this question, and this is what they found -- quote -- "in brief, tornado, hurricane and cyclone activity are at historically low levels. wildfires are in a long-term decline, except in government forests. there is no trend in sea levels related to increases in greenhouse gases concentrations. the record of the arctic ice cover is ambiguous. there is no drought trend since 1895, and the same is true for flooding over the past 85-127 years. when asking dr. holdron about this, he responlds, "the first few people you quoted are not representative of the mainstream scientific opinion on this point.

that was a baseless accusation. he had no data to dispute their information. hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, floods are measured every year. we have objective data. dr. pealty went back and examined the hurricanes by category, five being the strongest down to one being the lightest, and he categorized them up 50-plus years. and we're not having more hurricanes or bigger hurricanes, and we're not having more floods. and we're not having more tornadoes. surprising, we had a very severe tornado a few years ago in alabama, but the data would indicate clearly that nationwide we are just not having more. we have always had tornadoes, and this one did a lot of damage and it got a lot of coverage, but it's not a trend. i was sort of price so priced ts

idea. there are a lot of things that i think would move us in the right direction where we would have compromise. maybe nuclear energy would be one that we have support on both sides of the aisle for and would be good for the environment and good for energy and keep costs at a reasonable level without any pollution. so a lot of things we can do. but i would just say to my colleagues, as we discuss the hundreds of billions of dollars in costs that would be imposed on our economy as a result of some of the ideas to deal with climate change and extreme weather, i ask my colleagues, would you please check the data. is it really so we're having more hurricanes, tornadoes? are we having more droughts or floods? dr. pielke says "no." let's see somebody dispute those numbers. they haven't been disputed.

and is it true that the temperature is increasing faster than was predicted even five or ten years ago? the ipcc doesn't -- data doesn't show it. neither does any other objective data. so i've asked the e.p.w. director, administrator submit some data to show me if that's true. do you have any? if so, won't you ask the president to quit saying that. shouldn't the president lead us and tell the truth about the situation? so, madam president, i don't suppose we know enough know to answer this question conclusively either way. but i just would say, there is a bee-- there's been a the love exaggeration, a lot of hype. the american people are feeling the crunch already in their electric bill, in their gasoline bill, in the manufacturing costs going up as a result of our efforts to stop storms that seem to be down, to stop a rise in

temperature that doesn't seem to be rising right now. we'll have to evaluate overall what the right thing to do is as a nation. but i think it's time for us to be a bit more cautious, to be less alarmist, and to focus more on the science of the situation. i would thank the chair and yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: madam president, the senate can take another step forward today in combating sexual assaults in the military. thanks to the leadership of senator mccaskill, senator ayotte, senator michigan fisher and others we can add legislation that adds important new protections for victims of sexual assault and strengthens our ability to investigate and prosecute these crimes.

among the reforms are provisions that make it a crime to retaliate against a service member for reporting a sexual assault, that require every service member who reports a sexual assault to get a special victims advocate who works for them, not for the command or for the court, and also this recently enacted law requires a higher level review of decisions not to prosecute an allegation of sexual assault. the reforms in the bill we'll be voting on shortly are significant additions to that recently enacted law. first this bill will be making an important change in how we prosecute sexual assault crimes by amending the military rules of evidence to eliminate what is known as the good soldier defense, which has allowed

service members to argue that their good military performance is evidence of their innocence when charged with a crime. the military culture has been too slow to grasp the painful truth that even a successful professional can also be a sexual predator. this important reform in the bill that we're considering will help to alter that culture. the bill also strengthens oversight of commander's decisions on prosecution. under reforms that we passed last year, any decision by a commander, not to prosecute a sexual assault case, is reviewed by the next highest authority in the chain of command. when that decision contradicts a recommendation to prosecute from the commander's senior legal advisor, that review is done by the service secretary, the highest civilian authority in each military service. the bill that we're now going to consider would require the same

review if a commander's decision not to prosecute conflicts with the recommendation of the senior prosecutor who would try the case. the bill also strepgens have victims' input into prosecution decisions. the reforms we passed lft year require that every victim of a military sexual assault be provided with a special victims counsel, an attorney who works not for the commander or the court but for the victim. the bill before us requires that these victims counsels advise victims on the advantages and disadvantages of seeing their case prosecuted in a military court or in a civilian corlt. the bill also requires that when victims express a presence for one or the other, that that preference be given great weight. the bill before us includes other important new protections

for sexual assault victims. for example, it allows victims of sexual assault who leave the military to challenge the terms or the characterization of their discharge. the bill requires a confidential process, enabling victims to seek a review of discharge decisions in order to look for possible instances of retaliation for their having reported a crime the bill that we will soon vote on also includes the important new provision to boost accountability for commanders. it requires that their performance appraisals analyze whether they have established a command climate in which sexual assault allegations are properly and fairly handled and in which a victim can report a sexual assault without fear of reprisal or os stroh six. so -- or ostracism.

so these and other provisions in the ayott the a-fisher bill -- e ayotte- fisher bill. the bill that we'll be voting on contains real important reforms which deserve not just or support and our votes but our thanks to senators mccaskill, ayotte and others for crafting these additional reforms. they will surely make a major contribution in protecting the troops who protect us. and i note -- i thank the chair and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call: ms. collins:

madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: thank you, madam president. i ask unanimous consent that proceedings under the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. collins: thank you, madam president. madam president, i rise today to introduce the clean cook stoves support act. this legislation addresses a serious global public health and

environmental issue, and i'm very pleased to be joined in this effort by my friend and colleague, senator durbin. madam president, nearly half of the world's population cooks over open fires or with inefficient polluting and unsafe cook stoves, using wood, agricultural waste, dung, coal or other solid fuels. smoke from these traditional cook stoves and open fires is associated with chronic and acute diseases and affects women and children disproportionately. alarmingly, the global burden of disease study of 2010 doubled the mortality estimates for exposure to smokes from cook

stoves referred to as household air pollution from two million to four million deaths annually in the developing world. the g.b.d. indicates that this is more than the deaths from malaria, tuberculosis and hiv-aids combined. the g.b.d. ranks household air pollution as the fourth worst overall health risk factor in the world, and as the second worst health risk factor in the world for women and girls. millions more are sickened from the toxic smoke and thousands suffer burns annually from open fires or unsafe cook stoves. traditional cook stoves also create serious environmental

problems. recent studies show that the emissions of black carbon or common soot from biomass cook stoves significantly contribute to regional air pollution and climate change. in fact, cook stoves account for some 25% of black carbon emissions. each family using a traditional cook stove can require up to two tons of biomass cooking fuel, and where demand for fuel outstrips the natural regrowth of resources, local land degradation and loss of biodiversity often result. moreover, the collection of this fuel is a burden that is shouldered disproportionately by women and children.

in some regions of the world, women and girls risk rape and gender-based violence during the up to 20 hours a week that they spend away from their families gathering fuel. madam president, replacing these cook stoves with modern alternatives would help reverse these alarming health and environmental trends. this would be relatively inexpensive. in fact, there are stoves that are coming on the market now that cost as little as $20 and are 50% more efficient than the traditional cooking methods. it also could be done quickly. it is what scientists call the low-hanging fruit of

environmental fixes. through the leadership of former secretary of state hillary clinton and the united nations foundation, the global alliance for clean cook stoves was formed in the year 2010. recognizing the serious health and environmental issues posed by traditional cook stoves, the alliance aims to save lives, improve livelihoods, empower women and combat pollution by creating a thriving global market for clean and efficient household cooking solutions. alliance partners are working to help overcome market barriers that currently impede the production, deployment and use of cook stoves that are clean in the developing world. to assist in this important

endeavor, several federal agencies and departments have committed a total of up to $125 million to the sector for the first five years of the alliance. these include a wide variety of departments, including the department of state, energy and health and human services, the united states agency for international development, a.i.d., the environmental protection agency, the national science foundation and the overseas private investment corporation. the u.s. department of agriculture, noaa and the peace corps have also made commitments to provide technical assistance in the developing world. to help advance the alliance's goal to spur the adoption of clean cook stoves in 100 million

households by the year 2020, the u.s. government has focused its commitments on applied research and development, diplomatic engagement to encourage a market for clean cook stoves and to improve access, international development projects to help build commercial businesses and development efforts, including humanitarian and empowerment programs for women and girls. the legislation that senator durbin and i are introducing today reinforces this commitment and would require the secretary of state to work to advance the goals of the alliance. in addition, the bill authorizes the existing funding commitments made by our government to ensure that these crucial pledges toward preventing unnecessary

illness and reducing pollution around the globe are met. by supporting the work of the alliance and the commitments of the u.s. government to replace traditional cook stoves with modern versions that emit far less soot, this bill aims to directly benefit some of the world's poorest people and to reduce harmful pollution that affects all of us. it offers a way for us to address the second leading contributor to greenhouse gas emissions in a way that is inexpensive, not burden system to the people of this country and will have benefits for people living in developing nations. madam president, there is yet another reason for my colleagues

to support this initiative. addressing persistent global issues of poverty and underdevelopment makes our country more secure by undercutting some of the key drivers of extremism and militancy around the world. madam president, i urge my colleagues to join senator durbin and me in supporting the clean cook stoves and fuel support act. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: madam president, i want to applaud the statement of my dear friend, the senior senator from maine, for what she just said. madam president, it was just a

year ago last week the victims of violence and members of law enforcement and those committed to working against domestic and sexual violence celebrated the signing of the leahy-crapo violence against women act reauthorization. also the trafficking victims protection reauthorization act. we passed this important legislation. i believe it was an enormous accomplishment when you consider how divided the congress was, but we came together to support an inclusive bill that protects all victims. and one year later, we honor those victims and survivors by renewing our commitment to our shared goal of ending domestic and sexual violence and the scourge of human trafficking.

our bipartisan effort last year is making lives better today. i have submitted many times during debate on this floor that a victim is a victim is a victim. i certainly learned that as a young prosecutor, going to crime scenes at 2:00 and 3:00 in the morning. and see what domestic violence can do and the horrific damage caused by it. and some -- some who knew better called for us to cast the most vulnerable groups among us aside and pass a watered-down bill. they said that that's the only way we could pass the violence against women act. i'm proud that our commitment to protecting all victims never wavered. we said we would not take out any of the groups in the violence against women act. and this could not have been done without the leadership and

commitment of many senators, but i wish to applaud senators crapo and murkowski who stood strong in this body, and congressman tom cole, republican in the house of representatives, who supported essential provisions to address abuse on tribal lan lands. even those who had originally supported the violence against women act were urging us to take out abuse on tribal lands, congressman cole stood strongly with us and we kept it in. so i thank them for their partnership, and i hope that the senate can come together again this year to pass other meaningful bills that support law enforcement and victims like the justice for all act and the homeless runaway youth act, reauthorize the bulletproof vest bill, something that's been cheered by every democrat on

this side, to protect our law enforcement officers. and i ask my full statement on the anniversary of the signing of the leahy-crapo violence against women act reauthorization be made part of the record. the presiding officer: without objection. morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination, which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, carolyn b. mchugh of utah to be united states circuit judge for the tenth circuit. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the time until 5:30 p.m. will be equally divided and controlled in the usual form. mr. leahy: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: madam president, i do not see anybody on the floor seeking recognition, so i'd ask that the statement i'm about to make be included in the record

as though read following the votes we are going to cast this evening. the presiding officer: wowjt wit objection. mr. leahy: nearly 30 years ago i joined a good friend, dr. vogelman in vermont, along with a republican congressman, a democratic governor, and president reagan's e.p.a. administrator. we hiked up the summit of vermont's second-highest peak, iconic peak called camel's hump. we had a goal in mind. we wanted to observe firsthand what the effects were of acid rain. well, you didn't have to be a scientist to see it. when we arrived to the summit, we saw the evidence we feared. it was like a scar burned across the peaks not only of camel's hurricane buttal the green all n mountains. you say the same scar across the

adirondacks of new york. due to human action, weather patterns have changed, altering the very chemistry of rainfall on a grand scale. and because those weather patterns had changed, we'd caused profound and large-scale damage to life-sustaining ecosystems, something that we humans did. now, there were democratic and republican scientists and bureaucrats on that mountain. we returned to washington united and eager to address the problem. it wasn't easy. we had to overcome strong objections from industry and develop an entirely new cap-and-trade framework. in the end, a democratic majority in congress passed and republican president george h.w. bush signed in to law the clean air act amendments. well, today we're confronted again with irrefutable evidence

that humans have altered not just the wither of ou weather on but the climate of our planet. this time we don't need to climb mountains to see the damage. we is he it in the valleys. we see it in california's scorched farmland and alaska's retreating glaciers and wyomin wyoming's burnt fortunates. before we even get to the accumulated -- unfortunately accumulating scientific evidence for climate change and the carbonization of our fragile atmosphere, all we have to do is apply common sense. as we look around us, anywhere, anytime, doesn't it just stand to reason that human activity is contributing to documented changes in our atmosphere and to climate change? i certainly have seen it in my

lifetime. but i've also seen people deny all reason and evidence to try to argue otherwise. well, the scientists have done their work. we now better understand the human causes of climate change. we understand it's profound accelerating impact. but unfortunately too many policy-makers deny the evidence or they refuse to cross political lines even though they could do that and solve the problem. i say it's time to waning and -p and take action. we've taken some steps in the right direction. this past summer president obama announced plans to cut pollution. the department of energy is working on groundbreaking energy technologies. the department of transportation is studying transportation plans to address future risks and vulnerabilities from extreme

weather and climate change. the department transportation is also addressing something that makes so much sense -- vehicle fuel efficiency that will save vehicle owners and operators billions of dollars a year. it also means less pollutants in the air. these are all positive changes, but before we rest on our laurels, we have to understand there are not -- they're not nearly enough to address the problem at hand. congress needs to cast aside partisan blinders and wake up by enacting legislation that sets as a priority renewable energy development that will support energy family farm efficien -- energy-efficient technology and legislation that will tax carbon pollution. it's time to take a stand against misguided policies and projects that put future

generations at risk. in my state we believe that includes the keystone x.l. pipeline. the state department recently released its long-awaited environmental impact statement on keystone. i'm deeply troubled the state department's analysis did not take into account the overwhelming evidence that this project will further accelerate the release of greenhouse gas pollution which will intensify climate change. there is a mountain of evidence that the carbon pollution and drinking water threats, safety threats from the pipeline are so great that it is not in our national interest and its permit should be donned. i -- should be denied. i ales i go against public -- i realizegy against public opinion polls. we saw this week in one of the local papers. i think we have to stamp out our

addiction of fossil fuels. and we have to understand that climate change is not simply an environmental change. creating a greening energy sector is not just about cutting greenhouse gas emissions. it is about providing jobs for americans in america in the renewable energy and energy-efficiency fields. it is about strengthening national security in america by having greater control over our energy sources. and breaking the stranglehold of oil on the transportation system. what should unite all of us, republicans and democrats alike, is about assuring that our children, our grandchildren have clean air to breathe.

we've come together before. we did it back in the time of president george h.w. bush. we joined hands across the aisle and across regions of this great country and we solved lots of problems. why can't we do it again? isn't that the least we owe to our planet the? isn't that the least we owe to our children and grandchildren? madam president, i see nobody seeking recognition, but i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. mr. leahy: ask that the quorum call be charged to both sides. the presiding officer: without objection, the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: madam president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: are we in

morning business? the presiding officer: the senate is currently considering the mchugh nomination. we are not in morning business. mr. mcconnell: madam president, i am going to proceed on my leader time. the presiding officer: the senator has that right. mr. mcconnell: madam president, there is a depression in apa la chai, an -- appalachia, an absolutely depression. families are losing work because of government attacks on the the coal industry. communities are hurting. tonight you're going to hear 30 hours of excuses from a group of people who think that's okay. that that's just okay. that that's just okay that we have a depression in appalachia. well, it's not okay. it's cruel. it's cruel to tell struggling coal families that they can't have a job because some billionaire -- some billionaire in san francisco disagrees with their line of work.

let me relay a message from a kentucky mino--from a kentucky d howard. what you are going to hear over the next 30 seconds is more important than anything these anticoal will say over the next 30 hours. "is say to you, mr. president of the united states" -- this is howard -- "we're hurting. you say you're the president of the people. well, we're people, too. no one loves the mountains more than we do. we live here. we crawl between them. we get up every morning and go to the top of a morning in the cold rain and snow to put bread on the table. come appeared look at our little children -- come and look at our little children, look at our people, mr. president. you're not hurting for a job. you have avenuyou've got one. i don't." that's howard from eastern kentucky.

i'm not sure how anyone can hear something like that and that i attacking coal families is okay. and it's not just coal families who are suffering. i have here two electric bills, two electric bills, madam president. from a farmer named john in shelbyville. it is not in coal country. nays othethat's in other part or state. but 90% of our coal is from coal-fired generation. we have some of the lowest utility rates inmark -- at least we -- in america ... at least we used to. a year before the president took office, gong's electric bill was $6.70. that was john's electric bill back before the president took office. in july of 2013, he paid $107.30.

same farm, same farm, new president, 66% increase in utility bills in my state outside of coal country. that's a cost increase the people of kentucky and the nation simply cannot afford. my colleagues say they will spend the entire night talking about how we need to wake up and take action, spend all night saying how we need to wake up and take action. i want to challenge them to think about acting in a way that puts the americans that i represent first and not spend 30 hours pretending like they don't exist. as i said, we have got a depression in the coalfields of kentucky, created by this administration and utility bills are soaring all over my state

because of the actions of this administration, and our colleagues tonight are going to spend all night talking about just how great that really is. mr. president, there is another side to the story. we need to care about and think about the people who are being hurt by the policies of this administration. madam president, i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: if neither side yields time, the time will be equally divided.

a senator: madam president?

the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: madam president, i'm pleased to have the nomination of judge carolyn mchugh in front of the senate today. throughout her life, judge mchugh has demonstrated the highest standards of academic excellence, distinction and public service. judge mchugh graduated magna cum laude from the university of utah where she later earned her juris doctor at, graduating with the order of the coif and as an editor of the law review. she clerked for the honorable bruce jenkins, a judge on the u.s. district court for the district of utah. she then spent more than 20 years in private practice where she excelled, focusing on complex commercial litigation. throughout her career in private practice, judge mchugh has demonstrated a strong commitment to pro bono work.

she has been awarded several honors for her work to advance women in the legal profession, and in 1996, the utah state bar recognized her with the distinguished committee award. it was nearly ten years ago when i first met judge mchugh when i was working for then-governor john huntsman. during his first year as governor, it was time for him to appoint someone to the utah court of appeals. at that point, the nominating commissions began their work, and shortly after their work concluded, the governor's staff started interveering the various applicants, various people who had been considered by the nominating commission. it soon became apparent that there was a real standout in this very impressive group of candidates for this court of

appeals position and that judge mchugh's name rose to the top of that list. i found her in these discussions, discussions that i had with her with my colleagues and also with governor huntsman to possess a keenly insightful legal mind, and i found her to be someone who really understands the role of judges, the necessarily limited role and the crucial function of the judge in our system. she has served with great distinction on the utah court of appeals during those intervening years, and for that reason i'm confident that based on the knowledge that she acquired, the skills she has developed and honed over the years and the commitment to public service that she has displayed up to this point in her career, judge mchugh will, in fact, excel as a judge on the u.s. court of appeals for the tenth circuit, and for these reasons, i

strongly urge my colleagues to support her confirmation. thank you, madam president.

the presiding officer: the clerk report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of carolyn b. mchugh of utah to be united states circuit judge for the tenth circuit signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mannedtory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of carolyn b. mchugh of utah to be the united states circuit judge for the tenth circuit shall be brought to a close? the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll.

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, the ayes are 62, the nays are 34. the motion is agreed to. under the previous order, the senate will resume legislative session and the clerk will report the pending business. the clerk: calendar number 293, s. 1917 remarks bill to provide for additional enhancement tz of the sexual asiewlt, prevention, and response activities -- the presiding officer: the senate will be in order.

the clerk: -- of the armed forces. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. under the previous order, the clerk will read the bill for the third time. the clerk: calendar number 293, s. 1917, a bill to provide for additional enhancements of the sexual assault prevention and response activities of the armed forces. the presiding officer: the question occurs on passage of s. 1917. the yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to change their vote? if not, the ayes are 97, the nays are zero. the bill is passed. the majority leader. mr. reid: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule 22, all postcloture time be expired and the vote on confirmation of calendar number 563 occur at 10:30 a.m. on wednesday, march 12. further, that on tuesday, march 11, at 11:30, the senate proceed to vote on cloture on executive calendars numbered 577, 578, 579, 580. further, that if cloture is invoked on any of these nominations, notwithstanding rule 22, all postcloture time be expired and the votes on confirmation of the nominations occur on wednesday, march 12, following disposition of the mchugh nomination in order upon which cloture was invoked. further, that following senate action on these nominations, the senate proceed to vote on confirmation of calendar number

512. further, that there be two minutes for debate prior to each vote. all roll call votes after the first vote in this sequence be ten minutes in length. further, following disposition of calendar number 512, senate resume legislative session to proceed to consideration of calendar number 309, the childcare development block grant bill. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that senator ayotte be recognized for up to three minutes to comment on the passage of s. 1917. further, following her remarks, the senate proceed to a period of morning business, that the time be controlled in alternating 45-minute blocks with the majority controlling the first 45 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that carlie robinson, a fellow in mark udall's office, be granted privileges during the senate session today, march 10. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that hersch desai, a

fellow in the office of senator feinstein, be granted privileges of the floor during the duration of the overnight debate on climate change. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from new hampshire. ms. ayotte: mr. president, i thank you. i want to thank my colleague, senator mccaskill, as well as senator fischer. today the senate voted 97-0 unanimously to support the victims protection act, and this act builds on important work that was done in the defense authorization to ensure that victims of sexual assault in the military will be treated with dignity and respect, that there will be full accountability for commanders to ensure that the climate within their unit is one of zero tolerance to sexual assaults, and that when a victim comes forward, that that victim, male or female, is supported within this system.

so what the victims protection act that was passed today by a vote of 97-0 -- and how few things in the senate pass with 97-0 -- it would ensure that when there is -- the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. the senator from new hampshire. ms. ayotte: thank you. it would ensure that there is another level of review when a commander disagrees with the recommendation of a prosecutor to prosecute a sexual assault case, it will go up to the civilian secretary for another level of review. it will ensure that commanders are judged on their evaluations based on how the climate in their unit is for addressing sexual assault and how they handle these types of cases. it eliminates the so-called good soldier defense because even if you have been a good soldier, if you have committed sexual assault, you need to be held accountable for your actions. and so this bill will ensure that people who are perpetrators are held accountable for their actions. and it also allows important

input from -- from the victims so that they can have a say whether they believe a case should be brought in a military or civilian system to be prosecuted. so this adds on the important work we have done together in the defense authorization, but it is not the end of this. we will continue in the armed services committee to make sure that the reforms that have been passed are implemented, that commanders are held accountable for a climate within their unit of zero tolerance and that victims of sexual assault are treated with dignity and respect and that they know that they will be supported if they come forward to report. and so i thank you, mr. president. i want to thank again senator mccaskill for her leadership on this bill. so few things pass around this body unanimously, but it shows the bipartisan commitment we have to stopping this scourge of sexual assault in the military. thank you, mr. president. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader.

mr. reid: just last week, one of the world's -- the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: mr. president, just last week, one of the world's most well-known spiritual leaders, his holiness, the 14th dalai lama of tibet, visited the capitol. he talked about the moral imperative to protect the planet we call home. the dalai lama spoke with passion and longing of his native tibet where mountain snows melt in spring to feed the rivers this provide bangladesh, china, india, nepal and pakistan with water. the himalayas are sometimes called the third pole because they contain nearly a third of the world's nonpolar ice. but in recent years, man made climate change has caused milder winters, less snow and less water for 1.3 billion people living downstream from tibet.

in the western united states, we face a similar problem. for more than a decade, drought has plagued the colorado river, both upstream and downstream, the lifeblood of a number of western states, including nevada, california, arizona and other states. mr. president, during this period of time, we have had some so-called average snows in in ur colorado, but none of it reaches the river. the climate has changed. milder winters have meant less rocky mountain snow pack, less spring runoff to feed the rivers. combined with more extreme summer heat and other issues connected with climate changing, the shrinking western snow pack threatens a water source for more than 30 million people. mr. president, far more than 30 million people, because 38 million people in california are affected very adversely because of what's going on with the mighty little colorado

river. the seriousness of this climate problem is not lost on our average american. the vast majority of americans believe climate change is real. they believe it is here. a quarter century ago, the first president bush promised to use -- quote -- "the white house effect to combat the greenhouse effect." that's what he said. but not have much happened. but despite overwhelming scientific evidence and overwhelming public opinion, climate change deniers still exist. there's lots of them. they exist in this country, they exist, aim sorry to say, -- i'm sorry to say, in this congress. in the house and in the senate. so i'm very grateful senator schatz, senator whitehouse and the chairman of that very important environment committee, senator boxer, and many other senators who will join this

climate change debate and presentation tonight are stand up against the dearns. climate change is real. it's here. it's time to top acting like those who ignore this crisis -- for example, the oil baron koch brothers and their allies in congress -- have a valid point of view. they don't. climate change, i repeat, is here, mr. president. climate change has brought harsh and drastic situations all over our country. in the last few years alone, the midwest has experienced the mo biggest draughts since the great depression. wildfires have ravaged the west. places burn that have never burned before. the mighty mississippi nearly ran dry. barge traffic had to be brought it a stop because the river wasn't deep enough for them to travel in that great river.

while record drought affected some parts of the united states, torrential rains, extreme thunderstorms struck others. temperatures topped 60 degrees in alaska in january. february brought a blanket of snow and ice to atlanta, georgia, mr. president. the south. and other parts of the world, glaciers that have been frozen for tens of thousands of years are melting quickly. fires have consumed vast forests and monsoons and superfloods have left millions homeless. all over the world, mr. president. and since the knew year -- this new year, the united kingdom has had its wettest winter perhaps ever, but far more than the last 100 years. tokyo, japan -- in a period of a little over two weeks -- got

four years' worth of snow. australia experienced its hottest summer in the history of us a straiaustralia. the vast majority of scientists say this is just the beginning of the ravages of our world changing. dozens of reports from scientists around the globe link extreme weather to climate change and the more extreme climate change gets, the more extreme the weather is going to get. everyone has to understand that. it's easy to see the urgency to confront climate change, but this challenge is also an opportunity, and it really is. we have the ability -- now -- to reduce our reliance on oil and other fossil fuels, increase our production of clean energy and create good-paying jobs that can never be outsourced. we have the ability to choose the kind of world in which we live. we have that choice. in nevada, we've done some good things, mr. president. we've chosen clean, renewable energy as we retire older

polluting power plants. we only have one left. we imported millions of tons of coal. mr. president, i remember i was in the house of representatives and one power plant was on its way out. the man's name was al matutsi, returning for nevada power. he was telling me the little power plant, they were importing 2 million tons of coal a year. i said, al, what are you talking about? 2 million tons of coal? that's the way it was. just one relatively small power plant. we're not doing that in nevada. we have only one coal-fired plant that's left. and we're doing this by going toss, of course, some natural gas. but we've done so many good things with renewable energy, with geothermal. we've finally passed california. we're the most productive state in the union with geothermal

energy. we've done other things with renewable energy. this old plant that i just talked about where millions of tons of coal came in every year ... why are we getting rid of that? for lots of reasons. but one reason, mr. president, this polluting power plant built on paiute indian land about 35 miles outside of las vegas during the johnson administration, as i mentioned, will soon close. next week i'm going to go a tbreek this coming friday and we're going to have a groundbreaking there. we're going to have a groundbreaking on this land where they're going to have hundreds and hundreds of jobs. they're going to produce huge amounts of energy through solar, and that energy is going to go to california. it's going to go to california. there you are. and we have huge amounts of solar energy all over the state of nevada. and we're shipping it to california because california,

mr. president, did the right thing. they passed a law saying that by a certain period of time, a third of all their power must come from renewable sources. that's progressive state. and that's important. and we're helping them meet those demand. but in nevada we're also doing a lot to produce our own energy. now, also i talked about this power plant. this power plant in mohapa, on an indian reserve there, is really a -- the first solar project to be built on tribal lands certainly in nevada and likely in the whole country, and the largest solar plant in the world opened last month on the nevada-california border. the largest one in the world. dozens have drilled from lands in northern nevada. because some of nevada's best renewable energy resources are

located in that part of the world. it was part of the stimulus bill, the obama program to help stimulate the economy and it certainly has done that oiferl the country, but it certainly has done it in nevada. we have this power line connecting the northern and southern parts of the state for the first time ever. what is being put in that power line? renewable energy, mr. president. renewable energy. solar, wind, geothermal. and, mr. president, this power line connecting renewable energy resources with the people and businesses that need them and making electric grid more efficient is part of what we used to talk about here all the time, the smart grid. it is actually here. nevada is the first place where we actually have a federal program that got us the smart grid. this -- this power line may not only have the one built from northern nevada to southern nevada, but we have permission to take it now into the great northwest, the same power line.

so we're doing some good things. that's what smart grid is all about. nevada has approven -- which is very easy to do, i must say -- that reducing our reliance on fossil fuels is tabooed for the economy and it is good for the environment. but as the dalai lama said, mr. president, "we have the capability and responsibility to act, but we must do so before it is too late." listen, everybody, "this is not just a question of morality or ethics but a question of our own survival." i believe that. a question of our own survival. i ask unanimous consent following my opening remarks, which i just did here, so i ask next that the following senators be recognized for up to 90 seconds in the order lists: durbin, schumer, murray, boxer, whitehouse, shotsst schatz, feinstein, nelson, quants we will, cardin, klobuchar, udall of colorado, udafl new mexico, shaheen, america rirks bennett,

blumenthal, heinrich, king, and booker. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president, in this chamber we spend a lost time debating how our actions wilactionswill affect future ges and the obligations we have to leave futur future generations a better world. nowhere is that more apparent than when it comes to the issue of climate change. it is critical, critical that we leave our children and grandchildren a sustainable planet with a promising, bright future. we can no longer shyway from the fact, the fact that over 98% of all working climate scientists believe that human activities have led to climate change. the inner governmental panel on climate change has found it to be unequivocal that the world is

warming due to human activities. the existence of man-made climate change is not a debatable issue, nor is it a vague or distant threat. it is a situation that requires serious attention immediately. mr. president, i've heard it said that there is only one major political party in the world that denies what i just said: the scientific evidence that points to climate change and the fact that the world we're living in is changing with extreme weather patterns, is change the lightest that we lead and the future for many generations. i hope during the course of this debate that if the other side, the republican party, comes to the floor, they will dispute what i just said. i'm calling on them to name any other major political party in the world -- the presiding officer: time has expired. mr. durbin: -- that agrees with the proposition that they stand for questioning whether there is scientific evidence supporting climate change. i believe there is and i believe we should act now. the presiding officer: the

senator from new york. mr. schumer: thank you, mr. president. first, i want to thank my colleagues. they've did an amazingly great job on the climate change action force, particularly senators boxer and whitehouse, who led the task force and the indeat that teeingable member, senator schatz, for organizing and coordinating this effort. now, mr. president, the overwhelming majority of the world's scientists believe that humans are change the earth's climate. climate deniers like to claim that there are competing stories about whether this is true. usually pushing polluter talking points that there is not a scientific consensus on climate change. we know this is utterly false, and i would pose the following question to my colleagues who think -- quote -- "the jury is still out on climate change." if you went to 100 doctors and 98 of them said you were sick and should take medicine but two

told you you were fine and should do nothing, what would you do? climate change deniers need to wake up and realize that the scientific diagnosis about warming the planet is real. we need to take action, much of which will be outlined tonight. i hope my colleagues and the american people are listening. i yield the floor. mrs. murray: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: mr. president, i am very proud to be here with all of our colleagues to talk about an action that is needed. climate change is real. we've seen it in the overwhelming scientific evidence that is occurring today. it's not just about science. it is impacting all of us. we see the rise in asthma attacks. we see the impacts in my home state of washington. i hear this concern from my constituents. and we know that the rising sea levels are threatening all of

us. we see it in our rural communities, where we're seeing severe droughts. we're eseeing it in our forests, where the dry weather is turning our woods into kindling. we see is it in our local fishing communities where ocean acid if i compages is hindering our -- aacid if i compages is hindering our shellfish development. they are devastating to our families and communities that are suffering from drought and superstorms and wildfires. but it's not just an environmental issue. it is not just a health issue. it is a budget issue. it is not just about rising temperatures. it is about rising costs. as chair of the budget committee, i can tell you, this issue is a burden to our taxpayers. federal disaster recovery spending alone has increased year after year as the number and size of the weather-related disasters rises. these costs will continue if we don't act. and, mr. president -- the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mrs. murray: mr. president, we know that the jobs that we can

create with new economic opportunities of climate change that will bring us -- will help us bring us out of the budget deficits we face. i congratulate all of our colleagues who are here tonight to talk and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: mr. president, i know and we all know that all senators care deeply about their constituents and their families. if any one of us saw danger looming, we would do everything in our power to save them. and yet in the face of irrefutable scientific agreement, the senate does nothing to make sure that polluters pay for the carbon they emit, which would move us toward a clean energy economy and away catastrophic climate change. yes, there is money -- big money -- behind the polluters and, yes, those polluters are raging against us with layers of lies. and yet -- and still the environment that used to be a

bipartisan issue has turned truly bitterly partisan. but we cannot and we must not and we will not give up because it is our job. we must preserve our environment for our people. that's pretty basic, i'd say. to the deniers, i'd say you have given in to the pour of wishful thinking just as those againing cigarette addiction did. to those who say let china lead, i say this is shameful. in china, 1.2 million people died in 2010 from air pollution. that is a fact, not a fantasy. america doesn't sit around and wait for someone else to protect the health and safety and the quality of life of our people. so i am so proud tonight to stand with my strong -- the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mrs. boxer: -- smart and resolute colleagues as we fight back against those polluters who would put their self-interest

ahead of those families we have sworn to protect. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: thank you, mr. president. this problem of carbon pollution could not be more real for my home state of rhode island. it is real for our country's future, but i will be here in the wee hours and i will yield my time so that we can compress this. we have a lot of senators who want to speak in a short period of time. i will yield my time and express my gratitude to senator schatz of hawaii, who has coordinated tonight's event. the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii. mr. schatz: thank you, mr. president. i rise with 29 of my colleagues with a simple message for congress and for our nation. climate change is real. climate change is caused by humans and climate change is solvable. and we will not rest until congress wakes up and acts on the most pressing issue of our time. so why are we doing this? why are we taking this particular action, to take the

floor tonight and into the morning right now? the answer is simple -- this is the floor of the united states senate, the greatest deliberative body in the world. this is where historically america has addressed some of our toughest challenges. tonight has to be the historic beginning of us facing "the" challenge of our generation. the real question ought to be: why haven't we done this sooner? and perhaps more pointly pointey isn't every single member of this body down here with us? mr. schatz: tonight is just the beginning. we're going to continue to push throughout the year. and the public is with us, independents, democrats and republicans. americans are calling for action, mr. president. the only place where climate change is still an open debate is within the four corners of this capitol. i've seen what can happen when there's a real commitment to clean energy and clear goals laid out. in my home state of hawaii, we set aggressive goals and doubled our use of clean energy in just three years.

tackling climate change is going to require the entire country -- the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mr. schatz: i thank you. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: thank you, mr. president. before i leaves, i want to thank senator chats for all the work -- senator schatz for all the work he did to put this effort together tonight o. and, mr. president, i simply want to say, when you look at the data from the national oceanic and atmospheric administration and the national academy of sciences, i believe you reach a blunt judgment. climate change is the scientific equivalent of a speeding mack truck. so tonight it's appropriate that senators start getting into these issues with practical approaches. we've done that in our part of the world with a bipartisan effort to promote hydropower. i'm very pleased that the president has a new approach in terms of dealing with wildfire, which is also bipartisan because the fires we're seeing are getting bigger and hotter, and

there are steps we can take to deal with those urgent problems, colleagues. that's what this evening is all about, suggesting sensible actions. and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. nelson: mr. president, one of the places that is threatened the most is a little area like bangladesh. but you know what is threatened the most in the continental of the united states? the miami area. i'm going to be taking the commerce committee during the april recess to have a hearing on climate change and sea level rise, particularly right in the heart of a city that has been experiencing flooding over and over because of this climate change. florida is ground zero for sea

level rise. we have a compelling story to tell. our leaders are making key decisions and investments today so that our coastal economy will thrive. and so we're going to pull all this together in this hearing that we're going to have. there are several members of the commerce committee here tonight. i want to invite you during the april recess to come to this hearing. thank you all for organizing this all-night event, and i look forward to the testimony that is coming out here this evening. thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. ms. cantwell: mr. president, climate change is not a problem of the future. climate change is drastically impacting our oceans today. acidification is increasing at astonishing rates and our oceans take up to 25% of our carbon

emissions. that means that carbon and ocean acidification kills our oysters, our crabs and other shellfish and impacts the shellfish that other sea life count on, like our salmon. so the impact to an industry in our state that is worth $30 billion and supports 148,000 jobs is serious. just last week there was a huge dieoff of scallops in british columbia. this resulted in a 30% of employees in that region being laid off. so climate change is not only killing oysters and scallops but it is killing our fishing jobs. that is why we're here tonight, because we know we need to act to save jobs and help our economy. i thank than the president and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: mr. president, as a member of the climate action task force, i couldn't be

prouder of my colleagues being on the floor tonight. i want to thank senator boxer and senator schatz and senator whitehouse for organizing this. and our information that we're going too presengoing to protece facts are clear. the science indicates that what we do here on earth is affecting the liveability of our planet and we can do something about it. that this is an urgent issue. from climate refugees around the world to the visible signs we see in beijing, china, to each of our individual states. i'm honored to represent the people of maryland. 70% live in coastal zones. the chesapeake bay is icon i can to the -- is iconic to the survival of maryland as we know it today, and yet it's at risk. but, mr. president, here's the good news. we can do something about it. we can reduce our carbon footprint. we can reduce our pollution. and in doing so, we not only help our environment, we also help our economy and job growth, help make america more energy secure, which helps our national security.

so let's take the reasonable steps necessary to help our future generations and help our economy and help our environment. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. udall: mr. president, i'm also very pleased to join all-colleagues here tonight to talk about one of the most pressing challenges confronting our nation in my state of colorado and that is climate change. we've seen in my state that this is not an obscure threat or a distant problem. we've had catastrophic floods and megawildfires that's been the result of drought, of a whole series of changes in the way that we see climate systems operate in colorado. and it's threatening our very way of life. i have a powerful photograph here. we've had the past two years three successive megafires. and last year's black forest fire brought destruction into colorado springs. over 500 homes burned and we lost two lives. and this fire quickly surpassed

the 2012 waldo canyon fire, which was the most destructive fire in colorado history. mr. president, now is the time to act. now is the time to grab the opportunity to create new energy technologies, to enhance our national security, and to, by the way, to keep faith with our children. we don't inherit this earth from our parents, we're borrowing it from our children. if we don't act on climate change, we're going to leave them a less bright future. if we do act, we can create jobs, we can protect the environment. and as a member of the armed services committee, along with the presiding officer, we can enhance our national security with these new technologies. so let's act now. i'm here in this congress and this senate to protect our way of life in colorado. if we act now, we can protect that very special way of life. thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from new mexico. mr. udall: mr. president, thank you very much. let me first of all just congratulate my chairman, chairman boxer, senator whitehouse, senator schatz for

arging this effort -- organizing this effort in what we're calling an "up all night conversation." new mexico is in the bull's-eye when it comes to climate change. every place else, if it goes up one degree, new mexico in the southwest goes up two degrees. so that we know that we're hit really, really hard. and i'm going to talk later in this conversation about all of the impacts. but it's clear, forest fires, as my cousin talked about, drough droughts, huge dieoff in terms of trees, extreme rain events after fires and flooding. very, very devastating things. but the thing about it, new mexico's been at the front of the solutions. when it comes to renewable energy, we are out there. solar energy, wind, advanced biofuels like algae. so we are working in the direction we need all of us to be working in together in this

country to make sure that we orient us towards renewables and tackle this problem. so with that, i'll be able to expand on this later. i would yield back. the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: thank you, mr. president. i'm pleased to join my colleagues tonight in talking about the economic and environmental imperative of addressing climate change. i want to thank all of the members of the climate task force, all of my colleagues who are here, and particularly senator schatz from hawaii for organizing tonight. the fact is, as we've heard, climate change is real and it is happening. according to the union intergovernmental panel -- the u.n. intergovernmental panel on climate change, a group of 300 scientists from over 130 countries who have studied climate change for over 20 years, global emissions must be stabilized by mid-century in order to avoid the most catastrophic and irreversible consequences of climate change.

studies from the national research council and the u.s. global climate research program reinforce that global temperatures are steadily rising and contributing to more extreme weather events and rising sea levels. and scientists from the university of new hampshire have found that humans are responsible for releasing large amounts of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere that are causing rapid climate change. i only need to look at new hampshire to see the real economic and health implications. in new hampshire, climate change is contributing to sea level rise, which imperils businesses and homes in coastal communities like portsmouth. and the outdoor recreation community is facing -- the presiding officer: senator's time has expired. mrs. shaheen: -- less snow resulting in fewer tourism dollars. wildlife and public health are becoming increasin increasing ve

to disease. we must take action now. i look forward to coming back later this evening to talk more about what we're seeing in new hampshire. thank you. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. a senator: mr. president, theodore roosevelt said -- quote -- "of all the questions which come before this nation, short of actual preservation of its existence in a great war, there is none which compares in importance with the great central task of leaving this land even a better land for "descendants than it is for us. us." mr. merkley: we should reconsider those words now in the context of carbon pollution, carbon pollution which is a direct assault on our rural resources, on our farming, on our fishing, and on our forestry. in oregon, we've had the three worst drowlts in ou droughts in. in fishing, everyone who goes to

their favorite fraugh favorite , know that it's warmer and smaller in summer and a poorer place to fish and certainly work for iconic salmon and steelhead. and the forests are burning. from pine beetle, which spreads throughout the land in the context of not having those cold snaps in the winter, and in the context of the tinderbox conditions of the forest floor. those forest fires have been some of the worst we've seen in a century and more is yet to come. so, mr. president, we cannot wait for 20 or 30 or 40 years to act. we can't wait two or three or four years to act. carbon pollution is real. the damage is real. and it is time this chamber take action. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: thank you, mr. president.

mr. president, why are we here tonight? we're here because if we fail to act, our planet will be destroyed. as exaggerated as that claim sounds, it is strikingly irrefutably true. we're here because our future is at stake, not only ours but our children. we're here because of climate change, which is really climate disruption and planet destruction. it is real and it is urgent, and anyone who lives in connecticut knows about the snowstorms and the hurricanes, storm sandy, the rising tides that will eventually destroy our coastline, the rising temperatures that will emaciate our vegetation and our produce. there are real human effects but also economic effects. there are immense economic

perils but also tremendous economic promise if we invest in the steps that have to be taken to stop climate disruption. we can take advantage of the immense opportunity and obligation that we face by acknowledging the reality that our planet is at stake and defeating and discrediting the deniers, the climate change deniers who are as much a part of the problem as any of the natural forces or elements at stake. that is why we are here tonight, and that is why we will stay the course. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from new mexico. mr. heinrich: mr. president, as a member of the climate change task force, i am pleased to join my colleagues on taking action

on tackling one of our nation's greatest challenges. i want to thank senator whitehouse and senator boxer for their leadership on this issue. tonight we will illustrate that climate change is not theoretical and cannot be ignored. we will discuss how sound science can be used to better understand and manage climate impacts. and we'll highlight the moral imperative that we have in congress to implement real solutions. in my home state of new mexico, we're seeing bigger fires, drier summers, more severe floods when it finally does rain and less snow pack in the winter. 2012 was our nation's second most extreme year for weather on record, but in new mexico we experienced the hottest year on record. over the last four years alone, we have seen two -- the two largest fires in new mexico's history. and the reality is things are only going to get worse if we don't act. if we have any hope of reversing the effects of climate change

and we truly must, it's critical that we embrace this challenge now and lead the world in innovation, in efficiency and in clean energy. the presiding officer: the senator from maine. mr. king: mr. chairman, mr. president, joe suel, david huber, sherry huber, those names mean nothing in this chamber, but they meant everything in maine in the 1970's. they were the parents of the environmental movement in our state. what did they all have in common? all republicans. i rise tonight in puzzlement as to how this issue became a partisan issue. it's a scientific issue. 186,000 miles per second is how fast light goes. that's science. that's not a partisan or a debatable issue. and the science on this question is definitive.

and i have to say i don't -- i wouldn't call myself a denier but i was a skeptic until several years ago when i encountered a chart, which i'm going to show in large version later this evening, that talks about co2 in the atmosphere for the last million years. and yes, it varied over time between 150 parts and 250 parts per million, but in the 1860's at the dawn of the fossil fuel age, it started to go up. and now it's at 400 parts per million. a number not seen in this world for three million years. and the last time we were at that figure, the water -- the sea level was 80 feet higher. mr. president, we are playing with the future of this planet, and we have to do something. that's why we're here. the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. ms. warren: as a member of the

climate change task force, i'm proud to join my colleagues today. i particularly want to thank senator schatz, whitehouse and boxer for getting us organized and bringing attention to the urgent need to address climate change, because we are on the cusp of a climate crisis. a point of no return that will threaten our health, our economy and our planet. for the next several hours and all through the night and into tomorrow, dozens of senators will add their voices to the millions of voices around the country of people who are committed in the fight against climate change. i got ready for this event by asking people for help. i sent out an email asking a simple question -- what do people think the world will look like 25 years from now if we don't do anything at all to stop climate change? nearly 5,000 emails have already poured in from workers, teachers, grandparents, students. these americans sea what is happening to our environment. they see the paralysis of our

politics. they see that we are headed down a dangerous path. they see that we, our country and our congress, must change. so this is where we start, a moment of great peril for massachusetts, for america, for the world, but also a moment of great opportunity, a time for us to come together. during my time on the floor, i plan to read letters from some of the -- the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. the senator from massachusetts. mr. markey: the science proves there's a danger. the economics prove there is a solution. and the politics tonight begin the process of saying there is a way to deal with this issue. the planet is running a fever, but there are no emergency rooms

for planets. we have to engage in the preventative care so that we deploy the strategies that make it possible for our planet to avoid the worst, most accurate strosk effects of climate change. we can do it and we can do it in a way that helps our economy. there are now 80,000 people working in the wind industry in the united states. there are 142,000 people in the solar industry. that's 220,000 people. there are 80,000 people in the coal industry. most of the wind and solar jobs have been created in the last five years. this is a revolution, a job-creating revolution which is taking off. so tonight we're going to stay up all night to talk about this climate change issue in the hopes that tomorrow will be the dawn of a new era. where the congress begins to do something about this issue, that

it responds to its historic duty to the next generation to end this crisis. the presiding officer: the senator's time is expired. the senator from new york. mrs. gillibrand: climate change is real, it is here. rising sea levels, disappearing coastlines, longer droughts, colder winters, hotter summers, massive so-called storms of the century are occurring routinely like hurricanes irene and leigh and of course superstorm sandy that devastated the northeast. but powerful special interests and too many politicians who should simply know better would have us believe it's a hoax or that any reasonable action would kill jobs. i for one refuse to believe that somehow harmful pollution is the only way to grow and sustain our economy. i for one know for a fact that what's good for our environment can be good for business when we act responsibly. it's time to invest in clean

energy, wind, solar, biofuel and other sources of energy that do not pollute our environment and contribute to climate change. we have everything it takes from sustainable resources, american innovation, manufacturing knowhow to produce new sources of clean energy that are made here in america. that's how we can cut our dependence on costly foreign oil and make us more secure. that's how we can spark new businesses, new jobs and a stronger middle class, all while protecting the air that we breathe and the water that we drink and preserving all the beauty of our most cherished places for the next generation. mr. whitehouse: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, how much time remains under the control of our side? the presiding officer: three minutes and 30 seconds. mr. whitehouse: well, let me take advantage of that three minutes -- mr. inhofe: if the senator needs a little more

time, i would be glad to not object. mr. whitehouse: that's kind of the distinguished senator, but i think we managed to come in within our time. i just wanted to, as we close, thank so many colleagues who have participated in this early lightning round of statements by senators. we expect to have 30 democratic senators speaking on this during the course of the night, through the night and into tomorrow morning, and it's a matter we are overdue in addressing. it's a matter that is really beyond legitimate scientific dispute, at least as to the fundamental truth of the planet warming and why. indeed, abraham lincoln was the president when a scientist named tindell over in england first presented to the royal academy of sciences over there his work showing that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere warms the earth

as it increases its density. and we are now more carbon dense, as senator king said. we spent about 800,000 to three million years in a zone of 150-300 parts per million. we have never been at 400 parts per million in the history of human habitation on this planet, never, until just a few months ago when the first 400 parts per million reading was recorded. so we have to pay attention to this. and what i will close by saying is that not only is this a vital point for our home states, it's vital for california, i see, which is riven by drought, it is vital for new mexico and colorado which have also seen drought and wildfires. it's vital for new york which was clobbered by superstorm sandy, vital for hawaii which is seeing sea level rise and

acidification, vital for massachusetts, my neighbor in massachusetts where the sea level is up ten inches and we're beginning to see fisheries move north and away from our waters to avoid the warming seas. vital for connecticut, which has virtually lost its lobster fishery because of its warming seas. and of course vital for rhode island. my narragansett bay is three to four degrees warmer in the winter, and that means that fisheries like the winter flounder fishery are simply gone. 90%-plus crashed. and we have to face this as states. we have to face this as a nation. and if we fail, we have failed the fundamental test of every american generation. the fundamental test of every american generation is will you bring the reputation of this country and the integrity of this democracy forward through your time so that the next american generation can carry it forward with honor? we got our democracy from the greatest generation. they fought world wars to make it safe for us, and if we fail now on this, we will not be the

greatest generation. we will be a disgraced generation, and i intend to do everything i can to make sure we do not get there. i yield back the rest of the democrats' time. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: thank you, mr. president. all night long. that's going to be fun. by the way, the oklahoma city thunders aren't playing tonight, so you may get a few more viewers. it's nice to hook over and see probably the most articulate and knowledgeable of all of the alarmists historically as our newest senator, ed markey from massachusetts. i have had the enjoyable time of -- you know, it can be good friends and still disagree. certainly, the senator from rhode island knows that because we had a little disagreement last week, and certainly the

senator from california, even though she is not smiling -- i guess you are smiling tonight. anyway, this has been a long, long time that we have been working on this. it started with the kyoto treaty. i think most people have forgotten about that when during the clinton-gore administration, when gore came back to where was it in california -- in south america, they came up with this thing? rio de janeiro, that's right. came back and said oh, we're all going to die. global warming is coming. i would say this -- he knows what he is doing and "the new york times" speculated that al gore is very likely the first environmental billionaire in existence. so i guess he knows what he is doing there. i think in spite of the fact of what's happened recently, i think it's probably necessary to have something that's all night, something to get the attention of the american people because you keep saying -- and i hear it over and over again -- climate

change is real, global warming is real, it's real, it's real, it's real. and if you say it enough times, then people are going to think it's real. and so tonight for all night long, you can say it's real, it's real, it's real, but i think that people have heard that before and times have changed. let me tell you a couple of things that have happened unfortunately -- and i know a lot of you regret this. i remember so well when lisa jackson was the administrator of the e.p.a., and i have often said some very good things about her because she -- even though she is very, very liberal and i'm ranked as -- most of the time as the most conservative member of the senate, and yet when you ask her a direct question, she would always come out with an honest answer. and i remember back -- and i asked my good friend senator markey just a few minutes ago who all was over there. let me first of all say, mr. president, that the united nations that start all this

stuff, they have one big annual party, and it's in very -- usually very nice places and people go. usually 190 -- i think the last count was 190 countries are there. i remember talking to some of my good friends in one of the sub-saharan african countries who was there with the administration. i said you don't believe this stuff, do you? he said no, no, but this is one of the biggest parties of the year. one of the biggest parties in 2009 was copenhagen. it turned out they set a record how cold it was in copenhagen, i remember that very well. but i remember at that time -- and i hope i get this right because we had several people from the administration. we had at that time senator john kerry, of course congressman ed markey, nancy pelosi. who else was there? and president obama, who was senator obama at that time --

no, he was already president at that time. anyway, they all went there. their job was to convince the 191 other countries that were in copenhagen that we in the united states are going to pass some type of real cap-and-trade legislation. and so we had a hearing. at that time i think republicans were in control. but i asked lisa jackson, i said, you know, i'm going to go to copenhagen tomorrow to be a one-man truth squad. everybody has been there talking about p what we're going to do here in the united states and somebody has to tell them the truth. so i said, i have a feeling when i leave tomorrow you're going to have a declaration. and when you do, it has to be based on some type of science. and i could tell by looking at her that they were going to have the endangerment finding. remember that i say to my friend, senator markey, the endangerment finding? anyway, i left the next morning

for copenhagen and that afternoon they had the endangerment finding. before i left, i said, when you have the endangerment finding, it has to be based on some type of science. and she said it would be based on the ipcc. but, ironically, the timing couldn't be better. it wasn't a matter of weeks after that. it was a matter of hours after that that climategate was exposed. climategate was the -- it all started with east anglia university's c.r.u., climate research unit, that helps put together the science for the ipcc. it was disclosed that the ipcc was cooking the facts to either

cover up data that didn't tell the story they wanted everyone to hear and exaggerated the impacts of the changing climate to drive people out of fear into action. now, there are three things that you need to know about the ipcc. first of all, the obama administration has referred to the ipcc as the gold standard of climate change science and global warming. some say its reports on climate change and global warming represent the so-called consensus of the science opinion about global warming. ipcc and al gore were awarded the kno nobel peace price for building knowledge. when that means is that the elite circles -- in the elite circles, the ipcc is a big deal. so as a result of climategate where they found they had been lying all this time, when abc news, when the economists, from

the times of london, among many others, report that the ipcc's research contains embarrassings flaws and that the ipcc chairman and scientist knew of the flaws but published them anyway, well, you have the makings of a major scientific scandal. there are two examples. the ipcc claimed that the himalayan glaciers would melt by 20356789 that is just not true. simply false. yet it was put into the ipcc's fourth assessment report. according to the sunday times, the claim about the himalayas was based on a 1999 story in the news magazine which in turn was based on a short telephone interview with someone named hossnian, a little-known indian scientist. next the world wildlife fund

cited the story in one of its climate change reports. yet despite the fact that the world wildlife fund was not scientifically peer reviewed, it was still referenced by the ipcc. according to the "the times" the himalayan glaciers are so thick at such a high altitude that most glaciologists believe it would take several hundred years to melt at the present rate. all of that was taking place -- it has to be really disturbing to a lot of those individuals who are the alarmists. that all of a sudden this backbone of singes that they've been referring -- of science, that they've been referring to the ipcc, was exposed. there are things -- i remember one of them in 1999, one of the e-mails, these were the e-mails that were exposed now said "i have a just" -- these are the ones that are behind, giving the information.

"i've just completed my nature trick of adding the real temperatures to each series for the last 20 years. " in other words, from 1981 onwards, and from 1961 for keys to hide the decline. so they were adding higher temperatures to give the trends they wanted. in 2009, the facts -- the fact is that we cannot account for the lack of warming at the moment. it is a travesty that we can't. these are the people that were supplying the information to the ipcc. and i remember -- and i could go on and on. there's not time to get to all of them. but christopher booker of the u.k. said, this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation. he is talking about the united nations' ipcc. that's the basis of all of this going on. clive cook, the close-mindedness of these proposed men of science is spruce u surprising to meevme stink ever intellectual corruption is overpowering.

and ipcc prominent physicist resigns. climategate was fraud on a scale never seen before. dr. phillip lloyd calls out the ipcc as a fraud. the result is not scientific. "newsweek," "once celebrated climate researchers feel like the used car salesman." some of the ipcc's most quoted data, recommendations were taken straight out of unchecked activist brochures. i'm quoting right now. this was in "newsweek." and george montanavoy an economist on the other side of this issue, "it is no use pretending that this isn't a major blow. the e-mails extracted by a hark from the climate unit at the university of east anglia could scarcely be more damaging. i am deeply dismayed at them.

i was too trusting of some who provided the evidence i championed. i would have been a better journalist if i had investigated their claims more closely." now, we have the other problem there and that is that instead of increasing, we're -- we've gone through now some cold spells that are just shocking and setting new records. in january of 2014, 4,406 cold temperature records were set around the country. in january of 2014 in my city of tulsa, it got down to minus 2 degrees, break ago record that was held since 1912, over 100 years. in enid, okay, minus 3 degrees. barnesville, down to minus 13 degrees. and in the south pole on the same day dwas only minus 11.

march 14, snow cover at third highest level on record. 1969 and 1978 were the higher. the great lakes second highest ice cover on record. 1%. in 1979 the highest at 94%. it is not surprising, given the 15-year pause in global warming, "nature" magazine stated that over the last 15 years, "the observed temperature trend is not significantly different from zero and suggests a temporary highiate news global warming." the "economist" says, the president has acknowledged -- or hasn't acknowledged on multiple occasions he said, -- this is a quote from the president. "the temperature around the globe is increasing faster thank was preducted ten years ago. unfortunately for this talking

point, the data that has been reported in "nature," the "economist" and even in the united nations ipcc repor reporw this is not true. this has got to be really shocking to an awful lot of advocates that have put their lives in the idea that this world is coming to an end and global warming is a reality. several weeks in a hearing held by the e.p.w. committee, gina mccar think, the current e.p.a. director, pressed on this point. asked whether or not president obama's statement was true, she responded, "i can't answer that. " with all this in mind, climategate, recent cold temperatures and a 15-year highiate us, how could -- hig hiatus, how could congress move afford with regulation that gives the e.p.a. authority to regulate greenhouse gases?

there have been several votes on global warming related legislation over the past decade. since we first started debating it here in the late-1990's. but they've all failed to show that there have been even the 60 votes required to pass cap and trade. in 1997, the byrd-hagel legislation, in 1 1995, the unid states should not be a signature to the kyoto treaty. the kyoto treaty was a treaty that was negotiated with al gore down in south america. in 2003 we had the mccain-lieberman bill. it failed 43-5. then we had the mccain-lieberman bill again p in 2005. it failed 38-60. the trend. it is going in the wrong direction. in 2008, the lieberman-warner bill failed. in 2010, resolution of disapproval on e.p.a.'s

greenhouse gas rule was 47-53. in 2011 the inhofe-upton prohibition on greenhouse gas regulations was 50-50. in 2013, the inhofe had of-upton prohibition wawlsz 47-526789 what i'm saying here is the -- the sentiment of the house and the senate is going the reverse direction. so there's -- it's been virtually impossible to try to pass a cap-and-trade bill. and i know there are a lot of people who at one time were looking at this and feeling that this was something that was going to be a reality. but i have to say this: when you -- one of the reasons -- this is kind of interesting. i'm sorry that my good friend from massachusetts is not on the floor right now. but i can remember back when -- when republicans were in the majority in the senate, i was the chairman of the subcommittee

of the environment and pb works committee that was addressing this item. at that time, everyone was talking about global warming is here, global warming -- it must be true. and i believed it probably was true, until they came out with the regulation, with the analysis, the financial analysis. what would it cost if we passed cap and trade as a law? well, at that time it was the scientists -- the individuals from the "economist" i should sigh from the wharton school of economics, the m.i.t., they participated, all of the estimates were between $300 billion and $400 billion a year. now, that's something you want to be real careful of. i know every time you hear a billion dollars, it doesn't really register. doesn't really register how much that is. in my state of oklahoma, what i do at the end of each yeesh year, i get the total number of people who voted -- who file a federal tax return and then i do my math as to what it is going

to cost. for $300 billion to $400 billion a year, it would cost each taxpayer in the state of oklahoma some $3,000 a year. now, that went -- that could be, you know, really significant, when you -- but not if there's a problem that they're addressing out there. however, when -- again, getting back to lisa jackson, lisa jackson, who is the obama appointee to be director of the e.p.a., i asked the question -- and this was at a hearing -- i'm sure our senator from california remembers this well, because it was in one of the hearings of that committee, live on tv. i said, right now we're looking at different bills. we're looking at the waxman bill and several others. the cap and trades are pretty much cap and trades. if we are to pass this, any of these legislation, would this have the effect of lowering the release of co2? her answer was no.

the reason is, this isn't where the problem is. the problem is in china, it's in india, in mexico, and places where they don't have any regulations. in fact, you could carry it one step further. if we were to pass that either by regulation or by legislation and be -- and go ahead and incur this huge, huge tax, largest tax increase in the history of america, if we were to do this and, as she said, it would not be -- it would not lower greenhouse gases. it could increase them. because we would have to be chasing our manufacturing base where they can find the generation of electricity. and that would be in countries i just mentioned where they have no restrictions at all. so it could increase, not decrease, the greenhouse gases. under the -- now -- this is very significant but it's in the weeds to the point where it's rather difficult to understand. but under the clean air act, the e.p.a. -- i want to just talk about the timing just for a

minute here because we are going through this. the e.p.a., under the clean air act, the e.p.a. must finalize new rules within one year of its publication in the federal register. now, what i'm saying now, what they could not get done through legislation, treer tryin they'ro do through regulation. and one of the things they're trying to do is give the -- have the greenhouse gas legislation would come under the e.p.a. now, the -- any time you have an e.p.a. rule, to finalize a new rule within one year of its publication of the federal register. so the rule was released on september 20 of 2013. but it was not published in january 8, 2014. why do you suppose that was? had the rule been published since september 13, when it would have gone final, then the new rule would have gone into effect six weeks prior to the midterm elections and people would know how much it's going to cost them.

now, if there's any doubt in anyone's mind, there's an article here that was published on december 14 in "the washington post" that goes through the detail as to why they did this so that the people would not know when they're voting how much this -- all these regulations are going to cost. and i'd ask unanimous consent this be made part of the record at this point in my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: now, there are more -- more impacts that are taking place. the greenhouse gas regulations for existing power plants are expected to be released in june of 2014. the other regulations that are out there -- and i'm not going to spend any time on this because there are too many -- but the greenhouse gas legislation, even though it started, it was carlz rivers ans and the wharton school and m.i.t., they came out with the proximation of $300 billion to $40400 every year. that's every year. the greenhouse gas regulatory costs would be under the clean air act is totally different and

no one has even calculated this yet. i would like to make sure we understand that under the bill that was -- my good friend, ed markey, and waxman put forward, it would regulation the emissions of those organizations that emit 25,000 tons or -- or more. however, the -- if you do it through the clean air act, it would be the -- it would be 250 tons. so you're talking about instead of 25,000 tons, which might be only the very large organizations, refineries and that type of thing, under the clean air act, which is what they're attempting to do today as we speak, it would be just 250 tons, which would be every school, every hospital, every -- every shop and in many residences. so the greenhouse gas regulatory cost is -- if it costs $300

billion to $400 billion to regulate organizations and emit 25,000 tons, how much would it be if they emitted 250 tons? it's something that hasn't even been calculated yet. so the -- we have all of these -- these impacts that -- of the regulations that take place but the -- the greatest of all would be that. if you think about the cumulative study back -- i've introduced legislation along with several others. i know john barrasso and several others have cosponsored legislation that would tell the public the cumulative effect of all these regulations. for example, the ozone regulations. 77 oklahoma counties would be out of attainment, 9 million jobs would be lost. the utility mac, that's something that did pass -- the ute mact, that's something that did pass, 766,000 jobs. boiler mact, that's every

manufacturing company has a boiler so this is -- mact is mact, maximum achievable boiler technology -- so the boiler mact would cost -- is costing $63 billion, 800,000 jobs that have already been lost. the b.l.m. fracking regulations would be $100,000 per well, duplicative of effective state regulations which have been doing very well now since 1948. greenhouse gas costs of $300 billion to $400 billion. so i guess what i'm saying here -- and i know that i'm using up quite a bit of time but it's important to look and see what has happened since the time that they were all talking about global warming. everybody was talking about it and now they're going to have an all-to it that thing to try to revive it because the public has gone the other direction. george mason university had a study where they actually interviewed the -- several hundred of the tv meteorological

people. 63% of them said that if global warming is taking place, it's from national -- natural causes, not from global warming. polar bears -- now, everyone's concerns about polar bears. i know my good friend and -- from california gave me a polar bear. it's my favorite coffee cup. i use it all the time. but between the 1950's and 1960's, the number of polar bears that were wandering around out there was between 5,000 and 10,000. today it's between 15,000 and 25,000. the threats, a lot of times when people can't win an argument, then they threat. pass this's james hansen said this is high crimes - -- snas na scientist james hansen said this is high crimes. and others said this is high treason. in 2006, the echo magazine

called for nuremberg-style trials for skeptics. september 27 of 2007, virginia tech scientist skeptical of global warming loses his job after a clash with the governor. quote -- "i was told i could not speak in public." the weather channel, heidi cullen was one of the meteorologists on the weather channel. she's off with an environmental group right now so she's not around. polling, where the american people are going, i think it's important that we -- is that another one? well, this is a gallup poll that is a current one right now. according to the gallup poll, climate change is the least important environmental issue among all -- among the voters. in march of 2010, the same thing, gallup poll, americans ranked global warming dead last, that's 8-8, environmental

issues. march 2010, rasmussen, 72% of american voters don't believe global warming is a very serious problem. the global warmist robert sokolo -- quote -- "we're losing the argument with the public big time. i think the climate change activists, myself included, have lost the american mettle." so there is definitely some things going on here that are not -- not in their favor. i would like to mention this, though. i think a lot of people have talked about the -- the various scientists. on my web site, you can look up several thousand -- this was a long time ago. back, i think we passed through a thousand qualified scientists way back in 2006 and it's gone up since that time to many, many. so it's something where there are a lot of scientists that a are -- i -- one of my favorite scientists is one because he's a nobel prize-winning stanford

university physicist. he said, "please remain calm. the earth will heal itself. climate is beyond our power to coasm the earth doesn't care about governments and legislation. climate change is a matter of geologic time, something the earth does on its own without asking anyone's permission or explaining." richard lindsen of the -- of m.i.t., he was the former u.n. ipcc receiver. he said, "if government wants carbon control, that's the answer that the n.a.s. will provide." he's the one who also said the ultimate controlling factor is what yoonce you control climater c.o.t., you -- co2, you control people. a harvard study examed 204 peer-reviewed papers published by thousands of researchers. the study covers a multitude of

geophysical and biological climate indicators. they came to the conclusion that climate change is not real and that the science is not accurate. the -- fred seitz, the former president of the national academy of sciences, he said -- this is a quote -- "there is no convincing evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing or will in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of earth's atmosphere and disruption of the earth's climate." so, you know, we have a lot of scientists on both sides of this issue and i think that -- that the american people have waked up. i use something quite often because it is a little bit comical when you -- and this is just kind of from memory. but this is actually something that did happen. in 1895, it was the first time we had, in recent history we've had cold spells before and we had the medieval warm period and all that stuff. that was a long time ago. but in 1895, starting with

current -- more modern histor history -- they had a cold spell that came in. and that's where, i say to my friend from new hampshire, that's where they first came up with -- with a new ice age that's coming. that was 1895. that lasted from 1895-1918. then 1918, they came along with a warming period. that's the first time we heard the term global warming. that was 1918 and that lasted until 1948. now, get this, these -- about 30-year cycles. and that lasted to 19 -- about 1945. in 1945, all of a sudden it changed from this warming period to a cooling period. and then that lasted until 1975. and to a warming period. and then now since 2000 has leveled off and we're going into another cycle. i mean, you can almost set your watch by these cycles. here's an interesting thing about that. that is, that in 1948 when it

changed from a warming to a cooling, that coincided with the greatest single release of co2 in history. that was right after world war ii. so these are the things that are happening and i know that they're going to enjoy staying up all night. they'll have an audience of themselves and i hope that they enjoy it. but i have to say this in all sincerity. when you see something and instead of going right along with the public in saying, it must be true because everybody's saying it and everybody goes over and over again and talks about the -- you know, the climate is real, the science is real and all that. well, that happens when it's not real. and that's what we've been going through. so i think the american people right now -- i know that president obama is going through all kinds of efforts to try through regulation to do what the elected people would not do in the house and as well as in the senate, that when people realize -- and they'll be reminded again even though it's been awhile -- and i think it

might be clever that after this -- it's been several years now people have been talking about global warming and now they're trying to revive it and that's what you're going to hear all night long tonight. but it's kind of interesting that this is happening at a time that we're going through this cold spell. it certainly hasn't been much fun in oklahoma. so i think that the american people are not ready to pass the largest tax increase in the history of america and we'll have to wait and see. with that, i'll yield the floor. mrs. boxer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: mr. president, it was with great interest that i listened to my friend. i suppose we're making progress. he used to call climate change a hoax and he didn't say that. so maybe he's moving in our direction. but i also want to point out, he says we're going to be talking to ourselves. i'm happy to report that i just learned of two petitions, one that has 65,000 signatures calling on us to act and another that has 30,000 signatures calling on us to act.

and the night is youngmen young. now, my friend -- mr. inhofe: will the senator yield for an observation since she mentioned my name? mrs. boxer: to take time off their time, i'mly happ i'm happ. mr. inhofe inhofe: the reason it use hoax, you might think i'm guilty of advertising my book and i certainly didn't want to do that. mrs. boxer: well, that's wonderful. i'm so happy you didn't use "hoax," and maybe there's a way for us to come together on this issue. people are listening. people care. because when 97% to 98% of the scientists say something is real, they don't have anything pressing them to say that other than the truthmen truth. they don't have any other agenda. they don't work for the oil companies. and i will tell you, as chairman of the environment committee, every time the republicans choose a so-called expert on climate, we have trapped them -- tracked them to special interest

funding, those 3%. they know where their brud is buttered. -- bread is buttered. i'm sorry my friend left. i couldn't he couldn't stand to hear the truth. so i'll put that truth into the record. i do not know how my republican colleagues can continue to deny that climate change is happening. one would think that they could see it out their window because, as my colleague says, oh, there was such cold weather. that's been predicted by the scientists. extreme weather. here is the u.s. global climate research program, their national climate assessment draft. "some extreme weather and climate events have increased in recent decades. we have seen heavy downpours, more severe droughts and some extremes. the senate committee on environment and public works

climate change briefing, dr. marshall shepard, president of the american meteorological association, and a director of the atmospheric sciences program at the university of georgia, said 'climate change is increasing the probability of extreme events and in some cases may be strengthening their intensity or increasing their when my friend says, the planet isn't warming, it's cold, we all know it's not about the weather. it's about the climate. it's about the long-term and yes we are going to see these extreme weather conditions. now, i would say that when my friend calls us alarmists, that is ridiculous.

we are just trying to do our job. we are not scientists. you know, we're not doctors either, for the most part, but we want to make sure people have health care coverage. and we're not scientists, but we want to protect our people from the ravages of climate. and i would ask my colleague, senator schatz, would he like me to go another five minutes, ten minutes, two minutes? it is up to him, because i can withhold. and i'm going to be here for quite a few hours. the presiding officer: senator from hawaii. shatt-al-arab ischatz schatz imd like to continue, ild i could wait u. mrs. boxer: will the senator tell me when i have used three minutes. the presiding officer: the senator will be so notified u box bowsm w.mrs. boxer: iu.

mrs. boxer: we have just heard from senator inhofe, who i think is a dangerous den dangerous dee face of 97% agreement among scientists. i want to talk about the national academy of sciences. "levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the earth's atmosphere are exceeding levels recorded in the past millions of years." that's our own national academy of sciences. and i guess if you went out and asked the public, do they support the national academy of sciences, i think it would come in 98%. and the other 10% would say, i'll get back to you. then you have more from the national academy. "climate change is occurring. it is very likely caused primarily by the emission of greenhouse gases from human activities." they go on, "human activities

have increased greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas emitted by human activities and it has risen almost 40% over the past 150 years." so when you hear my colleagues on the other side of the aisle stand up and deny this, how about the u.s. national climate assessment? this is the united states of america, our experts. "global sea level has risen by about eight inches since reliable record keeping began. it is projected to rise another one to four feet by 2100." that is dangerous. and we have already seen it happening. and i could go on and i will come back. but i'll conclude with this: i am just in my concluding remarks going to tell you about every incredibly prestigious

scientific group that has warned us about climate change. the joint world science academy statement, the american association for the advancement of science, the american chemical society, the american geophysical unit, the american institute of biological scientists, the american society of plant biologists, the association of ecosystem research, the botanical society of america, the crop science society, the natural science collections assigns, the society for industrial and applied math matter iraq, the soil science society of america, the american medical association, mr. president; the american immediate i don't remember logical society, the american geophysical -- the presiding officer: the senator has used three minutes. mrs. boxer: and i would ask for 30 more seconds. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. boxer: the geological society of america. all i could say it, to come down

here and accuse the democrats of being alarmists when all we are trying to $is protect the health and safety of the american people, of their families and future generations, is extreme while we are in the mainstream. and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii. mr. schatz: thank you, mr. president. i'd like to address some of the tropes that our climate deniers like to use. and i'll go through a couple of them before our great senior senator from the great state of oregon gives his remarks. the first trope is, it's not warming. it's nowarming the it's not warg congratulated won't admit the earth is warming. their favorite tactic is 20 point out the window during winter and say, look at the snow on the ground. that's not an adult argument. under that theory, winter weather anywhere disapproves climate change.

snowstorms are weather. weather is not climate. weather is a local phenomenon over extremely short time spans. weather is what it is going to be like tomorrow. whether is not climate. climate is long-term weather trends over vast regions. this is not difficult to distinguish among dolts. it is easy to make a joke about how cold it is and, therefore, climate change is bunk. but the vast majority of science disapproves that assertion. pointing out the window hon a cold day and laughing about climate change is one of the most profoundly unserious things that otherwise good and responsible leaders in this chamber do. we see the world as it is and fix the things that we can. for that we need reliable information and when it comes to climate change, we have reliable information, and we ignore it at our peril. for those who sayes earth isn't warming, i would like to talk

about the thermometers. they measure temperature and we have them all over the world, very sophisticated ones run by very smart people that provide a lot of data that has proven beyond a doubt that the at mows sphere and earth is warming. even skeptics like american scientist richard mueller can no longer argue. after the exhaustive research, he said in 2012, "a results show that the average temperature of the earth's land has risen by 2.5 degrees fahrenheit over the last 250 years, including an increase of 1.5 grossers the past 50 years. moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from a human emission of greenhouse gases." this was a prominent climate denier previously. two, and this is the relying on anecdotes to disprove what's actually happening. "a research vessel got stuck in summer ice in antarctica.

more and more deniers are being forced to rely on out-of-context anecdotes to support their false claims. in december, they got very excited about a research vessel that was stuck in a summer sea ice in antarctica, claimin clait it has proof that the earth is not warming. well, here's the thing. it is ant art cavment it is at the bottom of the earth. it is one of the coldest places in the world. one summer's ice in antarctica doesn't suddenly invalidate dozens of worldwide temperature. 90% of the world's glaciers are melting. they pick off one iewnsd it as proof that climate change is not established scientific fact. even though it is. the fourth trope that we hear -- and this is a pivot. we're starting to hear it more and more. it may be warming, but maybe we didn't cause it. they begrudgingly admit that the earth is warming but, hey, this

is part of a natural cycles and natural cycles have happened of about and will happen again. recently dr. james powell, a former college president and national science board member studied all peer-reviewed articles on climate change. all peer-reviewed articles on climate change from 1991 to 2013. he found just over 25,000 articles written since 1991. of 25,000 articles, only 26 -- only 26 -- rejected the premise of human-caused climate change. this is no longer a real debate. it is only a debate in the four corners of this capitol people across the country, most governments across the planet, our biggest corporations, regular people of all political stripes and in every state understand that this is what is happening to us. some deniers also like to use responsible scientists' method

against them. the truth about scientists is they are scientists which is to say they entertain doubt, they ask questions, they aren't fraid to express their doubts. they observe and refine their theories. so dearns cannot in good -- so deniers cannot use the scientific process as evidence that doubt still exists. sure, there's uncertainty among scientists. but it's pretty much just about whether future impacts of climate change will be really bad or extremely bad. the sixth trope is, it's not a big deal. maybe it's even good. as deniers paint themselves even neuter a corning, they -- even further into a corner, they become desperate. there are those who admit the earth is warming, admit it is caused by humans, but claim the effects are negligible. and they might be good for us. madam president, my colleagues and i have presented evidence from study after study after study showing that while the changes so far are manageable in

some places, if we do not change our ways, the bad news will start coming faster and faster. absent major reform, the rate of change will creassments w incre. we may not notice a half a degree change in temperature, but on a geological time scale, these changes are occurring at t record-breaking speed. they may be happening too quick lib for nature or humanity to adavment a 2k0 12 study commissioned by 20 governments which was written by more than 50 scientists, economists, and other experts found that by 2030, the cost of climate change and air pollution combined will rise t to 3.2% of global g.d.p. possibly countries suffering losses of up to 11% of their g.d.p. developed countries will not be exempt from these impacts.

the study finds that climate change could wipe out 2% of our g.d.p. by the year 2030. that's a big deal. and finally, the trope that, you know, china is doing nothing so that our actions don't matter. this category of denyingers accepts the reality, causes, and seriousness of climate change but then they say it's hopeless because countries like china and others are doing nothing to reduce their i a image fl that's flat wrong. in september the chinese state council released its atmosphere prevention action plan which called for a reduction in the construction of new coal fired power plants and a goal of generating 13% of its electricity from clean energy by the year 2017. chinese officials have announced that they planning to institute a tax on carbon pollution in 2015 or 2016. certain regions have also begun to implement pilot cap-and-trade programs.

and they have plans to create a national carbon market by 2020. how about current investments? in 2012, the united states spent about $35 billion on renewables while china spent $64 billion. finally, there is nothing that we can do. let's throw in the towel. this science accepts the science, accepts the impacts, but seems to have given up. when did we start thinking we couldn't solve america's big problems? since when did we start thinking we were too small or not important enough to make a difference? i don't believe that. i believe that when america leads, the world follows, and for this country to lead, this congress needs to act. i yield the floor. mr. wyden: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: madam president, earlier this evening, i touched on the numbers that underlie this debate,