Sheldon Whitehouse

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that morning business be extended until 7 p.m., with all other provisions remaining in effect.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I am pleased to offer my sincere congratulations to Olivia Culpo, a native of Cranston, RI, on being crowned Miss Universe. After being crowned Miss Rhode Island USA in her first ever pageant competition last year, Olivia's rise to Miss Universe has been nothing short of meteoric. In quick succession she became the first Rhode Islander to ever win the Miss USA competition, and is now the first Miss USA to win the Miss Universe pageant in over a decade. She has made the people of our State very proud. The Miss Universe title is an acknowledgement of Olivia's exceptional intelligence, talent, and compassion. She was recognized by the National Honor Society for her academic excellence at Rhode Island's St. Mary's Academy Bay View. She currently attends Boston University in neighboring Massachusetts, where she has made the dean's list every semester. In addition to excelling in her studies, Olivia is a talented and dedicated musician. From a young age, her love for music was cultivated by her proud parents, Peter and Susan Culpo, themselves musicians. She took cello lessons from second grade on, and has since performed with the Rhode Island Philharmonic Youth Orchestra, Rhode Island Philharmonic Chamber Ensemble, Bay View Orchestra, and Rhode Island All State Orchestra. This self-described cellist nerd has also had the honor of performing at Boston Symphony Hall and at Carnegie Hall in New York City, and she completed a tour of England in 2010. Olivia has already demonstrated a strong drive to make a difference in her community and her country. Earlier this year, I had the opportunity to meet with Olivia here in my Washington office, where she advocated passionately for Federal support of ovarian cancer research. I share her deep concern about the terrible effects of cancer. She is a valuable ally in the search for a cure. Olivia has given the Ocean State something to be proud of. I am grateful to Olivia Culpo for the example she sets for our children and for being a stellar and faithful representative of the State of Rhode Island on the world stage. I wish her all the best.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, let me yield back to my senior Senator to move to his other issue. But let me also say what a pleasure and a privilege it has been to work with him in our shared determination to see that this amendment is made--this very reasonable amendment that will add no additional spending and will expand the reach of adolescent and child psychiatry in this country. He has been terrific to work with. It is always a pleasure and privilege to have Senator Reed as my senior Senator, but this has been a particularly good occasion of working together. With that, I yield back to my senior Senator.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, Senator Reed and I want to speak briefly, and unless the leader has arrived, we will return the Senate to a quorum call at the conclusion of the remarks by Senator Reed and myself. And it is gratifying that the Senator from Pennsylvania is presiding. Yesterday, I requested that the cloakroom hotline Senator Casey's Children's Hospital Graduate Medical Education Support Reauthorization Act, S. 958, with an amendment important to Rhode Island and to the country regarding growing our mental health care pediatric workforce. My amendment would make resources available to increase the number of residents trained in child and adolescent psychiatry. Senator Casey's-- the Presiding Officer's--bill and my amendment have the unanimous support of my caucus and I believe have very broad support in the Republican caucus as well. Unfortunately, there has been an objection to my unanimous consent request, so I am very disappointed that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are not able to clear this particular bill. I am also disappointed that none of the Republicans who object to this measure have approached me or my staff with their concerns--none of them. If it is just one, then he or she has not. If it is more than one, none of them have. I was prepared to come to the floor today and make a live unanimous consent request to find out exactly where the objections to this amendment lie. But, instead, I will urge my Republican colleagues to work with me and with Senator Casey of Pennsylvania to reach consensus on this important measure. The CHGME program should be reauthorized. Since its enactment in 1999, the program has helped address the need for more pediatric specialists. But there is a gap in the field of child and adolescent psychiatry. The American Psychiatric Association concluded this year that ``targeted efforts must be made to encourage medical training and residency in the subspecialties of child and adolescent psychiatry. . . . '' I gather my time is very brief, so I am going to yield to Senator Reed very shortly, but I do want to thank Senator Casey and Senator Isakson for their patience and their hard work. The amendment I have proposed and Senator Reed of Rhode Island has proposed is an amendment that does not add any additional spending. It stays within the existing budgetary limit. It confines the amount available for child and adolescent psychiatry to less than 1 percent of the total. I believe it is a very sensible measure, particularly in the wake of the tragedy in Newtown, CT. The idea that there is not room for further attention to child mental health and psychiatry and adolescent mental health and psychiatry seems to me to be an unfortunate outcome. Bradley Hospital in Rhode Island would be a beneficiary of this. They are a particularly good hospital in a great number of settings. As I said, I know time is short, so I will yield the remaining moments of our time to Senator Reed.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I will close the colloquy by thanking Senator Mikulski for her leadership, support, and her key role on the Appropriations Committee. I want to thank Senator Kerry of Massachusetts for his leadership on the original disaster declarations that brought us to this point. I want to thank Senator Shaheen of New Hampshire for pulling this colloquy together. Thank you to Senator Begich for his advocacy on that other coast. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 U.S. Senate, Washington, DC, December 11, 2012. Hon. Barbara A. Mikulski, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, & Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Chairwoman Mikulski and Ranking Member Hutchison: We are writing in support of including federal fisheries disaster funding in any emergency supplemental appropriations bill developed in response to Superstorm Sandy. Over the past year, extreme weather and other natural events have wreaked havoc on commercial and recreational fishermen in our states, leading the Secretary of Commerce to declare federal fisheries disasters. Despite these declarations and the ongoing hardship, Congress has not yet appropriated funds. As you know, the Secretary of Commerce is authorized to declare federal fisheries disasters under Section 308(d) of the Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act and Section 315 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. These designations allow Congress to appropriate federal relief funds to alleviate the harm caused by natural disasters to fisheries and the fishing industry. The disaster assistance funds can be used to repair or restore fishing equipment and infrastructure, compensate for losses, restore fisheries habitat, support workforce education, provide low- interest loans, and conduct monitoring and cooperative research focused on improving stock assessments. Currently, federal fisheries disasters have been declared in nine states in response to four different events: Superstorm Sandy--On November 16, 2012, a federal fisheries disaster was declared for New Jersey and New York due to the damage caused by Superstorm Sandy. The high winds and storm surge devastated marinas, destroyed fishing vessels, and resulted in severe economic losses for both commercial and recreational fishermen. Northeast Multispecies (Groundfish) Fishery--On September 13, 2012, a federal fisheries disaster was declared for Rhode Island, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, and Connecticut. The projected reductions in the total allowable catch for certain critical groundfish stocks will have a significant impact on many of the same coastal communities that were hit by Sandy. Despite strict adherence to new and rigorous management practices by fishermen, key fish stocks have not returned. Slow recovery and declining fish stocks will continue to have a negative impact on commercial fishing, harming local communities and economies. Alaska Chinook--On September 12, 2012, a federal fisheries disaster was declared for Alaska Chinook salmon fisheries in the Yukon River, Kuskokwim River, and Cook Inlet. Thousands of Alaskans have been impacted including commercial fishermen, sport fishermen, and subsistence-based residents. Beyond direct impacts, indirect impacts have been felt by communities through reduced tax revenue, reduced work for processor employees, and reduced income for fishery dependent businesses. Mississippi Oyster and Blue Crab--On September 12, 2012, a federal fisheries disaster was declared for commercial oyster and blue crab fisheries in Mississippi. Historic flooding of the lower Mississippi River required opening of the Bonnet Cane Spillway on May 9, 2011. This action released substantial amounts of freshwater into the Mississippi Sound, impacting the entire ecosystem. Mississippi's oyster and blue crab fisheries were extensively damaged, resulting in severe economic hardship for commercial fishermen still recovering from the devastating impacts of Hurricane Katrina and the BP oil spill. Fishing is an integral part of our states' economies and cultures. These disasters have devastated fishing families and coastal communities and there is an urgent need to provide federal assistance. We urge you to move swiftly to appropriate funds for these federal fisheries disaster declarations. Sincerely, Frank R. Lautenberg, SusanM. Collins, Robert Menendez, Lisa Murkowski, Jack Reed, Roger F. Wicker, Charles E. Schumer, John F. Kerry, Mark Begich, Kirsten E. Gillibrand, Scott Brown, Jeane Shaheen, Sheldon Whitehouse, Olympia J. Snowe.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. It is signed by 35 Republicans and 9 Democrats. It could not be more bipartisan. We are trying to deal with a real problem here, and it is a recurring problem. Our historic New England ground fiduciary is facing significant cuts in our catch limits because our populations are not rebounding the way that scientists anticipated they would. Something out there is causing this failure to rebound and unprecedented environmental changes very related to the environmental changes that whip up giant storms like Sandy are at the heart of this. One last quote, and then I will yield back to my colleagues who are engaged in this colloquy. Where we are is a big body of water called the Northeast Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem which is tracked by NOAA, and it extends from the Gulf of Maine all the way down to Cape Hatteras on our Atlantic coast. Here is what NOAA reports: During the first six months of 2012, sea surface temperatures in the Northeast Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem were the highest ever recorded . . . above-average temperatures were found in all parts of the ecosystem, from the ocean bottom to the sea surface and across the region. There is a real physical rationale and reason for the disaster that we are seeking a remedy for in our home State industries that are being so grievously stricken.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. It is not just the fishermen coming home with empty nets because the cod moved offshore, it is the fuel suppliers to their boats, the engine repair shops that take care of the mechanics, the net repair and construction groups. So a whole economy stands on this. It is really inconceivable that a Senator from a State that has, as one of a group of five, soaked up $40 billion of disaster assistance would now begrudge us $150 million after this disaster was declared. This is bipartisan. Let me ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter Senator Shaheen mentioned earlier as an exhibit for the end of the colloquy.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Sure.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I would be delighted to agree with the Senator from Massachusetts. On Rhode Island's behalf, our fisheries disaster, as the distinguished Senator from Maryland said, was declared by the Secretary of Commerce. This is not a maybe. This is not trying to sneak something in. This is a declaration of the U.S. Government. It was the New England multispecies groundfish fishery disaster that affected the State of Massachusetts. There was great leadership from Senator Kerry on all of this, as it affected the State of New Hampshire, and great leadership from Senator Shaheen on all of this. Governors of Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, New York, and Connecticut all signed the request for that disaster declaration. In Rhode Island's letter our congressional delegation--myself and my senior Senator, Mr. Reed, Congressman Cicilline, and Congressman Langevin--wrote: In addition to the direct impact on groundfish catch limits, there will likely be indirect impacts on other fisheries that these same permit holders, and many other Rhode Island fisherman, also rely on. To the point Senator Begich of Alaska made, economic disaster in the fishing industry cascades through the rest of our economy.

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

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

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

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

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, in every corner of the globe--from pole to pole, and from the top of our atmosphere to the depths of our oceans--we see evidence of the fundamental changes that are taking place across our Earth. In 2012, North America experienced a number of unusually severe events and passed several ominous milestones. These episodes have driven a shift in attitude--a realization, really, among Americans. As we head home for the holidays this year, each of us is likely to find back in our home States that more and more people are convinced that climate change is happening, and that it is deadly serious. Here are just some of the extraordinary events that occurred as we look back on this year, 2012. January 2012 was the fourth warmest January experienced in the contiguous United States since we began keeping records. And we began keeping records in 1895. By the end of January, snowpack in the Sierra Nevada Mountains was 50 percent less than normal. February 2012 marked the end of the fourth warmest winter on record-- an above-average start to the year but not extremely so. Then this happened: March 2012. March 2012 was the warmest March on record. Every State in the Nation experienced a record daily high temperature in March. There were 21 instances of nighttime temperatures--nighttime temperatures--being as warm or warmer than the existing daytime record temperature. It was also in March that a University of Texas poll asked respondents if they thought climate change was occurring. Madam President, 83 percent of Democrats said yes; 60 percent of Independents said yes; 45 percent of Republicans said yes. As 2012 went on, things did not slow down much for the lower 48 States. April 2012 would become the third warmest April on record. I came to the floor in April to speak about another milestone surpassed that month. For the first time--for the first time--one of NOAA's remote monitoring sites--this one in the Arctic--recorded a concentration of 400 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere, crushing records that go back 8,000 centuries. For 8,000 centuries mankind has inhabited a planet with an atmosphere with carbon concentration being 170 and 300 parts per million. We have broken out of that. For the first time, in April, we hit 400 parts per million. By May, it was no surprise that spring 2012 was a full 2 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than the next warmest spring in recorded history. May was the second warmest ever. June was only the eighth warmest June, but it officially marked the end of the warmest 12-month period the United States of America has ever experienced. Across the lower 48, July was not only the warmest July on record, it was the all-time warmest month in America in recorded history. According to the U.S. Drought Monitor, 62.9 percent of the contiguous U.S. was experiencing moderate to exceptional drought by the end of the month--nearly two-thirds. Madam President, 62.9 percent was experiencing moderate to exceptional drought as a result of this being the all-time warmest month. As the mercury climbed in July, so did agreement among Americans on the crisis of climate change. That University of Texas poll was taken again, and the percentage of Democrats convinced of global climate change had risen to 87 percent in July, up from 83 percent in March. Among Independents, the percentage went from 60 percent up to 72 percent. And Republican believers in climate change became a majority. They went from 45 percent to 53 percent. By August we had experienced the third hottest summer in the history of the continental United States. In the West, 3.6 million acres were ablaze with wildfires--nearly twice the August average, and the most in the 12-year period of record. August also brought bad news from the North. The University of Colorado's National Snow and Ice Data Center and NASA announced that Arctic sea ice had reached a record low area of 1.58 million square miles--nearly 70,000 square miles smaller than the previous modern record low. Over the past three decades, average annual temperatures had increased twice as much over the Arctic as over the rest of the world. The average extent of the Arctic sea ice has declined by 25 to 30 percent in that time, and the rate of decline is accelerating. September 2012. September 2012 was the 16th month in a row that the contiguous United States recorded an above 20th century average temperature. October finally ended that record streak with a temperature across the lower 48 that was 0.3 degrees Fahrenheit below the long-term average. But October also brought us, as the Acting President pro tempore so well knows, Hurricane Sandy, Superstorm Sandy. It was the largest Atlantic hurricane on record, claiming more than 100 lives, and the second costliest. The cleanup in my home State of Rhode Island and across the east coast--I know most agonizingly in New York and New Jersey--is still underway. This week in the Senate we are working to approve a $60 billion aid package which will help restore that damage. Hazard Mitigation Let me step aside of my climate remarks and speak for 1 minute to that because as we consider this supplemental appropriations bill, long-term mitigation must be part of this discussion. We should not replace and rebuild what was damaged just as it was. We need to replace and rebuild smarter. Sandy is a preview of what is to come. Infrastructure that failed or flooded should be replaced to higher standards; at-risk roads, wastewater treatment plants, and other utilities need to be relocated to safer places. If disaster strikes, as it has, and we do not plan ahead, as we are being urged not to, we will squander Federal dollars. A 2005 study by the National Institute of Building Sciences showed FEMA hazard mitigation efforts yielded an average cost-benefit ratio of 4 to 1--$4 saved for every $1 spent. Let's not be foolish. A prime example of this sort of smart planning was in the Acting President pro tempore's home State at Point Lookout, Lido Beach, and Atlantic Beach. These communities invested in sand dune buffers--sand dune habitat buffers. When Sandy came, they suffered relatively little damage compared to nearby Long Beach, which had decided against maintaining a sand dune buffer and ended up with an estimated $200 million in property and infrastructure damage. Coastal wetlands act like sponges during flooding events. They absorb water. They dissipate wave energy. They protect against storm surge. They are an important part of our coastal defenses in coastal States. Natural dune systems on barrier islands and beaches do the same. They are part of our natural defense against coastal storms. These natural defenses must be protected and strengthened for our future safety. And I hope that even Senators who come from landlocked States can appreciate what this means in coastal States. So back to Sandy. While it is impossible to say specifically that climate change caused Superstorm Sandy, we know that warmer oceans, warmer, moister air, and higher sea level all add to the power and danger of these extreme storms. We know that climate change ``loads the dice'' for such storms. Madam President, 2012 marched us past even more portentous milestones. NOAA reported that November 2012 was the 333rd month in a row--the 333rd month in a row--that the global monthly temperature was above the 20th century average. The Earth has not seen a single month below 20th century average temperatures since February of 1985. Some of these interns and pages here were born after that. They have lived their entire lives in that environment. According to the National Climate Data Center, 2012 is set to be the warmest calendar year on record for the contiguous United States. December would have to be one full degree Fahrenheit colder than the coldest December on record to prevent that from happening and make up for the exceptionally hot first 8 months of the year. The overwhelming majority of scientific research indicates that these observed changes in the Earth's atmosphere are the direct result of human activity; namely, the emission of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels. Just last week, Dr. James Powell, former Reagan and George H.W. Bush appointee to the National Science Board, released a new review of the scientific literature, in which he searched for articles that expressly reject human-caused global warming or propose an alternate explanation. He looked at 13,950 peer-reviewed climate articles--nearly 14,000 peer- reviewed climate articles. Madam President, 24--24--either rejected global warming trends or denied the human contribution to warming. I am not even sure if viewers looking at this on C-SPAN can see it, but on this circle pie graph I have in the Chamber, this little red line depicts the 24 articles out of the 14,000. It is a tiny fringe. The science is clear, and more and more Americans accept that the science is clear behind climate change. An AP poll out just last week found that 78 percent of Americans accept the reality of climate change. The findings, like the University of Texas poll, break it down by political party: 83 percent of Democrats, 77 percent of Independents, and 70 percent of Republicans. So the real debate in this country is not whether humans are altering our climate but how severely we will do so and how as a society we will respond to this challenge. Although some Members of this Chamber continue to deny the existence of climate change, Americans are aware that our Nation is vulnerable to extreme weather events. They are aware that climate change loads the dice. They are aware that carbon pollution continues unabated, and they are aware that Congress has failed to act. The public is ready for us to take action, but we are not. We are, as I have said in a previous speech, sleepwalking. As Congress sleepwalks, Americans actually are taking action on their own. In coordination with the nonprofit organization 350.org, for example, students at more than 150 colleges and universities across the country are pressing those institutions to sell off the portions of their endowment portfolios that are invested in fossil fuel companies. These students are imploring their schools to weigh the real cost of climate change against the drive for greater financial returns and divest from the polluters. This type of divestment campaign was employed effectively in the 1980s to pull investment from South Africa during apartheid. With American college and university endowments estimated to total more than $400 billion, this movement by students deserves significant attention. In the Senate key legislation such as the Water Resources Development Act must reflect the reality that our climate and environment are changing, that we need to prepare for these changes. We should take direct legislative action to mitigate climate change. We should defend the administration's carbon pollution standards which will require new and existing powerplants to clean up their smokestacks. The United States must support the Department of Defense, the world's single largest consumer of oil, as a leader in energy efficiency and alternative fuel development for our national security sake. We must extend the production tax credit as our colleague, Senator Mark Udall of Colorado, has so often and so eloquently pressed us to do. The American Wind Energy Association is pushing for a 6-year extension of the production tax credit to grow a vibrant wind power industry in America. A greener economy provides a cleaner and safer future for Americans. More Americans already work in the green industries than in the fossil fuels industry. A Brookings Institution report found the clean economy employs 2.7 million workers. That is manufacturing and exports, the kind of jobs that support a strong middle class. But in Congress we are sleepwalking through history. We are sleepwalking through history, and we must wake up; awaken to our duties, awaken to our responsibilities, awaken to the plain facts that lay all around us if only we would open our eyes and see them. The public has every reason to want to grab us and give us a good shake. We are sleepwalking through this era, lulled as we sleepwalk by the narcotics of corporate money, corporate money out of the polluters and their allies. We are lulled by the narcotics of manufactured doubt planted in a campaign of disinformation by those same polluters and allies. But history is calling us loudly and clearly. History is shouting in our ears. We are oblivious, sleepwalking along. The people across the country and around the world are counting on us. They are imploring us. We have responsibilities to them. Yet in Congress, we ignore the facts. We ignore our duties. We sleepwalk on. It is irresponsible and it is wrong. I yield the floor.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, today the State of Hawai`i, the Senate, and the United States mourn the loss of Senator Daniel Inouye. Observers of the Senate today know Chairman Inouye as a poised, soft- spoken statesman: courteous and collegiate; shunning of the spotlight; above the petty churn of the partisan fray. But historians will remember him as a great patriot, a fierce warrior, a brave pioneer, and a great leader. Chairman Inouye's unflinching commitment to his country withstood both the moral threat of having his family deemed ``enemy aliens'' and the direct physical threat of Nazi firepower. His famed ``Go For Broke'' 442nd Regimental Combat Team was made up of Japanese-American volunteers, but even among this exceptionally decorated group of men, Second Lieutenant Inouye exemplified exceptional bravery and sacrifice in what Winston Churchill described as the war ``to confront not only military but moral aggression.'' The fight to see the American values of freedom, justice, and equality fulfilled would continue beyond the war years and throughout Chairman Inouye's lifetime of service to his home state and his country. The new State of Hawai`i sent him to Washington as part of its very first delegation. The first Japanese American elected to Congress, he has been a champion of civil rights for women, Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians, and African Americans. Indeed, Chairman Inouye was the last surviving member of the Senate to have voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He also ferreted out corruption at the highest level of government, serving on the Senate's select committee on the Watergate scandal, and chairing the investigation of the Iran-Contra arms affair. But Dan Inouye was first and foremost a servant of the people of Hawai`i. Ever grateful for the faith they entrusted in him year after year, he worked to make sure they had every opportunity to achieve the full potential of the American Dream. I was honored that he joined me as an original member of the Senate Oceans Caucus, and as a cosponsor of my bill to establish a National Endowment for the Oceans to protect the environment and economies that are so vital to both his home State and my own. As his colleague and compatriot Senator Daniel Akaka said on the Senate floor in those first hours after we received the terrible news of Chairman Inouye's passing, ``He fulfilled his dream of creating a better Hawai`i.'' His wife Irene, his son Ken, his daughter-in-law Jessica, his stepdaughter Jennifer, and his granddaughter Maggie can all be proud of that legacy. My thoughts are with them in this, their time of loss. As the old hymn tells us: Now the laborer's task is o'er; Now the battle day is past; Now upon the farther shore Lands the voyager at last. Aloha, Dan Inouye.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I rise today in support of S. 1792, the Strengthening Investigations of Sex Offenders and Missing Children Act of 2011. This legislation, which is cosponsored by Senators Sessions, Feinstein, Schumer, Klobuchar, and Blumenthal, as well as Chairman Leahy of the Judiciary Committee, would clarify the authority of the U.S. Marshals to help track down sex offenders and missing children. It is a simple and common sense of piece of legislation. I urge my fellow Senators to support it, with the hope that our colleagues in the House will soon send it to the President's desk to be signed into law. As my colleagues know, time is of the essence when children go missing. Of those children who are abducted and subsequently murdered, 74% are killed within 3 hours of being abducted. The U.S. Marshals Service has extensive experience with and sophisticated tools for quickly identifying and tracking down fugitives and missing individuals. Notably, the U.S. Marshals Service has substantial resources for finding the fugitive sex offenders who too often are involved in child abductions. As a result, state and local law enforcement and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children often call on the marshals to assist in the event that a child goes missing. This bill would make it clear that, upon request, the U.S. Marshals are allowed to assist in investigating these cases, even if an arrest warrant has not yet issued. The bill also clarifies the Marshals Service's authority to assist other law enforcement agencies, upon request, in investigating sex offender cases. I thank Senator Sessions for working with me on this important legislation, and my fellow Judiciary Committee members Senators Feinstein, Schumer, Klobuchar, and Blumenthal for supporting the bill. I also would like to thank Chairman Leahy for cosponsoring the bill and for his leadership, both generally with respect to all his work to keep our children safe from predators and specifically for moving this piece of legislation through Committee. I am confident that every member of the Senate will understand the clear and simple principle behind this legislation and the important threat to our children that it addresses. The bill was reported by a voice vote of the Judiciary Committee, I am aware of no concerns or opposition, and I would urge my colleagues to ensure its prompt passage by the Senate. I yield the floor.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I rise in support of S. 1793, the Investigative Assistance for Violent Crimes Act of 2012, which I introduced. This commonsense bill clarifies that--upon the request of appropriate State and local law enforcement officials--select Federal law enforcement agencies may use their unique capabilities to help investigate and respond to mass killings and other violent crimes. The measure will provide important clarity to Federal law enforcement officers who are called on by State and local counterparts to assist in response to a mass shooting or other violent crime at a college campus, shopping mall, office building, or other public place. Currently, the FBI and select other Federal agencies often provide requested assistance to State and local law enforcement in these types of cases. The absence of an explicit authorizing statute, however, has created concern that agents responding to these violent crimes could be held liable even though their only goal was to protect the public. This bill makes sure that the FBI, other law enforcement components at the Justice Department, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the Secret Service can provide State and local law enforcement officers with assistance when so requested. In so doing, it will help State and law enforcement protect victims and solve these terrible crimes. The bill does not expand the jurisdiction of Federal law enforcement agencies. Assistance from a Federal agency must be requested by the State or local authority and agreed to by Federal authorities. And the bill does not impose new criminal penalties or regulations. The House passed a companion measure, H.R. 207, last year by a vote of 358 to 9. The Senate bill was reported out of the Judiciary Committee last November, and I thank Chairman Leahy for his leadership in moving this legislation through Committee. Since then, I have worked with Chairman Leahy, Senator Grassley, Chairman Smith of the House Judiciary Committee, and Representative Gowdy to improve the bill, and we have reached an agreement that is reflected in a substitute amendment. I urge colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this measure, so we can ensure that our dedicated law enforcement officials can respond to and solve these tragic crimes. 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 as in morning business.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I yield to the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the Senator from Vermont.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Before the junior Senator from North Dakota speaks-- and I appreciate his courtesy in allowing us to make a few brief, personal remarks before he speaks--I wanted to say to my friend and my chairman, the senior Senator from North Dakota, that, yes, in the most obvious respect, he is leaving the Senate, and we will be a smaller Senate for his departure. But in some very important ways, Kent Conrad is not leaving the Senate. I can assure him that for as long as I remain a U.S. Senator and have the privilege to serve in this body, Kent Conrad will remain in this Senate as an example that I will never forget as a young Senator tutored by him in the Budget Committee. I can speak for myself when I say that, and I will only speak for myself when I say that, but I am absolutely confident there are dozens of other Members of this body who can say exactly the same thing. In that sense, Kent Conrad will continue to be an important part of this Senate, and the effect he will have in those years through the example he has set, echoed down the hallways of time by people who had the opportunity to serve with him, is going to be an immensely valuable one. He displays the characteristics of diligence--an underrated attribute but an important one--of courtesy, of determination. It is an interesting combination, courtesy and determination, but Chairman Conrad knows very well when to yield and when to fight. There was a politician hundreds of years ago in another country who said, ``One ought not to be obstinate,'' and then he continued, ``unless one ought to be, and then one ought to be unshakable.'' On the things that count, Senator Conrad has always been unshakable. Where progress can be made, he has never been obstinate. It has been my honor to serve with him. I yield the floor.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate continue in morning business until 7 p.m.

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

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, there are many signs of the fundamental, measurable changes we are causing in the Earth's climate, mainly through our large-scale emission of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels. These are irreversible changes, at least in the short run, so we should take them very seriously. Over the last 250 years, the global annual average concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased from 280 parts per million to 390 parts per million. That is a 30-percent increase. We have recent direct measurements that the carbon dioxide concentration increased by 15 percent since 1980 when it was 339. In 1980 it was 339 and now it is 390. That is just a dozen years in which the concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere has increased by more than 50 parts per million. Fifty parts per million is a big shift if one is not aware of the scales we are talking about here. For 8,000 centuries--800,000 years--longer than homo sapiens have existed on the face of the Earth, we can measure that the carbon concentration in the atmosphere has fluctuated between 170 and 300 parts per million. A total range of 130 parts per million has been the total range for 8,000 centuries. We are now outside of that range up to 390, and we have moved 50 points since 1980, in a number of decades. So the consequences are going to be profound, and perhaps no consequence of that carbon pollution will be as profound as the increasing acidification of the world's oceans. Science, of course, has known since the Civil War era, and most of us understand, that excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere creates a warmer atmosphere known as the greenhouse effect. There is nothing new about that. But not all of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activity--by our use of fossil fuels--stays in the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is soluble in water and the oceans cover 70 percent of the Earth. Where the atmosphere is in contact with the oceans, a portion of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere dissolves into the oceans, reacts with the sea water to form carbonic acid and increases the overall acidity of the oceans. There is sometimes quarrel and debate about complex modeling of climate and atmospheric projections, but evidence of ocean acidification is simple to measure and understand. Indeed, even the small noisy chorus of climate change deniers and corporate polluters is noticeably quiet on the issue of ocean acidification because they simply cannot explain away the facts. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientists gauge that over the past 200 years, hundreds of billions of tons of carbon dioxide have been absorbed into the oceans. NASA, which is able to put, for instance, a man on the Moon and a Rover on Mars and has reasonably good scientists working there who can accomplish those achievements, reports that: The amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the upper layer of the oceans is increasing by about 2 billion tons per year. NOAA scientists say the oceans are taking up about 1 million tons of carbon dioxide per hour. So in more or less the time my remarks are concluded, the equivalent of more than the weight of the Washington Monument of carbon will have been dumped into our oceans. All of the extra carbon dioxide humans have pumped into the oceans has caused the global pH of the upper ocean water to change--a nearly 30-percent increase in the acidity of the oceans. As my colleagues can see, the curve is not only moving upward but is steepening. Where is it headed? By the end of this century, it is projected we will have a 160-percent rise in ocean acidity. As we can see, not only are the oceans becoming more acidic, but they are becoming more acidic at a very rapid pace. The rate of change in ocean acidity is already thought to be faster than at any time in the past 50 million years. I talk, when I give this weekly speech from time to time, about the 800,000 years our planet has had a carbon dioxide concentration between 170 and 300 parts per million and how long a time period that is compared to say humankind having the mastery of fire, humankind having engaged in agriculture, humankind even existing as homo sapiens. It is longer than all of those things. But that is just measuring in the hundreds of thousands of years. We are talking about a rate of increased carbon concentration and ocean acidity climbing faster than at any time in the past 50 million years. What does that mean? Well, a paper published in the journal Science, which is a mainstream, noncrank publication, earlier this year concluded that the current rate of carbon dioxide emission could drive chemical changes in our oceans that are unparalleled in at least the last 300 million years. We are back into geologic time now since we saw that kind of an effect. The authors warn that we may be ``entering an unknown territory of marine ecosystem change.'' Well, when our range of review is in the hundreds of millions of years and the authors are talking about entering unknown territory, that is really saying something. Here is what Dr. Peter Brewer, the senior scientist at the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute, has to say. Let me quote him: The outcome is very clear that we are in uncharted territory in the entire span of Earth history. The primary cause of this is simply the rate of CO2 change; we are changing Earth far, far faster than any recorded geologic shift ever. Repeat: ``We are changing Earth far, far faster than any recorded geologic shift ever.'' What does this mean for marine life? Well, as the pH of sea water drops, so does the saturation of calcium carbonate, which is the compound found in the sea water that aquatic animals use for the construction of their shells and of their skeletons. Some sea creatures absorb calcium carbonate directly from the water; others ingest it as food and then through their bodies it works out to build their shells. At lower saturations of calcium carbonate, calcium carbonate is not as available to these species, and it becomes more difficult for them to make their shells; species such as oysters, crabs, lobsters, corals, and the plankton that comprises the very base of the oceanic food web. We have seen this happen in real life already with the disaster that befell the Pacific Northwest oyster hatcheries when acidic water came in and killed off all the juveniles that were being grown. Over 1 billion people on this planet rely on marine protein as their primary source of protein, and then, of course, there are the countless jobs that depend on fisheries, on tourism, on restaurants, boat building, maintenance, shipping, and the list goes on. The Presiding Officer is from Maryland, which is another ocean State. He is clearly aware of the importance of that ocean economy. As things get harder for the species to survive and thrive, sooner or later it will get harder for the economies they support. Let me give my colleagues a specific example: the tiny pteropod, a type of snail, which is about the size of a very small pea. It is also known as the sea butterfly because its foot has adapted into two butterfly-like wings which allows it to propel itself around in the ocean. These images show what can happen to the pteropod's shell when the creature's underwater environment is lacking in those compounds and becomes more acidic. That is not good for the pteropods. Another study compared pteropods incubated in sea water with today's pH to pteropods incubated in water with the acidity and chemical conditions projected for the year 2100. The study found a 28-percent decrease in shell growth. Maintaining their shells against that acidity requires energy--energy that would otherwise go into other biologic processes such as growth or reproduction. So increasing ocean acidity is an external stress that makes it harder for species such as the pteropod to survive. Who cares about the lowly pteropod? Well, salmon do. Forty-seven percent of the diet of some salmon species in the Pacific is pteropods. The salmon fisheries that support coastal jobs and economies also care about the salmon. Ocean fishing in the United States overall is a multibillion-dollar industry connected to hundreds of thousands of livelihoods, and we should care about our fisheries industry, even if one doesn't care about the salmon or the lowly pteropod. These unprecedented changes in ocean acidity are not happening alone, unfortunately. These changes come along with dramatically changing ocean temperature, which is also driven by the same carbon pollution. Just recently, NOAA proposed listing 66 species of coral as endangered or threatened, citing climate change as the driver of those species' three key threats: disease, warmer seas, and greater ocean acidification. When you add to those three conditions the preexisting stressors, such as nutrient pollution and destructive fishing practices, well, 35 percent of the world's reefs are classified as in a critical or threatened stage. Scientific projections indicate that coral reef ecosystems could be eliminated in 30 to 50 years. The young pages who are on the floor of the Senate listening to this speech may very well live into a time when coral reefs and the ecosystems surrounding them are extinct. The death and decline of coral reefs, which are the most diverse ecosystems on the planet, in turn wounds hundreds of other species that call the reefs home. When a reef ecosystem collapses and does not recover, it quickly becomes dominated by algae, and the rich mix of species developed over hundreds of millions of years that was once present there then disappears. Scientists think the coral reefs off the coast of Papua, New Guinea offer a window into future effects of ocean acidification because there are natural emissions of carbon dioxide which bubble up from the sea floor through the ocean and raise the concentration making the sea water more acidic. Researchers have found that many species, especially the more complex framework-building corals, which provide shelter to other organisms, do not thrive where the pH is lower. These are two photographs taken in the same reef. We see how rich and vibrant this reef looks away from the carbon dioxide. Here, near the carbon, where the acidification is higher, it is a shadow of the healthy reef. The human-driven acidification of the ocean is capable of causing--indeed is destined to cause if we do nothing--a serious imbalance in the ocean's complex ecology. The external stress of carbon pollution will result in a new equilibrium in ocean ecosystems. When we consider what this portends for our food security, for our planet's biodiversity and economically for ocean-based industries, we cannot afford to ignore these changes that are happening, that are measurable in our oceans. Unfortunately, ignoring it is exactly what we are doing by failing to curb carbon pollution. There are high stakes involved. Our oceans cover 70 percent of the planet. We cannot change their chemistry without expecting profound consequences. It is time we realize we are, in fact, part of the very food chain being disrupted by the mounting acidification of the ocean. The disruption of international fishing due to climate change and acidification threatens to destabilize local and global economies and compromise a major basic food source. How much? How much are we willing to sacrifice for the luxury of letting corporate polluters foul our planet with unchecked CO2 emissions? Carbon pollution from fossil fuels is depleting the health of the oceans as well as affecting the atmosphere. Unless we take serious action to reverse course, the consequences may be dire. We are sleepwalking through history. I implore my colleagues to heed the clear and persistent warnings that nature is giving us: to acknowledge the responsibility presented to us in this moment and to respond appropriately before it is too late. I yield the floor.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, last week I came to the floor and spoke about our Nation's military and intelligence leaders acknowledging, along with our Nation's scientific leaders, the clear evidence that carbon pollution is changing our climate. Unfortunately, there continues to be some confusion among many Americans regarding the clear scientific consensus, but that is confusion caused by coordinated and deliberate attempts to mislead the American people. For more than two decades now, the climate denial movement has been well-organized and funded by the fossil fuel industry and conservative ideologues and foundations. The mission of these paid-for deniers is to ``manufacture uncertainty,'' to manufacture doubt so the polluters can keep on polluting. This isn't a new strategy. We have seen self-serving strategies such as this before. These strategies questioned the merits of requiring seat belts in cars. They questioned CFCs causing deterioration of the ozone layer. They questioned the toxic effects of lead exposure for children. They questioned whether tobacco was really bad for people-- the same strategy to manufacture doubt, and often, actually, the same cast of characters was involved. While the Congress of the United States has been distracted and deceived by these ploys, climate change marches on. The laws of chemistry and the laws of physics don't care about the nonsense we are up to in this building. They do what the laws of chemistry and physics say. Precious time is wasting. In the balance hangs lives and jobs. This nonsense has gone on long enough. The public is being misled. Special-interest dollars pull the strings of sophisticated campaigns to give the public the impression that there is a real scientific debate regarding whether climate change is happening. Well, there isn't. There just isn't. The real scientific debate is about how bad the changes will be. Here is one example out of my home State, the Warwick Beacon, in an article entitled, ``Sandy: A wake up call to climate change.'' It describes the head of our Coastal Resources Council, saying--he is talking about the sea level rise: I can tell you that it is real. I can't tell you how fast or how bad it is. That is what I said. The real scientific debate is actually about how bad the changes are going to be. To manufacture doubt to allow the polluters to keep polluting, skeptics with little training in climate science are promoted as experts. Front groups such as the Global Climate Coalition, Information Council for the Environment, Heartland Institute, Annapolis Center and Cooler Heads Coalition are created or enlisted to propagate this message of doubt. Deniers question the motives and engage in harassment of the real credentialed climate scientists. Well, for the record, there has been scientific debate regarding climate change. Ideas have been tested, theories have been ventured, and the evidence keeps coming back to the same conclusion: Increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from human-related sources is strengthening the greenhouse effect, adding to recent warming and acidifying the oceans. Actually, the evidence coming in tends to confirm the worst and most dangerous projections. Claims, for instance, that solar activity is causing recent global warming, and even about whether the atmosphere is really warming, have been settled. But when the scientific research doesn't work out for the skeptics, they turn to straw man arguments. One straw man is that extreme weather events such as hurricanes and droughts aren't proof of climate change. Well, let's be clear. No credible source is arguing that extreme events are proof of climate change. But extreme events are associated with what has been staring us in the face for years: The average global temperature is increasing, average sea level is rising, and average ocean acidity is increasing. When averages change, extremes usually change with them, and a warming climate, to use the best example, loads the dice--loads the dice for extreme weather. So let's look at some of the games that the deniers display to try to manipulate public opinion. One gimmick they have reverted to is the observation that there has been no warming trend in the last 10 years-- no warming trend, they say, in the last 10 years. In 2010, a Republican Senator said: I don't think that anyone disagrees with the fact that we actually are in a cold period that started about 9 years ago. Well, let's look at the facts. Let's start with the green line on this graph. The green line is the global surface temperature data. It is not a protection, it is not a hypothesis, it is a measurement. This is global surface temperature data. As you can see, it changes monthly. The red line that goes through it is the trend line that is mathematically developed from that data. That trend line is the product of basic and undeniable mathematics. The trend is extremely clear. So let's look at what the deniers do with the very same data. Here they take the very same data, and the green line is unchanged. It is exactly the same data, and this is how they get to saying that we have had a cooling period for the past 10 years. They pick a high point, and they pick a low point out of this data, and they say that is their 10- year cooling period. The problem is, if you go back, here is another one, here is another one, here is another one, and here is another one. It is interesting how all the cooling periods stack up to an increase. It is a little bit like--who was the guy on the radio? He explained something to you, and it didn't seem quite right. Then he would say: ``Paul Harvey, what's the rest of the story?'' So the rest of the story is that if someone picks one piece of data out of a line that is going like this and then they go forward and pick a lower one later, they can manufacture the hypothesis there has been no warming trend in the last 10 years. But if we do it legitimately, if we run an actual trend line with mathematical precision through the data, it shows this theory is nothing but misleading bunk--misleading bunk--designed for the purpose of creating confusion. This period, of course, is only a recent portion of the temperature record. When skeptics and deniers look deeper into the past, they find even more strawmen--that the Earth's climate always changes; that it has been warmer in the past. Yes, the Earth has seen different climates in the past, not all ones we would necessarily want to live in, by the way. The reason we know about these climates is because of the excellent work done by scientists--the same scientists who tell us that recent climate change can only be explained by increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The final classic is that more carbon in the atmosphere is good because it provides more food for plants, the old plant food theory. The fact is we have changed the composition of our atmosphere, pushing the concentration of carbon dioxide beyond the range it has been in for 8,000 centuries. For 8,000 centuries, it has been between 170 and 300 parts per million. For the first time this past year, it touched 400 parts per million in the Arctic. To give a time scale of what 8,000 centuries means, the practice of agriculture has been around for about 100 centuries. That is 8,000 centuries in this safe zone of carbon concentration of our atmosphere, with only 100 centuries of those with the human species, even farmers. Modern humans began to migrate out of Africa 600 centuries ago. Once again, 8,000 centuries of this safe climate belt of carbon concentration and 600 centuries of our species leaving Africa and migrating to populate the rest of our planet. Homo sapiens, our species, appeared around 2,000 centuries ago. We are messing with planetary concentrations of atmospheric carbon that go back four times longer than our species has inhabited this planet. In all that time, in those 8,000 centuries, the Earth has never reached carbon dioxide concentrations as we have caused now through human activity. Deniers also tend to just flat ignore the facts they can't explain away or gimmick the data for. For example, the increased acidification of the oceans, that is something that is simple to measure. It is undeniably chemically linked to carbon concentrations in the atmosphere. So we hear nothing about ocean acidification from the deniers. But ocean acidification is possibly the most disastrous consequence of our carbon pollution. The rate of change in acidity of our oceans is already thought to be faster than at any time in the past 50 million years. I was talking a moment ago about being outside a boundary of carbon concentration or atmosphere that has persisted for 8,000 centuries. We are talking now about a rate of change of acidity in the ocean that hasn't been seen on this planet in the past 50 million years. A paper published this March in ``Science'' concluded the current rate of carbon dioxide emissions could drive chemical changes in the ocean unparalleled in the last 300 million years. We are effecting changes in our atmosphere and in our oceans that only compare to ancient periods of geologic time. When we consider the implications for food security, biodiversity, and ocean-based industries, we cannot ignore these changes in our oceans. Coincidentally, just last Friday, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration proposed listing 66 species of coral as endangered or threatened and cited climate change as driving three key threats: disease, warmer seas, and more acidic seas. It might be worth reminding the deniers what NASA says. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration--NASA--says this about climate change and our global temperature rising. All three global surface temperature reconstructions show that Earth has warmed since 1880. Most of this warming has occurred since the 1970s, with the 20 warmest years having occurred since 1981 and with all 10 of the warmest years occurring in the past 12 years. Even though the 2000s witnessed a solar output decline resulting in an unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009, surface temperatures continue to increase. On ocean temperatures and sea level rise, NASA said: The oceans have absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 2,300 feet showing warming of 0.302 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969. Global sea level rose about 6.7 inches in the last century. The rate in the last decade, however, is nearly double that of the last century. On ocean acidification, this quote from NASA: Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the acidity of surface ocean waters has increased by about 30 percent. This increase is the result of humans emitting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Let me say that again: This increase is the result of humans emitting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the upper layer of the oceans is increasing by about 2 billion tons per year. NASA scientists put a man on the Moon. NASA scientists have a rover right now driving around on the surface of the planet Mars. They are not the quacks. Our Nation's best and brightest minds accept the evidence of climate change and they are urging us to act. Yet still, for some in this body, the deniers carry the day. Why? In a weekend editorial entitled ``Flight from Facts''--``Flight from Facts''--my home State Providence Journal said: [The] GOP is winning the race to avoid evidence--some of this escapism based on a desire to hold on to what had been comforting, if error-based, traditional beliefs, and some of it to avoid policies that might be economically and otherwise inconvenient. Whatever the reason, the price of our folly will be very high for future generations. One of the things I have noticed on this floor is that when it is a question of putting the cost of taking care of their grandparents on our children and grandchildren, oh, how the Republican crocodile tears flow about that unfair burden on children and grandchildren. In one of their attacks on Medicare and Social Security, which the Republicans like to call entitlements, we heard this: We have got a serious spending problem here . . . and we need to have an impact on entitlements . . . if we're going to have entitlements for our children and grandchildren when they reach retirement age, we have got to change the trajectory. The minority leader has also spoken about what appears in his remarks to be the health care bill--the ObamaCare bill--and he worried about it ``creating a more precarious future for our children.'' The minority leader has said this about the stimulus effort to get our economy back on its feet: ``This needs to stop for the future of our country and for our children and for our grandchildren.'' When it is the deficit, he has urged us ``to make sure we have the same kind of country for our children and grandchildren that our parents left for us.'' He has even talked about ``the Europeanization of America,'' and as a result of that Europeanization of America-- whatever that is--he has said, ``Our children and grandchildren could no longer expect to have the same opportunities that we've had.'' On virtually every traditional anti-Obama Republican tea party bugbear--Medicare, ObamaCare, the stimulus, the deficit, even this Europeanization of America--out come the children and grandchildren. Let's assume they are sincere. Let's assume they have a sincere concern for what we are leaving to our children and grandchildren. So when it comes to big corporate polluters of today leaving our children and grandchildren a damaged and more dangerous planet, where then is the concern for those children and grandchildren? To have children and grandchildren pay for the care of their grandparents through Medicare and Social Security is some kind of sin or outrage, but to force on those same children and grandchildren the untold costs and consequences of the harms done by today's corporate polluters, what do they have to say about that? For that, the future generations' interests receive nothing from the Republican Party but stony silence or phony and calculated denial. But the cost will be on them. The cost of our negligence and folly in not addressing our carbon pollution will fall on our children and our grandchildren. The cost will be on them and the shame will be on us. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent morning business be extended until 2 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.