their lives on the line every single day. tropical storms, hurricanes, this is all happening. heavy precipation flooding events. houston got 11 inches of rain in 24 hours in 2015. and decreasing polar ice. in addition, rising sea levels. so i will close with this: the evidence of climate change is here, and to say you're not a scientist is no answer. we know you're not a scientist. politicians, as a group are not. but we should listen to the 98%-99% of scientists who are telling uses our us our plan set in trouble, our people are going to be in trouble. as long as i can stand up on my feet in this body, i am going to stand shoulder to shoulder -- well not quite -- in my high heels, this is a moment in history when our kids will say

why didn't they protect you? why didn't they save us? it is our duty and our moral responsibility. i thank you and i yield the floor. mr. whitehouse: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: i would like to start my remarks with this photograph, which is a photograph of the i guess mine knee--mine mini-planet, i guess they call it now pluto. why do i start my remarks with pluto? i do so because of the major achievement it was for our nasa scientists to fly a craft close enough to pluto to take that picture. that's a heck of an accomplishment by our american nasa scientists. it is not their only one. while this craft was shooting by pluto taking these pictures, they had a rover rolling around on the surface of mars. they sent a vehicle the size of an s.u.v. to the surface of mars and are driving it around. do you think these scientists

know what they're talking about when they say something as simple as climate change is real? of course they do. but our republican friends can't acknowledge that. they've even said that these nasa scientists are in on a hoax. can you imagine anything more demeaning to the people who put a rover on mars and shot this picture of pluto to say, oh, they don't know what they're talking about. they're in on a hoax. forget about it. that's just not true. the real issue is this: here is kentucky's electric generation fuel mix. that's its fuel mix. guess what the gray is? coal. that's basically all they've got. there's tiny little stripe of blue at the bottom for high droavment a-- forhydro-. you need a magnifying glass -- you can look and with a

magnifying glass you can see this tiny little green line at the top that is their entire renewables portfolio. really? the last i heard the sun shines bright on my old kentucky home, right? so why no solar? none. how about wind? do you think the wind blows through the kentucky hills? none. you've got to use a magnifying glass to see it. they're not even trying. the coal industry has that state so block locked down that they're doing knock. go to iowa. the two republican senators from iowa hardly some liberal bastion. they got about 30% of their electricity from wind. it's not a communist plot. it is not a socialist fabrication. it is iowa. and the farmers love it. but, no, we got to protect coal at all costs. and so this is the g.o.p. sickal in-- and

so this is the g.o.p. signal for what they're doing on climate change. i think it would be twice take out the band and put it over the mouth so it is clear that nobody is allowed to say a word. here we are in which every state -- just ask your home state university if climate change is real. you don't have to go far. ask the university of kentucky. ask the university of louisville. ask your home state university. they know. everybody knows. the problem is, the coal industry and the koch brothers have got this place locked down, and it is ridiculous. they've pledged to spend $889 million in this election, the koch brothers, through this group called americans for prosperity and they have also said -- and i quote -- "anybody who crosses on an climate change will be at a severe disadvantage." when you're swinging a $900 million club and you're telling

folks, disagree with us, and you'll be at a severe disadvantage, this is what you get: no plan on climate change. you're going to hear endless complaining from our friends on the other side about the president's plan. what are you not go to hear? what's their plan? what's the alternative? what have you got? because if you've got nothing if you've got nada, zip you really got to get into this conversation because even your own republican young voters are demanding it. republican voters under the age of 35 think that climate denial is ignorant, out of touch or crazy -- their words in the poll not mine. so it's time we broke through it's time the majority leader got away from this 100% coal situation that he's defending allowed the future to take place, and allowed a conversation to take place here in the senate. we're ready for it. l we'rewe're readyfor it and i'll yield the floor to my wonderful colleague

senator markey, who's been working on athis a -- on this a good deal longer than i have. mr. markey: i thank my -- the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts is recognized. mr. markey: i thank my good friend from rhode island, my friend from california, senator boxer, senator senator schatz from hawaii but all the members who work on these issues. this is the big one. this is the issue. this is the threat to the entire planet. and young people want us to do something about it. they're wondering when the older generation is finally going to get around to do something about it from moving to sending pollution up into the air to moving to clean energy, moving to new energy technologies. so as they look at this, they look at coal, they look at a 19th century technology, coal, and they say when are we moving to the new era?

well that's a good question because in 2005 in the united states of america we deployed a grand total of 79 medical georgia-- 79 mega-watts of solar. in 2013, we deployed 100 times more because we started to have a plan. democrats put a plan in place by creating tax breaks for solar by incentivizing more investment in solar across the country. individual states started to put new regulations on the books. 7,000 mega-watts. and now we have 20,000 mega-watts of solar in the united states of america. but we only deployed 79 in 2005. now you really want some great news as to what is possible, in

2015 and 2016 we are going to deploy 20,000 more in just two years. so we're going to double the total amount of all solar ever deployed in the united states in just two years. and over an the wind front we're going to have about 80,000 mega-watts total deployed by the end of next year, bringing it up to 120,000 mega-watts. how much is that? when you look at a big nuclear power plant and you see the -- and you see the picture of it, that's 1,000 mega-watts. we're talking about 120 of them having been deployed by the end of next year. so the young general raring's, -- so the young generation, they look at us and they say can we meet the objective of having 28% of all of our electricity coming from renewables by the year

2030? well if you hear from the coal industry or you hear from the nuclear industry, you hear from the other fossil fuel industries they say well, that's impossible; you can't do it; it's absolutely just going to be a very small part of the total amount of electricity which we generate in our country. well they're just dead wrong. we're proving that in 2015 and 2016 because of the fight that's taking place at the fight level the tax breaks for wind and solar that were put on the books largely by democrats here nationally. we're doing it. it's there. we now have over 200,000 people working in the solar industry in the united states of america. there are only 85,000 people who are in the coal industry. got that? it's 2015.

there are 80,000 people working in the wind industry in our country. these are the growth industries. these are the internet corollaries in clean energy. this is where the young people are going. this is where venture capital in america is going. this is where the ink knowvation around our plan -- this is where the innovation around our planet is going. we can reduce greenhouse gases dramatically increase employment simultaneously, and create wealth and health for our planet. the president's plan will reduce by 90,000 per year the number of asthma attacks in our country. it will reduce the total amount of sulfur sent up in the atmosphere. it will be something that is supported by doctors and nurses and by presidents and popes. that's what we have.

that's what this plan is. it's a beautiful plan. it's a plan that spans not just the technological and the political but also the moral imperative that is presented by this problem. and so, yes the big question which is being asked is, where's the republican plan? well, of course, there is none because they're still in denial that there is a problem notwithstanding the fact that every single national academy of sciences of every single country in the world says there's a problem. this is basically a small cabal of foss sill fuel executives -- fossil fuel executives still trying to peddle 19th century technologies into the 21st century. it would be as though there was a cabal to stop moving us from

black rotary dial phones to wireless devices so that people could walk around with the new technologies. oh wait ... there was a cabal. they put a it for years and years and years and years because they had the monopoly. the black rotary dial phone we were living with was all anyone would ever need. we had to break down those monopolies and we have to break down these as well. but here it's more than just having a phone in your pocket. now it is actually saving the planet. it is ensuring that we put in place the preventive measures that will reduce greenhouse gases while creating new jobs. senator whitehouse and i, we are part of a plan, and it's called the regional greenhouse gas gas initiative across new england new york, delaware, and maryland. we have already got a plan in place which has in fact reduced greenhouse gases dramatically.

it has simultaneously seen dramatic increases in wealth, creating $1.5 billion in savings for our consumers. we can do this. we can do this. the auto industry said we could not increase the fuel economy standards of the vehicles which we drive. we just went right past them. the telecommunication industry did not want us to be moving to this wireless revolution. we just went right past them. the coal industry does not want us to act right now for the sake of the generations to come, we must go right past them and ensure that president obama's plan is enacted. i ty thank you mr. president. i will -- i thank you mr. president. i will now yield to the senator from hawaii, senator schatz. the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii is recognized. mr. schatz: thank you mr. president. and i thank the senator from massachusetts and senators whitehouse and boxer for their great leadership and am really

appreciative of the senior senator from new york for taking the time to come to the floor to demonstrate his commitment to this issue. there is an incredible opportunity for american leadership here. in hawaii, in various places across the state in one month we had 33 record highs in the month of july. and so we all know this is the challenge of our generation, and we all know that the next most important step is the full implementation of the president's clean power plan. and i'd like it make a couple of points about the particulars of the planning. the first is that this is really done well. normally regulatory functions can be a blunt instrument, they can be a little less than careful in terms of how they're going to impact economies. but this is done with great precision, with great care, and with great interaction with the incumbent utility companies and distribution and generation companies. and so this is done with enough flexibility to say whatever your mix in terms of energy, we're not going to dictate exactly how

you do it at a power plant level, at a county level at a city level. all we're saying is, you have to meet these targets. and if you meet these targets through distributive generation or wind or solar or geothermal or hydro-, you know, that's not the federal government's kerchlt our-- the federal government's concern. our concern is that carbon is a plew tans and that's been determined by the courts and by scientists and the clean air act requires that airborne pollutants are regulated and so we're going to tell every state this like all over pollutants, have to be reduced over time. and i think the e.p.a. took great pains to make sure that this was done in such a way that wouldn't cause too much upheaval in the economy. this is legally sound. there's just no question about it that the e.p.a. doesn't just have the authority the discretion to move forward with carbon pollution regulations but they're actually required to under the last supreme court decision. and it is doable. hawaii has a 100% clean energy

goal. the northeast has its rggi program. california has a cap and trade program and all of our economies continue to grow. it's not that individuals and companies don't continue to have their challenges, but it's not because of our leaning forward into clean energy. i want to make one point about the kind of layering of obstruction. the first layer which i think we've been successful the last six months of breaking through is this whole i'm not sure whether or not climate change is real. then they sort of pivot into, i'm not a scientist so i don't think that's going to last for very long. but i think the next layer of obstruction is going to be i think climate change is real. i'm not sure what percentage of climate change is caused by humans and how much of it is not rale occurring. -- is naturally occurring. the next layer of opposition will be this. america should wait. they will tell us that america

should not lead in this space. that we should wait for china wait for india that we should wait for germany wait for japan. let me just ask this question: since when does the united states wait for other countries to lead? this is the challenge of our generation and it strikes me as preposterous that anybody who believes in american leadership would be willing to say let's see what other countries do about this problem first. why don't we give this a few years? we don't have a few years. this is an incredible opportunity for america to display the leadership that it has always displayed in the international community. we finally have the high ground going into the paris discussions. we are on legally sound ground. we are on morally sound ground. and i think politically we are increasingly on sound ground. and so i'm in full support of the president's clean power plan. and the one thing that causes me great dismay and i think causes some of the other participants in this colloquy dismay is we're not even having a debate. this is the democrats asking for

you to come down to the floor and disagree with us. disagree with the president disagree with gina mccarthy, tell sheldon and myself that our bill is a piece of garbage and this is what should be done instead. but let's have the great debate in the world's greatest deliberative body. right now it's entirely one-sided and if we're going to display american leadership we need some republican leadership as well. mrs. boxer: would the senator yield for a question? i don't know if the senator is aware of this but i do know senators whitehouse and markey know this because they served with me on the environment and public works committee. tomorrow morning at 10:00 the republicans on the environment and public works committee are going to put forward two bills and they expect to pass them. one would stop the president's clean power plan in its tracks without putting anything in its stead to replace it.

as a matter of fact, putting up obstacles, as i understand it, to any other plan. so it would stop it in its tracks and it would set up huge obstacles for another rule. and the other one would say that if you spray pesticides on bodies of water and the pesticides get into the water that that spraying should be exempted from the clean water act. i mean, it pains me. it pains me to say that this is coming from the environment committee. why don't they just rename it the anti-environment committee when they're in charge? because every week, every day on the environment they go in the wrong direction for our children and our grandchildren. i know my friend has young children and i have young grandchildren. and isn't it a shame that at the moment in time when the environment and public works

committee -- and they did a great job. we did a great job. all of us on transportation, we had a 20-0 vote. and we're so proud of it. but on the environment, we are split down the middle with republicans trying to stop the clean power act stop the advances in fighting climate stop the ability of regulators to protect the waters from pesticides spray. isn't it just shameful that this is happening tomorrow as we talk tonight about this issue? mr. schatz: through the chair and i understand the time for the colloquy is about to expire. i'll just respond to the senator from california if there's no objection. i'd just like to say the following which is that we really do need republican leadership here. and the republican party prior to about ten years ago had a long history and an august history of working with democrats to protect our air and our water. and we are all sincerely hoping

that we can get back to that place. i yield the floor. ms. ayotte: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. ms. ayotte: thank you, mr. president. i rise today to talk about a public health issue that is devastating communities and families in new hampshire and throughout this country and that's prescription opioid and heroin abuse. i actually see my colleague from rhode island and i see my colleague from massachusetts here, and this is an issue where on a bipartisan basis we are focused on important legislation to address this terrible public health crisis. right now in new hampshire heroin sometimes combined with a very powerful synthetic drug called fent -- phentonol is

taking lives. communities are confronting taking overdoses every single day. my good friend, manchester police chief nick willard he said recently, "i'm up to my eyes in heroin addiction." unfortunately the statistics underscore chief willard's statement. in all of 2014 manchester police seized over 1,300 grams of heroin. as of just last month manchester police had seized over 27,000 grams of heroin in 2015. that's nearly 26,000 plus more grams in just seven months, mr. president. in 2014 there were over 320 fatal drug-related overdoes in new hampshire up from 193 in

2013. and heroin and phenytol were the primary drivers of nearly 250 of those deaths. in manchester alone our largest city overdose deaths so far have increased 90% over 2014. and over 269% if we go back just to 2013. that's what a crisis we're facing. that is how many lives are being taken by opioids by overdosing on prescription drugs and heroin, and it is devastating. law enforcement i worked with them when i was attorney general of new hampshire. i know how hard they are working on this. they're working tirelessly to get these drugs off the streets. but they'll tell you we simply cannot arrest our way out of this problem. i've actually heard from law enforcement in new hampshire

that they believe what we need most to confront this public health crisis and to confront the public safety issues that go with it are more prevention, more treatment options and more support for individuals in recovery. we know that addiction to prescription pain medication can often become a gateway to heroin abuse. and unfortunately right now the price of heroin on the streets has gotten so cheap that people are often going from prescription drug addiction to heroin because of the price and the high and the way that they feel it is so tragic. according to a study from the substance abuse and mental health services administration, approximately four out of every five new heroin users previously used nonmedical prescription

opioids before using heroin. i want to briefly mention two pieces of legislation that i believe represent critical steps in the right direction. in february i helped reintroduce the bipartisan comprehensive addiction and recovery act. and i want to thank my colleague from rhode island who is in this chaib as well, for his important -- who is in this chamber for his important work on this legislation. this would expand education efforts and expand the availability of first responders and law enforcement. it would also support additional resources to identify and treat incarcerated individuals suffering from substance abuse disorder and encourage prevention by expanding drug take-back sites to promote the safe disposal of unwanted or unused prescription drugs strengthening prescription drug monitoring programs and lawrchling -- launching a prescription opioid and heroin

treatment and intervention drug program. this summer i had the privilege of doing a ride-along with the manchester fire department and within a half-hour of being at the fire department we were called to a heroin overdose. i watched the first responders give narcian to a young man who was on the ground who i thought was going to die. and he came right back. but you know what i noticed in that room, mr. president? i noticed in the corner an infant an infant child that that firefighter took and gave to another woman in the room. and you think about the impact of that. what chance does that child have when her father is on the floor and is not getting treatment is getting back in this cycle? because often what i hear from our first responders is that when they save someone's life using a drug like narcan, they

see the same people again because they're not getting the treatment they need to get the recovery that they need from this horrible addiction that they have. earlier this year i also reintroduced the heroin and prescription opioid abuse education and enforcement act with senator joe donnelly of indiana. this bipartisan bill would reauthorize programs related to prescription drug monitoring programs that are helpful to our physicians so that they can get good information when they're prescribing painl medication and grants for local law enforcement and establishing an interagency task force to develop best practices in prescribing of pain medication. the headlines that we're seeing in new hampshire every day in our local newspapers underscore the sad realty of this problem. here are some that we've seen in recent weeks. in the "union leader": "mom, dad on heroin while bathing a

child." in the national telegraph in maine: nine die in overdoses so far in the town where i was born. in the telegraph again on may 14 toddler left in the care of men, one of whom died in an overdose. and there's more. on that say day hamilton man on heroin causes five-car crash. may 29, auspy mom accused of selling heroin with two kids in the car. these news stories mirror the heartbreaking personal stories of loss i've been hearing about from families in our state. i just want to share a couple of these stories with you. recently i met with a family of courtney griffin a 20-year-old young woman from newton, new hampshire. tragically courtney lost her life to a heroin overdose last september. i was very moved by her family's story. courtney aspired to join the

marine corps and had already attended boot camp. she was a charter member of the kingston lion's club. she played the french horn in hool and was a member of of the tennis club. but during high school, courtney started hanging out with a different crowd and at some point the griffins prescription medication in their cabinet started disappearing. after courtney graduated from high school her addiction grew worse. she was stealing from her father's business and from her family in a desperate attempt to feed her addiction. courtney entered drug treatment but she relapsed. and when she finally admitted that she had a problem she tried to seek treatment but was denied coverage because the griffins' insurance company said it wasn't a life-or-death situation. with some help from local law enforcement, courtney was able to find a place to receive treatment. tragically, she died of a heroin overdose about a week before she was set to begin treatment. her father doug is doing

everything he can to turn courtney's story of tragedy into a cautionary tale so that he can save other families from what his family has been through. doug and others like him have a perspective on this crisis that is impossible for anyone who has not personally experienced a loss like this to understand. and i admire his courage in sharing the story of his family so that he can save other families lives. unfortunately, this story is all too common, mr. president. in april, molly parks a waitress at the portland pie company in manchester lost her life to a heroin overdose while at work. her father is also speaking out to warn other families of the dangers of drug addiction. and i want to share as a final point one story that really moved me on memorial day and that story came from keith howard.

he served our country with distinction, i know him personally. when he returned home from his enlistment he struggled with alcohol and heroin abuse and he became homeless. unfortunately, we hear too many of these stories about our veterans with what they're carrying with them with the wounds from war that become addicted to drugs and alcohol. keith was one of those individuals who served our country but yet became addicted. today, keith is sober and he helps run liberty house in manchester, new hampshire which provides sober housing for american veterans transitioning out of homeless to help our homeless veterans. keith has dedicated his life to this. on memorial day on that important day when we honor those who have sacrificed so much and made the ultimate sacrifice for our freedom he shared stories with us of veterans who have come to

liberty house and turned their lives around. but he also shared stories with us of others who came but could not overcome their addiction. eventually costing them their homes, their families, and in some cases their lives. keith and the liberty house are doing incredibly important work for veterans in manchester, but he believes there is more to be done and on memorial day of this year when we are honoring those service members who gave their lives in service to our country, keith reminded us of something else when he told a crowd at veterans park in manchester and you could have heard a pin drop, mr. president, when he said this. let us honor our dead by creating hope for our living. he is absolutely right. it's clear to me that we need to work together, this is a bipartisan issue this is a public health crisis, this is about the quality of life in our country. and this is a problem that we

need to work together at the local, state and federal level in partnership to identify effective strategies, to help save lives to help take back our communities and for my part i will remain committed to fighting against this public health epidemic and taking it up at its roots to make sure that for our children that this addiction and heroin, that we get it off our streets but that we get help for those who are addicted and they understand that they shouldn't -- shouldn't feel the stigma that i know many of them do, that we want them to come forward, we want to help them and that this is incredibly difficult and we understand with them so they can get the help to lead and the treatment they need to lead

productive lives. so i thank you mr. president and i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: mr. president before the senator from new hampshire leaves the floor let me thank her for her work on the comprehensive addiction and recovery act. she has been a very good partner in that effort, and i know that her home state like rhode island is suffering an extraordinary wave of opioid addiction and opioid fatalities and i know that she is working hard to make sure that we get a hearing in the judiciary committee under present leadership and i'm getting good signals on that and i hope that we can can pin that down before too long. it's important to get a hearing

on one that all of the presidential candidates are out there seeing, one that so many of us see in our home states. one of the smallest towns in rhode island is the little town called burrillville, a beautiful place in the rural area of our state. people laugh when i say the rural area of rhode island, but we do have them and burrillville is a bucolic area, wonderful people there. and the first quarter of this year in little burrillville, six people lost their lives to overdose. and when i went to the burrillville high school, to an event there about this bill and listen and get ideas for legislation, there were three recovering folks who came to talk about their situation like so many folks in recovery they were unbelievably inspiring and noble in the way they discussed it but three of them

had gone to burrillville high. so it's important and i appreciate very much the senator from new hampshire's leadership. this is actually the time of the week for me to deliver my 109th time to wake up speech and i find it a little bit frustrating these days because climate change used to be a bipartisan issue. over again we had bipartisan serious climate change bills. in fact, the first big climate change bill in the e.p.w. committee was warner-lieberman john warner of virginia, a republican and joe lieberman of connecticut. then came citizens united and all that dark money began to flow all that fossil fuel money began to flow, all that

koch brothers money began to flow. so now even as the evidence of climate change deepens to irreputability, it's still hard to find a republican in congress who will do anything. here is the formula -- duck the question deny the evidence and disparage the scientists. duck deny, and disparage. some strategy for an issue that so many people take seriously. well, as congress sleepwalks through history the warnings are really painfully clear. carbon pollution piles up in the atmosphere. temperatures are rising. weather worsens at the extremes. the oceans rise warm, and acidify. these are all measurements. this isn't theory.

and the measurements confirm what the science has always told us about dumping so much excess carbon into our oceans and atmosphere. so hurray for the president's clean power plan. for the first time we have a national effort to reduce carbon pollution from power plants which are the largest source of u.s. carbon pollution emissions. this plan is big this plan is good and this plan is urgently needed. so i congratulate the president, i congratulate administrator mccarthy and i congratulate the good and public spirited people of the e.p.a. and other federal agencies who worked hard to listen and make this plan final. of course, you will still have the usual complaining from all of the usual suspects. the senate majority leader, the

senior senator from kentucky, opposes any serious conversation about climate change. in fact, he is ready to lead his modern version of massive resistance against the federal clean power plan. the republican leader has written to governors urging defiance of the e.p.a. regulations calling them extremely burdensome and costly which would be a more credible conclusion had he not reached it months before the regulations were even finalized. actually if we want to get into the actual world here, a report just out from that famous liberal socialist bastion georgia tech -- georgia tech -- found that the clean power rule could be enacted in a very cost-effective manner and could lower folks' energy bills in the long term.

but let's not let the facts get in the way when there are fossil fuel interests to be placated. as "the washington post" reported folks expect to comply with the clean power plan with relatively little effort, even in kentucky. we can meet it dr. leonard peters, kentucky's environment secretary has to say about the clean power plan. we can meet it. in fact, dr. peters praised the e.p.a. for working with states like his to build this rule. quote -- "the crowd reach they've done i think is incredible shaft he said. e.p.a. had an open-door policy. could you talk them, talk to them meet with them, end quote. the kentucky experience was echoed around the country as the e.p.a. listened closely to the concerns of utilities

regulators experts and citizens. they've made big adjustments to accommodate the concerns of stakeholders in the states. so when the usual complaining comes from the usual suspects, please ask them, what's your plan? how would you do a better job of addressing the carbon emissions that are polluting our atmosphere and oceans? what's your alternative? spoiler alert -- you will look far and wide before finding a republican plan. don't look here, don't look in the senate. republicans in the senate have exactly zero legislation for addressing carbon pollution in any serious way. none zip mada. duck -- mada.

duck deny, and disparage is all they've got. and don't look at their presidential candidates. in recent weeks i've used these weekly climate speeches to look at republican presidential candidates' views on climate change. it's pathetic. there's nothing. what are we up to 87 republican presidential candidates and not one has a climate change plan? okay i was exaggerating about the 87. florida, ground zero for sea level rise, two republican presidential candidates and what do the two of them got? nothing. republican mayors from florida state universities in florida the army corps office in florida, nothing gets through to the candidates. duck deny, disparage is all they've got. the wisconsin presidential candidate ignores his own home state university and his own

state newspapers and his own state scientists but governor walker can actually top duck, deny and disparage. his response to climate change -- use your budget to fire the scientists at the state environmental protection agency. so how about our presidential candidate, the junior senator from kentucky? what do we hear from him? he has said the e.p.a. rules are illegal and he's predicted they would result in power shortages, no lights and no heat. but does he have an alternative he'd prefer? no. he's got nothing. and like all the other got-nothing republican presidential candidates, he's out of step with his own home state. kentucky isn't just easily able to comply with the clean power

plan agencies and officials all across kentucky are working seriously on climate change. by the way here's a look at why compliance is easy in kentucky. kentucky's fuel mix which this charts it's a wall of coal. the sun as the song says, may shine bright on my old kentucky home but good luck finding any solar in there. you'll need a magnifying glass to find this tinily little green line at the top that's barely visible that's solar and wind i mean, really? iowa can get to 30% wind. iowa has two republican senators. it's not impossible. in kentucky they haven't even tried. kentucky cities, lexington louisville frankford bowling green get it. they've signed the u.s. mayors'

climate protection agreement quoting from lexington act locally to reduce the impacts of climate change by lowering manmade greenhouse gas emissions, end quote. madam president, the hills of kentucky are some distance from the shores of rhode island and the shores of new hampshire as well. living by the sea i have to worry about climate change and what it's doing to our oceans and coasts. kentucky is landlocked. so imagine my surprise to read the kentucky department official wildlife resources warning about sea level rise. i'll quote them. "with the predicted increases in severity of hurricanes and tropical storms, coupled with potential shoreline losses in florida and throughout the eastern seaboard people may

begin migrations inland," it says. "if and when these events occur kentucky may experience human population growth unprecedented to the commonwealth." so our candidate from kentucky, the junior senator and our majority leader, the senior senator, to them i say with kentucky their home state projecting that people on the coasts will be hit so hard by climate change that we may have to flee inland to landlocked kentucky i hope the senators from kentucky will understand my persistence on this issue when their own state thinks that my citizens might have to flee to kentucky to get away from this threat. kentucky is renowned for its

horses so i turn to horse and -- to "horse and rider" mag diseeng and found a calculate article on "how climate change might affect our horses' health." "horse and riders" expert was an expert from the university of kentucky. he had specific concerns in the article for equine health, but he also offered us all this general reminder, and i'll quote him. "i.t."its not just horses and people at risk. crops are being affected, as are trees due to beatle infestation beetle infestations. climate change affects all forms of life." end quote from dr. carter of the university of kentucky. kentucky "woodlands" magazine reports this, i'll quote them, "the world is changing right before our eyes.

our natural systems are changing as a result of a warming climate climate." end quote. the magazine even worse that, and i'll quote them here, "climate change is happening as you read this article." end quote. meanwhile, the senators from kentucky are not sure why that may be. the junior senator has said that he's not sure anybody knows exactly why all this climate change is happening. and the majority leader invokes that climate denial class iraq, "i am not a scientist." well, and i say this thankfully, the scientists are here to help. including kentucky scientists. at kentucky's universities, the science seems pretty clear about exactly why all this climate change is happening. dr. paul venceelli says, "in the

scientific community, it is widely accepted that the global climate is changing and that human activities which produce greenhouse gases are a principal cause. greenhouse gases have a strong capacity to trap heat in the lower atmosphere, even though their present at trace concentrations." end quote. and elsewhere professor vencelli and his university of kentucky colleagues quote quoting him again, "scientific ka evidence that our global climate is warm something abundant. practicing scientists consider the evidence of human-induceed global warming to be extremely strong." end quote. and university of kentucky is not the only place.

eastern kentucky university offers concentrations in environmental sustainability and stewardship including courses on global climate change. northern kentucky university signed the american college and university presidents commitment pledging an initiative in pursuit of climate neutrality. at the university of louisville, professor keith mountain is the chair of the department of geography and geosciences. he's lectured about "how climate change is a measurable reality and how people have contributed to the trends." despite all the experts in kentucky saying that human-caused climate change is real despite the harms that state and local officials foresee for kentucky and for the rest of the country and despite the easy steps being taken in

kentucky to comply with the president's clean power plan, the senators from kentucky have no plan -- nothing. they are part of the duck, deny, and disparage caucus. and the presidential candidates, there's almost nothing they won't make up to try to jam a stick in the wheels of progress. imaginary wars on coal, when it's really coal's war on us. imaginary cost increases that have been completely debunked by actual experience. imaginary reliability failures when the real reliability problem is already happening around us thanks to climate-driven extreme weather. on and on they go, and yet they offer no alternative. republicans simply have no plan

other than a shrug. why have they got no climate plan? why do they present nothing by way of limits to carbon pollution? here's a clue: look where the money comes from. fossil fuel billionaires and fossil fuel interests. look at the beauty pageant hosted this weekend by the koch brothers in dana point california where republican presidential candidates went to display their wares to the big donors. do you think the koch brothers want to hear about climate change? here is another clue: americans for prosperity, part of the koch brothers' big-money political organization, has openly warned that any client who crosses them on climate change will be -- quote -- "at a severe disadvantage" -- end quote.

subtle as a brick from an outfit threatening to spend part of the $889 million total that the koch brothers have budgeted for this election. and, yes $889 million in one election is big money. quote -- "for that kind of money, you could buy yourself a president," said mark mckinnon a former george w. bush strategist, and a good texan. "oh, right he continued that's the point." end quote. even the donald called the republicans out on this one calling the koch brothers' california event a beg-a-on this saying "i wish all the candidates good luck that traveled to california to beg for money, et cetera, from the koch brothers. what a shame. to be a presidential candidate

willing to ignore your home state universities, to ignore your home state newspapers, to i.g. near your home state scientist -- to i.g. noer your home state scientists, unless of course you're traig to fire them to ignore your own home state fishermen all so you can prance successfully at pageants for the big-money fossil fuel interests who today control the republican party. duck deny, and disparage is what gets you through the beauty pageant, so duck, deny, and disparage it is. well eventually the republican party is going to have to come up with a plan on climate change. the american people are demanding it. independent voters who they'll need in 2016 are demanding it. even republican voters demand

it, at least if they're young ones. and it really matters. it really matters that we get this right. it is the responsibility of the united states of america as a great nation, to set an example for others to follow not to sit back and wait for others to act. failing to act on climate change would both dim the torch we hold up to the world and give other nations an excuse for delay. failure i contend when the stakes are so high becomes an argument for our enemies against our very model of government. how do we explain the influence

of this special interest interfering with what must be done? it will be no good excuse when a reckoning comes to say i really needed the political support of those fossil fuel billionaires, so sorry world. madam president abraham lincoln lincoln, president abraham lincoln, a native kentuckian warned us that -- quote -- "the dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present present." before the present gets too stormy, i would urge my colleagues from kentucky to heed the experts in their home state heed the local leaders in their home state and wake up to what

needs to be done. madam president i yield the floor. mr. cornyn: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. cornyn: madam president came to the floor expecting my friend and colleague talking about the bill that we're actually trying to get on. that's the cybersecurity bill. but again i hear him returning to his favorite topic, which is climate change, which i know he thinks is the most important subject that we could possibly discuss on the floor of the united states senate. i would just say i'm certain -- i certainly don't purport to be the expert that he is, but i would say, when you look at the president's proposed new rules with regard to electricity

generation it looks to me like it's all pain and no gain. some experts -- the experts perhaps that he has referred to -- said co2 reductions would actually be less than .5% and of course, energy prices on low-income individuals seniors and people on fixed income would go up. people who already have been suffering through flat wages and slow wage grown for a long time, and of course in this economy that grew last year at the rate of 2.2% it would be a further wet blanket on economic growth and job creation. so the senator and i have worked together closely on a number of things, and i enjoy his company and his intellect and his energy but i'd say he's all wrong on this one. it sended sounds sounds to me like so many of

our colleagues, like chicken little. "the sky is falling." i don't think the facts justify it. there are more important things we could do today and this week. for example pass a cybersecurity bill. i want to take a minute to consider what we have done this year understand d under the new leadership. i know some like to focus on things we haven't done. but i assure my colleagues that we're just getting started. there is a lot of important work that remains to be done. last november the american people elected a new majority of the united states senate. and i believe they elected us to represent their interests to flush out legislation and to get the senate back to work. we were elected to run the government and get things done of course, in a way that's consistent with our principles. i've even heard some people suggesting that working with folks on the other side of the aisle in a bipartisan way is wrong that we shouldn't do

anything with democrats on the republican side or that democrats shouldn't do anything with republicans. that is a completely warped sper -- warped perspective. i think one of my conservative colleagues i asked him how is it that you work so productively and on an important senate committee with teddy kennedy the liberal lion of the senate. and this is the question i asked of our most conservative member of the united states senate. how can a very conservative senator and a very liberal senator work together productively in the best interest of their constituents and the american people. and he said to me it's easy, it's the 80-20 rule. let's find the 80% we can agree on and the 20% we can't we'll leave for another fight on another day. so i believe we have been applying for the benefit of the american people the 80-20 rule,

trying to find those things we can agree on, and we've been making substantial progress. since january we have delivered real results proving that our back-to-work model was not just another empty campaign promise. earlier this summer we passed an important trade bill, legislation that will help american goods get to global markets. and we passed the defense authorization bill. a bill that provides our men and women in uniform the resources and authorities that they need to keep us safe in an evermore dangerous world. we passed an important education bill the every child achieves act, legislation that would actually do what my constituents in texas want us to do which is send more of the authority from washington back into the hands of our parents teachers, and local communities and out of the

department of education here in washington d.c. and just last week we passed a three-year highway bill. actually it's a six-year highway bill. we were able to come up with funding for the first three years and left open the work or left undone still to be done work of coming up with the additional funding working with our colleagues in the house. but of course transportation infrastructure is something that supports or states and local communities and allows them to prepare for the growing infrastructure needs in the future while keeping commerce rolling, public safety protected and protecting our environment. but of course we all know that we're just getting started. we've just been here in the new congress for seven months now. and of course now we're on another important bill requiring every senator's full and immediate attention.

the cybersecurity information-sharing act is legislation that is long overdue. and if it sounds familiar, it's for a good reason. because we actually tried to pass this earlier this summer before it was blocked by our friends on the other side of the aisle. this legislation would provide for greater information sharing by people who have been subjected to hacks and address the rampant and growing cyber threats facing our country. one of the things that's so dangerous now is when a private company or an individual is hacked, they can't actually share that information through a central portal with other people to protect them if they haven't yet been hacked themselves. and of course there's all sorts of concerns about liability and the like. but we need to address this to help the nation deter future cyber attacks and to help both the public and private sector act more nimbly and effectively

when attacks are detected. as i said, we had a chance to vote on this in june as an amendment to the defense authorization bill. this was unfortunately, about the time that some on the other side, i think most notably the next democratic leader announced something they called the filibuster summer. not exactly encouraging words when it comes to trying to work together to get things done. so in spite of the real and frightening threats all around us our democratic friends filibustered that cybersecurity bill in june. we know what happened soon thereafter. the need for real cybersecurity legislation became even more apparent. many of us recall that in june there was an initial disclosure that hackers accessed sensitive background information used for security purposes at the office

of personnel management. the estimate in june was that about four million people were affected their personal information. then on july 9 after our democratic friends filibustered the cybersecurity bill on the defense authorization bill, there was a second report. this time that report informed us that more than 21 million people private secure information had been accessed. this information illegally access includes passport information which would show anywhere and everywhere you've traveled, social security numbers, which is a portal to all sorts of secure and sensitive financial and other information; private identification, background details; extensive information from previous places of residence. you can imagine on a form that you fill out in order to get a security clearance you literally have to give your whole life's

history. and that is the kind of sensitive information that was acquired on 21 million people as announced on july 9. of course it also provides names of contact information of close friends and family members. while many of these reports indicate that china, one of the worst offenders along with russia when it comes to malicious cyber attacks many reports indicate china was responsible. the obama administration, for some reason, has been unwilling to even acknowledge that or tell us who was the one that attacked and accessed 21 million sensitive pieces of information. and of course they seem to have done nothing to respond to this growing threat of cyber attacks. i would say the office of personnel management was not the only government agency affected. in early june it was reported

the internal revenue service had similar problems and data from more than 100,000 taxpayers has been stolen. again, the kind of information that if you were to disclose about private taxpayers it would be a felony. it would be a criminal offense. but this is sensitive information that has now been stolen for 100,000 taxpayers. this breach included access to past tax returns sensitive information -- again like social security numbers addresses, birth dates all stolen in the hands potentially of criminals. exactly what identity thieves want in order to pretend they are somebody they are not in order to steal your money. so clearly we don't have time to waste when it comes to cybersecurity legislation. i would point out that the democratic leader himself someone who is is quick to dismiss the earlier vote when we tried to do this in the context

of the defense authorization bill in june had said that he was committed -- he was committed -- the democratic leader -- to getting cyber legislation done. well if not now when, i would ask. this bipartisan legislation that passed the intelligence committee in the senate by a margin of 14-1 provides us another opportunity this week. and with cyber threats so clearly in evidence all around us, we should act quickly to implement solutions. so i would encourage all of our colleagues to let's try to find that 80-20 solution on this bill. nobody's claiming it's perfect. i've already talked to committee chairmen in the house who say they have some different views. but that's customary around here. and once the senate passes a bill, it can be reconciled with the differences in the house bill in a conference committee. but surely, surely we all agree

that this type of legislation and the protection it provides is desperately needed. and as the vote back in march suggests, this is a bill in and of itself that will be a product of a functioning bipartisan senate. so let's continue our progress for the american people. i would just add up by way of closing that more than 70 pieces of legislation passed the senate since january 1. 30 of those have been signed into law. and more than 160 bills have been reported out of committee. that madam president, is what a functioning senate looks like. and you know, as i said before, and i'll say again even our colleagues who are in the minority must enjoy getting to do what they got elected to do, which is to come here and cast a vote on behalf of their constituents on important issues that the senate is addressing. so i hope we can get this legislation passed this week. with that, madam president i yield the floor.

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. peters: thank you madam president. yesterday republicans here in the senate put forward legislation to defund planned parenthood. this bill was unfortunately a clear partisan attack on access to health care for women and especially women in rural and underserved areas. one in five american women have relied on planned parenthood health centers at some point in their lifetime. often planned parenthood is a woman's only option for basic preventive health care, including prenatal care, fizzes fizzes -- physicals and cancer screening. for example take mary, in my home state of michigan who went to her campus health center when they found a lump on her breast.

they told her it was nothing and not to worry. when she visited a planned parenthood a year later for an unrelated matter, the clinician expressed concern that the lump was still there. through planned parenthood, she got referred to a program for low-income women with breast cancer and she received the treatment that she needed. today mary is thankfully cancer cancer-free. planned parenthood provides upwards to half a million breast cancer exams every year and can save the lives of women just like mary across the nation. planned parenthood also provides about 400,000 potentiallily lifesaving cervical care cancer screenings annually. katie, another young woman from michigan went in for an annual exam at a planned parenthood. her exam revealed she cervical cancer and planned parenthood helped her way her options. today she too is thankfully cancer free. the doctors and nurses at these facilities provide affordable,

potentially lifesaving health care to 2.7 million people per year. michigan has 21 planned parenthood health centers 11 of which are located in rural or medically underserved areas. these numbers mirror planned parenthood's national numbers with over half of their 700 health care centers located in areas with limited access to medical care. federal funding for planned parenthood supports access to treatment at these health centers for women like mary and katie in states all across this country. and let's be clear. federal funding for planned parenthood or any organization is not used for abortion. let me say this again because it is a very important fact. federal funding for planned parenthood or any organization is not used for abortion. this has been settled federal law for decades. despite this fact, we have seen the adoption of extreme measures

that restrict a woman's fundamental right to make her own decisions about her reproductive health, including in michigan. a woman should have access to reproductive health services and the freedom to make her own decisions about her health. and i will fight to protect this right each and every day that i serve here in the united states senate. yesterday evening i voted to stop the senate from moving forward with legislation to defund planned parenthood. this bill would have jeopardized access to health care for 2.7 million men and women who rely on planned parenthood for their health care needs. and while i'm pleased that the senate did not move forward with the bill, it is clear that we have not seen the end of these types of partisan attacks on planned parenthood. i urge my colleagues to move away from efforts to restrict access to health care and instead focus on crafting bipartisan agreements to fund our government, provide certainty to american employers

and workers support small businesses and grow our middle class. madam president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: mr. hatch: madam president?

the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: madam president i rise -- i suggest the -- i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hatch: madam president i rise today to speak once again on the social security disability insurance or d.i. program. as everyone in this chamber should know, the d.i. trust fund is projected to be exhausted next year. that means absent any change in law we'll be seeing across-the-board cuts of 20% for d.i. beneficiaries. over the last several months i've come to the floor on a hand ful of occasions to talk about this program and the imminent depreciation of its trust fund. i've called on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to work with me to address these issues and i'll repeat that call here today. in addition today i have introduced three separate bills designed to help update and

improve the administration of the d.i. program. as we talk about solutions to address the depletion of the d.i. trust fund, we should also be talking about ways to update the d.i. program ways to make it easier for beneficiaries who can and desire to return to work to be able to explore those opportunities and ways to improve efforts to deter and prevent waste and fraud. the first bill i introduced today would update and expand the social security administration's tools to deter and punish fraudsters who cheat the system. the second bill would authorize the commissioner of s.s.a. to denied applicants about employment support services that are provided by both public agencies and nonprofit organizations. that information will help denied applicants find opportunities to reenter the work force instead of continually cycling through the

d.i. application process. the third bill would require s.s.a. to review hearing decisions by administrative law judges to ensure that they are following the law as well as social security regulations and policies. all three of these bills are designed to improve the administration of the disability program and make it work better for beneficiaries and taxpayers. they will not by themselves solve all of the program's fiscal problems, but they will improve the d.i. system. more work will need to go into this effort and as chairman of the committee with jurisdiction over the d.i. program, i am committed to solving these problems and preventing the massive benefit cuts that we'll see under current law. madam president, i'd like to point out three things about my stated approach to dealing with the d.i. program. first you'll note that i have not used the word -- quote -- " crisis" -- unquote to deal with

the trust fund. second you would be hard pressed to find any proposal i have submitted that could credibly be characterized as -- quote -- "slashing d.i. benefits. and third nothing i have quoted could be thought of as -- quote -- "privatizing disability insurance." i have to point that out because a number of people including my friends on the other side of the aisle have described or made efforts to address the d.i. trust fund depreciation using some of those very same words. these individuals are apparently more interested in turning this issue and the coming benefit cuts into a political football than in actually solving the problem. my question is, what good will that do for the d.i. program or its beneficiaries? it isn't just the d.i. program that has problems, madam president. social security in general faces a number of significant fiscal

and policy challenges. in the most recent report, the social security board of trustees which includes several members of president obama's cabinet recommended -- quote -- "that lawmakers address the projected trust fund shortfalls in a timely way in order to phase in necessary changes gradually and give workers and beneficiaries time to adjust to them" -- unquote. that says to me the sooner we act to put social security on a sustainable financial path, the better it is for americans and their security. it clearly does not mean we should ignore the financial problems facing social security or kick the can down the road hoping some future congress will get its act together and solve the problems. of course, providing financial sustainability to social security is easier said than done. there are reasonable disagreements about how to best

address social security's short falls including different views on payroll tax revenues that fund the programs and how quickly promised benefits will grow in the future. yet we should not limit the discussion to taxes and outlays. we also should look at how the program can be improved and brought up to date. for example the vocational grids and guidelines that s.s.i. uses are woefully out of date and much of the existing structure of social security's retirement program was developed long ago when labor markets and work patterns were much different than they are today. we should be working to address all of these challenges both the fiscal and policy challenges now instead of putting them off for later dates. with respect to the d.i. program in particular, i've been working for some time now to obtain input from experts and stakeholders across the spectrum to figure out how we can make

the program work better. joined by house ways and means committee chairman ryan, and social security subcommittee chairman johnson i have solicited input from stakeholders in various venues and continue to welcome ideas or proposals from anyone who wants to submit them. the bills i've dropped today are just the latest in a series of bills i have introduced to help jump-start the discussion of d.i. reforms. we should not sid is it idly by and wait for another income cliff to appear next year. as the social security trustees made clear the sooner congress acts to address these shortcomings the better neither d.i. beneficiaries -- i should say the better -- neither d.i. beneficiaries nor taxpayers benefit from lingering uncertainty about how the impending trust fund depletion will be resolved. as i've said many times before, i'm ready and willing to have

this conversation. sadly, up to now i've heard nothing in response from the obama administration and very little from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. anyone familiar with the current state of the d.i. trust fund would likely acknowledge that we're going to have to reallocate resources to fund if we're going to prevent the impending benefit cuts from happening next year. most proposals i've seen include those -- including those of the president involve shuffling money from the retirement fund to the d.i. trust fund. but even if we have to reallocate resources to shore up the d.i. program we should not delay confronting the obvious need for reform. on this point i'll once again quote the most recent report from the social security trustees which said -- quote -- "reallocation of resources in the absence of substantive relief might serve to delay d.i.

reforms and much-needed corrections for social security as a whole" -- unquote. it's true that as many of my colleagues have noted there have been bipartisan agreements to reallocate resources within social security in the past. however, in virtually every case the reallocations were accompanied by substantive policy changes. this time should be no different. the last time we reallocated resources from the retirement to the d.i. trust fund, d.i. awards were increasing unexpectedly -- increasing unexpectedly and congress needed to examine the reasons for this increase before acting to change the way the d.i. system worked. at the time, most people are dread that reforms were necessary and that the reallocation would buy the time congress needed to come up with those reforms get them enacted and put the trust fund on sound fiscal footing. that was more than 20 years ago, and sadly though not

surprisingly congress did not follow through with the reforms we now face another reserve depletion in the trust fund. needless to say doubling down on the same strategy, a strategy that has already failed to produce the needed policy changes, is not a prudent course of action. in my view, any resources reallocation that gets enacted must be accompanied by changes in the d.i. program. however, the president does not seem to share this view. the administration has called for a stand-alone reallocation of payroll tax receipts away from the retirement and survivors trust fund into the d.i. trust fund. this proposal would depending on the estimate, extend the life of the d.i. program to the early 2030's at which point both social security trust funds disability and retirement will be exhausted at the same time. triggering massive cuts for all

beneficiaries. in fact, there are those who would argue that social security retirement fund is already exhausted and deeply in debt. now, that is their idea of a responsible approach to a widely acknowledged fiscal problem. outside of the stand alone reallocation scheme, the president's budget offers precious little in the way of reforms to the d.i. program or social security in general. in other words the obama administration's entire answer to all of social security's many fiscal problems is literally to just let future congresses and administrations deal with those problems. this to me would be the height of irresponsibility while it may not be as possible absent some kind of resource allocation to keep the d.i. program's current promises between now and the end of the year, we can and should take meaningful steps now to improve the program. that is my goal. i hope enough of my colleagues

share this goal to make it a reality. if we're going to get there it's going to require bipartisan cooperation on both ends of pennsylvania avenue. in other words we're going to need to see more from the administration than we've seen thus far. it is already august. despite my repeated requests for the administration and my friends on the other side of the aisle to engage with me to work on this issue i've yet to hear a meaningful response. i hope that will change. there is no harm in discussing options, and i'm willing to discuss any and all options to fix these problems. there is, on the other hand, a great deal of potential harm to d.i. beneficiaries if we continue to ignore the problem while waiting for a financial cliff to force people's hands. once again madam president i urge my friends on both sides of the aisle to engage on this issue now and do not wait until it is too late to take meaningful action. with that, madam president, i suggest the absence of a quorum.

the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. mr. merkley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator -- mr. merkley: i ask that the quorum call be lifted. officer without objection. mr. merkley: i rise to prays senator obama for putting fiewrd

forward his clean energy plan. of all the questions that can come before our nation, short of its actual preservation of its existence in a great washings there is none which compares in importance with the great central task of leaving this land even a better land for our decendants than it is for us. i think it captured very well the challenge we face with carbon pollution and global, because we are facing a great simple task of leaving this land better four decendants than for us. because we are facing a situation in which there is an accelerating quantity of carbon dying pollution in the -- carbon dioxide pollution in the atmosphere, which is having a profound impact on basically the tefn oftemperature of our planet. if we simply look at the carbon pollution itself, scientists have said that we're in trouble if it rises over 350 parts per

million. well here we are with pollution that last year hit 400 parts per million. so we're above the danger zone. we're going deeper into the danger zone, i'll put it that way, and that is not where we need to be. but, furthermore we are accelerating the rate at which we're polluting the planet with carbon dioxide. it was just a few decades ago that the rate of carbon pollution was increasing by about one part her million per year and now it's increasing by something closer to two parts per million per year. so where we need to be decreasing the overall pollution, bringing it down, we're increasing it and increasing the rate at which we're polluting and that is a very very bad place for humankind to be on this planet. there is incontrovertible evidence of how quickly the

planet is warming. we have, by scientific record, 14 of the warmest 15 years in recorded history have occurred in the last 15 years. so 14 of the 15 warmest over the centuries of measurement have all occurred in the last 15 years. that's not just one little warm spell on some little piece of land. that's a global temperature. and so we see as carbon pollution is increasing, we see the global temperature increasing, and it's reverberating all across the planet. we see dramatic changes in the arctic. the rate of warming in the arctic is roughly four times the rate of warming in more moderate latitudes. and so we're seeing an incredible decrease in the eyes, huge changes coming so quickly very hard for animals to adapt.

of course, people are well-familiar with the crisis that the polar bears are facing. but that's just one particular visible species as an indicator of the challenges that are going on. and we're seeing the feedback mechanisms in the polar zone. we're seeing that the open water where ice is not reflecting the sunlight back up. more water is absorbing more sunlight is creating an accelerated heating impact. and we're seeing the fact that as thawing occurs in the permafrost we're having a situation known as drunken forest where the trees are all staggering in one direction or the other as they lean slightly, as the ground underneath them that was frozen is melting. as it starts to melt, it starts to release methane gas a very potent gas. another feedback mechanism we should all be concerned about. but let's simply take my home state of oregon. and i think one could take this type of checkup if you will, on

any state in the union. in my home state, we have a very severe series of droughts in the klamath basin a major agricultural basin. and these are such that we've had the three worst-ever droughts in aered pooh a period of 15 years. it corresponds to the period of warmest years on planet earth in recorded history. and that is a huge impact on our farming industry. so if you care about farmers you should care about global. then we've had a big challenge with our forests because as these summers are becoming drier and as the type of storms we have are producing more lightning strikes we're systemly having a lot more forest fires the fire season is getting more devastating far more acres are being burned. so over several decades the fire season sha's increased by several -- has increased by several weeks. so if you care about timber, if

you care about forests then you should care about global warming. now, another impact of this changing pattern is we're getting very little snowfall in the cascades. just as glacier park is now becoming the park of disappearing glaciers, you have to look very hard to find any glaciers left in glacier park, the cascades also, a different mountain range, they are losing their snowpack. in fact, we have virtually no snowpack feeding the mountain streams that come down. so if you are a fisherman, you are looking at warmer and smaller streams, which is very unhealthy for the fish. and that's not all. right now we have sockeye coming up the columbia river and getting to the snake river and they're dying because the temperature of the river is too warm for them to continue up river to spawn. and some estimates that i have a seen in the last week with as

much as 80% of the sockeye now are dying in the columbia river before they make make it it into the smack. so if you care about fishing you should care about global warming. then we can look at our coastal shellshellfish, and we discovered that we have a significant problem with our oysters. oregon produces a lot of oiter seed. those -- a a lot of oyster seed. there is a similar process going on in washington state at another hatchery. and the challenge for the hatcheries is the water that is pumped out of the ocean to produce the baby oysters get them going is becoming too acidic and this also is about global warming because the higher rates of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are being absorbed by the ocean and that creates carbonic acid, and it's been enough that there's a 30% increase in the acidity of the

ocean, and that is causing a big problem for these baby oysters to form shells. so if you care about the seafood industry you should care about global. so when we talk about the issue of global warming, we are not talking about computer models and things that are 50 years into the future. we are talking about real-life effects seen on the ground right now, things that are scrg having a big impact on our seafood a big impact on our fishing a big impact on our farming and a big impact on our forest century. if you care about rural america resource-driven economies across this country you should be caring about global warming. so we as a narks it is incumbent -- so we as a nation, it is incumbent upon us to take on this challenge. we are the first generation, as has been said by others, the first generation to feel the impact of global warming and the last generation that can do

something about it. that's what -- incumbent upon us then the senators in this chamber, the u.s. senate, incumbent upon us to take on this issue incumbent on the presidents and the executive team that they put together to take this on, in partnership with the rest of the world. because this is absolutely a tragedy of the commons. very clearly if the united states takes some action to reduce or carbon dioxide or to dries or methane production, then it will have a modest impact but not enough. nations across the planet have to act. and they will act more or less as a community because very few nations are going to say, we will act alone knowing they won't have enough impact unless other inaugurations join together. -- unless other nations join together. so it is up to our leadership role in the world that we act

actively aggressively is and reach out with other nations to partner. earlier this year there was an agreement struck with china. china is going to produce as much renewable energy from electricity as -- by 2230, as all the renewable industries in the united states. if you take your nuclear energy, our energy produced with gas-fired plants, our electricity produced from coal-fired plants, today up all together that's the amount of electricity that china is going to produce with just renewable energy between now and 2030. so they are taking on a massive commitment a massive commitment to renewable energy, and they wouldn't be doing it if the u.s. wasn't also responding aggressively. india is starting to become interested in doing their share so aseeing that other nations -- seeing that other nations are stepping up.

the u.s. should never be sitting on its hands and say we'll wait for everyone else to act not when there is an issue that threfntses the success of the next generation of humans on this planet, and the generation after and the jn reagan administration after. now, i said he willier that not only are we the first to feel the impact of global warming but we are the last general -- last generation that can do something about it. the further you get into global warming, the further you get into carbon pollution and methane pollution and more feedback mechanisms, the harder it is to stop. there's momentum that builds behind the warming of the planet. it becomes much harder to take it on. that's why we need to act decisively now. the clean power plan that the president put forward launched yesterday, is responding to the moral demand of this generation atto take on carbon pollution and

it is doing so in a most cost-effective fashion a fashion that will create jobs in the united states. a fashion that will reduce deaths in the united states. let me give you an example on the health benefits. it will avoid up to 3,600 premature deaths, lead to 90,000 fewer asthma attacks in children, prevent 300,000 missed work and school days. that's incredible and it will save the average family nearly $85 on their annual energy bill by the year 2030. so that's powerful. and in addition, we're going to create jobs in this fashion. it is a tremendous impact of putting people to work, tens of thousands to work driving new investments in clear or modern or more efficient energy

technologies. so i want to close by turning back to president theodore roosevelt who said that there is no more important mission than -- quote -- "leaving this land even a better land for our descendants than it is for us." there are individuals who will come to this floor and they'll say let's act someday but not now. let's do it when it won't have an impact on jobs. it will actually create jobs right now. let's do it when it will cost less. it never costs less. if the problem gets bigger. it costs less to resolve now. pass it on to the next generation they'll resolve it. that's morally irresponsible. every state is feeling the direct impacts. the fishing community timber community, shellfish community is feeling the impacts today of our failure to address this yesterday. so our children and our children's children and our children's children's children

are counting on us here in the u.s. senate to act aggressively to support a strong plan to take on carbon pollution a strong, clean power plan. so let's do so. thank you, mr. president.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. lankford: mr. president i'd like to speak as if in the morning hour for ten minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lankford: i come from an energy state oklahoma. we truly do all of the above. we will coal, oil gas wind, solar, hydro geothermal. we're just missing nuclear. quite frankly we probably have nuclear if the regulations weren't so incredibly high and so incredibly expensive to do. we want in my state and in my region diverse inexpensive healthy, plentiful reliable energy. we don't think that should be

such a high goal that it's only limited to oklahoma. quite frankly, i think just about every area of the country wants that. that used to be a bipartisan goal, in fact. it used to be that democrats supported also all of the above energy but at some point they shifted to the ways of solyndra and determined if you're going to be in that party you have to submit to a certain environmental orthodoxy. it makes it tough to have a discussion about real energy based on facts. it seems to be another day for the e.p.a. to release massive regulations. people wonder why food costs more products cost more and why energy costs more. i'll tell you why this ever growing regulation on the basic cost of energy. it changes the cost of everything. e.p.a. stated they're not responsible for determining the benefits of climate change, just that it would happen as they put out their new clean power plan, they said they didn't have to

list actually or abide by the costs but they did determine the cost anyway. $8.4 billion a year to the american consumer. $8.4 billion. on top of the energy regulations that already exist. they also said they weren't responsible for having to be able to run through the actual effects on climate change. they just said it's happening and so we need to do something. in fact, it's been interesting for me to hear so many of my colleagues in the past 24 hours say republicans pull your plan out. we're doing something. you need to put out a plan and show you're doing something as well. well, we ran the numbers on it and tried to evaluate through the e.p.a. models and be able to look for somewhere where it would note someone who ran the e.p.a. model of how much change there would be in the environment if this plan is fully implemented. the model came back that it would slow the rise of the sea .3 mill meters once this is

fully implemented. .3 millimeters of sea change difference. to give you an example the head of this pin is .7 millimeters. so half the head of this pin is what we're going to save in sea level change if we fully implement this plan. this thing seems to be about fear. severe weather imminent danger. if you don't change everything in your life to the way that we think you should live your life the whole earth is going to fall into chaos and ruin. we need to have an energy debate on this floor. i agree. we need to have a climate debate on this floor but it doesn't need to be out of fear. it needs to be out of facts. what really needs to happen? let's start with basic questions about energy policy and about energy future. what will it take to have reliable energy for the united states during a summer heat wave so we don't have rolling blackouts and senior adults suffer from heat stroke during an august afternoon?

what will it take to protect our grid so that doesn't occur? what will it take to have reliable energy for the hardest nights of winter to make sure that americans are protected in those coldest nights so their power doesn't go out because of rolling blackouts? what energy sources are plentiful in the united states and what energy sources leave us vulnerable to international pressures? what energy sources do we have that we should export to gain economic benefit? what energy sources are economical so we can attract manufacturing to the united states to create more jobs for americans? and how can we assure that the energy we use has the least amount of health risk so that we can have a healthy nation and healthy world? even how about this question: what's the best way to keep energy diversity and distribution to protect our economy from rapid price swings or localized acts of terrorism? that's how you begin to set an energy policy, is to ask some general questions and then start answering some of those and say what's the best way to

accomplish that? but instead our energy policy is being run by environmental policy and about fear of what could happen possibly in the future or protecting ourselves from .3 millimeters of sea rise. over the past ten years co2 emissions have drastically reduced. since 2005, co2 emissions from electric generation reduced by 364 million metric tons. it's a 2,051 metric tons. the goal, the future goal, by the way in this new clean power plan is to have 788 metric tons of reduction from 2005. but we're already 364 metric tons there. because there's already been a pretty dramatic reduction much of that, by the way, from a very slow economy. so 424 more metric tons by 2030. that would mean even with an ever increasing population,

increasing energy needs and hopefully recovering economy we need to cut much more. let me try to set this in context. i'm going to throw some numbers around for awhile but we as a body, i think we can handle it. let me give you some perspective on where things are going with this. the last time the u.s. emitted this target amount for co2 that has now been laid out there, the last time we emitted that amount of co2 was 1985 with 237 million people. if you want a little bit of throw back time that is when du ran duran and hue lewis had all the big hits. that is when there were no clouds and computing had not been discussed. we had 237 million people at the time. the target is to get to that same amount of co2 usage but we'll have 363 million people at the time. that is the estimate from the census bureau. so the plan is to have 126

million more people emit less carbon and use less electricity. it sounds like an interesting plan. if you want the real number by percentage, let me break that down for you. in 1985 every million people used 6.86 metric tons of co2. 6.86 metric tons for every million people. now in 2015, every million people use 6.38 metric tons of co2. that means in the past 30 years we've reduced for each million people about half a ton of co2 because of energy efficiencies, because of the change in the way we do energy. we do it much cleaner now than we did in the 1970's and 1980's. good for us. we achieved a lot, if you remember 1985, a lot of changes. but we've got half a ton less co2 per million people. what this proposal is, is they're proposing for the administration that for every

million people in the u.s. in 2030 we would use 4.48 million tons of co2. that means in the last 30 years with all the energy efficiency movements, with everything that's been done, with the remarkable shift in renewables, we've gained half a ton. the administration wants us to get now two tons of additional amounts in the next 15 years. up understand why a lot of people say this is just not rationale? you can't get to an acceleration that fast in that big of a goal. here's what happens. i look at the facts and requirements and immediately i'm called the neanderthal that wants dirty air and dirty water. i have children too and i like clean air and clean water but facts are stubborn things. a government mandate doesn't create reality. remember jimmy carter in 1979? he declared that his policies would create an energy path so that by the year 2000, 20% of

america's energy would be produced by solar power. 20% by the year 2000. how are we doing with that? less than 2% much our energy in 2015 is produced by solar power. mandates don't create realities. if we drastically change all of our electric generation to wind, solar, nuclear and sun and natural gas we'll hit our annual number, but the amount of decrease a year will amount to approximately what china puts out in a month. they're talking about reducing a year about 450 or so metric tons of co2 that america would put out. china emits 800 metric tons a month. that's why so many people say this is a very expensive goal for america that will have no effect on the global realities. just add a dose of cold water to

the reality. it usually takes more than ten years for a power plant to even get a permit and to start the construction because the department of energy, ferc, and e.p.a. restrictions are so high. so this plan in the next 15 years we're going to have all this rollout we can't even get to the permitting time in that period and haven't touched on the legal issues from the new administration, to have them in front of the american people or in front of congress. the existing law the clean air act, does not allow e.p.a. to add another layer of regulations on top of the existing regulations. that is clear in the law. you cannot do that. even the former sierra club general counsel david bookbinder found this new proposal has what he called a legally dubious ground. as a nation, we don't need more pie-in-the-sky energy ideas. we need real solutions and a right direction that will benefit the united states and the world. we lead the world in power and ideas. we should set high goals but our goals should help us as a

nation not hurt us. every american pays more to pump right now because of the increasing regulations in the ethanol mandates. every american is paying more in gasoline than we should. every american is paying more in electricity because of the cost of the mandates. people ask me why their dollars don't go so far. the regulations are the reason. many people want to know about our energy future. so do i. but i want to talk about our energy present. the goal is a huge goal. we're about 5% right now in renewables. that will still leave us, even if that goal is accomplished, coal natural gas and nuclear power. on hot still days when the wind doesn't blow, it's base power. let's keep going. it's a good thing. glad we're able to harness s