quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: thank you mr. president. are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mr. whitehouse: may i ask unanimous consent that the pending quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: i further ask unanimous consent that greg pollack, who's serving as a legislative fellow for national security to senator reid of nevada be granted floor privileges for the duration of 2015. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: thank you very much. mr. president, may i ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: mr. president as americans celebrate the 35th earth day this week, i rise for the 96th time -- i

seem to be coinciding with the presiding officer's schedule so he's been treated to his share of these speeches -- to urge this body to wake up to the threat of climate change. it's real, not a hoax. it's caused by carbon pollution. and it's already making changes that we are already seeing in the world around us. we must cut our carbon pollution to prevent even bigger climate changes, changes in our atmosphere and oceans and human habitat potentially unprecedented in the history of our human habitation of this planet. yet the polluters who are producing this problem would have us do nothing. they make money when we do nothing. so we do nothing. the polluters run a racket. they offload on to us the costs

and damage from their fossil fuel product. the costs of heat waves of sea level rise, of ocean acidification, of dying forests and more. the polluters happily dump those costs on to everybody else. and to keep this profitable racket running the polluters spend huge sums on lobbying and politics particularly right here in the united states congress. as one author has written -- and i'll quote him -- rivers of money flowing from secret sources have turned our elections into silent auctions." and the polluters get what they pay for. the republican party in congress has become the political arm of the fossil fuel industry. the polluters also spend huge amounts on a big complex p.r.

machine to churn out doubt about the real science and cook up some paid-for science. documents recently discovered by greenpeace show that one scientist whose work consistently downplayed the role of carbon pollution in climate change received -- get this -- more than $1.2 million from oil and coal interests over the last decade. those nice people at the charles g. koch charitable foundation -- yes, those kochs -- gave him at least $230,000. in recent years his grants came through donor's trust the front group that funnels money from oil, coal and other special interests. well what do we know? we know that financial incentives affect people's behavior. does anyone doubt that? that's life.

that's why politicians have to disclose their political contributors and gifts and benefits they receive and even personal financial information. that's why regulatory agencies and scientific journals require scientific submissions to make plain who funded the work. that's why expert witnesses' funding sources are relevant in court proceedings. and that's why upton sinclair once said -- and i'll quote him -- "it is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it." so we know that money talks. that's not news. what else do we know? well, we also know about that industry playbook to keep safety regulation at bay by funding phony science and manufacturing doubt about legitimate science. that's not news either. that's been around for years.

the tobacco industry campaign to mislead the public about the health effects of cigarettes was so fraudulent that it was determined in federal court to be a racketeering enterprise. think about that. an industry campaign of deception about the risks of their product that persisted for years and was ultimately determined in federal court to have constituted a racketeering enterprise. sound familiar? and tobacco's not alone. the lead paint industry should down its trade association the lead industry association rather than answer questions under oath in a court proceeding -- in a court proceeding.

mr. president, entire books have been written documenting this strategy. for example "merchants of doubt," which has recently been made into a documentary or "doubt is their product." or "the lead wars." or "deceit and denial." so we know the strategy. finally we know something else. we know that a network of front organizations with innocent sounding names has emerged to propagate the baloney science. this phenomenon has been well documented by dr. robert bruehl of drexel university, among others. his "follow the money" analysis diagrams the complex flow of cash to these front groups a flow of cash that industry persistently tries to obscure. well here's what makes sense to me. if it's important enough for them to want to hide it it's

important enough for us to want to know about it. so senators boxer and markey and i sent a letter to about a hundred companies, trade groups and other organizations affiliated with the fossil fuel industry. we asked whether they spent money to support climate research. sounds reasonable, right based on those three things that we know? well oh, my. what a fit of catterwalling that drew from the right-wing p.r. machine. today i'll give you a recap of the outraged highlights. it's a -- quote -- "witch hunt," "said the far right heartland institute. "what fascists do." we are -- i quote again -- "ethically challenged mental midgets," said heartland's

president. he later calls this little letter "harassment abuse of authority and misrepresentation of the facts." now, heartland by the way is that classy group that put up a billboard comparing climate scientists to the unabomber just to give you an idea of their credibility. finally, "shame on you," read heartland's response to our letter which heartland called "a campaign to stag ma ties -- stigmatize and demonize sphvment" -- demonize." the right-wing john locke foundation said our letter was -- quote -- "trying to mccarthyite them." and the heritage foundation wrote it was "an abuse of powers." "investors business dailily" got so excited missed up their metaphors by saying we were both

"inquisitors and stalkers, out to intimidate, threatening peaceful citizens." they scoffed "as if it were any of our business to know if polluters are funding the science." keeping that spanish inquisition theme going, "the washington times" called us "climate change torquimadas." so it looks like we hit the full faux outrage quadrifecta -- wish hunts, fascism mccarthyism and even the spanish inquisition but then they got really serious and they unlimmered the ultimate right-wing maladdiction. we were accused by the cato institute of -- cover your ears,

young pages -- quote -- "having a widespread faith in the government's ability to solve problems." well cato made its position on climate change clear saying that for us to believe that man's emissions of carbon dioxide are warming the planet was a -- quote -- "bias." a "bias." that the legitimate science endorsed by everyone from nasa to the department of defense to every legitimate scientific society, every major legitimate scientific society in the country, that all of that was -- quote -- "propaganda." and that we, of course, were climate alarmists. and cato also sent us a letter in response to our inquiry telling us we cannot use the awesome power of the federal government to cow cato and

others. cow? according to the "wall street journal" editorial page which sadly, has become a front for the fossil fuel industry, we were -- quote -- "trying to silence the other side." although i have to confess mr. president, it is not clear how the other side would be silenced by simply having to reveal whose payroll they're on, which is all we asked. let's be clear our letter didn't suggest that industry scientists should be silenced just that the public should know if those scientists are being paid by the very industries with a big economic stake in the issue. let's test how much the right-wing front groups really

care about the suppression of scientific information. let's look at their outrage over the reports of public employees in florida being told by the government no less, not to talk about climate change. interviews by the florida center for investigative reporting with current and former employees contractors and volunteers at the florida department of environmental protection revealed that the administration of republican governor rick scott issued an unwritten rule banning official use of the phrases "climate change" or global warming." those reports have been corroborated by employees of other state agencies. we've heard stories of retribution against employees who dared discuss climate

change of climate change-related projects being put on the back burner. and even of the term itself being edited out of official documents including those produced by a university scientist. sounds like suppression of science. where was the outrage from the right? where were the comparisons to fascism and mccarthyism and the spanish inquisition? for this actual government-sponsored suppression of scientific information. guess what -- there was none. and it's not just florida. recently the republican members of wisconsin's board of commissioners of public lands voted to prohibit the professional staff -- quote -- "from engaging in global warming or climate change work" -- close quote. well the wisconsin timber industry as senator baldwin and i have both pointed out sees

the threat climate change poses to wisconsin's forests including among other things the frozen winter roads that logger use to move their equipment around roads that warmer weather melts and turns to impassable muck. that the republicans in charge of those lands have simply ordered state officials to ignore climate change, suppressing the science plain and simple. where was the outrage from the right-wing groups that had fits about our little request for some transparency about what scientist is on whose payroll. where was the outrage? there was none. which shows that the real issue here has nothing to do with scientific freedom. the real issue here of freedom is the freedom of big

dishonest special interests to hide whose hand is in the puppet and here's where it really gets ironic. the enormous multibillion-dollar polluting industries whose front groups accuse us of bullying, of being fascists and intimidateors and torquemadas over our little letter they are the very once pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into elections much of it secretly, for the plainly avowed purpose of threatening and punishing elected officials who might dare to cross them and acknowledge the dangers of carbon-driven climate change.

of all people to be complaining. americans for prosperity, just to give you one example a koch brothers venture has said that republicans who support any action on climate change will be put ott a -- quote -- "severe disadvantage." end quote. in the 2016 elections. that is a serious threat, given the koch brothers pledge to spend $900 million in this election cycle. and yet that same americans for prosperity foundation blasted our little letter as -- quote -- "an attempt to silence those whose views do not meet with your approval" -- end quote. please. really? against a $900 million campaign

threat and a stable of paid-for scientists against that massive screen of fossil fuel front organizations spouting industry propaganda, our little effort at getting a little transparency about who is funding the phony-baloney climate denial science? that is a rain drop against a torrent. mr. president, we do indeed need to wake up. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: thank you mr. president. before my prepared comments i do want to thank the senator from rhode island for his passion his leadership in coming to the floor over and over and over again ringing the alarm bells about what is happening not only

to our country but our world. we are paying the price in lives, in dollars we are seeing our farmers pay the price because we not have effectively addressed what is happening to our world in terms of climate change. so i want to thank the senator for his continued passion in reminding us over and over and over again why we need to act right now. mr. president, today 350 airmen from michigan along with 12 a-10 war hogs are deploying to the middle east to take part in operation inherent resolve our nation's mission to eliminate the terrorist group known as isil. this deployment has special significance for michigan. michigan is home to thousands of families community leaders with loved ones living in the

middle east who have seen firsthand the devastating effect of isil. as it brutally murders innocent people drives them from their homes and destabilizes the region. for so many families in michigan the fight against isil is deeply personal. today that fight is personal to many more families as these airmen from south ridge air national guard base deploy to the region. the a-10 war hogs are the best close air support aircraft in the united states military. known as a tank buster, the a-10 is ideal against isil which uses tanks stolen from the iraqi army. we in michigan are proud of our fleet, we are proud of our people their courage their passion, their hard work. and we are proud for all that they have done to protect our nation.

in 2011 the 127th wing deployed 300 airmen and a dozen a-10's to kandahar air field in southern afghanistan. over 120 days, the united logged over 8,000 flight hours and 2,000 flight missions in an extremely hostile environment. today, mr. president, i would ask my colleagues in the senate to keep these 350 airmen in your thoughts and prayers. we wish them godspeed as they embark on this very important mission, and we remember especially their families and friends who will stay behind and support them with their prayers as well. thank you and i would ask -- i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call: