the nomination of sylvia purrwell to be the new secretary of health and human services. also possible this week, consideration of a bill establishing a program to support mental health courts. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. most merciful god, you have been better to us than we deserve. accept the grateful labors of our lawmakers, as they seek to meet the challenges of our times. may they not become weary

because of the obstacles they encounter but trust you to order their steps. hear even the silent prayers of their hearts, as they give their time and strength to make america an instrument of your purposes. lord, help them to remember that righteousness exalts a nation but that sin is an equal opportunity destroyer. may they humble themselves in prayer, seeking your face as they turn from evil, so that you will hear our prayers, forgive our sins and heal our land.

we pray in your merciful name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c., june 2, 2014. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable christopher murphy, a senator from the state of connecticut, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: patrick j. leahy, president pro tempore. mr. reid: mr. president, i now move to proceed to s. 2363,

which is the kay hagan sportsmen legislation. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number 384, s. 2363, a been to protect and enhance opportunities for recreational hunting, fish ring and shooting and for other purposes. mr. reid: following my remarks and those of the republican leader, there will be a period of morning business until 5:30 this afternoon. at 5:30 there will be a roll call vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of keith harper, to be united states representative to the united nations human rights council. mr. president, our esteemed colleague, chairman of the budget committee, patty murray, has said, "caring for our veterans is the duty of a grateful nation." she knows about p what she speaks because she led that committee in a very, very

vibrant and powerful way as chairman of the veterans' affairs committee. i have no doubt that every member of this body agrees with the sentiment she expressed. there is a big difference between nodding one's head in approval and actually doing something to take care of our veterans. the chairman of the senate veterans' committee today is senator bernie sanders of vermont, and he's doing something to help our veterans. the junior senator from vermont is introducing a bill to ensure that american veterans are given the care they need. this legislation allows veterans facing long delays in health care to seek outside help and they can go to private doctors, community health centers, or military bases. mr. president, additionally, this bill authorizes the v.a. to use emergency funding to hire new doctors and nurses, which are badly needed. senator sanders legislation creates accountability throughout the vents affairs

administration helding people responsible for poor job performance. this is really good legislation. this bill will improve the manner in which the united states of america cage cares for its veterans. i'm hopeful that all members will support this. in light of the shocking report on inappropriate practices at the v.a. and especially their hospitals, every senator should support that legislation. last week the veterans affairs inspector general office released its report detailing many troubling systematic failings, which are unnecessary. and there are a so wrong and they're putting our nation's veterans at risk. instead of receiving the proper care they deserve, thousands of combat veterans have been languishinlanguishing on a nonet list at a v.a. hospital in arizona. the report declared that many of these men and women who have been religio relegated to the hh limbo "at at risks of being lost or forgottening."

the brave veterans of our nation's arm services should never be lost or forgottening. these soldiers went to war and pledged not to leave their brothers and sisters behind. now in their moment of need, some of our most vulnerable veterans have been left behind. we must never allow any service member, past or present, to simply fall through the cracks. now that the senate has returned from its state work period, we should pass senator sanders' bill as soon as possible ensthiewrensuring that our vetet the care they need. yet even th certain republican members of congress are scapegoating the v.a. even more disappointing is the fact that she is same republicans have through their obstruction, deprived the v.a. of essential resources it needs to help veterans. last february senate republicans blocked every senate republican

blocked legislation introduced by senator sanders which would give the v.a. the tools needed to meet the demands of the changing veteran population. we tried to break that filibuster. we couldn't do it. we didn't have 60 votes. that bill would help our nation's veterans by improving health and dental care, providing education opportunities and drefg claim backlogs. the legislation he will introduce this week disco the same thing. the legislation was shot down -- was shot down because as the junior senator from florida a said it has a cost issue. but, mr. president, that junior senator, republican senator from florida was correct. take care of our nation's wounded veterans does cost money, but it is money well-13e7b9s. but senator rubio is not alone.

the. a senator: frothe the junior sel because he didn't want to bust the budget. republicans didn't worry about busting the budget when they initialingly sent our troops by the hundreds of thousands to iraq. on a credit card, the taxpayers of america's credit card. running up $1.5 trillion in money that was borrowed. therein lies the problem, mr. president. republicans ignore the true cost of the democracy. the lives and well of being of the brave men and women who fight to protect our way of life is part of the cost of our democracy. instead republicans focus on the monetary costs only. the dollar bills because any money going to our veterans is one less dollar going to billionaires and corporations and unnecessary tax cuts. the american people are tired of the doublespeak coming from the

republican party when it comes to caring our our soldiers and our veterans. if republicans support our nation's soldiers, then help us protect our nation's soldiers. help us support our nation's soldiers. instead, there's always an excuse, some exception they find to justify standing -- to prevent them from standing with america's veterans and soatl sos and veterans. let's give our veterans the care they need. as we work to remedy these shortcomings, we in congress must do our part. we owe america's veterans far too much to leave them behind in their hour of need. now, mr. president, changing subjects only indirectly, i want to say few words about retired secretary -- retired general

eric shinseki, who resigned in the wake of these troubling -- general shinseki is really a good man, devoted, disabled combat veteran. under his leadership, the v.a. drastically improved its care of veterans suffering from mental illness and addressed the issue of veterans homelessness. he oversaw initiatives which decreased dependence on painkillers and other drurks addressing a problem which was crippling many combat veterans. general shinseki's work has also helped cut waiting times down to just a week, helping countless veterans the aid they were promised. as the secretary has done his best, i'm sorry that his time ended with his resignation. but i understand why he felt the

need to step aside. eric shinseki has served our country for decades, on the battlefield, as chief of staff for the army, as secretary of veterans affairs. i personally thank him for his service and wish him well as he undoubtedly continues to work for america. would the chair announce the business of the day. officer sphered under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the snarred senate will be a period of morning business until 5:30 p.m. the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: .

quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be suspended and i be allowed to address the senate as if in morning business.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: today the senate will consider the nomination of keith harper as united states ambassador to the united nations human rights council. i am generally denchl to -- deferential to the president's nomination when they're brought, but in extraordinary circumstances i don't hesitate to oppose them. given the circumstances in this case i must strenuously object to this nominee. mr. harkiner is just the latest state department bungler stimulate slaited for ambassadorship. earlier the administration nominated several top democratic fundraisers to serve as ambassadors to various posts around the world. one such fundraiser, mr. george student loanas was -- susanas was nominated to norway. he revealed his complete

unawareness about the country in which he'd serve as our nation's top envoy. for example, he referred to norway's head of state as their -- quote -- "president not knowing the country is led by a constitutional monarch. another pick for hungary, colleen bell couldn't answer a single question about u.s. strategic interests this that country. but that's okay. i'm certain her professional background as a tv soap opera producer will come in handy while the crisis in ukraine continues to unfold. inside the beltway, they're known as campaign bundlers, partisan political operatives who have each fund raised hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars for the president's campaign. mr. harper is just another example of a campaign bundler ill-suited to serve in the diplomatic post for which he's

been nominated. according to the center fo for responsive politics, mr. harper is on a list called 758 elites. these are donors who combined at least $180 million for obama's reelection effort. i quote the strr fo center for reuponnive politics. mr. harp certificate classified as a bundler of $500,000 more an his contribution level matched such notables as actor will smith, actress eva longoria and hollywood producer harvey weinstein. now, mr. president, i'm not naive as to why some of these ambassadorships are dolled out. candidly speaking, presidents from both parties frequently issue these posts as political favors. but i've never before seen an

administration this brazen in transmitting individuals who are so terribly and fundamentally unfit for foreign service. traditionally, according to the retired foreign service group, about 30% of the ambassadorships go to political appointees. since the election of 2012, that's up to 50%. some go to countries that frankly deserve better than someone who's only qualifications is whether they raised $500,000 or more for the campaign of president obama. some of my colleagues will say that what sets mr. harper apart from these other campaign donors is his cultural heritage. they say mr. harper would be the first native american in history to hold the rank of u.s. ambassador. they also say he should be rewarded for his work as one of the lead class action attorneys

in the supreme court case cobel v. salazar. i truly respect that mr. harper would be the first native american to serve as a u.s. ambassador. what concerns me is his characteristic, particularly his conduct in connection with a matter that could rightly be described as one of the greatest mistreatments of native americans by the federal government in recent memory. that matter is known as the cobel case. in the 1990's, hundreds of thousands of native americans led by h eloise cobel entered io a class action substitute against the interior department for mismanaging billions of dollars in land assets that were held in trust for indian tribes. during my previous tenure as chairman of the senate committee on indian affairs, i worked with my colleague, then-vice-chairman byron dorgan to end the

protracted cobel lawsuit and enact legislation to settle the case in congress. ultimately, it wasn't until 2010 when congress finally passed legislation that compensated the cobel plaintiffs at $3.4 billion. my colleagues know that mr. harper was the colead counsel for the cobel plaintiffs and often touted the number of his clients at about 500,000 native americans. when the lawsuit was settled, mr. harper and his legal team stood to earn up to $99 million in attorneys' fees that was written into the cobel legislation -- settlement legislation and paid for by the american taxpayer. let me emphasize, for this good work, mr. cobel got and his legal team was going to earn $99 million in attorneys' fees.

without a doubt, the legislation was a massive bonus check for mr. harper and his team, and he and his team have actually sued the federal government to receive another $123 million. more than the $99 million that he already got. most of the native american clients will receive about $1,000 each and many are still waiting to receive their first payments to day. unfortunately, my democratic colleagues conveniently i.g. near mr. harper served -- ignore that mr. harper served on the transition team for native american issues while he actively sued the interior department. does it concern my colleagues that several months after the president installed his leadership team at interior and justice that the administration essentially fast-tracked the

settlement with the cobell attorneys or that just one year later congress enacted the $3.4 billion cobell settlement legislation as a top white house priority ending over a decade-long legal battle? evidently not. now the administration claims there was no wrongdoing or conflict of interest on the part of mr. harper in his service to the president's transition team, and i have no choice but to take their word for it, albeit skeptical. but we do know of at least one appalling and unforgivable incident that has dogged mr. harper throughout the senate's consideration of his nomination, and rightfully so. in the cobell lawsuit -- it when the cobell lawsuit was settled and mr. happer's legal team stood to earn tens of millions of dollars, a number of native american plaintiffs, mr. harper's own clients, raised

grave concerns that their attorneys would receive such a sizable payout. they argued that more of the cobell settlement should go to the thousands of native americans who had been wronged by interior. four affected native americans bang banded together and filed a lawsuit to challenge the cobell settlement for this and other reasons. one appellant told the court, "huge fees awarded to class counsel often indicate the interests of the absent class members have been cation sacrificed to those of the lawyers. as a result of this legal challenge, the court temporarily delayed that cobell payouts to the plaintiffs and of course to mr. harper. in what can only be striebd as bully, the cobell legal team fired back at these four native americans. they transmitted a letter dated january 20, 2012, to all of

their 500,000 clients that listed the home addresses and telephone numbers of the four appellants and urged all of indian country to call and harass them for challenging the cobell settlement. the letter reads, "your payments are being held up by four people. each believes that you are not entitled to the relief nor the payment of your trust funds. this means you will receive nothing from the settlement, no payment, no scholarship funds, no land consolidations, and no further trust reform. "requests and here's the best part. in the letter that was sent to 500,000 people, it said, "if you want to ask them directly about their motives, you should contact them at the following address or phone numbers."

i hope my colleagues understand what was just done there. these four native americans received harassing calls, death threats, had their jobs threatened. one had to disconduct their phone. another was essentially run off her reservation. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to add to the record two acialtion the first is an article from the missourian entitled "objectors to $3.4 billion trust settlement get angry phone calls." which further describes how this letter affected their personal lives. the second is an article from the "native american times" entitled "cobell class members question attorney conduct." the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: the letter was accessible on the cobell team's web site during mr. harper's tearings l hearing. it was on the web site during

the hearing in the committee but it was promptly removed the day after i questioned mr. harper about it. i ask unanimous consent that the letter be added to the "congressional record" provided that the contact information of those four individuals shall be redacted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: at his committee hearing, mr. harper adamantly denied knowledge of the harassment letter until after it was reported in the press. he denied any responsibility for it. and he blamed the strategy entirely on another cobell attorney. however, mr. harper has since muddied his story and later admitted that he was aware of the letter on the very day it was transmitted. if he didn't pin the harassment letter or approve it, as he dubiously claims, he certainly did nothing to retract interestr demountaindenounce it until his. mr. harper is over i

didn'tllowed of his status as one of the lead counsels on the cobell case. i'd argue that those four native americans' huge rights were abused. people like mr. harper can't be a party or economies wit a letter attempting to harass native americans for exercising their rights and then expect to object taint senate's imprimatur to serve as our nation's ambassador an human rights. thails the irony of all of this. he clearly abused these people's human rights and now he's going to be an ambassador one human rights? mr. harper is not sufficient -- mr. harper has not sufficiently answered my questions about his involvement with the harassment letter or how much in legal fees he's profiteered from cobell over the years. i've asked for writte answered y

written questions. the presiding officer: without objection. cancane camp i can'tmr. mccain:t mr. happer's nomination. this is who the administration sends to speak on behalf of all americans including native americans? i urge my colleagues to vote against mr. harper and call upon the administration to transmit a nominee who has an unblemished record of protecting human and civil rights, a record of aplirkt and integrity commensurate with this very important post. mr. president, here's the situation. mr. harper will probably be confirmed today on a partisan vote, on a party-line vote. he we need to get 60 -- he won't get 60 votes. he'll probably get 5 or maybe one or two less. this is another example of the deprivation that has taken place

of my right to advise and consent and that of nie every single member of the minority. this nomination would not have come to this floor if we'd still require 60 votes. but instead my colleagues across the aisle have decide deprive members on this side of their right of advise and consent because he will be confirmed probably today in a party-line basis, despite the fact a clear record of abuse of human rights by a majority here in the united states senate. i tell my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, if we gain the majority in this senate as a result of this november's election, i will do everything in my power to restore their rights as a minority -- their rights of advise and consent. and the fact that it was taken away from us for the first time in the history of the united

states senate is a despicable and black act that will live in history. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. barrasso: mr. president, today the obama administration released its new plan intended to shut down american power plants. instead of celebrating his policies in the rose ga garden, president obama relegated the bad news to the environmental protection agency. make no mistake about it, what they are announcing today is another step in the president's

plan to make electricity rates -- quote -- "necessarily skyrocket." unquote. remember, mr. president, that's what the president promised americans when he was running for president the first time, 2008. now, of course, when he was elected, congress said no. no to his radical plan. even when the democrats controlled the house of representatives, nancy pelosi was speaker of the house, the democrats had 60 members of the senate, even with a complete democratic domination in both houses of congress, congress still said, no, mr. president, this is a bad idea. so the president decided that he knew better than the american people, the elected representatives, he decided to go around congress and go around the american people. so i turned to the front page of today's "wyoming front page eagle hrert, cheyenne wyoming,"

and the headline is obama lets the administration do his dirty work. the subheadlines, the president's charge to limit emissions has caused so much criticism that he is no longer leading the pack. they go on to say on the front page of the wyoming tribune eagle when the obama administration unveils its program to curb power plant emissions, this cornerstone of the president's climate change policy, the most significant environmental regulation of his term, will not be declared in a sunbathed rose garden news conference or even from behind the lectern in a major speech. they go on to say it will not be announced by the president at all, but instead by his head of the e.p.a., the environmental protection agency, while president obama adds his comments in an off-camera conference call.

talk about something that's unpopular with the american people, it's this. about a year ago the president put out rules limiting carbon dioxide emission s from new power plants, power plants that were being constructed. but today, today his environmental protection agency is applying tight new limits on the emissions of existing power plants, power plants that are already there producing energy. the administration said it's going to allow states, they describe flexibility in how they meet the new limits. well, i believe that any of the flexibility that's being offered is just an illusion. states will have a severely limited number of options for what they can do to meet the standards. every one of those options are going to raise the cost of energy for american families. that means consumers won't even get the illusion of flexibility. they'll get higher energy costs.

now, businesses are going to have to find ways to pay for their own higher bills because it's not just going to be families when they turn on the light switch that are going to get a higher electric bill. as the president said electricity rates will necessarily skyrocket. but businesses are going to have to find ways to pay for their higher energy costs, which will mean higher and fewer people laying people off passing on the cost to others. that is why the u.s. chamber of commerce says that an aggressive policy targeting coal-fired power plants will lead to higher, less disposable incomes for families. and thousands of jobs lost. so, families will have less disposable income, thousands of jobs lost. we just learned last week our economy shrank by 1% in the last quarter. the united states economy shrank. this is the first time in years the economy actually shrank by 1% in the last quarter. the first time it happened since

2011. our labor force participation rate was at the same level it was when jimmy carter was president of the united states. now the obama administration wants to put more americans out of work. the action that they are taking today is the height of irresponsibility and, really, mr. president, it tone-deaf leadership. the obama administration is going to try to defend their extreme regulations by saying once again that these changes will help save lives and keep families healthy. the fact is that they're totally ignoring the undeniable fact that when americans lose their jobs, their health and health of their children suffers. there's an enormous public health threat from high unemployment, specifically chronic high unemployment. it increases the likelihood of hospital visits, illness and premature death. it hurts children's health and

the well-being of families. it influences mental illness, suicide, alcohol abuse, spouse abuse. it's an important risk factor in stroke and high blood pressure and heart disease. major things that impact a family, raise the cost of care. i saw it in my days of medical training and medical practice. and the white house knows it too. you say how does the white house know? "the new york times" actually ran an article on this in november of 2011. november 17, to be exact. the headline of the article was "policy and politics collide as obama enters campaign mode." "policy and politics collide as obama enters campaign mode." the article says a meeting occurred in the white house between the american lung association and white house chief of staff william daley. and the meeting was about the environmental protection agency's proposed ozone regulations. in that white house meeting, white house chief of staff daley

asked a simple question when confronted with the argument that additional clean air act regulations would improve public health. daley asks what are the health impacts of unemployment? i have just gone over them with you, mr. president. those are the health impacts of unemployment. so the white house knows about it, totally aware about it. so when the environmental protection agency announced these new rules today, the president himself was reportedly talking off camera, conference call, on the phone with the american lung association. someone in that room should be talking about the disastrous public health effects of the unemployment that these rules are causing. the fact is that more regulation from washington is not what america needs right now. states already have flexibility in how they approach environmental stewardship, and many of them have come up with

creative solutions. last month the senate and congressional western caucuses issued a report called "washington gets it wrong: states get it right." the report showed how regulations imposed by washington are undermined -- undermining the work being done at the state level to manage our lands, to manage our natural resources, and to protect our air and our water. it gave success stories, discuss stories where the work being done -- success stories where the work being done by states is more reasonable, more effective and it's less heavy-handed than the rules ordered by washington. america doesn't need washington to pay lip service to flexibility while mandating huge price increases in energy. america wants washington to stop the overreaching regulations and the mandates and actually allow the states to get it right.

thousands of americans who already lost their jobs because of washington's expensive and excessive regulations. now the president is putting more jobs on the chopping block. that's why i've written legislation that would stop president obama's massive increase in the nation's electric bill. i offered this as an amendment last fall. democrats in the senate blocked it. i plan to offer it again, and to keep making the point that the president should not have the power and authority to impose these burdens on the american economy and on american families. my amendment blocks the issuance of new carbon standards for new and existing power plants. it would actually require the approval of congress -- imagine that -- the approval of congress, the elected representatives of the people, require the approval of congress for regulations that increase america's energy bills like these new rules proposed by the obama administration today. congress should act on an

affordable energy plan. but these kinds of decisions should for congress to make, not for the president to make on his own. it's true whether the president is a democrat or a republican. mr. president, we all know we need to make america's energy as clean as we can as fast as we can. it's critically important, though, that we do this without hurting our economy, a struggling economy, an economy where people continue to sacrifice, and do this in ways that don't cost hundreds of thousands of middle-class families their jobs. we should look to the states that have come up with ways to balance our energy needs, the health of our economy, and our environment. president obama is taking the wrong approach. these new regulations are going to hurt our economy. it's an economy that's already shrinking. it's astonishing, our economy is

shrinking, and it's because of the president's other failed policies. the policies introduced today will hurt middle-class families who are struggling to find work or to keep the jobs that they have now. they will harm the health of many americans. the president needs to change course. and if he won't do it on his own, congress must do it for him. so today once again, mr. president, we see the headline "obama lets e.p.a. do his dirty work: the president's charge to limit emissions has caused him so much criticism that he is no longer leading the pack." instead he's hiding. the president today is hiding. if this is something the president was proud of, he should have been at the white house in the rose garden in front of the cameras making an announcement, not asking his e.p.a. administrator to make it so he could be on a conference call because he was ashamed to

show his face to the american people because of the impact these regulations are going to have on families all across america. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

mr. sessions: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: mr. president, i would ask that the quorum call be dispensed with.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: mr. president, the president's environmental protection agency today, a group that directly reports to him and which reflects his decisions about environmental matters, has issued a new proposed regulation to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants by 30% by the year 2030. those are existing plants, and they can't be operated and have that kind of reduction unless you have a carbon capture, and there's no technology feasible with any reasonable -- there's technology but it's not feasible economically to capture carbon. so it's a dramatic hammering of a major portion of the baseload electricity production in america, and it just is, and it's going to drive up costs. and what i want to say first and foremost is i'm very worried

about our economy. this economy is not doing well. and anybody that's paid close attention to it knows that we've had one thing -- one very important, positive factor over the last half dozen years, and it's helped our economy bounce back and even caused some industries to bring home production from foreign countries. and that advantage, that positive event is a decline in energy prices. and it's a direct result primarily of fracking. our ability to produce more energy from existing wells and in a proven to be safe and effective way to do it. it's going on over large portions of america. although this administration and the environmental protection agency has thrown up a host of roadblocks to try to keep it from occurring, but it's such a powerful, positive event that it's virtually unstoppable. so that's good.

that's helping our businesses prosper. i remember in alabama an automobile where -- in mobile where i grew up, there are a group of chemical companies on the river. those chemical companies, international companies, first-rate companies were hammered when natural gas 10, 15 years ago surged so much. many of them reduced their capacity. some have closed and were sold off. we lost a lot of good jobs. it happened in ohio. ohio had a devastation among their strong chemistry. it's beginning to come back now because of lower natural gas prices, but other industries, too, are very energy-sensitive, such as the steel industry. we're in a life-and-death competition to save america's steel industry, and energy is a huge portion of that.

and electricity is a big portion of that. to eliminate nearly 40% of our base load will put us on a path to drive up those costs unnecessarily above what we can rationally achieve is a mistake, in my opinion. just looking at barron's this week -- that's a business magazine that comes out weekly, and it has articles that sum up the state of finances in america, and of course we know that the first quarter economic growth was revised downward, downward to negative 1.0 from positive .1. this is the first negative growth in years, since 2011. and it was unexpected. corporate profits, excluding the depth of the recession, are the lowest in 20 years in america.

we have fewer people working today than we had in 2007, although there are 15 million more people in america. fewer people working, and more of them are working part time than want to work part time. we have a surge in part-time employment. that's not good either. and wages are down. adjusted probably for inflation, wages are down for -- median income is down in america per family by $2,300. and your wages are down, your job prospects are down, unemployment remains exceedingly high, and we are now going to add in effect another tax, a regulatory tax on the price of energy so a person's electric bill and their gas bill is going to go up. that's the inevitable result of this. it just is.

we have got to be careful about it. europe is already regretting the mistakes they have made. spain has had to abandon their overall ambitious plan. german business people are telling their leaders that if you don't change the energy policy in this country, we're not going to be able to compete and be successful like we have been in the world market. this is not a little matter. it's about jobs. it's about middle income, hardworking americans. the lower income people in this country pay as much as 25% of their income for energy. all of the rich people, the people who travel around in big jets and claim to be concerned about the environment, they pay much less. $50,000 a year, you pay about 11% of your income on energy. so higher energy costs are

direct negatives for the poor, hardworking americans. retired seniors who have no ability to increase their wages. trying to live on social security and a little savings. boom, you have another $10, $20 a month for the gas bill, the electric bill. it erodes the standard of living. we have got to take back more work. in fact, we're beginning to do that if we would do fewer bad things. so we had a good result with lower energy prices, and this is going to undermine that. it just is. you can say what people want to. we have got the pipeline. no, we won't do the pipeline either. all that does is provide another source of oil and gas -- oil for

america that forces the existing american big oil companies to compete with. it helps bring down the price. if you don't have another source from canada, you have got less competition. competition helps bring down price. i don't believe this administration wants to bring down the price of energy. in fact, i think the opposite is true. in fact, he said that -- president obama did before he was elected that we could have have -- anybody that built a coal plant was going bankrupt. it's just not possible to phase out the entire coal industry so rapidly. and we have done so much to clean it up. they spent billions and billions of dollars reducing the pollutants that come out of those smokestacks. it's helped a lot. that's why our air is cleaner than it has been in years and we have made a lot of progress, a lot of money has been spent but

this is an excessive action, in my view, focused primarily on co2, carbon dioxide. well, we all know that great photosynthesis. we know how plants grow. we know they take in carbon dioxide and breathe out oxygen. we breathe in oxygen and we let out carbon dioxide. carbon dioxide is odorless, it's tasteless, it's not poisonous, it's not harmful. in fact, plants grow faster if there is more carbon dioxide than if there is less carbon dioxide. there is a scientific that is not disputable. so what do they say? they say the clean air act gives the responsibility of eliminating pollutants from our atmosphere, and it was passed in 1975 before anybody ever dreamed of global warming.

so carbon dioxide -- when the law was passed, the clean air act in the 1970's, they had no thought whatsoever in the united states congress that we would be banning carbon dioxide. don dingell, a long-term democratic -- john dingell, a long-term democratic congressman, longest serving ever, was a member of congress who voted on that, and he recently said we had no idea we were voting to eliminate carbon dioxide, so how did it happen? well, the e.p.a. says so, and some of the environmental groups filed a lawsuit and they said that congress passed a law in 1975, and that law said you should reduce pollutants, and you have a responsibility to produce -- reduce pollutants and carbon dioxide is a pollutant. why? well, the ipcc, the

international panel on climate change, says that co2 creates global warming. it's perfectly positive small amount of gas in our massive environment that makes plants grow better is increasing, and it is. it is increasing in the environment because of burning carbon fuels. if this increase is going to warm the planet, we will have more storms, more tornadoes, the coasts are going to flood and all of this. therefore, the e.p.a. should regulate it, must regulate it. by a 5-4 ruling, the supreme court agreed. now, congress has never voted for that. congress has voted against global warming legislation multiple times, and it would never, ever pass this congress

if it were brought up for a vote, never pass. so unelected folks in the environmental protection agency, unelected lifetime appointedfer judges, at least five of the nine, concluded that this is a pollutant. so here we are. and i don't know whether the environment is -- whether we have got warming. i have assumed it is. temperatures, i believe, over the last 100 years have increased about one degree, but i do think we need to be a lot more modest about this. this is well below what the alarmists have been telling us. i just want to show this chart. first -- so, how did it all happen? why did the supreme court decide

that this plant food, co2, is a pollutant? they said it was because these models are saying the planet is -- is warming and all the scientists agree, which is not true, but the scientists have said that the planet's warming, and so therefore co2 is deplete -- is a pollutant, and they so ruled. but things aren't happening like the experts told us. it's just not happening. and i'm beginning to wonder what's going on here. this chart, the red line, this is zero, the red line is an average of all the computer models that projected what the increase in climate -- in temperature would be based on steadily increasing co2 in the

atmosphere. back in dinosaur days, we had a lot more co2 in the atmosphere than we have today. it has been reduced and it's been increasing as we burn, go into the ground, get coal, get oil, get natural gas and burn it, it emits more co2. it's released back into the atmosphere. actually, it was sucked out of the atmosphere through plants and animals. so this is -- this was a chart. every single climate change model that's the foundation of the argument for dangerous global warming predicted more than has actually occurred in the last 15 years, so this is a chart. you go back to about 2000 here, and this green line is the actual results from -- i believe that's balloons, balloon

temperature gauges, and it actually hasn't gone up at all since 2001. that's what? 13 years. this is not what the -- the temperature they were predicting. the chart looks more dramatic than it is. this is zero, this is .2. they were predicting from 1979, i believe was the key date, they were predicting that the temperature would increase 1.2 degrees. it's increased about .3 of a degree, and that's in this part. but when you go here, when the chart is going off here saying it should be accelerating every year, it's been flat. so i don't know. some people say the sun's involved in it, some people have other theories. i don't know. i assume we're going to have some warming out there, but it's certainly not coming in at the rate that the alarmists have

told us. now, that is indisputable fact, and we in congress need to be asking ourselves how much burden we can afford to put on the american people at this time. the president -- i got to tell you, one of the most frustrating things and disappointing things to me is that the president in the last several years -- over a year now because i have been asking his people before the environment committee to be sure and tell him not to say it anymore, but he has twice, three times said that the -- that the temperature is increasing faster than the experts predicted. over the last ten or 15 years. think about that. the president of the united states, in the face of obvious data to the contrary, is repeatedly going out and saying

it's increasing faster than the red line. now, that worries me. i believe the president of the united states has a responsibility when he advocates for policies to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. that is not so. so well then they say the storms. the president and his team, when they had sandy hit, go out and say that this is all a direct result of global warming. see? every time there is a storm, every time there is a drought, every time there is a problem, it's always climate change, global warming. dr. pilke at the university

laid out the numbers. i don't have the details here. he testified before the environment committee, and he said it's not so. it's not hard to see how many hurricanes you have. you simply go back each year. he went back and calculated the hurricane. how many category fives, fours, three, two, one, and the result is pretty astonishing that we've had -- we've had fewer of them. this chart is hard to read. i'll just quote you what he says. hurricanes not have increased in is the united states in frequency, intensity, or

normalized damage since at least 1900. and he's not been disputed, either. they tried to push back and attack him but nobody has produced data that disputes what he says because it's easy to calculate that data. it's now been -- important, dr. pielke has recently produced an analysis that says it's been 3,400 days since this country has had a category 3 hurricane. category 3. well, camille was a 5, and we've had some others in the past but we've had almost ten years since we've had a category

3, and sandy, this storm that hit the northeast which was very rare, that happened to miss the southeast, miss florida and hit into the northeast, that storm was not even a hurricane when it hit land. it was below the speed, i understand, of a hurricane. at best, it was a category 1. it just happened to hit the northeast where people are not used to it and it did a lot of damage. so how can it be argued, i ask colleagues, that global warming is causing more storms? dr. pmp ielke has said that the 2012-2015 tornado season was one of the lowest in the last 50 years, only five out of 50 years have been that low. we're not seeing, he calculates, an increase in tornadoes. you read about them more, we have the weather channel and

they talk about them more but in truth the numbers aren't there. now, if hurricanes are down and this 3,000 days before we've had a category 3 hurricane is just about the longest in history that we've recorded it -- it's unusual drought of big hurricanes. it means a lot to me. i live in mobile, alabama. and i remember hurricane frederick, 1975, barreling right up mobile bay. i remember the fear people had because those who had been there when camille hit nearby in mississippi, the fear that was on people -- i know something about hurricanes. and they are very real factors and it surprises me we've had as few as we have and we've also not seen an increase in tornadoes.

well, so now we're -- what we're proposing is we've got to carry out a policy that goes beyond our technology to produce electricity at a cost-effective manner. and it has the impact of massively closing baseload coal plants, existing plants are going to be hammered as well as new ones won't be built. i'm also on the subcommittee of environment and public works that deals with nuclear power. not a single american since the beginning of nuclear power 50 years ago, has been killed as a result of a nuclear power accident. how many die in natural gas pipelines and drilling rigs and coal mines and transportation of

coal and so forth? we've basically shut down nuclear power. i'm telling you, this is a big problem for our country. the erosion of nuclear power. we've had four plants close, existing nuclear plants, close. they are being hammered with regulations and they've never been safer. and we've never known more about how to operate a nuclear plant safely than we know today. but only one or two are being constructed, and has the potential to erode the 20% of our electricity that comes from nuclear power. so if we lose coal and we lose nuclear power, and most of these plants are 30-plus, 40, 45 years old, they'll soon be at the end of their lifespan. if we don't replace pem,this

where will our energy come from, pray tell? so -- finally, anything that we do today to try to impact co2 is only a drop in the bucket worldwide. they're building coal-fired plants in china, in india, and the east, in the middle east, other places, africa, in large numbers. we are very -- are a very small part of the overalltuture in our actions -- and our actions are not going to reverse this trend. so i don't know, i don't pretend to know all the answers, but i would say this -- how do we know that if we have more co2 and we have

more global warming and global climate change, how do we know it won't result in fewer hurricanes? we've had fewer. how do we know it won't result in fewer tornadoes? we've had fewer tornadoes. life on the planet has tended to be more healthy and prosperous in times of higher temperatures than lower temperatures. now, i certainly don't want to see a surging temperature in america, rapidly changing things. i think it could have real damages ands said, i don't know what the full answer is. i am just saying in my judgment that this administration is pushing this beyond what's reasonable, it's going to adversely affect the economy of america, it's going to drive up the cost of every household's electric bill, every

household's gasoline bill, and every business in america that hires american workers is going to try to export products. those products are going to be more expensive because they had to pay more for their energy. and the last thing we need to be doing at thint this point in american history -- at this point in american history is driving up artificially the price of energy. one expert said a number of years ago that the lifespan, the average lifespan of a person in a nation where electricity is readily available is twice that where it's not readily available. and i've been in poor places in the world where there is not electricity and you see the difficulties they have with water, you see the difficulties they have with cleanliness and so forth, and cooling and

keeping food refrigerated and the disease that comes from that. energy is a positive force. it is made -- it has made the world, the western world, the developed world, so much more prosperous. it's created wealth that we can then use for good causes and clean up the environment, and produce healthy foods for billions worldwide. so i don't think we should see energy as an evil thing. i think energy is a good thing. and we don't need to drive the price of it up. it just makes life harder for people, especially those with limited incomes. so, mr. president, i thank the chair for the opportunity to share these thoughts. it means a lot to me. we'll keep working at it, we'll

analyze in detail as time goes on the proposals that the president has presented and i remain very concerned as a matter of constitutional order that this is being done without a vote of the people. this is being done by a 5-4 supreme court ruling and an aggressive president and an aggressive e.p.a. and it seems like there's not enough -- there's an inability in congress to do anything about it and the average american who disagrees has no voice, apparently, in being able to have their voice heard. so we'll continue to talk about it and as time goes by, we will look at the trend and hopefully we can reduce some of the excesses that i think clearly exist. i thank the chair and i would yield the floor.

mr. sessions: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: senator from connecticut. mr. murphy: i ask that we dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. murphy: thank you, mr. president. came down to the ploor to give another short series of remarks to talk about the growing list of gun victims all across the country and i'll do that in a few moments. but having just come down from the chair, mr. president, i wanted to very briefly respond to the remarks of the junior senator from alabama, who engaged in a pretty stunning and broad denial of science for about 15 minutes on the floor of the senate, as part of what i imagine will be a pretty robust critique this week of the new e.p.a. rules from the

administration. you know, mr. president, when we were all school kids, we probably all had the chance to read the play "the wind. "us a thread book, in the end, as -- as you read that book, in the end, as they are example coriating matthew harris and brady on the stand, you end the book with almost a sense of sorrow about the unraveling of brady's argument and the kind of figure that he is portrayed at the end of the book to be. my hope is that that same degree of strange affection may be the legacy of those who came down to the floor and engage in the same kind of denial of basic science that is at the root of the trial in the book that made it famous. our colleague talked about the fact that the jury is still out

as to whether the planet is warming. here's the 10 hottest years on record since 1880: 2010, 2005, 1998, 2013, 2003, 2002, 2006, 2009, 2007, 2004. senators said that the jury is still out, that all the science doesn't really suggest that global warming is happening. well, he's right. 97% of scientists of peer-reviewed literature have come to the conclusion that the planet is warming and humans are contributing to it. the internet -- intergovernmental panel of climate change said this, "warming of the climate system is unequivocal." and my friend said that, well, even if it is happening, we're really only a small part of the problem, so why is it even necessary for us to act? well, we're not a small part of the problem. we're 5% of the world's

population. but 25% of the world's population. and even if the specific actions this week do represent a very small percentage of the ultimate solution when we talk about trying to get the temperature of the planet under control, that's a task argumen terrible argumenf itself. each one of our actions doesn't really affect the overall outcome. it is the collection of actions that we take and the collection of actions that we'll take as a community of individuals and nations that will ultimately make the difference. mr. president, i imagine that this debate will continue. 31,000 people a year die across this country from gun violence, 2,639 a month, 86 a day. what i've tried to do is just come down to the floor every week, a couple times a month at the very least, and talk about the voices of those victims

because if the statistics aren't actually moving this place to action, then maybe we can talk about who these people were and, of course, we have a fresh set of stories from santa barbara, california. katherine brianne cooper was 22 years old when she was gunned down by elliott roger. this was a deeply, deeply troubled young man who went on a shooting spree, killed six people, wounded a whole lot more and katherine brianne cooper was 22. she was a painter, known as katie by her friends, had a really outgoing side. she was going to get a degree in art history. she had a smile that -- quote -- "lit up the room" -- according to her friends what.

a lot of her childhood friends remember from chino hills is that she was absolutely unbeatable at foot races sms she was the fastestrest kid in the e neighborhood. you couldn't beat her when the ice cream truck came around to the neighborhood sms she was always the first one who was there. her seventh grade teefn said she was one of 2,500 students that i have taught over the years but katie was a standout. veronicer have ron weis was thrs younger. her father bob said she was wise i don't understand her years. he would actually go to her, his 19-year-old daughter, when for advice when he was having trouble with one of her brothers. she played four sports in high school -- cross country, baseball, swimming and water poll low.

she earned straight-a's. her strength was math. she really excelled at sports and she didn't let barriers get in her way. she wanted to play baseball. she didn't want to play soft ball. she wanted to play baseball. so there was a baseball league for kids in her hometown of west lake and there were 500 players in that league, 499 boys and one girl. that one girl was veronica weis. she got to u.c. santa barbara and she didn't have a lost friends until she joined the t tridelta sorrowty. it became a built-in circle of friends for her. her former coach said we were really shocked. for someone who is 19 years old to have that many people show up for her service, that's a lot to saivment there were a lost kids that say, i was a new kid in school. she just came up and started talking to me. i didn't even know her sms she was that type of person.

christopher mikeless martinez, march tina's father has had a lot of wonderful things to say about his son. his son, christopher was a studious kid. an avid reader an athlete from a young age, beginning with cork and then going ton play footba football. he served as an advisor in the dorm. his father talks a blot his resilience. at 8 years old, he decided he wanted to play football. he remembers in a practice being knocked down, watching his son being knocked down bay much large he teammate. his fearnl said he remembers thinking, my god, he must be hurt. and this is his father tion words. "he was on the ground no more than two seconds. hopped back up, stomped one foot on the ground and walked back on the line.

that's the kind of kid chris was. " richard martinez earthed the 20,000 people at the memorial for the victims to follow his son's example from the football field. he said, "like christopher on that day, we've been knocked down. i want you to get back up and walk determinedly forward." his father richard has challenged congress to not let one more person die because of our inaction. and in a lost ways the story of elliott rodger is but a caution about the limits of what policy can do but also an invitation for us to look at some of the things we can do. elliott was an incredibly troubled kid, but he was not a kid who lived outside of the mental health system. nor was adam l.a.n. disark -- nm

lanza, the young man who killed 20 six and seven--year-olds in new town. we can pick apart the decisions, a very legitimate critique sometimes, that the rodgers parents made or adam lanza's parents made. but the reality is that elliott r00. dgrodger was in and out. adam lanza had been identified with a severe mental illness and his mother was trying to find treatment for him. and we need to do something to improve our mental health system. we have closed down 40,000 mental health inpatient beds in the last six years alone. the needs of those with mental illness are skyrocketing. we know the waiting times for young adolescents to see a psychiatrist is far too long. so we need to make massive

investments in our mental health system. but the law can help as well when it comes to guns. the fact is that adam lanza should have never been able to possess the high-powered weapon that he did. had he walked into the school with a different weapon instead of a semiautomatic rifle, there would still be children alive today in the minds of many of those parents. and it's not clear that the law could have changed anything in california, but what we know is that in states that give law enforcement the ability to take guns away from people who pose a danger to the community or deny them to those individuals in the first place, less murders happen. police showed up at the door of elliot rod ger's house. had they walked in they would have found a draft of his manifesto and ammunition.

he likely would have been taken into involuntary custody. his guns likely would have been taken away. the police didn't make that decision, but in california they have the ability to do that, whereas in lots of other states they do not. in missouri, for instance, they used to have a law on the books that allowed for local law enforcement to deny gun permits to individuals that those local law enforcement personnel knew to be a potential danger to society. well, missouri repealed that law, and a recent study by johns hopkins university shows controlling for all other possible factors that could explain the dramatic increase in gun violence since the repeal of missouri's background check legislation, the repeal itself accounts for 60 to 80 additional gun murders in missouri every single year. we know that laws that keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people allow law enforcement to

take guns away from dangerous people, laws that prevent military-style assault weapons from being in the community in the first place, they save lives. it's not a coincidence that during a period of time after which the federal government instituted an assault weapons ban we saw a reduction in the number of mass murders in this country, and after it was repealed we started to see an increase in those mass murders. assault weapons bans don't have a lot to do with average, everyday gun violence, but they can have something to do with mass shootings. mr. president, edmund burke said this. he said the only thing necessary for the triumph from evil is that good men do nothing. everybody -- i think every single senator here has heard that. i'll just end with this thought. i think we can pass laws that will reduce these numbers. it won't eliminate these

numbers. it won't. but i think we can pass laws, whether it's improving our mental health system or changing our gun laws that will reduce the number of people who die and who perhaps lessen these literally weekly stories that we hear of mass violence across the country. but the real risk of doing nothing, not even trying -- i mean, it's like pulling teeth to get any republican senators or congressmen to even cosponsor a bill addressing any of these issues. the real risk of doing nothing is that we start to look complicit in these mass murders. and i know that's a strong thing to say, but it is not enough for the community itself to rally after these mass murders to shame the action when the most important legislative body in the world has nothing to say

about this dramatic increase in mass gun violence. when we allow for these numbers to fester without a single piece of legislation to address this trend line, passing the senate and the house, we become accomplices because we send a message that we don't think that the murders in aurora, in tucson, in new town, in santa barbara are serious enough for us to do anything. that's a real shame, and hopefully, mr. president, at some point over the time that you and i have the honor of serving in the united states senate, if the numbers don't move this place to action, the voices of the victims will. i yield back. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: mr. president, several years ago when the majority party, the democratic party controlled 60 seats in the united states senate and had literally the numbers to do whatever it wanted to do, the

majority leader tried to push through a new massive energy tax bill known as cap and trade. not only did it fail to pass, the majority leader never even brought it up for a vote primarily because members of his own party recognized that there would be huge costs associated with this new energy tax and that it indeed on balance, the benefits did not out weigh the costs or were perhaps, most tar kha*rty -- char sp-rbs ita -- charityably stated as neutral. now the obama administration, we learn, is in the process of knacking a back door energy -- enacting a back door energy tax

not through the votes of members of congress, the only people who can really be held accountable for how we vote but rather through the federal regulatory process through the environmental protection agency. much like the cap-and-trade bill that collapsed in 2010, the e.p.a. regulation was announced earlier today and would impose major new costs on america's economy while doing virtually nothing to improve the environment. and i'll explain my reason for saying that in just a moment. i'll talk about the economic costs in a second, but first i want to emphasize that over the coming decades, america's contribution to the growth of worldwide carbon dioxide emissions will be virtually nonexistent. consider these numbers from the energy information agency. between 2005 and 2012, america's energy-related carbon dioxide emissions actually declined by

more than 10%. that's between 2005 and 2012, our carbon dioxide emissions did not go up, but they declined by more than 10%. by contrast, over the same period of time, china's energy-related carbon dioxide emissions grew by nearly 64%, so ours went down 10%, china's went up by 64%. as a result, china is now producing far more carbon dioxide emissions than the united states. looking ahead, the energy information agency has projected that developing countries, countries that don't have the developed economy like ours do but do want our standard of living, do want a better life for their people, the e.i.a. has predicted that those developing countries be responsible for 94% of the growth in global carbon

dioxide emissions between 2010 and 2040, with china aloan accounting for 49% of that increase. as for the united states during the same period of time, our own carbon dioxide emissions will barely increase at all. i mention these figures, mr. president, because some of my friends across the aisle have repeatedly declared that president obama's back-door energy tax will help us -- quote -- fight climate change. given the numbers i just listed, it should be clear to us that any rule like that that the e.p.a. is proposing would do little to affect global emissions unless developing countries like china and india do exactly the same. assuming this is something we would want to make as a priority, assuming this is something where we thought that the costs outweighed -- the

benefits outweighed the cost. but the fact of the matter is that china has no interest in sacrificing economic growth for speculative long-term climate benefits, nor does india or other developing nations. we have to remember that these countries alone still have hundreds of millions of people living in abject poverty. they want a better economy. they want their economy to grow, so why in the world would they impose these restrictions on themselves? it's just not going to happen, and that's what they have told us. in short, president obama's e.p.a. rule would place america's economy, an economy that shrunk by 1% last quarter, it would place us at a competitive disadvantage without having any substantial effect on global climate change or on co

2 emissions overall. in other words, it would be all pain and no gain. as i mentioned, the pain, though, would be very real. it would come in the form of lost jobs by a slowing economy, lost wages and higher electricity prices. now, in my state, in august, it gets to be pretty hot, and our grid operates at maximum capacity. because of a variety of e.p.a. regulations, the price of those higher electricity prices are borne by many people who are least able to absorb those costs, particularly people on fixed income, including the elderly. but the job losses would then be concentrated on blue-collar workers in fossil fuel industries, most notably the coal industry. these workers have already been hurt by e.p.a. regulations, but this -- these new proposed

regulations would make that pain even worse. as for the higher electricity costs and higher utility rates, well, they would affect all of us, with the heaviest burden falling on people with low income or, as i said, fixed income. in other words, the people who could least afford to pay more for their utility bills. so if a regulation can't pass the basic cost-benefit test, then in my view it has little business being enacted, certainly not being enacted by nameless, faceless bureaucrats who are unaccountable to the american people or for the consequences of what they are passing. and that's especially true when our economy is suffering through the weakest economic recovery and the longest period of high unemployment since the great depression. why if this makes sense at any

time would we want to do it now? and yet, median household income has also declined by nearly $2,300 since the recession formally ended. so we have a period of anemic economic growth in this country, the highest unemployment rate that we've had and the slowest economic recovery for -- since the great depression and the highest percentage of people who dropped out of the work force because they are discouraged about the prospects of finding jobs at any time since jimmy carter was president. and then median household income has gone down $2,300. in the meantime, if you are buying your health insurance at the obamacare exchanges, you found your health insurance premiums go up, we know fuel costs, gasoline costs have gone up. we know food costs go up. the middle class is the one who would be disproportionately

burdened by this eappen regulation in a way that does not on net change the global economic -- the global environment, and in the process would kill jobs and hurt families in return for negligible and even nonexistent benefits. so once again, we see that the president has decided to place ideology, his wish of how the world ought to look, ahead of the numbers. he's famous for saying let's do the arithmetic. well, let's do the arithmetic. the arithmetic does not make the case that these regulations should be passed. indeed, it defeats the case that they should or the argument that they should, and sadly, rather than engage in the normal legislative process that would allow my colleague, the presiding officer, from maine who may have a different view

and me and others debate these issues and then vote on them and make policy and be held accountable for what we do, the president has decided to skirt the legislative process and instead rely on unaccountable bureaucrats to enact measures that would never pass through congress, but that it seems to be the idea for a president who says i have a phone and i have a pen, and he can go it alone. he can do it by himself. well, he can't. our constitution does not allow that. and sooner or later, the american people are going to hold the folks accountable they see enabling this sort of unilateral activity. this is, in my view, an unforced error that will damage our economy, hurt our workers and raise the cost of living for middle-class families and those on fixed income. i find it simply astonishing that if such misguided regulation ever had any

currency, was ever timely, ever made sense, i find it especially astonishing that this proposal is being considered now with our economy growing so slowly, with so many people out of work, with so many people who have left the work force, with median household income down and yet costs for health care, food, gasoline and other commodities going up. mr. president, i yield the floor and i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. a senator: i ask that the quorum be set aside. the presiding officer: without objection. morning business is closed. the senate will proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, department of state, keith m. harper of maryland, united states representative to the u.n. human rights council. the presiding officer: under the previous order, there will be two minutes of debate in the usual form prior to the motion to invoke cloture on the harper nomination. who yields time? without objection, all time is yielded back. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we the undersigned senators in accordance with rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate

hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the nomination of keith m. harper of maryland during his tenure of service as united states representative to the u.n. human rights council, signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of keith m. harper of maryland for the rank of ambassador during his tenure of service as united states representative to the u.n. human rights council shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any other senators wishing to vote or wishing to change their vote? if not, the ayes are 51, the nays are 37. the motion is agreed to. the senator from california. mrs. boxer: mr. president, what is the order? the presiding officer: we are in postcloture on the nomination.

mrs. boxer: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to be able to address the senate on a couple of very important topics, up to an hour. the presiding officer: without objection. the senate will be in order. mrs. boxer: thank you very much, mr. president. i come to the floor tonight heartbroken at the loss of six young people and the injuries to 13 more in the devastating gun violence tragedy that occurred may 23 in the isla vista community in santa barbara. as a mother, a grandmother and as a senator representing the most unbelievable state in the union, this latest mass shooting shook me to the core, and i was struck by this simple fact, mr. president -- no one is safe in america any more. no one is safe in america

anymore. not in their schools, not in a movie theater, not in their workplace, not in their home, and not on a beautiful college campus over looking the pacific ocean where the victims of this latest horrific attack were busy pursuing their dreams. i'm going to show you the faces of the students that we lost. christopher ross michaels martinez. 20 years old from los osos oceano, california. an english major who served as a resident advisor at a campus dorm while maintaining a 4.0 g.p.a. he was planning to study abroad in london next year, and he dreamed of going to law school like both of his parents.

his cousin jamie described chris as -- quote -- smart, gentle and kind, but with a competitive spirit he showed on the basketball court. his high school basketball coach said he was a coach's dream, a team player. he had a great attitude. he was a hard worker who would stay after [ities and work on his shots. his father richard said chris was a really good kid. ask anyone who knew him. his death has left our family lost and broken. then veronica, veronica elizabeth weiss. 19 from thousand oaks. she loved sports and high school. she played on four teams. she started playing softball at the age of 6 and later turned to baseball, becoming the only girl out of 500 players in the west lake baseball league. she was a good students who earned straight a's in high

school and graduated with a 4.3 g.p.a. she was majoring in prefinancial math and statistics. her father said -- quote -- she wanted to be a financial wizard and use her high aptitude with complicated math, unquote. she was a member of the try delta sorority, just like her mom and her grandmother had been, and now she is gone. one of her friends said veronica was one of the people you knew you wanted to be friends with. she is willing to become friends with anyone. she is the only person who could make you smile instantly. then there is katherine, katie, breen cooper, 22 of chino hills, california. she was close to her two brothers and she was weeks away from graduating with a degree in art history.

her friends remember her as outgoing, someone who had a very bright smile that lit up the whole room. and the words -- you could see the smile. in the words of one family friend, katie was the kind of girl that brought sunshine on an overcast day. she left soccer and running track and helped her family deliver christmas gifts to neighbors in chino hills every day. she also was a member of tri delta. she raised money for st. jude's children's hospital in memphis. her friends say she was -- quote -- involved in everything and never slowed down. her friends said she was a self-proclaimed princess, and i love her for that, her friend courtney said, and i know she has a crown on her head today. and then there is chen wang,

james hon. he spent his time volunteering as a teacher's assistant at chinese rainbow school. he is described as hard working, a bright student, always willing to help others. his high school drama teacher in san jose remembered him as a quiet student who was happy to work backstage to ensure that his classmates could shine. one of his former classmates said -- quote -- he was one of the kindest, most genuine people i have ever met. he was never afraid that his unrelenting kindness might have led him to be taken advantage of. he helped out everybody, including myself, and he never asked for anything in return. he was good for the sake of being good, and it's incredibly rare to find people that genuine and then there is george chen, 19, san jose. graduated from high school in san jose, finished his second year at u.c.-santa barbara where

he studied computer science. his father is a software engineer and george wanted to follow in his dad's footsteps. he liked swimming and hiking and was close to his younger brother who is 10. despite their age difference, they play video games together and laugh. friends describe george as a gentle soul who had a fondness for working with children and when he went home to visit his parents during breaks from school, his mother said he would always go out of his way to pick up his elderly neighbor's mail and take out their trash. he volunteered for the buddhist charity group su chi, and as a camp counselor at the ymca, and he's gone. then there is weihan david wang, free trade freemont, california. his mother described him as a very, very nice boy, the kind who aced his s.a.t.'s but never bragged about it. he was an avid basketball fan,

played on his high school team in freemont, was a big fan of the los angeles lakers. at u.c.-santa barbara, he was studying computer engineering and he wanted to start a business with his friends. one friend said david was warm-hearted and helpful. his parents said that david was gentle, kind, loving, peaceful, faithful and self-controlled. he was supposed to return home for the summer break soon to go on a trip with his family to yellowstone national park. and i say to all families who may be hearing me speak, imagine what that does to a mother and father, to a family. david was their only child. his mother said he was always the joy of the family. now he's gone. these were all bright and talented people, full of promise, full of passion. their dreams and their futures were extinguished in an instant of chaos. today i join all their families,

their friends and their classmates in mourning their unfathomable loss. but not only that, i stand with them with staunch determination to do everything in my power to stop this senseless violence. richard martinez, the dad of chris -- christopher, he said it best. he said i don't want or care about sympathy from politicians. he said to us get to work and do something. and the parents of james han said the same thing in a letter. i know there has been great injustice and policy can be improved. they added that their son can't be here to help anymore, but you can. the mother of george chen said this is not the first time it happens, a killing spree, but i hope it's the last one. no parent should have to go through this. and the parents of david wang wrote it's time to stop gun violence and be free from fear.

they're absolutely right. we can't sit back and simply accept that nearly 90 americans are killed every day, 30,000 are killed every year. i well remember the vietnam war because i got involved in politics to try and stop it. it was horrible. we lost more than 50,000 people over ten years, and we ended that war. 30,000 are killed every year from gun violence. when are we going to end the war here at home? we can't accept that every day an average of eight children and teens under the age of 20 are killed by guns. we can't accept the fact that children in the u.s. die by guns 11 times as often as children in other high-income nations. it's an outrage. it has to end. we often see the same reaction after mass shootings like this.

someone insists that it was just the act of a madman and there is nothing you can do to stop a deranged person from going on a rampage. but you know what, mr. president? history says that the defeatist attitude is wrong. take australia. in april, 1996, a young man killed 35 people and he wounded 23 others with a semiautomatic rifle in the so-called port arthur massacre, the worst mass shootings in australian history. less than two weeks later, the conservative-led national government pushed through fundamental change to the country's gun laws. australia's conservative government passed laws that all but prohibited automatic and semiautomatic assault rifles, stiffened licensing and ownership rules, instituted a temporary gun buyback program that took some 650,000 assault weapons out of public circulation. the law then required licensees to demonstrate a general need for a particular type of gun and

take a firearm safety course. those actions by australia's leaders made a difference, and a decade before port arthur, australia saw 11 mass shootings. since then, there hasn't been a single mass shooting, and the gun murder rate has continued to steadily decline. in 2011, australia had 0.86 gun deaths for each 100,000 people or 35 -- or 25 people. that year, the u.s. had 10.3 gun deaths per 100,000 people or 11,101 americans. mr. president, so accounting for the population differences, this is insanity. australia said enough is enough. when are we going to do that? canadians said enough is enough. in december, 1989, a disgruntled student walked into montreal engineering school with a

semiautomatic and killed 14 students, injured over a dozen others, and in canada, they now ban more than half of all -- let me put it this way. that tragedy prompted the leaders in canada to ban more than half of all registered guns, require all gun owners who must be at least 18 to obtain a license. you need a license for a car. why don't you need a license for a gun and a background check? and a public safety course. that's what they did. canadians said enough is enough, and it paid off. canadians' gun murder rate has declined since passage of these laws, with occasional spikes in gun violences. in 2009, canada had 0.5 deaths per 100,000 for gun murders, 173 people. the u.s. had three gun murders for every 100,000 that year, 11,493 americans. come on. 173 out of 100,000 compared to

11,000 out of 100,000? what is wrong with the people here in this country, in this body? the united kingdom experienced tragedies that led their leaders to act. in august of 1987, a lone gunman armed with two legally owned semiautomatic rifles and a handgun went on a six-hour shooting spree roughly 70 miles west of london, killing 16 people and then himself. britain expanded the list of banned weapons, including certain semiautomatic rifles. it increased registration requirements for weapons. since then they've banned all handguns. with a few exceptions. the government instituted a buyback program which many credit for taken guns out splief. their actions paid off. the u.k.'s gun murder rate has decreased. it is now less than half of what it used to be. in 2011, the 4.23 gun deaths

per 100,000 people, a fraction of the 10.3 gun deaths per 100,000 in the u.s. they had 38 gun murders, we had 11,101. what is going on? we have to do some of this here. what are we so scared of? i said when i started this speech no one is safe in america. because we don't take commonsense steps. i'm not saying you ban guns, you ban people from having guns. no, but have a system where they have to show that they need it. we can do the same things here in america. we can start. how about this -- pass measures that have nearly unanimous support among the american people wherever they live in our

great nation. take background checks. 90% of americans say they support background checks. because one gun lobby doesn't like it, we turn our backs on 90% of the people? what's wrong with us? we have legislation to expand background checks. it has bipartisan basis. -- bipartisan support. we should take it up and pass it and do the work of the people. 90% of whom want us to pass background checks. take assault weapons. most americans support banning military style assault weapons. 81% of voters, 71% of gun owners, 60% of n.r.a. members. we should pass senator feinstein's legislation now. and do the work the american people want us to do. how about high capacity magazines clips. 72% of voters say we should ban the sale of high capacity

ammunition magazineses. take mental health. lawmakers on both sides support taking action. let's do it now. take school safety. i authored the bill on that with senator collins to give them the resources they need to make schools safer. take it up and pass it. and don't load it up with controversy. pass the things we need to pass. do it for these families and god knows all the others that are suffering and crying themselves to sleep every single night, bearing a loss that will never go away. now, here's the situation. in this particular case, we had the family of the gunman who committed the massacre call the police and say we're very worried about our son.

it's haunting to me, it's haunting to me. they had a feeling about it and they called the police. and the police went in to interview this troubled young man. and they couldn't see through to his problems. and they didn't check the gun database that we have in california where if they had, they would have seen he had purchased three guns. if they knew that, we would have been in a different circumstance. so what we are doing is introducing legislation called the pause for safety act. this is what it does. one, families and others who are very close to the suspected unstable individual can go to court and seek a gun violence prevention order to temporarily

stop someone who poses a danger to themselves or others from purchasing a firearm. so they can go to court and seek a gun violence prevention order. let's say it's a group of coworkers who see that this person is threatening, or has written something. they can actually make the case before a judge and get an order so that the person cannot buy guns. two, it would help ensure that families and others close to the individual can also seek a gun violence prevention warrant which would allow law enforcement to take temporary possession of firearms that already had been purchases. -- purchased. if those police officers had known that this individual had bought those weapons -- because we do have that database -- they could have gone and gotten a warrant but under our -- the way we've written our law, a family member could do this,

could go to court and seek that gun violence prevention warrant. and three, it would say that if -- you in law enforcement get a tip or a warning or a request from a family member that you want to make full use of the gun registry. don't -- if you can make use of it, it's very important. i'm very pleased that similar legislation has been introduced in california by assemblywoman nancy skinner, assemblyman das williams as well as state senator hannah beth jackson. we all remember the shock and outrage we felt after the sandy hook shooting in newtown, connecticut where a gunman shot 20 babies, i call them, children, school children and six adult staff members, all those lives lost and we said we'd take action. we wore ribbons and we came to

the floor and we cried. well, since that shooting, mr. president, more than 28,000 americans have died from gun violence. 90 people every day. imagine if there was anything else that caused the death of 28,000 americans, we'd be down here. the shooting at sandy hook and at u.c. santa barbara are a reminder we failed our children, call it what you want, we are failing our children. because we have a basic task. it's to keep them safe. they look at us. and thebl we will -- they believe we will protect them. we have a function here. not to allow someone who is unstable or violent, not to allow that person to get a weapon. so we need to pull together and

we need to show our children we love them, not by making fancy speeches but by doing the right thing, like this father said we have to do, chris' dad, don't tell me have you children, don't talk to me about how bad you feel. do something. they need to know they're safe in school. people need to know they're safe at work. people need to feel safe in a restaurant. anyplace. let us honor these victims of gun violence by working to end this epidemic. and, mr. president, you look at these faces and you look in their eyes and you know they were just at the start of adventures, at the start of their -- height of their productivity, in their 20's.

we got to do something, so this doesn't happen again and again and again. mr. president, i would ask now that i could speak on a second subject and i ask unanimous consent that my remarks appear separately so the remarks i've made about this shooting would be separate from the remarks i'm about to make now on another issue. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. boxer: mr. president, in this work that we do, so many issues need to be discussed. and one of them that i've tried to discuss along with several colleagues is the incredible threat to our planet caused by climate change. i've participated with my colleague, senator whitehouse,

and markey, and cardin and many others, in all-night speeches, in hearings, i'm so proud to be the chairman of the environment committee, and it was many years ago when i took the gavel to become the chairman that i started to really get involved in the details and in the science and in the predictions of scientists as to what could happen. and we came very close to doing something important here in the senate but we faced a filibuster and although the house passed a very important bill years ago, we couldn't get it done, we fell six votes short. at the time, the press said to me, well, what are you going to do? what, are you going to do nothing about this? i said, actually, the most popular law that's ever been

passed -- i believe it, i haven't pane a pole but i could tell you i know from -- a poll but i know from looking at studies that the clean air act covers all kinds of pollution, including carbon pollution, and i said even though we weren't able to have a cap-and-trade system which would put a price on carbon and let people get permits and trade them and i felt that was a good way to work in a cappistic society, we didn't -- capitalistic society, we have a clean air act and once an endangerment finding is made and it was started during the bush administration and completed during the obama administration, we know the president has full authority to act, with or without the deniers here in the senate and the house. now, 40% of all the carbon is emitted by power plants.

so power plants are a very important part of the problem, we have to address. we already know the president and the congress worked together to reduce the pollution coming out of our cars by passing very important fuel economy measures, but this is really the largest problem, those power plants. dangerous carbon, and the president, who understands, he looks at his kids, he knows if they're going to have a world in which they can thrive, we have to do something about this problem and we can't just put our head in the sand and say the scientists are wrong. let's not be like the folks that said -- the deniers that said,

oh, cigarettes -- smoking doesn't cause cancer, 97% of the scientists said it did, 3% didn't, the tobacco lobby went on the side of the bad guys and for years we had to fight and prod and push. and get what happens -- guess what happens. what happened. people got sick and a lot died because there was basically a cover-up by the tobacco industry. well, you're facing a similar situation. the big special interests are trying to tell the american people don't worry about this climate change. it's no big deal. no big deal. well, here's the great news -- the president has stepped forward. he has taken on carbon pollution from power plants. now, under current law there is no limit to the amount of carbon pollution that can be released into the air for power plants.

the president's carbon pollution reduction plan is going to change all that. it's going to change all that. it will protect public health, it will save thousands of lives, it will avoid up to 6,600,000 premature deaths, 150,000 asthma attacks, 3,300 heart attacks, 2,800 hospital dpitions and 490,000 missed days of school and work will be prevented. those benefits will kick in. now, here's what's important about that -- when you clean up the carbon, you protect the air quality. and that's why the president went to a hospital when he announced this. and that's why -- is it 80% of the people in the poll today? 70% of the people, including, as i recall -- do you have

that? a huge majority of americans support regulating carbon from power plants, and they're even willing to pay for it. a lopsided and bipartisan majority of americans support federal limits on greenhouse gas emissions, according to this new poll. fully 70% say the federal government should require limits to greenhouse gases from existing plants. what's so interesting, 57% of republicans support it, 76% of independents and 79% of democrats. so, this is a plan whose time has come. now, this plan will also create tens of thousands of jobs as we move to a clean energy economy. by reducing carbon pollution, we can avert the most calamitous

impacts of climate change, such as rising sea levels, dangerous heat waves and economic disruption. if we don't act, mr. president, we could see a ten-degree farenheit rise in temperature, and that's disastrous really for all of our states. i have been so privileged to work on the senate climate action task force, and what's interesting is i've listened to people from all over the country talk about what this climate change means in their states. coastal states have certain set of problems, inland states, agricultural states. and the forest fires that are burning out of control, i hope people will watch that documentary "years of living dangerously." it's really a wakeup call, if you haven't already awakened to this problem. it's happening all over the

world, fires that don't stop. droughts, the defense department is telling us, is a real problem. you know how the house of representatives deals with climate change? they pass a bill that says the defense department can't act on what they have already said, which is that climate change is a real serious threat multiplier. and actually, they actually said it's a cause now, it could be a cause of conflict. before they said it was a threat multiplier. now they say it's actually a -- they use the word "catalyst" for conflict. but the house doesn't like that, so they just said it shall be so, we will not talk about this any more. stamp my foot. no. disregard 97% of the scientists. now here's the thing i like about the president's proposal.

it's respectful of states's roles. it allows major flexibility. every state is going to have its own plan. some states say, you know, coal-fired plants you can clean up a little bit. we'll get a little savings there. but we'll also get energy efficiency so you won't have to burn as much coal. this is what is envisioned. eventually we're going to see lower prices for our folks. they say in about 15 years we're going to see an 8% decrease. let me read this again. it's going to shrink electricity bills roughly 8%, and that's going to happen because we're going to have increased energy efficiency and reduced demand. so this poll is very clear. people want action. and, the clean air act is very

clear. now, i think it's important to note that under george bush, we wasted eight years because they kept saying carbon pollution was not covered in the clean air act, but we had some very smart attorneys that went up there -- and one of them is sitting here -- and said no, no, no; just read it. and if you read it, you'll see. and thank goodness, the supreme court ruled and said absolutely, greenhouse gas emissions can be regulated if there's an endangerment finding, and there certainly was that. so the clean air act has a proven track record, and i'll close with this. to those people who are in denial, i say wake up because it's not about you. it's about your kids and your grandkids and their kids. so get out of that phase because you're hurting people, innocent people. this is your time to do something. not to walk away.

for those people who say oh, the environment, that's not an important issue to the people, uh-huh, it's a big deal. every time my friends here try to repeal parts of the clean air act, we've stopped them. the house voted 90 times with these terrible riders. we stopped them every time. 80% of the people support the clean air act. we have to protect our families. now, we have seen a country that has thrown the environment under the bus. now they say they're changing, but let's see what a country looks like. instead of listening to my words, let's look at a photo. this is what life is like in some chinese provinces. they don't care about the environment. they do what some of my friends say. repeal this -- they don't even have these laws to repeal. they don't care. just develop, just develop, just develop. don't pay attention, don't worry about best technologies. just throw the environment under

the bus. well, guess what? these people are being thrown under the bus. they can't breathe. and if you can't breathe, you can't work. so even china, they're learning they have to do something to clean up their environment. but we cannot look like this in the future. and i'm just telling you, people think oh, an exaggeration. i had one of my republican colleagues walk out on me in a hearing because we showed this picture, and said we don't want this. i'm not saying they want it. i'm saying if you repeal all the provisions of the clean air act that they're trying to repeal, and they want it, by the way, stop us from this rule, that's what's going to happen. not that they want it to happen. of course they don't want to happen. they don't think it's going to happen. but this has happened because in china, like us, they have a very big economy, they're expanding. we want to expand, but we've got

to do it in a clean way. so the people of my home state of california get this. they get this. the oil companies came in and they put millions of dollars to try to get us to repeal our cap-and-trade system and our rules and our laws, and people said no, no, no, we're not going there with you, big oil. clean up your act. my mother used to say clean up your room. you know. the room that they're polluting is our -- it belongs to everybody. it's the atmosphere. we all have to clean it up. this is not something that we take a pass on. this is the planet earth itself. somebody said the other day, you know, the earth will survive. it will look a lot different. the water will be different and this will be different. it won't be the same things

growing and forests will be elsewhere. well, what about the people? well, that wasn't a good story. it's up to us, mr. president. we have a lot on our shoulders. we really do. i'm not saying it's easy. nothing's easy. my dad used to say nothing good comes easy. it's true. got to try and figure it out. but i just want to say to this president tonight how proud i am that he has stepped up to the plate. all the screaming and the denials and the yelling and the rest, and the special interests, which my colleague, senator whitehouse, says has a barricade of lies around the capitol. and he's just looking at his daughters and he's looking at all the young people he meets, and he's saying, you know what? i've got to do something. and he's looking at the military, and he's looking at them, and he's thinking i'm being told, he's saying, by the

department of defense that climate change is making this an unstable world, and actually there is a very strong case to be made that was made on a documentary that a lot of cause of the syrian war started out with the farmers rebelling and revolting because they can't deal with what's happening to their lives; the farmers. so whether it's climate change or taking care of our veterans or all the other things facing us -- the violence -- we've got a lot on our plate. i just hope we can step up to the plate with the best of intentions, work across party lines, do our best, stop playing politics. everything, you know, president obama says one thing. it doesn't matter what he says; the other side is all over it. how could that be?

how could every single thing a person said be controversial? sometimes i think if the president said good morning, one of the republicans would say it is not. how dare you say it's a good morning? that's what it's getting to. we've got to put that aside. we're only here for a short amount of time, and we have to do our best to solve the problems the american people face. i took a long time tonight because i feel there are so many things out there that i'm so privileged to be able to talk about. and more important, i can do something about. and so i hope our colleagues will come together on these topics and we can make some progress for the good of the american people. so i would yield the floor, and i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. ms. warren: i come to the floor today -- the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. ms. warren: i'm sorry, mr. president. mr. president, i ask the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. warren: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i come to the floor today to offer my strong support of the environmental protection agency's clean power plan to cut carbon pollution from existing power plants. the e.p.a.'s proposal is a powerful step in the fight to protect our health and our

environment. we face a crisis. we know that high carbon dioxide levels in our atmosphere are driving climate change. we know those carbon dioxide levels are increasing the acidity of our oceans, disrupting already fragile marine ecosystems, and we know that power plants are responsible for about 40% of america's carbon pollution. add all that up and we know enough to know that reducing carbon pollution from power plant emissions will make a real difference in the fight against climate change. pollution from power plants is also associated with other dangerous chemicals. a study led by the university of syracuse and harvard university found that reducing carbon dioxide emissions from power plants can also reduce emissions of other pollutants sul as sul you are dioxide, particulate matter and mercury.

these dangerous chemicals contribute to acid rain, the destruction of ecosystems, ozone-damaged trees and cops and mercury and fish. these dangerous chemicals are also a direct threat to our health, increasing the risk of heart attacks, asthma and even death. add all that up and we know enough to know that reducing power plant emissions will make a real difference in the health of our children, our parents and ourselves. scientists all around the world have collected mountains of evidence about the dangers of carbon pollution and their basic conclusions are no longer speculative or debatable. even so, some politicians respond to this evidence by denying it is true, by rejecting scientific evidence or by claiming they just can't understand the science. this country wasn't built by people who ignored facts. sure, the deniers can defend

their friends in the pollution business. they can rail against science or pretend it doesn't exist. but the facts are catching up with us. this pollution is killing people across this country, and according to the american lung association, up to 100,000 asthma attacks and 4,000 premature deaths will be avoided in the first year that the clean power plan goes into effect. let the deniers deny the facts, but don't let them deny our children clean air to breathe or deny our parents long and healthy lives. the e.p.a.'s draft proposal, based on its authority under the clean air act, is a commonsense approach that builds on work already under way in states and cities across the country. under the proposal, states will work with the e.p.a. to redues

carbon pollution and they can use a -- reduce carbon pollution and they can use a variety of tools to do it. the clean power plan encourages states to be creative and efficient, to partner with private industry, to give our children a safer, healthier world. in massachusetts, we have seen how effective these solutions can be. after passing laws to improve energy efficiency and encourage renewable energy production, the commonwealth joined neighboring states as part of the regional greenhouse gas initiative. we call it rggi. since 2005, rggi has helped member states cut carbon emissions by 40%. rggi has shown results and it has done so with bipartisan support and the backing of many members of the business community, members who understand that taking action against pollution is not only good for our public health and our environment, it's also good for business. the fight against carbon

pollution is about protecting our health, protecting our communities and protecting our future, but make no mistake, this fight is also about whether this country works only for big energy companies or whether it works for everyone else, too. the terrible consequences of failing to act are real, and we can't afford to wait, but every time rules are proposed to clean up our air and water or to protect our environment, powerful deep-pocketed corporations line up to fight these changes. these opponents and their republican friends are already attacking the e.p.a.'s proposed changes. their latest move is to argue that the e.p.a.'s efforts somehow aren't legal. that argument is laughable. seven years ago, my state of massachusetts led a multistate fight that went all the way to the united states supreme court to force the e.p.a. to do its

job to address carbon pollution in this country. we won that case and we started a process that resulted in a supreme court ruling that the e.p.a. has the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the clean air act. but instead of embracing change, instead of working to develop rules to reduce pollution and protect the air we breathe, some companies and their republican friends have fought change at every step. they loudly drend the world where polluters cut their costs by spewing dangerous chemicals and greenhouse gases into our air and our water, leaving it to everyone else to deal with the consequences of their pollution. they loudly defend a world where giant oil companies suck down billions of dollars in subsidies every year while the green energy industries of the future fight for every scrap of

support. and they quietly work to tilt the playing field against the technologies of the future so that clean energy entrepreneurs and innovators have a harder time succeeding, while dirty energy companies keep raking in the profits. climate change is real. more than 120 million americans live in counties that border the shoreline and a rising sea threatens their homes and their communities. millions more live in the paths of wildfires or will be caught in the droughts that will devastate our land, but unlike big energy companies, they don't have armies of lobbyists or lawyers to protect their interests. they see washington ignore these problems, and they see a system that is rigged against them. these millions of americans have only their voices, and they call on us to fight for them, to fight for meaningful action to

address climate change. the e.p.a.'s new clean power plan is one part of the solution. we must build on this proposal and continue our efforts to cut carbon pollution, to improve energy efficiency and to invest in building a clean energy economy. i applaud president obama and e.p.a. administrator mccarthy for their leadership in pushing for meaningful standards and i expect that a strong final rule will be implemented next year. because no matter the opposition, no matter how powerful those industries that would let our forests burn, let our crops dry up, let our children get sick and let our cities drown just to protect their own profits, we have no choice but to take real action to fight climate change. the simple truth is that our

future depends on it. mr. president, i'm going to go over to another desk. the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. ms. warren: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. ms. warren: i ask the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. warren: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. warren: i ask unanimous

consent that when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until 10g a.m. on tuesday, june 3, 2014, following the prayer and pledge, the journal be approved, the morning business deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. that following any leader remarks, the senate be in a period of morning business until 11:00 a.m. with senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees with the majority controlling the first half and the republicans controlling the final half. that all time during morning business count postcloture on the harper nomination and that at 11:00 a.m., the senate proceed to executive session to consider the harper nomination postcloture with the time until noon equally divided and controlled in the usual form and that at noon all postcloture time be considered expired and

the senate vote on confirmation of the harper nomination. further, that at the conclusion of the cloture on the bowen nomination, the senate recess until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly caucus meetings. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. warren: there will be two roll call votes at noon tomorrow. additional roll call votes on nominations are expected. if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until

would ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: mr. president, mr. sessions: mr. president, >> mr. president on the presence in our mel agency today a group that directly reports to him and in which reflects his decisions about environmental matters has issued a new proposed regulation to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants by 30% by the year 2030. those are existing plants and they can be they can get pretty

and have that kind of reduction unless you have carbon capture and there's no technology feasible with any reasonable technology, it's not feasible economically to capture carbon so it's a dramatic hammering of a major portion of the base load electricity production in america and it just is and is going to drive up costs. what i want to say first and foremost is i'm very worried about our economy. this economy is not doing well and anybody that has paid close attention to it knows that we have had one thing, one very important positive factor over the last half-dozen years that has helped our economy bounce back and even caused some industries to bring back business from foreign -- and it's a decline in the energy process and it's a direct result primarily of fracking. a bill to produce more energy

from existing wells and proven to be a safe and effective way to do it and it's going over large portions of america. at although this administration and the environmental protection agency has thrown up a host of roadblocks to try to keep it from occurring but is such a powerful positive event that it's virtually unstoppable. so that's good. that is helping our businesses prosper. i remember in alabama where i grew up there was a group of chemical companies on the river and those chemical companies are international companies, first-rate companies got hammered when natural gas 10 or 15 years ago sword so much. many of them reduce their capacity. some were closed and were sold off and we lost a lot of good jobs. it happened in ohio. ohio had a devastation amongst

their strong chemical industry. it's beginning to come back now because of lower natural gas prices but other entities to too are very energy sensitive such as the steel industry. we are in a life-and-death competition to save america's steel industry. energy is a huge portion of that electricity is a big portion of that and to eliminate nearly 40% of our base load to drive up those costs unnecessarily above what we can rationally achieve is a mistake in my opinion. just looking at barron's this week, that's a business magazine that comes out weekly and it has articles on the state of some finances and american of course we know that the first quarter economic growth was revised

downward, downward to negative 1.0 from positive .1. this is the first negative growth in years since 2011 and it was some expect it. corporate profits excluding the depths of recession are the lowest in 20 years in america. we have fewer people working today than we had in 2007 although there were 15 million more people in america. fewer people working and more of them are working part-time then want to work part-time. we have a surge in part-time employment. that's not good either and wages are down. adjusted properly for inflation wages are down for immediate income is down in america per family by $2300.

and your wages are down. your job prospects are down. unemployment remains exceedingly high and we are now going to add in effect another tax, a regulatory tax on the price of energy so that persons electric bill and their gas bill is going to go up. that's the inevitable result of this. it just is and we have got to be careful about it. europe is already regretting the mistakes they have made. spain has had to abandon their only ambitious plan. german businesspeople are telling their leaders if you don't change the energy policy in this country we are not going to be able to compete and be successful likely have been in the world markets. this is not a little matter. it's about jobs, it's about middle-income heartbroken americans.

the lower income people in this country pay as much as -- is 25% of income for energy. all of the rich people, the people who travel around in big jets and claim to be concerned about the environment, they pay much less, $50,000 a year you pay about 11% of your income on energy. so higher energy costs are direct negatives for poor hard-working people in america. retired seniors that have no ability to have an increase in wages living on social security and little savings, boom you have another 10, 20, $30 a month for the electric bill and the guests goes up. erodes the standard of living and again it erodes the ability of american business to be competitive in the world marketplace. we have got to take back more work. in fact we are beginning to do that if we would do fewer bad

things. so we had a good result for lower energy prices and this is demanding that. it just is. say what people want to and we have got the pipeline. no we won't do the pipeline either. all that does is provide another source of oil and gas for america that forces existing american big oil companies to compete with. it helps bring down the price. if you don't have another source in canada you got less competition. competition helps bring down prices. i don't believe this administration wants to bring down the price of energy. in fact i think the opposite is true. in fact he said -- president obama did before he was elected -- that we could have anybody that builds of coal

plant was going bankrupt. it's just not possible to phase out the entire coal industry so rapidly. we have done so much to clean it up. they have spent billions of dollars reducing the pollutants that come out of those smokestacks and it has helped a lot. that is why our air is cleaner than it's been in years and we made a lot of progress. a lot of money has been spent but this is an excessive action in the focus primarily on co2. carbon dioxide. well we all know that great photosynthesis, we know how plants grow. we know they take in carbon dioxide and breathe out oxygen. we breathe in oxygen and let out carbon dioxide. carbon dioxide is odorless tasteless it's not poisonous, it's not harmful. in fact plants grow faster if there's more carbon carbon

dioxide than if there's less carbon dioxide than if there is less carbon dioxide. it's a scientific fact that's not disputable so what did they say? they say well the clean air act is the responsibility of eliminated pollutants from our atmosphere and it was passed in 1975 before anybody ever dreamed of global warming. so carbon dioxide, when the law was passed the clean air act in the 70s, they had no thought whatsoever in the united states congress that we would be banning carbon dioxide. one of the longest-serving congressman ever was a member of congress who voted on that and he recently said we had no idea that we were voting to eliminate carbon dioxide zahau did have been? well the epa says so?

and so will the environmental groups filing a lawsuit and they said congress passed a law in 1975 he that las said to reduce pollutants and you have a responsibility to -- reduce pollutants and carbon dioxide is a polluter. the ipcc, the international panel on climate change says that co2 creates global warming. a perfectly positive small amount of gas in our massive environment that makes plants grow better is increasing and it is. it's increasing in the environment because they are burning carbon fuels and if this increase is going to warm the planet we will have more storms more tornadoes and coastal flooding and all of this. therefore epa should regulate it

it must regulate it. the 5-4 ruling supreme court agreed. congress has never voted for that. congress has voted against global warming legislation multiple times and it will never ever pass this congress if it were brought up were a boat. never pass. so on elected folks in the environmental protection agency, unelected to appoint federal judges at least five of the nine concluded that this is a pollutants. so here we are, and i don't know whether we have got warming. i assume it is and temperatures i believe over the last 100

years have increased by one degree but i do think we need to be a lot more modest about this. this is well below what the alarmists have been telling us. i just want to show this chart. so how did it all have been? why did the supreme court decide that this plant food co2 as a pollutant? they say it was because these models are saying the planet is warming and a scientist agree which is not true but the scientists have said the planet is warning so therefore co2 is depleted. things aren't happening like the experts told us. it's just not happening.

i'm beginning to wonder what's going on here. this chart, the red line, this is zero. the red line isn't average of all the computer models that projected what the increase in climate temperature would be based on steadily increasing co2 in the atmosphere. back in the dinosaur days we have a lot more co2 in the atmosphere than we have today. but it has been reduced and it's been increasing as we go into the ground and get coal and get the natural gas and burn it. co2 is released back into the atmosphere after it out of the atmosphere through plants and animals. this is the chart. every single climate change model is the foundation of the

argument for dangerous global warming predicted more than has actually occurred in the last 15 years. so this is the chart. you go back to about 10,000 here and this green line is the actual results. i believe that's balloon temperature gauges and it actually hasn't gone up at all. since 2001. that's what? 13 years. this is not what they were predicting. the chart looks a little more dramatic than it is. this is zero and this is two tenths of a were predicting from 1979 a belief, they were predicting that the temperature would increase 1.2 degrees. it has increased about 310 of

one degree and that's in this part. but if you go here when the charges going off instead of accelerating every year it's been flat. some people say the sun is involved and we have other theories. i don't know. i assume we are going to have some warming out there but it's certainly not coming in at the rate that the alarmists have told us. that is an indisputable fact and we in congress need to be asking ourselves how much burden we can afford to put on the american people at this time. the president, got to tell you. one of the most frustrating things in disappointing things to me is that the president then last several years, over a year now because i've been asking his people before the environmental committee to be sure and tell

him not to say anymore. he has twice, three times said that the temperature is increasing faster than experts predicted. over the last 10 or 15 years. think about that. the president of the united states in the face of obvious dietary contraries repeatedly going out and saying it's increasing faster than the red line. that worries me. i believe the president of the united states has a responsibility when the advocates for policies to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. that is not so. it's not increasing faster. it really hasn't increased at all hardly in the last 10 or so years. well then they say the storms.

the president and his team when they had sandy hit go out and say that this is all a direct result of global warming. every time there's a storm, every time there's a drought, every time there's a problem it's always climate change, global warming. a dr. palkki from the university laid out the numbers. i don't have the details here but he testified before the environmental committee and he said it's not so. it's not hard to see how many hurricanes to have. you simply go back each year. calculated the hurricanes. how many category 5, four, thre.

the result is pretty astonishing that we have had -- we have had fewer of them. this chart is hard to read. i will just quote what it says. hurricanes have not increased in the united states in frequency, intensity or normalized damage since at least 1900. and these have not been disputed either. they have tried to push back an attack and that nobody has stated that disputes what he says because it's easy to calculate that data. it has now been -- important.

dr. palkki has recently produced an analysis that says it's been 3400 days since this country has had a category 3 hurricane. category 3. camille was a five and we have had some others in the past but we have had almost 10 years since we have had a category 3 and sandy, the storm that hit the northeast which was very rare and it happened to miss the southeast and miss florida and headed to the northeast, that storm was not even a hurricane when it hit land. it was below the speed i understand of the hurricane. at best it was a category 1. it just happened to hit the northeast where people are not used to it and it did a lot of damage. so how can it be argued as

colleagues that global warming is causing more storms? dr. palkki also has said that the 2012/2013 tornado season was one of the lowest in the last 50 years. only five out of 50 years have been that low. we are not seeing an increase in tornadoes. you read about them and we have the weather channel and they talk about the more but in truth the numbers aren't there. now if hurricanes are down and this 3000 days before we had a category 3 hurricane it's just about the longest in history that have we -- that we have recorded. it's an unusual drought of hurricanes. it means a lot to me. i live in mobile, alabama and i

remember hurricane frederick 1975 barreling right up mobile bay. i remember the fear people have because those who had been there when camille hit nearby mississippi, the fear. i know something about hurricanes. and there are very real factors and this surprises me when we have had as few as we have but we have also not seen an increase in tornadoes. well, so now what we are proposing is that we have got to carry out a policy that goes eons our technology to produce electricity in a cost-effective manner and it has the impact of massively closing baseload coal plants, existing plants are going to be hammered as well as new ones won't be built.

i'm also on the subcommittee of them vermin to public works dealing with nuclear power. not a single american since the beginning of nuclear power 50 years ago has been killed as a result of a nuclear power accident. how many died in natural gas pipelines and drilling rigs and coalmines and transportation of coal and so forth? we basically shut down nuclear power. i'm telling you, this is a big problem for our country. with the erosion of the clear power we have had four plants close, existing nuclear plants close. they are being hammered with regulations and they have never been safer. we have never known more about how to operate a nuclear plant safely then we know today.

but only one or two are being constructed and it has the potential to erode the 20% of our electricity that comes from nuclear power. so we lose coal and we lose nuclear power and most of these plans are 30 plus or 45 years old. they assume if we don't replace them where will our did she come from pray tell? and finally anything that we do today to try to impact co2 is only a drop in the bucket worldwide. there building coal-fired plants in china and india and the east and the middle east and other

places in large numbers. we are very a very small part of the overall picture and our actions are not going to reverse this trend. so i don't know. i don't pretend to know all the answers but i would say this. how do we know that if we have more co2 and we have more global warming and global climate change, how do we know it won't result in fewer hurricanes? we have had fewer. how do we know it won't result in fewer tornadoes? we have had fewer tornadoes. life on the planet has tended to be more healthy and prosperous in times of higher temperatures than lower temperatures. i certainly don't want to see a surge in temperature in america

rapidly changing thing. i think we could have real damage and as i said i don't know what the full answer is. i'm just saying in my judgment that this administration is pushing this beyond what is reasonable. it's going to adversely affect the economy of america. it's going to drive up the cost of every household electric bile bill and every business in america that hires american workers is going to try to export products. those products are going to be more expensive as they have to pay more for their energy. and the last thing we need to be doing at this point in american history is driving up artificial price of energy. one expert said a number of years ago that the lifespan, the

average lifespan of a person in a nation where electricity is readily available is twice that then were it's not really available. a than in places of the world where there is not electricity and you see the difficulties that they have with cleanliness and so forth. and cooling in keeping food in the refrigerator and the disease that comes from that. energy is a positive force. it has made this world, the developed world so much more prosperous. it is creating wealth that can be used for good causes to clean up the environment and produce healthy foods and all for billions worldwide.

so i don't think we should see energy is an thing. i think energy is a good thing and we don't need to drive the price of it up. it just makes life harder for people especially those with limited income. so mr. president i think the chair for the opportunity to chair -- share these thoughts. it means a lot to me and we will keep analyzing the proposals that the president has presented and i remain very concerned as a matter of constitutional order that this is being done without a vote of the people. this is being done by a 5-4 supreme court ruling in an aggressive president and an aggressive epa. it seems like there's not enough and there's an inability in congress to do anything about it. the average american who disagrees has no voice

apparently and it's been able to have their voice heard. we will continue to talk about it as time goes by. we will look at the trends and hopefully we can look at some of the excesses that i think clearly exists and if the chair would yield the floor. >> having just come down from the chair mr. president i want to be fully respond to the remarks of the junior senator from alabama who made a pretty stunning and broad denial of science for about 15 years on the floor of the senate as part of what i imagine will be a pretty robust critique of the rules from the administration. mr. president as school kids we probably all have the chance to read the play the wind gauge -- for students to read and when

you read up look excoriating matthew harrison brady on the stand you in the book with almost a sense of sorrow about the unraveling of brady's argument and the kind of figured that he has portrayed in the end of the book to be. i guess my hope is that that same degree of strange affection may be the legacy of those who come down to the floor and engage in the same kind of denial of basic science that is at the root of the scopes monkey trial and the book that made her famous. our colleague talked about the fact that the jury is still out as to whether the planet is warming. here's the 10 hottest years on record. since 1880.

2010, 2005, 1998, 2013, 2003, 2002, 2006, 2009, 2007 in 2004. the senator said the jury is still out that the science doesn't really suggest that global warming is happening. he's right, 97% of scientists of peer-reviewed literature have come to the conclusion that the planet is warming and humans are contributing to it. the intergovernmental panel of climate change said this in their last report. the warming of the climate system is unequivocal. my friend said even if it is happening we are really only a small part of the problem so why is it even necessary for us to ask? we are not a small part of the problem. we are fibers in the world's population and 20% of the world's pollution. even if the specific actions this week to represent a very small percentage of the ultimate solution when we talk about

trying to get the temperature of the planet under control, that's it terrible argument in another self and frankly the reason why none of this should bother to vote because each one of our own actions in and of itself doesn't affect the overall outcome. it's the collection of all the actions that we take in a democracy to make a difference. it's a collection of actions that we will take as a community of nations and individuals that will ultimately make the difference. mr. president i imagine this debate will continue. >> our planned claims to cut energy ways to leverage cleaner sources by doing two things.

first by setting achievable enforceable state goals to cut carbon pollution per megawatt hour of electricity generated and second, it's laying out a national framework that gives states the flexibility to chart their own customized path on how they meet their goals. all told, in 2030 when the states meet their final goals our proposal will result in 30% less carbon pollution from the power sector across the united states in comparison to 2005 levels. [applause] thank you. [applause] just to put that in perspective that says if we canceled out all the annual carbon pollution from

two-thirds of the cars and trucks in america. this was the preferred path forward. and if you add up what we actually avoid before 2030 even comes it's more than double the carbon pollution from every power plant in america in 2012. it is double what every power plant in america generated in terms of pollution in 2012. and as a bonus in 2013 we will cut pollution significantly that causes smog and soot by 25% or more than if we didn't have this rule in place. now that's great. [applause] >> we are living through a really traumatic period. it's really the beginning rather than and and there are real

structural problems. i mean yes, we are going to be living and i'm not an economic forecaster but everything i read suggests we are going to be living with an unusually high level of unemployment, a lot of pain or mauve or indebtedness. it's not a great depression. we are not repricing exactly would have been in the 30s but it's a version of that. ..

>> created by america's cable company 35 years ago and brought to you as a public service by your cable provider or satellite provider. >> host: our guest is craig silliman. he is the senior vice president for senior policy at verizon. he has been with the company since 1997 and