department's inspector general recently concluded its review of the record-keeping practices of several former secretaries of state, including those of secretary clinton. and while these investigations have been the subject of much discussion in the media and here in the senate, i just want to put into context the finding and their relation to federal recordkeeping. the truth is, for decades -- the truth is for decades in across democratic and republican streationz, the federal government has done an abysmal job when it comes to preserving electronic records. 60 years ago the goal quais to help pre-seb our nation's history and to ensure that americans have access to public records. as you know, a lot has changed in our country since that time due to the evolution of information technology. today billions of documents, billions of documents, shah shape the decisions that our government makes are never written down with pen and with paper.

instead, these records are created digitally. they are not stored in filing cabinet. they're not stored in a library or an archive somewhere but on computers and in bytes of data. because of a slow response to technological change, agencies have struggled to manage an increasing volume of electronic records and in particular e-mail. in fact, the national archives and records administration, the agencies charged with preserving our nation's records, reported that 80% -- think about this, 80% of agencies are at an elevated risk for the improper management of electronic records. and as the inspector general's recent report showed, the state department is no exception to this government-wide problem. the report found systemic witness -- weaknesses in the state department, which has not done a good job for years now when it comes to overseeing record-keeping policies and ensuring that employees, not just understand what the rules

are, what the policies are, but actually follow those policies. the report of the i.g. inspector, the report of the f.b.i. has also found that several former secretaries of state or their senior advisors used personal e-mails to conduct official business. notably -- notably, secretary kerry is the first secretary of state i believe this the history of our country to use a state.gov e-mail address, the very first one, the very first one the fact that record keeping has not been a priority at the state department does not come as a surprise, i'm sure. in a previous report, the inspector general of the state department found that roughly one billion state department -- out of roughly one billion state department e-mails sent in one year alone, 2011, only .001% of them were saved in an electronic records management system. tbhi that.

now, how many is that? well, that means one out of every roughly 16,000 -- one oust every 16,000 was saved, if you're keeping score. to this day, it remains the policy of the state department that in most cases each employee must manually choose which e-mails are work-related and should be archived and then they print out and they file them in hard copy form. imagine that. well, we can do better. and frankly, we must. fortunately, better laws have spurred action and pushed agencies to catch up with the changing technologies. in 2014 congress took long overdue steps to modernize the laws that govern our federal record keeping requirements. we did so by adopting amendments to the federal records act authored by elijah cummings and approved by both the house of representatives and right here in the united states senate, mr. president. today employees at executive agencies may no longer conduct

official business over-personal e-mails without ensuring that any records they create in their personal accounts are properly archived and official electronic message count within 20 dice. within 20 days. had these commonsense measures been in place or required when secretary clintoned and her predecessors were in office, the practices identified in the inspectoinspector general's repd not have persisted over many years and multiple administrations, democrat and republican. secretary clinton, her team and her predecessors would have gotten better guidance from congress on how the federal records act applies to technology, and that did not exist when the law was first passed over 60 years ago. wcialtion let's move -- well, let's move forward. it is important that we continue to implement the 2014 reforms to the federal records act in order to tackle these long-standing

weaknesses. it is also imperative for us to keep pace as communication technologies continue to evolve. while it is not quick or glamorous work, congress should support broad deployment of national archives new record management approaches called capstone, which helps agencies preserve the records of its senior officials automatically. i understand that secretary clinton is running for president and some much our friends in -- some of our friends in congress have chosen to single her out on these issues, i think largely for that reason -- because she is a candidate. in past statements secretary clinton has repeatedly tang responsibility for her mistakes and also taken steps to satisfy her obligations under the federal records act. the i.g. i.g. of the national archives and records administrations have also indicated that he mitigated her

past practices by providing 55,000 pages of work-related e-mail to the state department in december of 2014. 5 -- 55,000 pages. the vast majority has now been released through the freedom of information act. this is an unprecedented level of transparency. never have so many e-mails from a former cabinet secretary been made public -- never. i would encourage the american people to read them, to read those e-mails. and what they will show is, among other things, they'll show someone working late at night, working on weekends, working on holidays to help protect american interests. the more you read, the more i think you'll understand her service as secretary of state. she called a dozen foreign leaders on thanksgiving day in 2509. she discussed the nuclear arms treaty with the russian ambassador on christmas eve. she responded quickly to

humanitarian crises like the earthquake in haiti. i should point out that the issue of poor record keeping practices and personal e-mail use are not unique to this administration or just to the executive branch. many in congress were upset when poor record keeping practices of president george w. bush's administration resulted in the loss of white house documents and records. i remember that. at at times members of congress have also used personal e-mail to conduct official business, including some who are criticizing secretary clinton today, despite it being discouraged. now that the f.b.i. has concluded its review, let me just say, i think it's time to move on. instead of focusing on e-mails, the american people expect us in congress to fix problems, not to use our time and resources to score political points. and as i often say, we lead by our example, not do as i say, but do as i do.

all of us should keep in this mind and focus on fixing real problems, like the american people sent us here to do. before i yield, mr. president, let me just say this, if i could, i was privileged to spend some time's a, as the presiding officer knows, as governor of my state of delaware for eight years. after i was elected governor but before i came governor, all those who were newly elected governor-elects were invited to governor school hosted by the national governors' association. that would have been in november of 1993. and the new governor school -- we call it that for new governors and spouses -- it was hosted by the n.g.a. and the chairman of the national governors' association and by the other governors and their spouses within the n.g.a. they were our faculty and the rest of us were newbies, we were the ones there to learn. we spent three days as veterans, and those of us who were newly elected two weeks earlier.

we learned a lot from the folks who had been in those seats for a while as governors and spouses. one of the best lessons i learned during the new governor school that year in november of 1992 as a governor-elect of governor was this: when we make a mistake, i'm not going to recall if it was a republican or democrat, when you make a mistake, don't make a one-day problem a one-week proke, a one-month problem, a one-year problem fnlt when you make a mistake, admit it. that's what he said. when you make a mistake, apologies. -- apologize, take the blame. when you have made a mistake, fix it. and then move on. i think that's pretty good advice. and it's helped me a whole lot as governor and here in the united states senate in my work here in washington with with our presiding officer on a number of issues. the other thing i want to say, i want to say a word about james

comey. i have been privileged to know hum for a number of years, when he was nominated to head up the f.b.i. and today as he's served in his capacity for a number of years. we are lucky in this country -- i don't know if he is a democrat or republican, i have no idea. but i know this: he is a great leader. he is about as straight and arrow as they come. he works hard, very hard, and provides enlightened leadership, principled leadership for the men and women of the f.b.i. and i want to say -- thank her publicly him for taking on a tough job and doing it we will. -- and doing it well. and i hope we'll take the time to sift through what he and the f.b.i. have found. but in the end, one of the things they have found, after all these months and time and the effort that's gone into reviewing the records, the e-mail records and practices of senator clinton, which she says

she greets, has apologized for doing this, said if she had to do it all over, she certainly wouldn't do it again, even though it wasn't in contravention of the e-mail laws we had at the time, she said, she's had taken the blame. and at some point in time, we do have some big challenges that we face and we need to get to work on those as well. with that, mr. president, always good to be wuvmen -- to be with. thanks for giving me the time tonight. i don't see anybody else on the floor, so i'll observe that there is a lack of a quorum here in the united states senate. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. sasse: mr. president? the presiding officer: the sphror nebraska. mr. sasse: mr. president, i ask -- are we in a quorum call? i ask unanimous consent to suspend the quorum call. the presiding officer: wowcts. mr. sasse: mr. president, i apologize for being a little bit breathless. i printed to the floor when i -- i sprinted to the floor when i saw the gentleman from delaware speaking. i have high regard for the gentleman from delaware. he is a man of integrity who has served his nation well, both in the navy and in this body as well. we've explored the texas-mexico border before. i wanted to come to the floor and just ask if he has any view, in lightest comments he just made, about secretary clinton. if he has any view about what should happen the next time when a career intelligence or military officer leaks

classified information. i'm curious as to what should happen next because, as i see it -- and i welcome a conversation with any of the defenders of the secretary of state that want to come to the floor and he gauge in this issue, as i see it, one of two things happens the next time a classified document is released. either we are going to not prosecute or not pursue the individual who leaks a document that compromises national security and compromises potentially the life of one of the spies who's out there serve in defense of freedom, and we are potentially not going to pursue or prosecute that individual because yesterday a decision was made inside the executive branch of the united states government to lower the standards that govern how we protect classified information in this country, and that will be a sad day because it will mean that we are a weaker nation because we decide to lower those standards, not in this body, but

a decision will be made to lower the standards by which the secrets scr protected or conversely a decision will have been made not to -- the decision will be made to prosecute and pursue that individual for having leaked secrets at which point that individual, his or her spouse and their family and his or her peers are going 0 ask the question, why is there a different standard for me, the career military officer or the career intelligence officer, than there is for the politically connected in this country? as i sigh it, we are in danger of doing one of two things. we're either going to make the u.s. less secure by lowering the standards that are written in statute about how we govern classified information in this country, or we're going to create a two-tiered system of justice by which the powerful, by which the politically connected are held to a different bar than the people who serve us in the military and the intelligence community. and i, again, i have great respect for the senior senator from delaware.

i listens to his comments, i was in a different meeting and i unmuted my tv and listened to his comments and i welcome him to come back to the floor and engage me and explain which way he thinks we should go next because one of those two things is going to happen the next time a classified document is leaked. either we are going to not pursue that person and we're going to have lowered the standards for protecting our nation's secrets. or we're going to pursue that person, which means they'll be held to a different standard, a higher standard than the secretary of state. i don't understand that. i don't understand why anybody in this body would think either of those two outcomes is a good thing. i think it would be worthwhile for this body -- we do many, many things around here. a small subset of them are really important. lots of them aren't very important. this is a critically important matter. this body and this congress exists for the purpose of fulfilling our article 1 obligations under our

constitution. the american system of government is about limited government because we know as madison said that we need government in the world because men aren't angels. and we need divided government, we need checks and balances in our government, we need three branches of government because those of us who govern are not angels. and so we distinguish in our constitution between a legislative and executive and a judicial branch, and this body, the legislative branch, is supposed to be the body that passes the laws because the people are supposed to be in charge, and they can hire and fire those of us who serve here. so laws should be made in this body, not in the executive branch. the executive branch's obligations are to faithfully execute the laws that are passed in this body. and so if we're going to change the standards by which our nation's secrets are protected, by which classified information is governed, we should do that in a deliberative process here. we should pass a law in the house and senate and in the senate so that if the voters, if

the 320 million americans, who the we the people who are supposed in charge, if they stkpwraoe with the decisions -- disagree with the decisions of this body they should be able to fire us. deliberation about the laws and the standards that tkpwofrp -- govern our laws should be done here and the laws should be made here. so i'm very curious for those who want to defend secretary clinton if they would explain to us which way they want it to go the next time a classified secret is leaked. because either we're going to have standards or we're not going to have standards. and if we're not going to have standards, that's going to make our nation weaker. and if we are going to have standards, they should apply equally to everyone. because we believe in equality under the law in this country. thank you, mr. president. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. rubio: phr-pbt, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. rubio: i ask unanimous consent that i be allowed to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. rubio: mr. president, as you and others are well aware, florida is often associated with its crystal blue waters, sport and commercial fishing, its pristine vacation destinations but this summer an algae bloom known as the blue-green algae is threatening that and much more allege stretches of the st. lucie river and indian river lagoon. on friday i visited the area and i can tell you this is an economic disaster in addition to an ecological crisis. i met many people whose lives have been thrown into turmoil. the algae has forced closure of several beaches. this morning we were hearing reports of a surf camp.

kids go out and learn how to surf, paddle board and so forth and they have been having their parents canceling around in some cases canceling themselves because of this. there were beaches closed tkaourlg -- during the 4th of july, the peak season for many hotels and local businesses. beyond that this algae bloom is killing fish and oysters. it's hurting tourism, harming local businesses, sinking property values. imagine if you just bought a home on the water there and the values are largely tied to access to water and you step outside and there is a thick green slime that some have considered or some have compared to guacamole, sitting on the surface of the ocean, on your porch basically. you can imagine what that was doing to property values. parents are concerned for the health of their children. there are a number of things we can do to address this immediately. a number of things, and i've been working to make these

things happen. let me describe first of all how this is happening. this is happening because knew tree kwrepbt rich water, basically water that has things in it like fertilizer, is running into lake okeechobee which is at the center of the stage, the largest inland body of water in the state and historically the water that sat in lake okeechobee would run seward into -- south ward into the everglades but that has now stopped. this water is held back by a dike put in place to prevent flooding. when the waters need to be released they are released east and west. these waters are already nutrient rich and released into can canals which also have nutrients in them. when these things reach the ocean, when they reach the he is waries, lagoon, lake and river and get into this heat the result is what we're seeing now. last week i wrote the army corps of engineers and urged them to stop the discharges from lake

okeechobee until the balance and health of the ecosystem in the area can recover. these discharges have been ongoing since january of this year, which has lowered salinity levels and caused the algae to bloom. i also invited the assistant secretary of the arm corps to visit the area to witness firsthand. much more needs to be done. my office has been working with the small business administration for months now on the harmful impacts of these discharges. in april we were able to ensure disaster loans were made available to businesses suffering from the discharges. just yesterday we were able to confirm that the disaster loans will apply to those currently affected by the current algae blooms. perhaps the most important long-term solution that we can make, that we can put in place is the need for the senate and the house to pass and the president to sign the

authorization for the central everglades planning project. what it will do is it will divert harmful discharges away from the coastlines and send more water south through the everglades. this is a project i had hoped would have been authorized in the last water resources bill in 2014, but delays by the administration in releasing the final chief report prevented that from happening in 2014. thanks to the leadership of chairman inhofe the central everglades planning project is included in the e.p.w. committee reported water resources development act this year of 2016. last week i joined 29 of my colleagues in urging our leaders to bring this important bill before the full senate. i plan to continue to support and i hope we are able to get the central everglades planning process signed into law as soon as possible. finally, we also need to know the long-term health risks posed by this algae bloom. so i mentioned a moment ago that many parents are concerned about the safety of their kids as they

play outside this summer. let me tell you why they're concerned. the algae i saw hraoeurpbg the shores and -- lining the koefs koefs -- cove and inlets will make you sick. there are people complaining of headaches and rashes and respiratory issues. in stuart you could not stand outside and breathe the air without literally feeling sick. the smell is indescribable. the best thing i can use to describe it is as if you opened up a septic tank or okeechobee sewage in a third -- or open sewage in a third world country. by the way, when it dies it turns this dark blue-green color and becomes even more toxic. no one knows how to remove it. no one knows what happens to it after it dies stept -- except it sits there. that's why we contacted the centers for disease control and i request they keep us informed and remain vigilant. this is truly a crisis for the state of florida.

but we are fortunate that florida is well equipped to handle this issue. i've spoken to the governor and key officials on the ground about this. it should continue to be a key effort by the federal and state government. should the government decides this warrants a federal disaster declaration i will urge the president to approve it. that means more resources could flow to those who have been negatively impacted by this, especially small businesses who have seen themselves in the peak season truly been hurt by this event. in the meantime florida continues to face the serious problem and unfortunately there simply is no silver bullet. its effects will linger for quite sometime. that is not a promising thing for me to say to people who are suffering through this right now. if that was my house facing this algae, if that was my business wiped out with the cancellations, i would be angry too. *euld be angry -- i would be angry to. it is important to remember this is not just an ecological crisis. it is a tragedy for the people

on the treasure coast. this is a heated issue because we're talking about people's homes, a way of life, how many people said to me they grew up in the area. they remember days when their whole summers were spent near that water and they can't go in it now. when you see a place as beautiful as the treasure coast looking and smelling like an okeechobee sewer, you have a -- like an open sewer you have a visceral reaction to this. sadly when there are heated issues like these, people are willing to exploit them. anyone who tells you they have the silver bullet answer to this problem they're lying. i've talked to experts, dozens of them. i visited with people across the spectrum on this issue and the reality is that solving this issue will take time and persistence and a number of things. there is no single thing we can do. there are a number of things, and they all have to happen in order for this to get better. these problems have existed for decades, decades.

this didn't happen overnight. this was not something that start twaod weeks -- started two weeks ago. i've been a senator for less than six years. in my time here we have made steady progress on this issue but it is not coming as fast as i would like and not as fast as the people of the treasure coast need. the worst thing we could do right now is divert critical resources from a plan that will work, from a plan designed by scientists, a plan designed by experts that will work. we have to put that plan in place. that's why i once again urge my colleagues to move forward on the central everglades planning project so we can begin the process of authorizing these important projects that will allow us, not just to retain more water, but to see cleaner water going into lake okeechobee, cleaner water coming out of lake okeechobee, and cleaner water flowing south of the everglades, the way it should be flowing, not into these impacted communities. mr. president, i have called

your attention to this as i have detailed because this is far from being a state issue. we do have our work cut out for us on the federal level to help get this solved, but i am committed to this task, and i ask my colleagues for their assistance in assuring that five years from now, ten years from now, we're not still here talking about this happening all over again. with that, mr. president, i thank you, and i yield the floor, and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, may i first ask unanimous consent that the pending quorum call be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: thank you very much. and let me ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business for up to, let's say, 20 minutes, although i don't think i'll use it all. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: thank you. mr. president, i'm here for the 143rd time now to urge congress to wake up to the

damage that carbon pollution is inflicting on our atmosphere and oceans, and to make a record for when people look back at this time and this place and wonder why congress was so unresponsive in the face of all the information. what are we up against that has prevented progress? what we're up against is a many tentacleed, industry-controlled apparatus that is deliberately polluting our discourse in this nation with phony climate denial. that apparatus runs in parallel with a multihundred million dollar electioneering effort that tells politicians that if you don't buy what the apparatus

is selling, you will be in political peril. as we look at the apparatus that is propagating this phony climate denial, there is a growing body of scholarship that helps us that is examining this apparatus, how it's funded, how it communicates and how it propagates the denial message that includes work by harvard university's naomi oreski's, michigan state's aaron mcwright, oklahoma state's riley dunlap, yale's justin farrell and direction he will university's robert bruell. but it's not just them. there are a lot of academic folk working on this to the point where there are now more than 100 pier-reviewed scientific -- peer-reviewed scientific

articles examining this climate change at rat us itself. these people, these scientists are doing serious and ground breaking work. dr. bruell, for instance, has just been named the 2016 recipient of the american sociological association's frederick patel distinguished contribution award, the highest honor in american environmental sociology. dr. bru le. l has also won, along with professor dunlap, the american sociological association's allen smallburg outstanding publication award for their book "climate change and society." the work of all of these academic researchers maps out an intricate, interconnected propaganda web which encompasses over 100 organizations, including trade associations, conservative so-called think tanks, foundations, public

relations firms and plain old phony baloney polluter front groups. a complex flow of cash now often hidden by donors trust and other such identity laundering operations supports this apparatus. the apparatus is "overtly producing and promoting skepticism and doubt about scientific consensus on climate change." end quote. the climate denial apparatus i illuminated by this scholarship is part of the untold story behind our obstructed american climate change politics. this apparatus is huge. phony baloney front organizations are set up by the score to obscure industry's hand. phony messaging is honed by public relations experts to sow doubt about the real scientific

consensus. stables of payrolled scientistss are trotted out on call to perform. professor brulle likens it to a stage production. i'll quote him. "like a play on broadway, the countermovement has stars in the spotlight, often prominent contrarian scientists or conservative politicians, but behind the stars is an organizational structure of directors, scriptwriters, and producers in the form of conservative foundations. if you want to understand what's driving this," he continues, "you have to look at what's going on behind the scenes." end quote. the whole aprater us -- apparatus is designed to be big and sophisticated enough that when you see its many parts, you could be fooled into thinking it is not all the same animal.

but it is, just like the mythological hydra-- many heads, same beast. the apparatus is huge because it has a lot to protect. the international monetary fund has pegged what it calls the effective subsidy to the fossil fuel industry every year. in the united states alone at nearly $700 billion. that is a lot to protect. here's one other measure: the center for american progress has tallied the carbon dioxide emissions from the power producers involved in the lawsuit to block implementation of president obama's clean power plan, either directly or through their trade groups. turns out they've got a lot of pollution to protect. the companies affiliated with that lawsuit were responsible

for nearly 1.2 billion tons of carbon pollution in 2013. that's a fifth of the carbon output of our entire country. 1.2 billion tons makes these polluters, if they were their own country, the sixth-biggest co2 emitter in the world, more than germany or canada. using the office of management and budget social cost of carbon, that's a polluter cost put on the rest of us of over $50 billion every year. when this crowd comes to the court, they come with very dirty hands and for very high stakes. not only is this apparatus huge be, it is also complex. it is organized into multiple levels. rich think is the former

president of the charles g. koch charitable foundation. he has outlined the model that they used called the structure of social change to structure what he called "the distinct roles of universities, think tanks, and activist groups in the transformation of ideas into action." end quote. he is a koch-funded grant maker out to pollute the public mind, so the koch foundation realized that multiple levels were necessary for successful propaganda production. they went at it this way: the -- quote -- "intellectual raw materials" -- end quote -- were tosh h. to be produced by scholars funded at universities giving the propaganda product some academic credibility. i think at this point, koch

funding reaches into as many as 300 college campuses to create this so-called intellectual raw material. then think tanks and policy institutions mold these ideas and market them as -- quote -- "needed solutions for real-world problems." i guess they're using the technique of think tank as disguised political weapon described by jane mayer in her terrific book "dark money." and then comes what we would call astroturf, citizen implementation groups -- and i'll quote mr. fink again -- "build diverse coalitions of individual citizens and special interest groups needed to press for the implementation of policy change at the ground level." so the apparatus is organized, not unlike a company, would set up manufacturing, marketing, and

sales. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to submit mr. fink's structure of social change to the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: investigative books, journalists reporting, and academic studies repeatedly compare the fossil fuel industry climate denial effort to the fraud scheme that was run by the tobacco industry to disguise the harms of smoking. when i was a united states attorney, the justice department pursued and it ultimately won a civil lawsuit against tobacco companies for that fraud. when i was here in the senate, i wrote an opinion piece about a possible d.o.j. investigation into the fossil fuel industry fraud on climate change. this gave me a new appreciation of the apparatus in action. in response came an eruption of

dozens of right-wing editorials, most of which, interestingly, were virtually identical, with common misstatements of law and common omission of facts. the eruption recurred some months later in response to my asking attorney general lynch about such an investigation when she was before us during a hearing of the judiciary committee. virtually every author or outlet in these eruptions was a persistent climate denier and common markers in the published pieces seemed to point to a central script. when multiple authors all say something that is true, that's not necessarily noteworthy. but when multiple authors are all repeating the same

falsehoods, that's a telling fingerprint. i happened to notice this, because unlike most people, i get my news clips, so i saw all these articles as they emerged. articles regularly confused civil law with criminal law, suggesting that i wanted to slap the cuffs on people or prosecute people. when the tobacco case was a civil case and in a civil case there are no handcuffs. the articles almost always overlooked the fact that the government won the tobacco fraud lawsuit and won it big. the pieces usually said that my target was something other than the big industry protagonists. my targets were described as climate dissidents or independent thought or scientists and the scientific

method or even just people who disagree with me. nothing like that transpired in the tobacco fraud case, obviously. and then time and time again the articles wrongly asserted that any investigation into potential fraud by this climate denial apparatus would be a violation of the first amendment. this was a particularly telling marker, because it is actually settled law, including from the tobacco case itself, that fraud is not protected under the first amendment. so the legal arguments were utterly false. but, nevertheless, the apparatus was prolific. they cranked out 100 articles in all in those two eruptions. now the state attorneys general who have stepped up to

investigate whether the fossil fuel industry and its fnt groups engaged in fraud have faced a similar backlash. first came that editorial barrage often from the same outlets and authors as mine and usually within the same false arguments -- with the same false arguments. then republicans on the u.s. house science, space, and technology committee sent the attorney generals letters with a barrage of demands to discourage and disrupt their inquiries. a group of republican state attorney generals even issued a letter decrying the efforts of their colleagues. and all of them insisted that the first amendment should prevent any investigation. in one ironic asian the koch-backed front group americans for proces prosperityo the rescue of the koch-backed competitive enterprise institute, one of the climate

denial mouthpieces under investigation. the koch-backed front group americans for prosperity announced that it was joining a coalition of 4 other groups to support what it called "a fight for free speech." but according to realkochfact.org 436 those 47 groups in that so-called coalition all havize to the kochs. 28 are directly funded by the kochs and their family foundations. welcome to the apparatus. the koch brothers' puppet groups claim to stand united against what americans for prosperity described as "an affront to the first amendment rights of all americans." but scroll back and the tobacco companies and their front groups and republican allies made exactly the same argument

against the department of justice's civil racketeering lawsuit, the one that the department of justice won. big tobacco's appeal in court argued that and i'll quote the appeal here, "the first amendment would not permit congress to enact a law that so criminalized one side of an on-going legislative and public debate because the industry's opinions differed from the government or consensus view." end quote. how did they do? they lost. they lost because the case was about fraud, not differences of opinion. courts can tell the difference between fraud and differences of opinion. they do it all the time. fraud has specific legal requirements. the courts in the tobacco case held firmly that the

constitution holds no protection for fraud, zero. and the tobacco industry had to stop the fraud. now the fossil fuel industry says it's different than the tobacco industry while it uses the very same argument as the tobacco schemers. to really aappreciate how bogus the first amendment argument is, think through what it would mean if fraudulent corporate speech were protected by the first amendment. out would go state and federal laws protecting us from deceitful misrepresentations about products. consumer protection offices around the country would shrivel or shut their doors and it would be open season on the american

consumer. that's a dark world to envision, but it's the world that results if corporate lies about the safety of their products or industrial processes are placed beyond the reach of the law. and i say "lies," because you have to be lying for it to be fraud. this begs the question, is there really a difference of opinion about climate change among scientists? mr. president, last week 31 leading national scientific organizations, including the american association for the advancement of science, the american meteorological society, the american geophysical union and 28 others, sent members of congress a no-nonsense message that human-caused climate change is real. that it poses serious risks to society, and that we need to

substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions. they told us, and i quote, "observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring and rigorous scientific research concludes that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." end quote. they went on to say "this conclusion is based on multiple independent lines of evidence and the vast body of peer-reviewed science." and i'd like to ask unanimous consent to submit the letter from these 31 scientific organizations also into the record. thank you, mr. president. that letter is the voice of fact, of scientific analysis,

and of reason. up against it is the apparatus. the apparatus has the money. the apparatus has the slick messaging. the apparatus has the political clout. it has that parallel election spending muscle. it has the lobbying armada. and it has that array of outlets willing to print falsehoods about climate change and, for that matter, about fraud and the first amendment. the scientists, well, they have the expertise and the knowledge and the facts. whose side we choose to take says a lot about who we are.

and with that, mr. president, i will yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: thank you. mr. president, i ask the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. merkley: i ask unanimous consent my intern olivia woods be granted privileges to the

floor for the balance of the day. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. merkley: thank you. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina. a senator: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. tillis: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. tillis: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of calendar number 529, senate resolution 506. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 529, s. res. 506, resolution expressing the sense of the senate in support of the north

atlantic treaty organization, and so forth. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. tillis: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the committee-reported amendments be agreed to, the resolution as amended be agreed to, the committee-reported amendment to the preamble be agreed to, the preamble as amended be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. tillis: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to consideration of calendar number 535, senate resolution 38. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 535, s. con. res. 38, concurrent resolution reaffirming the taiwan relations act, and so forth. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. tillis: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the concurrent resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon

the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. tillis: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to immediate consideration of calendar 537, senate resolution 482. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. th the clerk: calendar number 587 senate resolution 482 urging the european union to designate hezbollah as a terrorist organization and so forth. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. tillis: mr. president, i ask that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. tillis: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to consideration of calendar number 540, senate resolution 504. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 540, senate resolution 504, recognizing the 70th