Sheldon Whitehouse

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, we are gathered here this evening to seek to defend against the Congressional Review Act effort to overturn the clean stream protection rule. It is interesting that this first Congressional Review Act measure that we are taking up should be one that puts money into the pockets of the fossil fuel industry and lifts their obligation to clean up public streams that they have ruined with their pollution. As I have been in the Senate, I am in my second term, and I am more than halfway through it. By Senate standards, I don't expect that is very senior, but it is enough that I have seen some patterns develop. One of the patterns I have seen develop is that my friends on the other side of the aisle talk a really good game on deregulation, on regulatory reform. They give speeches on the burden of undue regulation. They give speeches about the cost of regulation. Over and over they seek deregulation. But when it comes time to actually do something, every single time that I can remember, the deregulatory effort goes to the benefit of two groups. One is Wall Street and the other is polluters. The rest is just talk. Sure enough, here we are with the first Congressional Review Act effort, and the choices are money in the fossil fuel company's pockets versus our natural heritage of clean streams for ourselves and our children. And which way do we go? Put the money in the fossil fuel pockets--to heck with the clean streams. This would be 0.3 percent of coal industry revenues to clean up after the mess they have made. I grew up and I was taught that if you spill something, you clean it up. If you make a mess, you clean it up. But in this building, if it is the fossil fuel industry, if you make a mess, too bad, we will take care of you. You are our guys. We don't care about the stream. We don't care about the people who live downstream. We don't care about people who might fish in it. We don't care about the fact that this is God's creation. We care about making the coal companies happy. It happens over and over. If it is not polluters, it is Wall Street. If it is not Wall Street, it is polluters. As to all this talk about deregulation, watch where it goes--Wall Street and polluters. Here we are with the archetypical challenge between private benefit and public harm. The very purpose of government--even conservative commentators say--is to protect the public from being harmed by those who cause them harm as they pursue their private benefit. What could be more the case than coal waste polluting public streams? We don't care; we are going to go to bat for the coal companies. I tell you, there are special rules around here for the fossil fuel industry. We heard President Trump's promises to drain the swamp of the outside influence of corporate special interests and lobbyists in our government. Well, particularly when it comes to fossil fuel interests, that oft-repeated promise seems to have evaporated in the murky haze of his transition. From the very outset, operatives of the Koch brothers and other fossil fuel interests have infiltrated his team. Some of the biggest swamp alligators have floated up as his nominees to run federal agencies that protect our public health, that enforce our laws, that maintain our natural resources, and even those who carry out our international diplomacy. With all these nominations, the President isn't draining the swamp. He is filling it with exactly the kind of big special interests that most Americans voted to keep out. Our Republican colleagues are jamming and stacking the confirmation hearings in a rush to fill in this swamp Cabinet before the American people can get a good look at the nominees. By the way, the byproduct of all of this is the swamp gas of climate denial. A strong majority of voters polled since the election called on President Trump to do more to address global warming. So let us look at the record of this fossil fuel swamp Cabinet. Today, we voted on ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson to be our Secretary of State. Like President Trump, Tillerson and ExxonMobil have been talking out of two sides of their mouths about climate change. Sometimes Tillerson acknowledges climate change exists, pointing to a revenue-neutral carbon fee like the one I have introduced as the best way to address it. At other times, he plays up imagined scientific uncertainty and overestimates the costs of action. In 2012, Tillerson said: I'm not disputing that increasing CO2 emissions in the atmosphere is going to have an impact. It will have a warming impact. As far back as 2009, he backed a revenue-neutral carbon fee like the one I introduced as the best way to address the problem. But in 2013, he questioned whether we should do anything at all to slow climate change, asking: ``What good is it to save the planet if humanity suffers?'' That is the climate deniers' false premise--that humanity will suffer from our solving a problem that they face. In 2015, Tillerson told an ExxonMobil shareholder meeting that he thought the world should wait for science to improve before solving the problem of climate change. He couldn't find one State university in this country that would agree with him. He says that because it is the fossil fuel industry stall strategy. It is so ironic coming from the longtime head of ExxonMobil to say we should wait because it has been well documented by the Los Angeles Times, by Inside Climate News, and by others that ExxonMobil--despite conducting some of the leading climate science for decades--has played a devious role in undermining public understanding of these dangers. For years, Exxon has underwritten a shadowy network of denial organizations--we have called it here on the Senate floor the web of denial--with the purpose of delaying any steps to reduce the use of fossil fuel. Between 1988 and 2005, ExxonMobil contributed over $16 million to a network of phony-baloney think tanks and pseudo-science groups that spread misleading and false claims about climate science. In response to public outrage about ExxonMobil's role in funding climate denial--it knew it had been caught--it claimed that it would stop and that it had stopped. But in 2015, ExxonMobil was still funneling millions to groups pedaling climate denial. According to its own publically available ``2015 Worldwide Global Giving'' report, over $1.6 million, or one-fifth of ExxonMobil's public information and policy research contributions went to organizations active in deceiving the public about climate change--groups like the American Legislative Exchange Council, the National Black Chamber of Commerce, the Hudson Institute, and the Manhattan Institute. Under Tillerson's leadership, Exxon spent untold millions of dollars obstructing climate action and burying real science in a cloud of nonsense. The nonprofit research organization Influence Map found that ExxonMobil spent at least $27 million obstructing climate action in 2015 alone. This was after they had said publically that they would knock it off. Tillerson even fought his own shareholders. The Institute for Policy Studies reports shareholders of ExxonMobil have introduced 62 climate-related resolutions over the past 25 years. Under his guidance, management has opposed every one of them. Rex Tillerson once openly mocked a shareholder who asked about investing in renewables. Tillerson responded that renewable energy only survives on the backs of enormous government mandates that are not sustainable. ``We on purpose choose not to lose money,'' he said. Well, one of the ways they choose not to lose money is by spending huge amounts on a big, complex PR machine to churn out doubt about the real science and to protect the enormous market failure that forces the rest of us to pay for the cost of Exxon's carbon pollution. To say that renewable energy only survives on the backs of government mandates and subsidies is a bitter irony from the CEO of a company in an industry that has been calculated by the International Monetary Fund to get subsidies of $700 billion a year in the United States alone from not having to pay for the damage that its product causes. Now, $700 billion a year is quite the subsidy. We heard this special brand of fossil fuel doublespeak in his confirmation hearing. ``The increase in greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere are having an effect,'' he said. ``Our ability to predict that effect,'' he continued, ``is very limited.'' Wrong. Our ability to predict that effect is clearly established. The scientists who study our planet's climate system know that is the case. They understand that our carbon pollution has already driven unprecedented changes in the climate, and they know that rising concentrations of greenhouse gases will bring rising temperatures, higher sea levels along our coast, a warmer and more acidic ocean, and changes in weather patterns. None of this is subject to serious doubt in the scientific community. When asked whether he sees climate change as a national security issue, Tillerson replied, ``I don't see it as the imminent national security threat that perhaps others do.'' Well, let's talk about those ``others'' for a minute. They are the ``others'' who are in charge of defending our country and its interests, the people whose job it is to monitor global trends and prepare for future threats. They are intelligence and security experts like the former Director of the CIA, the Chair of President George W. Bush's National Intelligence Council, the former commander of the U.S. Pacific Command. The ``others'' include the top brass at the U.S. Department of Defense, which has in its Quadrennial Defense Reviews for years described climate change as a ``global threat multiplier.'' These ``others'' might just know what they are talking about, and they are not burdened with the conflict of interest of being the CEO of a company that is sponging a $700-billion subsidy off the American taxpayers every year. Perhaps the problem is that Mr. Tillerson is too steeped in the fossil fuel industry to hear the ``others'' who have dedicated their careers to defending the American people. The United States ought to represent to the world a model of democratic leadership and honesty. That is how we get away with saying that we are a city on a hill. That is how we explain to the world that we hold up a lamp in its darkness. The telling responses from Mr. Tillerson's hearing matter because he will be the one to direct or abdicate America's global leadership on this critical issue. We may be blind in this Chamber to the fact that the fossil fuel industry is calling the shots, pulling the strings, has control over our democracy, and is going around breaking our democratic checks and balances in order to seize control. But the rest of the world knows. You don't think the rest of the world can see why this body will do anything on climate change when every American State university knows that it is coming on, when every American scientific society knows that it is coming on, when our defense professionals know that it is coming on and warn us about it, when NASA and NOAA know that it is coming on and warn us about it? You don't think that the people of Russia and China and Germany know that we are the ones who have a craft driving around on the surface of Mars? You don't think they know how good our scientists are, and you don't think they know that the NASA scientists are telling us climate change is serious, it is coming at us, it is going to be catastrophic if we don't act--we have to do something? They know that. Everybody sees it. It is in plain view. What is missing is that Congress will not act because the tentacles of the fossil fuel industry swarm through this place. The world sees it and knows it and history will judge us for it. Tillerson has spent his career leading an international oil company that has been consistently and fundamentally dishonest with the world as to what ExxonMobil knew about climate change. His professional life has been centered on extracting--extracting fossil fuels from the earth, extracting drilling concessions from corrupt regimes, extracting special tax favors from Congress, and extracting profits for his shareholders. Well, American leadership in a dangerous world is about more than that. That is why I could not support his nomination. He is just one of several individuals nominated by President Trump who cannot accept the science of climate change or who harbors close ties to the fossil fuel industry or both--usually. Oklahoma attorney general Scott Pruitt is Trump's nominee for Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, the bureau most directly responsible for leading the U.S. effort to stave off the effects of climate change. Mr. Pruitt has such deep political and financial ties to fossil fuel companies and front groups that it is hard to tell where they give off and he begins. He has served as the industry's mouthpiece and attack dog for years. When he was asked during his Environment and Public Works Committee confirmation hearing to explain his dealings with the fossil fuel industry through secretive, dark money groups that he operated, which have been tied to specific companies he would be charged with regulating should he be confirmed, he provided misleading, incomplete, and evasive answers. So we submitted substantive followup questions, asking him to set the record straight. Once again, he chose to provide evasive and empty responses. Right now, his record is a black hole of special interest secrecy about his dark money links to the fossil fuel industry. That ought not to be acceptable to anybody in the Senate. We have a constitutional duty to provide advice and consent on administration nominations. Any Senator who believes that Congress should have a role in overseeing this administration should take note of this. In response to questions following up on Pruitt's hearing, rather than providing information sought by the committee, he instructed the Senate to file open records act requests for the information with the State of Oklahoma. If Pruitt is willing to tell Senators who are poised to vote on his nomination to go to the back of a very long, first-come, never-served line to learn more about his conflicts of interest, I can hardly imagine how unresponsive he will be when Congress asks for information about changes he wants to make to the renewable fuel standard, changes he wants to make to clean air protections, changes he wants to make to our clean water protections or to toxic regulations. By the way, he has stonewalled for more than 2 years, producing 3,000 emails between him and his office and identified fossil fuel companies and front groups--stonewalled an open records request for 2 years. His office admits there are at least 3,000 of them. Of the 3,000 emails between him and the fossil fuel industry that his office has admitted exist, how many do you suppose he has produced for the Environment and Public Works Committee--out of 3,000? Pick a number. I will tell you what the number is: zero; not one. The party that for a long time had a really determined interest in emails suddenly has no interest in these emails at all. Emails? What emails? If it is fossil fuel companies on the other end of the emails, suddenly it does not matter. Pruitt does not want the Senate and the American people to know about his dealings with his polluter patrons. But we should know. It is our job to know. The public should know--but not when it is fossil fuels. President Trump also nominated Senator Sessions of Alabama as Attorney General, the position responsible for enforcing Federal environmental laws, like the Clean Air Act. He has invented the notion that the sky is not right in Alabama for solar power, saying, ``In my home State of Alabama, one would think we have a good bit of sunshine, but in truth, we have a lot of clouds, and solar is not effective in our area.'' In a 2015 interview with the Family Research Council, Senator Sessions said he was not even sure that global warming exists. That same year in a hearing with the EPA Administrator, Senator Sessions claimed that ``carbon pollution is CO2, and that's not really a pollutant; that's a plant food, and it doesn't harm anybody except that it might include temperature increases.'' This is the man who wants to be Attorney General of the United States, who says he is going to follow the law. There is a Supreme Court case on point that says carbon is a pollutant. What does he say? Carbon pollution is CO2, and it is not really a pollutant. That is just plain not the law. By the way, try telling my Rhode Island fishermen, whose stocks are disappearing from the warming waters off our coast, that CO2 does not harm anybody. Trying telling it to Senator Merkley's shell fishermen in Oregon who have had shellfish hatcheries wiped out by acidified seas coming in. I asked Senator Sessions at the confirmation hearing whether, as Attorney General, he would make decisions in environmental cases based on scientifically accepted facts. Senator Sessions, to his credit, responded that he would and said that the ``theory'' of global warming ``always struck me as plausible.'' Well, if he is confirmed, he will have to hold a lot of these fossil fuel companies accountable under our environmental laws, and I hope he will familiarize himself with the science that he committed to follow because I intend to hold him to his pledge. Last, over at the Department of Energy, Trump chose former Governor Rick Perry of Texas, a one-time Presidential candidate who campaigned on eliminating altogether the Department he now hopes to lead. Perry also does not accept the scientific consensus on climate change. He has said: Historically in Texas we've always had substantial periods of drought. World temperatures have also been changing for millennia. I truly believe the science is not settled on the issue of man-made global warming. Well, he had not checked with Texas universities when he said that. He was the Governor of Texas. He has not even checked with his own universities. I went down to Texas. I had a hearing with climate scientists from the major Texas universities. They came in and said what they knew: It is real. It is coming. We are already seeing it. It is important. We have to get ahead of it. It is caused by CO2. We can solve that. Let's get to work. It is not a complicated message. It is coming from his home-State universities. Why would a Governor not follow the message of science developed and propagated by his own home-State universities? Why? Because the fossil fuel industry is so powerful that it will not let people recognize the truth. In the confirmation, Perry continued to hedge his bets. He said: I believe the climate is changing. I believe some of it is naturally occurring, but some of it is also caused by man- made activity. The question is how do we address it in a thoughtful way that does not compromise economic growth, the affordability of energy or American jobs. Well, if Governor Perry were actually being thoughtful about it, he would heed economic analyses like the Risky Business Project that show if we don't address climate change in a serious way, worsening storms, rising seas, warmer temperatures, and other extreme weather events will cost the United States billions of dollars. Just ask the insurance industry. In fact, ask our own CBO who testified today that these are concerns we need to look at. President Trump's Cabinet nominees should be working for the American people. But their public records show that they are more likely to listen to the Koch brothers, to ExxonMobil, to Devon Energy, to Murray Energy, to the special interests and the fossil fuel industry, and that they will not listen to our military, they will not listen to our national labs, they will not listen to NASA, even though they have that rover driving around on Mars and presumably know a little something about science. They are more likely to protect the profits of polluters than protect the health of Americans. Mr. President, there is too much at stake here to let Washington sink into the polluters' swamp. This whole scenario is an embarrassment to our country. It is going to be a lasting stain on our national reputation. Bringing us back to this Congressional Review Act, here we go again. The Congressional Review Act action was brought to benefit coal company polluters at the expense of our natural heritage, our children, and our common good, just so they don't have to clean up the mess they left behind, just so they don't have to clean up ruined public streams. It is just the latest demonstration that in this Congress, fossil fuel is king, doesn't care for our future, doesn't care for anything but what goes into its own pockets, and it is a disgrace. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the Senator will take us through the closing script, and as a part of that, I will be recognized in the order to make my remarks. With that understanding, I yield the floor. What if I suggest that I begin my remarks, that you give me the high sign whenever the closing script is prepared--it is. Never mind. I yield the floor.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, Republicans in Congress have been on the warpath for a long time to repeal the Affordable Care Act. In fact, in this new Congress, their first order of business has been to pave the way for dismantling this law. Despite the fact that 20 million Americans have gained health insurance coverage thanks to this law, despite people no longer being denied coverage for preexisting conditions, despite big savings in health care costs, and despite everyone with insurance being able to access important preventive health services for free, my Republican colleagues have decided to repeal it. And, after 7 years to get ready, they have no replacement, not even a path to a replacement at this point. Yes, they are set on repealing a law that has provided both health and financial security to millions of Americans, with no replacement in sight, just at this point some empty IOU for some future piece of legislation that may or may not be any good. It is a little like being asked to jump out of an airplane without a parachute and being told: Trust us. We will build the parachute for you before you hit the ground. We don't know what this nonexistent Republican replacement would look like, but we sure do know what a repeal would do; it would gut health insurance premium tax credits that help millions of Americans obtain health insurance they could not otherwise afford. It would unwind an expansion of the Medicaid Program that covers millions more Americans in some 30 States that have chosen to participate, casting tens of millions of Americans--men, women, and children--out of their health insurance. At the same time, it would deliver an enormous tax boon to millionaires and billionaires, as usual for Republicans, by repealing the revenue we used to pay for ObamaCare. This tax boon is a 16-percent reduction in the taxes owed by millionaires and billionaires on their investment income. Republicans want to take health insurance away from tens of millions of ordinary Americans and simultaneously reward those at the very top of the income pile with a big tax benefit. So much for all the talk we have heard from Republicans about the deficit. At least in Rhode Island, the Affordable Care Act is working. The law launched accountable care organizations that are improving care while lowering costs. In Rhode Island, Coastal Medical and Integra Community Care Network--two primary care-focused ACOs--are not only driving down per person health expenditures but achieving high marks on quality and on patient experience. In total, Coastal has saved $24 million over 3 years and Integra has saved $4 million in its first year as an ACO. The Affordable Care Act also has protected seniors from the dreaded drug price doughnut hole, and I can tell you I heard a lot about the doughnut hole from seniors in Rhode Island when I was running for the Senate. The Affordable Care Act has protected families where someone had a chronic condition and couldn't get insurance, and the Affordable Care Act has prevented insurers from throwing customers off coverage when they get sick. It is true that some of the health insurance exchanges haven't attracted enough competition. We can fix that. Indeed, to help with that issue, Senators Brown, Franken, and I are today introducing the Consumer Health Options and Insurance Competition Enhancement Act, or the CHOICE Act, to add a public health insurance option to the health insurance exchanges. This public option would guarantee that consumers always have an affordable, high-quality option when shopping for health insurance and a strong health care fallback when markets fail. ObamaCare may not be perfect, but it has done an awful lot of good. Millions of Americans who lacked insurance now have it, and the rate of uninsured Americans has fallen to 8.6 percent, about half of what it was in 2010. Projected Federal health care costs are down nearly $3 trillion. Instead of demolishing a system that works well for millions of Americans with no replacement on the horizon, let's use our proposal to make it better. Let's add a public option to our health insurance exchanges.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, if I could address another topic now and ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes in morning business.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, the question I bring to the floor today is what is Scott Pruitt hiding? Last week, the Environment and Public Works Committee held a hearing on President Trump's nominee to the Environmental Protection Agency. Today, for my 155th ``Time to Wake Up'' speech, I have unanswered questions about Mr. Pruitt's fitness for that role. His evasiveness at his hearing signaled nothing good about his ties to the industry he would regulate if confirmed, and the lack of curiosity about these industry ties from my Republican colleagues speaks volumes about the political clout of that industry. One question stood out. Our new chairman, Senator Barrasso, posed the standard question of nominees to Mr. Pruitt in our hearing: ``Do you know of any matters, which you may or may not have disclosed, that might place you in any conflict of interest if you are confirmed?'' Mr. Pruitt answered: ``No.'' Scott Pruitt crawls with conflict of interest. He has conflicts of interest with the fossil fuel industry from his political fundraising. We just don't know how bad. He likely has conflicts of interest from confidential private meetings with fossil fuel companies at Republican Attorneys General Association get-togethers, but we just don't know how bad. There is almost certainly evidence of conflict of interest in his undisclosed emails with fossil fuel companies, but again we don't know how bad. He came clean on none of this in his confirmation hearing. This chart is a simple, and a likely incomplete, representation of the many financial links reported between Pruitt and the fossil fuel industry. At the top are the companies and the entities that have supported Mr. Pruitt with political funding. Down below are the political organizations for which he has raised money. Pruitt for Attorney General was his reelection campaign. The polluters gave to Pruitt for Attorney General. Oklahoma's Strong PAC was his leadership PAC, a separate political fundraising vehicle. The polluters gave to Oklahoma Strong. There was another one here called Liberty 2.0, Mr. Pruitt's super PAC, but he closed it down so we don't list it. While it existed, his super PAC took nearly $200,000 in fossil fuel industry contributions. Mr. Pruitt served as the chair of the Republican Attorneys General Association in 2012 and 2013 and was a member of RAGA's executive committee through 2015. Between 2014 and 2016, RAGA received $530,000 from Koch Industries. It received $350,000 from Murray Energy. It received $160,000 from ExxonMobil, and it received $125,000 from Devon Energy. Devon Energy, by the way, is the company whose letter Mr. Pruitt transposed virtually verbatim onto his official letterhead to send to the EPA as the official position of the Oklahoma attorney general. During his hearing, Mr. Pruitt refused to provide details about any solicitations he made from regulated industries for the Republican Attorneys General Association. We know they got special attention from RAGA. Here is a confidential 2015 meeting agenda from RAGA when Pruitt was on its executive committee. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the meeting agenda page.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. This confidential agenda mentions a private meeting with Murray Energy. It mentions a private meeting with Southern Company, and it mentions a private meeting with American Fuel Petrochemical Manufacturers, which represents a lot of these characters. Murray Energy, of course, is right there. Southern Company is right there, and the American Fuel Petrochemical Manufacturers organization, I am sure, represents the others. This confidential meeting agenda is all we have about what took place in those private meetings. I asked Mr. Pruitt in our hearings about the content of these private meetings, and he wouldn't answer any questions. He doesn't want us to know what was discussed there with the big fossil fuel polluters--companies whose pollution he will oversee as EPA Administrator. Pruitt was also a chairman of the Rule of Law Defense Fund. The so- called Rule of Law Defense Fund is a dark money political operation that launders the identity of donors giving money to the Republican Attorneys General Association. As the New York Times said, the fund is a ``legal entity that allows companies benefiting from the actions of Mr. Pruitt and other Republican attorneys general to make anonymous donations, in unlimited amounts.'' It is a complete black hole of political cash. In the hearing, Pruitt refused to shine any light into the dark money he solicited or received from these fossil fuel polluters or others for the Rule of Law Defense Fund--not whom he asked for money, not who gave money, not what they gave, nothing. This is an organization that appears to have a million-dollar-a-year budget so someone was busy raising a lot of money. How much exactly, from whom, and what was the deal? Scott Pruitt doesn't want our committee or this Senate or the American people to know. Colleagues and I sent letters to the Office of Government Ethics and to the Environmental Protection Agency's top ethics official. Their responses indicate that their ethics rules predate Citizens United and its torrent of dark political money. Their regulatory authority on government ethics has not caught up with the post-Citizens United dark money world. Since their ethics authorities have not been updated for these dark money conflicts, if Pruitt doesn't disclose any of this information before the Senate, no one will know, and even those government ethics watchdogs may end up blind to conflicts of interest. That doesn't mean there isn't a conflict of interest here. What it means is it is a hidden conflict of interest. That makes it our duty in the Senate to examine those relationships, except for the fact that the fossil fuel industry now, more or less, runs the Republican Party, so there is a scrupulous lack of interest in this fossil fuel industry dark money. How badly does Mr. Pruitt want to hide his dealings with his fossil fuel patrons? An Open Records Act request was filed with the Oklahoma attorney general's office--Mr. Pruitt's office--for emails with energy firms, fossil fuel trade groups, and their political arms, with companies like Devon Energy, Murray Energy, and Koch Industries, and the American Petroleum Institute, which is the industry's trade association. Let me share three facts about this Open Records Act inquiry: No. 1, the Open Records Act request was filed more than 745 days ago--over 2 years, 2 years. No. 2, Pruitt's office has admitted that there are at least 3,000 responsive documents to that Open Records Act request. Consider that fact alone for a moment. There were 3,000 emails and other documents between his office and these fossil fuel companies and front groups--3,000. No. 3, zero, exactly zero of those documents have been produced--745 days, 3,000 documents, zero produced. Think how smelly those 3,000 emails must be when he would rather have this flagrant Open Records Act compliance failure than have any of those 3,000 emails see the light of day. Given the important financial interests of these groups before the EPA, do we really not think that 3,000 emails back and forth between him and his office and those groups might be relevant to his conflicts of interest as Administrator? Until very recently, Republicans had a keen interest in emails. Chairman Barrasso asked that important question: ``Do you know of any matters which you may or may not have disclosed that might place you in any conflict of interest if you are confirmed?'' Scott Pruitt answered: ``No.'' On this record, there is every reason to believe that his statement is false. Might having raised significant dark money from the industry that he would regulate create a conflict of interest? Let's say that he made a call to Devon Energy and said: I slapped your letter on my letterhead and turned it in as if it were the official work of the Oklahoma attorney general's office. Now I need a million bucks. And you can give it to the Rule of Law Defense Fund as dark money, without anyone knowing that it was you. Might such a quid pro quo create a conflict of interest in his ability to carry out the duties of EPA Administrator in matters affecting Devon Energy? It is impossible to say that it would not be a conflict of interest. Let's say that at those confidential private meetings with Murray Energy and Southern Company, something went on. Might something that takes place in private meetings with Big Energy interests that he is going to have to regulate create a possible conflict of interest? They paid to be there. They wanted something. Might that not give rise to a conflict of interest? And who knows what conflicts of interest would be divulged if his office were not sitting on 3,000 undisclosed emails with fossil fuel industries that he will be regulating as EPA Administrator? I challenge anyone to come to this Senate floor and tell me with a straight face that there is nothing that those emails could reveal that might create a conflict of interest for the man discharged with regulating the companies on the other end of those emails. ``No'' just doesn't cut it as an answer from Mr. Pruitt when there is still so much that he is hiding. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Patrick Reilly, a fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of this Congress.

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, Mr. Milton Bronstein, a lifelong public servant, labor leader, and great friend to me, today celebrates his 100th birthday. Milton served in many capacities during his more than three decades of service as an employee of the State of Rhode Island. In addition, he was an active workers' organizer, leading Rhode Island's AFSCME chapter, Council 94, as its first president and eventually becoming the retiree chapter's vice president until retiring just last year at age 99. Those who have been fortunate enough to work alongside Milton during his State service or to benefit under his tenure at Council 94 describe him as a strong, dedicated leader and mentor. Current labor leaders say Milton's involvement helped strengthen the labor movement in Rhode Island. It is his selflessness and commitment to seeing working Rhode Islanders succeed that so many of us admire. Milton has been a tireless leader in the community. He has served on the board of directors of the Rhode Island Credit Union and the Touro Fraternal Association, the largest independent Jewish fraternal order in New England, for more than 50 years. He also was very active in the Rhode Island Democratic Party for just as long, working as president of the Association of Democratic City and Town Chairs. One of his proudest moments in politics was being a member of the 1992 Electoral College where he proudly cast his vote for President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore. I know Milton's family means everything to him. His love for his late wife, Claire, and his devotion to his children, Harvey, Andrew, and Cindy, are obvious. He has carried on his devotion to family with his seven grandchildren and his two great-grandchildren, with one more on the way. Milton has been a close friend, supporter, and adviser to me throughout my political career. He is someone you can go to when you need help, and he is always there. He has helped so many people over the years, but you would be hard pressed to hear of him asking anything for himself. Milton, I am lucky to celebrate you today. You are a great Rhode Islander. Thank you for everything you have done for me and for your dedicated service to the people of our great Ocean State. As your friend and Senator, please accept my birthday wishes for a wonderful 100th year.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield to the majority whip.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of the majority whip's remarks, I be recognized.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, it makes this industry crazy to be in court and to have to tell the truth, so they will fight desperately on. The $700 billion a year in subsidies makes it profitable to ``lawyer up'' by the boatload for this fight and to litigate to their damndest. So this is not over, but this may be the moment when the truth finally found a path around the ramparts of our well-kept congressional indifference and began to find its way into the daylight. That is one of the reasons the Founding Fathers gave us independent courts and juries. ``Representative government and trial by jury are the heart and lungs of liberty,'' wrote John Adams. Independent courts and trial by jury were a big deal to the founding generation. The Founding Fathers had a keen sense of history and of politics and of the mischief of conniving men. They were deeply concerned about corruption--corruption of the body politic by interests and factions. They knew the Bible and had read Isaiah's warning of how ``the faithful city has become a whore,'' with ``princes'' that are ``companions of thieves.'' They knew about abusive power. They could envision an interest become so powerful as to overwhelm the executive and legislative branches of government and bend those branches to its will. They could envision a special interest so powerful that it could buy its own presses and confuse or beguile the public with propaganda and nonsense. They could envision special interests so powerful as to abuse and distort the very democracy they were building. So there stand the courts and there stands the jury, the places in our system of government where money has no sway and where evidence, testimony, and truth rule the day. God bless America. I yield the floor.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, in my ``Time to Wake Up'' climate speech--this is No. 154--I sometimes feel as if I am out here banging hopelessly against a tightly locked, barred, and soundproofed door. I make them anyway because, at a minimum, I want history to know what happened here when people look back and ask what the hell went wrong with American democracy. But I do admit that it can sometimes be discouraging. However, last week something important happened. A public servant won a victory against a massive special interest. A court in Massachusetts allowed the attorney general of that Commonwealth to obtain files and records from the ExxonMobil corporation about its climate denial enterprise. That is great news, and it is an important event. There is virtually universal scientific consensus--and even alarm--about climate and oceanic changes caused by burning the fossil fuel industry's products. In the face of that concern, the fossil fuel industry has gone to the mattresses to defend its business model. It is defending what the International Monetary Fund has described as a $700 billion--billion with a ``b''--annual subsidy just in the United States. To defend a prize of that magnitude, the industry has set up an array of front groups to obscure its hand and to propagate fake science designed to raise doubts about the real thing. With that fake science, they dupe the public and provide talking points for their political operatives. The front groups are a tentacled Hydra named after everyone from Cato to Madison, Jefferson, and Franklin, to George C. Marshall. The resemblances between this fossil fuel climate denial operation and the tobacco fraud scheme are profound, and these resemblances are noted often, including by the lawyer who won the tobacco case. Yes, the Department of Justice won that case. At the same time, the fossil fuel industry has taken advantage of the political weaponry handed to them by five Republican appointees on the Supreme Court. This industry has used the unprecedented political power bestowed on mighty special interests by the Citizens United decision to extirpate--root out--any Republican support for climate action. When I got here, there was plenty of Republican support for climate action, but after Citizens United that changed. They have seized that party like a hostile political takeover and turned the Republican Party into the fossil fuel industry's political arm. It turns out that you can do this on the cheap, compared to losing a subsidy of $700 billion a year. This whole scheme reeks of mischief and self-interest, but in political forums the industry is such a powerful behemoth that it can block proper hearings, spout calculated misinformation, cloud up the truth, lobby to its heart's content, refuse to answer questions, pile up the spin doctors and front groups, buy and rent politicians, and threaten to end careers of anyone who crosses them--and they do. They made an example of Representative Bob Inglis and bragged of the political peril--their words--that would result to those who crossed them. That is how they play in the political branches. Truth doesn't matter to them. Truth is their adversary. But you cannot play that way in court. That is why last week's victory was important. Court is different. In court you have to speak truthfully. Your lawyers can be sanctioned for lying in court. In court, your testimony is under oath, and you can be cross-examined. In court, evidence can be demanded and must be produced. In court, you cannot buy a judge's good will or bully a jury into compliance. Tampering with the jury is a crime. Judges cannot meet secretly with one side. No money can change hands, and biased judges must be recused. Sir William Blackstone was the best-known jurist in England and America at the time of the Revolution. Trial by jury, he said, ``preserves in the hands of the people that share which they ought to have in the administration of public justice, and prevents the encroachments of the more powerful and wealthy citizens.'' No wonder powerful and wealthy ExxonMobil wants no part of that. This industry has gotten used to saying things with no accountability, dodging the truth, hiding the evidence, and using the massive weight of their political might to see to it that Congress has just the right bias wherever fossil fuel interests are a concern. This Massachusetts ruling is a chink of light--and a welcome one--as darkness falls over an executive administration stuffed with nominees from the climate denial fringe, wrapped tight in the political tentacles of fossil fuel interests. It makes the fossil fuel folks crazy to be called into court and to have to stand annoyingly equal before the law when they are used to being the big behemoth, able to tell everyone what to do or pay them or threaten them to do what industry wants. That is why they launched legislative subpoenas at attorneys general and what even Texas newspapers have called out as unseemly abuse of government power. That is why they rush to the oil patch for judges who will interfere in investigations by attorneys general, even suggesting that attorneys general should not pursue cases against corporations whom they believe are responsible for misconduct because believing that is prejudicial. Think of that. That is why the industry PR machine creates and propagates magical theories about the industry's First Amendment rights, when it is black letter law--admitted even by Senator Sessions in his Judiciary Committee hearing--that the First Amendment ends where fraud begins. Fraudulent speech, including fraudulent corporate speech, is not protected by the First Amendment. It is not now, and it never has been. To clarify this point, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a June 2016 Washington Post op-ed by Yale Law School dean Robert Post titled ``Exxon-Mobil is abusing the first amendment.''

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. My pleasure.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, the senior Senator from West Virginia has a very short time clock and has asked me to yield 2 minutes to him before I begin my remarks. I ask unanimous consent that that take place and that then I be recognized at the conclusion of his remarks to speak in morning business for the duration of my remarks.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I have crossed through and beyond 150 ``Time to Wake Up'' speeches. People sometimes ask me how I come up with the material. It is actually easy, even week after week after week, because it only takes reading the news. If we look back at the headlines and dubious milestones of 2016, we find plenty to talk about. Last year was hot. NASA and NOAA are expected to certify later this month that 2016 was the hottest year in recorded history, exceeding the previous record set by 2015 and the previous record set by 2014. What this means is, 2014, 2015, and 2016 have each succeeded the last as the three hottest years on record. The United Nations World Meteorological Organization found that the world was 1.2 degrees Celsius or over 2 degrees Fahrenheit warmer in 2016 than it was before the Industrial Revolution and the dawn of wide- scale fossil fuel use. We are careening closer and closer to the 2-degree Celsius mark which scientists say brings, to quote Donald Trump in 2009, ``catastrophic'' and ``irreversible'' climate effects. In 2016, climate change continued to make some places almost unrecognizable. Up north in the Arctic things got bizarre. Thermometers spiked in mid-November to almost 35 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than normal, with a 37-year low in the nearby sea ice. The peaks were about 50 degrees above normal, and around Christmas it actually rose above freezing at the North Pole. Imagine, the snow was actually beginning to melt at the North Pole just as Santa was loading his sleigh with Christmas gifts. In the tropics, undersea forests of once colorful coral stood bone white as the Great Barrier Reef experienced the greatest bleaching and coral die-off on record. What happens is that the superwarm water stressed the corals. That forces them to expel the tiny algae that lives symbiotically with the coral, providing them their food, and that is what gives coral reefs their beautiful color and their life. When the algae go, the coral structures turn ghostly white. They often do not recover. It is not just the Great Barrier Reef. My clips today included a story from Japan, whose biggest coral reef has just been determined to be 70 percent dead. The researchers in Australia found severe bleaching throughout the Great Barrier Reef. The Guardian reported in March that ``93 percent of the 3,000 individual reefs [had] been touched by bleaching, and almost a quarter . . . [had] been killed by this bleaching event.'' By November, around two-thirds of the northern portion of the Great Barrier Reef had died, with some atolls suffering complete devastation. Warming is at the heart of that catastrophe. We also know from the physical laws of thermal expansion that as ocean water warms, it does something else. It expands. The oceans also are taking in melting water from our shrinking glaciers. Together, those factors are causing sea levels to rise worldwide. Last year, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences predicted that at our current pace, over 90 percent of the world's coastal areas will experience almost 8 inches of sea level rise by 2040. Year 2040 is not that far away. On the Atlantic coast of the United States, it will be more than 15 inches. By 2040, a house that you bought on the coast today could be literally underwater before you paid off your 30-year mortgage. The real estate business is starting to take notice. Zillow, the online real estate marketplace, has released a tool for users to show how potential sea level rise by 2100 would affect the over 100 million U.S. homes in its database. Around 1 in 50 homes in the United States, or just under 2 million properties, will find their ground floors underwater by 2100 if we don't get ahead of this. Thirty- six U.S. cities would be considered ``completely lost''--those are their words--``completely lost,'' and another 300 cities would lose at least half their homes. This doesn't even include commercial or public properties. Government-backed mortgage giant Freddie Mac is girding for broad losses from climate-driven flooding. ``The economic losses and social disruption may happen gradually,'' it wrote in an April 2016 report, ``but they are likely to be greater in total than those experienced in the housing crisis and Great Recession.'' Let me say that again. The economic losses ``are likely to be greater in total than those experienced in the housing crisis and Great Recession.'' The report says some of the effects of climate change may not even be insurable and, unlike our 2008 housing crash, owners of homes that are subsumed by rising seas would have little expectation of their homes' values ever returning and, therefore, little incentive to continue to make mortgage payments through the crisis, and that, in turn, adds to steeper losses for lenders and insurers. Remember that Donald Trump signed, along with his children, this full-page ad in the New York Times in 2009. Here is what it said, speaking as Americans: [W]e must embrace the challenge today to ensure that future generations are left with a safe planet and a strong economy. . . . He said to the President in this advertisement: We support your effort to ensure meaningful and effective measures to control climate change, an immediate challenge facing the United States and the world today. It went on: Please don't postpone the earth. If we fail to act now, it is scientifically irrefutable-- Let me repeat his words-- scientifically irrefutable that there will be catastrophic and irreversible consequences for humanity and our planet. That is what Donald Trump and his family said in a 2009 ad, ``catastrophic and irreversible.'' We have been warned. President-Elect Trump also pledged to ``drain the swamp'' here in Washington of corporate insiders and special interests. But we don't see that. We see an alligator pack of climate deniers, oil executives, and Koch brothers flunkies nominated to fill his Cabinet, his White House, and his executive agencies. The Koch brothers, Exxon, and other special fossil fuel interests stand on one side. On the other side stand our military, our National Labs, and NASA. Let me put in a little footnote on NASA. They have a rover driving around on the planet Mars right now. Do you think their science might be OK? And, on the other side, also, I think, is every university in the United States of America. That is the choice: The fossil fuel guys, led by the Koch brothers and ExxonMobil, and the whole array of phony baloney front groups that they have stood up to try to mask their hand, or the virtually complete science establishment of the world, every Nation, our military, our National Labs, and all of our universities. Who are you going to believe? The ones with the huge conflict of interest or the people who know what they are talking about? Well, too many people in this room have made the wrong choice, but we need to fix it. In Rhode Island, some good things happened last year. After over 8 years of work, we have the Nation's first offshore wind farm. Thirty megawatts, five turbines came online in December 2016--the Block Island Wind Farm. I am proud of Deepwater Wind for getting it done. I am proud of Rhode Island for establishing a process for siting an approval that is now a national model. It is part of a transformation that happened, emphasized in 2016, and that was jobs in the renewable energy industry taking off. At the end of 2016, we had 400,000 wind and solar jobs, and by 2020, that number is expected to be 600,000. As employment climbs in these industries, costs for renewable technologies continues to drop compared to fossil fuels. Last year we saw new records for electricity generation from renewable sources. Texas wind generation hit a record 15 gigawatts in December of last year, meeting 45 percent of the State's power needs, with 18,000 megawatts installed and another 5,000 megawatts under construction. In Iowa, MidAmerican Energy is planning to add 2,000 megawatts of new wind by 2019. Once installed, 85 percent of the energy MidAmerican generates will be renewable. We continued to make real progress internationally in 2016 as well. Earth Day was the signing ceremony for the historic Paris climate agreement. Nearly 200 nations pledged to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. By October, we met the threshold for ratification of that agreement, when over 55 countries officially joined, and the agreement was fully adopted in November. Just this week, over 630 companies and major investment firms, with a combined 1.8 million employees and $1.15 trillion in annual revenue, called on President-Elect Trump, us in Congress, and global leaders to continue to participate in and implement the Paris Agreement to ``create jobs and boost U.S. competitiveness.'' This is the business community saying that the Paris Agreement will create jobs and boost U.S. competitiveness. Signatories included food giants General Mills, Kellogg's, Campbell's Soup, and Mars; apparel companies VF Corporation, Nike and Levi's; and other corporate heavy weights like Monsanto, DuPont, Intel, and Johnson & Johnson. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the ``Business Backs Low- Carbon USA'' letter be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. I sure hope President-Elect Trump will heed this call from the leaders of the business community. Closing word: Secretary of State Kerry, in addition to providing great leadership through this, has also started doing something that I know is precious to him and that is important to me and many of our colleagues; that is, to give oceans the global attention they deserve. In September, more than 90 countries convened here in Washington for the Our Ocean Conference. Nations, nonprofit organizations, foundations, and big corporations all came together pledging over $5 billion for marine conservation and committing to protect more than 1.5 million square miles of ocean. Secretary Kerry secured the legacy of the Our Ocean Conference by locking in hosts for the conference for the next 3 years. So 2016 was a year of worsening climate effects but also of heartening climate action. The dramatic changes taking place in the Earth's climate are now undeniable, but so is the growing spirit of action among men and women of good conscience across the United States and around the world. One can hope that 2017 will be the year when we in this Chamber finally wake up.

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

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE.--and cannot be denied health care for his preexisting condition, I vote no.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. On behalf of 14-year-old Charlie, in Woonsocket, RI, who suffers from neurofibromatosis and can stay on his parents' policy until he is 26--

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam Clerk, how am I recorded?

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Cristina Diaz-Torres and Elena Elkin, two fellows in my office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of this Congress.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

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

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I have no objection to that.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, in the article, he is quoted as saying: ``The thing that I learned time after time, story after story, is that people standing up does make a difference. It does change policy.'' Good words to end the speech by. Thank you, Smitty. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time during quorum calls be charged equally to both sides.