insurance, electricity, and groceries, to name just the most prominent examples. Homeowners' premiums in Florida have tripled or quadrupled. And it is not just Florida--go to coastal Louisiana or Texas or even California and other States. They are seeing surging insurance premiums, including auto premiums, as floods and hailstorms and fires become more common and intense. Electricity bills soared when utilities had to spend billions of dollars upgrading their distribution networks to prevent them from sparking wildfires in this new hotter, dryer condition that climate change has caused, and hotter temperatures increased electric utility bills as families had to use more energy in order to cool their homes. Phoenix's record 113 consecutive days of 100-plus-degree heat this year required lots of excess electricity. In America's grocery aisles, you will find example after example of staples whose prices increased due to climate change--climate-fueled droughts, climate-fueled floods, climate-fueled heat waves. Orange juice, chocolate, olive oil, sugar--the list goes on. It is climateflation, and we should call it that. The fossil fuel industry's fake concern for America's consumers is illustrated by liquefied natural gas--LNG--exports. Guess how economies work. Domestic prices rise when we export more LNG because there is less left for the American consumer: supply down, demand the same, price up. Yet Big Oil happily raises prices on Americans by fighting for more, more, more LNG exports and more and more profits, driving higher prices for American families. Who is actually responsible for these price increases? The oil and gas executives who obstructed climate action for decades, putting our economy and our planet at ever greater peril. They knew that the continued combustion of oil and gas would eventually result in dozens of feet of sea level rise and make extreme storms, droughts, heat waves, wildfires, and floods far more likely. They knew, and rather than fix it, they bought off the Republican Party with campaign cash and dark money front groups. Those oil and gas chieftains were among the biggest donors to President Trump's campaign. Just this year, Trump asked them for $1 billion in campaign money in exchange for doing their bidding--quid pro quo. The burden on American families of higher insurance premiums, higher electricity bills, higher grocery bills, and storm-ravaged homes and cars is about to turn worse. There is an old saying--I think it was Ernest Hemingway--about going bankrupt. He said it happens very slowly and then all at once. We are headed for an all-at-once moment. Witnesses in our Budget Committee hearings warn that when insurance markets melt down because of unpredictable climate risk, the problem then cascades on into mortgage markets because you need insurance to get a mortgage, and that then cascades on into property values because your property's value drops if buyers can't get a mortgage to buy it from you. I mean, it is fine if you are a billionaire in Palm Beach who is going to sell Mar-a-Lago to the next billionaire, and it is all a big cash transaction. But if you are a plumber in a development outside of Orlando, you need somebody who can get a mortgage to buy your property. And if you can't insure your property so that it can't support a mortgage, you are going to have a real problem with its property value. The former chief economist of mortgage giant Freddie Mac testified this cascade ends in a shock to the economy like the 2008 mortgage meltdown. He is not alone. Just to give one other example of many, The Economist magazine--not exactly a green outfit--warned in a cover article that ``climate change . . . could wipe out . . . $25 trillion'' of value in the global housing market; ``experts warn of a `climate- insurance bubble' affecting a third of American homes.'' That prediction from the chief economist of Freddie Mac about a coastal property values crash that would cascade into a 2008-style economic meltdown for the country was based on, as I said, coastal property values, but now the Carolinas can tell you about upland flooding destroying the reliability of insurance. And California and Western States can tell you about wildfire risk crashing insurance markets. So the original risk to coastal properties now has these evil siblings of climate risk to upland flooding and to wildfire-adjacent properties. So it is likely to be worse. And as The Economist points out, it is affecting a third of American homes. Rather than face up to any of this, the incoming administration will deny it all as payback to their oil and gas industry donors--corruption of the lowest sort. But no amount of lies, propaganda, and corruption can change the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology. You can deny gravity all you want, but when you step out a window, the result is the same. So I will be laser-focused on the corruption that Trump will unleash on America and the economic consequences of climate change that Americans will face. As the climate danger long warned about comes home to roost in surging insurance premiums, flooded communities, higher prices, and crashing property values in flood and wildfire-exposed communities--again, potentially causing a 2008-style economywide economic shock--we will explain to Americans how it did not have to be this way, how these costs are the poison fruit of the fossil fuel industry's climate fraud and its corrupt bargains with Trump. And with that, I yield the floor.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I ask unanimous consent that the scheduled vote occur commencing now.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I speak in opposition today to the budget resolution put forward by my colleague from Kentucky. Last year, President Biden and then-Speaker McCarthy came to an agreement on top-line appropriations levels for the current fiscal year as well as the fiscal year beginning on October 1. This bipartisan agreement, which included a 2-year budget deal, was passed by bipartisan votes in both Houses and was signed into law by the President. So, as of June 3, 2023, we have had a bipartisan budget deal that is good for 2 years--until September 30, 2025. Just days before a government shutdown, House Republicans have spent most of this month trying to figure out how much of the deal they could renege on to get votes from their fractured caucus. Here in the Senate, this proposal also breaks the agreement, proposing $20 trillion in Federal spending cuts over 10 years but not a single detail about where it would cut. Republicans are not happy to disclose where cuts would be because the American people would not be happy about the likely results--cuts, for instance, to Medicare, veterans programs, border security, national parks, law enforcement, transportation safety, affordable housing, education, and Medicaid. And, of course, the ``drill, baby, drill'' climate deniers would cut climate and clean air and water programs. If adopted, in its final year, this budget would cut all of those programs by 35 percent. While this budget attacks basic Federal programs in the name of fiscal responsibility, Republicans simultaneously plan to blow up the deficit by cutting taxes for their billionaire mega-donors and big corporations. Under one hat, Republicans act fiscally conservatively and seek to cut programs to reduce the national debt. Under their other hat, they pursue more Trump tax cuts for the wealthy, increasing the debt by $4.6 trillion. Last year, I asked CBO if it were mathematically possible to balance the budget within 10 years, extend the Trump tax cuts, and fully fund Social Security and Medicare, defense, and veterans programs. The answer from CBO: No. The math simply doesn't add up. So that budget exists in fiscal fantasy land. My Republican colleagues don't want to hear it, but more than a third of our national debt stems not from deficits but from economic shocks-- the 2008 financial crisis and COVID. As we have heard over and over again in the Budget Committee, the economic shocks from climate change will likely dwarf those we experienced during the financial crisis--for instance, one caused by a climate-driven insurance crisis that crashes mortgage markets and property values nationwide. We have heard those warnings from everywhere from the chief economist of Freddie Mac to the front page of The Economist magazine. What we should do, in bipartisan fashion, is decorrupt the Tax Code so that big corporations and billionaires are no longer a favored, free-riding elite. The Bush and Trump tax cuts skewed to the wealthy and big corporations are another third--$10 trillion of the national debt. Without those tax cuts, the debt-to-GDP ratio, which is our best fiscal safety metric, would be declining in perpetuity. Helping the wealthy avoid taxes is such an infatuation that House Republicans brought the United States to the brink of default in trying to prevent the IRS from cracking down on wealthy tax cheats. If we want to address the national debt, preventing massive economic shocks, decorrupting the Tax Code and getting serious about healthcare reform are the ways to go about it. This is not. I yield the floor.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the scheduled vote begin immediately.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I rise today to offer my sincerest congratulations to my friend George Nee on his upcoming retirement as president of the Rhode Island AFL-CIO. George is a friend of many years, and I have long admired his dedication to fighting for Rhode Islanders--for good-paying jobs, affordable healthcare, safe workplaces, and retirement security. George was born in Syracuse, NY, and first came to New England in the late 1960s to attend Boston College. He left his studies to oversee the United Farm Workers grape boycott in Massachusetts and, a few years later, came to Rhode Island for the Farm Workers' lettuce boycott. Through his work, he met legendary activist and organizer Cesar Chavez and became part of the security team protecting Chavez as he worked to organize farm workers. Inspired by Chavez, George returned to the Ocean State in 1976 to form his own union, which would become the Service Employees International Union Local 76, representing jewelry, clerical, and healthcare workers. In 1983, George joined the Rhode Island AFL-CIO as its executive director, then secretary-treasurer, then president. Under George's leadership, the AFL-CIO improved access to opportunities for workers, including Climate Jobs Rhode Island, an initiative to help transition Rhode Island toward a clean energy economy. Along the way, he met and married Anne Sliney, the best of a great many good decisions he has made. She has made her own magnificent contributions, and together, they raised three children Katie, Brigid, and Patrick, who are each following the family tradition of making a difference in ways that matter. I got to know George best in the early 90s when Rhode Island's workers' compensation system was in crisis. George brought the union voice and perspective to the table and advocated for reforms to revamp the broken system. The result was a law that dramatically reduced costs without cutting benefits--a win for workers and employers. George was one of the keys to the law's passage and went on to protect that reform and the workers' compensation system over many years. George stands in a Rhode Island tradition of leadership in the national labor movement, along with legends like Ed McElroy, Armand Sabitoni, Frank Montanaro, and now Michael Sabitoni. George puts his head down and works hard, so workers in our State can hold their heads high. Bravo, my friend. We owe you a debt of gratitude and appreciation for uplifting the lives and livelihoods of workers across our State. My very best wishes on your exciting next chapter.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I rise today to wish a happy 100th birthday to J. William Middendorf II, known to family and friends as Bill. Bill lives in Little Compton, RI, and celebrated this remarkable milestone on Sunday. Bill led a distinguished career in public service. He served in World War II as a naval engineering officer and navigator. He was appointed U.S. Ambassador to the Netherlands in 1969. Following his ambassadorship, he served as Under Secretary of the Navy. In 1974, Middendorf was appointed by President Nixon to serve as the 62nd Secretary of the Navy. During his leadership in the Navy, Middendorf championed the Navy's submarine program and oversaw the creation of General Dynamics Electric Boat's Quonset Point location. Rhode Islanders know well the importance of the Quonset Point facility to our State's economy and its role at the forefront of our national security efforts. Bill was also instrumental in the development of the F/A 18 Hornet, which was in part named for the Revolutionary warship, the USS Hornet that had been commissioned by his ancestor, Captain William Stone. And he approved the first Marine Corps Marathon, which is still run to this day. Last December, I was very pleased to take to the Senate floor to celebrate that an Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer was named USS J. William Middendorf, which follows the tradition of naming destroyers after U.S. naval leaders. That recognition was a testament to Bill's remarkable career in public service and many contributions to our State and country. Bill, my best wishes to you on your 100th birthday.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I rise today to honor my friend, J. Michael Downey, who was the president of Rhode Island's AFSCME Council 94. Mike passed away in August, leaving behind his wife Claudette, their three children Corey, Faith, and Michael, and their spouses. He also leaves behind two siblings and nine grandchildren. Mike was born in Providence and grew up in a union household. Both his father and grandfather served in leadership roles in their local unions. After graduating from LaSalle Academy, Mike earned his master plumbing license through a 5-year apprenticeship program. Mike went on to work as a plumber at the University of Rhode Island and later as chief plumbing investigator at the Rhode Island Department of Labor and Training. It was during Mike's time at URI that, like his father and grandfather before him, he found his passion for organized labor and advocating for the rights and well-being of workers. For more than 27 years, Mike served as president of Local 528, which represents workers at URI. Mike also served as president of AFSCME Council 94 from 2005 until his passing. Mike was an avid sports fan and loved New England's teams--the Celtics, Red Sox, and Patriots. He also enjoyed coaching youth sports and could often be found cheering in the stands at his grandkids' sporting events. Mike was a great guy, an enthusiastic leader, and a good friend in the fight. I thank him for his tireless advocacy on behalf of workers across Rhode Island. I will miss him.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I submit to the Senate a letter from the Congressional Budget Office, dated today, that tallies the effect of enacted legislation on the fiscal year 2025 budget. There hasn't been any. The Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 included provisions that acted as a budget for fiscal years 2024 and 2025. On May 14, 2024, I filed the budgetary levels used for the fiscal year 2025 budget; since then, no legislation has cleared Congress that changes revenue or mandatory spending by more than $500,000 over 10 years. The effects round to zero. I ask unanimous consent that CBO's letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, along with the distinguished ranking member of the Budget Committee, Senator Grassley, we congratulate Robert Sunshine on his retirement after 48 years of service to the Congressional Budget Office, Congress, and our country. We would like to take a few minutes to honor this truly exceptional public servant and the legacy he leaves behind. Throughout his distinguished career, Bob has served as a mentor to countless members of the CBO staff--and to many a CBO Director--and he has remained steadfast in his commitment to CBO's mandate to be objective, impartial, and nonpartisan. Bob joined CBO in 1976, when the Agency was in its infancy, and his first job was as principal analyst covering transportation issues. In 1995, Bob became the Budget Analysis Division's Deputy Assistant Director, and in 1999, he was named CBO's Assistant Director of Budget Analysis. He oversaw much of the Agency's work, including the preparation of cost estimates for legislation being considered by Congress and the preparation of the multiyear budget and economic projections that are the foundation of the congressional budget process.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

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

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 7377, which was received from the House.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, 6 years ago, I sent all of my colleagues in the Senate this binder of economic warnings about climate change. Here it is. The warning signs were flashing, so I shared all of those different reports. When I assumed the role of Senate Budget Committee chair, I provided an updated version of that binder to my committee members. As you can see, it had gotten a lot thicker. The warning signs had kept piling up, imploring us to act now before it is too late. And what is happening now? The events warned of are coming to pass. Over 19 Budget Committee hearings, we heard from serious experts about the looming economic, financial, and fiscal risks of climate change. We had economists, actuaries, industry analysts, scientists, healthcare providers, farmers, academics, national security leaders; even some conservative political leaders shared the warnings. The witnesses and the topics differed, but the message was the same: Look out. Climate change presents an economic threat, and ignoring it poses severe, even systemic economic risks. We ignore it at our economic and fiscal peril. Ignoring it is, unfortunately, the path my Republican colleagues have chosen to follow, but ignoring climate change does not stop climate change from hitting our economies even in red and purple States. The changes are happening in every corner of the country; and day after day, news reports only confirm the warnings. We held hearings on communities facing coastal flooding risk and wildfire risk and how those risks affect insurance and mortgage markets and, ultimately, property values. A mortgage issuer looks forward 30 years--the term of the mortgage--and climate-driven sea level rise, extreme precipitation, hurricane damage, and river flooding will add big risks to residential properties over the next 30 years. I am a Rhode Islander, so the flood risk is close to home, but more than half of all U.S. properties face a wildfire risk, and that is also getting worse with climate change. Insurers are taking notice. When climate-driven losses increase, premiums increase; and when climate-driven losses become too hard to predict, insurers pull out. Insurance becomes not only not affordable but not even available. Since our hearings, insurance and housing markets in Florida, Louisiana, Texas, and California--States highly exposed to climate-driven hurricane, flooding, and wildfire risks--are in full crises. In May of last year, State Farm announced it was no longer offering new policies in California. Then in June, Allstate followed suit. That July, Farmers announced it was pulling out of the Florida market entirely. Just last week, Progressive Insurance announced that the company was ``temporarily restricting'' new homeowners business in Texas. After Texas got a double whammy--historic wildfires through February and March and then the Hurricane Beryl flooding in July, knocking out power to nearly 3 million Texans and leading to ``the most tornado warnings issued in the U.S. in a single July day since records began''--people sat in flooded homes, without air conditioning, in 90- plus-degree heat, with mold growing, and Texas politicians still denied climate change. Well, homeowner's insurance companies don't deny climate change. Nationally, average homeowner's insurance premiums increased 33 percent between 2020 and 2023. In Florida, already high premiums more than doubled. Average insurance premiums in Florida are now more than $10,000 per year--average. Over in New Orleans, average premiums are closing on $10,000 per year. In Miami, they average almost $17,000 per year. This is fossil fuel-driven climateflation, and it presents an affordability crunch for American families. Don't just take it from me; take it from Federal Reserve Chairman Powell, who testified that rising insurance premiums have been a significant driver of inflation. He warned that ``in the longer term, companies are withdrawing from writing insurance in some coastal areas. It's a significant issue.'' It even came into the Presidential debate last night, when Vice President Harris said what we know about climate change is that it is very real. You ask anyone who lives in a State who has experienced these extreme weather occurrences who now is either being denied home insurance or is being jacked up on insurance rates. There is a cascade effect here: The crisis in coastal homeowner's insurance bleeds over into mortgage markets. And when mortgage markets suffer, that affects property values--a cascade that poses what economists call a ``systemic'' threat to our economy. If your property can't get insurance, good luck getting a mortgage. Without mortgages, your only buyers are those able to pay cash, and that drives down your property values. The chief economist of Freddie Mac actually warned of a coastal property values crash that would damage the entire economy, ``systemic'' damage, just like we saw in the 2008 financial crisis and great recession. Florida and parts of Texas are already in that spiral, as unsold condominiums pile up in those markets and values fall. We face a national affordable housing challenge, so it is an added piece of bad news from housing nonprofits that the insurance rates squeeze ``could threaten to end affordable housing development as we know it.'' Back to wildfires. New York City saw this orange skyline, a phenomenon San Franciscans got to know too well in 2020's wildfire season. That is because extreme wildfires have more than doubled over the past two decades, with the six worst wildfire seasons occurring in the last 7 years. That makes wildfire risk the evil twin of flood risk for insurance, mortgages, and property values. To quote our witness, Benjamin Keys, a professor of finance at Wharton: This should be ringing alarm bells for housing markets all over the country. April's Economist magazine--I have got a bigger version for folks watching us on C-SPAN. April's Economist magazine--not exactly a green publication--went Dr. Keys one better, warning that the whole world should be concerned about climate change, putting $25 trillion of global real estate at risk, threatening a global financial meltdown-- cover article. Read it yourself. Insurance, of course, isn't the only cost being driven higher by climateflation. Just go to the grocery store. At one hearing last year, we actually had bipartisan agreement that climate change is damaging crop yields and driving up prices. And those trends continue this year. Just look at breakfast. The price of orange juice is at an alltime high, driven by the lowest harvest in Florida in 90 years and a 24- percent decline in yield in Brazil, which supplies about 70 percent of the world's orange juice--climateflation. Brazil and Vietnam supply more than half of the world's coffee beans. In both countries, drought drove coffee prices up. Vietnam just reported that its July coffee exports declined nearly 30 percent year over year, and worse was June, which declined 50 percent year over year--more climateflation. India and Thailand are the two largest exporters of sugar behind Brazil. Severe droughts in both of these countries have pushed the global cost of sugar to its highest level since 2011. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. consumers saw the price of sugar and sweets rise by 8.9 percent in 2023. USDA expects prices to increase another 5.6 percent this year. And cocoa production is also hit, with April prices up 235 percent in less than 6 months. Olive oil, a kitchen staple, saw prices jump over 130 percent due to last year's Mediterranean drought. The International Olive Council expects even less production this year as droughts persists. In Spain, bottles of olive oil are now one of the most shoplifted items. Climate change bodes ill for wine, too. A recent reveal of more than 200 studies predict that ``70% of current wine-producing regions face a substantial risk of losing their suitability for wine-growing if global temperatures increase more than 2 degrees Celsius.'' That is a danger threshold we are coming closer and closer to, giving new meaning to ``in vino veritas.'' When we wonder why grocery prices remain high, look at climate-driven disruptions, climateflation, not just to agriculture, as I have been describing, but also to the supply chains that move those products around. Last October, a witness of ours warned the committee that ``the direct impact to extreme weather events can cascade through supply chains, affecting the flow of commodities and goods to regions and sectors leading to increased costs to business and to the broader economy''--more climateflation. And while we were listening to that testimony, a historic drought had reduced Panama Canal vessel traffic to 24 crossings per day. So vessels resorted to the Suez Canal or went around South Africa to avoid the delays of canal travel. And those longer routes came at a higher shipping cost, ultimately passed on to consumers in higher prices--more climateflation. Climate change is even beating up the infrastructure that underpins our supply chains. As a witness told us last year, ``Physical impacts have been widely observed for everything from extreme heat waves to flood events compromising roads, tarmacs, pipelines, and rail lines, with direct repair and delay costs being felt throughout the economy. Annual direct damage costs for road and rail impacts alone are estimated to be just under $20 billion a year by 2050.'' This past July, New York had to close the Third Avenue Bridge from the Bronx to Manhattan because 95-degree heat caused the steel to expand. Severe flooding struck Iowa, South Dakota, and Minnesota in June and led to the collapse of a railroad bridge, the near failure of a dam, and the destruction of hundreds of homes. A bridge in Lewiston, ME, recently closed because its pavement started to buckle in high temperatures. One expert told the New York Times that extreme heat and flooding are accelerating the deterioration of bridges, causing them to ``fall apart like tinkertoys.'' And this will get worse: Extreme temperatures could cause one in four steel bridges to collapse by 2050. Americans aren't just paying the cost of fossil fuel emissions through climateflation; they are paying it through direct Big Oil price-gouging. The oil and gas market, so-called, is actually controlled by an international cartel. And when OPEC jacks those prices, Big Oil in the United States happily rides along, loading up the biggest corporate profits in history. That, too, drives inflation. One last thing. Last year, I came to the Senate floor and talked about what was then the hottest June on record, followed by the hottest July on record, followed by the hottest August on record, and then the hottest September on record. Well, this July, the world experienced the hottest day in at least 100,000 years. We have talked a lot about costs and costs matter. The point of this speech is the economic harms of climate change, but that heat kills. Our hearing on public health warned how climate change acts as a ``threat multiplier with health impacts happening through a variety of mechanisms, including worsening temperature extremes.'' Shortly after that hearing, Phoenix, AZ, experienced 31 straight days of 110-plus-degree temperatures, shattering the previous record. This year, the Phoenix hot streak continued, with temperatures breaking 100 degrees from late May for more than 100 straight days. In Maricopa County, where Phoenix is located, at least 150 people have died from heat, and hundreds more deaths are still under investigation. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that over 1,200 people are killed by extreme heat in the United States every year. Heat deaths in 2023 were the highest in 45 years. In just 1 month--just 1 month, July 2023--the death count was near the annual average. One month nearly matched the annual average. An estimated 1,130 U.S. residents died of heat. And as work from Brown University and others have shown, that is likely an undercount. In spite of all of this danger and its severe fiscal implications, some of my Republican colleagues complain that the Budget Committee is giving climate change too much attention. To them, it is not enough of a risk to our Federal budget, never mind that at least $10 trillion of our national debt stems from economic shocks--``exogenous'' they would call it in economics--economic shocks; specifically, the 2008 financial crisis and the COVID pandemic. Well, climate change portends the biggest systemic shock of all. That is the lesson of all of these economic reports and studies, the lesson of the cover article from The Economist, and the lesson of our testimony in the Budget Committee hearings. For homeowners in Florida, those dangers are already on their doorstep. They are suffering through sea level rise, extreme precipitation that floods homes and cars, intense hurricanes that batter families and communities, and the soaring insurance premiums that result, leading into the cascade from the insurance market to the mortgage market, to the property values market that Freddie Mac's chief economist warned about. To all of this, what is Florida Republicans' answer? To try to silence conversation about the climate crisis, to forbid State employees from discussing climate change, even when it is an affordability crisis for their own constituents. There is really no doubt the dangers are growing worse and more widespread. The economic shadow of those dangers is looming. Folks with fiduciary responsibilities told us in the Budget Committee: We have to address the dangers. Folks with business responsibilities told us in the Budget Committee how they have to adjust to these new dangers. And I have been telling you for a while now, and I hate to say ``I told you so,'' but it is here now, and dammit, I told you so. I yield the floor.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to legislative session and be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the en bloc consideration of the following Senate resolutions: S. Res. 810, Patriot Week, and S. Res. 811, Apalachee High School.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I ask unanimous consent that the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, all en bloc.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

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

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be discharged from further consideration of S. 3764 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.