higher education for the next several years, including student loans. yet, all of a sudden we hear that senate democrats want to show up on the floor with a partisan political stunt that interrupts the work of the senate education committee, and here is what they would do. they would raise individual income taxes. they would raise the debt. and they would, based upon data from the congressional research service, give some former students with old student loans a $1 a day federal subsidy to pay off their loan. now, let me go back over the terms of this proposal just so everybody has it in mind. this is the main thing, $1 a day. that's the benefit. doesn't do anything for current students. doesn't do anything for new students. for some former students, according to the congressional budget office -, maybe half the

loans -- the taxpayers will give them $1 a day to help them pay off their student loans. now, along with that, we -- we increase the national debt, the federal debt, by up to $420 billion. that debt is out of control to begin with. the congressional budget office has estimated that over the next 10 years, we're going to go from something over $200 billion to close to $800 billion. we'll be spending in 10 years more on interest on our national debt than we will be on national defense of the yet for this political stunt, we're going to run that up another $420 billion maybe. that's close to half a trillion dollars. that's not all. to pay for all this, we're going to raise individual income taxes by $72 billion. now, this is a familiar propos proposal. this is the class warfare tax increase that the senate has rejected eight times. there's nobody in this senate that thinks this will pass the senate the ninth time it's brought up. so it's only brought up, it's

only interrupting what we're doing in our committee for a partisan political stunt. so we've raised the debt. we're going to increase taxes for what? well, to help students pay off their loans. so they get $1 a day to pay off what loan? well, 85% of the student loans -- and there are a lot of them, there are a trillion dollars of outstanding student loans because we have a lot of students and we're a big country. and we have 6,000 colleges and universities. but 85% of the undergraduate loans are $21,600 on the average. that's right, these are one year or some students go for two years to community colleges. some get a four-year degree. but for the 85% of the student loans that are undergraduate loans, this is the average debt. it's not $300,000. it's not $200,000, it's not

$100,000. it's $21,600. now, of those undergraduate loans, this is the average debt for a federal student loan. if you have a four-year degree from the university of tennessee or university of california or michigan, wherever you are, and you borrowed money to go to school, this is your average debt, $27,300 when you graduate for a four-year college degree. it's about the same for a new car loan. sometimes students get their car loan before they get their car. so to get a sense of how big a burden this loan is, for the average student with a four-year degree, it's the same as a car loan. i suspect if we're going to have a $1 a day taxpayer subsidy to pay off a $27,000 student loan to go to college, the next thing you know, the democrats are going to show up during the

election year and say let's have $1 a day to help people pay off their $27,000 car loan. at least we know that the day you drive your car off the lot, it starts depreciating. and what do we know about the college education? here's what we know about it. that if you have a four-year degree, according to the college board, that's worth to you a million dollars in increased earnings during your lifetime. that's according to the college board. no one really contradicts this. i saw a very good article by "new york times" economist a couple of weeks ago that had a little different number. they said -- they were using a net negative of a half -- of a half million dollars after you deduct the costs of going to college. but half a million to a million dollars in increased earnings. can you -- can you think of a better investment than $27,000 to earn a million dollars over

your lifetime? that's what a college degree does. that's what a college degree does. and what our friends on the other side are saying is we need to raise the debt and raise taxes to help college students who are graduates and who are going to be earning a million more dollars over their lifetime pay off a $27,000 -- a $27,000 loan. madam president, college students don't need -- college students don't need a $1-a-day federal taxpayer subsidy to pay off a $27,000 student loan, which is the average loan for a four-year college degree. they need a job. they need a job. and republicans are prepared, if this comes to the floor, to offer amendments to help create more good, new jobs.

we've tried several times to do that but the majority leader doesn't like for us to bring these up. for example, we'd like to offer a bill to increase from 30 hours to 40 hours the work week under the health care law. that has bipartisan support. but it would change the health care law so we can't offer that one. we'd like to offer an amendment to build the keystone pipeline. well, that has 75 or so senators on both sides of the aisle, maybe more than that, who voted for it, who say they support it, but the majority leader doesn't want us to bring that one up. we'd like to have an amendment to give the president the trade promotion authority that president obama has asked for. president obama sees the world. he sees asia. he's negotiating a treaty with asia. he's negotiating a trade treaty with europe. he would like to see more american exports go to europe and go to asia, which would

increase jobs at home. he's asked the congress, he stood right here in his state of the union, asked us to approve that. the majority leader says, no, not going to bring that up. we have a work force investment act that may come up this week -- we hope it will. we'd like to repeal the obamacare individual mandate. there are a number of provisions that we'd like to bring up under more jobs, so this $1-a-day subsidy that's supposed to be the keystone of the -- of the democrats' jobs program, well, we're ready to talk about jobs and we'll have amendments to bring up when this comes to the floor. or if the subject is education, we're ready to talk about education. it would certainly be a lot better if we'd put on the floor bills that have actually gone through the education committee. i complimented the senator from iowa a little earlier. i've enjoyed working with him. i'm the ranking member, he's the ranking member on his side. the health, education, labor and pensions committee is the most productive committee in this senate. it has a large jurisdiction. we've passed 19 bills out in a

bipartisan way. 10 of them have become law. i don't think any other committee can say that. we take our work very seriously and we're -- we -- just as we're doing today on the higher education act and just as we did on trying to fix no-child-left-behind. we spent a good deal of time on no-child-left-behind. we reported a will to the floor. we it -- we reported a bill to the floor. we have competing proposals. democrats want more of a national school board. and republicans want to reefs that trebd and send -- reverse that trend and send more decisions back to state and local government. we want to fix no child lif left hyped. wleftbehind. we have a different version. but we need to have a debate. the house is ready to fix no child left behind. the senate education committee is ready to fix no child left behind. so if we want to have a debate

about education this week, let's bring up a bill that's been considered by the committee, where we have competing proposals. better schools mean higher graduation rates and that means better jobs. so we're ready to offer our amendments for more good jobs. we're ready to offer our amendments for better schools. in addition to our proposal for reversing the trend toward a national school board, i have a proposal to create scholarships for kids. did you know if you took 80 of the federal education programs and gave the states the permission to do this, that they could create create $2,100 scholarship for every low-income child in america which would follow that child to the school of the parent's choice. we wouldn't be imposing any school choice plan on any state. we don't believe in mandates. but if a state wanted to say to a low-income child, that money can follow you to your school so they can have an after-school program or an extra teacher, a governor could do that.

and senator scott of south carolina has offered a similar proposal to say, let's take the federal disability money and if you have a down's syndrome child and you've found a school that fits that child's needs very well, why not allow that federal disability money to follow the child to the school the child attends? let the parent make that choice. we're ready to offer that amendment. we have a quality charter scho schools provision. half -- 5% of the schools in america are charter schools. charter schools are schools that give teachers freedom, they give parents freedom to serve the children who are in that school. they began just 20 years ago and they're at the -- they have bipartisan support. president clinton was in nashville not long ago announcing his support and raising money for a nashville charte and then i have an amendment to stop the -- to stophe education secretary from becoming chairman of a national school board.

states are struggling with no-child-left-behind. there's a provision in our law to allow waivers of provisions of no-child-left-behind. but this secretary, who's a fine man, a great friend, says that if you want a waiver in ore or hawaii or washington or tennessee, you've got to do four or five things that i say, i in washington say. you've got to have these standards. you've got to have this sort of teacher evaluation system. i'm going to tell you what to do about that. i don't think he has the authority to do it. the american people don't want a national school board. so if we want to talk about education, we're ready with amendments on education. and if you want to introduce a class welfare tax, we're ready to talk about taxes as well. we'd like to repeal the medical device tax and we're looking for an opportunity to offer that. so if we're going to put a tax provision on the floor, let's have a tax debate. let's have a debate about permanent state and local tax

deductions. let's prohibit the individual tax mandate in obamacare. let's have -- make permanent expensing of section 179. senator thune has that proposal. and the house is acting on it this week. let's make permanent the research and development tax credit. that has bipartisan support as well. and if the subject is just higher education, we have amendments about that as well. but, madam president, the place for these amendments, the place for this discussion is in our senate education committee, where we are discussing those ideas today, discussing them today. and the way to do that this year is the way we did it last year. when the president, to his great credit, saw a opportunity to work with the republicans in the house, came over here with a bipartisan group and we hammered out an agreement on a very big subject that, as i said, cut nearly in half the interest rate

on undergraduate student loans. so why in the world do senate democrats want to waste a week on a political stunt? we thought we'd ended that with student loans last year. waste a week. we've got veterans standing in lines at clinics. we've got appropriations bills standing in line waiting to be considered here to deal with cancer research and national defense. and democrats say, no, let's put that aside, let's have a political stunt on higher education even though we know it's not going anywhere. we know it's not going anywhere. i'm have a disappointed by this. this is an example, this $1-a-day taxpayer subsidy to some students with former loans to help them pay off a $27,000 loan with a hope that it will get some votes. i thought we had put that behind us. it's one reason -- this is one reason the american people lose

confidence in the united states senate. this body's described in a book "the american senate," written by neil mcneil -- the late neil mcneil and the former historian of the senate, it's described as the one piece of authentic genius in the american constitutional system. and why is that? because there are a hundred of us. we operate by unanimous consent. it's a place for extended debate on important issues until we reach a consensus. and our founders were so wise because they thought they had a complicated country but it's not nearly as complex as we have today. and the only way you govern a complex country is through consensus, just as we did last year on new student loans. i would like to see the senate

move back to the place it was a few years ago and it wasn't that long ago. many of the members of the senate don't know about it because so many members are new. did you know half the members of the united states senate have been here one term or less? they really haven't seen the senate operate the way it's supposed to operate the republican leader said if the republicans were in charge of the senate he would like to operate it the way a former democratic leader did, mike mansfield, number one, let bills go through the committee, and number two, bring them to the floor for robust debate, let people put up the ideas. the majority has the right to set the agenda and the minority has the right to offer amendments and then in the senate the idea is you have an extended discussion until you reach a consensus if you can. and the way that historically was done -- i remember senator byrd or senator baker, i was

here as an aide then, not as a senator. they would say to a chairman or ranking member bring me a bill like they would say to senator harkin, bring me the fix no child left behind bill if you've got the republican members' support. and i would say in this case he doesn't have my support but i voted for it to get it to the floor. i stand here, he stands there and we'll open it to debate and try to amendment it. we -- amended. we have a conference, it comes back, we come to a consensus. how do we get that done? the majority leader stands up on monday and says we're going to do fix no child left behind this week and we're going to finish by saturday or we're going to finish by a week from saturday and you may offer all the amendments you want but you're going to be here saturday or sunday and pretty soon by about thursday many senators say, well, i've got a grandchild's soccer game or might want to go home and it regulates that way. it's never perfect. this is a place where we dispute

big issues. but the idea that united states senators can't offer amendments on important issues is making this senate into a place of trivia instead of a place where -- where it's an authentic piece of genius. the senator from -- from wyoming, senator barrasso, did some interesting research. he pointed out that since july there have only been nine amendments offered by republicans that received a roll call vote. nine amendments offered by republicans since last july that received a roll call vote. that's like in tennessee they'd say that's like being in the grand ole opry and not being allowed to sing. that's what we do. we're supposed to have a say about student loans, about iran, ukraine, about all these issues. we might win, might lose but on behalf of our constituents we're supposed to have a say.

that's not nearly as bad, the senator from wyoming did a little more research and this is what he found -- while senate republicans have had nine amendments since last july, guess how many senate democrats have had -- seven. seven roll call amendments. now, senate democrats have offered according to the senator from wyoming 676 amendments and the majority leader has allowed six. six roll call votes since last july. how do you explain that when you go home? how do you explain a political stunt on student loans that everybody knows is a political stunt, that won't pass, and how do you plain to veterans standing in lines at clinics and to appropriations members standing in lines with bills to deal with cancer research and national defense that a political stunt is more important? this is not the way the senate is supposed to operate. but let's go back to this $1 a day stunt. it's unfair to students, unfair

to taxpayers, it's unfair to future generations. it's unfair to students because it treats former students better than it treats current students and new students. this proposal, the senate democrats' proposal being brought to the floor this week doesn't do a single thing for you if you're a current student or if you're going to be a student next year or the following year. it just helps some former students with old loans. and it treats them better than it would treat if you you're a new student because it will freeze into a place an interest rate, say, three years from now if you're a former student with an old loan, and if you're a new student you've got to ride with the market and your rate might be a little higher. the senate domestic proposal is unfair to taxpayers for two reasons. first, it increases individual

neasms by -- income taxes by $72 billion. that's a big number. it's been rejected ailt times. it's a class warfare tax just focused on a few people. and second, you may have heard it said that the government profits on the students when it comes to students. -- student loans. in fact, the reverse is true. when we use the accounting system that the congressional budget office says we ought to use, the student loan program actually costs taxpayers over the next ten years $88 billion. let me repeat that. you'll hear it said by the advocates of the $1 a day subsidy to help you pay off your student loan that the government's profiting over the students. not if you use the accounting system that the congressional budget office has said we should use. and what's the difference? the congressional budget office says the system we do use doesn't take into account the risk that students might not pay back their loans.

and today, the congressional budget office estimates that 10% of student loans are in default. that proper sort of accounting system is not foreign to the senate. we used it with the troubled asset relief program. the so-called bailout. because the idea was if we're going to assess with the cost of a program would be, we wanted to take into account the risks. i have here what the congressional budget office said , the congressional budget office recommends that we use the fair value accounting procedures. it considers that a better methodology. it says that the student loan program as it exists under that accounting system will cost taxpayers $88 billion over the next ten years. and as i said, the main reason is that the fair value system

takes into account risk, the risk that students might not pay off some of their loans. this is the quote of the congressional budget office. for those who might not know about what we call the c.b.o., we pay this group, the c.b.o., to tell us the truth. they're nonpartisan. they don't always tell was we want to hear and we your bill try to ignore it when they don't and shade something off it, we heard a different point of view. here's what they said. under the fair value approach estimates are based on market values, market prices when those prices are available or approximation when directly comparable figures are unavailable. which more fully account for the cost of the risk the government takes on in particular the fair market approach accounts for the cost of the market risk which the other procedure that we currently use does not. the congressional budget office continues, and this is may,

2013 -- 2014, the government is exposed to market risk because borrowers default on their debt obligations and recoveries from borrowers are lower. that makes sense. when the government extends credit, the associated market risk of those obligations is effectively passed on to taxpayers, who as has investors would view that risk as having a cost. therefore the fair value approach offers a much more comprehensive estimate of federal costs. that's why last year when the president worked on a bipartisan way with senators and with the republican house we came to a conclusion that didn't raise taxes, that didn't raise the debt, and that still cut rates nearly in half for undergraduates. finally, the senate domestic proposal is unfair to future generations because it could add

as much as $420 billion to an already out-of-control national debt. it does this by allowing private loans to be turned into public loans. private debt becomes the government's debt. recently as i said, the congressional budget office warned that interest on the debt in the next ten years will rise from $227 billion to $876 billion, an amount greater than the entire cost of our nation's national defense. so this $1 a day subsidy does not justify this unfairness to other students, to taxpayers, and to future generations. now, madam president, let me conclude by talking about the real problem and the real solutions with student loans. today the president held a press conference in which he proposed issuing a regulation by executive order that he said would extend an income repayment

plan to millions more students. well, we had some questions like that. we don't know what that costs and apparently neither doesed. we know it doesn't take effect for another year or so because it would take time to figure it out. hive had a hard time figuring out reading the law where the president gets the authority to do this. it's based upon the health care act in 2014 which included provisions about the student loans, but in the health care law it talks about an income repayment plan that affects loans beginning july 1, 2014 and the president both with this stiewf order and -- executive order and his 2011 executive order speaks of loans before july 1, 2014. so we don't know the cost, it's questionable authority, and so here we are, press conference at the white house, political

stunt on the senate floor dealing with loans, when we know better than that. we know how to do that. the president knows if he could sit down with those of us in the senate who are working on student loans and in the house and say here, i've have some ideas about income repayment and we would say, mr. president, number one, we respect what did you last year and would like to work with you again and number two, you're on the right subject because there are two big problems, real problems, with student loans. one is the complexity of the income repayment plan. now, the truth is the obama administration itself is guilty of causing most of the complexity. because the plan was put in place by law in 2007 and then it was amended in 2010 and then there was a regulation in 2011 and now there's another regulation and basically what it started out as was to say if you've got a student loan, and

you have to pay it back and you're not making much money, you don't have to pay more than 15% of your discretionary income. that's not even your total income, it's just part of your income. and if you can't pay it off over 25 years, the government will forgive it. and what -- and what the bill did in 2010 was to cut that down and say, well, you only have to pay 10% of your income. and if you haven't paid it off in 20 years the government will forgive it. that's available today for students. so let's compare what's available already today on the books even if the president's proposal regulation today doesn't go into effect for students. for students who want lower monthly payments on their student loans, there are already provisions in the federal law that allow the typical undergraduate to lower his or her payment by $60 more a

month than the $1 a day plan from the senate democrats. and for the typical graduate student, the existing repayment plans could lower monthly payments by $3,300 a -- $300 a month, and urptd under the current law if the loan isn't paid off in 20 years, the government forgives it. here's what we have in america today. we have $100 billion of student loans every year, $33 billion of grants, all going out to students at a very low rate, most of the students don't have any credit history and they don't need it to get the money. we hear a lot of talk about the expense of a college education and for some colleges it is very expensive. i went to school -- i had two or three jobs and a couple of

scholarships. that's how i was able to go to vinder built university. but -- vanderbilt university. but for students today it's important for them to know that the average cost of tuition and fees at a two-year college -- and there are some excellent ones all over our country, two-year public institution is $3,200. the average cost of tuition and fees at a public four-year institution -- and some of the best four-year institutions in america are public four-year institutions -- california, tennessee, hawaii, washington state. these are very good universities. the average cost of tuition and fees is $8,900. and three out of four college students go to these two-year college, where the tuition and fee is $3,200, or four-year college where it's just under

$9,000 and in addition, madam president, 40% of those same students, the three out of four go to public colleges and universities, 40% of them have a grant, which they don't have to pay back. it's called a pell grant. and it may be as much as $5,600. so the truth is that for millions of college students going to college today is free. it's free. i mean, do the math yourself. if your community college is $ $3,200 and you get a $5,600 pell grant, you've got some extra money. and you can still get a loan, if you want to, and then you have even more extra money, which leads to the other real problem with student loans that we'd like to work with the president on, and that is overborrowing. the first problem is the complexity of the income repayment plan. and we can change that. we can -- we can make that clear, just as we did last year

with many of the new loans; we can make the income repayment plan much easier for students to take advantage of. but what about over borrowing? we read in the paper about these huge numbers. it seems like everybody we read about has a $300,000 loan or a $150,000 loan, that they'll never be able to pay back. and i guess a few people do. but according to mark canterwicz, a scholar who studied student debt, more than 90% of students who graduated with a loan of more understand thatsunderstand-- of morethan $e students. if you read about a student loan that is more than $100,000, more than 90% of those are for graduates students. and we just said a moment ago that undergraduate students can earn more than $1 million in

their lifetime with their four-year degree. doctorate, graduate students can earn more than that, with their advanced cases. but of the graduate students who have the more thank $100,000 loans, it's only 2% of all the loans. so 2% of all the student loans in the country that are federal government loans are more than $100,000. and the average undergraduate loan is $27,000, and for all undergraduate loans, which is 85% of the loans, it's $21,000. now, there is some overborrowing even among undergraduates. young people -- maybe they are a not all young -- are borrowing more than they can afford to pay back. in your committee we're considering a number of proposals to deal with that, but for graduate and undergraduate loans. for example, we'd like to

simplify the student loan program so that more students could take advantage of it and take advantage of the repayment options that exist in the law today, but we need to know how much that costs to taxpayers. we need to know. number two, we've been talking about eliminating the graduate-plus program that provides virtually unlimited loans to graduate students, regardless of their credit history. that may be how they got to these loans that we read about occasionally, $1 50,000, $200,000. let's say you're taking a half-time load at a four-year institution and you take out a full loan to pay for that. that means you have some extra money for living expenses or more for a car.

i'm not sure that what we want to do as a matter of national policy is loan as part of this program money for expenses other than education and costs associated with education. we like to give colleges and universities the ability to require counseling of students who borrowing $100 billion a year. did you know that under the current law a college is prohibited from saying to me if i am an entering student at the university of tennessee and i say, give me my loan, i'm entitled to it. you know the college is prohibited from requiring me to have some financial counseling about whether i could pay that back or not. i'm 18, 19 years old, i have no credit history, maybe not much experience with money, and the college that hands me the money is prohibited by us from requiring counsel. and we may want to limit the amount that a student can borr

borrow. we may want to allow colleges to have a role in doing that. we may even -- and this has been suggested -- require higher education institutions in some instances to have skin in the game, to ensure that graduate students and undergraduate students repay their loans. in other words, the higher education institution would have part of the risk. those are some of the ideas that are being considered today in the senate education committee. so, madam president, every senator has the right to bring onto this floor whatever he or she wants to bring on. it is up to the majority leader to decide what we focus our precious time on. i'm here today to suggest that a $1-a-day subsidy for college graduates to help them pay off a

$27,000 loan, which is the average loan for a four-year college graduate, which is almost exactly the same as the average car loan, is not a worthy subject for our discussion this week when we've got veterans standing in line at clinics and appropriations bills dealing with cancer and national military defense waiting to come on the floor. and that's especially true when we have a president of the united states who' who who's pre can work with congress. the republicans in the house said that. we sthaid in a bipartisan way. i think most students who are enjoying the benefit you have that would agree with that. so we thought last year, madam president, we'd stop the political students on student loans. we put a market price system on all new loans at no no new costo

the taxpayers, no new debt, so this wouldn't become an election inform yea-- sothis wouldn't ben election-year football. every single senator knows that has no chance of getting to the house, which won't touch it or even getting to the snavment over in the senate education committee we're discussing this in the way we're supposed to do. if it comes to the floor we're ready to amend it. we've got our proposals for more good jobs. college graduates don't need a $1-a-day subsidy to help pay off ada $27,000 loan. they need a good-paying job and we're ready to help them get one, with keystone pipeline pipe, with going from a 30- to a

40-hour work week. we've got some taxes that we'd like to bring up as well. that includes repealing the medical dwis tax, which ought to have a good bipartisan vote here in the senate. it has before. on education we've got our ideas, too, and so do the democrats, by the way. those have been through committee. they've been hashed out. they're ready for the floors. they're a competing vision -- there's a competing vision. 2ke78s wandemocrats want a natil board. on this bill if we want to talk about education, i'd like to have a chance to introduce my amendment that says, no national school board. let's send those decisions back to state and local governments. i think there are senators on both sides of the aisle that would like to vote for that. what i would really like to see is the president to accept our inthyvitation to work with -- our invitation to work with him. that's what we did last year. we go to a good result. he's put his focus in the right place. i might say respectfully, maybe

he's in the right church but the wrong pew. ihe's talking about income repayment plans. we think that's one of the big problems left to solve. and we'll work with him to simplify those and reform those. but we want to make sure that the government has clear legislative authority to do it and we want to know what it cost oz. and the-- what it costs. then we'd like to work with him on excessive overborrowing. so why don't we do that? why don't weig don't we send tho the senate education subcommittee, put it in with all the other ideas we're discussing. let's continue our work in that committee in a bipartisan way. to see if we can this year reauthorize a proposal for the higher education act and let's use this time for the veterans standing in line or the

appropriations bills, which deal with so many issues, which we haven't had a chance to consider for the last few years. so i'm disappointed with today's press conference at the white house and the political stunt that's headed towards the senate floor, but i'm hoping that the president will take a look at what he did last yeerd and feel a good -- last year and feel a good deal of satisfaction about it and sit down and see if we can't do something about simplifying repayment. and dealing with excessive borrowing and some of the other issues that we're working on in education. i think we can do that two years in a row, and i think the american people would appreciate it if we tried. i thank the president. i yield the floor.

madam president, i notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new mexico. mr. heinrich: i ask unanimous consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. heinrich: it is an honor to join tom udall? celebrating the life of chester nez, the last of the original code talkers who passed away last wednesday and to honor the role the native american code

talkers played in the allied victory in world war ii. our liberty and patriotic spirit were personified by the commitment, service and legacy of chester nez, he was a true american hero. chester nez helped to create an unbreakable code during world war ii. he served in the united states marine code to protect the nation and also his people, language, and culture. he understood the significance and the importance of his language and used it as a shield to defend this very nation. chester nez chose to enlist in the marines at a young age not knowing he would become part of an elite group of indigenous code talkers. despite growing up in an era where speaking the native language was prohibited but also punished, his fluency in navajo and english made him invaluable to the war effort.

he was a member of the all navajo 302nd marine platoon, entrusted for a role impenetrable. it literally changed the course of history. after chester nez's service, he continued to remain silent about his instrumental role as a navajo code talker, maintaining a quiet, modest and humble lifestyle until the mission was declassified in 1968. later in life, mr. nez shared his contributions and his experiences in world war ii with younger generations. he advocated for keeping that, the navajo language, its traditions, its culture alive so that future generations would know how influential the navajo people and language were during world war ii. thanks to mr. nez and his fellow code talkers, our nation's remarkable spirit continues to thrive, and we are forever

grateful for their service. i join all new mexicans, madam president, in keeping chester nez's family and friends in our thoughts and prayers. and i would yield back the balance of my time.

quorum call:

.

mr. grassley: i come to the floor to speak about the nomination of peter kazic to be assistant attorney general for legal affairs on the justice department. i happen to know that the majority leader hasn't yet filed cloture on this nomination but i expect that he will in the near future and so now i take the opportunity to speak about that nomination. it's no secret that i have concerns about mr.kadzik's nomination. i opposed his nomination in

committee and will oppose it when it comes to a vote on the floor. the reasons are pretty simple. mr. kadzik has been acting in that position since april 2013 in the position -- in other words, in the very same position which he's been nominated for. this job is -- his job is to respond to questions from members of congress we've got a clear track record to judge his performance. that record has been dismal. letters go unanswered for mont months. then when answers come, they ignore or dodge the questions. even before coming to the justice department, mr. kadzik had shown a lack of respect for congressional oversight. while he was in private practice, he represented the

billionaire tax fugitive, mark rich. rich was infamously pardoned at the end of the clinton administration following a large donation by mrs. rich to the clinton presidential library. no fugitive has ever been pardoned before, let alone a billionaire fugitive who owed millions of unpaid taxes. in the course of the congressional investigation into that controversy, mr. kadzik was subpoenaed to testify at the house hearing in 2001. he refused the committee's invitation to testify voluntarily. then he decided to fly to california the day before the hearing. the house committee had to send the u.s. marshals to serve him with a subpoena in california ordering him to return for the hearing. he later denied that his attorneys knew a subpoena was on the way when he got on the

plane. but his denial is contradicted by handwritten notes from 2001 telephone conversations with his attorneys about the subpoena. those notes are in the record of his confirmation hearings and i invite any senator to review them. some people might say, well, that was a long time ago and maybe it was just a misunderstanding. but one thing is not in dispute, even by mr. kadzik. he refused the house committee's request to testify voluntarily. he was unwilling to cooperate unless forced to do so by compulsory legal process. everything in his record since then has reinforced the impression that mr. kadzik is simply not interested in answering questions from congress unless he's got no other choice.

he was not forthcoming during his nomination hearing on several issues, not just the mark rich controversy. getting him to answer simple inquiries has required two or even three sets of questions. he wouldn't even promise to answer each individual questions from members of our judiciary committee. instead, he had a bad habit of grouping together a set of specific detailed questions and then repeating one vague non-answer over and over. in one s. of responses, he repeated -- in one set of responses, he repeated word for word answers to previous questions nine times. that simply is not a good-faith effort to be responsive to each question. when his answer was one he thought i didn't want to hear, he glossed over it. example -- at his nomination

hearing, i asked mr. kadzik whether he intended to provide certain documents chairman issa and i are requested relating to a briefing by the bureau of alcohol, tobacco and firearms. after he failed to mention the documents in his response, i prompted him about the documents once again and he evaded the question. only after two subsequent sets of questions for the record did mr. kadzik finally come clean and admit that the department would refuse to provide those documents requested. mr. kadzik should have been that candid initially instead of avoiding the issue. his seeming inability to give straightforward and accurate answers to simple questions

causes real concern for me about his ability to perform his job, of which a very important part of it is answering inquiries from members of congress. so i think an assistant attorney general for legislative affairs needs to ensure that congress receives accurate information from the department. that's what checks and balances of our constitutional setup is all about. now, this also became a problem when mr. kadzik's predecessor, whose false denials about operation fast and furious eventually had to be retracted. this office needs leadership that will restore its credibility. mr. kadzik's track record in the acting position makes it clear that he does not have what it takes to restore that sorely

needed credibility. at mr. kadzik's confirmation hearing last october, senator feinstein told mr. kadzik that the senate select committee on intelligence had recently received answers to questions from the record from the f.b.i. that were over a year late. as she pointed out to mr. kadzik -- quote -- "a year is really outside the pale of propriety" -- end of quote. mr. kadzik said in response -- quote -- "one of my missions at the department is to improve that record and to expedite the providing of information to this committee and to all members of congress, but what i've seen so far from mr. kadzik, that record has been even worse than his predecessor. the judiciary committee still has not received answers to

questions for the record from attorney general holder from an oversight hearing dating back to march 6, 2013. that's 14 months ago. recently, the judiciary committee received answers to f.b.i. questions for the record dated -- quote -- "current as august 26, 2013." end of quote. according to the f.b.i. congressional affairs staff, that's when the answers were forwarded to mr. kadzik's office, although the f.b.i. responses to congress were then only two months old, apparently they sat in mr. kadzik's office of legislative affairs for another nine months. mr. kadzik is just as unresponsive to letters. his staff recently acknowledged that they were aware of 13

pending letters from this senator that have gone completely unanswered. i don't mean -- i don't mean he replied with an answer i didn't think was good enough. i mean there was simply no reply whatsoever. some of those questions from this senator dated back to october, 2012, well over a year and a half ago. his office is completely ignoring those letters. did he send me a couple of very weak responses in just the last few days. each of those was essentially one paragraph long. one was a reply to a letter i sent almost a year ago. the other replied to a letter from january in which i asked four simple questions. they addressed attorney general holder's failure to issue a report on the need for reform at the f.b.i.'s whistle-blower

procedures. the attorney general was required to report to president obama within 180 days of the president's presidential directive on whistle-blowers, which was issued october, 2012. a little history here, the f.b.i. was exempted from whistle-blower provisions of the civil service act of 1978, and the whistle-blower protection act of 1989. that has resulted in the f.b.i. being one of the worst retaliators against whistle-blowers over the years. therefore, the f.b.i. report president obama was asking for was an important part of the presidential directive. i had written to the justice department three weeks after the presidential directive in 2012 to emphasize how important it was that that directive be

followed and that the f.b.i. people have proper whistle-blower protection. then there was a 180-day deadline. that deadline came and went. i wrote the justice department earlier this year asking about the report because at that time, it was more than ten months overdue. i asked the current status of the report, why they had failed to issue it so far, when it would be complete, and whether they would provide a copy to the judiciary committee. so those are the simple questions that i asked mr. kadzik. once again, the nominee failed to send a prompt, good-faith response to my letter. mr. kadzik could have written me immediately to say that the justice department knows this report is important and explain

why it was taking longer than what they thought. mr. kadzik could have told me that the review was expected to take several more months. instead, he waited four long months until the report was complete, then simply sent me a one-paragraph response stating that the report was sent to the president of the united states. he didn't try to explain why it took so long, he completely ignored by question about providing a copy of the report to our judiciary committee. this is not the kind of good faith, candid response that the justice department owes congress, especially in our oversight capacity to see that the laws are faithfully executed by the president of the united states. as a nominee who already works in that office, mr. kadzik had

the opportunity to demonstrate a real equipment to the role of congressional oversight in our constitutional system of checks and balances. he could have answered the mail on time. he could have insisted on candid , good-faith substantive replies to congress. rather than trying to raise the bar, he lowered it. the attitude this nominee brings to dealing with congressional oversight and the requests that we make is a symptom of much larger problem, the justice department has a lot of work to do to rebuild trust and confidence after the false letter it sent me on fast and furious. it's still fighting in court to avoid turning over documents that explain its decision to ultimately withdraw the letter and admit that that letter was

false. the obama administration is arguing for a vastly expanded view of executive privilege. they want the ability to expand it far beyond direct advice a counselor would give to the president. they want it to include internal emails between lower-level bureaucrats and agencies and departments. these, the the administration claims, are so-called deliberative documents. they are created by people who may never even have been to the white house, let alone advised -- advised the president on anything where a lawyer-client relationship can be established. that kind of broad privilege would be a massive blow to government transparency and to our system of checks and balances. the position that the obama administration is hagan in the

fast and furious lawsuit is a direct breach of the promise that the president made in his first day in office. he pledged at that time to have the most transparent administration in the history of this country. but now, the president's justice department is arguing for a massive expansion of executive privilege to include all of that so-called deliberative material. and this nominee, mr. kadzik, is aggressively implementing that new policy even today, refusing to answer questions and withholding documents. his actions today are consistent with his history. voluntary cooperation takes a back seat to legalism and forcing a legal confrontation. i wish i could say that mr. kadzik had demonstrated the

kind of serious commitment to open and honest and forthright cooperation with congressional oversight that that office needs. unfortunately, he has not. but the failure to cooperate extends far mr. kadzik's eve visions. we don't need to look any further than today's headlines to see the latest instance of this administration's failure to abide by its obligations under the law to submit to congressional oversight. of course, i'm referring to the recent release of five of the most dangerous detainees from guantanamo. the president's decision to release what some have called the taliban dream team, without notifying congress in advance, exemplifies this administration's contempt for congressional oversight. it's troubling for a host of reasons, especially when the stakes are high.

so i'll explain. in december, 2013, congress passed and the president signed the 2014 national defense authorization act. section 1035 of that law addresses the procedure that the executive branch is required to follow if the president decides to release a detainee being held at guantanamo. this process isn't optional. it's not something that's a matter of presidential discretion. it's actually required as a matter of federal law. it's required by a law that this president signed. the white house's failure to follow the law in this instance is just the latest example of this administration's blatant disregard for congressional authority. the law requires the president to notify certain house and senate committees, including

the senate select committee on intelligence, and the house permanent select committee on intelligence, at least 30 days before guantanamo bay detainees are transferred or released. obviously, that did not happen. not only that, but the law requires the president to explain -- quote -- "why the transfer or release is in the national security interest of the united states" -- end of quote. that didn't happen, either. the president also had a legal obligation to describe any actions that his administration took -- quote -- "to mitigate the risk of reengagement by the individuals to be transferred or released" -- end of quote. such mitigating actions required by -- are required by law, but that didn't happen, either. now the reason for these legal requirements are fairly obvious. the members of this body understand and respect the

president's responsibility to protect national security. that is, in fact, is paramount responsibility as commander in chief. but we, too, have a responsibility in this congress and all congresses to ensure that the national security is protected. congress is a co-equal branch of government, yet our ability to ensure the actions this president takes are designed to promote the national security have been thwarted. that's because this white house has kept us in the dark about the release of the five taliban kingpins every step of the way. the administration is fully aware that it violated federal law in failing to timely notify congress of its intentions. we know this because the white house has contacted some of my colleagues on the select committee on intelligence and apol jiedz, actually apol jiedz, for failing to notify them in advance. in other words, apologized for

not following the law. according to press reports, the white house said that the failure to make notification required by law was -- quote, unquote -- "an oversight." an oversight. what happened here is not an oversight. an oversight is what happens when you forget to send a thank you note for a birthday gift. this is not -- this was not an oversight, in other words. it's extremely difficult to view this as anything but a deliberate attempt to leave senators in the dark. you don't simply forget to meet your legal obligations to notify congress, and it's not as if this was some obscure provision of the law that nobody knew anything about. this has always been been a very big deal. not only did the white house have an obligation to notify congress, but the white house had previously promised that it

would, in fact, comply with the law. on june 21, 2013 at the white house press briefing, press secretary jay carney promised that administration -- quote -- "would not make any decisions about the transfers 6 any detainees without consulting with congress and without doing so in accordance with u.s. law" -- end quote. so it is perfectly clear that the administration was aware of its duties under the federal law and made a calculated and deliberate decision to ignore it. the president more or less admitted this when he recently explained at a press cches in poland -- at a press conference in poland that he saw an opportunity that he had to take immediately because "we were concerned about sergeant bergdahl's health." so i'm sick and tired of the

approach that this administration takes toward its legal obligations under the law, that's why i wrote to the attorney general in january of this year concerning some statements the president made in the state of the union address hinting that he intended to take unilateral action using executive orders. now, in that letter that i wrote to the attorney general, i asked him to direct the justice department's office of legal counsel to publicly disclose its opinions and conclusions concerning the lawfulness of executive orders issued by the president. here's where mr. kadzik comes in. in may, he declined my request citing his overbroad and legally unsupportable claim of executive privilege. it's not without good reasoning that the former executive editor

of "the new york times" -- by the way, an outlet that's not exactly an aggressive critic of the president -- called this white house the most secretive that she ever covered. so let me renew my request to the attorney general regarding the publication of opinions from the office of legal counsel. frankly, i think my request is all the more important now that we've seen the administration's flagrant disregard for federal law in the matter of the taliban prisoner deal. i'm, therefore, asking the attorney general to direct the office of legal counsel to make public any opinions or legal analysis concerning the lawfulness of the transfer of the taliban commanders without compliance with section 1035 of the national defense authorization act. now, given this department's track record, i'm not going to

hold my breath that that request will be honored. so let me sum up by saying this: mr. kadzik's nomination is the perfect example of the contempt that this, the most contempt administration in history has for congressional oversight authority. and let me be clear to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. one day you folks over there might be in the minority or the administration might be controlled by the republican party. if a republican administration ignores your oversight request, how can you complain if you didn't stand up you today when the shoe is on the other foot? if you support this kind of stonewalling now by supporting this nominee, it'll come back to bite you. and, of course, i would say

you'll deserve it. i plan to be around here to remind you of that. i'll vote against this nominee and urge my colleagues to do the same. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. coats: mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum and ask that the call of the quorum be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. coats: mr. president, last week the senate confirmed sylvia burwell as our new secretary of health and human services. she is now the administration's main interpreter of obamacare. she is a new face and will be its primary sales person to the american people. i think the president made a competent choice and i supported her confirmation, but i think i would be remiss if i did not mention or bring to light the difficult job she has ahead of her.

from its botched web site to ever increasing premiums to canceled health insurance plans, obamacare has been and remains a complicated mess of broken promises and confusing implementation. i was back home in indiana last weekend and the week before that obamacare remains, along with complaints about overregulation, the top two things on people's minds. just friday i was in dekalb county and noble county in northeast indiana, meeting with representatives in those two counties and communities, across the spectrum of people engaged in various business enterprises -- housewives, small business, big business, elected officials, et cetera -- and each of those discussions as i went across those two counties, as i said, overregulation and obamacare were number one and number two or vice versa -- on

everyone's minds and it continues to remain on their minds because they see this as a very complicated and messy intrusion into their individual lives and in terms of their ability to run their businesses. for many, it's not a question of obamacare not hurting them, but how it has hurt them and their concerns about how it's going to hurt them in the future. now, the president promised us that this plan would -- and i want to quote him here -- "lower the cost of health care for our families, our businesses and our government." let me repeat that. the president said that obamacare would lower the cost of health care -- which it hasn't -- for our families, our businesses and our government. but that is not what i have heard as i talked to people across the state of indiana. what i hear from hoosiers are

that their premiums increased, they have higher health care costs, their deductibles have risen dramatically, their co-pays have risen, and they have fewer provider options. remember, the president said if you like your doctor or your health plan you can keep it; period. that is not the case, and i hear that from hundreds of hoosiers as i travel around the state. let me talk about a specific story from a constituent. jeremy from randolph county, indiana, said this -- and i quote -- "my plan for my wife and two kids age two and five has increased by 150 -- excuse me -- excused from $150 to $615 per month. we can't afford this massive hike," he said. he went on to say something must be done to lower these plans because we are seriously going to think about not being able to have insurance for the first time since college, because i

simply can't afford it. it is unaffordable, he said. the a.c.a., the so-called affordable care act, has been called unaffordable by so many hoosiers, and i suspect that's true all across the country, that they ought to rename it not the affordable, but the unaffordable care act. i don't know how many stories we have to bring here to the floor of the senate before my colleagues understand and realize that this plan is faulty to a point, needs to be replaced, deeply and fatally flawed at its very core. i know the majority leader came down and said none of these stories that we relate to are true. that is like telling jeremy he doesn't exist. i don't think he made this up. "my plan for my wife and kids has just increased from $150 a month to $615 a month.

it's unaffordable. i'm going to have to" -- americans across the country are repeating these stories. they're not made up. it's not something that the republican party sits around and writes in the back room and sends out to somebody here, say this so we can repeat it on the floor of the house of representatives or the senate floor. these are concerned citizens sending by the thousands e-mails, phone calls, tweets and any other means of communication, speaking to us directly when we go back home, whether i'm in the grocery store buying a quart of milk or picking up a newspaper at the gas station or talking to people on the street when i sit down with business people we've invited from the various small towns in indiana. as i said, these stories that are coming from real people that i represent and they sent me here to represent hem is -- thes the impact of the health care plan that has been proposed by

the president and now is being implemented. so all the promises that were made early on when it wasn't enforced have now proven to be untrue. don't just take my word for it. look at the headlines. reuters, which i don't think is an arm of the republican senator alabama -- senatorial committee -- it is an nonpartisan newspaper. reuters says there are 2.2 million obamacare enrollees have data problems. 2.2 million have data problems with the obamacare. cnbc, seven in ten people say obamacare had bad or zero impact on u.s. either no impact or bad impact. that's 70%. "indianapolis business journal" which i pay attention to --

independent organization -- "indiana's obamacare rates for 2015 are all over the map. people can't figure out how they are going to have to pay next year but they have figured out one thing. it is going to be more than they paid last year." remember that statement, premiums won't go up, won't cost a penny? well, i think many of us think it's time to start over and replace obamacare with real health care solutions. now, republicans had offered a multitude of possibilities, of suggestions and proposals, every one of has been turned down by the president or not allowed to be praut to the floor by the -- brought to the floor by the senate majority leader. for those who say what would you do? why don't you suggest something, we have tried our very, very best to bring forward packages of reforms to reach across the aisle and say if you'll work with us, we will try to fix some of these problems. we think we should repeal it and

start all over because we don't think it's the right model for health care to address the solution of providing people in this country with adequate health care at a reasonable cost. so changing the face of obamacare just from adding a new, putting in a new secretary of health and human services will not change this law's negative impact on hoosiers like jeremy. i wish that it would, but obviously it won't. and it will not change this disaster of a law into what it should be: better health care for all americans. we're all committed to that goal, but we simply are saddled with a piece of legislation that was very poorly drafted, that was rushed through without any support or comment from those of us on the other side of the aisle. i wasn't hear at the time. one of the reasons i run and come back was try to address something that i thought was

taking us down the traod a -- road to a dysfunctional health care system with less quality, less access, less choice, less competition. are there needs to reform our current health care system? yes. are there solutions that are better than what has been put before us? yes. and i wish we could summon the support and the will of those in this body to begin addressing that very problem. mr. president, with that, i see my colleagues on the floor. i will yield back. thank you. mr. cruz: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: mr. president, i rise today to raise an issue that has been a growing concern to the american people. the exchange of the so-called

taliban five, five terrorist detainees from guantanamo bay in exchange for sergeant bowe bergdahl. let me say from the outset this is not about sergeant bergdahl. the circumstances under which he became a prisoner for the taliban is an issue for the army. there was an investigation into this matter in 2010 and hopefully the army will be able to bring clarity to that situation soon. what i want to talk about today is about keeping the american people safe from the terrorists who attacked us on september 11, 2001, resulting in the deaths of 2,977 innocent people. the taliban five are among the worst of the worst. they were all high-level officials in the taliban regime that gave aid and support to al

qaeda in afghanistan in the period leading up to the 9/11 attacks. these five were designated -- quote -- "high risk" by the guantanamo review task force convened in 2009, on the orders of president obama, whose report was published on january 22, 2010. two of the five are wanted by the united nations for war crimes against afghan civilians. kalarwerqua was described as a hard-liner with taliban philosophy with, quote, close ties to bin laden. mullah mohammad fazl was second in command of the taliban army in 2001. these were not junior level

players. capturing these five men was a priority when our troops participated in the liberation of afghanistan from the taliban in 2001, where our sons and daughters bled and died to free afghanistan and to exact punishment on those who carried out a horrific terrorist attack on the united states of america. we cannot know for sure how many american soldiers paid the ultimate price to capture these five senior terrorists. even as many other detainees at gitmo have been released, up until now these five have been considered too dangerous to let go. given the level of threat they represent, any proposal to release them should be of the utmost seriousness.

unfortunately, by all indications, the administration's release treated their threat as anything but serious. americans need to know how the obama administration thinks it has made our nation safer by negotiating with terrorists to release these five dangerous terrorist leaders. until president obama can make his case and convince the american public that this swap was in our national interest, prudence dictates that all further transfers and releases from guantanamo bay should be off the table. unfortunately, there have been no answers from the administration on how this deal furthers the national security interest of the american people or why the deal was so urgent that the administration refused to comply with its legal obligation to inform congress 30

days before the transfer. instead, the administration has vilified those who would raise questions about it as somehow not being concerned about securing the return of our troops. that attack, that slur shouldn't even be dignified with a response, particularly given what has been publicly admitted. mr. president, president obama has publicly admitted that there is -- quote -- "absolutely a chance of the taliban 5 returning to the battlefield and attacking americans." indeed, the current taliban leadership has announced that from their perspective, this deal is so good for them that they should now prioritize kidnapping other americans. for example, last thursday, one

top taliban commander told "time" magazine, and this is a quote -- "it's better to kidnap one person like bergdahl than kidnapping hundreds of useless people. it has encouraged our people. now everybody will work hard to capture such an important bird." mr. president, this deal puts every soldier, sailor, airman and marine, every man and woman standing up to defend this nation in jeopardy. the chair of the senate intelligence committee, senator dianne feinstein, has publicly said that she has seen -- quote -- no evidence that sergeant bergdahl was under urgent threat in the recent weeks or months. all of these admissions together raise serious and legitimate concerns about the circumstances of the release of the taliban five, and they also make clear that the administration should stop vilifying any hurray -- any

who raise these national concerns. instead, the president should stand up and honor his commitment to the american people. defend this decision in terms of the national security interests of the united states, what should be the highest priority for the commander in chief. instead, we have recently learned from news reports that there are at least four other gitmo detainees that are being considered for release, so not only has there not been accountability as to why this happened, but it appears the administration wants to go down the same road, and i can only assume is willing again to violate the law and not notify congress the next time, just like it violated the law by not notifying congress this time. before any further such action is considered, we need to take a

pause and assess what happened with the taliban five. we need to answer who did the vetting that resulted in the assessment that the taliban five no longer posed a high level of threat to the united states, who participated in the decision to release them, was this the same deal that the administration says they offered to brief congress on previously or is it something different? was the president fully briefed on the background of the taliban five and the likelihood of recidivism? how did the administration reach its apparently high level of confidence that the taliban five will be secure in qatar and how did they arrive upon the notion that that security should last only one year after which the american people will be safe if these terrorists are released altogether?

on what basis did the administration judge that only one year was sufficient? how was the decision made to ignore the law and bypass congress, including bypassing the chairs of the senate and house intelligence committee, foreign relations committee and armed services committee? and in what circumstances does the administration intend once again to openly defy the law and refuse to provide notification to congress? these are questions i might note that should be bipartisan concerns. this should not be a bipartisan affair asking questions that affect the national security of every single american citizen and every single man and woman serving in the military. in order to give the obama administration the opportunity to satisfy the many outstanding questions that the american people have about their

safety -- and i would note having just returned from texas, i found over and over again, texans, men and women asking these very questions, i will propose this week that before we consider any additional releases from quality, we answer these questions first. the legislation that i will be filing, number one, will immediately call for a six-month freeze on any federal government funding for -- to transfer detainees from guantanamo. number two, to enforce this legislation, the legislation will provide that should the president choose to disregard this law, as sadly has been his pattern so many other times, all funds expended in the transfer would be deducted directly from the budget of the executive office of the president. number three, because we understand that conditions might possibly arise that would

necessitate the release of an individual prisoner, and out of respect for the president's special role in international matters, this legislation explicitly provides a means for the president to ask congress for a waiver of the six-month bar in an individual case. but finally, because we believe that the release of detainees from guantanamo which hold some of the most dangerous people on the planet is a matter of the gravest import, this legislation would require that for every order for release of a guantanamo detainee, it must be personally approved by the president. this would ensure that the fullest consideration and deliberation goes into the process. this latest deal which was announced to the american people as a fait accompli, with no opportunity for the american

people to assess it or scrutinize it, this latest deal constituted negotiating with terrorists to release five senior terrorist leaders, and it raises obvious questions. first of all, how many americans did these five terrorist leaders directly or indirectly murder? how many lives, american lives are they responsible for taking? secondly, how many american soldiers gave their lives to capture these five senior terrorist leaders? how many graves do we have of sons and daughters of americans because they were sent in to capture these five that have just been released? third, given their release, and the president's admission that there is -- quote -- "absolutely a chance that they will return to actively waging

war against the united states, how many americans are at risk of being killed directly or indirectly by these terrorist leaders we have just let go? and finally, mr. president, if the taliban five do return to actively trying to kill americans, how many american soldiers will once again have to risk their lives or indeed will give their lives trying to kill or capture these terrorists once again? these are questions of the utmost seriousness, and to date the administration has not even attempted to answer them. instead, it has suggested that anyone raising these questions is simply failing to stand by the men and women of our military. i can tell you the men and women of our military understand the value of protecting the national

security of the united states of america, and the men and women of our military are not comforted by negotiations with terrorists to release senior terrorist leaders who can once again begin actively waging war on the united states. every american is naturally eager to end the long war in afghanistan, but that does not mean that we disregard the threat that violent terrorist groups like the taliban pose to our nation. we know from the hard experience of the last decade that at least one in three of guantanamo detainees have returned to the battlefield. that has been what history has taught us. until we have full confidence that this threat to american lives is being fully and properly assessed, that we are taking steps to protect the lives of american civilians and american soldiers and sailors

and airmen and marines, it is only prudent to take the steps in the legislation i'm introducing this week. and i hope the senate will do so. with that, i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i have a cloture motion that is at the desk. i ask that it be reported. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: cloture motion. we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the motion to proceed to calendar number 409, s. 2432, a bill to amend the higher education act of 1965 to provide for the refinancing of certain federal student loans. signed by 17 senators as follows. reid of nevada, wyden, warren, blumenthal, cardin, reed of rhode island, harkin, boxer, shah heerntion murray -- shaheen, murray, durbin, udall of new mexico, whitehouse, murphy, nelson, menendez and baldwin. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the mandatory quorum under rule 22 be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, we have

filed just now, i'm sorry to s say, another cloture petition to get on a bill. we have more student debt in america today than we have credit card debt. i just had a conference call with some students from the state of nevada. it's really very, very unfortunate what's going on. some of these students lamented the fact, you know, i'm not sure i should be in school. i'm borrowing money. maybe i should do something el else. i don't know how many times we've had to file cloture on just the opportunity to get on a bill but that's where we are. so we'll have a cloture vote on seeing if they'll let us on the bill on wednesday. mr. durbin: would the senator

yield for a question? mr. reid: yes. mr. durbin: i would like to ask the senator a question through the chair. is it my understanding you just filed a procedural motion which would allow us to take up and debate a bill which would give an opportunity to some of the 44 million americans currently paying college student loans? this bill, authored by senator elizabeth warren of massachusetts, would allow students to refinance their college debt down to today's interest levels, 3.8%, if i'm not mistaken, for undergraduate loans, which would make paying back their loans easier and sooner. and that we have to go through a procedure of waiting two days in the senate to even start talking and debating on the bill? is that what the senator is telling us? mr. reid: mr. president, through the chair to my dear friend, that's what i'm saying.

what's happened around the country is not just in nevada, it's all over the country, with the rare, rare exception. state legislatures don't support higher education. so you take someone like the board of regents of the state of nevada, they have a lump sum of money the legislature gives them, they have to figure out how to keep kids in school. last friday, they raised the tuition of our universities by 17%. what will happen? they'll borrow more money. and it's really so -- i told those young people when i started the conversation today, you know, i worked hard, but, you know, with a little scholarship here or there i could work hard and put myself through school. i put myself through college and law school, and they can't do it now. there aren't enough hours in the day to pay for this tuition.

mr. durbin: would the senator yield for another question? mr. reid: of course i will. mr. durbin: procedurally you had to file a motion so we could start the senate debate on this issue, and there was a time in the senate when you didn't have to have 60 votes to even start debating an issue. but is it my understanding now we are building up to a vote on wednesday to see if five republicans will cross the aisle and join us so that we can have a debate on the floor of the senate on whether or not we can refinance college student loans, we have to wait two days? mr. reid: mr. president, we, the senate, and the american people have waited for months because we've done this time and time again, we've had to file cloture on just getting on a bill. the sad part about it, mr. president, on many occasions on nominations, they also do the same on nominations, we have

approximately 140 nominations held up, they vote for them. bills that they've supported, nominations they've supported they still make us file cloture and waste the time of the american people and i say months mr. durbin: one last question through the chair. so we need five republican senators to join the democratic senators if we're even going to debate the bill about refinancing college student loans. is that my understanding? mr. reid: the senator is right. i would note -- let me see here. i have a unanimous consent request for committees to meet during today's session. i have approved of this, senator mcconnell has approved of this. i ask consent this request be agreed to and printed the record, this request. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the the senator from virginia. mr. kaine: mr. president, inquiry, are we still in a quorum call? the presiding officer: yes. mr. kaine: i ask permission that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kaine: thank you, mr. president. i rise in support of one of the judicial nominees we will consider first by cloture vote

in a few minutes and then a vote scheduled on confirmation tomorrow, it is the nomination of magistrate judge hannah lauck to the eastern district of virginia. judge lauck is somebody i know quite well, she serves in the eastern district of richmond where i live, a court where i spent a majority of my 17-year legal practice practicing. she is a native virginian, went to college outside of virginia but came back to the commonwealth after graduating from yale law school and began her careers a law clerk for james spencer whose retirement has opened up the opening. it is fitting she has the opportunity to fill his shoes on the court. judge lauck is very well prepared. she began as i explained as a judicial law clerk which is a prestigious position for a wonderful federal judge, judge

spencer. she has included in her public career over the last 20 plus years both public service and private practice. before she joined the bench as a magistrate, judge los angeles served as a -- be lauck served for a fortune 500 company in richmond. for 10 years before that she was a assistant attorney general handling the spectrum of cases, and finished as a criminal prosecutor. coupled with her service as a magistrate this experience in private practice and work in the u.s. attorney's office makes her very, very familiar with the docket in this court. she became a u.s. magistrate judge in 2005 and i know, mr. president, that you practiced law and understand the important work that federal magistrates do. her work has involved all federal misdemeanors, magistrates in the richmond

division try federal misdemeanors. and they also try complete civil matters fully with the consent of the parties and it is the practice in the eastern district of virginia for parties to offer consent to magistrate judges trying their cases. she has since 2005, nine years, acted as a judge in virtually the entire range of matters that this court handles, the federal court. along the way hannah has distinguished herself as an excellent attorney and earned awards for her work including various commendations from the united states attorney's office, the u.s. marshal it was service, the virginia state police, the drug enforcementation and genworth, her employer. she was named as a leader in the law for her service to the bench. mr. president, i'm excited to be here on behalf of judge lauck and this is a vacancies senator warner and i have worked very

hard, we first asked our local bar associations, especially the state bar to conduct interviews and then make recommendations to us, and we did that first, and then they have these all the candidates were interviewed by us and are proud to recommend her to the president and thankful the president nominated her for the position. in chosing, mr. president, i'll say this: this is a court that i'm very close to. my wife clerked for a federal judge on this court and i served when she started her legal career, just as judge lauck started her legal career in the same way. and i served as a civil litigator with a richmond firm directly across the street from the courthouse and spent a lot of time there. i know, mr. president -- i see -- and you have remiewnde remin- thank you for doing it -- that your foarnlg wa father was the t federal magistrate in this court. so you know well the work the

magistrates do. i know the judges, i know the court personnel, i know the lawyers, and i know many of the parties, and they speak with uniform pplaud i thinks in regard to the work that judge lauck has done. this seat being vacated -- there's no better person to have this job than judge lauck, to have at that full article 3 power that will come if she is confirmed, an and i'm very happo refer my colleagues this would be an excellent judge to serve under on that court. the presiding officer: morning business is schoasd. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations, which the clerk will report. the clerk: nominations, the judiciary. m. hannah lauck of virginia to be united states district judge for the eastern district of virginia. leo t. sorokin of massachusetts to be a united states district

judge for the district of massachusetts. richard franklin boulware ii of nevada to be united states district judge for the district of nevada. the presiding officer: the cloark will report the noings -e clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on m. hannah lauck of virginia to be united states district judge for the eastern district of virginia, 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 m. hannah lauck of virginia to be united states district judge for the eastern district of virginia shall be brought to a close? the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or wishing to change their vote? if not, the ayes are 52, the nays are 32. the motion is agreed to. the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the next two votes be 10 minutes in duration. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered.

the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion. we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the nomination of leo t. sorokin of massachusetts to be united states district judge for the district of massachusetts. 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 leo t. sorokin of massachusetts to be united states district court judge for the district of massachusetts, shall be broad to a close? -- shall be brought to a close? the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or wishing to change their vote? if want, the ayes are 52, the nays are 33. the motion is agreed to. the clerk report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion. we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions

of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, hereby move to a close the debate on the nomination of richard franklin boulware ii of never to be united states district judge for the district of nevada. 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 richard franklin boulware ii of never to be united states district court judge for the district of nevada, 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:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or wishing to change their vote? if not, the ayes are 53, the nays are 34. the motion is agreed to. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from nevada. mr. heller: thank you, mr. president. before i begin, i'd like to take a moment to address the unsettling events that occurred yesterday when two members of the las vegas metropolitan police department and an innocent civilian were victims of a terrible act of violence. while words offer little comfort

at this difficult time i'd like to express my sincere condolences to the victims' families. the las vegas community is grateful to these police officers for their service. and joins their families in mourning their loss. i'd also like to thank the men and women of the las vegas metropolitan police department who spurred to action following the tragic events even after losing members of the law enforcement community. with them, mr. president, i rise to speak in favor of a fellow nevadan's nomination that is currently pending before the body today, richard boulware, nominee to the district of nevada. one of the most important responsibilities we hold as members of the united states senate is to provide for the advice and consent of the president's judicial nominations and subsequent qirgs. -- confirmations. i believe each judicial nominee which comes before this body must not only be qualified but must demonstrate fairness and commitment to upholding the

constitution and the laws of the united states. in nevada, it's critical for us to work together to find qualified candidates to will uphold america's principles of impartiality under the law. richard boulware is an excellent example of an accomplished nominee who should be confirmed on a bipartisan basis. i believe mr. boulware embodies the kirk sticks of a nominee who is prepared to serve and that he will make an excellent district court judge for the state of nevada. after sitting down with him and discussing his nomination at length, i found him to be an extremely impressive nominee. a graduate of harvard university, mr. boulware went on to earn his law degree from columbia university. he currently serves as assistant federal public defender for the district of nevada in las vegas. he also has extensive experience arguing before the ninth court circuit of appeals. this trial experience coupled with his impressive academic

accomplishments while clerking for the u.s. district courts will serve him well on the bench. outside of his professional duties he currently serves his local school system as a member of the superintendent's educational opportunity advisory committee. i'm clad glad to see the senate moving forward with this nomination, look forward to voting to confirm mr. boulware's nomination to the federal bench in nevada. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. markey: thank you, mr. president. we're at a very important historical juncture where the science is now conclusive that the planet is dangerously warming. the months of --. a senator: would the senator yield for a u.c.? mr. markey: i would yield to the gentleman. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma.

mr. yoof: i ask unanimous consent at the conclusion of the remarks by senator massachusetts and senator whitehouse i be recognized as if in morning business for as much time as i may consume. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. whitehouse: it's not an objection at this point but it's our understanding that the senator from oklahoma will speak for 20 to 30 minutes but that the time would revert to me at the conclusion of his remarks after 20 to 30 minutes. if that's an acceptable amendment to the unanimous consent, i agree to it. mr. yoof: let's let's amendment your amendment to 20 to 35 minutes. -- mr. inhofe: let's amend your amendment to 20 to 35 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. markey: the global temperature for april of 2014 tied with 2010 for the warmest april ever recorded in the

history of the planet. this goes back to 1880. in may, the third national climate assessment presented the scientific evidence that climate change is already impacting the united states. the good news, the good news is that the president last week promulgated new rules to control greenhouse gases coming out of power plants in the united states of america. here's the really good news, and the senator from rhode island, the senator from vermont, the states across the northeast, nine states have already had a regional greenhouse gas initiative over the last nine years. in massachusetts, we're already 40% lower now in 2014 than we were in 2005, 40% lower. and we know that a flexible system like this can and will work across the country.

and that it is absolutely necessary for the united states to be the leader. you cannot preach temperance from a bar stool. the united states cannot tell the rest of the world that he should they should reduce their greenhouse gases when we are still continuing on our historic path. the good news is we are imping to create a green energy revolution. we can save creation while engaging in massive job creation in the united states. we can unleash this green energy revolution. we can reduce greenhouse gases. we need to have a big debate on the senate floor. this is the place where the united states of america expects us to have this debate and where the rest of the world is watching. i thank you, mr. president, and i yield back. mr. sanders: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: thank you, mr. president. the issue that we are discussing

tonight, frankly, is perhaps the most important issue facing our entire planet, and the issue has everything to do with whether or not we are going to leave a habitable planet for our kids and our grandchildren. and i want to thank the senate climate action task force, led by senator boxer, senator whitehouse, senator heinrich, and others for helping to bring us down here tonight to discuss this issue. and while it goes without saying that senator inhofe and many of us hold very, very different points of view regarding global warming, i want to congratulate him for having the courage to come down here and defend his point of view. that's what democracy is about. i think he's wrong, but i'm ghad that he is here. -- but i'm glad that he is here. mr. president, virtually the

entire scientific community agrees that climate change is real, that it is already causing devastating problems in the united states and around the world in terms of floods and droughts and wildfires, forest fires, and extreme weather disturbances. and the scientific community is also almost virtually unanimous in agreeing that climate change is caused significantly by human activity. mr. president, according to a study published in the journal "environmental research letters" in may of last year, more than 97% of peer-reviewed scientific literature on climate supports the view that human activity is a primary cause of global

warming. what disturbs me very much about this debate is the rejection of basic science. we can have differences of opinion on health care, on the funding of education, on whether or not we should have a jobs program, on many other issues. but what the united states senate should not be about is rejecting basic science, and it saddens me very much that most of my colleagues in the republican party are doing just that. we don't hear great debates on the floor of the senate regarding research in terms of cancer, in terms of heart disease, in terms of other scientific issues. but for whatever reasons -- and i happen to believe those reasons have a lot to do with the power of the coal industry, of the oil industry, of the fossil fuel industry -- we're

suddenly seeing a great debate on an issue that the overwhelming majority of scientists agree on, and that is climate change is real, it is caused by human activity. mr. president, 2012 was the second-worst year on record in the united states for extreme weather, and across the globe the 10 warmest years on record have all occurred since 1998. the global annual average temperature has increased by more than 1.5 degrees fahrenheit between 1880 and 2012. just last month the white house released the national climate assessment, emphasizing that global warming is already happening, and warning -- and people should hear this -- warning that global warming could exceed 10 degrees fahrenheit in the united states

by the end of this century. 10 degrees fahrenheit. that is extraordinary. and if that, in fact, happens, if we don't summon up the courage to transform our energy system, the damage done by that severity of increase in temperature will be huge. mr. president, also last month scientists reported that a large section of the west antarctica ice sheet is falling apart and that it is continuing -- and its continued melgt i melting is now unstoppable. australia hit new heat records in may. the period ending septembe endi4 is expected to exceed that. but it's not just australia.

it is my home state of vermont. mr. president, in the associated press, they reported just last week that the average temperature in both vermont and maine rose by 2.5 degrees over the past 30 years. this is the second highest of any state in the lower 48 after maine. maine and vermont are at the top. lake champlain provides one telling illustration of these changes. it freezes over less often and later in the winter than it used to. between 1800 and 1900, lake champlain froze over 97 out of 100 winters; 97% of the time. that number began dropping after 1900 and in the past 40 years lake champlain has only frozen over 17 times. these changes impact the ski

industry. they weaken our maple industry. and they allow pests to survive the winter unharmed and to become more damaging to trees and crops as a result. and these impacts are expected to worsen. according to the 2014 national climate assessment, temperatures in the northeast could increase an additional 10 degrees fahrenheit by 2080, if emissions continue at their current rate. by the end of the industry, summers in vermont -- our beautiful summers could feel like summers in georgia right now. and i love the state of georgia. it is a great state. but the state of vermont would prefer to have our summers the way they have been, not georgia's. the thing is, these new proposed carbon pollution standards are actually quite modest. mr. president, it is clear to me that if we listen to the

scientific community, what they are telling us is there is a small window of opportunity, and it would be rather extraordinary -- extraordinary -- for us to look our kids and our grandchildren in the eye and to say, you know what? we rejected the science, and we let this planet become less and less habitable for you and your kids. we have a moral responsibility not to do that. it seems clear to me what we should be doing, and i think the scientific community is in agreement. first, we need to aggressively expand energy efficiency all over in country in terms of older homes and buildings. we can save an enormous amount of fuel, cut carbon emissions, lower fuel bills, create jobs, if we do that. furthermore, we must move

aggressively to such sustainable energies as wind, solar, biomass, geothermal and other technologies. and we must invest in research and development to make those technologies even more efficient. in my view, it is a no-brainer to say that we must reject the proposed keyston keystone x.l. e once and for all. weerchedwe need to end tax brear coal and oil companies which amount to over $10 million a year. we should not be subsidizing those companies that are helping to destroy our planet. finally, we need to price carbon through a carbon tax or some other approach so that the real costs of burning carbon are reflected in the price. and i am very proud that senator barbara boxer and i introduced

such legislation last year. bottom line is, mr. president, we are in a pivotal moment in history. this congress has got to act. it has to act boldly. and when we do that, when we cut greenhouse gas emissions, when we transform transform our ener, we can save many people money on their fuel bills, we can cut pollution in general, we can cut greenhouse gas emissions significantly, and we can create good-paying jobs all over this country. bottom line here is, we cannot afford to reject basic science. we have to listen to what the scientific community is saying. we have got to act aggressively, and let's do it. with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from new mexico. mr. heinrich: mr. president,

as an engineer, one of the things that i learned early in my education was that scientists -- that science doesn't really care if you believe in it or not. you can deny science as much as you want, but the data suggests that the scientific method works pretty darn well. the correspondent layethe corols that whether you believe in climate change or not has no bearing on whether or not it is actually occurring. and, unfortunately, the data show a warmer and warmer planet, characterized by weather pluctuations that are more ex-- fluctuations that are more extreme. in my home state, we find ourselves dealing with the impacts of climate change today, not at some theoretical future date. for example, we're already seeing the effects of climate change and how they manifest -- how it manifests itself in more extreme drought conditions, larger and more intense

wildfires, shrinking forests, and increased flooding when it finally does rain. the longer we wait to act, the more difficult and expensive the solutions will be. and the more unapplicable our weather -- and the more unpredictable our weather will become. 2012, as the senator from vermont mentioned, was our nation's second-most h extreme year for weather on record. in my home state of new mexico, we experienced the hottest year in our entire historical record. with humidity levels lower and temperatures higher, we're dealing with fire behavior in our forests that is markedly more intense than in the past. we also see climate change take a toll directly on our economy, especially in my state. that's an important point because inaction, mr. president, has its costs, too. and the costs already being borne in new mexico are

substantial. with less snowpack, communities that rely on winter sports tourism take an economic hit. fewer people lodge in hotels, shop in stores, eat in restaurants, and climate change is also having a devastating impact on new mexico's agricultural industry. farmers and ranchers are ofnlg th-- are often the very first to see the impacts of extreme weather. the agricultural sector is highly vulnerable due in large part to the sustained threat to the water supply, soil, and vegetation from continuous drought. and continues are only going to get worse if we don't nothing. if we take our moral responsibility as stewards of this earth seriously, it's imperative that we face the challenge of reversing the effects of climate change head-on and have a sober discussion about what actions we will need to take now and in the future. america clearly has the capacity

to become energy-independent, but we also need to transition from our current energy portfolio to one that produces as much or more power with substantially less carbon pollution per kill wat kilowatt. that will require innovation, something that our country has done better than any other country in the world. but additionally, we will need political will, something we have grown short on as climate dinners havderch-- asclimate der way into the halls of congress. little of value is ever free, mr. president. the question is, are we willing to make the modest investments now necessary to create the quality jobs of tomorrow and to protect our nation from the serious economic and strategic risks associated with our carbon reliance, our reliance on both

foreign and carbon pollution-intensive energy sources. since we're looking at history, let's take a moment and look at the clean air act of 1990 and compare the rhetoric of debate with the reality of its implementation. in 1989, the edison electric institute predicted a significant rise in energy costs due to the clean air act, yet the reality, according to a recent study by the senate for american progress, actually showed a decrease of 16% over those years. in 1990, the u.s. business roundtable claimed that passage of the clean air act would cost a minimum, a minimum of 200,000 jobs, but a recent study released by the e.p.a. reveals the reality. the clean air act resulted in that creation of jobs, in new industries, created to reduce pollution, good-paying jobs in

industries like engineering, manufacturing and construction and maintenance. by 2008, the environmental technology sector supported 1.7 million jobs in this country. so, mr. president, the time has come to address climate change rather than embracing the pseudoscience and denial that's embraced by far too many in washington today. the nation has never solved a single problem by denying the facts. let me be clear -- inaction is not a solution to this very real crisis. denial is not a strategy. consequently, if my republican colleagues have a better way to address carbon pollution than what the president has proposed, i would ask them to join the debate. if they have a pollution solution that is more effective, now is the time to have that discussion. through american ingenuity, we

can slow the impacts of climate change and unleash the full potential of cleaner energy. we can create a healthier, more stable environment for future generations. but we must have the will to recognize the facts as they are. we will need to make the investments that are necessary, and we will have to find the political will, mr. president, to act. mr. whitehouse: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: i would gladly withhold. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: mr. president, i express my appreciation to my friend from rhode island who is always so courteous to everyone about everything, and i appreciate it very much. i ask unanimous consent that tomorrow, june 10, following disposition of executive calendar number 734, the time until noon be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees, and the senate proceed to vote as under the

previous order. further, that following disposition of calendar number 736 and 739, the senate stand in recess until 2:15 p.m. at 2:15 p.m., the time until 2:30 p.m. be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees. at 2:30 p.m., the senate proceed to vote on cloture on calendar numbers 769, 771 and 767. further, that if cloture is invoked on any of these nominations, all postcloture time be expired, the senate proceed to vote on confirmation of nominations on thursday, june 12, at 1:45 p.m. further, that any roll call vote after the first in each sequence be ten minutes in length. further, that any nominations confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table, there being no intervening action or debate, that no further motion be in order to the nominations, any statements related to the nominations be printed in the record and that president obama be immediately notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, with this agreement, there will be

one roll call vote at approximately 10:00 a.m. tomorrow, two roll call votes at 12:00 noon and three additional roll call votes beginning at 2:30 p.m. mr. president, we had to move these votes around for a lot of reasons. one is there is a bill signing. another, there is a funeral. another is that one of my -- one of our senators wants to attend his son's graduation. so we will wind up at the same place even though it won't be as orderly, but we will wind up at the same place at the end of the week. thank you again to my friend from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, thank you very much. first of all, let me thank senator sanders of vermont, senator markey of massachusetts and senator heinrich of new mexico for their remarks, and i look forward to the remarks of senator inhofe of oklahoma. viewers may wonder what we are

doing here. as some will recall, several weeks ago, a number of democratic senators -- i think we ended up being 32 in total, participated in an all-night event to raise the awareness of and the discussion of climate change in this body. and at that time, only one of our republican colleagues appeared to join the discussion, and that was the distinguished senator from oklahoma who is here again this evening. we heard some rumblings that some of our colleagues felt that they hadn't been included or that they would have wished to have had the opportunity to participate, so taking them up on that offer, a number of us sent a letter on may 30 that says in part -- "dear colleague, we would welcome an opportunity

to engage with our republican colleagues in a discussion of how to address the problem of climate change. indeed, we think our republican colleagues could have a lot to offer if they wish to join us in exploring solutions." it went on to say -- "republican colleagues have co-authored bipartisan climate legislation, voted for the comprehensive waxman-marquee climate legislation in the house, spoken out in favor of a carbon fee and campaigned for national office on climate action. republican senators represent states with great coastal cities inundated by rising tides, states with farmlands swept by unprecedented floods and droughts, states with forests lost to encroaching pine beetles and wildfires unprecedented in

intensity. states with disappearing glaciers and reduced snow pack and states with dying coral reefs and shifting habitats and fisheries. republican senators represent home state corporations with international brand names, corporations that urge action on climate. republican senators represent great universities that contribute to the scientific understanding of climate change and how human activities are causing it. we look forward to the opportunity to discuss climate change and how to respond to it with republican senators. i ask unanimous consent that the full copy of this legislation be admitted to the record as an exhibit at the end of my remarks. thank you very much. so that sets the frame for what we are doing here. we have had four now democratic senators speak. we will be joined i believe by

chairman boxer and perhaps others later on in the evening and pursue it to the unanimous consent that we have agreed -- d pursuant to the unanimous consent that we have agreed to, i will now yield to the senator from oklahoma for his remarks and we will seek recognition pursuant to the unanimous consent at the conclusion of his remarks. pursuant to that understanding, i yield the floor. mr. inhofe: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: first of all, let me thank my good friend for yielding. i think we will have several people coming down and talking about this tonight. i want to say something about senator sanders from vermont. i appreciate very much his -- his comments. i think that they were -- let me get this here. i think that they were very, very appropriate, and i remember one time when he and hi a -- i

had a difference of opinion on an amendment. it had to do with the amount of money that one of the large oil companies made. he and i debated on the floor for something like three hours. a vote was taken, and after that -- i did win the vote. afterwards, he came up to me and he said i want you to know that since i have been here from the house, that was probably the most enlightened debate that we have ever had. you won and i lost. i really do appreciate it. we have been very good friends since then. well, the comments he made are real because i don't have any doubt in my mind that senator sanders and the rest of you have strong feelings about this. and what i want to do is something a little bit different. i have heard several people talk, and they talk about what's the hottest year and the coldest year and all that. i am very careful to document anything that i say. i will continue to do that tonight. the -- last monday, the e.p.a. released long-awaited global

warming regulations for the nation's existing fleet of power plants. we had already talked about the new power plants, what we were going to do. we have seen the evidence of the increased pricing of energy in this country. as a result of that. now, of course, we are going to be talking about the existing programs. the interesting thing about this, this is what they were talking about doing through regulation after they had lost every single issue on the floor of the senate. and so trying to do it now by regulations. the e.p.a.'s proposed rule requires power plants to reduce their co2 emissions by 25% by 2020 and 30% by 2030. and i do believe that there will be major legal challenges facing this rule if it goes final. i will talk about that in just a minute. over the past decade, the senate has debated a number of cap-and-trade bills. the first one was the mccain-lieberman bill of 2003.

i am going from memory now. i think republicans had a majority at that time. i think i chaired either the subcommittee or the committee of jurisdiction. we defeated the mccain-lieberman bill. it came up again slightly changed in 2005. we defeated it at that time, too. then the warner-lieberman bill came up in 2008, and we defeated that even by a larger margin. the waxman-markey bill -- keep in mind, this is the distinguished senator from massachusetts that was in the house. it came up in 2009 but it never did reach the floor. now, all of these bills would have established greenhouse gas regulations for the nation's largest manufacturing and power and generation facilities, but once the american people learned how much these cost, the congress arena away from these bills and they were defeated. in each and every one of these bills would have cost the economy between $300 billion and $400 billion in lost g.d.p. per

year. these figures are not disputed. they were calculated -- the first time they were calculated was back when the first bill came up. at that time, everyone assumed that global warming was real, they assumed that the end of the war was coming and that manmade gases were responsible for it. that was something that was kind of accepted. at that time, though, -- and i remember hearing the first speculation as to the cost -- the wharton econometrics forecasting association came out with a range of between $300 billion and $400 billion a year. then the massachusetts institute of technology, m.i.t., and charles rivers associates and others came out with the same -- the same range, between $300 billion and $400 billion a year. now, when you break this down to each household, i -- i always calculate every time there is some big regulation that comes along. i take the number of people from my state of oklahoma who filed a federal tax return, a number of families, and then i calculate and do the math.

it turns out about $3,000 a family. that would make cap-and-trade the largest tax increase in american history. it's not surprising that these bills did not become law. they were defeated, the mccain-lieberman bill in 2003 fell 43-55. and the mccain-lieberman bill in 2005, even a wider margin, 38-60. waxman and markey fell because they didn't have the votes to do it. so what i am saying is that the trend is not going the way my good friend from rhode island would like to have it go. instead, more and more people are opposing this. part of what's motivating the e.p.a.'s rule is they want to say that they leveled the playing field between parts of the country that don't have cap-and-trade programs. i think my -- one of the previous speakers talked about the fact that they didn't have -- that many places in -- i see the senator from california is here now. california, in the northeastern

states, they have cap-and-trade. these regions are hurting economically in part because of the onerous environmental regulations, including cap-and-trade programs they have been working to implement for so many years. but the real result of this has been higher electricity prices. in fact, the average price of retail electricity in new england, according to the energy information administration, is 1,767 cents per kilowatt-hour, that's 18 cents per kilowatt-hour. compare this to oklahoma, we are 9 cents per kilowatt-hours. we are one half the cost in my state of oklahoma for -- for electricity. and you see we have a real competitive advantage. there is nothing that keeps the northeast from bringing their electricity costs down, but they are unwilling to do it. they are unwilling to do what we did, and that is utilize a diverse, inexpensive field

supply we can source from at home in oklahoma. california implemented its own cap-and-trade program just over a year ago. it applies to both heavy industries and power generation. the state boasts that its program is second in size only to the european cap-and-trade program. today, however, the california's electricity prices are 15.94, in other words, 16 cents per kilowatt-hour, a stunning 70% more than they are in my state of oklahoma. knowing this, is it surprising that we constantly hear about all the jobs and the companies and manufacturing facilities that are moving from places and new england to states like oklahoma and to the south where we don't have these same kinds of regulations? you see what we want to do in oklahoma is develop a nurturing environment for business to thrive, and a big part of it is having inexpensive, reliable

energy. that's what we have in oklahoma. the e.p.a.'s rule threatens all that. we have worked so hard to accomplish. it's all because so many politicians are beholden to the radical environmentalist movement. what is interesting to me is that more and more on the other side talks about global warming and all of the purported solutions here in washington unless, unless people care. in march, the senate democrats hosted a first global warming slumber party. gallup released results of a poll -- i think it was that same day, and the results of the poll showed that americans ranked global warming as the 14th most important issue out of 15. this was on march 9 or 10 when you had your last slumber party out here. and it used to be number one or number two. now it's nearly last.

so you can see on this chart, can you see gallup's poll numbers over time showing that americans care less about environmental issues than they ever did before. you can see the changes that have taken place. what people really care about are the economy and government spending. those are the two top issues across party lines. and this rule is going to cost, if it's enacted, -- cause, if it's enacted, serious damage to the economy. the chamber of commerce put out a new study similar to the e.p.a.'s greenhouse gas rules and found they will cost the economy $51 billion in lost g.d.p. and 224,000 jobs each year. not just once, but each year. the heritage foundation put out separate analyses calculating that the rule would enact a cumulative hit of $2.23 trillion in lost g.d.p. and destroy 600,000 jobs. by their measure, the average income for a family of four

would decrease by $1,200 a year. i think actually it's closer to $3,000 a year. but nonetheless, there is the consistency. now, if we want to see where these regulations will ultimately yield, w -- we look no further than the model president obama uses. we need to be, as h he says, moe like germany. starting a few years ago, germany began implementing an aggressive alternative energy agenda where they hiked subsidies and set a goal generating -- of generating 35% of their electricity from renewables by 2020 and by 2050 this goal would increase to 80%. now, in the course of doing th this, the price of german retail electricity has doubled from where it was before and is now three times 300% than ours. 300 times greater than the

united states. the next chart is a major publication in germany. it recently had this cover its magazine with the heading -- "luxury electricity: why energy is becoming more expensive and what politicians must do about it." in this, they talk about all the politicians and others who are wishing that germany had not done what they are doing. and while industry, utilities, consumers and some politicians are calling for reforms to the laws, it may be too late because everything is already on the books. that's what they're finding out in germany. and we all know how hard it is to repeal a law once it becomes implemented. the e.p.a.'s rules will push this in the same direction as germany. keep in mind, germany started this thing and we are now emulating germany and their cost of electricity has doubled. you know, when you talk about doubling, to a lot of people -- maybe a lot of us who serve in this chamber -- that's not a --

really a big deal. but you take someone, a poor family that's spending maybe 50% of its income on energy, i mean, it's just something that woul would -- that -- that they can't handle. the e.p.a.'s rules will push the same direction as germany and this makes sense when occur the e.p.a.'s recent -- when you consider the e.p.a.'s recent rules like the utility mact and the 16-b rule and the n.r.c.'s incessant overregulation of the nuclear power industry, you have a lot of perfectly good power plants that are being forced to shut down all over the country. now we have this rule coming out of the e.p.a. that will force even more shutdowns and push the nation to more aggressively adopt renewables and over a very short period of time. this is going to cause reliability and affordability issues. now, we've been talking about affordability. reliability is another thing, too, because you have to have a reliable source that doesn't stop. there's no way around it. it's just not -- it's not just

me saying this. a ferc commissioner, phil moehler, recently predicted that because of e.p.a.'s overregulation, the nation could affect -- could face rolling blockouts by next summer. and renewables will only make this risk more serious. if a substantial amount of electricity is being provided by renewables, then we will become vulnerable to reliability rules. and what i mean by that is, we don't always have the sun is going to be shining. we don't always have wind that's going to be blowing. but there's always a demand for power. the demand's always there. but the wind stops. now, me, i understand this. i'm from oklahoma. we can have a very windy day and all of a sudden it stops. and the sun may be stopping shining. so if the wind is blowing really hard one day then stops the next, significant strains are put on the electricity grid. if you want to compensate for that, you have to have backup power generation ready to come

on-line in a moment's notice. now, where it's turned off one minute and then on the next, having that kind of a capacity just sitting around waiting for the sun to stop shining, is incredibly expensive. i think we all understand that. which is one of the reasons that germany's power is so much more expensive than ours. so when i hear the president and e.p.a. saying that this rule could actually lower electricity bills, it makes me wonder if they ever sit down in a room with ferc and nerc and the n.r.c. and just start telling -- telling it like it is. honestly, they're just not telling truth. the president and the administrator mccarthy have also been doubting the human health benefits this rule has -- will deliver. to help announce the new rule, the -- president obama did a conference call with the american lung association and that said it would help reduce instances of childhood asthma.

gina mccarthy made the same point in her remarks on the rule. but this is -- completely contradicts what the e.p.a. has previously said in this chart right here. it's -- the agency has published an official documentation that greenhouse gases do not cause direct adverse health effects, such as respiratory or toxic effects. now, i know others are going to stand up there and refute this. this is what the e.p.a. said. this is their statement. and, again, they're just not telling truth. now, what's even worse is that this rule will not have any impact on global co2. we know that because the president's first e.p.a. director -- this is kind of interesting. i always like lisa jackson because we asked her a question, she came up -- would come out with a specific answer. i asked her the question during a committee hearing -- it was live on tv -- i said that if -- if we were to go ahead and do away with pass -- either cap and trade by regulation or by

regulation, would this reduce the -- the overall co2 emissions worldwide? she said, no, it wouldn't. she said -- and her quote was -- "u.s. action alone will not impact world co2 levels." and that's because the largest tax increase in the history without any benefits because once you implement these regulations, our manufacturing base will go someplace where they can find it. maybe china. maybe india. maybe mexico. but they'll go places where they don't have the stringent emissions requirements that we have in this country. so in that case, emissions will actually go up instead of down. now, you add to all of this the fact that there has been no increase in global surface temperature between 1998 and 2013. this is according to the journal "nature," the economists and even the ipcc, the intergovernmental panel on climate change. now, that's the united nations. they're the one that started all this thing.

and even they say that there has not been any increase in global surface temperature between the years of 1998-2013. now, this pause was totally unexpected by the scientific community. after all, co2 concentrations went up during that time 8% over the same period of time, which, according to the model, should have led to significant temperature increases. but this chart, chart 4, shows the difference between actual temperatures -- that's the blue and the green lines down here -- and the temperatures that were predicted by a consensus scientific community -- that's the red line. so they said all this stuff, this is where the heat was coming. it didn't happen. and it's clear that the scientific community, which everyone puts so much trust in, did not predict that a pause would actually happen. now, you add to this the fact that the u.s. historical climatology network is reporting

that this is the coldest year so far on record in the united states. others will say, no, that's not true. so i quoted a source. it was the u.s. historical climatology network, that if things continue as they are, so far it's the coldest year on record in the united states. normally putting all this together would make me wonder why the president's pushing these regulations. but then i remember tom steyer. let's put this chart up here. tom steyer, let me introduce you to him. is that chart 5 there? yeah. this man, who made billions o of -- in the traditional energy industry, is the new poster child of the environmental left. he's the one who promised to direct $100 million to resurrect the dead issue of global warming. and these are his words. so he has the president and others onboard with his plan and they're following through. tonight's slumber party is proof enough. i can hear it now.

a severe case of righteous indignation's going to show up and they're going to say, you know, are you saying that the president is -- or that tom steyer is putting $100 million in these races? no, i'm not saying that. that's what tom steyer is saying. in fact, i have a quote here from him. he says, "it is true that we expect to be heavily involved in the midterm elections. we are looking at a bunch of races. my guess that we'll end up being involved in eight or more race races." and that's with $100 million. but all -- but that is really what this all comes down to now, a key constituency of the democratic party wanting to see the nation completely change the way we generate and consume energy. for no environmental benefit. the only benefit here is a political one. now, in closing, i'd like to highlight a few of the legal issues i mentioned a minute ago that if this -- if they are getting to a final on these regulations, what will likely come up once the rule is

finalized, and there are three main reasons why i do not believe this rule from a legal perspective is an appropriate construct of the lean air act. by the way, we talk about the clean air act. i always supported the clean air act amendments and -- and good things happened from it. the first time is that the clean air act was never designed to handle greenhouse gas emissions. we know that. and this is a bipartisan perspective. congressman john dingell, one of the principal architects of the clean air act -- he's over in the house -- said just last week -- quote -- "i do not believe the clean air act is intended or is the most effective way to regulate greenhouse gases." that's the first. the second legal reason is that this rule relies on an outside-the-fence approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. section 111 of the green air act should onlial -- of the clean air act should only allow the e.p.a. to establish a process where the states determine the most appropriate

emission reductions on a facility by -- on a facility-by-facility basis. instead, the e.p.a. has set statewide reduction mandates without regard to the technical feasibility of actually accomplishing this goal. now, cap-and-trade proposals will emerge under this, which will ultimately pit industry against one another so that the real impact of this rule could far exceed its advertised intent of targeting only power plants. oklahoma attorney general scott prewitt has effectively made this case and will lead the charge challenging the legal authority of this rule should it become final. and i'm very proud of our attorney general because he has been very effective in leading other attorneys general around the country to joining him in this effort. now, those are the first two reasons. the third reason this rule is inappropriate is because the clean air act states that section 111-b regulations cannot

be pursued in the event that the facilities are already regulated under section 112, which governs air toxins. and power plants are already regulated under this section. so they're regulated under section 112 already and so th the -- the fact that they're trying to regulate them under 111-b is something that is inconsist went the law -- inconsistent with the law and i think the courts would be on our side on this thing. so there are a number of major reasons why this rule will not stand up in the courts but it's my expectation that it will not come to that point. the largest tax increase in history, earth's surface has not been warming, has gotten warmer in 14 years, the polling shows americans don't believe it's a huge problem, it is huge for job losses. stopping co2 in the united states won't affect world co2 emissions, that's what we have from the administrator of the

e.p.a. so we will have -- we lib hearing a lot of things tonight about what is going on and they'll be disagreeing with me. that's fine. that's the reason i always document things. by the way, let me predict what i think is going to happen. a lot of people are not aware that there is a -- that there's a thing called the c.r.a., the congressional review act. the congressional review act is something something where people who say it's a crisis in this country, don't blame me, i'm a member of congress, i didn't vote for it. but the regulators did this. well, this puts them where they should be in having to take a position. the c.r.a. is something you can introduce with 30 cosponsors, i already have the 30 cosponsors to file a c.r.a. on every one of these regulations if they do become final.

doesn't do it until they become final. then it's a simple majority. so people are going to have to get on record, and -- and to me that's really all we really need is get people on record for this. now, i think you're probably going to hear some things and people will assume that these things are really happening. you'll hear that the extreme weather is increasing, the munich reassurance company said global-related disaster losses have declined by 25% as a proportion of g.d.p., they'll say the hurricanes are happening, and yet "the washington post," the the united states has not been witness to a major category 3 or higher landfall since october, 2005 when wilma hit southwest florida as a category 3 storm. they'll be talking about droughts. in spite of the fact even the ipcc talking about the united states said droughts have become less frequent, less intense or shorter in central north

america. nature, a well respected publication, drought has for the most important become shorter, less frequent and cover a smaller portion of the united states over the last century. flooding, the ipcc comes in again talking about this, the usgs said floods have not increased in the united states in frequency or intensity since at least 1950. noaa said flood losses as a percentage of g.d.p. have doipped bye 75% since 1940 but you'll hear -- that's why it's necessary to document these things. noaa talks about tornadoes. said tornadoes not have increased in frequency, intensity or normalized damage since 1950. some data shows there has been a decline. and so we have all these issues that i'm sure we'll be -- will be discussed -- polar bears. they'll say all the polar bears. the chairman of the environment and public works committee gave

me a polar bear coffee cup which i use frequently and -- we display that very prominently. but they say that in the 1950's and 1960's there were 5,000 and 10,000 polar bears. today there are 15,000 to 25,000. so we have all these things that are a reality on the glaciers, the end report, the hurricanes and all these other things and yet they'll be talked about, i'm sure, during the course of the evening. let me just mention one other thing and i'm going from memory on this but i know it's right because i've -- it was originally documented, we go through these 30-year cycles all the time. we've been going through them for a long time. if you take in 1895 all the things that started getting cooler and that's when the term ice age first came along. they said another ice age is coming. that lasted until 1918.

in 1918 all of a sudden it started getting warmer and that's the first time you saw global warming, 1918 to 1945. every 30 years, this has been happening, all of a sudden it got cold. they talked about another ice age was coming. i remember "time" magazine had a cover talking about the ice age. then in 1970, another -- another warm period was coming along. that's the one people have been talking about. here's the thing -- in 1945, we had the largest amount of increase, the largest increase in co2 emissions any time in the recorded history of this country and that precipitated not a warming period but a cooling period. now as they have said we haven't been warming since for the last 15 years, and so this is always a difficult thing to deal with, but i know that the effort is there. i know that it's renewed now and people are excited about it. and i can assure you that the

trend is in the wrong direction and it's not going to happen. with that, mr. president, my time is expired and i yield the floor. mr. whitehouse: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: under the unanimous consent the floor now reeforts to me -- reverts to me but the distinguished member from california, the chairman, my chairman on the environment and public works committee has joined us and i will yield to the senator from california. the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: thank you. i want to thank my friend, senator whitehouse. such a great leader on this issue. and i'm really glad that senator inhofe came down to the floor, my good friend, and he deserves a thank you because he has laid out why he denies the obvious, and that is that this planet is warming and it's due to human activity, and, frankly, it's his right to turn his back on

97% of the scientists just like the deniers did when we learned that it was, in fact, smoking that was causing an epidemic of lung cancer. i respect him, i'm glad he came down here, but i have to say i'm sad that we haven't seen any republicans come down here except for senator inhofe, who has written a whole book on this and we know his views but we don't see anybody else. but let me tell you what we know from our other colleagues. let's just take the speaker, the republican speaker of the house who said when asked about climate change, it kind of has a different view than senator inhofe. so does senator rubio. this is what they said when asked what did they think about climate. their answer is i'm not a scientist. what do i know? well, right you're not.

why don't you listen then to 9 -- then, to 97% of the scientists if you admit you're not a scientist? and then what if speaker boehner or senator rubio or the others who are these deniers and they're now saying they're not a scientist, let's say they went to the doctor and the doctor said look, you've got a serious liver condition and i have a new drug that's been created to cure your disease and i don't think we should wait and let's go. and you didn't say, well, i want a second opinion, i want to go to another doctor, you said you know what, i'm not a doctor, i don't think so. does that make sense? what if you went to a dentist and the dentist said senator, have you an abscess, it's pretty straightforward, i can fix it if you let it go, you're

going to get an infection, i don't know what could happen. now, if i said to the dentist, i'm going to check with a couple other people, fine, but no, if i said i'm not a dentist, i don't think so. or as my friend told me before, you take your car in for a repair, and they say you know something's wrong with the brakes here and we got to tighten those brakes, can you leave the car here? well, i'm not a repairman. 97% of the scientists, they're all peer reviewed, are telling us what is happening to our planet. and here's the thing about these deniers. if they want to jump on the climate change cliff and just go by themselves, that's their choice, but they're going to take everybody with them, okay? my grandkids, your grandkids, and their kids. and we're just not going to let it happen.

senator whitehouse isn't going to let it happen, i'm not going to let it happen, the president isn't going to let it happen and i'm going to spend the rest of my time just summing it up by refuting some of the things senator inhofe said. so i'd ask unanimous consent that if i might put my entire statement into the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. boxer: so i have to say the president deserves a lot of credit for his plan, and what's really interesting is, it's supported by 70% of the american people, who -- quote -- "think the federal government should limit the release of greenhouse gases from existing power plants in an effort to reduce global warming." now, that includes amazingly 57% of republicans, 79% of democrats, 76% of independents support the president's plan because they're not stupid,

they're smart. look what happens when you throw the environment under the bus. people walk around in air that you can see. you don't want to see the air. you don't want to wear a mask when you go outside. and the american people get it, and then my colleague said, oh, they're going to scare you, they're going to scare you. there's no problem with carbon in the air. there's no problem at all. well, let me tell you who disagrees with senator inhofe, who disagrees with the republicans. the american medical association, the american academy of pediatrics, the american thoracic society, the american public health association, the american lung association, the national nurses union, all have statements that say climate change is a threat to public health. who -- who are the people going to listen to, us, politicians, or people who

spend every day of their life waking up in the morning and thinking of ways to protect our health? yeah, if the deniers want to jump off the cliff and they only hurt themselves, i suppose that's their option but they're taking my kids and they're taking all the kids of our american families. and we're not going to let that happen. i will close with this -- the the senator from oklahoma said this is going to kill you, it's going to raise the prices of your electricity, jobs are going to be lost. he cited a chamber of commerce study that has been so rebuffed that "the washington post" gave it their most pinocchios -- in other words, four pinocchios to the chamber of commerce because they were responding to something that never came about. this plan of the president's makes a whole lot of sense.

he has courage to do it, we're going to stand behind it and yeah, they're going to try to repeal it, the republicans. but let me give them the bad news from their perspective. they've sent over dozens and dozens of environmental riders. i think i want to say over 90, i'll check it for the record. how much? over 90. we have beat back every single one of them. and for colleagues to stand there and say sheldon whitehouse and i are doing this because it's an election year, that is a joke. we've been doing this for years. i dare say sheldon whitehouse has made more speeches on the floor than anyone on this subject, and i started and when i had the gavel for the first time in 2007, i had to fight to keep it in my hand because guess what, we had al gore before the committee, remember, and senator inhofe was so distressed

he tried to grab the gavel. we have kind of a funny picture in our office in which i said elections have consequences and they do. but to say that we're doing this because there's some donor is the most absurd thing i've ever heard. i'll put in the record a statement by lyndon johnson. this shows how far back democrats have warned about this. this is amazing. my staff discovered the this. air pollution, he said -- this is 1965 -- is no longer confined to isolated places. he says this generation has altered the composition of the atmosphere on a global scale with a steady increase in carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels. so don't come on this floor and say 1u8d the democrats care about this because it's an election year. you know, it's ridiculous. we've known about this for years. we've been trying to get the attention of our colleagues. i want to thank senator

whitehouse. he and i signed a letter with several others inviting our colleagues down. all we got was senator inhofe, not that we don't love him and we appreciate the fact he came over here, but we have to now assume he speaks for everybody on that side. which is scary. because they've turned their back on the doctors, they've turned their back on the scientists, and they've turned their backs on the american people. thank you senator whitehouse, and i would yield back to you. the presiding officer: the senat -- the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, the hope for this evening was that by extending a formal invitation to our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, somebody would come to the floor who was not just outright

denying that climate change is happening. and for a while in senator inhofe's remarks, he was focusing on the economics of various types of regulation. and i thought, oh, well maybe we can have a conversation about what the best way is to solve the climate change problem. but towards the end of his remarks, he got back to denying that it's happening at all, which makes a tough place to begin negotiations. there are plenty of other republican senators in this body. many of them have worked on this issue in the past. i don't know whether it is a coincidence or not, but the level of activity by republican senators on climate change collapsed shortly after the united states supreme court's decision in citizens united.

and as many of my republican friends have pointed out to me on the floor here, there have been times when the big money -- the dark money, the anonymous election money that's been thrown around since that decision -- there have been times when that money has been spent more against republicans than against democrats. so we hope that, as we resolve that issue, some of our friends find a way back to the positions that they've held in the past, back to campaigning nationally on climate issues, back to supporting bipartisan climate legislation, back to supporting a carbon fee, back to voting for a cap-and-trade bill. that's where they've been before citizens united, and we'd hoped to bring them back. but the champion sent by the republican side to represent their point of view tonight was senator inhofe, who has written

a book saying that this is all just a big hoax. so in that sense, it was disappointing. i've heard these arguments before. and us a go down the list -- and as you go down the list, i think it is worth taking a moment to knock them aside. one of my personal favorites is that e.p.a. is doing this after the issue was repeatedly blocked in congress. well, yeah, it's been blocked in congress but coal and oil and polluter interests. so the interests that have blocked the highway don't get to complain when traffic has to take a detour. we'd be delighted to work on serious climate legislation in this body. we would be delighted to have it be here, fo. for a lot of reasons, we would

get a better result if we did climate legislation than we can through the e.p.a. rule. this is the place where the conversation should take place. but when the oil and the coal and the polluting industries take the position that this is not real, and when they force the republican party into that position, that climate change is not real, then we're obviously not going to have a very meaningful discussion about solving a problem. and that's what forces it to e.p.a. but it is a little rich for those who've shut down this forum for solving this problem to complain when it gets solved in another and less efficient way. you don't very well get to do that. the high cost of the solution --

i think senator inhofe said, $300 billion to $400 billion and that it's not disputed. well, yeah, i.t it's totally disputed. in fact, it's not even true. the best way to solve this problem is with a revenue-neutral carbon fee. what does "revenue-neutral "mean? it means that every dollar that comes in from the carbon polluters fee that they have to pay goes right back out to the american people, right straight back out to the economy. you can do it through tax reductionreductions and organizs conservative as the american enterprise institute -- the american enterprise institute -- have coauthored a report with the brookings institution on a carbon tax, they call it. i call it a carbon pollution fee, because when you're giving all the money straight back to

the american public, it is not really a tax. it is not general revenue. it goes right straight back out. when you do that, i think this e is a case to be made that that propels the economy. investing in innovation supporting the types of energy creation that we can build here in america is inevitably going to be better for our economy. -- than having to use fossil fuels, having to clean up after the pollution, having to deal with the foreign countries that traffic in fossil fuels. it is all a better circumstance. the senator from oklahoma also said that this is the product of what he called the radical environmentalist movement. the radical environmentalist movement. well, one group that speaks very strongly on climate change is nasa.

nasa right now is driving around a rover on the surface of mars. they built a rover that's about the size of an s.u.v. they launched it into space. they landed it successfully on the planet mars. and they're now driving it around. do you think these people know what they're talking about? do you think that's a radical environmentalist movement, nasa? really? that's conspiracy theory run amok, if you think that nasa is part of a radical environmentalist movement. how about our military? national security and the accelerating risks of climate change, by the c.n.a. military advisory board. c.n.a. corporation is a

corporation comprised largely of retired military who are kept on in that role to advise the military on emerging issues. sort of a think tank for the u.s. military that has been there through republican and democratic administrations alike. and this report -- national security oong ands the -- natiol security and the accelerating risks of climate change -- has some interesting folks on the advisory bored that published the beneficiary board that published the report. how about brigadier general galloway jr., the former dean at the united states military academy, the dean at west point. you think he is part of a radical environmental movement? how about lee gunn, the former inspector general of the department of the navy? doesn't seem shrike a very radical -- doesn't seem like a very radical environmentalist to

me? admiral skip bowman, general james conway, former commandant of the marine corps. now, there are some radical left-wing environmentalists for you, the u.s. marines. you know, this is so, so far beyond that. not only are there organizations like wal-mart, coke and pepsi, ford and g.m., ups and federal express, target, nike, all totally on board with this. the military totally on board with this. nasa totally on board with this. national science foundation -- every major scientific organizations in the country, every single one. so let's not pretend that this is some fringe group of radical

environmentalists trying to foist an idea on the country. this is a fringe residue of oil and coal and polluting interests trying to prevent the end of a long holiday they've had from any responsibility for all the harm that their carbon pollution has caused. let me tell you firsthand, there is harm happening in rhode island, in my home state, and i.t. noit's not deniable. the deniers will never talk about the oceans. they will never talk about the oceans. they'll talk about distant climate theory all day long, but when you go to the sea, the sea does not bear false witness. sea level is rising. you measure that with sling essentially a yardstick nailed to the end of the peer. a tied gauge is 23409 tide gau?

the a complex thing. we've known since al.a. braham lincoln was president that when you have carbon die objection nied the atmosphere, it warms the planet. that has been established science since abraham lincoln in his stovepipe hat drove around washington in a carriage. and we know that billions of tons of carbon dioxide have gone up there. and we know, further, that virtually all the heat has gone into the oceans. unless somebody wants to deny the law of thermal expansion -- and i haven't heard anybody willing to deny that yet -- then when you warm up the ocean, guess what? it expands and it rises, and we in rhode island see 10 inches higher seas to be thrown at our shores by a big storm or hurricane. makes a cig bi big difference.

i challenge my colleagues on the other side too give me just five minutes of their time and go to google and look up "hurricane of 1938 images" and look at the pictures of what happened in my state when the sea level was 10 inches lower. senator inhofe mentioned the chamber of commerce study. i'm a little surprised he did that because he's not the first republican to mention the chamber of commerce study. speaker boehner mentioned the chamber of commerce study, too. he earned a false from "politifact" for referencing that study. "the washington post" gave it four pinocchios. you know, pinocchio, the long nose for not telling the truth. so that was a strange place to go. and he said there's been no temperature increase. quote -- "it didn't happen."

it did happen. it absolutely did happen. it happened in the oceans. where more than 90% of the heat goes. it happened in the oceans. and you can measure that with thermometers. it is not comple indicated. -- it is not complicated of the and if you go to natur narragant bay in rhode island, you can see that it is warmer. that has a real effect on rhode islanders. men used to go out in boats with trolls and they'd catch winter flounder in narragansett bay and it was a fishery that fed their families. it is not 90% -- it has 90% crashed. and a significant part of that is because the bay is no longer hospitable to winter flounder when it is three to four degrees warmer. it simply doesn't work.

the public is with us. and we will get this done. we've seen tonight what we're up against; that not one republican in this building would come tonight on our invitation and say one word about climate change being real. not one republican, not one wo word. so that's what we're up against. but they have lost the american public, and so the fall of the denial castle is inevitable. it is built on sand. the sand is eroding. it is eroding. even among young republican voters, self-identified republican voters under the age of 35, the hypothesis offered by the deniers, the hypothesis that climate change isn't real is viewed as -- and these are the words from the poll, not my

words: "ignorant, out of touch, or crazy." i submit, madam president, that a party whose own voters under the age of 35 view that party's position of denying climate change as ignorant, out of touch, or crazy is a party that needs a new position on climate change. they're not even selling their own young voters, and they are certainly not selling the general public which wants the president to do something about this in enormous numbers. 70% and 80%. the pentagon, whether you're looking at democrats, independents or the full population. let me close with two specifics because we often have these debates sort of at the ipcc versus the sierra