Sheldon Whitehouse

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 20 minutes.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Again, for the Record, I am the Senator from Rhode Island, not the Senator from Vermont.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, there are grants that the Federal Government makes to States to support their juvenile justice programs, and there are conditions that come with those grants. But I want to make sure that what is clear from the exchange is that this is a condition for receiving these Federal grants, but there is no mandate of any kind. The State, if it wishes, is free not to receive the Federal grant money and not comply with those conditions. It may be a technical point, but I think it is one that is important to clarify.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, may I clarify one point?

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I am here to show support for my Judiciary Committee chairman's effort to move this measure by unanimous consent. He has described the bill in considerable detail, so I will not repeat his description of the bill. From a point of view of process, I will say that this was a bill that came through Judiciary without a single voice of dissent. A great deal of bipartisan work was done to make sure it addressed new problems that young people face in all these different areas that the chairman described. It has a lot of enthusiasm and support in the Judiciary Committee. Indeed, it had such broad enthusiasm and support in the Judiciary Committee that we decided that we would simply hotline the bill because there seemed to be no objection to it. ``Hotline'' means you ask unanimous consent and warn people you are going to ask unanimous consent, and anybody who wants to object has a chance to come to the floor and do so. It is my understanding that there is one Senator of the 100 of us who wishes to do so, and so here we are going through that exercise. But it has completely cleared on our side and is ready for action. I would say that it is quite broadly supported. This is the list of law enforcement support for it. As you can see even from a chair quite far away, this is a fairly considerable document with a substantial list of hundreds of folks from across the country who pledge their support to this bill in law enforcement. I would add that from the State of Arkansas, the junior Senator from Arkansas is the Senator who is going to raise the one objection, I gather. The Arkansas State Advisory Group, the association called Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, and the official State Arkansas Division of Youth Services all support this bill. On the list of law enforcement supporters that I showed you are the following law enforcement leaders from Arkansas who support this bill. Robert Alcon is the chief of police of the Mayflower Police Department, and he supports this bill. Steve Benton is the chief of police of the Ward Police Department; he supports this bill. Ray Coffman is the chief of police of the Judsonia Police Department; he supports this bill. Randy Harvey is the chief of police of the Lowell Police Department; he supports this bill. Mark Kizer is the chief of police of the Bryant Police Department; he supports this bill. Kirk Lane is the chief of police of the Benton Police Department; he supports this bill. Randy Reid is the chief of police of the Glenwood Police Department; he supports this bill. Montie Sims is the chief of police of the Dardanelle Police Department; he supports this bill. Obie Sims is the sheriff of the Lafayette County Sheriff's Office, and he supports this bill. I would note that the senior Senator from Arkansas is not here to object to it. I would hope that since the Governor of Arkansas has appointed a Youth Justice Reform Board, whose purpose is to ``improve the overall effectiveness of the juvenile justice system'' through evidence-based practices, the 3-year period that this bill gives for the implementation of this would give Arkansas plenty of time to accommodate itself. If there proves to be a problem, we can always come back to it later. In the meantime, this effort that is being undertaken under the leadership of the Governor of Arkansas is being done in conjunction with the Arkansas Division of Youth Services, which supports this bill. I would add one other thing, which is that the purpose of this bill is to prevent children from being locked up for something that no adult could be locked up for if they were to do it--truancy, not showing up for school, things like that. In the event, however, that a child comes under the supervision of a court and the court directs that child to do certain things, if the child then fails to comply with the court order, judges have broad authority to enforce compliance with their orders. It is known as the contempt power. It is inherent in the judicial office. It can include fines; it can even include detention. To be in violation of a court order is not, in my view or in the view of anybody else that I am aware of, a status offense. Therefore, in a particularly acute or difficult situation in which a judge feels the need to enforce compliance with his or her order, the contempt power inherent in the judiciary is not obviated or addressed in any way by this bill. So for all those reasons, I will conclude by recalling the story of the conclusion of the Founders' work on the Constitution, when, at the end, Benjamin Franklin stood up and acknowledged that there had been various disagreements but that he would urge that each of the Members of that body doubt just for one moment their own infallibility and allow the measure to proceed. In that spirit, I yield the floor.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for up to 20 minutes.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, investigative author Jane Mayer has written an important piece of journalism--her new book, ``Dark Money''--about the secret but massive influence-buying rightwing billionaires led by the infamous Koch brothers. Jane Mayer's book catalogs the rise and the expansion into a vast array of front groups of this operation and the role in it of two of America's more shameless villains: Charles and David Koch. Some have called this beast they have created the Kochtopus because it has so many tentacles. The Presiding Officer may be wondering why I am talking about secret influence-buying in my climate speech. The reason is that the story of dark money and the story of climate change denial are the same story-- two sides of the same coin, as it were. Two strategies of that Koch-led, influence-buying operation particularly bear on climate change. Indeed, they are probably the major reason we don't have a comprehensive climate bill in Congress and instead have this present little mouse of a bipartisan energy efficiency bill. ``Oh, there goes Whitehouse,'' I am sure some listeners are saying, ``off his rocker, trying to connect the Koch brothers to this climate change.'' Well, it is not just something I am saying; it is what the Koch brothers' own operatives say when they are crowing about their influence-buying success. I will get to that later, but first the two strategies. One strategy is to mimic real science with phony science. Real science wants to find the truth. This phony science has no interest whatsoever in the truth. It wants to look like science, sure, but it is perfectly content to be wrong. There is an apparatus, a whole array of front groups through which this phony science is perpetrated. This machinery of phony science has been wrong over and over. It was wrong about tobacco, wrong about lead paint, wrong about ozone, wrong about mercury, and now it is wrong about climate change. They are the same organizations, the same strategies, the same funding sources, even in some cases the same people--always wrong. You would think that if they cared a hoot about right from wrong, they would change their methodology after such an unblemished record of being wrong every time. But they don't care. Truth is not their object; truth is actually their adversary. This isn't science; it is public relations dressed up in a lab coat. It masquerades as science. But, as a visiting university president from Rhode Island recently said to me, ``it uses the language of science, but its purpose is to undermine actual science.'' To pull off this masquerade, you have to trick people. You have to do what Ms. Mayer describes a Koch brothers associate saying as this whole scheme was being developed. It is perhaps the most telling quote in her book. Here is what the man said. ``It would be necessary,'' he said, to ``use ambiguous and misleading names, obscure the true agenda, and conceal the means of control.'' The next quote in her book is this: ``This is the method that Charles Koch would soon practice in his charitable giving, and later in his political actions.'' Did he ever. Misleading names. How about the John Locke Foundation, the Ethan Allen Institute. The pages listening will know these names from history: the James Madison Institute for Public Policy; the Thomas Jefferson Institute; the Franklin Center for Government & Public Integrity, with a little profile of old Ben Franklin on its letterhead; the George C. Marshall Institute, named after the hero of World War II and the European recovery that followed. None of them have a thing to do with their illustrious namesakes; they just took the famous names to put on a veneer of legitimacy. The George C. Marshall Institute--it sounds impressive. You might fool the occasional editorial page editor. Who does that? Maybe someone trying to hide something, ``obscure the true agenda.'' Take the Mercatus Center, which the Washington Post described as a ``staunchly anti-regulatory center funded largely by Koch Industries Inc.'' In ``Dark Money,'' journalist Jane Mayer wrote that Clayton Coppin, a professor at George Mason who reviewed Bill Koch's political activities, concluded Mercatus to be ``a lobbying group disguised as a disinterested academic program.'' And conceal the means of control--a large portion of the funding behind this special interest apparatus is simply not traceable. Why? Because money is funneled through organizations that exist to conceal donor identity. That is their purpose. The biggest identity-laundering shops are Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund. Indeed, they are by far the biggest sources of funding in the web of climate-change front groups that have been stood up. Dr. Robert Brulle of Drexel University, who studies the network of fossil fuel-backed climate denial, reports the Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund operations are the ``central component'' and ``predominant funder'' of the denier apparatus; and at the same time he continues it is the ``black box that conceals the identity of contributors.'' Jane Mayer reports in her book: ``Between 1999 and 2015, Donors Trust redistributed some $750 million from the pooled contributions to myriad conservative causes under its own name.'' There were $750 million laundered into anonymity with no telltale fossil fuel fingerprints. This is no small operation. There are over 100 groups involved, all beholden to the same master: the fossil fuel industry. Setting up or supporting over 100 front groups may seem unduly complicated, but remember, an internal combustion engine has more than 500 parts, and we are totally comfortable with that mechanism. According to the International Monetary Fund, this apparatus is defending a $700 billion--billion with a ``b''--effective subsidy, just in the United States of America, every year. How much work would you do--how much complication would you be willing to create--to defend $700 billion per year? To use Jane Mayer's telling phrase, this is a new device. Put it all together and what do you have? ``The think tank as disguised political weapon.'' Who is behind this elaborate scheme? I will quote from ``Dark Money.'' [T]he director of research at Greenpeace . . . spent months trying to trace the funds flowing into a web of nonprofit organizations and talking heads, all denying the reality of global warming as if working from the same script. What he discovered was that from 2005 to 2008, a single source, the Koch [brother]s, poured almost $25 million into dozens of different organizations fighting climate reform. The sum was staggering. His research showed that Charles and David [Koch] had outspent what was then the world's largest public oil company, ExxonMobil, by a factor of three. In a 2010 report, Greenpeace crowned Koch Industries, a company few had ever heard of at the time, the ``kingpin of climate science denial.'' By the way, I should say that ExxonMobil has been actively involved in this as well, as a lot of very good recent reporting has showed. But they were outshone and outdone by the Koch brothers. I will quote again from ``Dark Money.'' The first peer-reviewed academic study on the topic added further detail. Robert Brulle, a Drexel University professor of sociology and environmental science, discovered that between 2003 and 2010 over half a billion dollars was spent on what he described as a massive ``campaign to manipulate and mislead the public about the threat posed by climate change.'' The study examined the tax records of more than a hundred nonprofit organizations engaged in challenging the prevailing science on global warming. What it found was, in essence, a corporate lobbying campaign disguised as a tax- exempt, philanthropic endeavor. Some 140 conservative foundations funded the campaign, Brulle found. During the seven-year period he studied, these foundations distributed $558 million in the form of 5,299 grants to ninety-one different nonprofit organizations. It is quite a ``Kochtopus.'' The money went to think tanks, advocacy groups, trade associations, other foundations, and academic and legal programs. Cumulatively, this private network waged a permanent campaign to undermine Americans' faith in climate science to defeat any effort to regulate carbon emissions. The bottom line is if your faith in climate science is undermined, you have been had by a well-funded, complex, sophisticated scheme of disinformation. Back to ``Dark Money'' again. The cast of conservative organizations identified by Brulle was familiar to anyone who had followed the funding of the conservative movement. Among those he pinpointed as the largest bankrollers of climate change denial were foundations affiliated with the Koch and Scaife families, both of whose fortunes derived partly from oil. Also heavily involved were the Bradley Foundation and several others associated with hugely wealthy families participating in the Koch donor summits, such as the foundations run by the DeVos Family, Art Pope, the retail magnate from North Carolina, and John Templeton, Jr., a doctor and heir to the fortune of his father John Templeton, Sr., an American mutual fund pioneer who eventually renounced his U.S. citizenship in favor of living in the Bahamas, reportedly saving $100 million on taxes. Brulle found that as the money was dispersed, three- quarters of the funds from these and other sources financing what he called the ``climate change counter-movement'' were untraceable. Brulle's conclusion, as reported by Ms. Mayer, is this: Powerful funders are supporting the campaign to deny scientific findings about global warming and raise public doubts about the roots and remedies of this massive global threat. At the very least, American voters deserve to know who is behind these efforts. But it wasn't enough for the Koch brothers to have the paid-for, phony science masquerade. You also had to drive politicians to accept the phony science. You had to make politicians willing to participate in the masquerade and put on the phony science costume. To do that, they turned to the mother's milk of politics: money. The money was set loose by five Republican justices on the Supreme Court when they decided Citizens United. Citizens United is described in ``Dark Money'' as ``the polluters['] triumph.'' Mayer quotes a defeated candidate the Kochs went after: There was a huge change after Citizens United, when anyone could spend any amount of money, without revealing who they were, by hiding behind amorphous-named organizations, the floodgates opened. The Supreme Court made a huge mistake. There is no accountability. Zero. The money got loaded into political organizations like Americans for Prosperity, the leading Koch brothers-backed political front group. They waved that money around like a club, touting how they were going to spend $750 million just in this 2016 election. They told Republicans they would be so ``severely disadvantaged'' if they crossed them on climate change that they would be in political peril. Do the math. How much more obvious could you get? Here is how Jane Mayer quotes their own official crowing about their victory. Remember what I said earlier? This is not me making wild allegations. This is them taking credit for what they did. Tim Phillips gladly took credit for the dramatic spike in expressed skepticism. ``If you look at where the situation was three years ago and where it is today, there's been a dramatic turnaround,'' he told the National Journal. . . . We've made great headway. What it means for candidates on the Republican side is ``if you . . . buy into green energy or you play footsie on this issue, you do so at your political peril. And that's our influence. Groups like Americans for Prosperity have done it.'' That is what they say about what they are doing. And don't think we don't see that effect in this Chamber. The Koch brothers have had their day, doing their dirty work in the dark. I will give them that. It has been quite a racket, but the truth will come out. It always does. Jane Mayer is not alone. Academic researchers like Robert Brulle at Drexell, Riley Dunlap at Oklahoma State University, Justin Farrell at Yale University, and Michael Mann at Penn State University are exposing the precise dimensions and functions of this denial machine. Investigative writers like Naomi Oreskes, Erik Conway, Naomi Klein, and Steve Coll are on the hunt. ``Merchants of Doubt'' is already a movie. Jeff Nesbit's forthcoming book, ``Poison Tea,'' about how these big money boys suckered the tea party down this road, should be illuminating. On the official side, two attorneys general appear to be looking into Exxon's role in this climate denial scheme. In short, what could well be the biggest scam to hit politics since Teapot Dome and Watergate is being unraveled and exposed. The dirty fossil fuel money has deliberately polluted our American politics, just as their carbon emissions have polluted the atmosphere and oceans. Justice cannot come too soon for these people. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

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

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, the Senate is still at work crafting a package of energy legislation that can earn the support of a broad majority and potentially become this body's first comprehensive energy efficiency legislation since 2007. This is my 126th weekly call to arms to wake us up to the duty we owe our constituents and future generations of Americans, not only to unleash the clean energy solutions that will propel our economy forward but also to stave off the devastating effects of carbon pollution. I commend Energy Committee Chairman Murkowski and her ranking member Senator Cantwell for bringing us a bipartisan bill that builds upon some of the best ideas of the energy efficiency legislation championed not long ago by Senators Shaheen and Portman. According to a report assessing the emissions reductions related to Shaheen-Portman done by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, the cumulative net savings of these provisions would reach around $100 billion over the years 2014 to 2030, along with a reduction of about 650 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions over that 15-year period. While these are welcomed reductions, they are a fraction of what we expect just from the clean energy tax credit extensions that were included in the end-of-year omnibus. Those 5-year incentives for wind and solar will yield cumulative emissions reductions of over 1 billion metric tons of CO2. And even then, we are still far from what we need to do to stem our flood of carbon pollution into the atmosphere and oceans. Last year, the ranking member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Senator Cantwell, offered an ambitious legislative vision for growing our clean energy economy while tackling the growing climate crisis. Her Energy bill outlines achievable reductions in carbon pollution. It would repeal oil subsidies and level the playing field for clean energy. Estimated carbon reductions under her plan would be 34 percent below 2005 levels by 2025, which would help us achieve our international climate commitment. Our goals in the legislation now before us should be just as ambitious. Of course, the big polluters always shout that any steps to reduce emissions will invariably hobble the economy. They have the nerve to say this while they are sitting on an effective subsidy every year, just in the United States, of $700 billion, according to the International Monetary Fund. It really takes nerve to complain while sitting on that big of a public subsidy. In the bill before us, I was glad to add an amendment with my colleague from Idaho, Senator Crapo, with the bipartisan support of Senators Risch, Booker, Hatch, Kirk, and Durbin, to strengthen the development of advanced nuclear energy technologies in partnerships between the government and our national labs and the private sector. The Holy Grail here is advanced reactors that could actually consume spent fuel from conventional reactors and help us draw down our nuclear waste stockpile. I know that many of my Republican friends have supported commonsense climate action in the past. Senator McCain ran for President on a strong climate change platform. Senator Collins coauthored an important cap-and-dividend bill with Senator Cantwell. Senator Kirk voted for the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill in the House. Senator Flake has written an article in support of a carbon tax that reduces income taxes. And there are more. So I hold out some hope, but it is hard. There is a whole climate denial apparatus that helps manufacture doubt and delay action. The fossil fuel industry players controlling this machinery of denial use a well-worn playbook--the same tactics employed by the tobacco industry and the lead industry: Deny the scientific findings about the dangers their product causes, question the motives of the scientists they oppose, and exaggerate the costs of taking action. They tend to look only at the costs to them of having to clean up their act. They tend never to look at the cost to the public of the harm from their product. If accountants looked at only one side of the ledger like that, they would go to jail. In each case, tobacco, lead, climate change, and other sophisticated campaigns of misinformation were used to mislead the public. So this is why I have submitted an amendment declaring the sense of the Senate disapproving corporations and the front organizations they fund to obscure their role that deliberately cast doubt on science in order to protect their own financial interests and urging the fossil fuel companies to cooperate with investigations that are now ongoing into what they knew about climate change and when they knew it. I have also pressed to have the political contributions of these same polluters made transparent to the American people. The Supreme Court's awful Citizens United decision flung open the floodgates of corporate spending in our elections, giving wealthy corporate interests the ability to clobber, and perhaps even more important, to threaten to clobber politicians who don't toe their line. My Republican colleagues have refused to shine the light on this spending, so since the amendment failed, Americans will remain in the dark about who was trying to influence their elections and how. The Koch brothers-backed political juggernaut, Americans for Prosperity, has openly promised to punish candidates who support curbs on carbon pollution. The group's President said if Republicans support a carbon tax or climate regulations, they would ``be at a severe disadvantage in the Republican nomination process. . . . We would absolutely make that a crucial issue.'' The threat is not subtle: Step out of line, and here come the attack ads and the primary challengers, all funded by the deep pockets of the fossil fuel industry, powered up by Citizens United. Unfortunately, a large portion of the funding behind this special interest apparatus is simply not traceable. Money is funneled through organizations that exist just to conceal the donor's identity. The biggest identity-laundering shops are Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund. Indeed, these are by far the biggest sources of funding in the network or web of climate-denial front groups. These twin entities reported giving a combined $78 million to climate-denier groups between 2003 and 2010. Dr. Robert Brulle of Drexel University, who studies this network of fossil fuel-backed climate-denial fronts, reports that the Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund operations are the ``central component'' and ``predominant funder'' of the denier apparatus, and at the same time, they are what he calls the ``black box that conceals the identity of contributors.'' The denial apparatus runs a complex scheme to delegitimize the honest, university-based science that supports curbing carbon emissions and to intimidate officials who would dare cross this industry. And, regrettably, it is working. Since Citizens United let loose the threat of limitless dark money into our elections, a shadow has fallen over the Republican side of this Chamber. There is no longer any honest bipartisan debate on climate change, nor is there a single serious effort on the Republican side of the Presidential race. So, anyway, I have submitted the amendment to require companies with $1 million or more in revenues from fossil fuel activities to disclose their hidden spending on electioneering communications, to bring them out of the dark. The amendment is cosponsored by Senators Markey, Durbin, Sanders, Shaheen, Baldwin, Leahy, Murphy, Blumenthal, and Menendez. Corporate and dark money, and particularly fossil fuel money, is now washing through our elections in what one newspaper memorably called a ``tsunami of slime.'' All my amendment would have done is show the American people who is trying to sway their votes from behind the dark money screen. It is a pretty simple idea. It is, in fact, precisely the solution prescribed by the Supreme Court Justices in the Citizens United decision. Moreover, it is an idea the Republicans have over and over again supported in the past. But now that dark money has become the Republican Party's life support system, all the opinions have changed. Well, I believe fossil fuel money is polluting our democracy, just as their carbon emissions are polluting our atmosphere and oceans. It ought to be time to shine a light on that dark money. In a nutshell, we have been had by the fossil fuel industry, and it is time to wake up. Student Loan Debt Mr. President, if I may change topics for a moment, we had a meeting this morning with a number of students from around the country who came in to share with us their concerns about the growing burden of student loan debt in this country, which I would argue has now reached a point of crisis. Time and again, we tell young people that the path to the American dream runs through a college campus. Young people get this, and they respond to it. They overwhelmingly want to go to college, and they work hard to get there. But the cost can be more than many students bargain for, especially once they leave school, with a degree or without, and get hit with student loan payments. Young people are graduating with more debt than ever before. For the past several years, as springtime rolls around and graduates get ready to cross the stage, we hear reports that average debt loads have increased yet again. Each new class seems to set a new record. The average graduating senior in the class of 2014 held $28,950 in student loan debt. Indeed, over the past decade, student loan debt has quadrupled. Total outstanding student loan debt held by 40 million Americans is now over $1.3 trillion. That makes student loans the second highest type of consumer debt after home mortgages. Student loans are more than both credit card debt and car loans. Rhode Islanders alone owe upward of $3.6 billion. Students who graduate from 4-year colleges and universities in Rhode Island emerge with an average of $31,841 in student loan debt. I asked my colleagues, most of whom graduated many decades ago, can you imagine starting out in your life that deep in the red? This is the reality for so many Americans today. It is the reality for so many Rhode Islanders I have met with. Tammy is a childcare provider from Warwick, RI. She spoke at a roundtable discussion Senator Reed and I held in Rhode Island to hear firsthand from our constituents about the challenges they face in repaying student loan debt. Tammy has a master's degree in child development and early childhood education. The original principal balance on her student loan was $43,530.56. But even with a master's degree in child development and early childhood education, the pay has not been great. We went through that Wall Street-caused financial crisis and now, 16 years later, her balance has grown to $88,000. Instead of making headway on her debt, she slips further into the red. Danielle from Narragansett, RI, racked up roughly $60,000 in student loan debt between her undergraduate and master's degrees from the University of Rhode Island. Now, she says, the burden of that debt is affecting the decisions her son, Talin, is making about his own college education. When a parent works and studies to make a better life for her child, the last thing she expects is for the cost of her education to limit her son's opportunities. Ryan, also from Warwick, is a special education teacher. He was my guest at the State of the Union Address. He is going back to graduate school to become an even better educator. ``I've made a conscious choice,'' he says, ``to invest in my education and my ability to make a difference in the lives of my students as a teacher.'' But his loans are a heavy burden on his finances. He works a second job on top of his teaching job to help cover his expenses and pay down his loans. His debt is affecting his life decisions about things like marriage or buying a home. Why should becoming a better teacher mean postponing the dreams of adulthood? Young people should enter the workforce ready to get their lives started--to earn, to create, to invest. College should be a path to opportunity, not a decades-long sentence of debt and instability, not deferred dreams of starting a family or buying a house. The average age of the Senate today is just over 60, meaning most Senators were in college about 40 years ago. So we have no idea. Between then and now, the cost of college has increased more than 1,000 percent. According to Bloomberg Business, from 1978, when the records began, through 2012, the costs have increased by twelvefold--1,120 percent. Going to college in the seventies generally didn't leave students with insurmountable debt. Today it is a fact of life. We must work not just to stop but to reverse these trends. It is because of this crisis in college affordability that my Democratic colleagues got together to create the Reducing Education Debt Act, or the RED Act. This important bill would do three vital things: First, it would allow students to refinance their outstanding student debt to take advantage of lower interest rates. That would put billions of dollars back into the pockets of people who invested in their education. Refinancing would help an estimated 24 million borrowers save an average of almost $1,900. Second, the RED Act would make 2 years of community college tuition- free, helping students earn an associate's degree, the first half of a bachelor's degree, or get the skills they need to succeed in the workforce, all without having to take on so much debt. Free tuition at community college would save a full-time student an average of $3,800 per year and could help an estimated 9 million college students. Third, the RED Act would help ensure that Pell grants--named for our great Rhode Island Senator Claiborne Pell--keep up with the rising costs by indexing part of the Pell grant to inflation permanently. By indexing the Pell grant, compared to current law, the maximum Pell grant award would increase by $1,300 for the 2026-2027 school year, resulting in larger awards for over 9 million students, helping to reduce their debt. We think the RED Act is a critical step toward an essential goal: debt-free college. The American middle class was built in part on the opportunity provided by higher education. Believe it or not, it was once common to be able to go to college and graduate with no debt. We owe it to today's college students to be able to leave college and begin to build their lives free of debt and ready to achieve their dreams. We look forward to bipartisan participation on this issue in the Senate, although regrettably it has virtually never appeared in the Republican Presidential debates as an issue. There are 40 million students with $1.3 trillion in debt--not interested, not compared to Benghazi. So I am hoping we will do better than those candidates in this Chamber and be able to pull a bipartisan solution together that will relieve that burden of debt on our next generation. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I see the senior Senator of Rhode Island.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3125 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, this is the last vote in this tranche of votes, and I hope this can be a bipartisan vote. We all understand that a shadow has fallen over this Chamber since Citizens United, and that is the shadow of dark money. The American public is sick about the special interests that have so much sway. They are even more sick of special interests having secret sway because of secret spending. This secret spending influences what we can and cannot do. It influences our deliberations. It has even constrained the shape of the very bill on the floor right now. As one Kentucky newspaper said, it has also created a tsunami of slime in our elections. This vote gives us the chance to push back and to put a little daylight on the secret money that is being spent in our elections. I very much hope that, consistent with past Republican support for sunshine and disclosure, we can get a bipartisan vote in favor of disclosure of the big-money donors who are now putting secret money into our elections--in this case, particularly in the energy sector. I ask for the votes of my colleague in favor of this amendment.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, as the lead Democratic cosponsor of Senator Crapo's amendment, I want to commend and salute him for his leadership. Senators Durbin and Booker and I have all joined from our side. Senator Crapo, Senator Risch, Senator Hatch, and Senator Kirk are on the Republican side. This is truly a bipartisan amendment. I hope it will get a strong and positive vote. It is very important that America continue its innovation in the area of advanced nuclear technologies. They continue to confer immense promise. We are seeing the promise of American innovation realized overseas, for instance, where the first traveling wave technologies are being constructed in China, not here. We need to make sure we continue our investment. We need to make sure we are doing good regulation so that innovation can proceed to the market. We hope this amendment will help move that forward. Once again, Senator Crapo has shown great leadership with this. I am pleased to support him.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I only wish for a moment to speak in favor of the Crapo-Whitehouse amendment. I could do that for a minute or for 10 seconds later on. I don't need the time now. We can get to the vote as the chairman wishes.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

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

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, today marks the 125th time I have come to the Senate floor to ask this body to wake up to the threats of climate change. This week is a little different because we are currently debating the bipartisan Energy Policy Modernization Act. The bill was crafted by my colleagues, Senators Murkowski and Cantwell, and it may become our first comprehensive energy efficiency legislation since 2007. While the base bill is a good start, we have much work to do before we come anywhere near meeting the challenges we face as a result of our decades of carbon pollution. As we begin debate on this legislation, calls for bold action on climate continue to mount. The World Economic Forum released its ``Global Risks Report 2016,'' which for the first time ranked an environmental risk--climate change--as the most severe economic risk facing the world. The report found that a failure to deal with and prepare for climate change is potentially the most costly risk over the next decade. Cecilia Reyes, chief risk officer of Zurich Insurance Group, said: ``Climate change is exacerbating more risks than ever before in terms of water crises, food shortages, constrained economic growth, weaker societal cohesion and increased security risks.'' Some of my Republican colleagues have begun to wake up to these risks. It was just last year that Chairman Murkowski said: ``What I am hoping that we can do now is get beyond the discussion as to whether climate change is real and talk about what to do.'' The chairman deserves credit for reporting a bill that has solutions a broad majority of the Senate can support; however, she has been handicapped by the fact that many in her party still refuse to take seriously that human-caused climate change is real and that it presents a significant and growing risk to our economy, our national security, and our way of life. Many of the provisions in this bill are not new. We saw much of it in the Shaheen-Portman Energy bill that Republicans twice before have filibustered. With so many Republicans seemingly incapable of supporting responsible energy legislation, those of us who want to promote energy efficiency and a clean energy economy sometimes feel a little bit like Charlie Brown, hoping that this time Lucy won't yank the ball away yet again. These issues are too important, and I am hoping this time will, in fact, be different. The bill contains commonsense reforms, such as reforming building codes to improve energy efficiency and directing the Secretary of Energy to establish a Federal smart building program to demonstrate the costs and benefits of implementing smart building technology. It reauthorizes the weatherization and State energy programs that States such as Rhode Island rely on and the Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy. That has shown the importance of government investment in new energy technologies. It will modernize and secure our electric grid and enhance cyber security safeguards. My State, Rhode Island, is a national leader in promoting energy efficiency, so we know how programs like these are good for consumers, businesses, and the environment. In fact, I came here to the floor after a meeting with our grid operator. She said Rhode Island was the leading State when it comes to efficiency. Rhode Island has had energy policies guiding electricity and natural gas efficiency standards since 2006. We have consistently ranked in the top five States when it comes to energy efficiency. We do this as one of the founding members of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative--or RGGI for short--the Northeast's carbon pollution cap-and-trade program. States that belong to RGGI are proving that we can grow our economies at the same time we cut our emissions. Between its founding in 2005 and the report of 2012, emissions in the RGGI States decreased by 40 percent, while the regional economy grew by 7 percent, so we won on both sides. Putting a price on carbon and plowing that money back into clean energy projects is, in fact, saving us billions of dollars while helping to reduce carbon pollution. I hope this bill will be a small step forward toward solutions that will begin to help reverse the devastation carbon pollution is wreaking on our climate and particularly on our oceans. I have to ask my Republican friends, what is your best bet on whether this climate and oceans problem gets better or worse in the next 20 or 40 years? I ask this seriously because a great party's reputation is on the line here. How are you going to bet--with the 97 to 98 percent of the scientists and 100 percent of the peer research? Do you want to bet the reputation of the Republican Party that suddenly all of this is going to magically get better? Right now the American public sees what is going on. The American public knows that the Republican Party in Washington has become the political wing of the fossil fuel industry. There has always been a bit of this within the Republican Party, but since the Republican appointees on the Supreme Court gave the fossil fuel industry that great, fat, juicy gift of its Citizens United decision, the fossil fuel industry menace looming over the Republican Party in Congress has become near absolute. Trapped by the fossil fuel industry, the Republican vision for energy policy has been stuck in the past. Most of the time, it is just complaints and obstruction: Oh, the President's Clean Power Plan is no good. Oh, the States should engage in massive civil disobedience against the President's Clean Power Plan. Oh, we should defund the EPA. It will be no surprise if they try to block the Department of Interior's plan to reform a coal leasing program that has not been updated in over 30 years. It doesn't matter to them that the way we price the extraction of fossil fuel on Federal lands is a massive taxpayer giveaway to fossil fuel companies and it is based on a market failure that ignores the costs those fuels impose on taxpayers and our climate. Conservative and progressive economists alike agree on that market failure point. Indeed, Republicans defend all the subsidies we give to the fossil fuel industry. There is no subsidy to the fossil fuel industry that does not earn constant Republican support. Rather than gambling on more oil and gas production, I suggest we make the safe bet on a strategy that cuts emissions, encourages American investment in American clean energy, saves taxpayers billions of dollars, and creates and supports millions of jobs. There is an old hymn that the Presiding Officer probably knows. It says: ``Turn back, O man, forswear thy foolish ways.'' Well, it is time to turn back and forswear our foolish fossil fuel ways. If we don't, there will be a day of reckoning and a harsh price to pay. Remember what Pope Francis told us: God always forgives. We men forgive sometimes, but nature never forgives. If you give her a slap, she will give you one. We have given our Earth one heck of a slap. I will leave the Chamber with this: Last week, NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported that 2015 was the warmest year on record globally. That is not a fluke. Fifteen of the warmest 16 years recorded occurred during this century, which, by the way, has had 15 years. They are all in the warmest 16 years ever recorded. According to the World Meteorological Organization, the most recent 5-year period--from 2011 to 2015--was the warmest 5-year period ever recorded. You can see that the long-term trend is going in one direction and one direction only--hotter. There is no pause. The pause was a trick. These changes are primarily driven by the excessive carbon pollution we continue to dump into our atmosphere and oceans. By the way, for all of this measured heat, 90-plus percent of the heat actually goes into the oceans. There is little change in the oceans but big changes here. As the oceans stop absorbing as much warmth, I don't know where that will lead. As we bring our ideas to the floor during our discussion about modernizing our electric grid, we have an opportunity to also have a real conversation on climate change. We still have a real responsibility to act. It is time for this body to wake up. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I rise for ``Time to Wake Up'' speech No. 124. Today, let's talk Texas. Polling from the University of Texas at Austin shows that more than three out of four Americans--or 76 percent--now believe that climate change is occurring. Fifty-nine percent of Republicans say it is happening. While most poll respondents say they would support a Presidential candidate who supports reducing coal as an energy source, the number goes up to 65 percent for voters under the age of 35. So we might expect Republican Presidential hopefuls to acknowledge the problem and incorporate climate action into their campaign platforms. We might, but we would be wrong. Republican candidates for President have a key constituency: fossil fuel billionaire donors. So the candidates ignore the clear tide of public opinion, mock the warnings of our scientific and national security experts, dismiss climate disruptions in their own home States, and dismiss the world-class climate research of their own home State universities and scientists--even in Texas. When asked if global warming is real, the junior Senator from Texas responds that the ``data and facts don't support it. . . . Science should follow the facts.'' OK. Let's follow the data and facts. NOAA and NASA just announced that 2015 was the warmest year ever recorded on Earth. That is a fact, and it not an anomaly. It is the continuation of a clear trend. Fifteen of the warmest 16 years ever recorded by humankind on this planet are the 15 years of this century. Texas A&M has a department of atmospheric sciences. The faculty there have unanimously adopted this statement: 1. The Earth's climate is warming, meaning that the temperatures of the lower atmosphere and ocean have been increasing over many decades. Average global surface air temperatures warmed by about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit between 1880 and 2012. 2. It is extremely likely that humans are responsible for more than half of the global warming between 1951 and 2012. 3. Under so-called ``business-as-usual'' emissions scenarios, additional global-average warming (relative to a 1986 to 2005 baseline) would likely be 2.5 to 7 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of this century. That is Texas A&M's scientific assessment supported by the data and facts. Go Aggies. The Texas State climatologist, Dr. John Neilsen-Gammon, appointed to his position by Governor George W. Bush, has concluded that ``fossil fuel burning and other activities are the primary cause of the global- scale increase in temperature over the past decades.'' According to a Yale University poll released last fall, most Texans-- 61 percent of Texas adults--support setting stricter limits on coal- fired powerplants. Well, the President's Clean Power Plan would do just that. It is projected to both cut carbon emissions and save Americans money on their annual energy bills. Yet the junior Senator from Texas rails against the plan, urging people ``to stand up against this administration's dangerous agenda of economic decline''--economic decline if you are a big polluter, maybe, used to polluting for free. The Clean Power Plan will save the average American family nearly $85 on their annual energy bill by 2030, not to mention preventing death and disease through reduced soot, smog, and other harmful pollutants. A 2014 study found that strong limits on carbon pollution similar to those in the Clean Power Plan would prevent 2,300 deaths in Texas between 2020 and 2030. Texas emits the highest amount of carbon pollution in the country. Yet Texas is well positioned to meet its Clean Power Plan targets. An Environmental Defense Fund study based on data from Texas's primary electric grid operator shows that existing market trends alone will get Texas to 88 percent of its compliance with the plan as a result of increased wind power capacity, improved energy efficiency results, and switching from coal to natural gas. In fact, Texas's wind farms have become so good at generating power that some utilities are giving away energy. Here is an article from the New York Times on this unique situation in Texas with the headline ``A Texas Utility Offers a Nighttime Special: Free Electricity.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record at the end of my remarks. Scott Burns, the senior director of innovation at Reliant Energy, a Texas utility with plans to incentivize night and weekend electricity use, says: ``You can be green and make green.'' With Texas so strong in wind energy production and solar energy potential, Texas is actually in a position to use its clean energy resources to help other States comply with the Clean Power Plan, a win- win with even more Texas clean energy jobs. So, in Texas, there is an overwhelming consensus of scientists at their own State universities, there is a desire for action among the majority of Texans, and there are vast economic opportunities from Texas renewable energy. But the junior Senator from Texas continues to rail against mainstream climate science. He claims that ``according to the satellite data, there has been no significant global warming for the past 18 years.'' Eighteen years. What an interesting number to pick--18 years. If we go back 18 years, we start in 1998. Why might the junior Senator from Texas start his assessment of satellite data in 1998? Well, look at this. When PolitiFact investigated the Senator's claim that global warming has paused, the Senator's office referred to the work of Dr. Carl Mears, a scientist who worked with satellite data temperature sets. This is a graph of that data. Look at 1998. The Earth was experiencing a large El Nino event in 1998, and the observed temperatures were substantially above normal. So if that is where we start the data set, of course it is going to look like a pause. As the Washington Post put it, ``There is a reason why Cruz uses this particular year, and that reason is what makes this claim misleading.'' PolitiFact ruled him ``mostly false,'' by the way. The whole data set shows a clear, unequivocal, long-term global warming trend. As Dr. Mears himself said, ``You can look at the data since 1980, and it's pretty clear that there's an ascending trend there. But if you look at any 15-year period, it's a lot less clear that the trend line that you drive might actually mean something.'' Dr. Mears also warns against drawing conclusions from just this one data set. ``Look at all the different datasets,'' he said. ``You don't want to trust only the satellite temperatures; you want to look at the surface temperatures and that sort of thing.'' Scientists have known for some time that the oceans bear the brunt of global warming. The reason is simple: They can absorb more heat than the atmosphere, and they do. Peter Gleckler, an oceanographer at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, said, ``Ninety, perhaps 95 percent of the accumulated heat is in the oceans.'' A study released this month shows the world's oceans absorbed--I don't think this number has ever been said before on the Senate floor-- approximately 150 zettajoules--that is a lot of zeroes; I don't even know how many zeroes that is--150 zettajoules of manmade heat energy between 1997 and 2015. What does that mean? Here is how the Washington Post described it. I will quote the Washington Post: [I]f you exploded one atomic bomb the size of the one dropped on Hiroshima every second for a year, the total energy released would be 2 zettajoules. . . . Since 1997, Earth's oceans have absorbed man-made heat energy equivalent to a Hiroshima-style bomb being exploded every second for 75 straight years. Yet the Senator from Texas would like us to base our calculation on a cherry-picked data set beginning in an outlier year. The oceans aren't just warming, unfortunately. The warming in the oceans is accelerating. Paul Durack, coauthor of the study, notes, ``After 2000 in particular the rate of change is really starting to ramp up.'' People who insist that the climate has not warmed in recent decades ignore a lot, but one thing they particularly ignore is the oceans, and we measure this stuff. The oceans don't lie. Here is another good one from the junior Senator. The Senator from Texas informs us that ``history with markedly more CO2 predated the Industrial Revolution, so it didn't come from automobiles or the burning of carbon fuels.'' What he omits is that this history with markedly more CO2 occurred more than 800,000 years ago. This chart shows that here is where we are right now. Here is the record of carbon in the atmosphere going back 800,000 years. Where in that period was it more than now? Never. Eight hundred thousand years, hundreds of thousands of years before humans even began to walk the Earth. Greenhouse gases blanket our planet, absorbing the Sun's energy and preventing heat from escaping back into space. Ice sheets melt, seas warm and rise, and so since the late 1880s, sea level has risen 3 feet along the shores of Galveston, TX. None of that matters to the junior Senator from Texas. In December he even convened a hearing protesting scientific consensus on climate change as ``partisan dogma and ideology.'' Tell that to NASA and the U.S. Navy. At the time, more than 190 countries were negotiating the groundbreaking international climate agreement in Paris. Well, Texans were on hand in Paris too. Austin mayor Steve Adler signed the Compact of Mayors, a ``global coalition of mayors pledging to reduce local greenhouse gas emissions, enhance resilience to climate change, and report transparently.'' Katherine Romanak and Hilary Olson represented the University of Texas's Gulf Coast Carbon Center to share their expertise on carbon capture and storage. Professor Robert Bullard, dean of the School of Public Affairs at Houston's Texas Southern University, organized a delegation from the Historically Black Colleges and Universities Climate Change Consortium, and Dr. Katharine Heyhoe, director of the Climate Science Center at Texas Tech University, encouraged fellow evangelicals to join her in faith- inspired support for climate action. On that subject, let me read into the Record the 2015 statement of the National Association of Evangelicals: [T]he Earth belongs to God, not us. . . . Probably the most serious and urgent challenge faced by the physical world now is the threat of climate change. . . . We encourage Christians worldwide to . . . exert legitimate means to persuade governments to put moral imperatives above political expediency on issues of environmental destruction and potential climate change. Well, as the President said last week, America ``led nearly 200 nations to the most ambitious agreement in history to fight climate change.'' The junior Senator from Texas would be President, yet he completely refuses to engage on climate change. He ignores Texas State universities, Texas scientists, Texas local officials, and the whole clean energy economy in Texas. He courts evangelicals. He associates himself with the evangelical movement, but he ignores the statement of their own national association. Now, some say his candidacy is a danger to our distinct American heritage, the separation of church and state. But, really, it seems to me his problem is with the separation of oil and state. The fossil fuel industry is the last bastion of climate denial. It funds a vast apparatus of climate denial. It also funds a lot of politics. You do the math. It is time to wake up. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Happy new year. Nothing says ``Happy new year'' like the ``Time to Wake Up'' speech, so I will kick off 2016 with my year- opener ``Time to Wake Up'' speech recapping some of last year's climate change milestones. They say you only get one chance to make a first impression, and the first impression Senate Republicans chose to make in 2015 was to use their first 3 weeks of floor time--3 full weeks of precious floor time--to help a foreign oil company's tar sands pipeline. Even though it meant the government condemning American farms, even though the President was sure to veto it, that was their opener. By the end of the year, things had changed. The Republican leader was burying the votes against the Clean Power Plan deep in the news of the terrible Paris massacres and collapsing votes together to minimize floor time on this issue. The Republican majority opened 2015 with a big oil bang but crept out of the year with a whimper. Things indeed changed in 2015. Of course, the scientific evidence continued to show that fossil fuel pollution was damaging our environment and our oceans and our economy. And 2015 was record-setting hot. This chart from November shows that 2015 is on track to being the hottest year globally since we began keeping records in 1880. We can see that the 2015 running monthly global temperature average is above the 6 next warmest years on record in every month for which data is available. The Director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies estimates the probability of 2015 being the hottest on record at better than 99 percent. He has labeled 2015 a ``scorcher.'' But that won't be official until later this month. It is no fluke. The World Meteorological Organization reports the recent 5-year period--2011 to 2015--as the warmest 5-year period on record, and 2015 was the first year where monthly global average carbon dioxide concentrations exceeded 400 parts per million, and it did so for more than 3 months. Bear in mind that for as long as human beings have been on this planet Earth, we have existed safely in a range of 170 to 300 parts per million. We are outside of that by almost the entire range, and we know this from ice cores which contain tiny bubbles of ancient atmospheres. I saw those ice cores last October at Ohio State University. World-renowned atmospheric scientists, the husband-and-wife team Dr. Ellen Mosley Thompson and Dr. Lonnie Thompson, worked for years to retrieve cores from around the world and to test the ancient air captured inside. The lesson of these cores is that humans have fundamentally altered the chemistry of the Earth's air and that our greenhouse gas emissions are rapidly altering our climate. Scientists now say that we have so altered the Earth as to consider ourselves in a new geologic epoch, the Anthropocene. In 2015, the oceans kept shouting at us to wake up. Throughout 2015, evidence continued to document our oceans warming, rising, and acidifying. And 2015 brought the first nationwide study assessing the vulnerability of America's $1 billion shellfish industry to ocean acidification, documenting the risk to 15 coastal States, such as Louisiana, Texas, Maine, and Rhode Island. The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in October reported on climate change's threats to fish integral to human diets, predicting a dramatic collapse in the world's largest ecosystem, our oceans. The great corrupt denial machine the fossil fuel industry supports never talks about oceans. The machine doesn't care about evidence; it is just an obstacle to their fossil fuel PR campaign. They just want to create phony doubt. But since there is not much room for doubt in measurements of warming, rising, and acidifying seas, they won't go there. Nevertheless, 2015 was another bad year for oceans. Mr. President, 2015 was also the year journalists, academics, and investigators took a hard look at that big, phony climate denial apparatus. The year 2015 brought reports that Exxon knew climate change was real but funded the climate denial apparatus anyway, reports of how fossil fuel money influenced the front groups' language, and reports about hidden money and networks of influence and fossil fuel money controlling politics. Report after report showed fossil fuel money pouring into dozens of front groups, creating phony doubt and controversy, then propagated through media outlets also in the tank to the fossil fuel industry, such as FOX News and the Wall Street Journal editorial page. If you doubt that climate change is real, you have been had. It is really that simple. It is a racket. And 2015 was the year when many voices began asking for a racketeering investigation into a fraud of historic proportions. Mr. President, 2015 was a year of growing public recognition across America of the need to act. A 2015 Stanford poll found that 83 percent of Americans, including 6 in 10 Republicans, want action to reduce carbon emissions. For the first time, a majority of self-identified Republicans now believe there is solid evidence of global warming. And if you take out the loopy Tea Party cohort, among sensible Republicans, the number goes even higher. Among young Republican voters--Republican voters under age 35--most said they would describe a climate denier as ``ignorant,'' ``out of touch,'' or ``crazy.'' In 2015, the EPA launched the Clean Power Plan, our Nation's most ambitious effort yet. It is the first-ever plan to reduce carbon pollution from the largest source of U.S. carbon emissions: powerplants. The Clean Power Plan is projected to both cut carbon emissions and save Americans money on their annual energy bills. In 2015, the Obama administration at last rejected the Keystone XL Pipeline--a great victory for the environmental movement after the 400,000-person climate march in New York City. In 2015, Pope Francis-- the world leader of the Catholic Church--added his holy voice to the call. ``Humanity,'' Pope Francis said, ``is called . . . to combat this warming or at least the human causes which produce or aggravate it.'' Specifically, the Pope said, ``[T]echnology based on the use of highly polluting fossil fuels, needs to be progressively replaced without delay.'' Pope Francis's encyclical said something to Congress: To take up these responsibilities, and the costs they entail, politicians will inevitably clash with the mindset of short-term gain and results which dominates present-day economics and politics. But if they are courageous, they will attest to their God-given dignity and leave behind a testimony of selfless responsibility. And 2015 showed some signs of political courage, dignity, and responsibility. Republican Congressman Bob Inglis took a beating at the hands of the fossil fuel industry, but he did not give up the fight. Our colleague Lindsey Graham ran for the Republican nomination on a sensible climate change platform. He and other Senate colleagues have started a little Senate Republican study group. Twelve House Republicans, led by Congressman Chris Gibson of New York, broke with their party's Orthodoxy and sponsored a resolution committing to address climate change by promoting ingenuity, innovation, and exceptionalism. It is not much yet, but it is a start. It is a turn. Perhaps the biggest milestone of 2015 was the Paris agreement reached in December, with 190 countries agreeing to a global deal to address climate change. One key element was that more than 150 major U.S. companies signed on to the American Business Act on Climate Pledge, calling for strong outcomes in the Paris climate negotiations. These companies' operations together span all 50 States, they employ nearly 11 million people, they represent more than $4.2 trillion in annual revenue, and they have a combined market capitalization of over $7 trillion. These are blue-chip American icons such as AT&T of Texas, Coca-Cola and UPS of Georgia, Procter & Gamble of Ohio, and Walmart of Arkansas. How long can Republicans ignore them? You know the phrase about lipstick on a pig? Well, 2015 brought so much change that even the big fossil fuel pigs felt they had to try on a little lipstick. Typical of them, it was bogus--just enough happy talk about climate change and carbon fees to get the CEOs through a Davos cocktail party without being shunned, while here in Congress, their whole brutal political apparatus, up to and including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce--which these days should probably be called the U.S. Chamber of Carbon--kept relentlessly hammering against any prospect of meaningful climate legislation. Real or not, it is noteworthy that the big oil tycoons at least felt the need for some lipstick. Speaking of piggy, 2015 was also the year the International Monetary Fund calculated the effective public subsidy of the fossil fuel industry at $700 billion per year just in the United States alone. Remember when the costs of carbon pollution are not factored into the price, those costs become a public subsidy--a market failure. This subsidy climbs into the trillions of dollars worldwide. If that is not piggy, nothing is. My biggest prayer for 2016 is the American business coalition from Paris helping Republican colleagues acknowledge publicly what many have concluded privately; that it is time for Congress to address climate change. If Republicans can get some relief from the brutal political pressure of the fossil fuel industry, there are conservative-friendly solutions at hand. Every Republican who has thought this problem through to a solution comes to the same place, every one. Former Treasury Secretary and Secretary of State George Shultz, President Reagan's economic adviser Art Laffer, President George W. Bush's Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, and his Council of Economic Advisers Chair Greg Mankiw, former Congressman Bob Inglis, and many others, all advocated last year that a carbon fee is the efficient way to correct the market failure that lets the fossil fuel industry pollute for free. Four former Republican EPA Administrators, Bill Ruckelshaus, Christine Todd Whitman, Lee Thomas, and Bill Reilly, wrote: ``A market-based approach, like a carbon tax, would be the best path to reducing greenhouse-gas emissions.'' Even a columnist at the Wall Street Journal, whose editorial page is notoriously fossil fuel friendly, wrote: ``There's no dispute among economists on the most cost-effective way to [reduce emissions]: a carbon tax.'' Well, we have one. In 2015, the conservative American Enterprise Institute hosted the announcement of my legislation with Senator Schatz, creating a revenue-neutral carbon fee, with none--zero--of the revenues kept by the Federal Government but instead being used to provide massive corporate tax reductions and personal tax rebates. We have gone to exactly where Republicans are pointing. So please, colleagues, take yes for an answer. Join us, and let's get to work. Mr. President, 2015 was a year the tide turned in Congress, from that opening Keystone Pipeline political fanfare to the buried, quiet, end- of-the-year votes on the President's Clean Power Plan, with three Republicans even voting to support President Obama on those votes. It was a turning year and a new year now begins. We still need to wake up. We still need to get to work. We still have a duty before us, and it is a duty we should not shirk. I pray that 2016 will be the year, and I promise to do everything in my power to make it the year. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I am joined by Senator Thune, the chair of the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, to discuss title IX--National Oceans and Coastal Security, of Division O of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016. The legislation on which this title was based, the National Oceans and Coastal Security Act, S. 2025, is a bill I introduced earlier this year, which was referred to the Senate Commerce Committee. I appreciate the assistance Senator Thune and his committee staff have provided on this legislation. The National Oceans and Coastal Security Act establishes a fund to support research, conservation, and restoration projects on our coasts and in our oceans and Great Lakes. The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration--two organizations with significant expertise in ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes issues, as well as managing grants--will coordinate the grant programs supported by the fund. I thank Senator Thune for joining me today to help clarify this important legislation. As you know, our coastal communities and marine economies depend upon healthy oceans and Great Lakes. The projects supported by this fund will provide the science and on-the-ground action that will help ensure a healthy environment and vibrant economy for generations to come. Any money appropriated or otherwise made available to the fund will be used to ``support programs and activities intended to better understand and utilize ocean and coastal resources and coastal infrastructure, including baseline scientific research, ocean observing, and other programs and activities.'' Funds may not be used for litigation or advocacy, or the creation of national marine monuments, marine protected areas, marine spatial plans, or a National Ocean Policy. It is the intent of the authors that no grants be provided through this fund for the creation or federal implementation of any of these programs or policies. With specific regard to the National Ocean Policy, its creation has already occurred by Executive order, and its implementation is the responsibility of the National Ocean Council. It is the expectation of the authors that no funds would be used to support the activities of the National Ocean Council.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Thank you for making that important point. I would like to further highlight that the legislation authorizes two grant programs. The first would direct funding to coastal States, Indian tribes, and U.S. territories. The other would create a national competitive grant program open to States, local governments, and Indian tribes, as well as associations, nongovernmental organizations, public- private partnerships, and academic institutions to support oceans and coastal research and restoration efforts.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, today, with my colleagues Senator Cory Booker and Senator Jeff Merkley, I wish to discuss the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, S. 697. Some opponents claim it creates a regulatory void that will prohibit States from creating or enforcing State policies while EPA assesses chemicals for safety. We opposed the bill as introduced because that was the case. Since then, we worked together with Senators Udall, Vitter, and Inhofe to restore the ability of States to protect their citizens while EPA is assessing chemicals by substantially shrinking the interim period of time where preemption occurs and by creating a straightforward waiver process.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

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

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, one of the brightest bright spots at the Paris climate talks last week was the robust corporate presence. Leading businesses and executives from around the world were there in Paris to voice their support for a strong international climate agreement. That brings me here today for the now 122nd time to say that it is time for America's leading corporations and their lobbyists to bring that same message here to Washington to help Congress wake up. Let me use an example of two of the good guys. The two biggest drinks companies in America are Coca-Cola and PepsiCo. Coke and Pepsi both signed this public letter urging strong climate action in Paris: Dear U.S. and global leaders: Now is the time to meaningfully address the reality of climate change. We are asking you to embrace the opportunity presented to you in Paris. . . . We are ready to meet the climate challenges that face our businesses. Please join us in meeting the climate challenges that face the world. And it is not just that public letter; Coca-Cola's Web site says it will reduce CO2 emissions by 25 percent and that to do so, ``Coca-Cola will work to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions across its value chain, making comprehensive carbon footprint reductions across its manufacturing processes, packaging formats, delivery fleet, refrigeration equipment and ingredient sourcing.'' Coca-Cola also says: ``We continue to partner with peer companies, bottling partners, NGOs, governments and others in addressing our greenhouse gas emissions and encouraging progress in response to climate change.'' Pepsi's Web site heralds what it calls ``its commitment to action on climate change'' and announces that it has signed both the Ceres BICEP Climate Declaration in the United States and the Prince of Wales's Corporate Leaders Group Trillion Tonne Communique in the UK. These commitments, they say, ``are part of PepsiCo's overall strategy to address climate change by working across its business and with global leaders.'' Here is Indra Nooyi, chairman and CEO of PepsiCo: Combating climate change is absolutely critical to the future of our company, customers, consumers--and our world. I believe all of us need to take action now. I have corresponded with these companies about climate change, and here is what they have said in their letters to me. In March 2013, Coke said: We recognize that climate change is a critical challenge facing our planet, with potential impacts on biodiversity, water resources, public health, and agriculture. Beyond the effects on the communities we serve, we view climate change as a potential business risk, understanding that it could likely have direct and indirect effects on our business. As a responsible global company, with operations in more than 200 countries, we have a role to play in climate protection. . . . Then in May 2014: The Coca-Cola Company has strongly stated that climate change is happening and the implications of climate change for our planet are profound and wide-ranging. It is our belief that climate change may have long-term direct and indirect implications for our business and supply chain and we recognize that sustainability is core to our long-term value. . . . Climate protection is a key component of our business strategy. In August of this year: Coca-Cola joined twelve other corporations at the White House pledging our support for the American Business Act on Climate [Pledge]. Climate protection has been a key focus of Coca-Cola for decades. In a letter of February 2013, Pepsi said: PepsiCo applauds your efforts to address climate change by focusing Congressional attention on the issue. . . . At PepsiCo, we recognize the adverse impacts that greenhouse gas emissions have on global temperatures, weather patterns, and the frequency and severity of extreme weather and natural disasters. These impacts may have significant implications for our company. . . . Accordingly, responding to climate change is integrated into PepsiCo's business strategy. In September of this year, Pepsi wrote: We look forward to providing further support on the ``Road to Paris''--demonstrating that actions by business in climate are not only good for the environment, but good for business. That is all great stuff. Here is where it gets a little strange. Coke and Pepsi have a trade association, the American Beverage Association, that lobbies for the soft drink industry, and they also support the business lobbying group, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Indeed, the American Beverage Association sits on the board of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and contributes to it a lot of money. Here is the official position of the American Beverage Association on climate change from its Web site: Each of America's beverage companies has set goals to lower our emissions over time while continually improving efficiency. And our companies have pledged to work with government leaders, environmental organizations, and other businesses to ensure these emission reductions are happening throughout the United States. They even have the Beverage Industry Environmental Roundtable. But do they lobby us about this in Congress? I have never seen any sign of it. When the American Beverage Association thought Congress might impose a soda tax to fund health care, then they lobbied like crazy--nearly $30 million worth of lobbying expenditure. They know how to lobby when they want to. But on climate, I have never seen it. As for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, everyone in Congress knows that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is dead set against Congress doing anything serious about climate change. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is a very powerful lobby group, and its power in Congress is fully dedicated to stopping any serious climate legislation. They are implacable adversaries of climate action, and we see their hostility everywhere. At one point, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce wrote to me to say I mischaracterized its position on climate change. ``Even a cursory review of our stated views on climate change,'' wrote Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Tom Donahue, ``shows that the Chamber is not debating the existence of climate change or that human activity plays a role.'' Well and good, but here is what I wrote back. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record my full letter at the end of my remarks. I wrote back: I am in politics in Washington, and I see the behavior of your organization firsthand. There is no way to reconcile what I see in real life around me with the assurances in your letter that you treat the climate problem in any way seriously. I then offered a list of the many ways the U.S. Chamber of Commerce actively opposes climate legislation and concluded: In every practical way in which your organization brings pressure to bear on the American political process, I see you bringing it to bear in line with the big carbon polluters and the climate denial industry. And given the powerful and relentless way in which you bring that pressure to bear on our system in the service of your own First Amendment rights, I hope you will accept that I have the right to express my own views under that same First Amendment. In sum, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has a terrible record on climate change. It is Coke and Pepsi's adversary on getting anything done. So why is Coke and Pepsi's American Beverage Association on the board of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce? The result is that Coke and Pepsi take one position on climate change in their public materials and in Paris and throughout their internal corporate effort, but here in Congress, where the rubber meets the road on legislating and where the lobbying meets our legislative efforts, their lobbying agencies don't support their position. I actually wonder how well they know in the executive suites of Coke and Pepsi that their position is not supported by the lobbying effort they support. Let me be clear. I am not here to ask that companies such as Coke and Pepsi take a different position on climate change than what they believe. I am here to ask companies to line up their advocacy in Congress with what they believe. My ask is simple: Match your advocacy in Congress with your policy. Don't outsource your advocacy to entities that take the opposite position from you--not on an issue of this magnitude. This is too important an issue for great American companies to say one thing when they are talking to the public and have their lobbying agencies say something completely different when they come to Congress. I have asked Coke and Pepsi about this discrepancy between their policy and these organizations' advocacy, and here is what they say. From Pepsi: The Chamber is an important partner for PepsiCo on critical tax and trade matters. However, our positions on climate change have diverged. From Coke: The Coca-Cola Company belongs to a wide range of organizations through which we gain different perspectives on global and national issues; however these groups do not speak on our behalf. Well, if their positions have diverged and these organizations don't speak for them on this issue, why keep supporting one of the leading political opponents of meaningful climate action? If you insist on supporting the entities that lobby against you on climate change, then the question becomes this: What are you doing in Congress to lobby back? What are your countermeasures to dispel the voice of these agencies that you are supporting? Climate change is not just any other issue. It is so big an issue that the world's leaders just gathered in Paris to address it in the largest gathering of world leaders in history. It is so big an issue that it has its own page on Coke's and Pepsi's Web sites and, indeed, on the Web sites of most major American corporations. It is so big an issue that 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.'' Around here in Congress, the bullying menace of the fossil fuel industry is everywhere. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is their vocal advocate. If companies such as Coke and Pepsi don't push back against this group that they fund, that choice has real consequences here. That choice says to Congress: ``This issue isn't really serious to us.'' That choice says to the individual Members over here: ``If you cross the fossil fuel boys, don't count on us to have your back.'' I recently received a letter from ExxonMobil. It says: ExxonMobil has for a number of years held the view that a ``revenue-neutral carbon tax'' is the best option. . . . [A] carbon tax could help create the conditions to reduce greenhouse emissions in a way that spurs new efficiencies and new technologies. This is ExxonMobil. The revenue-neutral carbon tax could be a workable policy framework for countries around the world--and the policy most likely to preserve the ability of every sector of society to seek out new efficiencies and new technologies. ExxonMobil may say that in their letter, but let me say as the author of the Senate's revenue-neutral carbon-fee bill, I can assure you that bill is getting zero support from ExxonMobil. ExxonMobil is playing a double game, with statements such as they made in the letter to me on the one hand, but on the other hand all of its massive lobbying clout directed against doing anything serious on climate. I suggest that it is the same with the other companies. They may have enough happy talk about climate change being serious to get them through a cocktail party at Davos, but the full weight of their industry lobbying leverage, through the Chamber and the American Petroleum Institute and a slew of other front groups, is leaned in hard against climate legislation, including revenue-neutral carbon fees. We should perhaps expect better of them. But we should certainly expect better of other companies that don't have ExxonMobil's massive conflict of interest. To be fair to Coke and Pepsi, they are not alone. Congress is heavily influenced by corporations. That is no news flash. What my colleagues here all know is that virtually zero of that corporate influence is brought to bear in support of climate action. Even companies with good internal climate policies, even companies that are leaders in what they are doing within their companies and within their supply chains on climate change shy away from this issue in Congress. The result is that, on one side, the fossil fuel industry maintains a desperate grip on Congress to stop any climate action. They lean on Congress hard to get their way. On the other side, the rest of corporate America has virtually nothing to say in Congress on climate change. Maybe they do on their Web sites, maybe in their public relations, certainly through their sustainability departments, and in some cases from their CEOs. But from their lobbyists and from the trade associations and the lobbying organizations that represent them here in Congress, the silence is deafening. The corporate effort in Congress to get something done on climate change rounds to zero. I am in Congress, and I am here to say we need you guys to show up. I get that it is never convenient to stand up to bullies. It is always easier if they just go away, but the fossil fuel bullies are not going away. So it is either stand up to them or keep letting them roll Congress. If what Coke and Pepsi and other corporations say publicly are the things they really believe, then it should be important to them that Congress not get rolled by the guys who are working against what they believe. This should not be too big an ask for the corporations that stood up in Paris: Do the same thing in Congress. Do the same thing in Congress. Do the simplest and truest of things: Stand up for what you believe. It is time to wake up, but it is also time to stand up, and what a difference you will make. Mr. President, I yield the floor.