is it in the national interests or not? they have to make that decision within 60 days so the project can get started, we can start creating those construction jobs. but as to nebraska, they're not bound by the 60 days. they have the time they need to incorporate the solution from the state's special session. all we're saying is this project has been studied for three years. it's been studied for three years already. it's gone through the nepa process. it's gone through the full e.i.s. state was ready to make a decision. it got held up because of nebraska. we specifically addressed that problem. now it's time to go forward. that's -- that's why this is problem-solving legislation. so, again, this is about creating jobs, this is about reducing our dependence on middle east oil and we absolutely address the issue of nebraska, we do not set a 60-day time limit on it.

as to the rest of the project, we can get started. so let's talk about who supports the project. well, the prime minister of canada, stephen harper, has talked to our president, said hey, look, our greatest ally is canada. canada says this is a very important project for canada. this is about producing our energy resources in canada. this is about jobs. and economic opportunity in canada. let's join with our best ally and together create jobs. produce energy that we can count on. and, again, it is about environmental stewardship. the issue has been brought up for those who say, well, we have some concerns about producing oil in the oil sand region of canada. and i would submit that canada, like we're doing here in north dakota, all the time, is improving their technology in order to improve their environmental stewardship.

for example, going to in situ mining rather than excavation for things like producing the oil sands. but the point we have to understand here that is very important, if the pipeline doesn't go this way, if the pipeline doesn't go south, it's going to go west. if it doesn't come -- if this product doesn't come to the united states, this 700,000 barrels, it's going to the west coast of canada where it will be loaded on ships and it will go to china. so we got a choice to make. do we want to reduce our dependence on oil from the middle east and from venezuela and other parts of the world where we have real security issues? do we want to increase the relationship and the economic ties with our best ally in the world? or do we want 700,000 barrels a day of canadian oil going to china instead?

oh, and, by the way, let's talk about the environmental stewardship. that means that you have to haul it over there on oil tankers. we have to continue to bring our product in or oil tankers so you have higher emissions not lower emissions and instead of that oil being refined in the cleanest refineries in the world which we have, it's going to be refined in refineries in china which have much higher emissions. so again, this is about -- i mean the whole focus of the legislation, you authored the bill, the whole focus in writing this bill was to say how do we solve the problem, how do we deal with the concerns, how do we make sure we're being fair to people, but that we move forward with real job creation, with producing more energy, to increase our energy independence with our good friend and neighbor, our strongest ally, canada? how do we nor in terms of private investment and creating

better environmental stewardship? it's about problem-solving legislation. and you can see we've got not only the u.s. chamber of commerce now supporting this legislation because they want to see job creation, you've got all of the large building and trade unions supporting it as well. afl-cio, international brotherhood of teamsters, international bra brohood of electrical workers, labors international union of north america, united -- international union of operating engineers. quote, "it is america's workers who are clamoring for the expedited approval of this important project. we can't wait." mark ayres, building and construction trades department, afl-cio. quote, "the keystone pipeline will offer working men and women a chance to support their families in this difficult economic climate."

james p. hoffa, international brotherhood of teamsters. at a time when jobs are the top priority, the keyston project will put thousands back to work and have ripple benefits throughout the north american economy. our members look forward to being part of this historic project and pledge to deliver the highest quality work to make it a success. president edwin d. hill, international brotherhood of electrical workers. and the list goes on. as i said, this project has been studied for three years. we've already built the sister project. we've gone through that whole process. this has been studied for three years already. how much will this project cost? the american taxpayer. this is a $7 billion investment but it's private investment. it's private investment that stimulates job creation. not only will it not cost the american taxpayer one dime, the

group from waco, texas, estimates that it will create hundreds of millions of dollars in local and state revenues. you know, our country faces some real challenges. one of those challenges, we've got to get people back to work. we have 8.6% unemployment, we have 13.3 million people looking for work. we need to get them back to work. so government needs to create the legal, tax, and regulatory environment that stimulates private investment and gets people back to work. this legislation, this project, helps do that. we've got a deficit and a debt. deficit of about $1.3 trillion, a debt that is now $15 trillion. when our president took office, our debt was $10 trillion. the national debt was $10 trillion. today it's $15 trillion.

we got to get a grip on our spending. we've got to start finding savings but at the same time we've got to grow this economy. we have got to get private investment going and grow this economy. that growth in revenues and controlling our spending is what will reduce the deficit and the debt. and you know what? we've got to do more to reduce our energy dependence on places like the middle east and venezuela where we have real challenges. this is the kind of project that can do it. mr. president, i submit to you that we need to move forward. this body has the opportunity to truly empower the kind of investment that we need to move our economy forward, to create greater energy independence and to help americans get back to work. and that's exactly what they want. i encourage my colleagues to

support this legislation, and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. kirk: mr. president, too often we have a set -- have set-piece speeches in the senate without any resort to the traditional debate where two sides are equally dividing time without a set script on a critical issue before our country. and so i'd like to restart the true senate tradition of debate with a debate with my colleague from delaware. and i yield to him right now. mr. coons: thank you, senator kirk. i'm grateful for inviting you to a real debate on an issue which

we disagree and have cast opposing votes earlier today. an issue of real import for our country, something that's been debated in the past and will be debated again in the future but essentially a question of whether or not we should have a balanced budget amendment. senator kirk. mr. kirk: what i'd like to do is a chess clock style, is to take ten minutes with unanimous consent to be equally divided between me and the senator from delaware on the subject of the balanced budget amendment. the presiding officer: without objection for ten minutes the senator from illinois and the senator from delaware may engage in a colloquy and the parliamentarian will keep track of each's time to the best of our capability. mr. kirk: mr. president, the united states needs to adopt a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. it was a good idea when thomas jefferson backed it, and it's an even more important idea today. what we're seeing in europe is a collapse of government finance because they have spent too

much, taxed too much and borrowed too much. not only do they have a crisis of their government debt, but they have a higher -- have higher taxes and lower economic performance because of that philosophy. we cannot repeat that mistake. and that's why the senate should have adopted a balanced budget amendment. i will speak in bipartisan fashion. any of the balanced budget amendments we considered today would have been better. rather than to subject our country to a rising tide of debt and an economic model which is already, we're seeing, failing in europe. mr. coons: i couldn't agree more, senator, that we need to be responsible. that the united states and this senate need to face our serious and crippling national deficits and debt. it was a good idea when thomas jefferson recognized that a balanced budget amendment was a bad idea. thomas jefferson actually several years later after supporting a balanced budget amendment acted as president in

ways that demonstrated that he understood that real opportunities required extraordinary capabilities by the federal government. i was a county executive. others in this chamber who were mayors or governors lived with balanced budget requirements and it imposed great restrictions on us. it forced us to make tough decisions on annual time lines. so i understand why it's tempting to consider passing one of the balanced budget amendments that were before this chamber today. but there is a difference between the federal government and the state and local governments. thomas jefferson acted decisively to make the louisiana purchase possible, to finance the war of 1812, and during the current economic downturn if the federal government hadn't been able to borrow and invest in restoring growth to this country, we wouldn't have had a great recession, we would have had a second depression. i'm convinced of it and one of the reasons had the balanced budget amendment been in place, we would have been in even greater trouble than we've been

over the last few years. senator? mr. kirk: what we see today is we're awash in $15 trillion in debt, that since the creation of the triple a credit rating by standard & poor's, the united states has now lost that rating. that when a young american is born today, they already owe the federal government $40,000, and so they will have a lower income and a higher tax burden throughout their working lives because of the debts put on them. the biggest reason for a balanced budget amendment, though, is we have a structural inability to represent young americans. they can't vote until they're age 18. and yet the representatives of their parents can transfer tremendous burdens onto that young generation of americans. the essence of the american dream is that our children's lives will be better than our

own. but given the weight of the debt we are now transferring onto the backs of the next generation, that may no longer be possible. we have absolutely got to have a structural way to prevent one generation from transferring new spending and new debt to the new generation. so that the american ideal is preserved and so that they have a fighting chance to have a better life than their parents. mr. coons: this senate can, should, and has shown the ability to reach balanced budgets. no, in fact surpluses -- within living memory. when mr. clinton was the president, this senate and the house acted together. they adopted budgetary self-restraint. why amend the constitution of the united states, our most foundational document, when we have within our own power, recently demonstrated in the late 1990's, the capacity to control ourselves? the senator and i agree we are

leaving to our children an enormous, crushing legacy of a national debt that has exceeded safe boundaries. but why amend the constitution in order to force the senate to do our job? instead, i think we should embrace some of the tough, big, bold, bipartisan proposals that have been put on the table. whether the bowles-simpson commission or others. the framework of a broad deal that requires sacrifice sphoo from all, changes to the -- sacrifice from all, changes to the direction of the country, is on the table before us. why take a detour into amending america's foundational document rather than simply stepping up and doing the job that's before us? mr. kirk: the job of each generation is to make sure that the constitution deals with critical problems facing the country. so we amended the constitution so that we could prohibit slavery. we amended the constitution so that we could grant women the right to vote. and we should amend the

constitution to prevent one generation from encumbering the next generation. america is the greatest experiment in self-government, and more importantly, the underlying value of self-control, ever designed. but we have seen in recent days that self-control disappear. we work here in the united states senate. now well onto i think 900 days without a budget. this is the most successful corporation, the most successful enterprise on earth representing the real aspirations for human dignity and freedom, and yet that is in danger if we become indebted to china and other countries in ways that no previous generation of americans have done. this country has regularly amended the constitution to fix inequities in our society. and the growing inequity we see today is debt and deficits, especially to other countries. and, therefore, we should amend

the constitution to protect those who cannot yet vote from an economic fate that would otherwise befall them. mr. coons: mr. president, how much time remains? the presiding officer: on your side 2 minutes and 20 seconds. on the senator from illinois' side, a minute and 15. mr. coons: thank you. as the good senator from illinois suggests we are encumbering future generations with a debt that has risen above $40,000 per american. this is a time which our national security leader cited as critical. but in my view, the balanced budget amendment that was advanced through senate joint resolution 10 earlier today would compel exactly the sort of intergenerational burdens that my good colleague from illinois suggests he seeks to avoid. let me be clear. the requirements of that

balanced budget amendment, a spend cap, a supermajority requirement to raise the national debt, a two-thirds requirement for any increase in federal revenue, those in combination would compel drastic, immediate and substantial reductions in a wide range of programs: social security, medicare, medicaid, veterans benefits, that if imposed would have not just a short term very anything alternative impact on our current economy but a significant restructuring of the long-standing relationships between individual citizens and generation. yes, leaving a legacy of debt to the next generation is a terrible thing for us to do. but leaning on the crutch of the constitution and the fig leaf of a constitutional amendment to avoid doing our responsibility, a job which the senate is fully capable of doing, avoids that responsibility to the next

generation. i close with this question: as we say in the law, mr. president, if there is a right, what's the remedy? if we were to pass this constitutional amendment, how would it be enforced if the senate in the future were to fail to balance the budget? would lifetime federal judges around the country be imposing choices in terms of budget cuts, spending cuts, revenue changes? i think that would be no better. in fact, far worse than the senate simply doing its job. today i voted against this balanced budget amendment because i think we have it within our power to show self-control and to secure the future for the next generation of americans. mr. kirk: and i would close by saying the senator and i agree, i think, that the simpson-bowles plan is the right way to go. and my hope would be that on a bipartisan basis we would join together to reduce expected federal borrowing by $4 trillion along the lines of that bipartisan presidential commission. but, unfortunately, the

simpson-bowles plan right now is gathering dust. that the super committee that was given procedural powers to possibly put that forward also collapsed. we have not been able to do our job. and we are now encumbering the next generation with even greater amounts of debt, historic amounts. i think the founding fathers did not contemplate the ability to borrow as much from other countries as we now have. and with the united states as the center of freedom and democracy around the world, there's a lot riding on the credit of the united states. my colleague from delaware talks about the future, a very vital future, especially for people like my own mother, of social security and medicare. but i think she understands that a bankrupt country cannot support social security and medicare, that we have to defend the credit of the united states. and, therefore, i think a balanced budget amendment is essential to the long-term

future of the united states. and with that, i thank my colleague. mr. president, we just finished this. i hope we do return to a tradition of actual debate. i want to thank my colleague for the chance to carry on this debate. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

we have a bit of et time on the senate floor -- whic we have a f quiet time on the senate floor. i thought i would coming and make brief remarks about the extraordinary career of major general bane landruno. he recently retired as the most senior adjutant major in the world, serving under three governors and nearly four decade of service to the state of louisiana and our nation. over many years i've had the joy and pleasure of calling general landruno a friend and a colleague and worked closely with him and the 11,000 members of our louisiana national guard. through september 11 attacks to our country, mr. president, through hurricanes katrina,

gustav and ike and the recent b.p. oil one of the largest environmental a disasters in our history, the general has proven his leadership to the people of louisiana and our nation time and time again. benny, as he's known by his friends, credits his father with inspiring him to serve in the national guard. his father joseph audrey landruno was a world war ii veteran. benny, who grew up in vedri nevmentment, louisiana, chose to follow in his fearnlings footsteps and rose through the ranks in the louisiana national guard. he enlisted as a light weapons infantry in 1969 in the 773rd maintenance battalion. two and a half years later he graduated and became a second lieutenant platoon leader as part of the 3671st ma maintenane

company. from these very early beginnings in the national guard, he progressed rapidly through the ranks. during his time with the guard, he was part of several major campaigns, including a deployment during desert storm. and during the first gulf war general landreneau and his battalion were tasked with any number of missions, one important one for the gulf war commander himself, general franks. general franks needed an unmanned aerial vehicle landing strip built immediately, so he knew who to call to get that job done, and he called benny landreneau and his battalion. need i say that it was done, i am a.m. sure, under budget and before time, after the 527th return to command headquarters, general franks called general landreneau to thank him for what

he did and asked the general what he could do as a return favor, a understand without blinking an eye, general landreneau said, circumstance please get us home and if you could get us home for mother's day, it would be appreciated. so, all of these mostly guys got home for mother's day, some women in the battalion as well and they were thrilled to be home with their parents. in 1996, shortly after the gulf war, general landreneau retired from the department of agriculture and natural resources, where he'd served also as a state conservationist for almost 30 years. since that time, he's taken the national guard in louisiana from a strategic reserve force to an operational force that continues to lead the nation both on and off the battlefield, and i want to talk about off the battlefield in just a minute.

general landreneau was quoted as saying the louisiana national guard soldiers and airmen are part of the finest national guard in america. it is their dedication and professionalism, their commitment and their hard work that has made the louisiana national guard the finest guard in america. the louisiana national guard has performed in such outstanding matters in accepting new challenges in being an operational force, responding to wars in afghanistan and iraq, deploying throughout the world when called on and, at the same time, being able to take up the work of their state emergencies, which have been too numerous to count, and being able to respond to the citizens of this state in an outstanding farks he said. this is due in part, i say, to his leadership and vision. general landreneau has been instrumental in implementing one of the most phenomenal programs in our country, mr. president,

the louisiana national guard youth challenge program, part of the national youth challenge program. this is what i mean by off the battlefield expertise as well as on-the-battlefield expertise. some years ago i think about 15, general conway, who was the general for the national guard, helped to start this program that now has graduated over 100,000 young people between the ages of 16 and 18 who are, unfortunately, drifting from the straight and narrow path. they haven't ended up in prison yesterday, but they're headed that way. they've given ouch on themselves, gotten into a little bit of trouble and need a second chance this. program offers them that chance. under general landreneau's leadership, we won three of the

dozens of programs operating in the united states, and i might say we run the best three, having been granted and acknowledged an in award after award ceremony in louisiana and graduate the largest number of young people. this is done because of general landrenea. u extraordinary commitment i to the citizens of our staingtdz to the young people of our state and the respect that he has in his rank and file for these men and women to go beyond their regular duties and responsibilities and step up and say, there is an epidemic in america, our dropout rate n. is too high what can the national guard do in addition to everything else that dhow, both abroad and at home to help. it is really extraordinary. his grandchildren's and his children are proud of him, and i know he is very, very proud of them. i am going to submit their names

for the record. but he has assembled over the last 14 years arguably the most tested staff in the nation. he's being succeeded as adjutant general by general glenn curtis, who has served as general landreneau's right-hand man for the last six years. it is a hallmark of his leadership that general landreneau leaves a staff ready to step up and serve and ready to continue the excellent service that they have to the people of our state and tower nation. -- and our nation. though general curtis will bring his own brand of leadership to the national guard there's no doubt -- and he has said to me many times he's learned at the elbow of general benny landreneau. so let me just say, mr. president, in cliewrks i would like to personally, on behalf of the people of our state, thank general benny landreneau for thinks years of

service and dedication to the people of louisiana and our country. i want him to know that he has positively impacted our state in ways that will long be remembered. the people of louisiana are grateful for his service and for his dedication, and we honor and admirable career in the national guard. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: vitiated.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. franken: mr. president, thank you. i ask unanimous consent that my legislative fellows aaron boyd and sharon hessney be given

privileges of the floor for the duration of today's session. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. franken: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i ask also unanimous consent that senator whitehouse and i be permitted to engage in a colloquy. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. franken: mr. president, i rise today to address an alarming trend that i see in our national discourse. as legislators, our decisions need to be rooted in facts. science driven by data and rigorous analysis needs to inform our policy making. scientists are the ones who made the u.s. the world's innovator in the last century. scientists are the people who gave us antibiotics, for example. do you like being able to use antibiotics? well, then thank scientists. scientists put a man on the moon, several men, actually, and got them back safely.

these are rocket scientists. scientists made it possible for americans to watch this speech on c-span, that's c-span, the cable-satellite public affairs network, also rocket scientists. scientists also came up with useful things like the internet. a scientist from the university of minnesota, nobel prize-winning agronomist named norman borlov is credited with saving over a billion lives worldwide. he did this by using science to develop a high-yield disease-resistant wheat that was planted in pakistan and india and elsewhere around the world. and by engineering our next-generation weapon system, scientists ensure that our military will continue to be the most powerful in the world. we real estate lie on science

and scientists, and if we are to progress as a country, if we and future generations of americans are to be healthy and prosperous and safe, we better put science right at the center of our decisionmaking. and yet, right now, foundations and think tanks funded by the fossil fuel industry are spreading misinformation about the integrity of climate science , much as think tanks paid by the tobacco industry use misinformation to cast doubt about the health hazards of smoking. ignoring or flat-out contradicting what climate scientists are telling us about the warming climate and the warming planet can lead to really bad decisions.

on national energy and environmental policy here in congress. so today, senator whitehouse and i want to take some time to talk about climate science and about the fact that a scientific consensus on climate change has been reached, climate change is happening and has been driven by human activities. from the national academy of sciences to the american meteorological society to the american academy for the advancement of science, all of our preeminent scientific institutions agree that man made greenhouse gas emissions are warming the planet and are a threat to our economy, to our security and to our health. so do the overwhelming majority of actively publishing

climatologists. this graph taken from a study published by the national academy of sciences shows responses to the survey question "do you think human activity is a significant contributeing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" what you see here is that as climate expertise goes up, so does the affirmation that climate change is real and is caused by human beings. among the most expert pool of respondents, climatologists who are actively publishing on climate change represented by this bar right here, the rightmost bar, 97% of that category of scientists answered yes. of course, there are a few

articles published by climate skeptics, but the vast majority, 97% of the peer review literature supports the notion that people are causing the earth's climate to change. now, what are pier review articles? they are articles that scientists write after conducting experiments. the experiments are designed to test a hypothesis. if the hypothesis holds up, the scientist writes a paper describing the experiment, sends it to a professional journal. the journal then sends it to other experts in the field, pier reviewers who see if they can -- peer reviewers who see if they can tear any holes in the theory. they check the methodology, they check the math. very often, they send the paper back with questions and researchers will make changes to satisfy the reviewer's inquiries. if in the end the pier -- peer

reviewers think the work is sound, they recommend it for publication. after publication, other scientists in the field are free to read the paper and disprove it if they can. that's a peer reviewed paper. i repeat the vast majority of peer review literature supports the notion that people are causing the earth's climate to change and 97% of published climatologists say yes when asked do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures? mr. whitehouse: senator franken, as you have pointed out, despite the efforts to mislead and create doubt, the jury is not out on whether climate change is happening and being caused by man made carbon collusion. the verdict is in fact in and the verdict is clear. as shown by this group of scientific organizations that signed a letter supporting our efforts to do something about

carbon pollution in the senate back in october of 2009. the american association for the advancement of science, the american chemical society, the geophysical union, the meteorological society, the national science collections alliance, the botanical society of america. virtually every significant scientific organization accepts that these are the facts and that the verdict is in, and indeed there are some recent added support, the scientific community continues to examine this question, and a recent report by james hansen and makito sato says climate change is likely to be the predominant scientific, economic, political and moral issue of the 21st century. the fate of humanity and nature may depend upon early recognition and understanding of

human-made effects on earth's climate. they continue, earth is poised to experience strong amplifying polar feedbacks in response to moderate global warming. thus, goals to limit human-made warming to two degrees celsius are not sufficient. they are prescriptions for disaster. another recent report, climate change and european marine ecosystem research reads as follows -- there is no doubt, no doubt that rapid global warming and social acidification are real and very high confidence that both are forced by human activities and emissions of carbon dioxide. climate change effects are especially evident in the oceans. i'll get into that later on in our colloquy a little bit further, and the levels of atmospheric co2 are

accelerated. a third report, the world energy outlook for 2011, says the global energy-related carbon dioxide emissions reached 30.4 gigatons in 2010, 5.3% above 2009, representing almost unprecedented annual growth. in the new policy scenario, our central scenario code code -- co2 emissions continue to increase, leading to an emissions trajectory consistent with a long-term global temperature increase, a long-term global temperature increase of 3.5 degrees centigrade. what does that mean? the expected warming of more than 3.5 degrees centigrade in the new policy scenario would have severe consequences. a sea level rise of up to two meters, causing dislocation of

human settlements and changes to rainfall patterns, drought, flood and heat wave incidents that would severely affect food production, human disease and mortality. there are also iconic american companies that have made the considered business judgment is that climate change the is real and we need to prepare but we can get to that more later in the colloquy. mr. franken: yet in spite of all this, these are all new reports on top of since this 97% number was established, yet the conservative media and some of my colleagues in congress seem to think it just fine to ignore what these scientists are saying. let me illustrate this with an analogy. say you went to a doctor, and the doctor told you, you know,

you better start eating more sensibly and start exercising because you are tremendously overweight. and i see from your family history you have a family history of heart disease, your father died of a heart attack at an early age, so you really got to go on a diet and start working out a little bit. and you say you know what? i'd like a second opinion. so you go to the second doctor and he says okay, look, you have a family history of heart disease, your father died of a heart attack at a young age. you weigh over 300 pounds. and you smoke three packs a day, your cholesterol is out of control, your blood pressure is through the roof. it would be just irresponsible of me as a doctor not to immediately send you to this place, the mayo clinic that i

know, and i think -- you got to go there. and you say, you know, thanks, doctor, but i want a third opinion. you go to a third from and the third doctor reads your chart and looks at you and goes wow, i am amazed you are still alive. and you say you know what? i'd like a fourth opinion. and then you go to the fourth doctor and you go to the fifth doctor and you go to the sixth doctor and you go to the seventh doctor. they're all saying the same thing. but you keep asking for more opinions. finally, finally, you go to the 25th doctor and the 25th doctor says it's a good thing you came to me, because all this diet and exercise would have been a complete waste. you're doing just fine. those other doctors are in the pockets of the fresh fruits and

vegetable people. enjoy life, eat whatever you want, keep smoking, watch a lot of tv. that's my advice to you. and then you learn that the doctor was paid a salary by the makers of twinkies. which don't get me wrong, are a delicious snack food and should be eaten in moderation. am i making sense here, is what i'm asking. mr. whitehouse: it's actually quite a good example, senator franken. we have some of the phony science that has attacked the science of climate change that is actually a pretty good comparison to what you describe. take, for instance, the bogus marshall institute. this is an institute that was founded in 1984 by a physicist who had been the chief scientist

behind the tobacco industry's campaign to convince americans that tobacco was actually okay for you and that there was doubt about whether it would actually do you any harm. a few years later he organized something that was called the oregon petition which denied that climate change was happening. now, they phoneied up the oregon position to look like official papers of the national academy of sciences. so the national academy of sciences had to take the unusual step of responding that the petition, quote, "does not reflect the expert conclusions of members of the academy spft" and further that it was, quote," a deliberate attempt to mislead." so he's saying tobacco is good for you, he phonies up a --

mr. franken: was he part of this? mr. whitehouse: there are others out there. the heartland, the think tank with same backers from tobacco and the fossil fuel industry, founded in 19 4. written reports try to manufacture doubt about climate science and the risks of secondhand smoke. heartland received nearly $700,000 from exxonmobil through 2006. they are a bogus policy documents include false claims that climate change is poorly understood and simply wrong assertions that there is no consensus about the causes, effects, or future rate of global warming. picking just these two, but there are others, in the consolation -- constellation of bogus science, they're commonly founded by the bradley foundation, the folks who brought you the john birch

society, the skaiff foundation, by the olen foundation, behind right-wing and against public health causes, by exxonmobil and by the coch brothers. although it may look like different voices are appearing, it's actually the same money speaking through different fronts. mr. franken: this is an interesting area. there is a well-established link between the scientists who have worked for think tanks like the george c. marshall institute, the heartland institute and other foundations which were funded at first by tobacco money and since then by the fossil fuels industry. these scientists have been paid to spread misinformation in order to cast doubt, cast doubt. that's all they got to do. on a whole host of scientific issues, first about tobacco, then about acid rain, about the

hole in the ozone layer and now about climate change. take tobacco for example. scientists were paid to testify in court that there were -- was no proof that smoking caused cancer or was addictive even after the industry scientists knew darn well that cigarettes were addictive and did cause cancer and heart disease. in fact, the tobacco industry was found guilty in 2004 of plotting to conceal the health risks and the addictiveness of cigarettes from the public. the judge found that the tobacco industry had, quote, "devised and executed a scheme to defraud consumers and potential consumers about the hazards of cigarettes, hazards that their own internal company documents prove they had known since

about -- since the 1950's." and the whole purpose of this scheme was to provide misinformation, to confuse the public, to manufacture doubt. and that is what is happening right now with climate change. public data from the security and exchange commission and from charitable organization reports to the i.r.s. show that between 2000 -- 2005 and 2008, exxonmobil gave about $9 million to groups linked to climate change denial, while foundations associated with the private oil company coke industries gave nearly $25 million. the third major funder was the american petroleum institute. all in all, the energy industry spent hundreds of millions of dollars, even billions of

dollars on lobbying against climate change -- against climate change, including a large spike between 2008 to 2010. mr. whitehouse: and it's not enough that they pay a stable of paid-for scientists to create doubt, to create phony science that raises the level of doubt. they also go out of their way to attack legitimate scientists. you wouldn't think that this would carry much weight in a proper debate, but amplified by the corporate money behind it and designed, as you say, with the purpose not to win the argument but just to create doubt so that the public moves on, it is actually -- it has actually worked. one example of this attack on

lifetime scientists has been the phony so-called climategate scandal which was an effort to derail international climate science and climate negotiations. mr. franken: climategate. sometimes you and i refer to it as -- mr. whitehouse: climategategate. the scandal wasn't the attack on the scientists, the scandal was the phony attack on the scientists. mr. franken: let's talk about that. this is a leak of thousands of emails from scientists at the university of east anglia's research unit in 2009, done right before the copenhagen conference, is that right? mr. whitehouse: i believe that's correct. mr. franken: the conservative media -- remember, this doubt is amplified the in the conservative echo chamber, talk radio, etc.

you know, "the wall street journal" editorial page, fox news. and the conservative media just pounced taking quotes out of context to sensationalize this scandal, scandal. now, most of the attacks are directed at an email by phil jones, a climate scientist working with the east anglia's climactic research unit and which he referred to using "mike's nature's trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years to hide the decline." mike's nature's trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years to hide the decline. now, that sounds very bad. trick. hide the decline. and that went viral. and the conservative media's evidence that the scientific

consensus on climate change was a giant hoax. we even had a member of this body say that the science behind this consensus, quote, "is the same science that through climategate has been totally rebuffed and no longer legitimate, east in reality or in the eyes of the american people, and the people around the world." but it turns out that the trick being referred to in the email is actually just a technique to make -- to use the most accurate data available. pre-1960, temperature data would include measurements from thermometers, tree rings, and other so-called temperature proxies. post-1960 -- this is the trick -- they excluded tree ring data from some specific

kinds of trees that were widely recognized by the scientific community to be unreliable after 1960. so the decline refers -- that he refers to in this isn't a decline in global temperatures. as the deniers claim. in fact, since 1960, we've had pretty good measurement of temperature around the world with things like thermometers. but they knew this tree ring gave an apparent decline in temperature as measured by these specific kinds of trees that were known to be inaccurate compared to all the sensors we have for measuring and there are thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands of measurements of the temperature around the earth every minute, every day.

so this was the trick. a technique to use the most accurate data available of global temperatures from things, again, called thermometers. and one that excluded data widely known to the scientific community to be inaccurate. that is what the trick was, that's all. that's what phil jones was referring to in his email. ironically, he was just trying to be precise. mr. whitehouse: and it provoked considerable review afterwards because of the alarmist claims that were made in this phony attack on the climate science. and a number of pretty respectable organizations took a look at this. one was the university itself. and the university itself reached the conclusion on the specific allegations made against the behavior of c.r.u.

scientists, we find that their rigor and honesty as scientists are not in doubt. in addition, we do not find that their behavior has prejudiced the balance of advice given to policymakers in particular we did not find any evidence of behavior that might undermine the conclusions of the ipcc assessments. that was the university review. not enough? the national science foundation also looked at this. mr. franken: could be biased. mr. whitehouse: that's why we go on to the national science foundation, which found no direct evidence of research misconduct, and therefore said, "we are closing this investigation with no further

action." and parliament looked into it as well because the university was in great britain. and the house of commons did an investigation. the house of commons investigation concluded that the challenged action by professor jones and others -- quote -- "were in line with common practice in the climate science community." they went on to say, "insofar as we've been able to consider accusations of dishonesty, we consider that there is no case to answer, no case to answer." finally they said we have found no reason in this unfortunate episode to challenge the scientific consensus as expressed by professor bed

beddington that in fact global warming is happening and induced by human activity." the studies that looked at whether the climate science was phony or the climate gate scandal was phony have all pointed out that climate gate should properly be known as climategate gate because it was the scandal that was phony. mr. franken: let's make a distinction here between people who are climate skeptics and people who are climate deniers. this is kind of an important distinction. there is nothing wrong with skepticism. in fact, we love skeptics. skeptics -- scientists are by nature skeptical. if you have a new idea, you need to prove it conclusively before

97% of scientists will believe you. this is why an over -- i intervene's already happened for an overwhelming majority of climate scientists who have concluded, again, global warming is happening and that it is caused by mankind. but there are a small number of them that still have questions. on the other hand, a climate denyer is someone who won't be convinced no matter how overwhelming the evidence is. as i pointed out, a lot of these deniers are being paid by polluters to say what they want. now, shortly after climategate or climategate gate, a physicist at the university of california berkeley, richard mueller, who is skeptical of the prevailing views on climate science,

decided to test the temperature record. mueller, a skeptic, started the berkeley earth surface temperature study to reevaluate the record and weed out scientific biases. and this was gold to climate deniers. in fact, among the funders of the study was the charles koch foundation. things didn't really work out the way the deniers hoped. in late march, dr. mueller testified before the house science and technology committee with his initial findings on temperature increases since the late 1950's. this is what he said: "our result is very similar to that reported by the prior groups. a rise of about .7 degrees

celsius since 1957. this agreement with the prior analysis surprised us because they were skeptics. mueller seemed to basically re-create the blade of the so-called hockey stick graph or the temperature graph that had come under attack in climategate. now, this graph here, this shows mueller's estimates against the previous estimates. okay. now this, just this -- mueller -- this berkeley is black. it's just identical pretty much. this past october dr. mueller's group released its findings, and to the dismay of skeptics and deniers, these findings further confirmed the prevailing science behind climate change and the work of the scientist attacked

during climategate gate. and you see the results on the chart. this is -- this gray thing is like -- gray band indicates 95% spatial uncertainty. but it's really exactly -- this line, the black line is exactly what the other scientists measured. the summary of the findings begins by saying bluntly global warming is real, and goes on to say our biggest surprise was that the new results agreed so closely with the warming values published previously by other teams in the u.s. and u.k., this confirms these studies were done carefully and that potential biases identified by climate change skeptics did not

seriously affect their conclusions. so even though these claims that the consensus on global warming is a hoax had been refuted, so convincing by a skeptic no less, funded by charles koch, no less, some of the deniers keep repeating them. the science is settled, and climategate or climategate gate was just a big distraction. so now let's move on and figure out how we're going to attack the challenge of climate change. mr. whitehouse: the challenge of climate change being extremely real. one of the things that is so frustrating about this campaign of phony, manufactured doubt is that in real life we are seeing

the predictions of climate science come true around us. climate scientists predicted that the atmosphere would warm, and the atmosphere is warming. climate scientists predicted the ocean would absorb heat and the ocean waters are warming. climate scientists predicted the ocean would absorb co2 and that would lower the p.h. levels of our ocean waters. the ocean is now more acidic than it has been in two million years, threatening corral reefs, shellfish and tiny creatures like plankton that make up the base of the food chain. climate scientists predicted sea ice would melt and sure enough we're seeing record melting. you just saw that notorious left-wing publication "usa today," federal report arctic

much worse since 2006. federal officials say the arctic region has changed dramatically in the past five years for the worse. it's melting at a near record pace and it's darkening and absorbing too much of the sun's heat. climate scientists predicted ecosystem shifts and we are seeing ecosystem shifts, whether it's million-plus acre forests in the american west, dead to the bark beat -l -- beetle to, mile after mile of brown and dead trees. mr. franken: what's happening? how that relates to climate change? mr. whitehouse: the bark beetle relates to climate change because what was keeping them was cold winters that keep off the larvae. as temperatures warmed the larvae lived through the winters and attacked the trees. there are literally millions of acres of forests lost in the

west. on a smaller scale but more important to me and my home state of rhode island, the preeminent fish that was taken out of narrangansett bay was called the winter flounder. my wife wrote her pelton.d. thesis about the winter -- wrote her pelton.d. thesis about the winter flounder. it is now virtually gone because the water in the bay is up four degrees. scientists said we would be loading the dice with extreme weather about climate change. we are seeing an unusual amount of extreme weather. the disasters -- the number of billion-dollar disasters has hit a record. a recent press clip noted -- i quote -- "with an almost biblical onslaught of twisters, floods, snow, drought, heat, and wildfire, the u.s. in 2011 has seen more weather catastrophes

that caused at least $1 billion in damage than it did in all of the 1980's, even after the dollar figures from back then are adjusted for inflation. serious, grown-up corporate entities like the biggest insurance companies in the world are noticing this and are concerned. munich reinsurance has written the following: the high number of weather-related natural catastrophes and record temperatures both globally and in different regions of the world provide further indications of advancing climate change. throughout the corporate world, you are seeing this. here's a list of companies who have gone public with the need for us to do something about climate change. american electric, bank of america, chrysler, cisco, dupont, duke energy, ebay, toyota, timberland, starbucks, google, g.m., general electric,

ford, nike, michelin, john deere. i'm picking them at random but these aren't fringe operations. these are the core of the american business community and they recognize what is going on. i want to single out one company which is coca-cola. i was going to bring to the floor the new can of coca-cola as an exhibit to demonstrate that this major international corporation, this huge american success story based in atlanta, has taken probably the most iconic product in america -- the coke can -- and has redesigned it to reflect what the climate change is doing in the arctic and to polar bears. unfortunately, my coke can was confiscated by the cloakroom staff because i'm not allowed to bring exhibits on the floor unless they're this. i should have snuck it out here. but that's why i don't have it. but coca-cola is a serious american business, and here's what they say: "the consensus on

climate science is increasingly unequivocal. global climate change is happening and manmade greenhouse gas emissions are a crucial factor. the implications of climate change for our planet are profound and wide ranging with expected impacts on biodiversity, water resources, public health and agriculture." so you put against that the core business community, iconic companies like coca-cola putting their very label behind the need to address climate change, and you put against that the phony baloney paid-for scientists that are creating this doubt, and it is time to close this episode. mr. franken: i'm kind of glad you bring up the phony-baloney doubt and these extreme weather that we've been experiencing. some of my colleagues have

pointed -- on the other side have pointed to the extreme snowstorms. or at least one of my colleagues -- in the northeast over the last several winters is evidence that global warming is a hoax. this is misleading. intensified tweurpbs aren't due -- winters aren't due to the earth getting cooler. they are due to increased moisture content in the air. warmer air holds more moisture. now, basically it doesn't have to be that cold for it to snow. it just has to be 32 degrees or below. what is snow? it's frozen water. it's about water. the atmosphere is now holding more water because it is warmer. warmer air holds more water than cooling air. the main point is that these increased natural disasters have real costs. a few months ago we had a

hearing in the energy and natural resources committee on the forest service management of the intense forest fires we had out west this year. in that hearing, the forest service chief tom tidwell told me that he's seeing longer forest fires seasons out west, more than 30 days longer than what used to be -- than what we used to have even a decade ago. and forest service climate experts -- these are scientists scientists -- have said that a major contributing factor to these longer fire seasons and more intense fires is khraoeufpl. -- is climate change. the cost of these fires for all levels of government and to society as a whole is huge, and it's something that members of both sides of the aisle recognize and are concerned with. several of my republican colleagues in that hearing

expressed their concerns about the cost. they referred to a report from the western forestry leadership coalition which estimates that the combined direct and indirect cost of forest fires can be as much as 30 times the cost of fire suppression alone. you need to factor in the cost of forest rehabilitation, the lost of tax revenue, the lost of business that is depend on forest resources and property losses, not to mention the immeasurable cost of lives that are lost due to the fires. i want to underscore for members of this body that when we have discussions about important issues like cost of wildfire response, we are also, we're talking about the cost of responding to climate change.

if forestry experts at the u.s. forest service tell us the climate is getting worse due to climate change, we should be listening to them. mr. whitehouse: senator franken, if i change elements from fire to water since i represent the ocean state, another place where climate change is really creating dangerous consequences is in our oceans. let me just cite a few reports that have come out recently. climate change in marine ecosystem research says close to one-third of the carbon dioxide produced by humans from burning fossil fuels and other sources has been absorbed by the oceans. since the beginning of industrialization, and that has buffered the cause and effects of climate change. a resulting lowered p.h., when carbon goes into the ocean it acidifies it. it lowers the p.h.a. resulting lowered p.h. of the carbonate

minerals that form body structures of many organisms makes these groups vulnerable. the growth of individual corral skeletons and ability of reefs to remain instruct rale viable are likely to be severely affected. continuing acidification mails affect the ability of the oceans to take up co2 so they won't be absorbing the one-third they take up any longer. it will stay in the atmosphere and atmosphere concentrations will increase faster. the annual view of marine science reports that growing human pressures, including climate change, are having profound and diverse cons fences for marine -- consequences for marine ecosystems. these effects are globally pervasive and irreversible on ecological time scales. direct consequences include increasing ocean temperature and acidity, rising sea level, increased ocean stratification, decreased sea ice and altered patterns of ocean circulation,

precipation, and fresh water. the context for this is a trite astounding one, and that is when you look back through history, you don't look at changes in terms of decades or even generationsment you look at changes in terms of millions of years. there is a special issue of "oceanography" with a feature on ocean acidification. it is called "ocean acidification in deep time." we have now an atmosphere -- quoting -- "an atmosphere that already contains more carbon dioxide than at any time in the last 800,000 years of earth history and probably more than has occurred in several tens of millions of years." we've had agriculture as humans for about 10,000 years, to give an idea of what 800,000 years or

several tens of millions of years means. the report goes on, "there are no precedents in recent earth history for what will be the immediate and direct consequences of the release of co2 into the atmosphere and its concurrent dissolution in the owe slain's waters. but we are -- in the ocean's waters. but we are playing with very dangerous effects when we ignore climate change at the behest of a tiny minority of scientists and their polluter funders behind them. thermr. franken: there are folks who get the cost of inaction, and that includes the department of defense. in its 2010 quadrennial defense review, or q.d.r., they defined climate and energy as among the

major national security challenges that america faces now and in the future. to give you perspective on the significance of this, crafting a strategic approach to climate and energy was alongside other priorities laid out in the q.d.r. are titles like "succeed in counte counterinsurgency and counterterrorism operations and prevent proliferation of weapons of mass destruction." this is serious stuff. it matters for d.o.d. because climate change is predicted to increase food and water scarci scarcity, increase the spread of disease and spur mass migration and environmental refugees due to more intense storms, floods, and droughts.

mr. whitehouse: there was similar testimony in the senate intelligence committee. and the the witness who testified before us released his testimony before the house intelligence committee and very much the same conclusion. "we judge, that global climate change will have widespread implications for u.s. national security interests over the next 20 years." and the factors that would affect u.s. national security interests as a result of climate change would include food and water shortages, increased health problems, including the spread of disease, increased potential for conflict, ground subsidence -- the earth lowering -- flooding, coastal erosion, extreme weather events, increases in the severity of storms in the gulf of mexico,

disruptions in u.s. and arctic infrastructure, and increases in immigration from resource-scarce regions of the world. now, there are probably climate deniers that will say, that's all part of the conspir six the dense department is in on it. all those companies are in on it. the intelligence community is in on it. but if there's a hoax, what's morning hour mainstream than ""national geographic"?" are they in on it, too? well, they would have to be because they did a special report on climate change and they showed a polar bear stranded on the melting melting. here's what they say, "it's here. melting glaciers, heat waves, risinrising seas, migratory birs delaying their flight south, the

unmistakable signs of climate change referry where -- are everywhere. and how do we though this?" we know that because of the science. what do they say about the science? "how do we know our climate is changing? historical records, decades of careful observations and precise measurements" -- as you said, with things like thermometers -- "around the globe, along with basic scientific principles." and if you think that ""national geographic"" is in on it and you can't have faith in the defense establishment and you can't have faith in the corporate establishment and you can't have faith even in "national geographic," perhaps you can have faith in the pope, who said recently, "i hope that all members of the international community can agree on a responsible, credible, and supportive response to this worrisome and complex phenomen

phenomenon, keeping in mind the needs of the poorest populations and of future generations." the press release from catholic news service then quotes one of his bishops, who says "our climate is change." this is cardinal rodriguez. "urgent action is necessary," and he called on our political leaders around the world -- quote -- "to curb the threat of climate change and set the world on a path to a more just and sustainable future." okay, well, the pope -- mr. frankenfrank okay, well, th. didn't the -- mr. franken: or, well, the pope. didn't the catholic church go after galileo? between the science supporting climate change and the reality of the dangers that climate change brings, we really center to ramp up our efforts to master this challenge, and that means

wise investments in clean energy r&d and deployment. they're just a good place to start. plus these investments encourage the growth of domestic clean energy, domestic clean energy economy, which would create jobs and has created jobs, grow our manufacturing base, and keep us competitive in global energy markets, and that's so important because germany and china, denmark, countries all over the world are winning this race. now, one of the great parts about this job is spending half time here and then half time in minnesota.

minnesota is a national leader in clean energy. in 2007, minnesota passed the highest renewable energy standard in the country at the time and all our utilities are on track to meet the goal of 25% renewable by 2025. our largest utility, excel energy, son its way to 30% by 2020. we have universities like the university of minnesota morris which is pushing the frontiers of innovation in and greening its campus through a biomass diversity indication which provides heating and cooling and electricity. wind turbines to produce power and lead-certified buildings. our farmers have led the country in biofuels and our universities are leadin leading r&d efforts.

the first commercial sell ulotic plant -- cellulosic plant that scaled up to commercial levels is being built right now. st. paul has the largest district energy system in north america. it's heating and cooling all of downtown st. paul with woody biomass. sage electrochromeics is a manufacturing plant in minnesota, cutting-edge windows that use a little photovoltaic cell to control and they turn these -- these windows turn completely opaque and block out all u.v. during the summer and during the winter there are these beautiful huge windows that let in all the light. and it isn't like the polaroids -- it is an incredible technology. the university of minnesota has

just received two grants from the advanced research projects agency at the department of energy. that's arpa-e. that was patterned after calendar parks the defense advanced research projects agency that created the internet. and across the state businesses and cities are working together to make our buildings more energy-efficient using minute-made technologies -- minnesota-made technologies like marvin and anderson windows. minnesota is the silly convalley of windows. we have 3m window films or mcquaid heating and air-conditioning systems. just last month i partnered with our cities and counties to launch the back-to-work minnesota initiative aiming to break down barriers in financing retrofits, retrofitting public and commercial buildings across minnesota. now, what's great about that, we

can -- this pays for itself. you finance this and you retrofit a building. it puts people in the billete bg trades to work who are in a depression, and it puts manufacturers who build energy-efficient materials and equipment, geothermal furnace systems and furnaces, heat exchange furnaces, pumps -- and you save energy. this saved energy, the energy efficiency pays for the retro fit in four or five years, and you can capitalize this. and we're finding innovative ways to do that. it pays for itself. and you lower our carbon

footprint. you use less energy. you create jobs. save money. it's win, win, win, win. this is something we have to do, are insane not to do. mr. whitehouse: i can account as to what is going on in rhode island as well. we plan to meet 16% of our energy needs through renewable energy sources by 2020, and that is on top of a goal to cut energy use by 10%. so we'll cut energy use by 10% and of the remain 90%, get 16% that have out of renewable energy sources. everybody is getting involved. utilities, towns, the state, the private sector. one of our stirks east providence, is right now converting a brownfield which has been vacant for 30 years nearly into new england's largest solar installation and as you say, there will be a

payback and they will earn money or that for their taxpayers. our s -- our state of rhode island has been a national leader at how you map and prepare for offshore wind development. and so in the state and federal waters off the coast of rhode island, we are positioned to lead the country in offshore wind siting with all of the jobs of building those giant wind turbines and assembling them and erecting them offshore create. we have exie exciting companiese biosportmyth, rhode island, that has just opened a fantastic facility in iowa which takes the exhaust from ethanol plants and runs it through algae farms and creates biofuels. they're at the cutting edge of that technology. so when you see these great technologies and these great opportunities, you know, in this colloquy, we are ending on what i hope is a very strong, positive note for the economy. if we can pull away from the

lies and the phony science and the polluter-paid nonsense that has so far distracted us from doing our duty as a nation, we can get into the race that is going on in this world for the energy future, the economy of this century is going to be driven by the $6 trillion clean energy industry. we do not want to fall out the back of that race and leave it to the chinese and to the europeans. we want to be winning that race, and the jobs and the economic success that that can bring cannot only power our homes and our factories, it can power our economy back to security for all americans. i want to thank you, senator franken, for inviting notice join you in this come -- inviting me to join now this colloquy. i think and our time is coming close to expiring, so i would yield my time back to you. and i would ask unanimous consent that senator franken be given as much time as he needs to conclude. so thank you very much.

this has been a wonderful opportunity for me. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. franken: thank you, senator whitehouse, for your leadership in this. boy, algo -- and by the way, that's the pronunciation. i thought it was algel. but algol is amazing. we are fueling jet fighters, jet fuel made from algae. both the president and energy secretary chu have that said we're in america's sputnik moment. and they're absolutely right. 50 years ago we were in a global space race. today we're in a global clean energy race. whichever country takes the most action today to develop and make clean energy technologies will dominate the global economy in this century. that means supporting, financing for -- supporting financing for clean energy and energy efficiency projects. it means tax credits for clean

energy manufacturing, providing incentives for retrofitting residential and public and commercial buildings. it means supporting basic research and keeping alive initiatives that support clean energy technology innovation. these need to be our priorities as we make energy policy and budget decisions. we -- we can pay for these investments by cutting expensive, outdated subsidies for oil companies that are making record profits. there is a lot more to be done if we're going to win this global clean energy race, but it's not going to be easy. it means unifying as a country and starting to do things differently than we've been doing them. albert einstein said, "we can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."

i'm convinced that we can win this race. no other country is better positioned. but first people need to understand the stakes. climate change is real, and failure to address it is bad for our standing in the global economy, bad for the federal budget, and bad for our national security. we can do better than that for our children and our grandchildren and posterity. thank you, mr. president. thank you, senator whitehouse. and i yield the floor. suggest the absence of a quorum. a senator: i object. mr. franken: i take that back. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. carper: there is not the absence of a quorum.

but i appreciate my colleague mentioning that. i said to him earlier -- earlier today, maybe yesterday, he -- senator franken's a joy to have around here and some of us know he was -- he brings also a real special type for trying to put -- infuse some civility in this place again and came up a couple a year or two ago with the idea of a secret santa exchange. we actually did it this year. i don't know if there's been any mention of that tonight, but my secret santa turns out to be the senator from alaska, senator murkowski, senator -- our presiding officer's colleague. and she gave me this most wonderful gift, understandmade gift that she and her staff actually created. delaware is the only state that doesn't have a national park and what they did is they created on a sheet of paper sort of like this -- only it was, like, a firm sheet of paper, not like a regular sheet of paper -- but they literally -- this was the state of delaware and they created the national park, so we've got a pop-up national park

with a boss going around and our pictures riding along in the bus. i don't know what everyone else got for christmas but that's going to be the best christmas present probably for this year. i don't see how anybody tops that. but that's only only providing some civility but also some leavitt -- levity in a place that could use both. so i thank you for all your contributions and especially that one. as for something more serious, what i want to do is talk about the -- the regulation that -- that e.p.a. has been working on for -- for awhile. it's called the boiler mact. and the idea is maximum achievable technology here. and if you go back in time go, back to about 1990, think about 1970 in this country, the congress passed and president signed, richard nixon actually signed the clean air act of 19

1970. republican president. we had a republican head of e.p.a. and the -- that was implemented at a time when we had the cuyahoga river up in cleveland, ohio, on fire and all kinds of terrible things in our environment happening in this country. and better things started to happen, not just for cleaner water and waste water treatment and air. but it fled 1990 to the -- led in 1990 to the passage of the clean air act amendments of 1990. one of the requirements of the clean air act amendments of 1990 and that legislation, the congress -- congress directed e.p.a. to finalize regulations to reduce what we call air toxics from boilers by the year 2000. so clean air act was adopted in 1970. in 1990, 20 years later, clean air act amendments was adopted, and in that clean air act amendments of 1990, congress

said, e.p.a., we want you to finalize regulations to reduce air toxics from boilers by the year 2000. ten years. and the year 2000 came and went without really any action, and the bush administration, george w. bush administration, finalized a rule, i think it was in the year 2004, but they excluded many industrial boilers from having to -- to comply. as it turned out, there's a lot of boilers in this country. and i was stunned to find out there's about one-half million boilers in this country. a lot of them are fairly small. you know, a lot of them are in schools or churches or smaller buildings, hospitals. but a bunch of them are pretty good sized. but in any event, bush administration in the year 2004 came up with a -- a rule, proposed a rule, but they

excluded many industrial boilers from having to -- to comply. in fact, the rule may not have just been proposed t. may have actually been finalized. but as a result, the regulation was vacated in 2007, three years later, by the circuit court of appeals right here in the district of columbia. so 2004, e.p.a. filing gets around -- finally gets around to finalizing the rule they were called to do some 14 years earlier by the congress. and three years later, the courts -- d.c. circuit courts of appeals knocks it down, vacates that rule on boilers. it was not until june of 2010 -- and that is a full ten years after the congressional deadline for action -- it was not until 2010 that the e.p.a. issued a proposal for boiler air toxic rules that addressed all the major emitters. all the major emitters. if i could, let me just ask one of the pages that are sitting up here, there's a -- can you all

come here for just a second please? this is a little bit of order. but i want to make a request of one of our pages, if you would, go back in the cloakroom and see if you can find for me -- actually you can take that with you -- find for me if you would please a chart. it's in color. so if you could just bring that back. if somebody could bring a tripod up, that would be great. but, mr. president, i think it's what we call an audible in delaware. but not until ten years after the deadline did e.p.a. provide some action and they gave us a proposal for the air toxics rules that addressed all the major emitters. as with most air pollution regulation these days, e.p.a. was under court order to finalize the rule by a set date. so the court had said to e.p.a., we want you to finalize the rule by a set date and that date was the beginning of this year, january of 2011.

now, during the public comment period, the e.p.a. received thousands of comments. thousands of comments. and new information from, among others, from industry. in fact, they received so much in the way of comments and new information, in december of 20 2010 -- and that was, like -- that's a month before the date set by -- under the court order to finalize the rule -- but a month before that date was to occur, e.p.a. asked the courts a month before the january 2011 deadline to extend the deadline for promulgating the final air toxics standard to april next year, to april of 2012. the courts said, no, don't think so. said, e.p.a., you've had enough time to finish. they allowed e.p.a. only until january 21 of this year to go ahead and actually promulgate

these -- these regulations. so even though e.p.a. didn't have a lot of time to process the comments, e.p.a. was able to finalize the rule in february of this year. they yielded the same benefits -- i think this is pretty interesting -- a rule that realized the same benefits in terms of reducing toxic emissions -- mercury, arsenic, lead, that kind of thing -- same level of reductions in those emissions as in the june 2010 proposals they made, but they cut in half the cost of compliance. that's pretty impressive, isn't it? i think. cut in half the cost of compliance. got the same amount of reductions in emissions, of the air toxic substances, for half the cost. however, e.p.a. didn't stop there. in wanting to address industry's concerns, the e.p.a. opened up

for public comment yet to consider a reproposal of -- of their regulations. and i know some people think that e.p.a.'s been guilty of a rush to judgment in this -- in this regard, and i think if you go through this chronology just objectively, this is not a rush to judgment. and i hope if nothing else to convey here tonight that the e.p.a. has moved deliberately, some would say way too slow in order to address this, but there are others who think way too fast, still too fast. but anyway, in the last month, the e.p.a. reproposed the boiler mact regulation to try to address the stakeholder concerns, and i think they have done a workman-like job, good job. in this new proposal of the 1.5 million boilers in the u.s., less than 1% would be effective.

less than 1% would be effective by these emission limits. and here we go. my page comes back. i have a chart, see what it looks like. this is a good way, mr. president, to actually think of this. we have -- the pie here represents all of the 1.5 million boilers in the u.s. some very small, some large industrial boilers. less than 1% need the technology to meet the emission limits prescribed by e.p.a. that's the red little tiny slice here. about another 13% of the 1.5 million boilers in the u.s. would need to follow really best practice standards in ensuring that the emissions from those

boilers are -- are in order. and the rest, 1.3 million boilers, the vast majority of boilers, are 85% are not even affected by the rules. not everybody likes the fact that -- only less than 1% of the boilers would actually be affected by these rules, and not everybody -- some of our friends in the environmental community understandably have been very unhappy with how slowly this whole thing has proceeded. but, mr. president, one last thing i want to mention here, maybe two more things. in terms of from this point forward, how long would these

less than 1%, how long would they have to come ply with the regs that have finally been promulgated? and the answer that these sources would have i'm told, up to four years to comply, up to four years to comply. the e.p.a. is still taking public comment, hopes to finalize this regulation by -- by late spring. the bottom line is, you know, i think we may have delayed long enough. excuse me. only 1% of our largest sources will need to clean up. e.p.a. has addressed or certainly tried to address many problems. maybe not all, but many, most. excuse me. and they are still taking public comments. i'm not sure that we need to delay this boiler mact any

further. and there are a lot of people who -- who sneeze during the course of their lives, as i have just done here on the floor. that was not -- that was just a coincidence, but a lot of people in this country who suffer because of the quality of our air. we have made great improvement in cleaning up the quality of our air. we still have a lot of people, too many people who suffer from asthma, other respiratory diseases. the kinds of problems, the kinds of emission that is we're talking about here deal less with asthma and respiratory diseases. we're talking about substances that can kill people. and in the case of the substances we're talking about here, they have the ability to kill more than 8,000 people a year. we don't have many large towns in delaware. wilmington which has about, i don't know, maybe 75,000 or so people. we have dover, in the central

part of our state we have about 30,000 people. if you take 8,000 people, that's about as many people as live in any of the rest of our -- well, newark has about 30,000 people with the university of delaware, but other than that, we don't have a lot of large towns. for us, 8,000 people is -- could be the fourth or fifth largest town in my state, just about everybody there. that's a lot of people. that's a lot of people. and at the end of the day, we're not going to say even if these rules go ahead and are fully implemented, we're not going to save those 8,000 people. a lot of those lives will be saved in the coming years, and we need to do that. we need to let this process go forward and do our dead level best. the e.p.a. has tried to be responsive to concerns that have been raised. do our dead level best to provide for a cleaner environment and not to dampen our economic recovery.

the last word i would add, i think the idea that we have to choose one over the other i believe is a false choice. we don't have to do that. we can have a clean environment, cleaner environment and we can have jobs. if you look at the growth in our nation's economy since 1970 when the clean air act was adopted or 1990 when the clean air act amendments of 1990 were adopted, we have seen -- we have seen growth in our budget -- we have seen growth in our budget, too, but we have seen growth in our clean air. while some serious concerns have been made by the earlier proposals by the e.p.a., a lot of the concerns have been addressed. i think we just need to get on with it. with that, mr. president, i think we're going to wrap it up here, i think you're going to wrap it up here at what? 7:30, another ten minutes or so. i'm looking around. i don't see anybody else waiting to speak, so i would just note

the absence of a quorum and bid you good night. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. carper: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. carper: mr. president, i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. carper: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the period for morning business be extended until 8:30 p.m., with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. carper: mr. president, i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: