1990's. and five tiemed times we bumped up against that in the 1990's and history could well repeat itself in that regard. and five so we have a hard cap. graduate students will pay no more than 9.5%. parents and others -- and grad students taking out loans, no more than 10.5%. we wanted this to come as close to deficit-neutral as possible. that's what we've come to. to show you how we make compromises and $aroun around hl say that the republicans initial proposal that swreeted here. it went down, as well as the initial democratic proposal went down. the senate republicans initial proposal raised $15.6 billion n deficit reduction over ten years.

we negotiated down to $715 million over ten years. put that in context, over the next ten years, the student loan program will probably loan out somewhere in the neighborhood of $1.4 trillion to $1.5 trillion. got that? $1.4 trillion. what we're talking about is only $715 million over that next ten years. that's the closest we could come to zero, and at the same time have hard caps and keep interest rates low. so i can't stress enough, this is a true compromise. i suppose if i were to right it, maybe i'd write it differently, if i could do that. i've expressed myself in votes on the senate floor in the past, but we have to deal with the art of the possible and to reach

compromises that kind of answers both, what the republicans sought to do and what we sought to do. but i also want to reiterate that this is not the end of the conversation. it's kind of really the beginning. as important as student loans are, stafford loans for students able to get an education and their parents being able to aforward it, as -- being able to afford it, it is just one part of the sort of jigsaw puzzle that is college affordability. in four months, when the g.a.o. report is back -- and i will again repeat that one of the elements we got in this compromise was a requirement that the g.a.o. do a study on stafford loans, on student loa loans; what the real cost is to the government, what the real

cost is to administer it, get that back to us in four months so that when we are in our committee reauthorizing the higher education act, we can take that into account. no one really knows -- my good friend from maine, who has been so instrumental in working out this agreement, has said many times, well, the rule book we have to go on is c.b.o. estimates. and i've been here long enough to see how many mistakes c.b.o. has made in the past. we don't know if they're right or not. we have no wai no way of knowin. we also don't really know -- we don't know what that's interest rates are going to be in the future. and we really don't know if 2.05% add-on or 3.6% add-on is the right thing. we don't know. that's why we have required the

g.a.o. to give us an in-depth study on this, so we can have a better handle on just what is the cost to the government, what does it cost to administer the program and all of its elements? and we will take that into account. i was pleased to hear again senator alexander, my good friend and ranking member on our committee, earlier today on the floor expressing the same commitment that he has expressed to me personally, that i mentioned earlier today; that working together to get a reauthorization of the higher education act done in this congress. senator alexander is committed to that and so am i. i might also add that i am pleased that president obama has also said that he is personally committed to working with us to get a higher education act through and to work with us to look at all of the college affordability issues, and that was displayed in his speech

today. so this is just one element, an important element but only one element. so i look forward to working with senator ale alexander, the white house, secretary duncan, the department of education, members of my committee on the democratic side to really look at all of what is college affordability? how are we going to address this issue comprehensively? i just again want to point out for the record, because pretty soon we'll be going to voting, there are two amendments that will be voted ofnlt i thin on. i think one is by senator reed of rhode island. the sorry by senator sa -- the other is by senator sanders, of vermont, and then we'll have final passage, if that's the order of things. i'm told it is. i know that the two amendments that will be offered, one by senator sanders, one by senator

reed ... look, they look really nice. and i know many on my side will be tempted to vote for them, but i will not be voting for them. they look nice, they sound nice, they would be nice in a perfect world. but we have to deal with c.b.o. estimates. and, quite frankly, the cost of those amendments, as judged by c.b.o., is just something that we can't do. again, they sound nice, they look nierk nice, they might feel nierks bunice,but we can't do i. so i will be opposing those amendments because we can't do that at this time. what we can do is do the compromise that we reached. that's what we can do. don't let anyone -- don't let

anyone tell you that this is a bad deal for students. this is not a bad deal for students. if we don't pass this, students this year will pay 6.8% on their loans, 6.8%. with this bill, they'll pay 3.86%. you tell me, which is the best deal? next year, 4.62%. the year after that, 5.4%. the year after that, 6.29%. doesn't get up to 7% for five -- one, two, three -- five years. if c.b.o. is right. but, in any case, for the next five years, it's going to be lower than 6.8%, for every student i in college. so don't let anybody tell you that this isn't a good deal for students. it is a good deal for students. that's why today we got endorsement by the national

student association, endorsing this bill, endorsing the compromise. they're not walking away from it. the leadership conference on civil rights has endorsed this bill. so any way you look at it, this is a good deal for students and it is a good deal for their families. don't let anybody tell you otherwise. oh, would there be a better deal? well, i suppose. how about free money? that's always a good deecialtion isn'-- that's always a good dea, isn't it? you know, free money. there's always a better -- something better out there. i say to my friends on the democratic side, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. yeah, there's probably a more perfect thing we could do. we can't afford t we don' it. we don't have the c.b.o. scoring that would allow us to do that.

we need to have a compromise. that's the way this place should run, on compromises. legitimate, yes, hard-fought-out but good compromises. senator manchin and senator burr have offered that compromise, a good bill, a good, solid compromise, one that will make sure that interest rates for students will be lower for the next five years aroun and under. and as senator alexander worked so hard to make sure we got into this compromise, when they get these loans as 3.86% this year, that's it for the life of the year. that's a good deal. or next year it is a 4.62% or next year at 5.4%. that's a dude deal. -- that's a good deal. so don't let what you think

might be more perfect take you away from voting for this bill. this as good bill. again, i want to thank so many who are responsible for putting this together. i want to thank senators durbin, senator manchin, senator king, who worked so hard through so many days -- weeks, as it is, to get this pulled together. senator carper, of course my rank member and good friend, senator alexander who was in there from day one trying to find that sweetspot that we could all agree on and vote on. senator coburn, senator burr, all their staffs, a lot of hard work and diligence in putting this proposal toct. i wan-- putting this proposal together. i want to thank president obama and his team, secretary duncan and his team for working together on this, and all of our staffs. this is the best that we could do, and a compromise for

students, given all the various priorities of this side and that side and the white house and everybody else. i'm i telling you, this is a god deal. we shouldn't turn it down. i will vote against the amendments offered by senator reed and senator sanders. well-meaning though they are -- as i said, they sound nice and they look pretty. but don't be lured into thinking that somehow that's going to havmenhappen. it's not. we have to stick with this compromise and get a good deal for the students, even though you may not think it's perfect. it's a good deal. i support the bipartisan student loan certainty act. i encourage all my colleagues to vote in favor of its passage and against amendments that would detract from it. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that all time be yielded back with the exception of two minutes equally divided bria pro each vote. the presiding officer: without

objection. under the previous order, there will be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment number 1778 offered by the senator from rhode island, mr. reed. mr. reed: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: mr. president, the reed-warren amendment would provide student students and fas with certainty by assuring that interest rates will go no higher than they would in the current fixed rates in law. the amendment is fully paid for by a very small, about .5% surcharge on income over $1 million. and we should do this for students all across the country, and we should do it not for the students that might be going to college next year but for those who are in high school today and will face, we know, predictablably higher rates. a young man wrote me a letter. "my brother, no, sir college, will be paying a lot of money

for college and is a worried he will have a hard time paying the loan. i'm afraid that by the timegy to college, loans will be so expensive i will not be able to pay it off. my parents help with paying for college, but they may not be able to help with paying for a loan that big. i really want to be able to go to college." so for those young men and women who are in high school today, who are going to high school, we have to at light vote for this -- at least vote for this reed-warren amendment to make sure that interest stays at least within the present bounds. i would urge a "yes" vote on the amendment, mr. president. mr. harkin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. harkin: the senator from rhode island knows i have the highest respect and affection for him. i might say that he makes excellent points. as i said earlier, this amendment looks good, looks pretty, sounds pretty, might be nice in a perfect world. but that's not where we are. like my colleagues, like senator reed, i want to make sure we're only asking students and families to pay as much interest

as needed in order to properly administer the program and no more. student loans should not be a profit center for the federal government. as i said earlier, that's why we but the into our underlying bill the manchin-burr bill, a requirement that g.a.o. report back to us on -- inform us as to actual what i does it cost. my good friend from rhode island doesn't know what it costs. i don't know what it costs. no one really knows. no one really knows what the cost of this is. as senator alexander said earlier, we're going to be looking at awful this in the -- at all of this in the college affordable act. under the bill before us, students pay less interest rates than 6.8% until 2017. so while the reed bill may sound good, that -- we're not there. we're not there to move on the reed bill yet -- or anything like it. plus the offset that he has for that even though he's fully paid

for it, is not acceptable to a lot of people here in the senate chambers. so stick with the underlying bill. defeat the reed amendment. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the question occurs on the amendment. the yeas and nays have been requested. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. there is a sufficient second. the clerk will call the roll. vote: vote: vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or wishing to change their vote? if not, on this vote, the yeas are 46, the nays are 53. under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is not agreed to. under the previous order, there will be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment number 1774 offered by the senator from

vermont, mr. sanders. mr. sanders: mr. president, could we have order in the chamber, please? the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. the senate will be in order. the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: mr. president, i want to thank senators leahy, wyden, brown, whitehouse, gillibrand, merkley, blumenthal, schatz, murphy and hirono for supporting this amendment. i also want to thank the two largest teachers organizations in the country for supporting this amendment. this amendment is very simple. it sunsets this legislation after two years, takes advantage of current relatively low interest rates and gives us the time to reauthorize the higher education act and come up with sensible long-term solutions to the crisis of student indebtedness and college affordability. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. the senator from vermont is recognized. mr. sanders: according to the c.b.o., by the year 2018, under

this legislation, undergraduate stafford loans will be 7.25%, graduate stafford loans will be 8.8%, parent loans will be 9.7%. we have a crisis right now in student indebtedness. we need to solve that crisis, not make it worse. i ask for support of this amendment. mr. harkin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. harkin: i appreciate what senator sanders is trying to do, but i can't support this amendment. really, by sunsetting this after two years because c.b.o. uses a ten-year window, the amendment would cost an estimated $20 billion. there is no offset to pay for it, and so again the lack of that offset would violate the agreement that we made under our bipartisan agreement of trying to get as close to deficit neutrality as possible. like senator sanders, i also want to make sure we make any needed changes to student loan interest rates before they become too high.

let me remind everyone, in the 1990's, we had an 8.25% cap. we hit it five times. we got this back in this agreement, an 8.25% absolute cap. but beyond that, for the next four, almost five years, every student subsidized and unsubsidized in college will have a lower interest rate than 6.8%. now, in the out years, who knows what the interest rates are going to be? we don't know that. neither does c.b.o., but we do know what they are going to be this year and probably next year, and the students get a much better deal under the compromise. so i ask people don't support the sanders amendment. let's vote and let's keep the compromise in place and give our students a good deal this year and next year and the year after and the year after and keep that 8.25% cap that we negotiated on. the presiding officer: the question is on the amendment.

the yeas and nays have been requested. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or wishing to change their vote? if not, on this vote, the yeas are 34, the nays are 65. under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is not agreed to. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: could we have order. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. mr. reid: colleagues, we'll likely have one more vote tonight and then we'll have senator murray and senator collins determine what's going to happen on the appropriations bill before us. i rise now, mr. president, to honor our colleague, orrin hatch. the next vote cast will be orrin hatch's 13,000th vote. 13,000. this is a tremendous accomplishment.

and it speaks to his dedication to the state of utah, his constituents, and the united states senate and our country. he's the republicans' most senior member. he's now serving in his seventh term in the united states senate. before running for the senate, senator hatch received a bachelor's degree from brigham and young university, a law degree from university of pittsburgh, and worked in -- was in private practice for a number of years. he's the ranking member on the finance committee today. as we know, he made a great reputation for himself when he was chair of the judiciary committee. where we worked together with him, as we all did, for those many years. he serves on the help committee, joint committee on taxation. he's really had a significant impact on the united states senate. he's a dedicated member of the board of directors, hawkhouse memorial museum. he's done amazing things his whole career.

but his number-one accomplishment for me, mr. president, is not how many terms he's served in the senate but his accomplishment for his wonderful family, his wife, elaine, has been a great helpmate for him for these many decades. he has 23 grandchildren, six children, and now ten great-grandchildren. although -- although orrin and i on occasion disagree on substantive issues, he's a person i have great respect for. i am so grateful to him over the years for always expressing concern about me personally and his kindness and concern to my family, especially to landra. congratulations. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: the senior senator from utah will not be known for quantity of his votes but for the quality of his work, a man of extraordinary character and we're happy to have this

intermission here to congratulate him on yet another accomplishment in a long and outstanding career in the united states senate. [applause] [applause] [applause] the presiding officer: under the previous order, there will be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment number 1773, offered by the senator from iowa, mr. harkin. the senator from west virginia. mr. manchin: mr. president?

the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: just a point of order. i believe that we're prepared to voice vote this to move the procedure along. and at the proper time, i would ask that such a motion be made. mr. manchin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mr. manchin: mr. president, we can fix or student loan program today with a "yes" vote on bipartisan legislation to lower interest rate for all student borrowers. the bipartisan student loan certainty act is a long-term fix that is fair, it's equitable, financially sustainable and fiscally responsible. this compromise will save students $8 billion in interest this school year, which translates to $31 billion in savings over the next four years. that means a savings of $2,000, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. mr. hanch in: that means a -- mr. manchin: that means a

savings of $2,000 in interest for the average freshman student who starts college this year. a "no" vote will prevent students from this savings. there's simply no better investment we can make than the education of our children and grandchildren. i urge our colleagues to make that investment and vote to support this long-term bipartisan fix. mr. reed: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: mr. president, i would oppose the proposed amendment. it is short-term rate relief but it's long-term rate paying for thousands of students and families across the country. we could do much better than this. we will have an opportunity in a few moments after the voice vote to have another sort of small discussion prior to the final passage. but i believe, again, that this amendment is not, despite the best work, best intentions, great effort by colleagues, it's not the best work we can do with respect to students and families. mr. manchin: mr. president?

the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mr. manchin: it is my -- first of all, i just respect my colleague and we just have a different of opinion on in this but we're still going to work together on everything we can possibly can to make it better. it's my understanding that we will be able to adopt the amendment by a voice vote since we'll be having a roll call vote on passage of the bill, as amended, with this language. i ask unanimous consent to extinguish the previous order requiring a 60-vote threshold for this amendment. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the question is on the amendme amendment. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed say. no. the ayes to have it. ayes appea. the ayes do have it. the amendment is agreed to. under the previous order, there will be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote on passage of h.r. 1911, as amended.

who yields time? mr. harkin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. harkin: mr. president, now the vote comes on what we are really going to do and that is, as my good friend, senator manchin said, and that is to keep interest rates low for students. keep in mind, this -- the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the senator from iowa. mr. harkin: thank you, mr. president. what this means for our students is that the student loans for all students, undergraduate, will be reduced from 3.8% to 6.8% this year, it will be lower than 6.8% for the next 4 1/2, almost five years. so do our students, do our families a favor, vote for final passage.

keep the interest rates low and make sure that our students aren't paying 6.8% interest rate this year and next year and the year beyond. mr. reed: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: mr. president, as i indicated previously with respect to the proposed amendment by senator manchin, this provides short-term rate relief -- mrs. boxer: the senate is not in order. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. mr. reed: mr. president, this proposal will provide short-term rate relief but lock in long-term rate pain for thousands of families and students across the country. it also represents a fundamental shift in our approach to student lending, from investing in students and in our future economy to making those students be profit centers for the federal government. there's $184 billion over ten years of profit. the different between the cost of funding and the revenue that will be paid by the students to the federal government. i think also what we've done is we've done nothing to address the trillion dollars of

outstanding debt that students face today, and this measure will add to that debt. education has always been the engine of opportunity in this country. with this legislation, that engine will leave the station with many fewer students aboard, and i would urge a "no" vote. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the clerk will read the title of the bill for a third time. the clerk: calendar number 139, h.r. 1911, an act to amend the higher education act of 1965 and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the question occurs on passage of h.r. 1911, as amended. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be a sufficient second. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or wishing to change their vote? if not, on this vote the yeas are 81, the nays are 18. the 60-vote threshold having been achieved on this bill as amended is passed. the senator from arkansas. a senator: i ask the senate proceed to a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. pryor: mr. president, i rise -- i would like to speak as if in morning business, mr. president. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. pryor: i rise today to speak in favor of the t-h.u.d. bill that is on the floor this week. i know that all of us listened to the speeches and the commentators and we hear a lot

of people around washington say cut, cut, cut. well, i'm for cutting our spending, and i think we need to tighten our belt, but we need to do it in a smart way. we need to do things like cut programs that don't work. we need to also make smart and targeted investments in our future. and the question is how do we do that? one of the ways we do that is by supporting this legislation today, by working together and investing in our future, we can do great things for this country, and that's what the thud bill is about. yesterday, the f.a.a. announced seven airports in our state would receive a total of $4.8 million from the f.a.a. for infrastructure upgrades, and that's part of what this bill is about. some of these were runway rehabilitations, some were new lighting systems, some may have been drainage improvements. these not only promote safety and certainly they make air travel safer in this country and

that's extremely important, but also they are a way to spur economic activity. it's a great way to reinvest federal tax dollars in to my state and into the other 49 states to create jobs. let me just give arkansas as an example of this. in arkansas, -- and i know that we're only about 1% of the population, so you can kind of do the math here, but in arkansas, commercial and general aviation airports actually support 29,000 jobs in our state and contribute to $2.5 billion every year in economic activity. in our airports are important, but it is actually only a piece of the puzzle. we need to remember that we have other great infrastructure that we need to invest in, things like waterways and ports and highways, rural communities make sure they are not left behind, things like rural housing, but also things like rural broadband so there are lots of ways that

we can invest to make this country stronger. that's why i believe it's very important to support this thud appropriations bill. the bill passed in committee on a bipartisan vote, 22-8. i was proud to vote for it. i was glad to see it get such a large bipartisan vote in the senate committee. i certainly hope my colleagues will do this again on the floor in a very bipartisan way. this bill includes things like the federal-aid highway program. this is a program that helps support interstate maintenance, bridge repairs, highway safety. after all, how many reports do we have to read to talk about the distressed infrastructure of our highways, so if we want to replace these bridges that are beyond their life span, this is the way to do it. for every billion dollars in federal highway and transit investment, it supports 100 -- excuse me, 13,000 american jobs. this bill also includes popular

programs that have been put to good use like tiger. i could go through several of the tiger grants that my state has received but one of those i am proud of is the tiger grant for west memphis, arkansas, to develop that port as an intermodal facility on the mississippi river right across from memphis, which is crowded, and west memphis has all the same quality of attributes that memphis has, it just happens to be on the arkansas side of the river. that investment there is going to explode development and do great things up and down the mississippi river. the airport improvement program is also part of this, contract tower program, community development block grants. every mayor, every elected official in the counties, the governors, they all know how important the cdbg money is. and the other great thing about supporting this legislation is it is one step in the right direction headed back to what we call regular order, trying to get things done in the senate

the way they ought to be done with us working together, going through the committee process, coming to the floor with the bill, having amendments, having debate, sometimes fussing and fighting with one another, but nonetheless getting it done, and this is a great way to do that. so i really believe, mr. president, in moving our country forward with new jobs and a stronger economy is something that we all should be able to agree on, all of us should be able to agree on this. maybe a little difference here and there, but i hope a big, big number of senators will support this legislation. and lastly, mr. president, let me just say a few words about chairwoman mikulski and her ranking member senator shelby. senator mikulski has been amazing in her leadership of the appropriations committee. everybody on the committee knows that she is a breath of fresh air, she is so energetic and so knowledgeable and so good at what she does and we're so excited to have her there as chair of that committee, and she is really going to go down in

history as one of the all-time greats, and we're so proud that she is pushing so hard to get these bills out of the committee and get them to the senate floor and hopefully get them done on the senate floor so we can send them over to the house and get them conferenced. and also i have to say thank you to senator murray who is the chair of the subcommittee, and also senator collins. i think senator collins is a great legislator, she knows how to get it done. she has great relations on both sides of the aisle. one thing i like about susan collins is a lot of times she will take on the hard things and she gets the hard things done. we need more senators like that around here, certainly senator murray. she is incredible. she does so many good things around the senate and around the country for her state. mr. president, with that, i just want to say i want to encourage my colleagues to look at this bill. i know we're going to have some

amendments, we'll have some more debate, that's part of it, it's great, but let's get up-or-down votes on this thing and get this through the system. mr. president, with that, i yield the floor. mr. whitehouse: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, i am here once again now for the 40th time to urge my colleagues to wake up to the threat of climate change. i'm very pleased to be joined together by our colleague senator brian schatz of hawaii who is a champion of renewable energy and energy efficiency. as hawaii's lieutenant governor, he co-authored his state's net meetering rule, and he led the design of the state's renewable energy portfolio which is on track to be number one in the nation. he has pushed commonsense ways to boost energy, security and battle climate change, and it is no wonder that he has been called hawaii's ambassador of energy.

we are here today in the wake of a hearing last week in the committee on environment and public works. the premise of that hearing was simple -- climate change, it's happening now. disappointingly, again, allies of the fossil fuel industry attempted to discount or down play that straightforward call to action. of the climate scientists on hand, everyone, even the minority witnesses, agreed that carbon dioxide causes climate change. that is physics 101. and all but one agreed that climate change is a real problem. the only academic who didn't, dr. roy spencer, is affiliated with the industry-backed george c. marshall institute and the heartland institute. regrettably, dr. spencer played a tried and true trick of the

climate deniers, deselecting data that don't support your conclusions. scientists around the world have been collecting high-quality surface temperature data for more than 100 years. to dr. spencer, however, the only data that matters are satellite and balloon readings of atmospheric temperatures in the tropics. why ignore data outside the tropics? why ignore surface temperature data? why ignore ocean data when the ocean covers two-thirds of the globe? well, when you look at all the data, it shows the earth warming at a much faster rate than his data in isolation. other minority witnesses played similar games. miss furscott roth who is not a climate scientist, testified on this. she appears to be a sort of

all-purpose witness of all trades for the republicans on topics that range from job training to health insurance to constitutional law, even to samoan fisheries. she claimed that climate change has stopped. well, if you just look at the past decade, you could convince yourself that climate change has stopped. actually, on this chart, you can convince yourself that climate change has stopped five different times. but when you look at the whole picture, the only conclusion is that the earth is getting warmer. the past ten years were warmer than the ten years before that. in fact, the past ten years were warmer than any other ten years in recorded history. the continued now near fraudulent denial of climate change is really pernicious.

dr. jennifer francis of rutgers called out in her testimony what she calls climate misleaders. she explained, and i'll quote her -- these are people who are deliberately ignoring and misconstruing the science in an attempt to convince lawmakers and the public that either human-caused climate change isn't happening or that it's nothing to worry about. well, i'm sure senator schatz is aware that observations around the world, including in his home state, show that climate change is indeed real and already happening. senator schatz. mr. schatz: mr. president, -- thank you, mr. president. i want to thank the senator from rhode island for his kind words. he's a real expert and a leader on climate change, and i look forward to continuing to work together with him and our colleagues on this important issue. he's just discussed the

overwhelming evidence that global temperatures are rising. i'd like to build on his remarks and add that temperature is not the only indicator that climate change is real and it's happening now. we see the changes in hawaii and all over the world. one only need to look to the top of the world where arctic sea ice is melting faster than scientists had predicted originally. just last summer, the ice covering the arctic ocean retreated to its smallest size in recorded history, shrinking by 350,000 square miles, an area about the size of venezuela. glaciers continue to retreat. the greenland ice sheet provides a stark example of the rapid recession of the world's ice. for several days in july of 2012, greenland's surface ice cover melted more than at any

time in 30 years of satellite observation. during that month, an estimated 97% of the ice sheet thawed. some types of severe weather are also on the rise. while climate scientists are extremely careful not to attribute any single weather event to climate change, there's no doubt that increased climate change has loaded the dice, which means that extreme weather events are increasingly likely. extrem extreme weather events cost us in lives and in money and of course the sea level continues to rise. scientists have observed that the top layer of the world's oceans have stored an enormous amount of heat, raising sea levels in many parts of the world. this ocean warming has contributed to an estimated one-third to one half of the increase in sea level rise to date. sea level rise is a serious challenge for my home state of

hawaii in particular. just a three-foot rise in sea level which scientists project for this century will flood many parts of honolulu including the iconic hotels and businesses along waikiki beach, leaving beaches eroded and hotels, businesses and homes possibly inundated by the ocean. my colleague from rhode island, an ocean state, is especially aware of these changes. mr. whitehouse: the type, -- the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: tide gauges in newport, rhode island show an increase in average sea level of nearly ten inches since 1930. that's a big deal for rhode islanders when we think how devastating our hurricane of 1938 was and what worse would now befall us with ten more inches of sea for storms to hammer against our shores.

these measurements show that the rate of sea level rise is also increasing. this matches reports that since 1990, sea level has been rising faster than the rate predicted by the intergovernmental panel on climate change. part of what has caused sea level rise is ocean warming, as described by senator schatz and when fluids get warm including ocean water, they expand and therefore they rise. during last week's e.p.w. hearing we heard about the heat, significant amounts of heat that oceans are now absorbing. even if atmospheric warming had hit another temporary level, the ocean is still warming. and ocean warming hits ocean ecosystems. dr. margaret lynch ynen testified about a study that showed democratically important species like cod, haddoc, and yellow tail and winter flounder

shifting northward over the past four decades. the study suggests the fish are moving to locations within their preferred temperature range. scientists have done gun to tease out how what seemed like small changes in average temperature are important to fish and other animals in the oceans. in narragansett bay we have a continuous temperature record going back to 1959 along with data on what is living in the water. we know water temperature is rising. one study found winter temperatures are up on average almost four degrees since the 1960's in narragansett bay. and that is not good for the winter flounder. noaa scientists working in rhode island found winter flounder incubated in warmer water are smaller when they hatch than those incubated in colder water. juvenile winter flounder need time to settle to the bottom of the bay and grow larger before

the sand shrimp arrive. now it looks like warmer water brings the shrimp in earlier while the flounder are still small enough to eat, making them easier prey. so, the evidence is that warmer waters load the dice against warn flounder in narragansett bay, and the fishermen who relied upon this fishery, they paid the price. catches are down to less than a tenth of what they once were, and fishermen in hawaii are paying the price as well. mr. schatz: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii. mr. schatz: as senator whitehouse has described, our oceans slowly slow the effect of climate change by absorbing much of the heat from our warming planet but they do more than that. our oceans absorb almost 25% of the carbon that humans release into the atmosphere, and if they didn't, even more greenhouse gases would warm our

planet at an even faster pace. our oceans and the life in them pay a price for all of this carbon. increasing carbon dioxide creates a chemical reaction that raises the acidity of the sea water. this is called ocean acidification. so that's a technical term but what does it mean as a practical matter? in plain terms, ocean acidification makes it difficult for shellfish, corals, sea urchins and others to form the shells they need in order to live. as a result fewer survive which means entire populations are put at risk. acidification negatively affects crucial parts of the ocean's food chain from shellfish and coral reefs to fisheries. what does this mean for human beings? ocean acidification has economic consequences for communities that depend on the ocean for food, for jobs, for tourism.

like my home state of hawaii. further acidification and warming will hurt our local fishing and tourism industries, industries that make up the backbone of our economy. all the fish and the sea food that we depend upon may become scarcer and likely more expensive. if we continue to burn fossil fuels at our current rate, our oceans may become 150% more acidic by the end of this century. that's a higher level of acidity than has been seen in the last 20 million years. today, more than a billion people worldwide rely on food from the oceans as their primary source of protein. as and so without solving the problem of ocean acidification we will leave people, industries, and entire economies vulnerable especially in developing countries. climate change is threatening the basic foundation of many of our economies and especially the

state of hawaii. so any dramatic changes to our ocean environment will impact our lives especially. as i mentioned before, sea level rise threatens our beachfront propt patriot from waikiki to the north shore of kauaiy these are important to local people across the state. each year hawaii hosts an estimated eight million visitors with many drawn to our beaches. tourist receipts alone made up almost $12 billion in revenues last year so climate change could also usher in a period of more frequent and severe weather which could make hawaii's communities increasingly vulnerable to flooding and storm damage. climate change threatens more than our economy. our national security institutions face a similar risk

from sea level rise and ocean acidification. the 2010 quad revenue yell defense -- quadrennial defense review produced by the department of defense concluded that climate change will affect the military and its missions, in particular low lying naval institutions such as pearl harbor hickham that could leave parts of the base flooded requiring millions of dollars in costly upgrades. with the united states rebalancing to the asian pacific region, sustaining our naval capabilities will be increasingly important for hawaii and for our nation. i know that the senator from rhode island has concerns about his own state and i yield to him. mr. whitehouse: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: as the senator from hawaii said it's not just hawaii, it's not just rhode island actually, it is all of our states that will be

affected. dr. lynen who testified at our e.p.w. hearing is from florida atlantic university and she highlighted 0-sensitive florida will be to climate change. in her testimony she said the caribbean florida region has shown sea surface temperatures increase about two degrees fahrenheit per decade. concurrent with losses of viable coral reef area, of between 5.5% and 9.2% per year, western atlantic reefs have the highest percentage area affected by bleaching of any reefs worldwide. not so great for florida's diving and snorkeling economy. dr. lynen pointed out that florida's population is "heavily concentrated with almost 14 million people living along our

coast. in south florida, miami, the seventh largest city in the country, the florida keys, coastal and inland portions of broward county, the florida everglades and fort lauderdale are all below two feet in elevation. the effects of sea level rise that we discussed for hawaii and rhode island appear to be more evident in florida. dr. lynen told us although sea level rise has only risen these few inches in 50 years, that rise has been sufficient to prevent drainage systems from working during lunar high tides and during storms. the streets of high pressure system beach are now routinely flooded at peak high tide. the addition of storm surges to these higher sea levels means drainage systems no longer work reliably causing sea water to move into storm sewer systems and force water inland. so south florida is ground zero

for sea level rise and as senator schatz said earlier this is one of the effects of climate change. and sea level rise has not stopped or slowed down. especially not in south florida. it is time to wake up and get to work, slowing these changes where we can and adapting our communities to their inevitable effects. senator schatz. mr. schatz: mr. president? commonsense solutions to the threat of climate change are everywhere. we've been talking a lot about the risks of climate change, but let's talk a little bit about the opportunities. the opportunities to fight climate change, to transform how we produce and consume energy, and to grow a clean energy economy. we know what we need to do. we also know how to do it. congress may not enact comprehensive climate legislation this year but it can still take action to make a

difference. as i see it, we have an opportunity for common ground in three areas: energy efficiency, tax incentives, and innovate financing structures to promote clean energy deployment. perhaps the greatest opportunity for compromise is in energy efficiency, the commonsense idea that we ought to save money and reduce pollution at the same time by simply consuming less energy to perform the same tasks. senators shaheen and portman have taken this up and are writing excellent legislation to improve and enhance energy efficiency across the nation. their bill includes sensible measures that will help to achieve significant reductions in energy use. building use caused close to 40% of the energy use in the united states and this bill will contain provisions that will you want the building codes, increase efficiency goals for

federal facilities and provide incentives to commercial buildings and homes. in recent weeks we've been hearing that shaheen-portman may come to the floor. we are encouraged by that. we encourage both the majority leader and the minority leader as well as the managers of this legislation to move it to the floor expeditiously so that we can take care of it before the august break. second, i urge my colleagues to support tax incentives for clean energy. many of which expire at the end of this year. senators on both sides of the aisle have repeatedly worked together to extend these incentives especially the wind credit. we can build on this common ground to support sensible solutions. we not only have the opportunity to extend clean energy incentives as a part of tax reform, but to improve upon them. we should focus on creating credits that reward performance and innovation and do not pick winners and losers. they should help industries

scale up, bring costs down, and become competitive on their own. finally, the federal government must do more to help new and innovate technologies reach the marketplace. new technologies face significant barriers to market enindustry, barriers that focus government intervention such as loan guarantees and other financing mechanisms can help to overcome. the senator from rhode island may also have thoughts on other commonsense solutions and i yield to him for any comments he may have. mr. whitehouse: rhode island is preparing for climate change and we're doing it in a commonsense way. along our coasts we are identifying areas that are vulnerable to sea level rise. the university of rhode island graduate school of ocean graphy is a world leader in measuring and understanding the effects of climate change on our waters. rhode island's department of health with a grant from the centers for disease control and prevention is preparing us for

health effects associated with climate change. but it's not enough for individual states to have to act alone. that's why senator schatz and i along with our colleagues in the house, representatives waxman and blawr, have put -- blumenauer, have put together a draft for a fee on carbon pollution. it's clear, when you consider the damage climate change will cause, indeed already has begun to cause, there's a social cost of carbon 34r50ugs --, pollution, and it's not fact ordinary into the price of fossil fuels. that is a market failure. and our approach would correct that market failure. we want to discuss with our democratic and republican colleagues how best to implement this solution, what the price should be, how fast it should rise and how to return the proceeds back to americans. a market solution like this

should be right up republicans' alley. that's why republicans like art laffer and george schultz are talking about it. a fee on carbon can reduce emissions and, one option, to use the proceeds to reduce taxes should be attractive to our republican colleagues. to give one example, with the majority of the carbon pollution fee proceeds, setting a little reserve aside for the lowest-income people, you put the rest of it to work lowering corporate income taxes. and just with that, you can reduce the top american corporate income tax rate from 35% to 28%. that's a pretty considerable value to those businesses that are still paying the top rate and that should be something worth negotiations. mr. president, overall, as i've said before in these talks, it's

time to wake up, it's time to get to work. i want to thank my friend, senator schatz, for his leadership in the effort to protect americans from the harms of climate change. i want to turn to him now for his final remarks and then welcome senator blumenthal, who will be joining us in this colloquy. mr. schatz: thank you. i want to thank senator whitehouse for being such a leader for so long and so forceful and so fact well -- so factual on this issue. irrealli really applaud his leap and look forward to continuing our work together on this issue. climate change is real. climate change is caused by humans. and climate change is solvable. i want to end on a note of optimism. the urgency of this situation creates a real opportunity we have a chance to start a second industrial revolution that will drive our economy for decades to come. we have the chance and the

responsibility to transition into a clean energy economy and leave our world in better shape than we found it. i yield the floor to senator blumenthal. mr. blumenthal: mr. president? i want to join with my two very good friends and colleagues who have highlighted an issue that really concerns the whole country, not just hawaii and rhode island and -- no two states are farther apart geographically, but we share this very dire and dangerous problem. often characterized as climate change, i think it is climate disruption. it is global destruction. and one of the myths that surrounds this area that my two colleagues have sought to explode valley the supposed

incompatibility of reducing destruction of our planet and at the same time growing our economy. often economic growth is thought to be in conflict with environmental protection and responsibility. in fact, ecology and economy go together. we can expand our economy by developing new sources of fuel, renewables like wind and solar, but also fuel cells, which in my state of connecticut, are a growing source of energy responsibility and economic growth. so far from being incompatible, these two goals are complimentary. and more jobs, more economic growth can be the result of controlling carbon pollution. in fact, the president's program for controlling carbon pollution, which would

dramatically cut the magnitude of our air contamination and make us a more responsible nation, will increase jobs and economic growth. it will also put us in a position of leadership around the globe, enable us to regain the position of trust and leadership that we have exercised on so many other issues. we cannot be a leader if we don't lead ourselves. we cannot tell others what to do when we don't follow the example that we should be setting. it should be and it must be leadership by example. my colleague, senator murphy, and i -- and he will be shortly speaking about another subjec subject -- brought together a very powerful coalition in connecticut just last week to highlight this issue of climate

change and to dramatize how many different interests and ages have in common on this goal. labor leaders, environmental activists, young people wearing t-shirts, carrying signs. they get it. they know the science is there. the reality is pressing and urgent and we must address it. so i want to thank all of my colleagues who are uniting on this historic cause. i hope that we can join together in colloquies going forward. i know the presiding officer has been a leader in the house and will be and is now in the sena senate, and most especially my friend and colleague, senator whitehouse, who literally week after week in many different themes and widely diverse ways

has brought our attention, rivetting our minds on this very, very important subject. and i congratulate him on the 40th and i look forward to participating in more with him. thank you, mr. president. mr. whitehouse: i look forward to that myself, mr. president. i yield the floor.

mr. murphy: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. murphy: thank you, mr. president. on july 20, just a few days ago, we had a pretty somber anniversary in this country. senator bennet came down to acknowledge the occasion. it was the one-year anniversary of the shooting in aurora, colorado. in which a young man killed 12 individuals and wounded 58 others when he walked into a crowded movie theater at a midnight showing of "the dark knight rise rises" and once agan showed the vulnerability of this

nation when the united states congress refuses to act on the issue of preventing gun violence. mr. president, i've come down here virtually every week -- not, frankly, as often or as regularly as senator whitehouse has on the issue of climate change -- but in the short time that i've been in the senate, i've tried to come down to the floor virtually every week to talk about the victims of gun violence. today it's an apt moment to recognize the victims in aurora who have now been lost for over a year. but this number here represents something different. on december 14, our world in connecticut was just absolutely shattered by a global tragedy in which 20 six 6- and 7-year-oldsd

in a splatter of gunfire at sandy hook elementary school, as well as six of the professionals that were charged with protecting them. and what has happened since december 14 is, frankly, in a lot of ways even more egregious, even more unconscionable, even more difficult to swallow than what happened on that day and that is that 6,497 people have died from guns since december 14 in, frankly, every manner. there have been more mass shootings. there have been accidental deaths. there have been suicides. there have been incidences of one-on-one urban violence, suburban violence, family-on-family violence. and what has happened is that, you know, this country's just kind of become numb to it. we just kind of accept that every day you're going to be able to pick up the paper and somewhere across this country, there's going to be upwards. 30 or 40 people who have died at

the hands of guns, at a rate that you can't find anywhere else in the civilized world. we just kind of accept it here. and so the number is startling. since december 14, almost 6,500 people have died through gun violence. but we can't just settle on that number. we've got to talk about who these people are. and so, mr. president, i'm trying to lend some voice to the victims of gun violence every week on the floor of the senate to try to spur this place to action, because i guess i've become resolved that the numbers aren't enough, that apparently this number isn't big enough for the senate to do something, so that maybe if we humanize these tragedies, that that might do the trick. a.j. boyk was described as a ball of joy by his friend, jordan. he had just graduated from high school and he was looking forward to attending the rocky

mountain college of art and design in the fall. he really wanted to be an art teacher. he wanted to teach others the joy that he felt for art. he was known as a big personality, so much so that after he was killed in that movie theater in aurora, over a thousand people came to his funeral. and among those mourners were his girlfriend, who was there in the theater the day that he was shot. matthew mcquinn was one of the heroes that day. he was there with his girlfriend, samantha, and her brother, nick, when the shooter came into the theater and started spraying bullets, matthew, as well as nick attempted to shield samantha from the bullets. samantha survived but matthew did not. he was working in a target --

that's actually where he met his girlfriend, when they were working at another target. he was remembered by his coworkers very fondly. he died that day saving a life. as did navy petty officer third-class john thomas larimer. he was one of two active-duty service members who died as a result of that mass shootings. his girlfriend, whose life he saved, said this. "john and i were seated in the middle area when the violence occurred, john immediately and instinctively covered me and brought notice thbrought me to n order to protect me from danger. in that act, he saved his girlfriend but he was struck with a bullet that ended his life. alex sullivan's 27 years old and his friends called him a gentle giant. he was ringing in his 27th

birthday, in fact, by going to the premier of "the dark knight rises." his family said he always had a glowing smile on his face and he made friends with everybody. he was a huge movie buff. he was a comic book geek, as his family called him, and he loved the new york mets. the sunday following his attack would have been his one-year wedding anniversary. micala was called cala by her friends. she loved her friends, she loved going out with her friends. that's what she was doing when she went out that evening to see this movie. her family didn't find out that she had been killed that day until 20 hours after the shooting, they had spent that evening in -- and morning driving from hospital to hospital, hoping to get news that she had survived.

veronica sullivan was the youngest of the 12 people that were shot. she was 6 years old. not unlike the 26 and -- the 20 6 and 7-year-olds killed in newtown. she was excited about life. she was there that evening because her family wanted to get their mind off the recent passing of her grandfather. she had become consumed with sorrow over the passing of her grandfather, so as a treat, her family brought her to the premiere of this movie. she was going to start swimming lessons the following week. mr. president, james holmes walked into that movie theater with an ar-15 style rifle which we have heard talked about over and over and over again, the weapon of choice in mass

shootings in this country, but just as important, he was armed with 100-round drums of ammunition. why on earth does this senate allow for the continued legal sale of 100-round drums of ammunition? what possible legal reason could there be for the possession of 100-round drums of ammunition that go into an automatic weapon, other than to kill as many people as possible, as quickly as possible? there is no reason that a sport shooter needs a 100-round drum of ammunition, and yet we can't even get the votes to ban the sale of those deadly accessories

to semiautomatic weapons. i get it. 6,497 people didn't die at the hands of an assault weapon, didn't die at the hands of a 100-round drum, never mind a 30-round magazine, but these mass shootings are going to continue to happen. frankly, the one that happened in santa monica not long ago barely moved the headlines in this country. thee or four people dying is nothing these days at the hands of a semiautomatic weapon. you now have to have 20 or 30 people die in order for it to be a big story. expectations have changed because these shootings are becoming regular normal occurrences. and we can't let this country become numb to mass shootings in the way that i would argue we

become numb to the 6,500 people who have died since december 14. and so, mr. president, i -- i understand that we tried and failed to get legislation passed through this senate that of course is supported by 90% of americans that would just extend background checks to more sales of weapons to make sure that criminals don't have weapons to make gun trafficking a crime in a way that it is not and provides more mental health resources, but we shouldn't give up. we shouldn't give up because there is going to be another aurora, there will be another sandy hook if we do nothing. 30-40 people will still die every day if we stand by and continue to allow this kind of regular, everyday gun violence to be the background noise of this nation. and maybe if the numbers don't move people, the stories of the victims will.

maybe that will be enough to finally prompt the united states senate and house of representatives to action. i yield the floor. mr. murphy: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. murphy: i ask unanimous consent the senate immediately proceed to the calendar of h.r. 988, h.r. 1092. the clerk: calendar number 98,

h.r. 1092, an act to designate the air route traffic control center located in nashau, new hampshire, as the patricia clark boston air route traffic control center. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. murphy: mr. president, i further ask that the bill be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, all with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. murphy: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the energy committee be discharged from further consideration of s. 1294 and the bill be referred to the committee on agriculture, nutrition and forestry. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. murphy: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. on thursday, july 25, 2013, and that following the prayer and pledge, the morning

business be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day and that following any leader remarks, the senate be in a period of morning business until 11:00 a.m. with time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each, with the majority controlling the first 30 minutes and the republicans controlling the second 30 minutes, and that following morning business, the senate resume consideration of s. 1243, the transportation, housing and urban development appropriations bill. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. murphy: mr. president, we will continue to work through amendments through the t-h.u.d. appropriations bill tomorrow. if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until senate stands adjourned until

>> beautify themselves in a way that was not there before. when the communists came down, they were brutal and a lot of the suffering turned against the time in the minority.

that solidified i think they're sort of sense of national cohesion and identity. but i think had he waited it'sñ very possible that the south probably, it's possible that would have disintegrated on its own. >> sixty years after north korean troops crossed the 38th parallel, sheila miyoshi jager looks at a war that never really ended. sunday night at nine on after words. part of booktv this weekend on c-span2. >> that role of the first lady, she becomes the chief confidant. she really is the only one in the world he can trust. so he unloads to her and talks to her. they've all done that. they are all strong women. and, of course, they a company usually a strong man to where he was. but i would say that their main role is confidant to the

president spent our original series, first ladies, influence and image examines the public and private lives of these women and their influence on the presidency. watch the encore presentation from martha washington to ivan mckinley weeknights in august at 9 p.m. eastern started -- starting august 5 on c-span. >> next a discussion on the marine corps and the future technology of war. >> host: in our last hour of the washington on wednesdays we take a look at recent magazine articles as part of our spotlight on magazine series. we want to show you the cover story of popular mechanics, the future of war, elite u.s. forces deployed new tech and tactics for tomorrow's conflict. senior editor of popular mechanics is joining us from new york to talk about the peace.

joe, you went to the marine corps air ground combat center in the mojave desert. what is it and what's going on? >> guest: the combat center at twentynine palms is located close to joshua tree national park, and is a massive, sprawling desert environment where the marines can be very high fidelity life our combat training at the battalion level. it's one of the few places where they can use all the weapons they have at their disposal to train before deployment. so you have tanks, helicopters, combat aircraft, armored vehicles and marines all fa firg live in the nation and coordinating together to train before deployment. a very unique place, a great place for a journalist like myself to go and really see how our practitioners i do about modern combat is conducted. you can get a glimpse of where

it's going from there also. >> host: when you're there, there were 800 marines that were training, part of the 33. explained that. and what exactly were they doing? you referred to as the integrator training exercise. what is that? >> guest: the integrator training exercise is, it's a new very in unfamiliar terrain exercises they do. it's been a month out at twentynine palms doing a very collaborative scenario. and it culminates in this three-day life our combat drill where they attack, defend and then counterattacked. it's different than the earlier iterations. i was there, only the second time they were doing -- doing this. they used to call it advanced mojave. but they change them when they change the structure of a drink at what they're doing now instead of, it's a pre-deployment dreams of these marines were not going to iraq or afghanistan. they're going to the pacific. they are training against a

different kind of an enemy. so instead of insurgents with rocket propelled grenades on their shoulders and ied is, they were training against a bigger, more well-equipped army, a standing army with tanks, antiaircraft missiles, bunkers. so it's a different kind of fight so they have to train differently post might be 800 marines of the 33, explain who they are. >> guest: that's the battalion level. so, that includes the combat commanders were in the command center if they're moving all the pieces around. in the 800 or so marines were actually on the ground doing the train. on top of those people there's also the aviation element. so those f-18s get roaring overhead, dropping 2000, 500-pound bombs. they had a tanks also but it's the entire battalion who were deployed to the theater and

would be involved in one of these large-scale fights. they are all represented which made it very interesting to observe when your apple's. >> host: why is that? >> guest: just because, when you come to the defense you kind of take a piecemeal. you can spend time with the people who make and use of tanks. you can fly an osprey. you can change with wings. you do all these things but you never see it all come together and work together in what they call combined arms were everyone is supporting each other. when you have, when you watch them up close and the greens are trying to take an objective and that recording all these moving pieces, the equipment is working as it is supposed to come you get a really good sense of the scale of this and the enormity and complexity of modern warfare. ..

to try to take an objective * objective and take objective and pick up a artillery at the right spot and you have to get the tanks moving and the synchronization of all of that is incredibly complicated. * complicated. when it works it's amazing. it looks like a ballet or something and when it doesn't work at locks down terribly and i got to see a bit of both when i was out there. >> the these marines are deploying to the pacific. what new tactics are they planning for?

>> is probably important to note that the marines don't plan or ignore the military. they will train against a specific enemy. they prefer to train against capabilities. having said that the capabilities they are training for our you know tanks and sophisticated surface-to-air missiles armored personnel carriers anti-artillery and the people who have that on the world stage that we have few political tensions with include iran and syria but in the pacific where they were going with north korea and china and so some of the things that the marines were trained for and some of the ways they wanted to tweak their tactics to face an enemy that has more moderate equipment would be the b-22 osprey the tilt rotor aircraft which can reach further and land. they have a lightweight power. the m. 77 which is wide enough

to carry around in the battlefield and they can set up in a couple of minutes so all these things help the marines to move her -- maneuver and that's really important in the way the marines fight. it's called expeditionary warfare where you don't have a set base. you don't have a large runway. you are fighting from a ship or from an austere place in land. it goes back to when the marines were founded in 1775 the second time congress to form them up and pay five from ships to protect the ships or land onshore to take chips objectives. that ethos is still very much alive in the marine corps. what i.t. is trying to do is bring them back to bed and get them away from the iraq and afghanistan model where they were in fix spaces and using heavy vehicles that they couldn't carry around that weren't --

they were survivable and they survived an ied blast but the marines would rather start from a direction that you don't expect them so that no one is there to plant an ied to begin with. that is what they are trying to get back to him that is what i.t. x is all about and that's the big change. they're not fighting insurgents. they are fighting actual armies and that changes the tactics and the new technology they are bringing to the field is meant for that as well. >> host: chop joe poplar directed his piece for for popular mechanics that amphibious want need beachheads to serve as staging areas. aircraft and weapons will enable marines to strike deep inland directly from nearby ships. in this scenario the core follows its founding doctrine of expeditionary warfare that uses modern gear to leapfrog the beach to take object if action. showing a graphic inside the magazine article. can you explain that a little

bit? >> yeah, sure. i see that as my masters thesis from everything i've learned there. every piece in that graphic, every element has to support each other and the world war ii model or the korean model where you come any land onshore and master forces and take the object is, that's not what the marines want to do anymore because of modern weapons and some of those modern weapons are cruise missiles and ballistic missiles. if you set them up the enemy might have satellites. if they know where you are they can aim the set you and distract your tactic before it starts with the marines want to do now is go farther in land and stage from their ships and those straight in so for example they osprey can take off and land vertically so it can take off

from the ship and go in land and it can carry a howitzer as i mentioned before and they can set up a firing area. they would shoot at the objective to make sure everyone's, all the enemies heads are down and cleared clear the way for another assault. to protect the howitzer you want some troops there to protect them from counterattacks without armored infantry and amphibious in land can go very fast. they can form protective court around the artillery and the m. 22's lacombe and do an air assault supported by the artillery. the mv-22's would be at risk from surface-to-air missiles and we have radar guided antiaircraft guns so we have the f-35 thee which is and in service yet but it's coming.

to take up a antiaircraft system so everything is protecting each other and everything is working together in the timing of lisa timing is perfect so the objective is seized. in reality getting segregation together is a lot harder but that's sort of the point i wanted to get across, everything working together to get to the objective as fast as possible with a minimum amount of resistance and to maintain the element of surprise. when you reach anywhere in land how do you protect against that in 30-point, if you are the enemy where do you point your guns to stop that counteroffensive in the marines can be almost anywhere within the range of that mb22. one of the game changers we try to indicate in the article because he gives that flexibility to the marine corps. before they really didn't have it and they are trying to maximize that. there were mv-22's conducting

air assaults in the mojave and it's quite a sight to see. it posts go popular mechanics the future of war than it kept tactics. let me go to john firth in loveland colorado, a democratic caller. >> caller: white is a claim that not one, 911 has instruction when architects and engineers now has nearly 2000 architects and engineers. wasn't it an existence in 2006? >> guest: i was hoping to get as september 11 call because then i could say i don't work on any of that stuff so you ought to talk to other people on the staff about that. >> host: that's right. i should just note for our viewers that there is an organized effort out there by

viewers like him who are part of a group who have decided to call into c-span2 talk about what they believe happened on 9/11 and people can google it and find out the information if they are interested. let me move on to greg in california a republican caller. hi, greg. >> caller: hi good morning. i will get this out of the way for you quickly. people tell google enough to know what's going on but the government admitted it was in freefall for over 100 feet when it was destroyed on 9/11. >> host: weary talk about that so i'm going to move on because we are talking about the future of tech and tactics and the future for here with joel pappalardo of popular mechanics. andy, democratic caller. >> caller: my question is the future of war and architects and engineers publicly call popular mechanics.

>> host: i'm going to move on. stephen morganfield kentucky democratic caller. hi stephen. >> caller: good morning. i have been watching the news and they talk about cutting the budget for the military. i just wonder where they get all the funding for this training. they are supposed to be cutting back. >> guest: yeah, i actually went before some of the cuts in 11 sequestration cuts haven't happened yet but they wouldn't cut the pre-deployment training is my sense because it is so important to the unit cohesion as a say before they actually go out somewhere. it would be one of the last things that they would actually want to cut a cassette as somewhat utility. it's almost like a shake down for a ship to make sure that everyone is working together and everything is set up. it doesn't cost as much as you might think.

all the equipment is actually at the base and maintained by the base. so they are not bringing their own gear so the costs are not that prohibitive. the flight hours however with the aircraft overhead that might get trimmed because some of the cuts to training. it's yet to be seen how much, how deeply these cuts would actually affect things like this but it's my sense in talking with people there that they are not worried about it because they know pre-deployment training is so important to the entire cycle and what they would do is probably cut the budget when a comeback during during this sort of when they do all the repairs and sort of get ready for the next deployment. the pentagon is very leery about cutting from the pre-deployment cycle because that could really lead to trouble in the field.

so, the people i talked to, they were concerned overall but they weren't concerned it would reach out from twentynine palms. it was a little while ago in the budget situation hasn't gotten better so someone out there now might say differently differently but at least when i was there it wasn't a pressing concern. >> host: stephen morganfield kentucky, democratic caller. steve, are you with us? >> caller: yes, that was my question. >> host: i'm sorry. we will go on to william and indiana, independent caller. hi william. >> caller: hi. talking about training artillery and ships if we have to fight china are our artillery and ships are obsolete. china is kind of a sophisticated submarine now. they have got a lot of them and they would not go ships out before we even got started. they have missiles that will reach our ships and everything

and i just wanted to bring that up. we are obsolete on army and military. we will have to have superfast missiles and we will have to have a lot of them and if china found out in the korean war i was on the korean frontline for nine months and they found out they couldn't do with us on manpower but now they have the capacity to do whatever they want when they want. >> host: okay. >> guest: in a lot of ways he is right. some of the weaponry that the chinese are working on, he was a think referring to the anti-ship ballistic missile which is very dangerous and some reports say actually already deployed out though that is pretty quick. the reports may be in advance of their actual capabilities but he is right. the warfare is going more

towards missiles and warfare is going more towards standoff ranges that are a lot longer. the chinese are really investing in what they called a anti-access type weaponry so it would force the americans if they were say trying to intervene in something in taiwan for example it would keep them at bay for longer. they would have to stay on the missile range. they couldn't get there as quickly. they would be worried about minds. they would be worried about, my one quibble is what they call one of the biggest threats in the submarine round is not that new. it's actually that diesel submarine which are an older model they can operate in the shallow waters and armed them with vast missiles that are hard to defend against. now it's my like the pentagon is sitting on its hands to

encounter this capability. one of the things that they like for example about the f-35 p. is the ability to take off and land vertically. it's a jump jet with a stealth warplane that can take off on these amphibious ships that are smaller than aircraft carriers and also they don't need a large airfield if they are operating from land. if you are facing an enemy that has ballistic missiles and cruise missiles aiming for an airfield you want that airfield to be a lot smaller. they don't need a long runway. you don't need cargo aircraft landing large artillery pieces because again the mv-22 can bring those so some of the challenges he is referring who are being addressed in the interim with this equipment pain in and the long-term missile defense hypersonic missile tests new submarines.

darpa just came out recently with a submarine that can, and unmanned submarine that can launch unmanned aircraft or underwater vehicles. these are all ways to circumvent the missile range so they can operate safely getting closer to the chinese mainland and they do sort of have an advantage because in most scenarios they are not the ones protecting power some most. it's sort of in that type of situation the defender gets certain advantages and that some of the things he is talking about. in essence he is right. the field is changing. it may not be changing as quickly as he thinks. i don't think the navy is obsolete right now but the trendline is going against the larger ships and more towards a missile. he is right about that. >> host: where he treats an

old technology get to the point where man's conflict will become obsolete? >> guest: i think i saw that on "star trek" ones. no, i don't think so not obsolete. i think people in the short-term there is a revulsion to give too much the decision to kill in the hands of anything that is automated. some weapon systems do shoot without asking for humans permission but usually they tried to keep what they call men man in the loop to make that decision so an unmanned vehicle could track a target aim at a target and be ready to to shoot and hesitate and say hey human master can we do that? if you project these trend lines into the future far enough you could see very few soldiers actually or very few human beings actually involved in

combat operating in semiautomatic systems. i could see that but i really do think it's somewhere in the loop and i don't think warfare is going anywhere anytime soon. it's sort of a natural extension of politics and sort of a biological curse almost and maybe too philosophical for popular mechanics but i don't see warfare is becoming obsolete as a technology. if anything people may be more prone to fight because the human cost has increased but that's another conjecture. >> host: jeff, naples florida republican caller. >> caller: my question is about the command structure with the computers being made in china. what is the danger of losing our command structure? >> guest: that's a real interesting question. it's a tough one. there -- we talk about this in

the magazine, not in this article that we have in the past. one of the problems with the american military is it does rely on off-the-shelf parts and computer parts and a lot of those that are made in china. for the critical security parts especially computer chips, they started for five years ago the trust foundry program with these critical parts to make sure they are constructed not only in america but in american firms that pass security requirements. but as a whole it is a problem. it could be all sorts of malware put into these computer systems that are used in everyday military life. it's a problem. maybe the only upside to that is that civilians are using that and everyone is using that so how do you make sure that, how

do you differentiate a valid military target for the malware versus civilian? it could almost hide of the mass of other computers but that is a pretty -- pretty slender hope. a lot of people are very nervous about that and again it's a legitimate concern and something they are taking very quietly and some of the other ones in the industry partners see that they are doing something about it. the trusted foundry program is one of those efforts to try and make sure that the critical parts are not tainted or don't have anything hidden in there for the zero day attack. i'm sorry the other problem with the threat is that a lot of the american military

infrastructures dependent on civilian infrastructure as well. if you wanted to delay response around the world he could shut down the power grid on the west coast of the united states and that would delay response to get to taiwan or something so there is a lot of disruptive things they could target here in the domestic united states or our allied partners around the world. >> host: already. >> guest: i don't have any good answers. >> host: we are talking to joe pappalardo a popular mechanics senior editor. jerry you are up next on washington, independent color. >> caller: i wanted to ask in the mojave practices with the uavs unmanned air vehicles because personally i believe that is the future whether the star wars etc. but taking the human factor if -- factor from

from the cockpit and putting them in the hangar somewhere way from the tragedies of war is what's going to be the future of war. >> guest: it was interesting to me to see how little uav technology was used in this exercise and in comparison in afghanistan for example where you know in the command centers fighting for uav attention. i wasn't in a great position to see it because i was really with the tanks and the troops in everything but you are right. it's a great tool. it's important and it is the future i believe. in this training scenario they really wanted to put the people in a position where they had to make decisions. and they weren't going to make it any easier for the people, the marines on the grounds training to get the objective.

so if there was any sort of decision whether or not to share that information they would probably say no because they wanted to make sure that the marines could do with the uavs. there are some positions where everyone you would assume would be dead or fleeing but they still take that position. they want to make sure that everyone got what they needed and quite honestly technology is spreading not as quick to but it's getting there and right now the uavs are pretty easy to spot. they will be easy to shoot down. you can't count on gps because it could be jammed so you have to train for all these contingencies where you don't own their airspace and he won't have that to lean on. it was not uav all, the training i was an that i had observed.

it was really where the metal meets the -- kind of step of the caller is right and one of the things the marines have worked on in the future lasers to shoot down the uavs even in moving vehicles of you can't count on those things being overhead for much longer because there's useful for an enemy that has the resources to shoot them down. >> host: you have a side column gear of the future marine. explain what they do and their use. >> guest: k. max is a program that did very well in afghanistan. it was almost a perfect training ground for that. they had marines in these outposts with no roads most of the time and they need resupply. so you don't necessarily want to task over their helicopters to

do that. they are allowed and you can see them coming so the robotic helicopter can bring supplies to these remote locations. drop it off and they are smaller. they proved to be incredibly useful and every time they had a chance to pull them back the marine said hey let's keep them in theater for a while longer. resupply in the marine corps is incredibly vital because the expeditionary warfare and they don't have the pace to go back to. if you run out of ammo what are you going to do? if you run out of food or blood plasma and these robotic helicopters are perfect for that. for delivering that -- i'm sorry. >> host: what about the robotic pack mules, the issue of supplying the marines. >> guest: yeah, that is another real good thing they are

working on. it's not nearly as advanced as the robotic helicopters but who knows? whiteout they are testing four-legged robots that would follow along the marines, let's say a squadron of marines carrying hundreds of pounds of gear. when you look at modern american combat soldiers they carry so much that they can almost not stand up to get out of the helicopter. it's a constant grind on them and so the idea is to have something that can follow the marines that are walking on a patrol. what you don't want is someone who has got their head down in a videogame comptroller who is operating that robot. that is one more marine that is looking for threats who can't operate his rifle. it's not as efficient so with this four-legged robot the l3 they call it can't actually follow along. you tell it where to go.

it can find its own route. one of the cool things it has lidar which is laser radar and a can pick up the gradient of the slope and obstacles and clamber up on its own immediately almost like a dog would. so they are testing that right now in different environments. the program is gone a lot further and a lot faster than i thought it would as a robots skeptic in a lot of ways but it has done very well so far. i wouldn't be surprised to see it. the thing that it does is you can go off road with it. there a lot of programs that would have a truck that would follow to automatically have convoys but that this thing can go off road on all kinds of terrain. we will see how it does in the southern environments. they are going to take it to some of the more ref training grounds and see how this robot does but definitely something to keep an eye on. >> host: we are talking about new tech and tactics for the

future war with joe pappalardo senior editor with popular mechanics. unmanned stealth is the future of warfare. steve you are up next democratic caller from pennsylvania. thanks for waiting, steve. >> caller: no problem, thank you. i am a former marine. my question is what are your concerns about the chinese and russia and iran as far as hacking into her missile systems and hacking into technologies such as iran they stole the stealth bomber from us. i know the u.s. has disrupted the nuclear program and such like that but what countermeasures are the marines using as far as taking over the technology and saying hey we could steal this from you anytime we want? >> guest: that is a great question. it really is an emerging field in what he is referring to is i don't think it was a bummer. it was surveillance and that was

brought down in iran and they were able to parade it out. expect more. right now cyberwarfare is funded and research and no one really knows. it's almost like any other weapon system that before it actually meets the battlefield they think it's a game-changer and it's not. during world war ii he thought battleships would be the future of naval warfare and it turns out aircraft carrier was, so every campaign that his plan has a cyberwar component to it now. whether it's an unmanned aircraft that can infect the computers below to shut down a power grid which is something being worked on her other kinds of electronic warfare to wind, some of the things the united states is working on to supply enemy radar.

you know that everyone else is looking at the same thing looking at our equipment the difference being that we are so dependent on that could be an achilles' heel. they have tried in the beginning with some limited success. the air force is trying to take the lead on that but it has weakened every combatant command right now has to look at cyberwar. i think as the concept matures and as the conops concept of operations on how we would deploy it emerges i think there will be a lot of thought to how someone could subvert us as well. to me it's very new. i don't know what the marine specifically are doing. the best thing they can do in a lot of ways is what they call eric gapping which is just don't rely on some of the computerized elements to it. don't you know, just use a radio

rather than chatter with more sophisticated communications. but there are so many ways to disrupt an attack that if you can hack into a system it could really be devastating. you don't have to take down everything. you just have to take down one component so the downside is you are all relying on something and the phone system goes down you can't live without it part of the training also. but again he is right. i only have worries and not have a lot of solutions because it's such a new threat to its keeping a lot of people awake at the pentagon and they are putting a lot of time and money towards it but it's always my view that until you see something actually used in the battlefield it's very hard and you should worry about predicting the impact of that. that is my default position. >> host: on her line for democrats rose in new york. >> cal