it is pretty stunning the risk that women in particular are put at when their spouse has easy access to a firearm. abused women are five times more likely to be killed by their abuser if their abuser owns a firearm. and one of the few moments at which you can prevent that abuser from obtaining a firearm is when the court gets involved at that moment of separation between the wife and the husband, between the abused and the abuser, that moment of the temporary restraining order. senator blumenthal and i believe this is an amendment that could get broad, bipartisan support. i wish we could get 60 votes for background checks but i am realistic that it is not likely that five minds have changed since the last time we took this vote. but just like we came together after a period of disagreement to pass the violence against women act, we can certainly make the decision that in those limited circumstances, during

those limited days of a temporary re-strange order, that -- restraining order, shouldn't be able to go out and buy a weapon. this isn't a denial of due process that the judge actually has to make a finding that there is a threat of violence. those are fairly limited circumstances, but if this amendment is passed, we will save lives. you know, senator blumenthal closed -- and i'll close in the same vein -- by noting that, well, this amendment will save lives; it is not going to dramatically change the reality in this country, which is 80-plus people killed every day by guns. but everybody has a role to play in trying to reduce the rates of gun violence. a young man in new haven by the name of doug bethea lost a close friend of his, a 16-year-old boy named torrence gamble. we saw at a funeral for another

friend of theirs killed by gun values, and torrence said he wanted to get off the streets and start setting his life straight. he wanted to set up a time to meet with his friend doug to find a way out. and it was only a couple days after saying, doug, don't forget about me -- in fact, the very next day -- that torrence was shot in the head and died of his injuries in the hospital. doug decided to do something about it. he spent the summer taking information house to house, to tell kids to get off the streets, do something productive with their time. all the programs that kids can invest positive energy in. target did their part a couple weeks ago by asking their customers to refrain from bringing guns onto their property. if we're going to talk about guns, let's make sure we do

something that reduces the rate of gun violence all across the country. this is a commonsense amendment, an amendment that i'm sure can gain broad, bipartisan support we hope that we can do our part this week to try to stem the plague and the scourge of gun violence on the streets of america. i yield the floor. mr. president, i note the -- the presiding officer: the senatosenator from washington ss recognized. ms. cantwell: thank you, mr. president. i appreciate the comments made

by the senator from connecticut, and i come to the floor to talk about a very important issue, u.s. manufacturing jobs, and what the united states senate needs to do to make sure is that we're protecting u.s. manufacturing jobs. i'm speaking of the need to reauthorize the export-import bank, a credit agency that helps u.s. manufacturers and small businesses sell their products to overseas markets. some of you may have read recently comments by some of our colleagues where they have shifted their position and the agency is set to expire on september 30 of this year, and it's so critical that we reauthorize this program because it's such an important tool for u.s. manufacturers. over the last few weeks, fringe organizations and activists have suddenly tried to turn this into a political casualty saying that we should kill the program, and i'm here to advocate that it is

a win-win situation for american manufacturers, for american taxpayers, and for the jobs that it creates. and that's because the export-import bank supports about 1.2 million jobs, and it has returned $1 billion to the u.s. treasury last year alone, and it supports between 30,000 and 35,000 suppliers of manufactured parts, and that was just in the year 2011. so, as this chart shows, the export-import bank helps us generate export sales and supports 1.2 billion jobs. that's between 2009 and 20136789 you would think a program that doesn't cost the taxpayers any money actually helps us pay down the deficit and helps create that many export sales and that many jobs would be something that we would want to reauthorize and give predictable city to businesses -- predictability to businesses all across the united states.

if it is not reauthorized, nearly 90% of the companies that would be harmed are small businesses. so, sure, there are big companies like boeing or general electric or caterpillar that help sell products around the globe, and some of my colleagues want to criticize that somehow we should be apologizing for the fact that we actually make expensive products and sell them. i'm quite proud that we sell products to china and various parts of the -- all around the globe from the united states that are actually expensive products. we should be proud that we're making something worth millions of dollars that people want to buy. so i'm glad that "made in the u.s.a." is actually closing deals all across the globe. so today -- but we also want to highlight that all of these companies who are in the manufacturing sector are part of a manufacturing chain. we know this well because in the state of washington when you look at who makes aerospace

products, while you can say that there's a company in everett, washington, named boeing, there are hundreds of companies, thousands of companies across the united states that are part of what is called the supply chain. behind every triple-7 or caterpillar tractor, there are thousands of workers who are working every day to refine their product, stay competitive, retrain and refocus to make sure that we build the very best products in the united states and that we're competing on a global basis. when these larger companies and small businesses that they work with try to win deals overseas, they run into lots of different challenges. and that's why we're here today to say making sure that we reauthorize this program is critically important to small business manufacturers and suppliers throughout the united states. this export supply chain -- so all of these small businesses and companies, 30,000 to 35,000

companies across the united states, there's actually a supplier in every state in the ewings. but let's look at some of the numbers. in georgia, there are over 883 different companies, such as united seal and rubber and other important companies that make products just for aviation or for caterpillar or for other individuals. in the state of florida there's over 1,252 different small businesses and manufacturers that are helping to produce products that are sold on an international basis. and those companies want the export-import bank reauthorized. in the state of wisconsin, there is over 1,397 different suppliers, such as hensing coatings in milwaukee which

providers sealer and wing coating. these are companies that also want to see the reauthorization of this important tool, that it helps products that they help manufacture and build be sold in international markets. and of course there's places like texas, which have a lot of people in the supply chain. here's just some of the companies that are involved in manufacturing that take advantage of this important export-created agency by building product into final assembly and are all over the state of texas. in fact, here's another continued list of these companies from texas that are part of building product that are then using the export-import bank to sell their products around the globe. but i can't go over all of those in texas because they'r they the actually 4,355 different companies in the state of texas that are involved in the supply

chain of companies that are selling products through the export credit agency and its assistants. so you can see that this is not a program that just affects one state or one region. it's an example of small business manufacturers working everywhere to stay competitive, to sell products, and win in the international marketplace. so personally having visited many of these companies in the state of washington, i find it very frustrating, as these people are working night and day to make the best airplanes, to make the best manufactured product, to take the risk to go and sell in overseas markets, to keet with international carpet -- compete with international competitors, to retrain and re-skill reskill a workforce. we have people in the united states congress who don't understand what an important tool the export-import bank is? helping u.s. manufacturers sell

into new emerging markets. there are other states -- we're not going to throw up charts about them. but i know in ohio -- i know the presiding officer is from ohio. there are over 1,700 suppliers in ow ohio owe. and these cps companies like hartsell propel,family-owned manufacturer in southwest ohio. and hardsell is part of the dayton aviation economy that dates back to the wright brothers. in fact, it was or develop wright to suggested that the hartzell company build a plane. this company is still here and is still innovating. i think they are part of the spirit of innovation in america that makes america so great. and i am so frustrated that those people here who don't understand that innovation spirit, don't understand what it takes, don't understand that you

are hampering really right now almost torturing small businesses by not giving them the certainty and predictability for the export assistance program. these -- this company builds crop-dusting plane propellers and hartzell has grown from about 13% to about 300 people in the last three years. that's because these crop-dusting planes have been sold using the export-import bank and the loans haven't come directly to hartzell. they're part of the ex-im supply chaifnlt but companies like them who make these propellers are important companies to making sure that we win in the international marketplace. well, the president of this company, joe hartzell said it best. "if you take away the ex-im bank from customers, you might as well bring unemployment checks to the offices because ors a

you're putting people out on the streets. if they're not building as many angers then i'm going to have a problem with those jobs." so here is a manufacturer -- i heard the same thing in seattle a few weeks ago when i was there. but here is an ohio company who is saying, if you don't get this program reauthorized, we're going to have bigger problems. so people like hartzell are trying to tell everyone here that we need to keep working to make sure that we get this reauthorized. we need to make sure that companies throughout the midwest, like in wichita, kansas, or people in the west, like tempe, arizona, or companies in irving, texas, everywhere where we're part of this huge supply chain are doing the work that they need to dovment well, another area that is big on the supply chain is in the general area of aviation,

and it supports over 200,000 jobs. so 200,000 jobs are the number of people who are involved in aviation today, and those are individuals, businesses who are doing their best to stay competitive in aviation, even though we have incredible competition. that incredible competition comes from the fact that there are so many different companies around the globe who also want to build airplanes. there's something like a demand for 35,000 new airplanes over the next 20 years. so you can imagine every country wants to try to build airplanes. china wants to try to build airplanes. brazil is already in the business, canada, the europeans. so everybody wants to build airplanes. well, good news for us is we actually have a supply chain in the united states, and this chart represents that supply chain of 15,000 manufacturers and over 1.5 million jobs.

so these are all the companies throughout the united states of america who are involved in using the export-import bank to make sure that their products are sold on an international basis. there is actually jobs in a company in every state in the union that takes advantage of being part of the supply chain. and why it's so important to keep the supply chain is because if you keep the supply chain in your country, then you have the skill set that it takes to keep innovating, because each of these companies is working on the individuals parts and making them the best parts they could possibly be. that way you get the efficient airplane of today. and so this innovation is taking place all across the country, and we have to stay competitive. now, get rid of the export-import bank and over time the supply chain will start to disappear. why? because in europe, they will

still have an export-import bank and people like airbus will continue to use that product, and they'll have a supply chain. and over time all these small businesses and all this expertise in aviation will move out of the united states of america and move somewhere else. so then what manufacturing jobs will we have in the united states? aviation is one of the best sectors for manufacturing that we have today, with all these employees, over 1.5 million, we need to keep aviation manufacturing competitive in the united states of america, and that's why we need to reauthorize the export-import bank. there are other sectors of aviation like gusm stream, which is -- like gulf stream which is another company that has, based in savannah, georgia, been one of the foremost makers of business jets. they've watched their international competition increase steadily over the last

decade, and export-import bank has helped them be competitive, the gulf stream supply chain. it has about 3,500 different businesses and about 13,000 employees, and all those employees are working hard to try to stay competitive. and they are working to make sure that we keep those jobs in the united states of america. but they also have to have the competition of making sure we have the export-import bank so that they can continue to win in the international marketplace. so gulf stream actually sells product to china, so jobs in georgia and throughout the supply chain are helping us win in the international marketplace, whether they are composite companies or light industrial or fuselage skins, all of these things are helping people be competitive. so right now gulfstream and the

supply chain sold 8,000 planes to china. that helped support 2,100 jobs, and most of those jobs were right in the savannah area. now if we're going to cancel the export-import bank, how are they going to get these products financed and how are they going to get them sold? while we're very appreciative of both of these sectors of aviation -- the commercial sector and general aviation sector -- we haven't even talked about, you know, the other defense sectors of aviation. these are two big components to our economy, and while some people like to think, oh well, you know, there's a way to get these planes sold or these are big companies, these are integral parts to our u.s. manufacturing base, and we need to keep it. so the united states demand, as i said earlier, is for 35,000 new planes over the next 20

years. and 80% of those planes will be delivered outside of the united states. so that means if we want to keep winning the race for airplane sales, we're going to have to work outside the united states. and yesterday standard & poor's reported that if the export-import bank is not reauthorized it will be a huge benefit to airbus. they said airbus will still be able to offer financing and this could be a deciding factor for some new aircraft's contracts especially in emerging markets for sales and to start up for financially weak airlines. so, in other words, we'd be handing u.s. jobs overseas, and that is not what we want to do. countries are building up their investment to try to compete with us, and the export-import bank is a key tool for u.s. manufacturers to compete. so trade is a critically important part of our economy.

in twitter, u.s. exports -- in 2013, u.s. exports reached 2.3 dollars worth of goods and a key part of that growth could be attributed to this program. the export-import bank exported $37 billion of u.s. exports which supported over 200,000 jobs in the united states. that alone is enough information for me to say that the senate ought to act quick to reauthorize this program. there are many other aspects of the export-import bank that helps small businesses and manufacturing. in fact, the manufacturing jobs in the united states are about 12 million jobs, and one in four jobs are tied to exports. that's why when i think my colleagues try to portray the export-import bank as some issue that may be a few big companies would benefit from, i think they

have it totally wrong. this is an issue about the competitive nature of manufacturing and the supply chain of manufacturers all across the united states and whether we want to keep manufacturing jobs because they are high-wage, high-skilled jobs in the united states of america. and while my colleagues would like to talk about other things in the economy, i think it's important to realize how much manufacturing jobs really are a high wage. they are higher wage than service sector jobs. they help us stabilize the middle class. and they help the u.s. economy grow in a way, as i mentioned, because of those large export numbers, and they help the u.s. continue to innovate and stay ahead in a global marketplace. so all of these things are reasons why the export-import is such a viable tool. if you think about it from this

perspective being a critical part of manufacturing -- and these are the high-wage jobs and it supports that supply chain that i went through showing -- then you can see why it's so important that this get done before the end of september. right now what's happening is my colleagues not only want to threaten not to reauthorize this program; they actually want to kill it. my guess is they would like to say we'll grate to a short-term extension of a few months only in the hopes of killing it later. i want to make sure that all my colleagues know how important it is that not only that we reauthorize this, that we reauthorize it for several years so that companies have the predictability and certainty to know that the program is going to be there and they have the support. now the export-import bank has four primary tools. it has loan guarantees that provide security to commercial lenders who make loans to foreign buyers of american

products. for example, goss international in new hampshire, the loan helped them sell their printing presses in emerging markets in brazil. we have an export credit insurance in companies like manhassat in my state of yakima, washington, used it to help get their music stands sold across the globe and make sure there was credit insurance to protect them. there are loan programs, for example, to help foreign buyers of u.s. products like firm green in newport beach, california, run by a disabled veteran who helped to sell their goods in brazil. and it also provides working capital like in morrisson technology manufacturing in south carolina, who used the tool to purchase materials needed for recent surge in business that couldn't have been met without that financing. so here they are, all these companies throughout the country, using the export-import

bank and staying competitive. well, i personally would make the export-import bigger. when you look at what china's doing or when you look at what europe's doing, they're making a bigger financial investment in helping their businesses become exporters. would he in the united states. the -- we in the united states finance less than 5% of u.s. exports. exports are really done in the private sector, but this tool helps commercial banks and helps commercial manufacturers get their product when other avenues aren't available in the private sector. so here's an example of one of the programs of how the export-import works. you can see that the u.s. exporter sells to the foreign buyer and that commercial financing is still part of the equation. the export-import bank is only used as a safety net to make sure that that financial

commercial obligation is secure in the situation. so it's not as if we are replacing commercial banking. it's not as if we aren't making even market rates. we are, for products like aerospace. so the issue is if we need to make sure commercial banks are willing to guarantee these kinds of sales, we're providing a safety net with the export-import bank. and what has the cost been to the u.s. government? well, we've had incredible success because everybody pays fees into this system. and those fees and the success of the program has helped us pay down the federal deficit. that's right, it has actually made money for u.s. taxpayers and helped us pay down the federal deficit. so it supports 1.2 million export-related jobs. it has helped support $37 billion in exports from the united states, which helps our

economy. and it has returned more than $1 billion to u.s. taxpayers. so i would call that a win-win situation for american jobs and american taxpayers. but we have 73 days left until that program expires. i don't want to let that happen. so today we are announcing over 200 different supply chain companies are sending a letter to the united states senate and house of representatives asking them to urgently support the reauthorization of the export-import bank. we're also hearing from lots of businesses and business organizations who also support the immediate reauthorization. the u.s. chamber of commerce, the national association of manufacturers, the business round table, national association of businesses, the international association of machinists, national grain and feed association, and many, many more organizations.

all of these companies want to be able to say "made in the u.s.a." and have their products sold overseas. so i hope my colleagues will be there to help ensure that this program gets reauthorized in a short amount of time. i personally hope the united states senate will take this legislation up in the next few weeks before we adjourn for the august recess. i would hate to see what happens to all the business deals that these manufacturers have on the table if they go home in august and people are saying the bank only has a few days left to be reauthorized, i'm not going to do business with you until i know. or if somebody tries to stick a five-month reauthorization on some bill, and then everybody still says when is this program going to be reauthorized? otherwise, i'm not going to do a bill -- sorry, i'm not going to do a deal with u.s. manufacturers. so why are we, of all the things

that we're doing, sending a message to the actual competitors of creating jobs in today's economy, why are we sending them such a message of uncertainty in this situation? these are real jobs in a marketplace that is growing. the middle class is going to grow from about $2.3 -- 2.3 billion to about 5 billion people outside the united states over the next 15 years. we're going to see a doubling of the middle class. that is where products are going to be sold, in emerging markets. so those emerging markets don't all have the financial tools to make those deals a reality. but the export-import bank can help. they can help make sure that a customer pays that u.s. manufacturing wins, and that we keep our marketplace. so we hope that all our colleagues will support this legislation. time is running out. know that this program has

returned over $1 billion to the u.s. treasury. that's a pretty good deal for us. if somebody on the other side has a better way of growing jobs and paying down the federal deficit, i'd like to hear it because this is an important tool, and time is running out. i urge my colleagues to help support the export-import bank. i thank the president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from missouri is recognized. mr. blunt: thank you, mr. president. i want to speak for a few minutes about the e.p.a. rules on water. the e.p.a. administrator, gina mccarthy is in missouri today to discuss the e.p.a.'s proposed rule which would significantly expand the authority of the united states under the clean water act. in a conference call with reporters yesterday, administrator mccarthy called some of the questions about the rule silly and ludicrous and said that her trip to missouri

is part of a broader campaign to reassure the agricultural community and set the record straight. i hope she's spending at least as much time in my state listening as she is talking. and if she does that, i think she'll find out that some of these concerns are not only very real, but they have lots of impact and not just for the farm community across the country, but for lots of people who are affected in lots of different ways by what happens if you expand the authority of the federal government, as this rule would, to deal with water almost everywhere and almost all water. you know, not only did she say that these questions were silly and ludicrous, but when the missouri farm bureau expressed the concern that they said virtually every acre of private property potentially falls under the clean water act jurisdiction, things that you normally do on a farm would be called into question, according

to the "springfield news leader," administrator mccarthy said -- these are quotes from the paper, "mccarthy says that's hogwash." if the way to actually deal with the people we work for is to say your ideas are silly, they're ludicrous, your comments are hogwash, i think once again we are certainly seeing the federal government at its worst, not at its best. this is a big organization. it is a well-run organization. it's represented missouri agricultural interests for a long time. and when their spokesman stands up and says virtually every acre of private property potentially falls under the clean water act jurisdiction if this rule is finalized, at least 40 members of this body, i'm convinced, believe that to be the case. that's what they said, and she said it's hogwash. and then according to the paper,

she rattled off what she said were some of the most dubious claims made by the rules critics. now this is a rule that has critics because it's a rule that deserves to have critics. it draws concerns from farmers. and in fact just today i said before i come over, let's be sure that i know we haven't had an epiphany of understanding here, and suddenly administrator mccarthy said, "i've listened, and you're right, these are problems we need to find the answers to." but what i found when i looked was that the farmers she met with today, there's no press in the meeting that included the farmers, and there were no farmers in the meeting that included the press. so farm families were concerned, you take the press out, away from everybody else, you go out on this farm and talk about, i assume, all the great benefits that more federal control of that farmland would produce. but then when you have the meeting

with the farmers, no press in that meeting where anybody can hear the concerns that these farmers have. i think again the members of the senate have been pretty clear as we cosponsored bills that would require the e.p.a. to withdraw this rule and try again. it's clear that this is really a blatant overreach into the private lives, private property rights of the american people by the administration. and not just farmers, anybody that owns land anywhere. if i was just hearing from farmers, i'd be concerned but i'm hearing from farmers, i'm hearing from builders, i'm hearing from realtors, i'm hearing from local governments what happens if the federal government has this most broad definition of waters of the united states. the proposed rule will give e.p.a., the corps of engineers, the most extreme of environmental groups a powerful

tool to delay almost anything, to prevent development, to prevent land use on property owned by municipalities, property owned by individuals, property owned by farming families, by small businesses. because all that property, mr. president, includes water in some way or another. and the law was pretty clear when it was written that the e.p.a., under the clean water act, would have authority over the navigable waters of the united states. this rule suggests, this rule, in fact, makes the -- makes the assertion and the jurisdictional assertion that really navigable waters now means any water that could go into navigable waters. any water that could eventually flow into the missouri river, the mississippi river, the ohio river, the gulf of mexico, the atlantiatlantic ocean, the pacic ocean and all water everywhere,

eventually some of it heads to those places. so every drop of water water everywhere is potentially under the jurisdiction -- so every drop of water everywhere is potentially under the jurisdiction of the e.p.a.? navigable waters means what it means. there was an editorial today in "the washington post" which actually supported the rule, but i thought the most interesting sentence in that editorial today that supports the rule was right, almost in the exact middle of the editorial, says, "it's true that the agency's plan would expand the scope of the clean water act regulation." now, the way it expands the scope of the clean water act regulation is it expands the scope of the clean water act. we actually have a procedure for that. it's the procedure that everybody who took a civics class learned when they took that civics class. the house passes a bill or the

senate passes a bill. the two come together. i know this doesn't happen as on which as it needs to anymore but that's not an excuse that that's not the way it has to happen. the two come together. they agree on a bill, it goes back to both houses. they vote on that bill one final time. it goes to the president's desk and gets signed into law. that's how you expand the clean water act. you don't expand the clean water act by somebody saying, you know, we just really think that the congress should have done something here that they didn't do and so we're going to do it. and then your friends, who actually support the goal, are -- are so lulled into the idea that the government won't work that they even forget the constitutional process and said well, there's no question. truth is, this expands the -- the truth is, this expands the regulations under the clean water act. if you ask anybody at "the

washington post" or anybody else that uses words all the time, define "navigable waters of the united states," nobody would say that's any water that flows into any water that might eventually flow into water that you can navigate. nobody would say that. nobody would say that's the navigable waters of the united states. but that's the authority that the e.p.a. has. now we're talking about the authority the e.p.a. would like to take. and that's why a number of my colleagues -- i think, oh, 30 of us -- joined senator barrasso -- 29 of us joined senator barrasso in a bill that would say you can't do this. we're going to protect the water and property rights and stop the e.p.a. from going beyond the l law. now, senator barrasso's also going to file that as an amendment that i intend to support on the bill before us

now, the sportsmen's act, that has lots of water implications, many of which i've supported, the wetlands act. there are many things in there that i could be supportive of. but i'm not supportive without any congressional authority of the e.p.a. deciding they're just going to take property rights from people who have those rights. i'm particularly not supportive of that when the law was designed to define what the e.p.a. could. and if anybody wants to go out and do any kind of survey of the american people, let alone the legislators who voted for the clean water act, and ask them what "navigable waters" is, nobody thinks that that's every drop of water that eventually flows to a source that could at some point in the distant -- in the distant distance be navigable. we know what the law says. we know the authority the e.p.a. has been given.

i think we could have a legitimate debate about whether that authority's been properly used or not. but there is no legitimate debate about whether the e.p.a. is trying to go way beyond what the congress has authorized. this idea that the administration has that the pen and the phone will replace the constitution of the united states is not worthy of -- of this country, it's not worthy of what we do, it is a -- it is a disastrous course to set to believe, okay, congress, you deal with immigration in the next 60 days or i'll just do it on my own. "congress, you change the clean water act or we'll just change the clean water act with regulation." "congress, you change the clean air act or we'll change the clean air act..." there is a reason for the constitutional process and i hope missourians in the next 24 hours are given a chance to remind administrator mccarthy of what that reason is and there are reasons that the congress is

looking for ways to remind the president of what that is. that's why i'm supporting the "enforce the law act" that's already passed the house of representatives. what the enforce the law act would do is just give individual members of congress standing if a majority of either house of the congress believe the congress wasn't -- the president wasn't enforcing the law as written to go to a court and ask the court to decide, is the president enforcing the law as written or not. in my view, there is no way in the world that you can look at this proposed rule by the e.p.a. and believe that the e.p.a. and this administration is -- is in any way complying with what is the clean intent of the law. if they don't like the law, there's a way to come to the congress is ask to change the law and that is their job. it is not their job to do the job of the congress, the job the constitution left to somebody besides the executive, whose job is to execute the law, not to

improve on the law, not to write the law, not to make the law. and we see all those things being attempted by people who believe they know what's better for the united states of america than the people of the united states believe is good for the united states of america. and i would yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senior senator from north dakota is recognized. mr. hoeven: mr. president, i'm pleased to join my colleague for a very important discussion and that's the waters of the u.s., the proposed rule by the e.p.a. the good senator from missouri, myself, the senator from wyoming and -- as has been already said on the floor here about 30 of us in total are proposing an amendment to the sportsmen's bill, which is currently under consideration on the floor here, an amendment that would address the regulatory overreach by the

e.p.a.; specifically, their proposed waters of the u.s. regulation. the amendment we have is very simple, very straightforward. it is relevant to the legislation that is currently on the floor and should be brought forward for a vote. it's amendment number 3453 and, as i said, it deals with the waters of the u.s. i'm going to take just a minimum to it in read it because it's very simple and very straightforward and could be dealt with in a very expeditious way. and obviously with, i believe, 29 senators supporting it, it is an amendment that we should be voting on. this is a clear example of an amendment where this body needs to take a stand and it is one that should receive a vote as part of this sportsmen legislation. so i read from the amendment. "in general, neither the secretary of the army nor the administrator of the environmental protection agency

shall, one, finalize the proposed rule entitled 'definitions of waters of the united states" under the clean water act. two, use the proposed rule described in paragraph 1 or any substantially similar proposed rule or guidance as the basis for any rule making or any decision regarding the scope or enforcement of the federal water pollution control act. b, the use of the proposed rule described in subsection a-1 or any substantially similar proposed rule or guidance as the basis for any rule making or any decision regarding the scope or enforcement of the federal water pollution control act shall be grounds for vacation of the final rule, decision or enforcement action." so, very simply, what we provide is that the i.r.s. cannot move forward with the proposed waters of the u.s. rule. and that's just appropriate, because, in essence, as my colleague from missouri just very accurately described, the

e.p.a. has gone way beyond its jurisdiction on this rule. e.p.a. alleges that it is responding to confusion in regard to the waters of the -- proposed waters of the u.s. rule that it's getting from farmers and ranchers across our country. the fact is, that is not the case. what i.r.s. is doing is they are expanding their jurisdiction dramatically under an argument that the supreme court did not make but an argument, rather, that the e.p.a. is making that under what they call "significant nexus" they are empowered to regulate waters far beyond navigable bodies of water. so i'm going to bring that -- this is something that i think affects almost every industry sector but i'm going to bring it back to a discussion of our farmers and ranchers and private property rights which are, in fact, impacted by this proposed rule.

to talk about why it is so important that we have an opportunity to vote on this amendment and to defeat the proposed rule. america's farmers and ranchers and entrepreneurs go to work every day to build a stronger nation. thanks to these hardworking men and women, we live in a country where there is affordable food at the grocery store and where a dynamic private sector offers americans the opportunity to achieve a brighter future. in these difficult economic times, the federal government should be doing all it can to empower those who grow our food and create jobs, yet instead regulators are stifling growth with burdensome regulations that generate costs and uncertainty. the proposed rule by the army corps of engineers and the environmental protection agency to regulate the waters of the u.s. is exactly the type of regulation that i'm talking about. the waters of the u.s. rule

greatly expands the scope of the clean water act. regulation over america's streams and wetlands. now, if you take a look at this chart that i brought, you can see that it's not just affecting our farmers and ranchers, but it goes far beyond that. the power industry, for example, oil and gas industry, construction industry, manufacturing industry, almost anything that you can think of is impacted by this regulatory overreach. it's clearly a power grab by the e.p.a., and it needs to be checked. the supreme court has found that federal jurisdiction under the clean water act extends to navigable waters. so we're not arguing with e.p.a.'s ability to regulate something like the missouri river or a lake that is a navigable body of water, but the supreme court has also made

clear that not all bodies of water are navigable or under e.p.a.'s jurisdiction. what has farmers and ranchers so concerned is that the corps and the e.p.a. went far beyond lakes and rivers. they're going far beyond lakes and rivers. this new proposed rule would bring e.p.a. permitting, reporting, enforcement, mitigation and citizen lawsuits to things like ephemeral streams. ephemeral streams really are dry land most of the time. to a farmer, an ephemeral stream is often simply a low area across a field. it brings it to tributaries, tributaries which are old ditches that carry any amount of water that eventually flows into a navigable body of water. think about that. ditches. it brings it to all waters deemed adjacent to other jurisdictional waters, including

dry ditches and ephemerals, plus any other waters that the e.p.a. has determined have significant nexus. in real-world terms, these categories to bring burdensome regulation to vast numbers of small, isolated wetlands and ponds. i know it's hard to see, but that's what we try to depict on this chart. it's almost any type of water anywhere you find it. for those of you who haven't had the opportunity to visit a -- visit with a farmer from my state of north dakota, know that dealing with excess water is a common issue, to say the least, particularly in recent years. most farmers could tell you just because there is water in a ditch or a field one week doesn't mean there's going to be water in that field or ditch the next week. and it certainly doesn't make that water worthy of being treated the same as a navigable

river or lake. that defies common sense. a field with a low spot that was -- that has standing water during a rainy week and happens to be located near a ditch does not warrant clean water act regulation from illegal or as i say -- from a legal or as i say commonsense perspective. the corps and the e.p.a. responded to these concerns by saying that they are exempting -- that they are going to exempt dozens of conservation practices, but these exemptions are extremely limited, and they do not cover many clean water act requirements. for example, the farmer with a low spot in his field next to the ditch described above, as i just went through, may now or under this proposed rule may be sued under the clean water act section 402 national pollutant discharge elimination system. so think about that.

now the farmer faces the risk of litigation, litigation costs for using everyday weed control or fertilizer applications among other basic and essential farming activities. so let me get this right. the e.p.a. is telling us that oh, okay, we're doing this because this is going to help farmers somehow understand what they have to do, so what they do is they go beyond navigable bodies of water, navigable -- i don't know, let's take a state like ohio, for example. so they are going to go beyond the great lakes and they are going to go beyond the ohio river and they are going to say -- the e.p.a. is now going to say they are going to extend their regulatory jurisdiction to water wherever you find it in a ditch or on a farm, wherever you find it, and they are going to regulate that, and they might give that farmer or rancher an exemption and somehow they have helped out, that somehow they are clarifying things for a farmer or a rancher?

it defies common sense. it absolutely defies common sense. farmers and ranchers have to work through uncertain weather and markets to ensure that america is food secure, and they do an amazing job of it, the best in the world. the best in the world. 16 million people in this country are either directly involved in agriculture or indirectly involved in agriculture. we have a positive balance of payments in ag. we have the lowest cost, highest quality food supply in the world. and so now e.p.a. by its own volition is going to go out and make it harder and more expensive and more difficult for our farmers and ranchers to do what they do better than anyone in the world. farmers and ranchers have to work through uncertain weather and markets to ensure that we have food security, and they don't need the burden of

additional regulations and litigation, and they certainly don't need that burden under the auspices that e.p.a. says oh, somehow this is going to help you. well, that's not the case. i offered this amendment, a very similar amendment in the appropriation committee, in the energy and water section. the night before we were to have our full appropriation committee meeting, 7:30 that night, the energy and water bill gets pulled, so we don't have our appropriation vote the next morning. the amendment that i have prepared simply would have defunded this proposed regulation. but because there was bipartisan support for this amendment, we're not going to get a chance to vote on it. and here we are today, myself and 28 other senators, they have been through here this afternoon. the senator from missouri was

just here. the senator from wyoming was here earlier. others have been here. i'm here now. there will be more. so here we stand. we're on a sportsmen bill. this is a relevant amendment. and the question is why aren't we voting on it? bipartisan support, 29 sponsors, something that is clearly important, not just to our farmers and ranchers but to really business and industry across this great country. so why are -- aren't we voting on it? if somebody wants to come down and make an argument that they are for it, they can do so, but when all is said and done, the way that this body works is by voting and determining where the majority falls. and so i ask my colleagues why in the world are we not voting on this amendment that is incredibly important to our farmers and ranchers, to

business and industry, to the people of this country. like i say, we didn't get a chance to vote on it in committee. here we are on a bill where it's relevant. are we going to get a chance to vote on it now? and if not now, when? majority rules. let's have a vote. let's everybody give everybody a chance to be -- to stand up and be counted. let's have our vote andlet stand up for the american people and maybe sure that we strike down this proposed waters of the u.s. regulation. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor and i also note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: thanks, mr. president. i semiconductor to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. brow. mr. brown: and i ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: i have got an number of calls in recent weeks -- we all have -- about what's happened at the veterans administration. when i -- over the july 4 week back in ohio i heard from lots of veterans at round tables in communities all over the state, from steubenville to dayton and lots of places in between. what are we going to do about the v.a.? i heard outrage, i head disillusionment with the v.a. there's outrage about a system charged with caring for those who defend our nation and falls short. there is frustration, disillusionment, the wayer our - the way our verptses ar veterang so long. but i also saw letters in the newspapers and had conversations

with veteran whose defended and bragged about the service they are getting, the care they are getting, whenl it is the v.a. in cincinnati or dayton or cleveland or columbus or chillicothe, the hospitals we have in our state, or whether it is the community-based clinics in places like mansfield and zanesfield and lima. those outpatient clinics that serve veterans who they'd less acute care but still need service from a doctor, a nurse, a physical therapist. and you can only conclude a couple things. you can conclude there are in fact serious problems at the v.a. that need to be fixed. the presiding officer is a prominent member of the veterans' committee in connecticut and his veterans' hospitals in connecticut, he hears the same thifnl thing. you also can conclude, mr. president, that those who get in the system over-wellcomely are getting good care. 6.5 million veterans using the

v.a. health system. they're getting good care. the problem is access to the system. the waiting times are simply unacceptable and outrageous. and disillusioning for those veterans or worse. we know what waiting times mean, especially in mental health treatment, where far too many veterans commit suicide. the costs of war and particularly this last round of wars offer the last decade where we went to war as nation wrongly in iraq, we didn't pay for that war, and then the president and the congress a decade ago made a fateful mistake, mostly out of arrogance that these two wars would be so short, we don't need to scam the v.a., we don't need to increase funding, we don't need to expand services or hiring new doctors or nurses. a whole bunch of new veterans, sailors and soldiers and marines and airmen and women came home from iraq and afghanistan.

a whole lot more were in the war than president bush and the congress thought would happen or cared to think would happen a decade ago. the second thing they came home much worse shape than in previous wars. people who have have -- soldiers who would have died on the battlefields. the presiding officer is a veteran himself. and he knows -- and we all know -- that the illnesses and physical and mental injuries are much greater in this war because they survived the battlefield when they might not have surrrived these same kinds of explosions of 20 30r years ago. the third thing -- i said two. the third thing that happened is because of a decision congress made that was right a couple of decades ago -- i believe it was president clinton signed that bill; might have been president bush 1 -- at that did something called presumptive eligibility for agent orange. when a veteran came home from

vietnam, right after the war or developed an illness many years later, that veteran would not have to fight with the v.a. to approve that agent orange was the reason they had that illness. after the agent orange presum px sum tax deductibility, if they had an illness connected to agent or arranges they automatically were eligible. that was a great thing. but what that meant is as more and more veterans from vietnam, as they've aged into their 50's and 60's, some into their 70's now, that they have meant a huge influx of patients into the v.a. that's why this veterans conference report, the bill that passed the house, the bill that passed the senate with almost no votes, is so important because our commitment to our veterans

must match their commitment to our nation. i'm the first ohioan to serve a full term ever from the senate on the senate veterans' committee. i have been lucky enough to be appointed to the senate-house joint conference committee. we need to iron out the differences in these bills. weengd to increase the accountability of the v.a. v.a. employees, senior employees in particular who don't do their jobs should lose their jobs. if it is shown in in fact that they did not do their jobs, if they altered information, if they explained away delays incorrectly or dishonestly, they need to be held accountable, period. let's keep in mind, though, that the vast majority of v.a. employees, whether they're in hartford or in cleveland, that the vast majority of v.a. employees are dedicated public servants to our nation and veterans. these are men and women who chose to serve veterans, to work in chill consequently theerks to work in zanesville, in columbus and so many of them are veterans themselves. they chose a drear serve

veterans. they're veterans themselves. police officer at the dayton v.a., a nurse at the toledo office are veterans. second, the compromise bill will provide an option for vernts who are experiencing long wait times and the presiding officer's state of connecticut and in mine, few veterans are all that far from a cboc or a hospital and the loss this new proposal is for veterans more than 40 miles tbrai a hospital or cbo crks, they can go to another community-based health center instead of the v.a. because they're closer. we don't have too many places in my state. i believe there are none in yours where that's the case, to the presiding officer's. but those veterans who have had to wait 30 days should have that

option. third, the -- last, the compromise will expand and enhance the v.a.ability to provide the care our veterans deserve. they will build more beds, build more capacity into the v.a. centers and cbocs to make sure they have the staff necessary. with the end of these two washings thousands of veterans will be joining the ranks of v.a. health care. the shortage of care providers, mr. president, has been especially pressing for vets struggling with brain injury, the so-called invisible injuries. that's when a soldier -- in the army gets a head injury. a number of combatants have told me they get their bells running, is the term they use. it is an invisible injury, a minor concussion. but often -- often not reported. but a minor concussion, then another minor concussion.

look what the stories are told us about the nfl players. the same holds true for soldiers and marines. what happened to them down the road. 0 years later 30 years later they go to the v.a. their behavior is change. their families are calling. the v.aveterans have to strugglo show that's injuries and approve these injuries to the v.a. for the kofnlg or the disafnlt that's why my tracker bill, the significant event tracker set act, is so important. instead of the burden being on the veteran to show here were my concussions, here were my injuries, i should be eligible for disability, here, doctor, is what happened to me. the army itself should be keeping those records and they should follow the health care of the veteran whvment they are in the military, when they are in the v.a. and interface has to take place much more smoothly. when a soldier turns in her gear and she comes back to ravenna,

ohio or to maple heights or garfield heights, the v.a. locally will know what has happened to her. mr. president, these are the challenges. i want to finish with a couple of notes that i got, troubling notes from a couple of people in ohio. one came fro gary in franklin county, the home of the state capitol. "my brother is a vietnam vet. he never discussed his experiences. he took his life in 1992. this bill will provide an important mechanism to help educe the rate of suicides among our veterans. every member of congress should support it. it is not a political issue. it is part of our sincere and legitimate dmoiment our veterans." couldn't have said is better. christine from miami county, just north of dayton. "this bill will remove the red tape that our veterans encounter. my son died at his own hands after a tour in the middle east.

he sought help from the v.a., was diagnosed with ptsd. shortly before dying, i knew his menial state. he would not have been able to handle providing proof that he experienced traumatic events or remembered the dualities that he performed. in other words, he had these injuries -- the military didn't have the records of these injuries because he wasn't injured so badly that he was sent back to germany or to bethesda or to walter reed. but the military should have kept these records so he knew what in fact was wrong. and he was not able in his condition to put together and find his old buddies that were with him, six or eight years earlier, that could recall the incidents of what happened. christine writes that this bill is a simple, effective solution. we need to address the issues facing our veterans. our commitment to our troops must match their commitment to our nation. mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. whitehouse: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, i presume that we are in a quorum call and ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: thank you. mr. president, i'm here for the 73rd time-to-wake-up speech that i've done to urge my colleagues to wake up to the growing threat of climate change. the changes that we are seeing

driven by carbon pollution are far-reaching. from the coastlines of states like rhode island and your state of connecticut, to the great plateaus and mountain ranges out west, from pole to pole, from high up in the atmosphere to deep down in the oceans. in rhode island, we know the oceans are ground zero for the effects of carbon pollution. since the industrial revolution, the oceans have been absorbing our carbon dioxide emissions, roughly of a quarter of the total excess emissions, which, by the laws of chemistry, has caused rapid changes in ocean acidity, the p.h. levels of the oceans, changes not seen for a long time. and when i say "long time," i

mean at least 25 to 50 million years, potentially as much as 300 million years. to put 300 million years into perspective, we, homosapiens, the human species, has been on theeth foonthe earth for about 0 years. so 300 million years goes way back into geologic time, back before the dinosaurs. so a change that's unprecedented in that much time is something we should pay attention to. recently, four republican former e.p.a. administrators testified before my environment and public works subcommittee on the dire need for congressional action to curb this carbon pollution that is causing these effects in our

oceans. here's how the e.p.a.'s very first administrator, william ruckleshouse, put it. he said, "since the ocean absorbs 25% to 30% of the carbon from stationary or mobile sources, we thought the ocean was our friend. it was keeping significant amounts of carbon from the atmosphere. but our friend," he said, "is paying a penalty. as carbon dissolves in water, it makes the water more acidic," fundamental chemical proposition. "and that can upset the delicate balance of ocean life." again, that's just basic physics and chemistry. ronald reagan's e.p.a. chief, lee thomas.

ronald reagan's e.p.a. chief warned us that thanks to the profuse carbon pollution we've emitted, oceans are now acidifying at a rate 50 times greater than known historical change. 50 times. of course, my colleagues in the minority did not seem inclined to listen to their fellow republicans. instead, they took a page out of the polluters' playbook and, as usual, their routine was to call into question widely accepted science. well, i recently visited communities around the country. i'll mention my trip recently along the southeast coast, the atlantic coast, where

researchers, elected officials, and business and homeowners, they're seeing the effects of climate change firsthand. it doesn't matter what somebody thinks on the senate floor. they are seeing it firsthand. they know better than what the polluting special interests are trying to sell. indeed, just recently the united states conference of mayors unanimously adopted a resolution calling for natural solutions to fight the effects of climate change. to -- quote -- "protect fresh water supplies, defend the nation's coastlines, maintain a healthy tree and green space cover, and protect air quality."

unanimously by the u.s. conference of mayors, a bipartisan organization. so there are a lot of people who know better than the nonsense that the polluting special interests are trying to sell. i flew out during this trip to where sea level rise is gnawing away at the outer banks. when you fly over the north carolina coast, you see a lot of investment along the shoreline. you see houses -- big houses, nice houses -- you see hotels, you see restaurants, you see roads and infrastructure, you see an entire seafront economy. i met down there with the north carolina coastal federation at their coastal education center in wilmington. this is a bipartisan group. iit has joined together in

concern over the exposure of their coastal communities, their homes, to rising seas. what would my colleagues here in the senate tell this bipartisan group in north carolina about climate change? what would they tell the united states conference of mayors, a bipartisan group, about climate change? don't worry, it's not real? run along now, don't concern yourself? good luck with that. people know better. king canute couldn't decree that the tide not come in and republicans in congress can't legislate away the changes that we are seeing in our oceans. when i was down in florida, a fisherman there told me about the northward migration of species that ear used to

catching in florida -- that they're used to catching in florida. species like red fish and snook moving north because of warming ocean temperatures. a fisherman in north carolina told me that snook are now being caught off the coast of charleston. and i've heard that red fish are being caught as far north as cape cod. and i believe that because rhode islanders are catching tarpon and grouper off the shore of rhode island. i've had rhode island fishermen tell me that they're catching fish that their fathers and grandfathers never saw come up in their nets. as one rhode island fisherman told me, "sheldon, it's getting weird out there." it's not just rhode island. the maine legislature just established a bipartisan commission to study and address the harm from ocean acidification to ecosystems and to their shell fisheries. again, bipartisan. once you leave this building,

people are taking bipartisan action. it's only here that the polluters hold such sway. in virginia, which is also a coal state, a bipartisan group, including republican u.s. representative scott rigel and democratic governor terry mccauliffe, are working together to prepare communities like hampton rhodes, virginia, for several feet of sea level rise. a state commission that was first assembled under the administration of our virginia colleague, tim kaine, back when i was governor, has reconvened to address the threat of climate change and the ocean. these virginia leaders are not wasting time quarreling and denying about basic science. they're working to protect commerce and homeowners in their communities threatened as the seas continue to rise.

while our republican colleagues in congress try their best to ignore the problem of carbon pollution, there are very serious conversations going on outside these walls. for example, former george w. bush treasury secretary, hank paulson, invoked ocean warming and sea level rise in a recent editorial he wrote calling for a fee on carbon pollution. here's the cover of this week's "newsweek" -- "deep end: what rapid changes in oceans mean for earth." this wouldn't be the first one. last year, "national geographic" came out with this issue entitled "rising seas."

now, perhaps my colleagues on the other side who pretend that climate change is just a hoax will agree that "newsweek" is part of the hoax, "national geographic" is part of the hoax, u.s. conference of catholic bishops is part of the hoax, the u.s. navy is part of the hoax? we are bedeviled in this chamber by preposterous ideas. what the "newsweek" cover article highlights is the unprecedented effects of pumping all that excess carbon into our oceans, ranging from quarrel bleaching -- coral bleaching to dissolving larval shellfish, to the disappearance of entire species. bloomberg "view" just published a recent editorial titled,

"climate change goes underwate underwater." mr. president, let me ask unanimous consent -- this document is short enough -- to add it to the record, to submit this editorial at the end of my comments as an exhibit. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: this isn't wild speculation. this is good, old-fashioned reporting of things that are happening around us that people see. i've talked before about the humble pteropod. so let's talk about the pteropod, a tiny type of snail which is about the size of a small pea. it's known sometimes as the sea butterfly because its snail foot has adapted into two little butterfly-like wings which propel it around in the ocean. these images show what can

happen to the pteropod shell when the creature's underwater environment becomes more acidic, and, therefore, lacks the compounds that are necessary for this little creature to make its delicate shell. it is not good for the pteropod. there is the pteropod in action with the little butterfly wings that help it to swim. here's a clean shell from proper water. and here's a dissolving shell from exposure to acidified ocean water. this obviously is not good for the pteropod. and recent research, which was led by noaa scientists, have found that ocean acidification off our west coast, in what's

called the california current ecosystem, is hitting the pteropod especially hard. ret me taklet me take a minute d from the publication in this report in the "proceedings of the royal society," a respected scientific publication. "the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere from fossil fuel burning, cement production, and deforestation processes has resulted in atmospheric co2 concentrations that have increased about 40% since the beginning of the industrial er era." now, the measure of that, we've always had atmospheric carbon concentrations between about 170 and 300 parts per million. we have broken 400. april was the first month when we were consistently on average above 400 parts per million. when you think that that 170-300 parts per million range has lasted for thousands of year,

for millennia, for longer than our species has been on the planet, the fact that we're suddenly outside of that range is a signal that ought to call our attention, and that's what they are referring to. i'll continue. the oceans have taken up approximately 28% of the total amount of co2 produced by human activities over this time frame, causing a variety of chemical changes known as ocean acidification. the rapid change in ocean chemistry is faster than at any time over the past 50 million years. they go on to say towards the end of the report that one of the choke point areas, what they call the first bottleneck, the first bottleneck would primarily affect villagers and larvae, which are early stages of the

shell before the shell is hardened. the larvae is when it's little. the villager is when it has a shroud around it but not yet a shell that helps it to move and consume food. the first bottleneck would primarily affect villagers and larvae, life stages where complete shell dissolution within the larvae can occur within two weeks upon its exposure to undersaturation. they also note that significant increases in vertical and spatial extent of conditions that favor pteropod shell dissolution are expected to make this habitat potentially unsuitable for pteropods. so if california current ecosystem habitat becomes unsuitable for pteropods, we have a little problem on our hands because pteropods are food for important fish like salmon, like mackerel, like her ring.

ter a pods -- pteropods are the base of the food chain. no pteropods means crashed salmon fisheries, crashed mackerel fisheries, crashed heron fisheries, crashes throughout polar and sub polar fisheries. dr. william peterson is an oceanographer at noaa's northwest fishery science center, the co-author of the study, and he said we did not expect to see pteropods being affected to this extent in our coastal region for several decades, for several decades. these ecosystems, these ocean ecosystems are crumbling before our eyes. and yet this congress hides behind denial. in the case of inertia in congress, in the face of the relentless truculence of the deniers, the obama administration is trying to do

what it can to push responsible policies. last month, secretary of state john kerry held the state department's our ocean conference. i attended that conference for two days. one of the presenters there was dr. carol turley of the plymouth marine laboratory, and she described her research on ocean acidification, including using this draft of ocean acidity over the past 25 million years. that's today minus 25 million years, today minus 20 million years, minus 15 million years, minus 10 million years, fine us five million years and now. look at how little variation there has been in ocean p.h. across that 25 million-year time scale. remember again we have been on the planet around 200,000 years.

we go back to about here. the rest of this is geologic time. that is a long span of time. and you put against that what's happening now, look how sudden that change is in ocean p.h. the basic acidity of the oceans. why has this happened? we know, we know that human activity releases gigatons of carbon every year. that's undeniable. we know that that carbon dioxide acidifies seawater. that's basic chemistry. you can do that in a high school lab. we know that the ocean's p.h. is changing in unprecedented ways in human history.

no one in their right mind can say that this is natural variability. this acidification of our seas will have devastating effects on ecosystems like tropical coral reefs, which as dr. turley pointed out are home to one in every four species on the planet. if you want it -- wanted to drive a bulldozer through god's species on this planet, it would be hard to do much better than allowing this rampant ocean acidification. my colleague and cochair of our senate oceans caucus, senator lisa murkowski and i, had a chance to address the oceans conference together. she told the conference that the waters off her alaskan shores are growing more acidic. i agree with senator murkowski

that we need to really understand what ocean acidification means for our fisheries and ocean ecosystems, much better than we do now. secretary kerry delivered a clear challenge. on this planet, with all of its many peoples, we share nothing so completely as we share the oceans. and if we are going to honor our duty to protect the ocean, to honor our duty to future generations, we are going to have to work together. mr. president, these are painfully clear warnings. the facts speak volumes. the denial propaganda has shown

itself to be nonsense, to be a sham, which ought to come as no surprise because the machinery that produces the climate denial propaganda is the same machinery that denied the tobacco was dangerous, the same machinery that denied there was an ozone hole, the same machinery that has always fought public health measures for industry and has always been wrong. it's always been wrong because it's not its job to be right. it's its job to protect industry and allow them to continue to pollute and make money. that's its job. so it ought to come as no surprise that the argument that it makes about climate change is nonsense and is a sham. it is time to unshackle

ourselves from that machinery. history's going to look back at this, and it will not be a shining moment for us. history will reflect that the polluters are polluting our democracy with their money and their influence just as badly as they are polluting our oceans and our atmosphere with their carbon. we have got to wake up. it will disserve our grandchildren and their grandchildren, and it will disgrace our generation to have allowed this democracy to miss this issue and to fail to act because of the propaganda machinery that has over and over again proven itself to be wrong.

our ocean economies, our ocean heritage o'they are all at stake. as secretary kerry put it, it is our ocean, and it is our responsibility. let us please wake up before we have completely disgraced ourselves. mr. president, i yield the floor. and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: