Sheldon Whitehouse

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I believe Senator Warren of Massachusetts will be joining me on the floor, and I ask unanimous consent that if she is here on the floor at the conclusion of my remarks that she be recognized next so that our remarks can be conjoined with one another.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, one of the hallmarks of President- Elect Trump's campaign was his desire, often stated, to clean up Washington, to lift the dark hand of special interests off of the levers of government and, as he said it in his speeches, to drain the swamp here. I would like to assure the President-elect that on this side of the aisle we are very keen to work with him on a whole variety of reforms to control the role of big special interests, their lobbying apparatus, and their political machinery here in Washington. I very much hope that President-Elect Trump will indeed choose to work with us. I hope he will bear in mind that although he won the electoral college, it appears now clear that Secretary Clinton actually won the popular vote and that she may have won the popular vote by as many as a million votes. It is also worth noting that if 2012 is any prologue to 2016, it is likely that Democratic Members of Congress--of the House of Representatives--received more votes than Republican Members of Congress. The shift and the reason for Republican control of the House of Representatives has been the gerrymandering effort that has packed Democrats into very heavily saturated Democratic districts so that Republicans can create strong--but not massive--majority districts for themselves. I believe in the last Presidential election, States such as Pennsylvania and Ohio reelected Democratic Senators statewide, elected a Democratic President statewide, but then sent heavily Republican delegations to the House of Representatives because of that gerrymandering. It may be a fluke of the way the California vote would have shaken out, but it would not surprise me if it turned out in this election that Democratic Senators and candidates for the Senate received a bigger popular vote than Republican Senators and candidates for the Senate. Those numbers are not in yet. My point is that I hope President-Elect Trump will recognize that in a divided Nation, it makes more sense and it will bind us together better if we try to work together across party lines rather than try to ramrod a hard-right partisan agenda through. There is no place I can think of--perhaps infrastructure, but few places where we are more willing to hear his ideas and work with him than on draining the swamp. The environment here in Washington is obviously one that lends itself to very substantial political manipulation. In all of that political manipulation, most of the cards are with the big special interests. Indeed, corporate lobbying of Congress has been reviewed and measured as being more than all other lobbying of Congress combined by a ratio of 30 to 1. So if we are wondering where the power structure comes down here in this building, think about a 30-to-1 advantage for corporate lobbying over all other lobbying combined. There are issues where I think we can work together if, in fact, President-Elect Trump wishes to drain the swamp. There are substantive issues. One of the things I have been concerned about has been the carried interest loophole, which is a quirk of the Tax Code that allows people who are hedge fund billionaires to pay a lower tax rate than a brick mason or a truckdriver does. That, to me, is not fair. We have seen some reflections of this in studies that looked at, for instance, an enormous building in Manhattan in New York City. The building is so big that it has its own ZIP Code, and because the Internal Revenue Service calculates tax payments and income by ZIP Code, we can get a general sense of how much money the individuals in that building make and how much they pay in taxes. What we see when we look at that study is that the average income of the inhabitants of that building is well over $1 million, but the tax rate they paid was actually in the low teens in terms of a percentage tax rate. And if you look at what the Department of Labor says about security workers and janitorial workers, we see that they pay more like a 20- to 30-percent tax rate in New York City. So what that leaves us with is a circumstance in which the hedge fund mogul coming back to his luxury apartment building in his limousine, as he steps out into the rain, is paying a lower tax rate than the doorman or the security official or the janitor working in that building. The doorman holding the umbrella over the head of the billionaire is probably paying a higher tax rate than the billionaire. I can see why Donald Trump raised that issue on the campaign, and I can see why crowds responded to that. It is a disgrace in the Tax Code. We would love to work with him, but then we look at who his transition team is. The chiefs of his transition team are a whole slew of hedge fund and Wall Street billionaires--the people getting out of the limo paying the low tax rates. When it comes time for Donald Trump to keep his promise on carried interest, it will be interesting to see if he can hold his own against the insiders around him who want to preserve this disgraceful tax loophole. We want to work with him on infrastructure. We think there should be a big infrastructure bill. The civil engineers of this country give our infrastructure a D. Everybody who drives on our roads or crosses our bridges knows we need to invest in infrastructure, but the Koch brothers have already thrown down a gauntlet saying they will challenge the President-elect on that infrastructure plan. Will he have the strength to proceed, or will the insider lobbying political operation of the Koch brothers block him? It is another contest that remains to be seen between insider politics and the President-elect. Finally, the biggest swamp thing of them all is the fossil fuel industry. The fossil fuel industry has more or less taken over the Republican Party in Congress. What remains of the Republican Party in Congress is a little bit like what remains of that unfortunate farmer in ``Men in Black'' whose body was occupied by the alien, who then walked around in the skin and the overalls of the unfortunate farmer. The fossil fuel industry is a special interest. It is the biggest swamp thing in the swamp. Will the President-elect be willing to take it on in any respect? That, too, remains to be seen. There are a lot of very powerful creatures in the swamp. It is one thing to say you are going to drain it; it is another thing to actually take them on. I am here to assure the President-elect that not just I but many Democrats would like to work with him toward responsible climate policies, notwithstanding the nefarious presence of the fossil fuel industry; toward an infrastructure bill, notwithstanding the ideological position of the Koch brothers; and on carried interest, notwithstanding the infiltration already of his transition team by Wall Street special interests. With that, I yield the floor to my outstanding colleague from Massachusetts.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, today Dr. Gregory Fritz will be honored by the Mental Health Association of Rhode Island with the Bell Award. This award recognizes a mental health champion whose work has helped promote the cause of mental health and improved of lives of people living with mental illness. For over three decades, Dr. Fritz's leadership and advocacy have strengthened our Rhode Island community. He arrived in Rhode Island in 1985 to build a comprehensive pediatric psychiatry service at Hasbro Children's Hospital. Since, Dr. Fritz has become the academic director of Bradley Hospital, the director of Bradley Hasbro Children's Research Center, the director of the Division of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry at Rhode Island Hospital, and the director of the Department of Psychiatry and Human Behavior at the Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University. Dr. Fritz is also a national leader in the mental health field, serving as the president of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. He has used this platform to encourage integration of mental health services into primary care, a key strategy to improving children's access to mental health care, and ultimately, their health outcomes. It has been my privilege to see up close Dr. Fritz's dedication and drive to improve the lives of children and adults with mental illness. A decades-long effort I led with Senator Jack Reed to provide parity in Federal funding for teaching programs at children's psychiatric hospitals would not have been possible without Dr. Fritz. We hit many road bumps along the way, but Dr. Fritz did not stray from the course. He left no stone unturned--and no strategic partner uncalled--in advocating for this change. He noted, quite honestly, in an op-ed published in the Providence Journal, ``I am far from dispassionate about this issue.'' Dr. Fritz has displayed passion and energy for raising awareness and bringing people together to identify solutions to a range of issues, including mental health parity, addiction and recovery, and workforce training. This is so important for the communities he serves--children and young adults with mental health and substance use disorders--who too often don't have a strong advocate. Thankfully, in Rhode Island, they have Dr. Fritz. Dr. Gregory Fritz has dedicated his career to improving the lives of children with mental illness, and many have benefited from his leadership. I offer him my congratulations on this well-deserved award, and I look forward to continuing to work alongside him.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I appear to be on the floor for Utah Day, with the junior Senator presiding and the senior Senator speaking. I am delighted to follow the senior Senator. I think in the boisterous days and months we will see ahead, his longstanding reputation for collegiality and reason and the respect in which his colleagues all hold him could become valuable attributes in our Senate. Climate Change Mr. President, I am here as the Senate reconvenes from the 2016 election recess to give my 149th climate speech, but I want first to congratulate my colleagues who were reelected and the new Members elected to the Senate and President-Elect Trump and Vice President- Elect Pence. With control of the White House and majorities coming in the House and the Senate, Republicans will wield great power in Washington, DC, and as the well-known saying goes, ``with great power comes great responsibility.'' In his acceptance speech, President-Elect Trump asked us all for help and guidance in governing this great Nation. My guidance would be first to be responsible. A key test will be whether our President-elect and Republicans here in the Senate choose to be responsible about climate change. I am gravely concerned about climate change, but based on the President-elect's campaign, he appears blissfully unconcerned, and Congress has been stalled by a decades-long industry-controlled campaign of calculated misinformation on the danger of carbon pollution and by just raw industry political pressure. But the President-elect will soon hear--and, hopefully, take it to heart--from a grownup world outside the creepy alt-right and the fossil fuel industry, a world of people who actually know what they are talking about. The President-elect will hear from our military and national security experts how deadly serious this is. Our former Pacific commander, Admiral Locklear, said it was the biggest national security threat we face in the Pacific theater. To use Admiral Locklear's exact words, ``climate change is probably the most likely thing that is going to happen . . . that will cripple the security environment, probably more likely than the other scenarios we all often talk about.'' Geoffrey Kemp, former Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs under President Ronald Reagan, said: Our military and intelligence leadership have recognized, under both the George W. Bush and the Obama administrations, that climate change will present real and costly risks to our national security and that the effects are going to get worse if we don't do something about it very soon. As General Douglas MacArthur warned about the dangers of unpreparedness for war, we don't want to be too late. The President-elect will hear from our National Labs and from NOAA and NASA, the folks who put a rover on Mars and are driving it around and may know a little bit about real science, about the robust scientific consensus on climate change, and the urgency to change our course. If he doesn't trust our own scientific agencies, he can go to any major university in any State in the Nation and confirm what the government and military experts tell him. The President-elect will hear from world leaders who have pledged, alongside the United States, to work across borders to limit carbon emissions. The Paris Agreement brought nearly 200 countries together with the common goal of keeping global warming below 2 degrees Celsius and avoiding the most catastrophic outcomes for the planet and its people. He will also hear from CEOs across America, particularly those in the food and agriculture sectors who are living with climate change consequences every day, and from many others that we need to quit fooling around. I hope the President-elect will listen to these voices of reason and expertise. The people in our Nation certainly are listening. Polls show over 60 percent of Americans are concerned about global warming, and more than 80 percent of Americans favor action to reduce carbon pollution. Rhode Island, the Ocean State, would tell the administration that the oceans are the frontlines of climate change. The oceans have absorbed approximately 30 percent of the excess carbon dioxide that we have added to the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution--30 percent of it. They have also absorbed roughly 90 percent of the excess heat trapped in the atmosphere by those greenhouse gases. Without the oceans to absorb that added heat and carbon dioxide, we would not be worried about the 2-degree warming limit the world community is racing to avoid. We would be looking at a 30-degree increase, and life as our species knows it on this planet would be over. Oceans have spared us thus far from disaster, but what they have done to buffer our self-inflicted harm comes at its own cost. Global ocean temperatures are rising. In Rhode Island, Narragansett Bay's mean water temperature is up nearly 4 degrees Fahrenheit. Our Rhode Island lobster fishery is crashing, and our winter flounder fishery is gone. As water warms, of course, it also expands, and as glaciers melt, they add to the volume of the ocean. That is why sea levels are rising worldwide. The water is up about 10 inches at the Newport Naval Station tide gauge since the 1930s, and the Navy is actively planning how to defend the Norfolk Naval Station from rising seas. The effect of the ocean's absorbing all that carbon dioxide is a little different. It causes a chemical reaction. It is making ocean water more acidic. The ocean is acidifying and doing so at the fastest rate in 50 million years. Considering we have only been on the planet as a species for about 200,000 years, that is a long, long interval. Rhode Island's clammers, lobstermen, and aquaculture growers are watching with real alarm the damage acidified seas are doing. On America's northwest coast, oyster hatcheries have already experienced significant losses when their new hatches were unable to grow their shells in the acidified seawater. Off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, and Northern California, 50 percent of ocean pteropods were measured to have ``severe shell damage,'' mostly from acidified seas. If that species collapses, the bottom falls out of the oceanic food chain. As the oceans go, so goes the planet. It is my sincere hope that President-Elect Trump will feel the call of history, of reason, and of patriotism to live up to the awesome responsibilities he now will bear. The 22nd session of the Conference of the Parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, the so-called COP-22, is now taking place in Marrakech, Morocco. A similar gathering took place in Copenhagen 7 years ago. A full-page ad in the New York Times then called for passage of climate legislation in the United States for investment in the clean energy economy and for leadership to inspire the rest of the world to join the fight against climate change. It said: We must embrace the challenge today to ensure that future generations are left with a safe planet and a strong economy. . . . We support your effort-- They said to President Obama-- to ensure meaningful and effective measures to control climate change, an immediate challenge facing the United States and the world today. Please don't postpone the earth. If we fail to act now, it is scientifically irrefutable that there will be catastrophic and irreversible consequences for humanity and our planet. That full-page ad from which we took this was signed by Donald J. Trump, Chairman and President of the Trump organization. The signatories also included his children, Donald Jr., Eric, and Ivanka. Their future and their reputations are at stake too. The President-elect campaigned against big special interests controlling Washington, and he mocked Republican politicians groveling before the Koch brothers at their ``begathon,'' as he called it. He has a simple choice now. He can make his own decisions based on the best recommendations of our military, our national science laboratories, and our great universities, or he can fall in tow to the Koch brothers--the biggest special interest of them all. He can believe our National Labs and our National Aeronautics and Space Administration, or he can believe the National Enquirer. He can believe our military or he can believe the fossil fuel industry's denial apparatus. He can believe established scientific principles or he can believe fanciful conspiracy theories. His choice will be fateful, and the world and history will both be watching. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, today I wish to honor the career of one of Rhode Island's most respected ocean and coastal experts, my friend Grover Fugate. Grover has served as executive director of the Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council, CRMC, for nearly 30 years, protecting Rhode Island's coastal resources through research, regulation, and restoration. One of the shining jewels of CRMC's work has been its innovative Special Area Management Plans, or SAMPs. These plans are ecosystem- based management strategies developed in collaboration with government agencies, municipalities, and other stakeholders to best manage coastal systems. During Mr. Fugate's tenure, the council has developed eight management plans, including the groundbreaking ocean SAMP, the first formally adopted ocean spatial plan in the country. The ocean SAMP guides future uses of Rhode Island's marine areas. In developing the plan, CRMC engaged a diverse group of stakeholders and laid the groundwork for cooperation among a multitude of regulatory agencies that led the way for the successful development of the Nation's first offshore wind farm off the coast of Rhode Island. The council has also helped Rhode Island towns and residents understand the increasing effects of sea level rise and storm surge. Using the latest climate change predictions and state of the art modeling, CRMC, in cooperation with the University of Rhode Island and others, developed an online tool, STORMTOOLS, that gives anyone with an Internet connection free access to information that can be used to help decide everything from what neighborhood to buy a home in to where to site a new stormwater treatment plant. Mr. Fugate has been a key leader in establishing STORMTOOLS and educating decisionmakers about the realities of sea level rise and flooding. In addition to his work for the Coastal Resources Management Council, Mr. Fugate serves as the State colead for the Northeast Regional Ocean Council's Ocean Planning initiative and the Northeast Regional Planning Body established under President Obama's 2010 Executive order. He also serves as adjunct faculty for the University of Rhode Island's marine affairs program and a guest lecturer of coastal and marine law at the Roger Williams University Law School. Mr. Fugate has earned many awards for his work, including the 2010 Susan Snow-Cotter Award for Excellence in Ocean and Coastal Resource Management from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the 2010 Regional Sea Grant Outstanding Outreach Award, the 2008 Coastal America Award for Habitat Restoration, and the 2008 Rhode Island Sea Grant Lifetime Achievement Award. He has authored numerous academic journal articles on coastal and natural resources management issues. Mr. Fugate's work on the ocean SAMP and Northeast Regional Planning Body has placed Rhode Island at the forefront of ocean planning and offshore wind development. He is a leader with a passion and commitment to protecting ocean and coastal resources. His technical expertise, ability to foster good working relationships with key stakeholders, and talent for finding solutions within the existing regulatory framework are a few of the many reasons I wish today to recognize him.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize a notable Rhode Islander. Curt Spalding, the outgoing Administrator for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's region 1, is retiring this year. Throughout his career, he has demonstrated a deep commitment to protecting our environment. The iconic waters of New England are part of what make this region a very special place to live. Since taking the helm of EPA region 1 in 2009, Administrator Spalding has worked to bolster coastal resilience, clean our lakes and rivers, and improve New England communities through innovation and science. Among his priorities was renewing the region's focus on bettering stormwater pollution control, a particular concern for Rhode Island's coastal communities as they prepare for sea level rise and increased rainfall. His focus on stakeholder engagement led to EPA's first-ever, real-time water quality reporting tool, which relies on New England citizen scientists, professional researchers, and a myriad of other groups for data and outreach. Administrator Spalding has routinely been a leader identifying innovative and cooperative solutions to difficult problems. He worked with Senator Reed and me to establish the Southeastern New England Coastal Watershed Restoration Program, SNEP. SNEP, a collaboration between government agencies, researchers, and non-governmental organizations, works to protect and restore coastal watersheds by addressing the excess nutrients and other pollutants that undermine water quality in the region. So far SNEP has made available over $12 million to improve coastal water quality, restore coastal ecosystems, and address nutrient pollution. Administrator Spalding has also championed programs to clean the waters of Cape Cod and restore Lake Champlain, and his work in Boston Harbor is another national success story, turning one of the most toxic harbors in the country in the 1980s into one of the cleanest urban beaches in the Nation today. Prior to serving with region 1, Administrator Spalding was the executive director of Rhode Island's Save the Bay for nearly two decades. While executive director, he oversaw construction of the Save the Bay Center at Fields Point in Providence, RI. The center, which won the Phoenix Award for brownfields redevelopment, transformed a former landfill into a landmark facility that provides classroom spaces for Save the Bay's educational programs and serves as a living example of the organization's approach to environmentally friendly shoreline development. Under his leadership, Save the Bay grew into a nationally recognized, 20,000-member environmental advocacy and education organization. Administrator Spalding's passion for his work and the environment is obvious. His vision for a vibrant, resilient New England had shaped the great work of our region's environmental and coastal communities for the last three decades. I hope during his retirement Administrator Spalding finds the time to enjoy some of the very areas he has spent a career protecting. Curt, my friend, may the wind always be at your back.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, on other judicial business, today the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit heard oral argument in West Virginia v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which is the case that will determine the fate of the EPA's Clean Power Plan. As that court considers our national plan to reduce carbon pollution from powerplants, which is our largest source of carbon emissions, I rise now for the 148th time to urge us all to wake up to the threats of climate change. In the runup to today's argument, Leader Reid, Senator Boxer, Senator Markey, and I released a report entitled ``The Brief No One Filed'' highlighting who is behind the legal challenge to the President's Clean Power Plan. Our report, which is structured as an amicus brief, although not filed with the court, shows how State officials, trade associations, front groups, and industry-funded scientists in the case are connected to the fossil fuel industry. In short, the court of appeals has been barraged with briefs by amici curiae and parties who are funded by oil, gas, and coal interests. I hope the court considers the appalling conflict of interest these briefs present when it considers this case. Let's begin with why there is such a big effort by the fossil fuel industry to launch its proxies in this case. A working paper by the International Monetary Fund puts the effective subsidy of the fossil fuel industry in this country at nearly $700 billion per year. For the record, that is billion with a ``b.'' That includes the climate harm they get away with for free. To protect this massive subsidy--perhaps the biggest subsidy in the history of the world--the fossil fuel polluters have concocted a complex web of climate change denial. The web includes deceptively named nonprofits and fake think tanks--to use Jane Mayer's apt phrase, ``think tanks as disguised political weapons''--whose purpose is to propagate phony science, manipulate public opinion, and create an echo chamber of climate science denialism. The polluters also wield their influence in our election campaigns, with especially devilish effect since the dreadful Citizens United decision of 2010. A lot of this fossil fuel apparatus has turned up in the DC Circuit. If we examine the Members of Congress filing amicus briefs against the Clean Power Plan, we find massive funding to them from the fossil fuel industry. The Center for American Progress Action Fund and the Center for Responsive Politics report that since 1989, Member amici signing these briefs have received over $40 million in oil, gas, and coal campaign contributions. Thirty-four Senators opposing the Clean Power Plan received over $16 million in direct contributions, and 171 Representatives opposing the Clean Power Plan received nearly $24 million. And that is just direct spending to candidate campaigns. On top of that come fossil fuel-related political action committee contributions, over $42 million more to Member amici since 1989--nearly $12 million to the 34 Senators and nearly $31 million to the 171 Representatives. In total, the fossil fuel industry's disclosed political spending to Members on these briefs amounts to nearly $83 million, with approximately $55 million split among 34 Senators and nearly $28 million split among 171 Representatives. And, of course, Citizens United opened the door to unlimited spending that is not disclosed as well. So we actually don't know the full amount or the full effect of fossil fuel political spending above and beyond that disclosed $83 million. The CAP Action Fund has labeled 135 of the 205 Member amici as ``climate deniers'' based on their past statements and their voting records. Climate deniers reject the overwhelming consensus of peer- reviewed science about the causes and effects of carbon in our atmosphere and oceans, often, interestingly, contradicting the research of scientists and academic institutions in their home States, even as to the effects of climate change manifesting in their home States. In this path, climate deniers are not following their constituents. Seven in ten Americans in a nationwide survey released this month favor the Clean Power Plan. More than 80 percent acknowledge the health benefits of the plan. Of course, the big polluters don't spend just to influence legislators at the Federal level, they also spend big on State officials, and they prop up trade associations, think tanks, and front groups willing to push their anti-science agenda. Many of these State politicians, trade associations, and front groups sure enough showed up in the Clean Power Plan litigation. From the 27 States currently challenging the Clean Power Plan in court, the CAP Action Fund has identified 24 climate-denying attorneys general and Governors based on their own past statements. These State officials have received over $19 million in contributions from the fossil fuel industry since 2000. One small example of this: Documents obtained by the Center for Media and Democracy show that Murray Energy, a coal company, donated $250,000 to the Republican Attorneys General Association in 2015 and received a closed-door meeting with State prosecutors to discuss the Clean Power Plan. According to research director Nick Surgey: It's no coincidence that GOP attorneys general have mounted an aggressive fight alongside the fossil fuel industry to block the Clean Power Plan. That appears to be exactly what the industry paid for. Other energy companies and trade groups that gave money last year to the Republican Attorneys General Association include Koch Industries, ExxonMobil, Southern Company, and Cloud Peak Energy. Then there are the industry trade groups, such as the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity and the National Association of Manufacturers also petitioning against the EPA. To pick just one, the National Association of Manufacturers has been described as a ``trade association and corporate front group that has a long history of hiring lobbyists to promote anti-environmental, pro-industry legislation.'' Other front groups, such as the Energy and Environment Legal Institute, have also filed briefs. E&E Legal advances what it calls ``free-market environmentalism'' using strategic litigation. It has made it its hallmark to harass climate scientists who work at public institutions and are vulnerable to State and Federal FOIA requests. E&E Legal received significant funding from the fossil fuel industry to engage in this harassment. Documents made public in the bankruptcy proceedings of three separate coal companies--Arch Coal, Peabody Coal, and Alpha Natural Resources-- reveal payments to E&E Legal or to its senior fellow, Chris Horner, a gentleman who has written not one but two books on why global warming is a hoax. E&E Legal is also an associate member of the State Policy Network, which the Center for Media and Democracy's SourceWatch describes as an ``$83 million right-wing empire'' that in turn receives money from a Koch family foundation and from the identity-scrubbing Donors Trust and Donors Capital, organizations set up to launder the identities of big donors. Such is the web of denial. Madam President, I could go on. Our report contains substantial detail on the network connecting the opponents of the Clean Power Plan to the fossil fuel companies behind their effort. ExxonMobil's CEO may pretend concern about climate change and mouth support for a carbon fee, but on his political gun decks, all their cannons are aimed to protect the freeloading, polluting status quo. And the Koch brothers don't even pretend; they will send us off a climate cliff to enforce their extremist ideology and to maintain their power to socialize their costs. These Koch brothers are fine capitalist free-marketeers when it comes to extracting private profits, but when it comes to imposing public costs, they are more socialist than Trotsky. The fossil fuel powers whistle, and the hounds all come running to bay at the court. Before the court of appeals takes their arguments seriously, it should consider the industry's financial relationship with so many of the Clean Power Plan opponents, it should consider their sordid record of deceiving Americans about climate science for years, and it should consider the massive, massive conflict of interest of the industry lurking in the shadows behind their front groups. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

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

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 17 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. As the attorney general of New York correctly states, ``Fraud is not protected by the First Amendment.'' A number of high-profile legal scholars sent a letter last week to Chairman Smith, condemning the subpoenas as ``misguided.'' The letter argues that the subpoenas are ``invalid and constitutionally impermissible.'' It turns out, according to these scholars, that the First Amendment actually works the other way: The Subpoenas, and the threat of future sanctions, themselves threaten the First Amendment--directly inhibiting the rights of their recipients to speak, to associate and to petition state officials without interference from Congress. A copy of the legal scholars' letter to Chairman Smith can be accessed at the Yale Law School website at http://tinyurl.com/ yaleletter. Rhode Island attorney general Peter Kilmartin and his colleagues have also urged Chairman Smith to withdraw the subpoenas. ``Your interference in our colleagues' work ignores a `vital consideration' under our constitutional system of dual sovereignty; the preservation of comity between the federal government and the states.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the Attorney General's letter to Chairman Smith be printed in the Record.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I am here for the 147th time in my series of speeches urging the Senate to wake up to the consequences of climate change and also to the motives of the outside forces that lull the Senate into persistent somnambulism. Outside this Chamber, every major scientific society, every one that I know of, of my colleagues' home State universities, all of America's National Labs, our military and security professionals, and NOAA and NASA all agree on the basic science of climate change and broadly support responsible climate action. There may be uncertainty about exactly what year sea level rise will hit what floodmark, for instance, but on the basic idea that climate change is causing seas to rise and floods to come, it is game over. NASA reported that August 2016 was the warmest August in 136 years of recordkeeping. August tied July as the hottest month the world has seen in the 136 years we have been measuring. More notable, August marked the 11th record-setting month in a row in NASA's data set. Why, in the face of all of that, does this Chamber slumber? Thank the dark influence of the fossil fuel industry. For years, Big Oil and its allies funded outright denial of manmade climate change. The Union of Concerned Scientists issued this report last year: ``The Climate Deception Dossiers: Internal Fossil Fuel Industry Memos Reveal Decades of Corporate Disinformation.'' The report documents how the big polluters contributed to front organizations and paid scientists to put out junk science contradicting what real, peer- reviewed science and even the industry's own experts knew about how burning fossil fuels affects the environment. Take ExxonMobil, for example. According to the company's own documents, as recently as 2015, ExxonMobil was still funding organizations that promote climate science disinformation, including the American Legislative Exchange Council, which peddled legislation to State legislatures that included a finding that human-induced global warming ``may lead to . . . possibly beneficial climatic changes.'' At the Hoover Institution, a senior fellow, not a climate scientist, argued that climate data since 1880 supports a conclusion that it would take as long as 500 years to reach a 4-degree centigrade of global warming. At the Manhattan Institute of Policy Research, a senior fellow writing about climate change said: ``The science is not settled, not by a long shot.'' The CEO of the so-called National Black Chamber of Commerce claimed that ``there has been no global warming detected for the last 18 years.'' Tell that to NASA. Let's not forget the Pacific Legal Foundation, where a senior attorney attacked EPA's authority to even regulate CO2, in part because it is a ``ubiquitous natural substance essential to life on Earth.'' All of those pronouncements by Exxon-backed organizations, as reports in both InsideClimate News and the Los Angeles Times have confirmed, run counter to what real scientists know. Yet, according to the public affairs guy at ExxonMobil, the company has supported mainstream climate science for decades. Their PR guy said: ``Frankly, we made the call that we needed to back away from supporting the groups that were undercutting the actual risk'' of climate change. Well, that doesn't actually seem to be true. ExxonMobil's campaign of falsehoods has the attention of several attorneys general, and in today's newspaper, it is revealed that it also has the attention of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Their questions are not unreasonable: Is ExxonMobil actively advancing the notion that its products have little or no effect on the Earth's environment, while at the same time suppressing its own internal research on the effects of carbon pollution, deceiving consumers into buying ExxonMobil products based on false claims? Is the company misleading its investors about its developable oil reserves and long- term prospects in a climate-changed world? It breaks the law to knowingly mislead consumers and shareholders about something material, and climate change is certainly material to ExxonMobil. As Senator Warren and I recently wrote in the Washington Post, investigations by States attorneys general are making ExxonMobil nervous, and their Republican friends in Congress are riding to the rescue. House Science, Space, and Technology Committee chairman Lamar Smith and his fellow committee Republicans have issued subpoenas demanding that the attorneys general fork over all materials relating to their investigations. I asked the Congressional Research Service, and as far as they could find, no committee has ever subpoenaed documents in an ongoing State AG investigation. Setting aside the federalism problem of Congress going after States in a sovereign State function, if they tried this stuff with our Federal Attorney General, they would be rebuffed. The committee subpoenas also targeted eight organizations, including the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Rockefeller Family Fund, and Greenpeace, ordering them to turn over their internal communications related to what Chairman Smith describes as ``coordinated efforts to deprive ExxonMobil of its First Amendment rights.'' Take a moment to absorb that. States attorneys general are investigating whether a fraud has been committed--something State AGs do every day. As Rhode Island's AG, that is what I did. Sometimes we would uncover fraud and sometimes not. Ultimately, if the evidence warranted it and if the attorney general pursued the case to trial, the question of fraud would be resolved in open court. Instead of praising the State AGs for doing their jobs within our system of checks and balances, congressional Republicans have leapt in to obstruct the investigation before any evidence becomes public. So far, both the subpoenaed attorneys general and the eight organizations have refused to comply with those subpoenas. I say, good for them. If the committee moves to enforce its subpoenas, the matter will then come before a judge. If that happens, I hope those attorneys general will question whether the committee subpoenas reflect a legitimate governmental effort or are issued on behalf of a private party--indeed, the very private party which is the subject of those attorney general investigations. The law is clear that a legislative committee may pursue even an unworthy legislative purpose, but it is not clear that a legislative committee can lend itself to a private party. Let the court determine whether the House committee is acting as the de facto agent of ExxonMobil. What might that court consider? Well, first, this is a committee whose chairman has received nearly $685,000 in campaign contributions since 1989 from the oil and gas industry. The remaining committee majority have received over $2.9 million in campaign contributions. I expect that is admissible evidence. What else might the court consider? The committee asserts ExxonMobil has a First Amendment right that it needs to step in to protect. Interestingly, the shoe has been on the other foot when an attorney general of Virginia was tormenting a climate scientist--indeed, tormenting him so badly that the University of Virginia took that attorney general all the way to the Virginia Supreme Court to make him stop. The committee took no interest in that. Theirs is a First Amendment concern that only surfaces when the fossil fuel industry is the subject of investigation. What else might the court consider? How about that the entire First Amendment argument the committee makes is a crock. Ken Kimmell, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists, noted that the committee ``makes no allegation that UCS violated any laws or regulations, and [the] claim, that providing information to attorneys general infringes on ExxonMobil's rights, is nonsense.'' Mr. Kimmell is right. It is well-established law that there is a clear line between fraud and First Amendment-protected speech. The dean of the Yale Law School has published an article explaining this. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Congressional investigations and hearings have a unique ability to focus a nation's attention and bring facts of public importance to light. These subpoenas, however, appear intended to impede lawful State investigations. They do not advance the First Amendment, they trample on it. Senator Warren and I offered a suggestion to the House committee in our Washington Post piece: If this House Committee is so concerned about the First Amendment rights of ExxonMobil, call a hearing, invite ExxonMobil executives to testify, and give them the opportunity to speak. What better way to protect a person's right to speak freely than to give that person a forum to speak, right here in Congress? They can come in, say whatever they want to say, and answer questions. I know I would love to hear what they have to say. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I am here for the 146th time to wake this Chamber up to the consequence of climate change. The leading edge of consequence is already upon us, and it is threatening the people and economies of all 50 States. Because of the dark influence of the fossil fuel industry, we can't have an honest, bipartisan conversation here in the Senate about climate change. So I travel. I have been to 13 States. Last month, I visited Utah and met with local business, policy, and science leaders to learn more about the effects of climate change in Utah. Coastal Rhode Island and landlocked Utah may seem worlds apart, but we share a common future under climate change, and both Utahns and Rhode Islanders share a deep connection to our home State's natural environment. Generations of Rhode Islanders have been drawn to Narragansett Bay and our coasts, and it is not just for love and beauty. In 2013, Rhode Island's ocean economy generated $2.1 billion and supported more than 41,000 Rhode Island jobs. The Presiding Officer from Alaska can appreciate the importance of an ocean's economy. Narragansett Bay comes alive in the summer's warmth. But it is mostly frozen water that brings people to the mountains of Utah. With what they call the ``greatest snow on Earth,'' winter blesses Utah. During the last ski season, nearly 4\1/2\ million skiers and snowboarders visited the State, generating over $1.3 billion in spending. According to the Utah Office of Tourism and the University of Utah, almost 1 in 10 jobs in Utah is in tourism. Well, whether it is ski boots or boat shoes, there is no question that significant portions of both Utah's and Rhode Island's economies are tangled in the consequences of climate change. Rhode Island has already seen winter surface temperatures in Narragansett Bay increase by about 4 degrees Fahrenheit since the 1960s, and the sea level at the Newport Naval Station tide gauge is up almost 10 inches since the 1930s. We are seeing more flooding and erosion along our coast, threatening our shoreside businesses and homes. Fish stocks are shifting in search of cooler waters, upsetting the ecological balance of Narragansett Bay and endangering Rhode Island's traditional fisheries. Out in Utah, there is not much saltwater fishing going on, but they have their own issues. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, average temperatures have already risen two full degrees Fahrenheit there over the past 100 years. During my visit in early August, the National Weather Service reported that for the first time in the 144 years that they had been measuring, Salt Lake City had five nights in a row with low temperatures over 78 degrees and 21 straight days with high temperatures over 95 degrees. Heat waves can have public health consequences, especially for the young and the elderly, but this warming also has serious implications for Utah's fabled ski industry. I visited with Ski Utah and with professional skiers from the group Protect Our Winters, folks who make their living out on the slopes. They spoke about the shortened winter seasons and depleting snowpack. Snowy Thanksgivings have historically kicked off the resorts' winter season, but Utah is seeing more and more weeks of rain. Resorts are forced to make snow, but manmade snow can't match nature's ``greatest snow on Earth.'' In his book ``Secrets of the Greatest Snow on Earth,'' Dr. Jim Steenburgh of the University of Utah summarizes how Utah meteorologists Leigh Sturges and John Horel foresee snow versus rain at major Utah ski resorts under different climate change scenarios. Steenburgh writes: For a temperature rise of 1 [degree centigrade] (about 1.8 [degrees Fahrenheit]), about 10 percent of the precipitation that currently falls as snow would instead fall as rain at 7,000 feet (roughly the base elevation of Canyons, Park City, and Deer Valley). At 9,500 feet (midmountain at Snowbird and Alta and upper mountain at Canyons, Park City, and Deer Valley), however, it's only 3 percent. The numbers get worse, however, with greater warming. For a 4 [degree centigrade] temperature increase (about 7.2 [degrees Fahrenheit]), about 40 percent of the precipitation that currently falls as snow would instead fall as rain at 7,000 feet. At 9,500 feet, it's about 20 percent. This troubling future led Ski Utah's 14 resorts to get together and send a letter last year to Utah Governor Gary Herbert, asking the State to take action on climate change by implementing the EPA's Clean Power Plan. Diminishing snowpack in these mountains is not only troubling for the ski and snowboard industry; it also jeopardizes Utah's water supply. Roughly 70 percent of Salt Lake City's drinking water comes from snowpack melt in the spring and summer. Snowpack is Utah's natural reservoir. Utah is the second driest State in the union, but it has one of the highest average per capita rates of water usage. And Utah's population is growing as well, expected to double by 2050 to around 6 million souls. Agriculture is the largest consumer of freshwater in the State. Over 80 percent of Utah water goes to farmers and ranchers. Abbreviated winters mean less snowfall, which means less snowpack, which means less water for Utah's rivers, lakes, and farms in the summer months. With increasingly hot, dry summers, Utah is primed for drought. According to the U.S. Drought Portal, as of August 30, over half the State was experiencing ``abnormally dry'' conditions. Around 5 percent of the State was in ``moderate drought.'' As recently as the summer of 2012, Utah had seen upwards of 30 percent of the State in ``extreme drought.'' USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service says Utah's traditional reservoirs were at just 47 percent of capacity in August, down from only 51 percent of capacity at the same time last year. I saw firsthand the consequences of Utah's water problem during my visit to the Great Salt Lake. I joined the Nature Conservancy at the Great Salt Lake Shorelands Preserve. We walked out on wooden walkways over the marshes, but there was no need. The ground below was bone dry. The preserve is an important stopover for several million migratory shorebirds, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. Now, this is perhaps a small thing, but there is a beautiful bird called Wilson's phalarope that flies a 3,000-mile migration from the Patagonian lowlands in South America. Around a third of the world's population comes to the Great Salt Lake. Its migration of more than 3,000 miles is just one more of God's natural miracles. Researchers from Utah State University, Salt Lake Community College, and the Utah Divisions of Wildlife Resources and Water Resources found that the lake's volume has fallen by nearly half since the first pioneers reached its shores in 1847. The lake's surface has dropped 11 feet. This has left roughly half of the former lakebed--marked here in white--now dry, and it has driven up the remaining lake area's salinity and its concentration of chemical contaminants. The disappearing lake means less habitat for birds like the Wilson phalarope and for the brine shrimp and the other lake critters that they hunt. The exposed lake bed contains contaminants of Utah's and this lake's industrial past. The dust containing those contaminants now compromises air quality in Salt Lake City, whipped up from the old lake bed. It also affects the other cities along Utah's Wasatch Front. I met with Utah Moms for Clean Air, who describe the poor air quality in some of the State's largest cities. Given its topography, this region is prone to ground-level ozone in the summer and inversions in the winter. Inversions are layers of air which trap particulate matter in the valley. These contaminants can cause respiratory and cardiovascular problems, particularly in children. Due to that, Salt Lake County gets an F from the American Lung Association for both ozone and particulates. The State as a whole didn't do much better, averaging an F for ozone and D for particulate matter. World-class athletes can't train in that air and world-beating companies don't want to move employees into that air so Utah takes this seriously, and Utahans are taking action. Utah gets a lot of sunshine, and Utah is a leader in solar energy. I met with some of Utah's clean energy leaders at the Real Salt Lake Major League Soccer stadium, where one of Utah's largest solar panel arrays provides more than 70 percent of that facility's energy needs. Auric Solar, the Utah company that installed the solar panels, has averaged more than 170 percent annual growth since 2010. sPower, another solar company headquartered in Salt Lake City, told me their various projects are installing in total around 3 megawatts of solar generation every day. On July 13, Salt Lake City mayor Jackie Biskupski signed a joint resolution with her city council, pledging to transition the city to 100 percent renewable energy sources by 2032 and to reduce carbon emissions 80 percent by 2040. That is in Utah. I also stopped in Park City, UT. Park City has its own goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 15 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 through a combination of increased access to renewable energy, efficiency incentives for homeowners, and expanded recycling. Park City is often seen as an affluent resort, but one-quarter of its residents live below the poverty line. Outside of Park City, the rest of Summit County is mostly rural. It was the county and city governments that partnered, along with local power providers, to form the Summit Community Power Works, an effort to encourage energy efficiency improvement along all economic levels in the county. It is working. They have done things such as retrofit the town's affordable housing units with LED lightbulbs, taking impressive steps to increase efficiency and reduce carbon footprints. They don't have the ability locally to change zoning laws or building codes. In Utah that is all controlled by the State. Offering just the economic benefits of efficiency and limited financial incentives, they are already seeing inspiring results. I left Utah optimistic. State climatologist Dr. Rob Gillies and the other climate scientists I met with from the University of Utah, Utah State University, and Brigham Young University are eager to see their research on climate change reflected in their State's clean energy goals. In all of my meetings and tours, I was struck by the industriousness and self-reliance demonstrated by Utah's climate and clean energy leaders. They are determined to stave off climate change and provide a healthy future for their children and grandchildren. We in Congress owe it to them and to Americans in every State working to preserve a healthy climate to be every bit as serious as they are about the science and just as committed as they are to tackling the greatest environmental challenge of our lifetime. It may mean telling the fossil fuel industry to shove off. They have far too much control of this body. I will tell you this. If the Earth's greatest democracy can't handle one greedy special interest, even if it is the world's biggest greedy special interest, then we will deserve and earn our fate. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes in morning business.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, as the Senate reconvenes after several weeks of work in our home States, I am back for the 145th time asking my colleagues to wake up to the pressing reality of climate change. We are sleepwalking through this moment, willfully ignoring the warning signs of an already altered Earth, largely because of a decades-long corporate campaign of misinformation on the dangers of carbon pollution. Just last week, while we were back home, scientists at the International Geological Congress presented the beginning of a new geological epoch, the Anthropocene. Transitions between geological epochs are marked by a signal--a signal in the global geologic record, like the traces of the meteorite that wiped out the dinosaurs at the end of the Cretaceous epoch. What are the signals of the beginning of the Anthropocene? Humans--anthropods--have increased carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere from 280 parts per million before the Industrial Revolution to 400 parts per million and rising today--a pace of increase not seen for 66 million years and a level never seen before in human history on this planet. We have also dumped so much plastic into our waterways and oceans that microplastic particles can be found virtually everywhere and are now even infiltrating our food chain. We have poured so much pollution into our atmosphere--that thin blue shell under which we currently thrive--that permanent layers of particulates, such as black carbon from burning fossil fuels, are left in sediments and glacial ice. The signals we are leaving are many, and they are clear. Dr. Paul Crutzen, the Nobel Prize-winning chemist who coined the term ``Anthropocene'' remarked back in 2011: ``This name change stresses the enormity of humanity's responsibility as stewards of the Earth.'' His words echo those of Pope Francis, who tells us this in his encyclical ``Laudato Si'': ``Humanity is called to recognize the need for changes of lifestyle, production, and consumption, in order to combat this warming or at least the human causes which produce or aggravate it.'' Yet attempts to address climate change are stifled in this Chamber by an industry-controlled, many-tentacled apparatus deliberately polluting our discourse with phony climate denial as it pollutes our atmosphere and oceans with carbon. Polls show more than 80 percent of Americans favor action to reduce carbon pollution. So our inaction signals the filthy grip these bad actors have on this Chamber. Before the recess, 19 colleagues came to the floor to shine a little light on this web of climate denial spun by those actors. All told, we delivered over 5\1/2\ hours of remarks describing the activities, the backers, and the linkages of dozens of denier groups. A growing body of scholarship examines this climate denial apparatus, including work by Harvard's Naomi Oreskes, Michigan State's Aaron McCright, Oklahoma State University's Riley Dunlap, Yale's Justin Farrell, and Drexel's Robert Brulle. Their work reveals an intricate, interconnected propaganda web that encompasses over 100 organizations, trade associations, conservative think tanks, foundations, public relations firms, and plain old phony-baloney polluter front groups. In the words of Professor Farrell, the apparatus is ``overtly producing and promoting skepticism and doubt about scientific consensus on climate change.'' Well, our little floor effort got the attention of the climate deniers. Shortly after our ``web of denial'' floor action, Senator Schatz and I received a letter from ExxonMobil telling us that it believes the risks of climate change are real, that it no longer funds groups that deny the science of climate change, and that it supports a carbon fee, like our American Opportunity Carbon Fee Act. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of this letter.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. It is a nice letter, but its claims simply do not conform to our experience. In 2015, for instance, ExxonMobil repeatedly funneled millions to groups peddling climate denial. According to its own publicly available ``2015 Worldwide Giving Report,'' ExxonMobil contributed over $1.6 million to organizations that were profiled in our floor statements, including the American Legislative Exchange Council and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. ExxonMobil's letter claims that the company's support for a revenue- neutral carbon tax dates back 7 years. If that were so, you would think at some point during those 7 years Exxon executives would have expressed that support to the authors of a carbon fee bill. My and Senator Schatz's American Opportunity Carbon Fee Act meets all the relevant criteria mentioned in the letter, yet ExxonMobil has not endorsed the bill or lobbied our colleagues on its behalf or even expressed interest in meeting with either of us to discuss the White House-Schatz proposal and how to make it become law. Behind ExxonMobil's professed support for a carbon fee, here is what we really see: zero support from the corporation and implacable opposition from all ExxonMobil's main lobbying groups--the American Petroleum Institute, for instance, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and its array of various front groups. The actual lobbying position of ExxonMobil is vehemently against the revenue-neutral carbon tax ExxonMobil claims to support. The letter from ExxonMobil was not the only letter in response to our July floor speeches. Twenty-two organizations in the Koch-funded network with lengthy records of climate change denial also sent a letter objecting to being characterized as Koch-linked climate deniers. This group of organizations, which purportedly is not a group, sent their letter out on a common letterhead. Since the web of climate change denial is designed to be so big and sophisticated, with so many parts that the public is made to believe it is not a single, special-interest-funded front, that may not have been their smartest move. Interestingly, some of the groups that participated in this letter were not even mentioned in our floor remarks. Such is the web of denial. In our reply to them, Senators Reid, Schumer, Boxer, Durbin, Sanders, Franken, Warren, Markey and I noted that they are all well supported in the web of climate denial, to the tune of at least $92 million, in a network bound together by common funders, shared staff, and matched messages. It is one beast, though it may have many heads. We offered these organizations a simple test. If you are for real, disclose all of your donors. There is a lot of dark money going into these groups. So we asked: Show us that you represent many, many millions of Americans--as they claimed in the letter--not just many, many millions of dollars from the Koch brothers' fossil fuel network. I contend that these organizations are well-funded agents of hidden backers with a massive conflict of interest, and that it is their job to subject our country to an organized campaign to deceive and mislead us regarding the scientific consensus surrounding climate change and to do so with the purpose to sabotage American response to the climate crisis. I contend that the conflict of interest of their hidden backers runs into the hundreds of billions of dollars. If you use the Office of Management and Budget's social cost of carbon, one can calculate the annual polluter cost to the rest of us from their carbon pollution at over $200 billion per year. Think what mischief people would be willing to get up to for $200 billion per year. The International Monetary Fund estimates that the effective subsidy for American fossil fuels is actually even higher--$700 billion per year. For that kind of money, you can fund a lot of front groups. The front group's letter points out that our Founders intended for public policies to be well informed and well debated. Well, I could not agree more. On July 31, leading national scientific organizations, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Meteorological Society, and the American Geophysical Union, sent Members of Congress a no-nonsense message that human-caused climate change is real, that it poses serious risks to modern society, and that we need to substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research concludes that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. This conclusion is based on multiple independent lines of evidence and the vast body of peer-reviewed science. That is the voice of fact, analysis, and reason. We are well informed by the real scientists. The scientists have the expertise, the knowledge, and the facts. What they don't have is that massive conflict of interest that requires setting up an armada of front groups and that gives them the $100 billion motivation to run this scheme. It is time to let the scientists and the facts take their place. This issue has been thoroughly debated and vetted in the legitimate world. It is time now for us here in Congress to wake up to our duties and at last to act. I yield the floor.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

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

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, it is an honor for me to follow Senator Markey, who has battled so long and so effectively in this struggle against such odds, and I think we both feel the tide has turned, things are going our way, but we have to hurry because nature is unforgiving. As the Pope said: God forgives, mankind forgives sometimes, but nature never forgives. You slap her and she will slap you back. And we have given nature one hell of a slap with climate change. When I was here yesterday, I was pointing to the web of denial and pointing out that the web of denial has to mislead to be effective. That is what it is--a tool to mislead. I pointed out what a Koch brothers operative described as its goal when this whole web was being developed. This was the quote: ``It would be necessary [to] use ambiguous and misleading names, obscure the true agenda, and conceal the means of control.'' Well, if you are looking for ambiguous and misleading names that can obscure the true agenda and conceal the means of control, one tactic would be to exploit our Founding Fathers--to seize their names and use them to lend authority and gravitas to the deception, in the same way that using the names of Lord Acton, the famous historian, or George C. Marshall, the hero of World War II, accomplished that task. In this case, the names are Franklin, Madison, and Jefferson, and they are joined by the philosopher John Locke. Let's start with the so-called Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity, which has a nice little silhouette of Ben Franklin on its logo. It was established in 2009. It says it ``supports and trains investigative journalists to advance transparency, accountability, and fiscal responsibility in local government, and to spotlight free- market, pro-liberty solutions to difficult policy challenges.'' According to ``DeSmogBlog,'' the Franklin Center was launched and funded by a conservative think tank that encouraged grassroots activism, which is the now defunct Sam Adams Alliance. Oh no, another bogus organization exploiting the name of yet another Founding Father. There is a little pattern here. Jeff Nesbitt, whom I spoke about yesterday, wrote this about the Franklin Center in his book ``Poison Tea: How Big Oil and Big Tobacco Invented the Tea Party and Captured the GOP.'' At the start of 2008, the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity had a budget of zero dollars. Its legal home was a taffy shop in Medora, North Dakota. By 2009, the Franklin Center's budget had jumped to $2.4 million, according to IRS tax records. That is a spectacular leap for a nonprofit, especially in Medora, North Dakota. It was almost as if someone wished to utilize the charter concept of the Franklin Center, developing individual but interlinked news centers across the United States that would all promote the same messages--for other purposes and therefore infused it with a mountain of funding and network support. Let's dig into the Franklin Center's connections to groups and funders in this web of denial. According to ``DeSmogBlog,'' the Franklin Center's director of donor development comes out of the Charles G. Koch Foundation--wow. Its senior vice president in charge of strategic initiatives comes out of the Koch brothers' Americans for Prosperity. The founding board member who set it up helped run, oh, Americans for Prosperity in North Dakota. According to Media Matters for America, the Franklin Center's coalitions coordinator and its chief of staff also came out of, oh, Americans for Prosperity. Not surprisingly, the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism ranked the Franklin Center Watchdog.org group as ``highly ideological.'' It is clear they have a bias at the Franklin Center to sow doubt regarding human-caused climate change. It is no surprise, considering where their staff and money comes from. Here is the stuff they say. In 2015, a vice president for research and resident scholar at the John Locke Foundation--more on them shortly--wrote in the Franklin Center-affiliated Carolina Journal that ``global warming is not about data points'' so much as it has been ``a trick pulled by global warming alarmists over the last decade.'' There is a responsible view. In 2014, a staff reporter for the Franklin Center's Watchdog.org, wrote: ``I continue to contend that `climate change' is a meaningless phrase because the climate obviously changes . . . [but] is useful for political activism. . . . '' In 2011, its outlet, the Hawaii Reporter, wrote: ``Hard-nosed physical evidence of man-made global warming has yet to be provided by the promoters of warming, even after a nominal $80 billion have been spent in the attempt to do so.'' The Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard has looked at the Franklin Center and describes it as ``at the forefront of an effort to blur the distinction between statehouse reporting and political advocacy.'' A former Reuters chief White House correspondent describes the Franklin Center's state Watchdog.org as ``delivering political propaganda dressed up as journalism.'' Let's follow the money. The Franklin Center's top donor in 2011, as reported by the nonprofit Media Matters for America and the Center for Public Integrity, was, guess what, the rightwing's ``dark money ATM,'' DonorsTrust. It was set up by whom? Oh, right, the Koch brothers. Over $6 million, or roughly 95 percent of the Franklin Center's revenue that year came through this organization, whose sole purpose is to hide the identity of the real donors. That is why it exists. According to data collected by the Conservative Transparency Project, between 2009 and 2014, the Franklin Center received over $31 million from DonorsTrust and its related Donors Capital Fund. We don't know who the hidden donors are because that is why they set up the DonorsTrust thing, but a clue of who they might be comes from the reported donors--like the rightwing Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, founded, according to the Center for Media and Democracy's SourceWatch, by ``one of the original charter members of the far rightwing John Birch Society.'' Another John Birch Society board member was Fred Koch, the father of Charles and David Koch. Dr. Brulle's research indicates that the Bradley Foundation between 2003 and 2010 gave almost $30 million to these organizations that he tracks in this web of denial--$30 million. Then there is the Dunn's Foundation for the Advancement of Right Thinking, a Florida-based grant-making foundation that Dr. Brulle's research again shows between 2003 and 2010 gave $13.7 million into this web of denial organizations. Then there is the Searle Freedom Trust, which, according to the Center for Media and Democracy's SourceWatch, has also funded Americans for Prosperity--guess what; the Koch group--the American Enterprise Institute, ALEC--the front group--the Heartland Institute--those classics who compared climate change believers to the Unabomber--and the State Policy Network. Dr. Brulle's research, again, indicates that Searle gave $21.7 million to this web of denial groups that he tracks. Another donor, of course, to the Franklin Institute is the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation. That one is self-explanatory. So if we look at what is going on at the Franklin Center, we will see Koch people, Koch money, and Koch buddies. Then there is the so-called James Madison Institute, a libertarian think tank with a long history of trying to undermine climate science and renewable energy policy. Yale Professor Justin Farrell lists the James Madison Institute among the organizations he tracks contributing to the polarization of climate change debate. The Heartland Institute's--yes, that wonderful Unabomber group--senior fellow for environmental policy is on the James Madison Institute's research advisory council. It is such a web of connections. According to research by the American Bridge Project, the Madison Institute received over $1.4 million in direct donations from Koch- affiliated groups. Between 2003 and 2013, they received funding from the John Templeton Foundation, which ``tries to encourage the integration of religious beliefs and free-market principles into the classroom,'' according to the Center for Media and Democracy's SourceWatch. Mother Jones reported in 2011 that Charles Koch recognized the Templeton Foundation for having donated over $1 million to Koch-related causes, and Dr. Brulle's research shows that Templeton gave more than $20 million to this web of denial organization he tracks. Dunn's Foundation for the Advancement of Right Thinking turns up again--Franklin, now Madison. The same foundation that gave $13.7 million to these climate change countermovement organizations also gave to the Madison one. Of course, again, the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation gave to the Franklin Center and gave to the Madison Center to the tune of almost $30 million into the climate denial web. The James Madison Institute is also a member of the State Policy Network. The State Policy Network, according to the Center for Media and Democracy's SourceWatch, is an ``$83 million right-wing empire'' that has received money from a Koch family foundation, and, of course, the identity-scrubbing DonorsTrust and Donors Capital--which, by the way, are the big green diamond here at the center of this web. According to the ``DeSmogBlog'' examination of the Madison Institute, it opposed the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade legislation, and in 2009 issued a plea to policymakers in Florida--the State that is going fastest under water because of sea level rise--to stop any action on climate change following the so-called Climategate scandal. After six thorough investigations looked at Climategate, true, there was no scandal at all, but it would appear that the Institute neither rescinded its plea nor set the record straight. This institute actively fights renewable energy policies in Florida. An institute report co-written by a senior fellow at the Heartland Institute--again, the connection, Madison Institute to Heartland Institute and Heartland Institute to the billboard that compared climate scientists to the Unabomber--opposed a proposed solar constitutional amendment. Well, they weren't alone. According to news reports, Florida's power companies were contributing big money to a political committee fighting that solar amendment, including over $1 million from Florida Power and Light, $1 million from Duke Energy, over $800,000 from Tampa Electric Company, and $640,000 from Gulf Power. Well, guess what. The president and CEO of Gulf Power was then on the board of, oh, the James Madison Institute. Then we move on to John Locke, who gives us a twofer. First, there is the Locke Institute. It is named for the philosopher John Locke, who, with Montesquieu, are the two major philosophical influences of the Founding Fathers. It is listed as one of Dr. Justin Farrell's organizations contributing to the polarization of climate change debate and ``overtly producing and promoting skepticism and doubt about scientific consensus on climate change.'' The institute has been involved in defending the tobacco industry and has on its academic advisory council a political scientist from the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a high-profile UK climate denier group. There is also a John Locke Foundation, which describes itself as ``an independent, non-profit think tank that would work for truth, for freedom, and for the future of North Carolina.'' It is one of the blue dots here on Professor Brulle's denial web diagram. Dr. Farrell, too, has the foundation on his list of climate change denier and countermovement organizations. Yes, it is a member of the Koch-funded State Policy Network, of course, and it is funded significantly by a North Carolina billionaire by the name of Art Pope, who, according to Indy Week, is ``one of the most trusted members of the Koch's elite circle: He has been a regular invitee to the Koch's secretive, semiannual gathering of the major right-wing donors and activists,'' and he is a ``valuable junior partner in many key Koch operations.'' The foundation center database shows that between 2003 and 2013, the John Locke Foundation received over $21 million from the John William Pope Foundation--which is named after Art Pope's father--and over $60,000 from the Charles Koch Foundation. It gets so cozy between everyone here. According to a 2014 Washington Post profile of Art Pope, he has poured over $30 million through his family's foundation into the Koch front group Americans for Prosperity--all of whose members, you remember, went over to the Franklin Institute. Professor Brulle has put the John William Pope Foundation at over $20 million of total foundation funding to this climate change denial web. Dr. Brulle cites the John Locke Foundation as having received 3 percent of the total income distributed within the climate change countermovement between 2003 and 2010. An article in Facing South calls the John Locke Foundation ``one of the most outspoken voices of climate denial in North Carolina, claiming that global warming is a `pseudoscientific fraud.''' According to research done by Greenpeace, the foundation stated in a 2005 policy brief that ``a greenhouse gas reduction policy would have only costs and no benefits.'' In 2005, the foundation released a public policy statement entitled ``Global Warming Policy: NC Should Do Nothing,'' whose author wrote similar climate denial pieces in the Franklin Center-affiliated Carolina Journal. It is hard to keep track of all these crisscrossings. In 2007, the foundation released a policy report entitled ``A North Carolina Citizen's Guide to Global Warming,'' whose author, according to Facing South, was a visiting scholar at the, yes, Koch-backed American Enterprise Institute. This report falsely declared that consensus on climate change does not exist, and declared: ``The greatest threat we face from climate change is the danger of rushing into foolish and costly policies driven by ill-founded climate change hysteria.'' Art Pope figures in Jane Mayer's book ``Dark Money'' as ``a charter member of the Koch network'' and a ``longtime friend and ally, [who] shared Charles [Koch's] passion for free-market philosophy.'' Mayer writes that Pope was a regular at the Kochs' secret planning summits and ``served on the board of the Koch's main public advocacy group''-- wait for it--``Americans for Prosperity, as he had on its predecessor, Citizens for a Sound Economy.'' Mayer adds: ``Pope's role in his home state of North Carolina was in many respects a state-sized version of the Kochs' role nationally.'' Other Locke Foundation funders identified by Conservative Transparency Project between 1995 and 2014 include the Searle Freedom Trust, which, according to Center for Media and Democracy's SourceWatch, has also funded, yes, Americans for Prosperity, and the American Enterprise Institute, and ALEC--which we have talked about and sponsors the State Policy Network--and, of course, we can't go without the Heartland Institute, with their wonderful Unabomber billboard. Dr. Brulle's research indicates that the Searle Trust gave over $20 million to these groups between 2003 and 2010. Donors Capital Fund-- this big spider at the center of the web here--is a donor to the John Locke Foundation, and, of course, the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation. The John Locke Foundation is a member of the State Policy Network, that ``$83 million right-wing empire'' funded by a Koch family foundation and the identity-launderers Donors Trust and Donors Capital. That brings us to the so-called Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy. By the way, it is fair to say that yet again when we move from Franklin to Madison, these foundations end up showing Koch people, Koch money, and Koch buddies. The Thomas Jefferson Institute is a public policy foundation and, yes, another member of the State Policy Network, the $83 million rightwing empire. By the way, the Center for Media and Democracy's in-depth investigation of the State Policy Network shows how the network and its member think tanks are all interconnected to ALEC and to the Koch brothers. But that is for another speech. According to ``DeSmogBlog,'' many of the Jefferson Institute studies are authored by an operative of the Heritage Foundation, the group that Senator Franken spoke about earlier this evening, and the Energy and Environment Legal Institute--two groups that are both on this web. The Thomas Jefferson Institute prominently displays a statue of Jefferson on its Web page and claims to be a nonpartisan supporter of ``environmental stewardship,'' but the institute is an outspoken critic of the President's Clean Power Plan and renewable sources of energy and actively sows doubt about climate science. The institute is right here on Professor Brulle's web of climate change countermovement organizations. According to data compiled by the Conservative Transparency project between 1998 and 2014, the Jefferson Institute received funding from the following entities in the denial web: first, of course, is the identity-laundering Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund. Then there is the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, which, as we recall, also supported the Franklin Center and the Madison Institute and links to the Koch brothers through the far-rightwing John Birch Society. Remember, they were at almost $30 million into climate denial organizations in those years between 2003 and 2010. And then there is the William E. Simon Foundation, whose current president is also a senior fellow at the rightwing Manhattan Institute, a member of the Grant Advisory Committee of the Searle Freedom Trust, and a past member of the Board of Overseers of the Hoover Institution. It is quite a web indeed. The Jefferson Institute's director was quoted in 2007 as saying: ``When it comes to global warming, I'm a skeptic because the conclusions about the cause of the apparent warming stand on the shoulders of incredibly uncertain data and models.'' Tell that to NOAA and NASA and every single one of our National Labs and see how far you get. Tell that to your home State university and see how far you get. In 2008, he wrote about climate change for the Jefferson Journal, a commentary forum of the Jefferson Institute, that ``greenhouse gas reduction goals . . . are both unachievable and irrelevant'' and assured ``there will be no climate catastrophe due to CO2 because either the science is wrong or we will use geoengineering.'' In 2011, he wrote two pieces for the Jefferson Journal opposing wind power, contending that--you are not going to believe this, but here is the quote--``wind is not affordable and it is not clean'' and that wind power ``has no sensible place in a 21st century civilization.'' Tell that to our friend Senator Grassley, whose State gets a third of its power from wind energy. Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, Locke--these are great names put on the front of very shady Koch-funded front groups in the web of denial, and the organizations share several common features: First, they all propagate what by any reasonable standard is preposterous nonsense and masquerade it as science and independent opinion. Second, they all get massive funding from fossil fuel interests and always line up obediently with those interests. Third, they interlock. The interlocking is almost too complicated to track--in staff, in board members, in funding sources--but it all traces back to fossil fuel money. And, of course, they all mask themselves behind the names of great men from history who would recoil to discover their names and reputations being put to such discreditable use. Who needs to hide behind names like that? I submit it is people who are up to no good and don't want to be caught out for who they really are. Let me conclude by thanking the many Senators who have participated in this effort to put a little bit of a spotlight on a very phony web of denial that is operating actively in our democracy to distort and disturb its proper operation and to sabotage America's ability to respond in a responsible way to the climate crisis. They include our leader Harry Reid, Ben Cardin, Chris Coons, Tim Kaine, Elizabeth Warren, Chuck Schumer, Tom Udall, Jeff Merkley, Barbara Boxer, Dick Durbin, Brian Schatz, Al Franken, Martin Heinrich, my senior Senator Jack Reed, Jeanne Shaheen, Gary Peters, Dick Blumenthal, and Ed Markey. I am honored to participate in this effort with them. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I will be the final speaker tonight. The point that I want to make is that when we spend this time talking about the web of denial that sabotages America's ability to respond to the climate crisis, we don't just use this word rhetorically. We can go into the academic research and see the web depicted in peer-reviewed scientific research. We can see the means by which it operates--the climate change denial machine in academic research. We can hear about the think tanks that are used in this web of denial. Constantine Boussalis of Trinity College and Dr. Travis Coan of the University of Exeter have examined more than 16,000 documents published between 1998 and 2013 by these 19 conservative think tanks. Their study demonstrated that in spite of the broken global heat records over the last decade, rising sea levels, and the accelerated melting of our polar ice sheets, these 19 conservative think tanks actually increased their attacks on climate science in recent years. These 19 think tanks, the authors tell us, ``provide a multitude of services to the cause of climate change skepticism.'' These include offering material support and lending credibility to contrarian scientists, sponsoring pseudoscientific climate change conferences, directly communicating contrarian viewpoints to politicians--which is how we get infected with that nonsense here--and disseminating skeptic viewpoints through a lackadaisical media that can be tricked into believing them--all, of course, while keeping the industry's hands hidden. The American Enterprise Institute, Cato Institute, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, Citizens for a Sound Economy, Fraser Institute, Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment, Heartland Institute--remember, they are the classic with the billboard comparing climate scientists to the Unabomber--the Heritage Foundation, Hoover Institution, Hudson Institute, Manhattan Institute, George C. Marshal Institute--it takes a lot of nerve to steal that man's name; George C. Marshal was an American hero--National Center for Policy Analysis, National Center for Public Policy Research, Pacific Research Institute, Reason Foundation, Science and Public Policy Institute are there to ``provide a multitude of services to the cause of climate change skepticism.'' Well, they are not alone. Harvard Professor Naomi Oreskes and her colleague Erik Conway from NASA and CalTech--no fools--have examined the long history of corporate-financed public relations efforts designed to sow confusion and skepticism about scientific research on topics like tobacco, acid rain, the ozone hole, and climate change. These are the schemes of the ``Merchants of Doubt,'' the title of their book, and also the recent documentary film which, by the way, is playing in the Capitol tonight. Naomi Oreskes is actually here. Then there is Justin Farrell of Yale University, about whom Senator Merkley just spoke. This is his diagram of the ``web of denial'' as a complex network of think tanks, foundations, public relation firms, trade associations, and other groups that are ``overtly producing and promoting skepticism and doubt about scientific consensus on climate change.'' Farrell describes the function of the network as, one, ``the production of an alternative contrarian discourse,'' and, two, ``to create ideological polarization around climate change.'' That is right. The polarization that we see in this building and in this Chamber on this issue is a product created by this web of corporate-funded climate denial front groups. Congressional inaction is the sabotage their product has wrought in our democracy. Here is how Dr. Farrell describes it: ``Well-funded and well- organized contrarian campaigns are especially important for spreading skepticism or denial where scientific consensus exists--such as in the present case of global warming, or in historical contrarian efforts to create doubt about the link between smoking and cancer.'' These researchers and many more help map out an intricate interconnected web of denial that encompasses over 100 organizations, including trade associations, conservative think tanks, foundations, public relations firms, and plain old phony polluter front groups. Each of the front groups my colleagues and I will be calling out this week appear somewhere in the research of these individuals, and I thank them. There are also groups at work exposing the web of denial. One group is American Bridge 21st Century, founded by David Brock, which has launched RealKochFacts.com to ``highlight the truth about the Koch agenda and what it means for working families in states around the country.'' American Bridge last month reported on the 48 groups that signed a letter attacking the U.S. Virgin Islands attorney general for serving a subpoena on the Koch-funded Competitive Enterprise Institute. According to RealKochFacts, ``43 of the . . . groups that signed on the letter defending climate change denial are Koch linked--and 28 of the other organizations are either Koch front groups or the beneficiaries of regular Koch funding,'' groups such as the James Madison Institute, the John Locke Foundation, and the American Legislative Exchange Council, which we will talk of tomorrow. The Kochs blow their dog whistle and the hounds appear. American Bridge exposed them. Then there is ProPublica, a group founded by Paul Steiger, ``an independent nonprofit newsroom that produces investigative journalism in the public interest.'' Their nonpartisan reporting helped shed light on some of the ways that the ``dark money'' flows through the Koch brothers network and into politics, providing the elections backstop to this web of denial. Climate Nexus is an organization ``dedicated to highlighting the wide-ranging impacts of climate change and clean energy in the United States.'' They recently released an analysis of 20 years of the Wall Street Journal's editorial opinion on climate change. They found ``a consistent pattern that overwhelmingly ignores the science, champions doubt and denial of both the science and effectiveness of action, and leaves readers misinformed about the consensus of science and of the risks of the threat.'' Among their findings, of 201 Wall Street Journal editorials related to climate science or policy dating back to 1997, not one explicitly acknowledges that fossil fuels cause climate change; and of the 122 columns published since 1997, just 4 accept as fact that fossil fuels cause climate change or endorse any policy to reduce emissions. Between April 2015 and May 2016, as global heat records were falling every month, the Journal published 100 climate-related op-eds, columns, and editorials, of which 96 failed ``to acknowledge the link between human activity and climate change.'' Their report points out that ``the Wall Street Journal consistently highlights voices of those with vested interests in fossil fuels . . . presenting only the dismissive side of the climate discussion,'' and calls this ``a failure of journalistic responsibility.'' Into this failure of journalistic responsibility by the Wall Street Journal editorial page has stepped in the Partnership for Responsible Growth, which is running a 12-part ad series in the Wall Street Journal right on the editorial page to bring ``accurate mainstream climate science to the readers of this publication's opinion pages.'' The first one reads: ``Exxon's CEO says fossil fuels are raising temperatures and sea levels. Why won't the Wall Street Journal?'' Their second one: ``Carbon dioxide traps heat on Earth. If we can agree on that, we can have a conversation.'' The third says: ``The earth has warmed. And we did it.'' The fourth says: ``What goes up doesn't come down. CO2 emissions stay in the atmosphere for centuries.'' The fifth says: ``Your assets are at risk. Beware the carbon bubble. Climate change poses huge financial risks to investors.'' ``The free market solution to climate change'' was ad No. 6, and the free market solution to climate change is ``a market-driven policy that conservatives and liberals can both embrace because it promotes growth, creates jobs, and makes U.S. companies more competitive.'' In other words, it is a revenue-neutral carbon fee. The one after that says: ``The Pentagon sees climate change as a serious national security threat.'' And they do. It turns up in the Quadrennial Defense Reviews, and it turns up in the speeches of the leaders of the different armed services. It turns up in our intelligence reports. If the Pentagon sees climate change as a serious national security threat, shouldn't you? The most recent one says this: ``Like any problem, climate change has solutions.'' These straightforward, broadly accepted statements may be the first honest words about climate change on the Wall Street Journal editorial page, so thank you to the partnership for getting them there. The Union of Concerned Scientists is another group working to expose this web of denial. It has as its mission to put ``rigorous, independent science to work to solve our planet's most pressing problems.'' The Union of Concerned Scientists recently signed a letter with 30 other leading national scientific organizations telling us in no uncertain terms that ``climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research concludes that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver.'' For over a decade, the Union of Concerned Scientists has worked to defend science and expose misinformation and manufactured uncertainty. They published articles on how ExxonMobil used the Big Tobacco denial playbook to promote misinformation and doubt on climate science. The Union for Concerned Scientists also recently published information about how Peabody coal funneled money into climate denial groups from 2014 to 2015. It is the fossil fuel industry that is feeding the web of denial. Greenpeace does great work to expose the web of denial. Last December, Greenpeace UK staff posed as consultants for fossil fuel companies. While pretending to work for fossil fuel companies, they approached climate skeptic professors. Both of the professors agreed to conceal the sources of the funding they were offered and to write reports in support of fossil fuel use in developing countries and the benefits of carbon dioxide. You wonder why I call them payrolled scientists. Greenpeace's work also exposed Donors Trust's role as a conduit anonymizing financial donations between fossil fuel companies and climate-denial organizations and other U.S. fossil fuel funding used to hire scientists to testify for hearings, reports, and other public communications on climate science. Greenpeace was the group that released the documents that showed that one of those hired payroll scientists had accepted over $1.2 million from fossil fuel interests, including the Charles G. Koch Foundation, but didn't report those sources of his funding. ExxonSecrets is another Greenpeace project, which visually explains the network--the web of organizations, lobbyists, and paid-for scientists who are part of this web of denial. The Climate Investigations Center, founded in 2014 by Kert Davies, is another organization that monitors this web of denial--corporations, front groups, trade associations, individuals--that delays or denies the implementation of sound legislative solutions to climate change. Davies is no stranger to the web of denial. He launched two programs at Greenpeace: ExxonSecrets, which I mentioned, and PolluterWatch, which calls out organizations and individuals funded by fossil fuel interests to sow doubt about the validity of climate science and sabotage reasonable climate policies. I thank all these investigative groups for their work. There are also authors who are picking apart the web of denial. The executive director of Climate Nexus is Jeff Nesbit. Jeff is the former Director of Legislative and Public Affairs at the National Science Foundation and was a communications official at the White House during the administration of President George H.W. Bush. He recently published an investigative book titled ``Poison Tea'' that examines, as the title implies, how Big Oil and Big Tobacco invented the tea party and captured the GOP. As a consultant for the Koch brothers front group Citizens for a Sound Economy, Nesbit was there in the room when Citizens for a Sound Economy, to quote him, ``proposed an unholy alliance.'' Here is how he describes it: Philip Morris money commingled with Koch money to create antitax front groups in a handful of states that would battle any tax that moved. It would make no difference what kind of tax--the front groups could battle cigarette excise taxes in the northeast and refined-oil fees at the coasts. Any tax for any purpose was bad--and these front groups would tackle them all, with Philip Morris and the Kochs behind them. Nesbit's book shines a spotlight on how Rich Fink, the former president of the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, together with Charles Koch ``forged a partnership and created the framework for successful action in the political realm,'' with this web of denial at the heart of that framework. In her recent book, ``Dark Money,'' Jane Mayer describes in depth the system by which fossil fuel interests use their wealth to sabotage the American political process. First, she describes, they pay intellectuals in universities who come up with ideas friendly to the fossil fuel industry. Then they pay think tanks to transform these ideas into ``marketable policies.'' An environmental lawyer, Mayer quotes a 2010 article for the New Yorker: You take corporate money and give it to a neutral-sounding think tank [which] hires people with pedigrees and academic degrees who put out credible-seeming studies. But they all coincide perfectly with the economy interests of their funders. Ms. Mayer describes this system as creating what she called the ``think tank as disguised political weapon.'' From there, they go on to phony grassroots organizations to propagate the message. It is a big web, this web of denial. Steve Coll is the dean of the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism. He wrote the investigative book ``Private Empire: ExxonMobil and American Power.'' He reports Lee Raymond, chief executive of the company from 1993 to 2005, saying about Exxon, ``I'm not a U.S. company, and I don't make decisions based on what's good for the U.S.'' Gee, we hadn't noticed. Tellingly, Coll describes the influence environment of this web of denial and the fossil fuel industry role in it. This is a quote from his book: This, increasingly, was the underlying structure of Washington policy debates: a kaleidoscope of overlapping and competing influence campaigns, some open, some conducted by front organizations, and some entirely clandestine. Strategists created layers of disguise, subtlety, and subterfuge--corporate-funded ``grassroots'' programs and purpose-built think tanks, as fingerprint-free as possible. In such an opaque and untrustworthy atmosphere, the ultimate advantage lay with any lobbyist whose goal was to manufacture confusion and perpetual controversy. On climate, this happened to be the oil industry's position. ExxonMobil, Coll reports, through its public affairs chief, ``directed a network of allies and grantees in Washington who created havoc in the climate science debate.'' Which brings us to Inside Climate News's series ``Exxon: The Road Not Taken,'' named a finalist for a 2016 Pulitzer Prize. Journalists Neela Banerjee, John Cushman, David Hasemyer, and Lisa Song compared what the fossil fuel giant knew about climate change--including results from its own cutting-edge research--with the falsehoods Exxon chose to sell to the public, usually through this web of denial. The series has surely honored the organization's purpose ``to cover the issues that aren't being covered by the mainstream.'' On the Internet, Time Magazine recognized ``DeSmogBlog,'' which I mentioned, as one of the best blogs of 2011, describing it in these terms. Time Magazine said this: Fossil-fuel companies have spent millions funding anti- global-warming think tanks, purposely creating a climate of doubt around the science. DeSmogBlog is the anecdote to the obfuscation. In addition to its regular posts highlighting egregious examples of climate denial, DeSmogBlog also maintains a comprehensive disinformation research database to expose this web of denial. The scholarship of all these academics, all these organizations, and all these authors--the detectives who are exposing the web of denial-- has shined a bright light into its dark corners and eliminated its concerted effort to dupe the American public and sabotage climate action in America--all to protect the fossil fuel industry that funds it. It is sickening, but it is big. The denial web is designed to be big and sophisticated enough that when you see its many parts, you are fooled into thinking it is not all the same beast, but it is--like the mythological Hydra, many heads, same beast. Professor Brulle likens what he called the climate countermovement to a stage production. Here is how Professor Brulle described it: Like a play on Broadway, the counter movement has stars in the spotlight--often prominent contrarian scientists or conservative politicians--but behind the stars is an organizational structure of directors, script writers and producers, in the form of conservative foundations. If you want to understand what's driving this movement, you have to look at what's going on behind the scenes. The web of denial is what is behind the scenes. The web is so big because it has so much to protect. Remember, the International Monetary Fund has pegged the ``effective subsidy'' to the fossil fuel industry every year, just in the United States, at nearly $700 billion. If you don't like that number, you can do some math yourself. Just multiply the millions of tons of industry carbon emissions by the government's own social cost of carbon. You still get to a huge subsidy. The web is complex. It is organized into multiple levels. First, it cooks up polluter-friendly nonsense among academics that it funds in hundreds of universities. For its money, the web gets a little scholarly imprimatur to the propaganda. Then off that product goes to the think tanks that are the ``disguised political weapon[s],'' described by ``Dark Money'' author Jane Mayer, to be turned into policy. Then the AstroTurf organizations get cranked up to retail that polluter-friendly policy. Let me wrap up with this observation. One thing needs to be absolutely clear about this web of denial. Truth is not their object. Truth is actually their adversary. The web has to mislead to be effective. It has to do what a Koch brothers operative described as the goal when this whole web was being developed. Here is what the Koch operative said: It would be necessary [to] use ambiguous and misleading names, obscure the true agenda, and conceal the means of control. Ambiguous and misleading names, obscure the true agenda, and conceal the means of control that lead back to the fossil fuel industry. Welcome to the web of denial. Thank you to those who are working to expose it. It is a filthy thing in our democracy. I yield the floor.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, for purposes of the floor, I would like to say I understand Senator Sullivan from Alaska will be coming, and I will end my remarks so he can speak as soon as he arrives, but in the meantime, I would like to intersperse my remarks between the various speakers who come. So Senator Sullivan should not be disconcerted if he sees me speaking. I will draw to a rapid conclusion and allow him the floor and I will reclaim it at the conclusion of his remarks. When I finished my remarks a moment ago, I was describing the polluter-funded front group that with one hand threatened to spend $750 million in this election cycle and with the other hand threatened to cause ``severe disadvantage'' in the Republican nomination process and ``political peril'' to people who crossed them in their denial of climate change. That raises the obvious question: Why all that money? Why all those threats? Well, the threats are there and the money is that big because the stakes are very high. The International Monetary Fund, which is a generally respected organization filled with very intelligent people, has determined the fossil fuel industry receives nearly $700 billion in what they call effective subsidies in the United States alone every year. How hard would you fight to protect an effective subsidy of $700 billion a year? No wonder throwing $750 million around seems like a wise investment by the big polluters. The fossil fuel industry has another problem, which is that it faces worldwide consensus about the urgent need to address climate change, consensus from the American public, consensus from every single major American scientific society, consensus from a vast number of major American companies. Essentially, the heraldry of American corporate leadership signed on to the Paris Agreement--every single U.S. National Lab, the scientists who have been mentioned before from NASA and from NOAA, whom in every other respect we count on. Imagine the NASA scientists who have put an explorer onto the surface of Mars, and they are driving a rover around the surface of Mars right now. Do we think they might know a little science? And yet when they tell us climate change is a serious threat, suddenly we can't pay any attention to that any longer because you have the Koch brothers, with all their money, telling everybody don't listen. You also have America's national security, military, and intelligence leaders warning us of the threat. You have the Pope calling on us to take action and most world leaders. So if you are the fossil fuel industry, what do you do? You come to Congress, to the chokepoint for legislation, and you put a chokechain on the Republican Party so you can snap it to heel. In support of that, they perpetrate this web of climate denial. This is actually a graphic of the web that was done by one of the academic researchers who specializes in this area. Why do they do this? Well, to do their best to fool the public about the risk of climate change, to provide talking points to rightwing talk radio, to take advantage of a lazy media's impulse to offer both sides of the story, even when one is false, and of course to hide the hands of the fossil fuel protagonists who are behind the scenes. So it is long past time we shed some light on the perpetrators of this web of denial and expose their filthy grip on our political process. It is a disgrace, and our grandchildren will look back at this as a dirty time in America's political history because of their work. I am grateful to my colleagues who are joining in this effort, today and in the days to come, to help spotlight the lengths to which the Koch brothers and other fossil fuel fronts go to advance their economic self-interests by sabotaging America's response to the climate crisis. As we look into this, we are aided by a growing body of research examining the web of denial and examining how the actors in that web propagate climate denial. So let's listen to some of the experts. Drexel University professor Dr. Robert Brulle calls the web of denial in his research ``the climate change countermovement.'' In his 2013 paper, ``Institutionalizing delay: foundation funding and the creation of U.S. climate change counter-movement organizations'' Professor Brulle describes that movement as a constellation of organizations--as you see here depicted in a graphic from that very paper--that, he says, ``engages in a wide variety of activities opposing any legislative attempts to enact mandatory restrictions on carbon emissions.'' The green diamonds--here, and here, and here, and here--are the big funders: fossil fuel billionaires' foundations, for instance, the American Petroleum Institute, and so on. The blue circles--here, here, and here--are the who's who of climate denial groups. The Heartland Institute is in here, for instance. They are that classy bunch who compared folks concerned about climate change to the Unabomber, just to give you a sense of what sort of people they are. There is the Hoover Institution; there is the Heritage Foundation; there is the Cato Institute; there is the Mercatus Center, to name just a few of the climate saboteurs on Dr. Brulle's graph. Brulle's research describes these groups as part of what he calls-- and I will quote him here--``a deliberate and organized effort to misdirect the public discussion and distort the public understanding of climate''--``to misdirect . . . and distort.'' The coordinated tactics of this network in its effort to misdirect and distort, said Brulle--and I will quote him again--``span a wide range of activities including political lobbying''--we certainly see plenty of that here--``contributions to political candidates,'' plenty of that--``and a large number of communication and media efforts that aim at undermining climate science.'' This is Professor Brulle's depiction of the web of denial. This chart is from a 2011 study by Professors Riley Dunlap of Oklahoma State University and Aaron McCright of Michigan State University, describing the behavior of the major actors in what they call the ``climate denial machine.'' That is their quote. Remember, Professor Brulle calls it the ``climate change countermovement.'' These two researchers call it the ``climate change denial machine'' and, of course, we call it the ``web of denial.'' I see that Senator Warren has come to the floor. I will gladly yield to her and resume my remarks when there is again room on the floor.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I thank Senator Warren for her terrific remarks. When I left off speaking, we were talking about the-- not just the web of denial of organizations that have been propped by the polluters to look as though they are real and to broadcast phony science, but also to know that people are on the hunt looking for them. I had begun to talk about the academic researchers who are treating this web as a social phenomenon--as a bizarre sociopolitical phenomenon--and beginning to look at how it works. I mentioned first Dr. Brulle of Drexel University, and then we were looking at the work of Dr. Dunlap and Dr. McCright--Dr. Dunlap from University of Oklahoma and Dr. McCright from Michigan State University. Let's look for a minute at what they say in their publications. When you listen to this, consider today's blockaded Senate Chamber. I will quote them. It is reasonable to conclude that climate change denial campaigns in the U.S.-- This stuff-- have played a crucial role in blocking domestic legislation and contributing to the U.S. becoming an impediment to international policymaking. Because of the perceived threat posed by climate change to their interests-- To the fossil fuel interests-- actors in the denial machine have strived to undermine scientific evidence documenting its reality and seriousness. Their success in these efforts weakens an essential component of societal reflectivity when the need is greater than ever. With that quote, I will yield the floor. I see my friend Senator Sullivan has arrived.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, we expect that the Senator from Delaware will be here shortly, but in the meantime, let me begin with a few remarks. This is the 144th time I have come to the floor to urge Congress to wake up to the threat of climate change. This week, something new is happening. I am joined by colleagues who will help me shine a little light on the web of climate denial and spotlight the bad actors in the web who are polluting our American discourse with phony climate denial. This web of denial, formed over decades, has been built and provisioned by the deep-pocketed Koch brothers, by ExxonMobil, by Peabody coal, and by other fossil fuel interests. It is a grim shadow over our democracy in that it includes an electioneering effort that spends hundreds of millions of dollars in a single election cycle and threatens any Republican who steps up to address the global threat of climate change. Just one of those electioneering groups, the Koch brothers-backed Americans for Prosperity, has openly proclaimed that if Republicans support a carbon tax or climate regulations, they would be ``at a severe disadvantage in the Republican nomination process.'' It would mean their political peril. When that threat comes from a group that has openly and notoriously pledged to spend $750 million in an election cycle, that is a threat that serves notice on the political class to behave, and regrettably the political class too often does behave in the face of that kind of money. I see that Senator Coons has arrived, and I am delighted to yield the floor to him.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I understand the majority leader will be coming to close out the Senate shortly and then allow us who are speaking to continue after that. I see Senator Scott here, so let me yield to him.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I see that Senator Cardin has arrived, so I will yield to him in one moment. But while Senator Cornyn is still on the floor, I want to express the sorrow and sympathy of the law enforcement community in Rhode Island for the loss Dallas has sustained. As anybody who has served in law enforcement knows, the two worst words an officer can hear are ``officer down.'' They don't know who it is, but they know it is one of theirs, and it is a sign of a casualty among the brotherhood and sisterhood of the police department. Those Dallas police officers had to hear the same words over and over again on that deadly night: Officer down. Officer down. Officer down. I think it has shocked the entire country, and I have certainly seen people come from all around the United States when we have lost police officers in Rhode Island. They come and stand in the freezing cold outside of churches where a funeral is going on. They come in groups wearing bands. They come to show their respect. It is not just the men and women of law enforcement in Dallas and in Texas who feel this, everyone across the country does. I wanted to express that to the people of Dallas, the law enforcement community of Dallas, and our friend Senator Cornyn of Texas. With that, I will now yield to Senator Cardin, who will speak on a different subject.