funding for conservation projects that can help reduce flooding or protecting -- while protecting wildlife habitat. the farm bill authorizes a joint study by the u.s. department of agriculture and transportation to examine rural transportation issues, including captive shipping, something that i pushed for, seeing what i'm seeing with some of our producers, agriculture producers, with our manufacturers that are at the end of the line and are finding that they don't really have a lot of choice over what rail rates are for that last leg, and many times are being charged outrageously high rates which makes it difficult for them to produce goods. today families and farmers are facing a severe propane shortage in my state, mr. president. i believe that is more important than ever that we understand the vulnerabilities and shortcomings of our transportation infrastructure so we can ensure the fuels we need to keep our homes and barns warm are available and affordable. i fought to include each of these provisions because i believe that if we want to

recruit a new generation of farmers and ranchers, then we must take actions that will improve the quality of life in rural communities. that's why why i offered a number of provisions specifically to recruit beginning farmers and ranchers. the first would reduce the cost of crop insurance for beginning farmers by 10%. the second would make it easier for beginning producers to graze livestock on conservation reserve programs. in this bill we put in place a new dairy program that helps dairy farmers in minnesota and across the country that have struggled with prices, with feed costs and we have seen probably that sector of the agriculture community hit harder than any other. crops have had their droughts, we've seen wet springs that have hurt many of our farmers. we've seen the blizzard i mentioned in south dakota that killed our cattle. we've seen trade barriers put up in other countries that shut down the markets. but i would still say the hardest hit of any sector of our

agricultural committee in the last few years hundred our dairy producers, specifically our small dairy producers. if anyone has driven buy the back roads of minnesota or wisconsin understands how important that is to our economy and our way of life. while this compromise wasn't exactly the deal we'd reached in the senate, it is still a strong keel deal, it still contains new protections for dairy farmers and i want to thank specifically colin peterson for his leadership in being the architect of this change as well as the work in the senate by specifically senator leahy and senator stabenow. the farm bill as i mentioned also streamlines conservation programs from 20 to 13 including the provisions that i worked on to help communities in the red river valley address flooding. it extends conservation compliance rules to the crop insurance program, something that came out the senate bill and includes the sod saver provision that i worked with

senator thune of south dakota, that for five or six states really including the prairie pothole states -- i don't think, mr. president, that would include delaware -- that it protects native lands, native prairie and hepts, again, to -- helps, again, to conserve conservation for hunting and our way of life particularly in the upper midwest. these critical provisions with the you compliance and our sod saver amendment were the reason the bill is supported by wildlife organizations including ducks unlimited and environmental groups like the national resources defense council and the nature conservancy. i believe we do right by ourselves when we strengthen the farms and the rural communities that sustain us every day. our prosperity depends on it and this farm bill helps us to do just that. i urge my colleagues to support this very important bipartisan

farm bill. thank you. i yield the floor. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from delaware is recognized. mr. coons: i ask proceedings under the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. coons: i rise today to speak about a bill introduced today, a bipartisan bill, a bill that will strengthen america's innovation economy. over the last 60 years, our national laboratories have served as leading centers of research and discovery in america. today, in fact, we have 17 d.o.e. labs charged with three broad missions -- science, energy and national security. and although they've grown and changed since their founding to encompass broader ranges of work and are successful in carrying out their primary missions, they're not fully optimized to take part in today's innovation culture. that's a problem. because in this century of rapid

change america's best competitive advantage we mains our capacity to innovate. so over the coming months i'll be talking about a few things that congress can do in a bipartisan way to streamline and jump-start our nation's hubs of discovery so that we can thrive as a 21st century innovation economy. the top level, it will mean working together to reauthorize the america competes act which would reaffirm our commitment to the robust national strategy for science and technology programs that will continue to be a critical underpinning of america's prosperity. one part of how that can be achieved is how our national labs operate and a bill that will make our national labs operate more effectively has been introduced today by senator rubio of florida and myself and it's the america innovates act. already our labs have incubated many innovations over their long and storied history. their research has led to breakthrough from in the health

care field, melanoma and hiv-aids treatments to the national security field special i.e.d. detonators that have saved the lives of our troops in combat. that research is critical because although the private sector will continue to be a key source of investment and innovation, the federal government has and will continue to play a central role in advancing basic science, research and innovation as well. why is that? private markets historically speaking spend to underinvest in r&d relative to the potential benefits to society, and this is especially true where basic science is most relevant and it's particularly true in the energy sector. but if there's a problem i've heard about since coming to congress in this field, it's that too often the great work of scientists at our national laboratories just don't get translated to the marketplace, that we as a nation, as a people don't benefit from the remarkable discoveries and inventions being made in our 17 national labs. right now too much groundbreaking science and too many innovative ideas never

leave the walls of our national labs, squandering enormous potential for our people, our country and the commercial marketplace. so in this bill today, introduced with senator rubio of florida, we continue to support our labs' core missions. we're not sproazing anything drastic. what we're -- proposing anything drastic. what we're doing is modernizing the labs for the 21st century so that ideas developed in the labs can most effectively become innovations in the marketplace. we only need to look to the labs themselves for inspiration on how to do this. so we make two broad proposals. first, we're integrating the management of the department of energy's science and energy programs to improve linkages between basic and applied science. this will allow the early stages of research and development to be translated more efficiently and it's something that department of energy secretary has signaled he supports and is going to move forward with. second, we're giving the national labs more power to work with the private sector, to ensure that more scientific

discoveries turn into commercial breakthroughs. together these two steps would allow us to strea streamline th' work so it can more effectively translate into the inform aactivmarketplaceand grow the e. let me talk with what is known as the basic innovation pipeline which is now basic research ultimately becomes a deployed world-changing innovation. first i'll use the example of the great work scientists is he natural renewable energy laps, or nrel in golden, colorado, are doing to advance cellulosic technologies. one of our country's big challenges today is reducing our dependence on foreign oil and to do that we need new fuel option as that we can creator grow here in america. cellulosic ethanol is an advanced biofuel with a great deal of promise because it's produced from abundant and renewable materials like grasses and wood chips, other times of biomass and waste. and because these materials are

abundant, cellulosic ethanol has the potential to replace a significant portion of our nation's petroleum consumption. the challenge comes, however, because unlike corn, these cellulosic materials are made of much more complex starches that are much harder to braig down intoeth -- break down into ethanol. to make the promise of cellulosic ethanol a reality, we need to develop the enzymes and microorganisms that could break them down and ferment these more complex starches and that's where this innovation pipeline comes in. at the nrel in colorado, scientists started at this most basic science step here. basic science is very fundamental. it's the study of the elementary principles of the universe, really discovery level science. so, for example, in this application, enzymes are large biological molecules, they are nature's catalysts. they accelerate the metabolic processes that sustain live. to develop new enzymes and organize missileorganisms capabg

ethanol, you have to start at the very fundamentals. this includes studying intricate details of the relevant processes, the biochemical processes as well as probing the proteins and amino acid that form these down to the molecular level. at this point, scientists having made a series of discoveries can then move to the applied science stage. applied science concerns translating these fundamental discoveries into an application. in this example, sig scientists afflmoveto high and stability te ethanol. applied research can also involve controlled lab scale demonstrations to test and to demonstrate how effectively these newly developed enzymes and microorganisms can turn wood chips into ethanol. still in the lab and very far from commercial scale, the kinds of small discoveries that happen

at the applied science level act as an early demonstration that something new, the application of a new discovery, can possibly move further down this pipeline. at the applied research stage, we are still far away from creating something ready for the market but between these two stages our scientists have gone from basic science of how an idea might work to actually demonstrating it could work in practice. that the point now, the private sector is much more likely to see the potential value of this discovery. scientists have shown it's possible and next we move to the commercialization and then the scaling and deployment phases, where private investors and companies take the technology of our national lab scientists and make it into a product that can succeed in the market. during the applied research stage at nrel, scientists were hard at work showing they really could produce cellulosic ethanol efficiently and cheaply and eventually meeting their goal to make it price competitive with conventional fuels in the commercial marketplace. that's where we are right now

with cellulosic ethanol. companies across the country, such as dupont from my own home state of delaware, poet from other places in the country and many others are currently actually building plants, they are doing the scaling and deployment, they're building plants to produce cellulosic ethanol at commercial scale and competitive prices. so this example is just one model of public-private partnership for innovation and thousand works all along this innovation pipeline, where the basic and applied science research begin in a national lab and then are transferred either by the licensing or sale of intellectual property to private-sector companies who then do the very hard work of commercialization and scaling before ultimate delivery to the marketplace, where it can be bought and consumed by americans and others around the world. i had the opportunity last year to witness another model of public-private partnership for innovation at a different national lab, at the lawrence berkeley national lab which is home to a unique national asset, the advanced light source, or a.l.s. a.l.s. is a very complex specie of machinery -- piece of

machinery that scientists who use the light sources such as ultraviolet raise, soft x-rays and infrom red lights that all come off of thasm l.s. to conduct a wide range of scientific experiments. experiments are performed at nearly 40 different beam lines that come off the syncotron that operate year-round. this facility's remarkable resources would be far too expensive for any one company or university to invest in alone but by building a national level publicly owned facility, it's then possible for it to function and to be partly sustained by fees and targeted infrastructure investments by users. and as a result, the a.l.s. has become a place where many different partners from around our country and the world test new ideas and new approaches. in terms of this innovation pipeline, what the berkeley lab and a.l.s. do is allow a very wide range of researchers to engage in different stages of research under one roof. the unique capabilities offered

by the a.l.s. attract many industry partners and encourages productive public-private collaboration. a good example of how this is actually applied into the marketplace is in the semiconductor industry. semiconductor technology is one of the most transformative scientific break throughs of the last century. semiconductors are at the heart of what makes a modern computer work. their constant advancement is what allows us to today hold the computing power of last again generation's supercomputer in iphones in our pockets. however, the manufacturing techniques previously used to produce smaller, more powerful semiconductor products aren't adequate to build the next generation of nano electronic devices. so what's happens is a consortium of companies -- intel, i.b.s., h.p., dell -- formed semitech to leverage the a.l.s. at the berkeley lab to advance semiconductor processing. by tapping into the center's

long-term expertise in short wavelength op sicks and the unique properties of the s y -- optics and the unique properties of the syncotron, developments only possible because of the facilities and expert at this unique national lab. having then developed these new tools capable of manufacturing the next generation of semiconductor devices, a company like intel can take that new technology and scale it up at their own plants. of course, there's in different variations like these two i've suggested of public-private partnerships that our labs can and have utilized to take ideas from basic science all wait out to the marketplace -- all the way out to the marketplace. these two examples, cellulosic ethanol and semiconductor manufacturing, show us what's really possible when private sector is able to work in full partnership with our national labs. in the bill we've introduced here today, senator rubio and i are trying to expand the flexibility and freedom of all our national labs to innovate and to build productive

partnerships so that every research project has the potential and opportunity to travel this entire pipeline and be deployed to the world markets. as we see here on the innovation pipeline, the payoff for all this work doesn't come until the very end, so up with of the best things -- one of the best things we can do together is to focus our policies to make the movement of ideas through this, from the national labs to private-sector partners to the marketplace, as efficient and predictable as possible. mr. president, while they are many ideas, many areas, many political subjects on which senator rubio and i disagree, i'm pleased that we've been able to work hard and to come together on the america inoh vaits act today. -- innovates act today. because we both agree that america has a role to play in investing in fundamental research that can lead to innovations that change our world. in this bill we're not talking about expanding government or calling for any new spending or regulation. we're talking about the early

science work that only government can fund because there isn't a clear payoff for the private sector and figuring out how to connect the national labs and the private sector along this innovation pipeline in a better and stronger way to deliver more products to the american marketplace and the world markets. once again, i want to thank my republican colleague, senator marco rubio, and i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join us in supporting this bipartisan innovation jobs bill of thbill. thank you. and with that, mr. president, i thank you and suggesyield the ft the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. brown: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to -- mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. yesterday at the state of the union address by the president, i asked to join me -- we each -- each member of the senate gets a pass -- a gallery pass for a spouse or a constituent or someone. i asked elizabeth dandridge, a head start teacher from cincinnati, to join me and she sat in the gallery, first time she had actually been in the capitol. she's taught at head start for 10 years. mrs. dandridge isn't paid a lot of money. we unfortunately pay head start teachers and head start teaching assistants not a good -- not a whole lot more than minimum wa wage. and it's important that people understand that, the number low-wage workers in this country.

but one thing i want to say and then i'll certainly yield to senator sessions, is that a hundred years ago, one of the reasons to increase the minimum wage is because it matters so much to those families who work so hard and get so little for it. president obama said no one in this country that works full time should live in poverty. he's exactly right. but the lesson of history this. a hundred years ago this month, henry ford made an announcement that he would pay every one of his workers the sweeper at the factory floor and the worker in the -- assembling the autos, $5 a day. lots of his business friends were outraged. they couldn't believe he was doing this. he understood it wasn't necessarily out of the goodness of his heart -- i don't know his heart certainly -- but what it was, was a good business decision because he knew if he put $5 a day into his workers' pockets, they'd begin to spend that money, it would create more prosperity for the community, a number of those workers might be able to buy cars that ford assembled and we'd all be better off. that's really also what the minimum wage debate is about. it's not just increasing the

minimum wage for those -- those hundreds of thousands of families in my state that work -- work at such low-income levels. it's also going to help the economy in the state of delaware, state of alabama and the state of ohio. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. sessions: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: wlg, the flood insurance program -- well, the flood insurance program is important to america and it is important to a lot of my constituents in alabama. they are concerned about it. the reform that has been passed into law is fundamentally the right approach to fixing the difficulties that we have, in my opinion. it moves this program from a big subsidy to a program that's actuarial sound, self-sustaining. i think that's the appropriate goal. i think at some point a person

living in the interior of the united states should not be required to have money extracted from him or her or their family to pay for somebody who built their house on shifting sands on a beach somewhere. that's just my view of it. i think -- but people find themselves, unexpectedly maybe, and otherwise in dangerous circumstances where floods may occur rapidly or may not occur for decades. in my hometown of mobile, a number of years ago they had a big flood problem. a lot of homes were damaged. it was a 100-year flood, they said. and it was of much concern for everybody. i think a lot of people didn't have flood insurance. well, the next year it flooded

again. so they had two 100-year floods in two scekiv two consecutive y. i just say that it's very difficult to manage a program like this in a sound way and to fully anticipate all the dangers. what i'm hearing from my constituents is that premiums are going up incredibly rapidly, very high for some people, multiple times what the present premiums are. there's little time to protest or get a clear review of it, and they think this ought to be more thoughtfully done and phased in in a more effective way. i tend to believe that, but i do not intend to support legislation that would fundamentally undo, reverse, or retreat from the principle that was established when we passed

this legislation previously that would say this government -- this promise program, the flood insurance program should be self-sustaining. i think that's the right principle. it doesn't need to be done overnight. it needs to be done carefully. it doesn't need to be done in a way that people struggling to get by, hardworking americans find their flood insurance premiums, which they must have before they can get a loan to buy a house in a flood-prone area -- it doubles, triple tripr quadruples. and it can equal a house payment. my colleague senator coburn has made a budget point of order against the legislation. and i think the budget point of order is well-taken.

the chairman of the budget committee, senator patty murray, and her staff has agreed that the legislation violates the budget. and i, as ranking republican on the budget committee, certainly agree with that. the two aspects of it -- of the budget point of order. maybe i can summarize it this way: there's probably more to it than this, but in essence we can say two things about it. one, the bill spends more than the banking committee was authorized to spend. that creates a violation of the budget in itself. the other violation is it adds to the debt, it spends more money than we have, and the result would be to add to the debt of the united states.

now, what the bill's supporters have done is come before the presiding officer and move to waive all violations. they say this legislation is so important that we should just waive the violations and not worry about it. well, i believe we need to worry about the bucket. w-- we need to worry about the budget. the we need to think about it. there may be occasions when the budget point of order should be waived when we go forward, and there are points in time when it should not be waived. my view is, colleagues, we should not waive all budget points of order. i do not believe that that's the appropriate vote at this time. we imposed a budget. we promised to limit spending to certain amounts, and we should stay within that and not add to the debt. so i feel strongly that we ought to adhere to the budget, not go

around waiving it anytime somebody wants to spend more money, and thereby weaken the commitment we made to the american people when we established certain limits on spending. so we've adopted it, we passed it by law, both houses of congress, the president has signed the legislation. it sets spending limits. so this bill violates those limits. now there are two aspects of it. i've given thought to this. maybe good people can disagree. this is my view of it. we should not spend more on the flood insurance program than was projected and agreed to and add to the debt of the united states of america. we absolutely should not do that. we shouldn't reduce constraints

we placed on the fed program -- the flood program so we can spend more money and then borrow the money to pay for that extra cost. that is not what we should dovmendo.this budget point of od allow that to happen. the motion to waive the budget objection raised by senator coburn, waiving that and all objections at that the bill would waive that -- to the bill would waive that. now, there is a second violation, it appears. and that one is, it spends more than the banking committee was authorized to spend. i think that's a somewhat different issue. some might disagree. under these circumstances, i think that part -- that aspect of a budget point of order ought to -- could be waived. and this is why: the flood insurance program,

under the law that is today, is to be moved to a fully self-sustaining, actuarial sound program where all the premiums come in are sufficient to pay all the claims that go out, like any other insurance company in america tries to operate. that's the principle that congress -- both houses -- established when they passed the reform recently. so i don't think it's necessarily to be considered a tax increase or a violation of the budget, if the -- if this insurance program, which is part of the banking committee's jurisdiction, creates higher premiums -- about $40 for most people and $80 for upper-income people -- higher premiums to ensure that the program, while

it's transitioning, is -- remains sound and is ultimately paid for. i think that's the kind of waiver that may be justified. and i'm really impressed with senator to too toomey, how hards worked on his legislation to create an trng to the base legislation that's -- an alternative to the base legislation that's before us today. i don't think it's justified because it adds to the debt of the united states. we don't need to be adding to the debt. anytime somebody has a problem, colleagues, and they propose a solution, the tendency is not to find reductions in spending somewhere to fix this problem that they have; they look around and see if they can just borrow the money and not pay for the extension.

so under the -- under this proposal by senator toomey, it appears it would violate the budget point of order that says we would raise the debt ceiling -- i mean, it would spend more but it would not add to the deficit, because the additional spend something paid for by premiums paid for by -- spending is paid for by premiums paid for by the flood insurance beneficiaries. it is not taxing the american citizens to subsidize a group of people who have flood insurance when the general citizenry does not have flood insurance. it is an increased fee on the people who benefit from flood insurance in the short term to transition this flood insurance program from the more rigorous

self-sustaining -- to the more self-sustaining program. from one that's not self-sustaining. or is altered -- or is rather draconian in the way it is being implemented. so i think senator toomey's legislation may not be perfect, but i believe his legislation is actuarially sound, it raises sufficient revenue from the people who benefit from the flood insurance program to transition in a more gentle and logical and reasonable way to the new program. so it would transition in an effective way, and it does not, according to the people who really understand this, it does not threaten the integrity of the reforms that have been voted into law. i think a good case can be made

that the base legislation before us today that violates several budget points of order not only violates budget points of order, but it is drafted in a way that threatens the very integrity of the underlying legislation. we should not do that. we should not weaken the commitment we made as a congress in any way that would lead us in a situation in which we don't follow through on the commitment we had to make sure that flood insurance becomes actuarially sound and self-sufficient. so, mr. president, i would just, for what it's worth, share with my colleagues my belief that we should not waive all budget points of order, although there may be a possibility that we can

waive the point of order with regard to the spending limit because the increased spending would be paid for by increased premiums on the insurance policies, which benefit the very people who would pay the increased premiums, which is under the toomey proposal. so i appreciate my colleagues, senator menendez and others, who are striving to alleviate some of the harsh results of the transition of the current law, but i think their proposal runs a risk of abandoning the commitments that we've made, and i believe their plan is not -- their plan would add to the debt, and i think the toomey substitute would be the preferrable way for us to -- preferable way for us to meet the problems of this very rough transition period we're in

without adding to the debt and without threatening to abandon the good goal of an act -- of an actuarially sound flood insurance program. i appreciate the chair and would yield the floor.. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the question occurs on the motion to waive the paygo point of order raised by the senator from oklahoma, senator coburn. the yeas and nays were previously ordered. 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 64, the nays are 35. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the affirmative, the motion to waive is agreed to. the majority leader. mr. reid: we are going to have three more votes tonight but i understand they're going to be voice votes. we've made significant progress with this important piece of legislation. the next vote will be at 11:15 tomorrow and we expect the final

vote on this bill tomorrow at 2:00. the presiding officer: there are now two minutes equally divided. senator reed of rhode island. mr. reed: the pending amendment is the reed amendment, will be accepted by a voice vote and i yield back my time. the presiding officer: is there further debate? if not, the question is on the amendment. all in favor say aye. all opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it, the ayes do have it. the amendment is agreed to. there are now two minutes equally divided -- the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: move to reconsider and lay on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. there are now two minutes equally divided on the amendment from senator whitehouse of rhode island. mr. whitehouse: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: i hope my colleagues will vote

enthusiastically for this amendment across the country ciewnts and local organizations are trying to revive rivers that have been damned and blocked -- dammed and blocked and when they go foaferred to put in a fish ladder, when they redesign a culvert to allow for water passage they have to file a flood plan. and fema requires them to pay a fee to have that flood plan assessed. the fee is almost always waived. but they still have to go through the waiver process which costs money and, frankly, can be as burdensome asfully simply paying the fee. this eliminates the fee, eliminates that part of the process process and allows towns and small organizations more readily to come to the aid of our old small rivers. i think this is something we should be able to agree on with great strength of the senate, it's noncontroversial and i urge my colleagues to vote aye. the presiding officer: is there further debate? if not, the question is on the

amendment. all in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the amendment is agreed to. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from new york. mrs. gillibrand: i call up my amendment. the presiding officer: the amendment is pending. mrs. gillibrand: mr. president, my amendment is very simple and commonsense, many homeowners that live across the united states live in homes that simply cannot be elevated in order to protect or reduce flood risk because of their inherent structure. this is a problem that is true for constituents stis in new york, cities in new jersey and in reality if you live in a brownstone or you live in an apartment building, you can't raise them up to protect against flood damage. to fix this problem all my amendment does is require fema to provide a uniform set of guidelines describing

fema-approved methods of mitigation like floodproofing or using building materials to reduce the risk of flood damage. for example, don't leave computers your basement. those kind of simple flood mitigation changes can easily save enormous amounts of money and risk the flood damage from flooding. the amendment requires fema to consider actions by homeowners to implement the methods when calculating premium risk rates. by providing a clear set of mitigation guidance this will help homeowners to provide options to reduce their flood risk. i urge my colleagues to support and i believe it is noncontroversial. the presiding officer: is there further debate? if not, the question is on amendment 2708. all in favor say aye.

all opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the amendment is agreed to. mr. menendez: move to reconsider and lay on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. landrieu: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. ms. landrieu: mr. president, i know that we're scheduled to take the final votes on this bill tomorrow morning and final passage at 2:00 and i just want to thank all the colleagues that were so cooperative today, discussing and moving through these amendments, and really appreciate the cooperation, bipartisan cooperation, open debate process. i think it's very been very helpful and i think we're building a better flood insurance program for the country which is our aim. so i yield the floor and thank senator menendez, and senator isakson for their leadership today. i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to speak for probably 15 minutes as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, this is the 56th time, the 56th consecutive week that we have been in session in the senate that i have come to the floor to sound an alarm about carbon pollution and the harm it is causing to our oceans and to our coastal communities. the 56th time. and, frankly, i'm getting a little sick of it. i'm getting sick of the republican party being completely the tool of the polluters, i'm sick of the phony denial and of not getting anything done. and i'm sick of what it's going to say about american democracy --. the presiding officer: the

senate will come to order. mr. whitehouse: i'm sick about what it's going to say about american democracy if we keep failing at this. but i'm going to keep pounding away because it is so vital to my ocean state. we are a little state with a lot of coast. and our sea level is rising, driven by faraway melting glaciers and everywhere expanding sea water. as oceans warm, the water expands. that's what liquids do. deniers look up thermal expansion of liquids and deny that. the most -- mrs. boxer: mr. president, could we have order in the chamber. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. mrs. boxer: staff in the back

that i can hear, it's really difficult to hear the senator. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: i thank the senator from california. the most recent intergovernmental panel on climate change report projects that sea level will likely rise one and a half to three feet by 2100 if we do what the polluters prefer and ignore the clear scientific evidence. and, by the way, that's a conservative number. these rising sea levels hit coasts hard, particularly when storms beat those sea he seas against our shores and it's not just me saying that, we're supposed to listen to the nonpartisan government accountability office around here. well, a 2013 g.a.o. report on climate change effects said this this -- storm surge combined with sea level rise is projected a wide range of negative impacts

on roads and bridges. for example, the report continued, storm surges are expected to increasingly inundate coastal roads, cause more frequent or flooding of infrastructure, erode road bases and scour bridges by eroding river beds and ex bodying bridge foundations. now, people from polluting states may think that that's funny, may think that that doesn't matter but to a coastal state like mine this is a serious threat. this chart shows the worldwide measured change in sea level. this is not some theory. measured change in sea level. as well as a number of different models projecting future sea levels. you can see that sea level has been steadily rising over the past 130 years, generally

consistent with human fossil fuel use. between 1901 and 2010, sea level rise was estimated at 1.7 millimeters per year. recently updated satellite measurements from the university of colorado sea level research group show a rise of 3.2 millimeters per year from 1993 to 2013. the rate of increase has already nearly doubled, and according to the ipcc, that rate is likely to accelerate. in rhode island, our tide gauge in newport shows an increase in average sea level of nearly ten inches since 1930. consistent with the global trends, measurements at our newport tide gauge show that the rate of sea level rise has also increased in the past two

decades. local coastal erosion rates have doubled. from 1990 to 2006. and some freshwater coastal wetlands are already transitioning to salt marsh from freshwater as they're inundated by the sea. a rhode island coastal resources management council has documented 160 feet of shoreline lost to erosion in the town of south kingstowne since 1951. a rate of three feet per year. a steady three feet per year is one thing. add a storm and surges can wipe out whole swaths of land at once. as we saw with superstorm sandy. you can see the erosion here. back in 1994, this beach pavilion was set back a good way from the water. by 2012, here, the ocean was

just a few feet from the structure. this is the roof that is here, this is the framing that is here, and this is the very beginning of this walkway back here, and there's the ocean. the ocean has moved from here essentially to there. roads and other infrastructure that was once a safe distance from the shoreline were also battered by this terrible storm surge and wind. the small, saudi arabia rant coastal town of matunuck, rhode island is urged siege from the advancing ocean. this chart shows how far the shoreline has shifted since 1951. here's the 1951 shoreline and this is the 2012 photo showing how much the sea has risen and eaten against the shores. in the last dozen years, beaches have eroded 20 feet. the community now faces

difficult decisions, as the only road connecting matunuck to neighboring towns is protected by only 10 feet of sand now. the road provides access for emergency vehicles residents may need and underneath it lies their water main. if carbon dioxide emissions remain unchect another five feet of sea level rise is a real possible after the year 2100. ma tune you can's projected line with five feet of sea level rise can be seen here in red. these are all houses. this is roy carpenter's beach. these houses have been here in some cases for generations. and they are tumbling into the sea as the ocean encroaches on them. this is famous newport harbor.

in newport, five feet of sea level rise would inundate large portions of our vibrant downtown area. including america's cup avenue, right here, including the long wharf shopping center which would be about here, and including the famous and historic cardin's field, a great old baseball field. rhode island would just be a few specks of land. here's what three feet fiat of sea level rise would look like in newport. perotti park is gone. not to mention, the newport harbor's office, he'll be a lot closer to the harbor when it's pouring through his windows than he is right now.

wherever rhode island meets the sea, our homes and communities and our very economy are at stake. yet in congress, we sleepwalk, lulled by the narcotic influence of the polluting special interests. no wonder i'm frustrated. when my colleagues say they're worried about job loss in the polluting coal and oil industries, i'm willing to listen. i'm even willing to help. but i'm not willing to stand by while this is happening in my home state and have you pretend that it's not even real. rhode island, of course, is not the only region experiencing sea level rise, coastal erosion and economic disruption. rising seas concern coastal regions across the country. with over a thousand miles of coastline, florida is at grave risk from sea level rise. according to the world resources

institute in an article published in "environmental research letters," of all the people and housing in america threatened by sea level rise, 40% is in florida. that's because in florida, the flooding won't be just along the coast. low-lying inland areas are also at risk. that's because florida is built on porous limestone. in new england, on our rocky shores, you could perhaps build levees and dams in some places to hold the oceans back. in miami, you'd be building those structures on geological sponge. the water will just seep right under. using the best available science, the southeast florida regional climate change compact assessed the risk to four south florida counties of sea level rise. in those counties, one foot of sea level rise would endanger

approximately $4 billion in property. in monroe county, three of the four hospitals, two-thirds of the schools, and 71% of emergency shelters are endangered by a one-foot sea level rise. go to three feet of sea level rise if these counties. that would endanger approximately $31 billion worth of property. that's a lot of infrastructure at risk. this map shows three feet of see level ride in miami-dade county. the map on the left shows current elevation in southern miami-dade compared to three feet of sea level rise here on the right. these blue regions go underwat underwater. you have lost acres upon acres of that city. this nuclear power station right here, turkey point, and this

sewage treatment plant are virtually cut off from dry land. and yet what do we hear from our republican league from florida? denial. right along the polluter party line. louisiana is teed up for worst storm surge by the rising warm waters of the gulf of mexico. according to a u.s. geological survey led study, between 1985-2010, louisiana lost a football field an hour of land and wetlands to coastal erosion. a recent poll shows that louisiana voters understand and want action on climate change. 72% of louisianans believe climate change is a serious problem that threatens everyone. it is hitting their lives. and yet our republican colleague from louisiana offers streams of denial.

the state with the most coastline is alaska. another u.s. geological survey study shows that coastal erosion along a 40-mile stretch on the beaufort sea has grown to 28 feet per year between the late 1970's and 2000's and now has more than doubled to 45 feet per year between 2002-2007. climate change is one of civil factors at play and is contributing to -- several factors at play and is contributing to this accelerating loss. earlier this month, our bicameral task force on climate change, which i lead with congressman waxman, welcomed less lessans from the town of shish fhneraf on alaska to hear from them how climate change is affecting their home. mr. president, their houses are

literally falling into the sea thanks to sea level rise and coastal erosion. their centuries-old cull stiewr crumbling away with each wave -- centuries-old culture is crumbling away with each wave. this is a house in shishmaref. this is a house at roy carpenter's beach in rhode island. you can see how we can sympathize with the town of shishmaref. in alaska, shishmaref is not alone. a recent g.a.o. report shows that 31 alaskan villages are at risk. the 12 red dots shown here are village as that are now considering relocating completely. according to the u.s. army corps of engineers, relocation costs are estimated at $100 million to $200 million for shishmaref and other villages could face similar costs. stanley stocktu is the to rememberetois the formermayor.

he came to our hearing and said, "no matter your politics, you can't ignore the facts. the facts are that our village is being impacted by climate change on a daily basis and we need you to do something about it." "no matter your politics," he said, "you can't ignore the facts." well, the painful truth, mayor ttotoctu, around here in congre, if you ignor you're in politicse required 20 ignore the facts. your big-money people, the polluters, the koch brothers, they insist on it. they demand you ignore the facts. and citizens united, that god-awful supreme court decision, means that the big polluters' big money can drowned out elections particularly in republican primary elections,

every reasonable person -- republican, independent or democrat -- who gets that we need to act. so the party on the other side is stuck, trapped by the campaign finance rules and the big money of the big polluters. we could in congress be awake and helping and meeting the call of duty. we could be working with the froze implement his climate action plan -- with the president to implement his climate action plan. the environmental protection agency, under the strong leadership of chairman barbara boxer, recently held an oversight hearing on the president's climate action plan. what did we get in that hearing from our republican colleagues? denial, quarreling, and obfuscation. the polluter party line. they actually brought in as a republican witness a witness

whose organization took money from the koch brothers and exxon and from other far right and denier foundations, including the notorious donors trust and donors capital fund, which launders money from big donors who want to remain anonymousme anonymousment -- anonymous. if you have not heard of this donors trust and donors capital group, a recent report out of drexel university described this group as the -- quote -- "black box that conceals the identity of contributors" and the -- quote -- "central component" and -- quote -- "dominant funder of the denier apparatus." that was who they chose as their witness. we could in congress be figuring out how a carbon pollution fee, one that returns all its proceeds right back to the

american people, could best boost our economy, as some prominent republicans have suggested. but i sent a letter to my republican colleagues summarizing the republican case for a carbon fee and not one responded. the polluters have the republican party at their heels. it's a tragic state of affairs for a great political party. mr. president, carbon pollution, from the burning of fossil fuels is altering the atmosphere and oceans. it is changing our climate. the scientific consensus around this fact is overwhelming. denial at this point is propped up, polluter paid nonsense. where carbon pollution hits the oceans, denial requires you not just to reject science but to

reject measurement. you measure sea level rise. you measure ocean warming. you measure ocean acidification. it's not complicated. you measure sea level rise more or less with a yardstick. you measure ocean warming with a thermometer. you measure ocean acidification with simple litmus tests that everyone with an aquarium is familiar with. and yet despite that incontrovertible evidence from our oceans, we sleepwalk on in congress, thanks to a great political party's captivity by polluters. it's a disgrace. it will go down in history as a disgrace. we could strengthen our economy, we could save our great coastal cities and our age-old island

villages, and we can leave things better, not worse, for the generations that will follow us. but we have to pay attention to reality. we have to pay attention to the real evidence. we can't be swept up in the toxic, polluter paid politics that infect washington. mr. president, this matters immensely to alaska, it matters immensely to the citizens of shishmaref, it matters immensely to the residents of florida, who are looking at their cities sinking, and it matters immensely to rhode island, the ocean state. because the undeniable changes from sea level rise and warming are upon us already and will only worsen.

for once and for all, mr. president, it is time for us to wake up. mrs. boxer boxer: would the senr yield for a colloquy? mr. whitehouse: please. mrs. boxer: through the chair. the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: first i just want to say how proud i am to -- to listen to your words, to have you on committee that i'm so honored to chair, and to learn today that you've made is it over 50 presentation? 56 presentations on the floor of this great united states senate. regardless of the hour, regardless of your other pres pressing needs. and you are making the record -- making the record -- that we must act to prevent the worst and most catastrophic occurrences from the climate change. now, i wanted to ask you a few

questions because we have gone through a lot of these battles in the committee and i think it's time that -- that people knew what happened. so i'm going to see if we can put something in the record here. you pointed out putting a price on carbon is the way we need to move. you pointed out that many republicans outside of the united states senate support it. could you tell me a few of these, because you've mentioned them before, some of the leaders in the republican party? mr. whitehouse: well, one of the most prominent one is george schultz, who served with great distinction under i want to say three republican presidents. mrs. boxer: yeah. it's true. mr. whitehouse: and i happened to run into him within the last 10 days and i said, thank you for your work on carbon. it's important. he said, it's important. he said, we have to do a carbon fee. he said, revenue-neutral.

i said, yes, we have to do a revenue-neutral carbon fee. revenue-neutral carbon fee means that the money that's generated by the polluters paying for the harm that they do to all of rest of us, which they otherwise get away with for free, goes right back to the american people. it is revenue-neutral. it doesn't go into the government and raise the size of government. it goes right back. you could do it by lowering taxes. you could do it by paying off every student loan in the country. you could do it by giving seniors a raise on social security. what a good discussion that would be to be having right here. but we can't have that discussion because the other party is trapped by the polluters, trapped in their politics, trapped by their money. mrs. boxer: righ÷ -- mrs. boxer: right, and you point out one prominent republican, there are many, many more. when i tarted out i tart starten

politics, i was an environmental supervisors. we all came together when we ran for county supervise,we didn't have a label. er you ran as an independent person. but everyone backed that constitutionally protected right to choose and everyone backed cleaning up the environment. so, senator, you have -- to strieb what has happened here -- used some very colorful language from time to time. but i thought one of the things you recently said -- i want to make sure i quote it right -- is that it's like this capital is surrounded by the lies of the polluters. and you can't get the truth into this chamber. is that an accurate way? you say it actually better ... mr. whitehouse: we have erect add barricade of lies and it is

spouted by an afte avalanche of money. and if you go outside that bear cairksd you see emore -- and if you go outside that bear cairksd you see enormous support. just to give an example of our corporate community, coke and pep circumstance the mars corporation which makes m&m's and mars bars, ford and g.m., nike, wal-mart, on and on, you go through the signal american corporations, the herald dry of the american corporate world. they're ready to get something done. but there's enough money that gets thrown by the polluters and enough threats made by them in republican primaries that our colleagues are trapped. and unless we build a coalition that get gets a gets them a wayt

barricade will continue to inhibit progress here in this building. mrs. boxer: and the dilemma we face is the window d to act is closing in on us. you showed some extraordinary foe toassments one is uphotos.td "climate refugees." it went out to the island nations of the world that many people, mr. president, never even knew existed and the folks there, because of the sea level change and the change in the weather and the fact that they can't grow the crops they used to, and they can't rely on water, et cetera, they have to o be leaving their homes that they have lived in for generations. and what you're saying today, it iitis so sad sad and shocking, t looks to me like you're having that in your own state. mr. whitehouse: your point that it used to be a bipartisan issue is actually illustrated by

this photograph. this is carpenter's beach. this has a lot of these small houses that families have held on for generations. and after sandy, with the sea level rise and the storm together knocked them into the water this way. this individual right here is lincoln chafee. that's governor cheavment he --r chafee. one of the staunchest environmentalists in this boyd. if you go back further, father john served as the chairman of the environment and public works committee. one of your predecessors. and he helped lead the passage of the clean air act and the clean water, a republican, and he was proud of it. he didn't hide from it. it wasn't something that the republican party had to run away from in thois days. -- in those days. try to find that in the modern

republican party. it's a embarrassing what's happened to a great political party. mrs. boxer: well, senator whitehouse, you know, you raise the name of john chafee and lincoln chafee. i was friendly with both of those chafees, john being my chairman, a real model for me. i literally learned from him. the anand not only was he a lean the environment, he was just a leader on so many other issues -- sensible gun laws, sensible gun laws. and something has happened to the grand ol' party. somebody once said, well, maybe they're the formerly grand ol' party. but i have hoped that they will return and be the grand ol' parity because partybecause i wd leadership.

putting the price on carbon is the only way to go. you make the case, because there is a cost. and what is the cost? you see it. this is the cost. and yet those that are putting this dangerous pollution in the air don't pay anything for it. as a matter of fact, they get subsidies still. you and i sometimes talk, you know, off-line here and we say that we're very calm when we speak here because we know we have to have a sense of did he - decorum. but inside a lot of us are churning because we love our children and yew love our grandchildren, and we love this nation, and we want to be leaders. and we want our nation to lead. and yet we are having a terrible time. we have a situation where 97% of scientists say climate change is happening and we know exactly

why. it's human behavior. our friend angus king did a remarkable presentation to the caucus the other day making the point that senator whitehouse made, which is that this isn't conjecture. this is science. this is maircht you measure it you see it. you know what is happening. this isn't like something when you're hit with a trag daingdz don't want to shal -- this isn't something like when you're hit with tragedy. you understand how the human mind would do that. but this is science. and it's very, very difficult. i wanted to just ask a couple more questions, and i'm really enjoying this colloquy. it reminds me of the old days when it used to happen more in the senate. my friend mentioned the president's climate action plan, and he talk add little bit about it yesterday and he said some very good, important things

about it. is my friend war aware that thes already been filed by the minority leader here, the republican leader, a c.r.a. -- that's the congressional review act -- to overturn a rule that would in fact put in place some very important pollution controls on new power plants? and does my friend, a, know that he has filed this and does my friend also know that the rule isn't even finalized and the republican leader has filed it, and what does he make of that? mr. whitehouse: it is -- if the underlying problem weren't so serious, it would be laughable that a rule that has not even been promulgated yet,

they're already challenging; they're sort of prechallenging itings and iit and it just sho hell-mell tumble our republican colleagues will subject themselves to in order to keep in the good graces of the polluting industries. again, it's embarrassing. it ought to be embarrassing. but i think there is hope. one of the signs of hope is the polling information among young republican voters. young republican voters under the age of 35 -- you don't have to be very young -- young republican voters urn voters une of 35 when asked about climate denial and asked about their views of people wh who don't believe in climate denial say they think they're crazy.

so time obviously is on the side of reason and science and the plain evidence that people see in front of their noses across this country, whether they are farmers, fishermen, hike,skiers, anybody who has contact with the outdoors understands that this is absolutely real. it is only people in this little hot house of polluter-paid intrigue that the denial strategy still stands up. it is our job to knock it back down. mrs. boxer: absolutely. i think the other point you made is tying this all to citizens units and the fact that these polluters, all they are focused on is they don't want competition. let's be clear. these multinationals, they don't want competition. and the fact of the matter is, they see solar on the horizon,

wind, geothermal, clean energy. they even see natural gas, which has, if it's done right, has half of the carbon pollution. and they are holding on through this ride and this century. and, you know, they won't work with us. it's so -- you know, it's morninmore thanksad. but i will say this. in closing my remarks tonight, we have a new energy, if you will, in this body. we have more thank 20% of this united states senate that has formed together in our action task force that senator whitehouse and i are heading up. we are going to take action. we are going to be heard. and we are going to wake up the congress, which is what has to happen. and i -- i want to say to my

friend how much it means to me, someone who felt pretty much isolated here on these issues for a while, how important it is that even though you said -- and i quoted you, you were sick of coming down and speaking on it. i hope you will not get tired on it. i will predict that a lost us -a lot of us are going to be joining you pretty soon. not only will your voice be heard but many other voices will be heard and that will echo around this nation. i'll it will you the thing -- there are so many other issues we have to deal w we so agree with the president on strengthening the middle class. we so agree that we need to confront the challenges of deficits and jobs and education, all the things -- the health care, which by the way in my state is going gang-busters, the

affordable care act, obamacare, just signing up thousands of people a day. it's moving the country afford. but all these issues we have to deal with. but we have to save the planet. we have to save the planet. and, you know, i do have another question of my friend. you know, some of our colleagues say, oh, you see this freezing cold and all the snow ... this approves there's into climate change. there's no global warming. it's freezing. of course, the scientists that i talk to are telling me that they predicted extreme weather. you look at what happened in portlanded today, where there's school bus signature out on the road -- i think somebody said from 4:00 yesterday until 8:00 this morning. and people stuck because of unexpected icy snowfall.

and here's the thing. it's called a vortex, and the reason it happens is it's explained to me by the scientists and one of them just came on the floor now, is that the jet stream has changed so much because of the warming in the arctic that instead of holding up that cold air in the arctic, the cold air is turning around and coming back down, and we haven't seen that in a while. so you can't just say, it's cold today, there's no climate change. if there's extreme weather and we have it -- in california we have a drought that we've never, ever, ever seen. i went through one in the 1970's. i remember that, where you use the water in the tub to flush the toilets and you tried to recycle the water from your dish wash h -- from your dishwasher d

washing somethinwashing machine. isn't it through this extreme weather was predicted in the u.n. reports and in many other reports? mr. whitehouse: absolutely. and indeed years ago one expert in this area wrote that in terms of the experience that people would have, yes, the planet is warming. but the experience that people would have wouldn't be just of warming, it would be of weird weather. and truly the better name wouldn't be global warming but it would be global weirding. and that's because very simple when you add energy, heat energy in this case, to a closed system by trapping it with more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, you speed things up. you make storms stronger, you change weather patterns, and you see things that you haven't seen before