February 27, 2019 - Issue: Vol. 165, No. 36 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 1st Session

[Pages S1546-S1551]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             CLIMATE CHANGE

  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I am here today to talk about climate 
change and about our climate crisis.
  Climate change is an existential threat to our country and the 
planet. We know this because the world's leading scientists--the United 
Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change--just made that very 
warning last year. The U.N. report told us that we have very limited 
time until we are past the point of no return and the most catastrophic 
impacts of climate change are irreversible. Our own Federal scientists 
across 13 Agencies also just warned in the ``National Climate 
Assessment'' that the impacts of climate change are not in the future 
but are happening in our communities right now. Here is what all 13 
Federal Agencies said: ``Our efforts do not yet approach the scale 
necessary to avoid substantial damages to the economy, environment, and 
human health.''
  These are Earth-shattering reports about the state of our Earth. 
These are the doomsday reports about what will happen if we do not take 
bold action.
  The consequences of climate change will be dire: a tenfold increase 
in ice-free summers in the Arctic, a 99-percent loss of coral reefs, 
and a doubling of species lost around the world. In worst-case 
scenarios in the Northeast, by the end of the century, both the 
Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Logan Airport will be 
underwater. Climate emissions are not slowing down. In 2018, greenhouse 
gas emissions in the United States increased by 2.8 percent. We have a 
denier-in-chief in the White House.
  This week, Republicans in the Senate are poised to confirm a coal 
lobbyist to be the head of the Environmental Protection Agency. It is 
unbelievable that we will confirm a coal lobbyist to be the head of our 
environment in our country. Andrew Wheeler's denial of the climate 
crisis should in and of itself be disqualifying. His record as a coal 
lobbyist should be disqualifying.
  We should come together and reject Andrew Wheeler as the next head of 
the Environmental Protection Agency. The impact of climate change on 
ordinary families, on their health, on our Nation, on our security, and 
on our future is too urgent.
  The United Nations tells us that climate change is an existential 
threat to the planet. It is the national security, health, economic, 
and moral issue of our time--of all time. We have a responsibility to 
act. We must be bold. We must be ambitious. That is why I have 
introduced the Green New Deal resolution, because it lays out a 
serious, bold, and aspirational set of goals

[[Page S1547]]

that meet the scale of the threat. It is a set of principles and not 
prescriptions. It challenges this country to find solutions to this 
problem.
  The Green New Deal is a climate plan about net-zero emissions. The 
Republican climate plan is in zero existence. They don't have a climate 
plan. Republicans don't like the Green New Deal because they don't like 
a functional government. Republicans don't like the Green New Deal 
because they don't like climate science. Republicans don't like the 
Green New Deal because their allies--the oil companies, the coal 
companies, and the corporate polluters--don't like wind power or solar 
power or all-electric vehicles or the millions of blue-collar jobs they 
can create. We can save all of creation by engaging in massive blue-
collar job creation in this country. Republicans don't like the Green 
New Deal because clean energy is a direct threat to the interests and 
the bottom line of Big Oil and King Coal.
  The Green New Deal isn't just a socialist manifesto. It isn't pie in 
the sky. It isn't a takeover. It isn't any of the misinformation and 
distortions that Republicans and their fossil fuel allies have called 
it. The Green New Deal isn't, as the Republican leader called it this 
morning, ``the far left's Santa Claus wish list dressed up to look like 
serious policy.'' If it were, then Republicans in this Chamber wouldn't 
care enough about it to spend their entire morning remarks on it, and 
the majority leader wouldn't be threatening to bring it to the floor 
without any hearings, without any expert testimony, without any 
amendments, and without any science.
  Let's have the debate. Let's have the hearings. Let's bring in all 
the experts. Let's let the U.N. testify. Let's let our own scientists 
and every one of the Federal Agencies in America testify. Let's bring 
in all of the corporate executives right now on wind, solar, all-
electric vehicles, and storage batteries in our society. Bring them in. 
Let's hear the stories. Instead, what we have is just an attempt to 
short-circuit the debate.
  They may not believe climate change is an existential threat to human 
kind, but they are smart enough to know that the bold goals of the 
Green New Deal are an existential threat to the Koch brothers and all 
of their other corporate polluter and fossil fuel allies.
  Let me just read some of what is in the Green New Deal that 
Republicans are opposed to: securing for all people of the United 
States for generations to come clean air and water, climate and 
community resiliency, healthy food, access to nature, and a sustainable 
environment.
  Are Republicans opposed to access to nature? That is in the 
resolution. Are Republicans opposed to clean air and water? That is in 
the resolution too. Do you know what is not in the resolution? Ending 
airline travel. Do you know what is not in the resolution? No more 
cows.
  Do you know what is not in the resolution? A prohibition on nuclear 
energy or carbon capture and sequestration. The Green New Deal 
resolution is bold, and it is aspirational in its principles, but it is 
not prescriptive in its policies.
  Let's look at some of what is actually in this resolution: to create 
millions of good, high-wage jobs--I guess Republicans don't believe in 
that; to invest in the infrastructure and industry of the United States 
to sustainably meet the challenge of the 21st century--I guess 
Republicans don't believe in that; guaranteeing universal access to 
clean water, supporting family farming, cleaning up existing hazardous 
waste and abandoned sites, ensuring economic development and 
sustainability on those sites--I guess Republicans don't believe in 
those either. Those are all part of the Green New Deal and climate 
solutions.
  We already know that Big Oil and King Coal and other fossil fuel 
companies don't want to compete with clean energy because that is a 
direct threat to their business plan.
  Clean energy makes the air we breathe cleaner, it saves consumers 
money, it makes us safer, and it creates jobs.
  In his remarks, the Republican leader called the Green New Deal 
``foolish and dangerous.'' With all due respect to the leader and my 
Republican colleagues, the only foolish and dangerous thing about the 
Green New Deal is to ignore the $400 billion in damage to our country 
over the last 2 years from supercharged storms and wildfires all over 
California and all over the West.
  To ignore the tens of trillions of dollars in damages we will see 
from climate change in the United States by 2100 is something that 
ultimately, from my perspective, is foolish and dangerous. An ounce of 
prevention is better than a pound of cure. Ignoring what is happening, 
ignoring the warnings from all of the top scientists in the world and 
in the United States and continuing on the same pathway--that is 
foolish, that is dangerous, and that is going to cost us tens of 
trillions of dollars in damages that would have been otherwise avoided 
if we unleashed a technology revolution in our country that would 
create millions of new jobs.
  It is also dangerous to send our men and women in the military 
overseas to protect tankers of oil coming from the Middle East to the 
United States. We are still bringing in oil from Saudi Arabia. We are 
still bringing in oil from other countries in the Middle East. What if 
we could dramatically increase the fuel economy in the vehicles we 
drive? What if we could accelerate the pace to use all-electric 
vehicles? Wouldn't it be great if we could say that the day arrived 
when we never have to see another tanker of oil from the Middle East 
coming into our country? Would that not make us safer? Would that not 
give us better control of our own foreign policy and where we send 
young men and women in uniform? I think it would.
  I think it would be foolish and dangerous not to take that pathway. 
The superstorms, the wildfires, the rising seas, and the other extreme 
weather events--the impacts of climate change if we do not act boldly 
to stop it--that isn't just dangerous; that is an existential threat. 
That is what the world's scientists have called it.
  The Green New Deal is dangerous for the status quo of doing nothing 
on climate change. It is dangerous for the Koch brothers and those who 
are used to killing off every climate debate before it gets a chance to 
start. It is dangerous for those who want us to limp into a frightening 
future with no plan and no protections in place. It is dangerous for 
those who benefit from the continued devaluation of our workers, the 
historic oppression of vulnerable communities, and from the continued 
destruction of the environment. Those are the ones who would think the 
Green New Deal is dangerous.
  We want to support working families and support a safe climate future 
where all communities are protected. We welcome a debate on proposals 
for how to get there, but the science is clear as to where we need to 
end up.
  The Republicans may think that the Green New Deal is just a 
resolution, but it is a revolution. It is a revolution. Young people 
want a green energy revolution in our country. They know we can do 
this. They know that all of these new technologies can be invented; all 
of these new technologies can be deployed.
  It is not just a resolution; it is a revolution. All across this 
country, when the Republicans have refused to bring their climate plan 
out there because theirs is a party of science denial--the President is 
the ``Denier in Chief'' on climate science--then we are going to allow 
this problem to worsen and worsen and worsen.
  Do you know who should know best? Donald Trump, because within 30 
years, according to the science, Mar-a-Lago is going to become Mar-a-
Lagoon. It is right on the coast. It has already begun to happen. It is 
just going to continue.
  The President might be able to protect his property, but we are going 
to lose tens of trillions of dollars for the properties of other 
Americans because he decided that he was going to deny the warning that 
the scientists have presented to us.
  When I was a boy, lying on the rug, looking at President Kennedy on 
the television, he challenged our country to send a mission to the Moon 
and to return that mission safely to the United States within 10 years.
  When he gave that speech at Rice University, he made very clear in 
the speech that we would have to invent new metal alloys that did not 
exist. We would have to invent new transmission systems that did not 
exist, that we would have to return that mission safely from the Moon 
through heat half the

[[Page S1548]]

intensity of the Sun. We would have to complete it within 10 years, and 
we would have to do it not because it was easy but because it was hard. 
We had to be bold.
  Because the challenge from the Soviet Union was so great, the United 
States did not have an option. Failure was not an option, and we 
completed that mission.
  Well, the same thing is true here for a Green New Deal. Failure is 
not an option. The consequences will be catastrophic for our planet and 
for the United States of America, and the solution is to unleash this 
green energy job-creation engine. We now have 350,000 solar and wind 
workers in the United States. It is up from almost nothing in 2008. It 
has already happened over 10 years.
  We had only 1,000 megawatts of solar in our country in 2008. We now 
have 62,000 megawatts of solar.
  We had only 25,000 megawatts of wind. We now have 98,000 megawatts of 
wind.
  We had only 2,000 all-electric vehicles in our country in 2008. We 
now have a million, and between Tesla and all of the other companies, 
they are going to sell 500,000 just this year in our country. They have 
invented new metals. They have invented new battery systems. They have 
invented new propulsion systems in order to solve those problems, but 
we still have a long way to go.
  It is imperative that we put the tax breaks for wind and solar, for 
all electric vehicles, for batteries on the books and make them 
permanent because this problem is going to be solved only if we can 
convince the smartest young people in our country that all of the 
incentives, all of the policies are there and that their country has 
their back and wants them to solve the problem in the same way that our 
whole country had the back of NASA in the 1960s. If we do that, we will 
be successful. There is no question about it in my mind.
  I am a technological optimist, and I hate the pessimism of the other 
side. I hate this ``can't do'' mentality that they have, especially 
given what has happened in the last 10 years in electric vehicles and 
wind, solar, and storage technology breakthroughs. It is just really 
sad to hear this.
  I think, ultimately, something is rising up across this country. 
Young people, especially, know it is time for the revolution. They know 
it is time to close the door on this era where all we do is 
indiscriminately use the atmosphere as a sewer for all of this carbon 
and all of these greenhouse gases.
  I am very confident that one way or another this body will start to 
act or it is going to become one of the top two or three election 
issues in 2020 because this generation knows that the planet is running 
a fever. There are no emergency rooms on planets, and it is going to 
take action in this body in order to put the policies in place, in 
order to preserve this planet and hand it on better than we found it.
  The challenge is great. The Green New Deal sets the framework for 
laying out how serious the problem is and how bold the action has to be 
to deal with that serious problem for our planet.
  If we do it right, I think future generations will look back on ours 
in the same way we now look back on President Kennedy and that 
generation, and they will know that they discharged their historic 
responsibility to our country and to the planet.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, in many ways, Andrew Wheeler is a perfect 
example of a Cabinet appointment in the Trump era--conflicted, 
unethical, and hostile to the mission of the Agency he was nominated to 
lead.
  He shouldn't have been confirmed to this position as Deputy 
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, the EPA, and he 
certainly shouldn't be confirmed to lead the Agency on a permanent 
basis.
  Prior to his service at EPA, Mr. Wheeler spent 8 years lobbying for 
many of the special interests that he is targeted or charged with 
regulating. For example, in his work for Murray Energy, whose 
president, Robert Murray, was among the largest donors to Donald 
Trump's 2016 campaign, Mr. Wheeler worked to kill a rule that would 
have prevented coal companies from dumping mining waste into American 
streams and waterways.
  As a lobbyist for Murray Energy, Mr. Wheeler also fought tooth and 
nail against President Obama's Clean Power Plan, a forward-looking 
initiative that would have substantially reduced carbon emissions from 
power generation.
  Mr. Wheeler's client, Robert Murray, was present front and center as 
former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt signed an Executive order to 
begin the process of dismantling the Clean Power Plan. I don't think 
that was a coincidence.
  After Mr. Wheeler's confirmation as the EPA's Deputy Administrator, 
he assured Bloomberg News in June 2018: ``If I lobbied on something, I 
don't think it's appropriate for me to participate [in policymaking].''
  Of course, he was lobbying on a lot of things for years. In fact, Mr. 
Wheeler participated in meetings with three former clients with 
interests before the EPA. Holding these meetings with former clients is 
a clear conflict of interest and ethical lapse. Andrew Wheeler fits 
right in with Donald Trump's version of ``draining the swamp,'' which 
is more like ``come on in, the water's fine.''
  We have already had one EPA Administrator, Scott Pruitt, resign in 
disgrace over ethical lapses and potentially illegal behavior in 
office. We don't need another.
  Mr. Wheeler's work at the EPA is also consistent with the hostility 
of Trump Cabinet officials to the core mission of the Department or the 
Agency that they are appointed to lead.
  The EPA is the primary Agency charged with safeguarding the 
environment and protecting public health from dangerous and toxic 
chemicals. At its core, the EPA is tasked with making sure we have safe 
air to breathe and clean water to drink.
  Yet, during his time as Deputy Administrator, Mr. Wheeler has 
championed a deregulatory agenda that fundamentally undermines the 
EPA's core mission. Under Mr. Wheeler's leadership, the EPA has 
proposed undermining the legal authority of the mercury and air toxics 
standard to reduce emissions of mercury and other toxic air emissions 
from coal and oil burning powerplants.
  According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, mercury exposure can 
damage the nervous, digestive, and immune systems and is a serious 
threat to child development. The EPA's current efforts to reverse these 
emission standards, in place since 2012, come after utilities across 
the country had already invested resources in reducing mercury 
emissions by 90 percent.
  Under Mr. Wheeler's leadership, the Trump administration has also 
proposed a dramatic weakening of fuel economy and greenhouse gas 
emissions standards for cars. Their proposed rule would increase air 
pollution from vehicles and would result in Hawaii families ending up 
paying thousands more dollars for gasoline to fill less efficient 
cars. Through his opposition to the Clean Power Plan and his efforts to 
repeal it at the EPA, Mr. Wheeler serves as a primary architect of the 
Trump administration's assault on climate science and their refusal to 
act decisively against climate change. This assault can also be seen in 
a new proposed rule from the EPA that would exclude rigorous, peer-
reviewed scientific studies under the guise of promoting scientific 
transparency.

  At first glance, the rule sounds like something everyone should 
support, but like so many initiatives proposed by this administration, 
the rule's true intent is much more sinister.
  Insisting that policymaking rely only on studies that make all of 
their data public would exclude studies that rely on confidential 
medical information that by law cannot be made public. Limiting the 
factual basis on which the EPA can make decisions in this manner would 
have a catastrophic impact on public health.
  If this rule had been in effect in 1993, the ``Six Cities'' study by 
the Harvard

[[Page S1549]]

School of Public Health would never have transformed the way we 
regulate air pollution in this country. The study showed that Americans 
living in cities with more air pollution have shorter lifespans than 
Americans living in cities with less air pollution.
  Using confidential medical information, the study conclusively 
demonstrated that fine particulate matter that is smaller than 2.5 
microns is exceptionally deadly to human beings. These findings, which 
have been backed up in subsequent studies, provide the basis for cost-
benefit analyses done by EPA for future rules regulating air pollution. 
Undermining this kind of evidence-based policymaking would give 
industry the green light to pollute with fewer consequences.
  This proposed rule is consistent with an administration-wide effort 
to promote ignorance in the face of the real threat climate change 
poses to national security, public health, and public safety.
  Climate change is an issue where ignorance is not bliss. Ignorance is 
dangerous. The President's own top security officials agree. Director 
of National Intelligence Dan Coats, for example, issued a new worldwide 
threat that concluded that ``climate hazards'' like extreme weather, 
wildfires, droughts, and acidifying oceans are, ``threatening 
infrastructure, health and water and food security.''
  In 2017, then-Secretary of Defense James Mattis told the Senate Armed 
Services Committee that ``climate change is impacting stability in 
areas of the world where our troops are operating.'' He went on to say 
that ``climate change is a challenge that requires a broader whole-of-
government government response.''
  Instead of accepting the conclusions of his top national security 
officials, Donald Trump is following the recommendation of William 
Happer, a notorious climate denier and now a Senior Director on the 
NSC, to establish a new Presidential Committee on Climate Security.
  Dr. Happer is particularly notorious for his assertion that ``the 
demonization of carbon dioxide is just like the demonization of the 
poor Jews under Hitler. Carbon dioxide is actually a benefit to the 
world, and so are the Jews.
  Anyone who makes this kind of outrageous analogy should not be 
entrusted to lead anything on climate security, in my view.
  No one should doubt that the President and Dr. Happer have a 
preordained outcome in mind. They want to legitimize ignorance and 
denial of climate change and abandon tens of millions of Americans to 
the disastrous impacts of climate change in the coming decades.
  I repeat, with climate change, ignorance is not bliss. It is 
dangerous. It is dangerous for a State like Hawaii that would be the 
hardest hit by the impact of climate change. With extreme weather, 
ocean acidification, coral bleaching, and rising seas, climate change 
poses an existential threat to our State. It is one of the reasons 
Hawaii has implemented some of the most ambitious and aggressive 
policies to combat climate change in the country.
  Hawaii was the first State to separately ratify the Paris climate 
agreement and has set an ambitious goal of becoming carbon neutral and 
generating 100 percent of our power from renewable sources by 2045. 
Hawaii's ambitious effort to confront climate change and the success we 
have already seen in moving toward our goals demonstrate that we can 
embrace similarly ambitious policies at the national level.
  It is one of the reasons I have signed on as a cosponsor of the Green 
New Deal--an aspirational effort to transform our economy to combat 
climate change.
  In the weeks since the plan was introduced, we have endured all kinds 
of mocking outrage from people who would rather stick their heads in 
the sand as science and fact deniers. They paint the Green New Deal as 
something scary and dangerous for the country. What is really scary and 
dangerous are people like them who deny that climate change is real and 
refuse to do anything about it in their steadfast support and alliance 
with the fossil fuel industry. History will not be kind to them.
  Rejecting the nomination of Andrew Wheeler to serve as Administrator 
of the Environmental Protection Agency, we can take one step forward in 
the fight against dangerous ignorance.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, Henry David Thoreau once said: ``What use 
is a home if you don't have a tolerable planet to put it on?''
  We might just expand that question to say what use is anything if we 
destroy our planet because it is the only one we have. There is no 
planet B, no rescuing by going to some horrific other planet nearby. We 
have the gem, we have the treasure, and we have the responsibility to 
make sure we don't destroy it.
  Here we are. Within a single human lifetime, we have increased the 
percent of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by a dramatic amount--about 
30 percent in my lifetime and more if you are older--and that chemistry 
change is really unseen in geological history on this planet, such a 
rapid change with rapid, deep growth.
  That is why we are coming to the floor to keep talking about this 
issue, reach across the aisle, reach across the country, and find 
partners to say this isn't a blue or red issue. This isn't a city or 
rural issue. It affects us all, and we need to all work together to 
respond. As we do so, we need America to lead the world in responding.
  Senator Carper's resolution says a couple simple things. It says we 
recognize that we have a very warming climate on Earth. It says we 
recognize that human activity burning fossil fuel has consequences, and 
it calls on us to act. There we are. It is time to confront this 
enormous threat to our beautiful blue-green home in the middle of the 
cosmos.
  There are some who say: That is so scary, so intimidating, so 
threatening. I just can't open my eyes or ears to hear that 
information. I have to pretend it is not real.
  We are here in the Senate. We are here where we don't have the 
privilege of covering our eyes, our ears, pretending it is not 
happening. We have the responsibility to face this when others shy away 
and act.
  There are others who say: You know, we just can't be sure exactly 
what is happening so let's wait another 10 or 20 years because we can't 
measure it as precisely as we want. It is like saying: Oh, cancer is 
ravaging my body, but I am not going to take any medicine because I am 
not sure if it has affected 15 percent or 16 percent of my cells. Well, 
you know you have cancer, and you know you need to act.
  So there we are. Let us not let our heads be buried in the tar sands. 
Climate chaos is real. It is ravaging our planet. It is because of 
human activity, and we do have the responsibility to respond.
  The year 2018 was one of the four hottest years on record. Nine out 
of the ten of the hottest years on record occurred since the year 2000. 
If we are looking at this chart, we don't see the Earth becoming any 
cooler. We see the Earth becoming a lot warmer. Four of the hottest 
years on record, 2018, 2017, 2016, and 2015--that was the last 4 years 
having been the 4 hottest years on record. The odds of that happening 
by accident is essentially none.
  We have some very serious scientific heft weighing in. In October, 
the United Nations climate panel said we must act dramatically within 
this next decade. A month later, on Black Friday, we had the release of 
the ``Fourth National Climate Assessment''--the Trump administration's 
``Fourth National Climate Assessment''--and it concluded that ``Earth's 
climate is now changing faster than at any point in the history of 
modern civilization, primarily as a result of human activities.''
  There was a report from the Global Carbon Project that which found 
that global carbon emissions are going up. They went up 0.7 percent in 
2018, hitting a record breaking 37.1 metric tons around the world. That 
is human activity putting out carbon dioxide that acts as a blanket on 
the planet. This isn't some new thought.
  We go back to 1959. We had an eminent scientist who became better 
known for his work in the nuclear world, but he was asked to address 
the 100th anniversary of the petroleum industry. At that speech in 
1959, he said: The energy you have unleashed and harnessed can do 
dramatic things to

[[Page S1550]]

change the world, but you have a couple of challenges. One challenge is 
that there isn't an infinite amount of petroleum in the ground. Another 
challenge is it creates carbon dioxide. It doesn't look like a 
pollutant because you can't see it and you can't smell it, but in fact, 
it traps heat. I think he framed it more scientifically, that it traps 
infrared energy.
  He said that is going to be a problem, and, of course, we are seeing 
that problem all the time now. You don't need these scientific reports 
out of a global panel or a fourth assessment from the administration to 
tell us what is going on because we see the facts on the ground.
  In my home State of Oregon, you can't move around the State without 
seeing the impact. In Eastern Oregon, you have the warmer winter. It is 
not killing the pine beetles. So the pine beetles are killing the 
trees. More pine beetles and less trees is not a good thing.
  If you are over on the coast, the oyster men will tell you they had a 
big crisis in 2008 and 2009 because all of the baby oysters were dying, 
not because of a bacteria but because the acidity in the Pacific Ocean 
has gone up. How is that related? Because carbon dioxide is absorbed by 
the ocean and becomes carbonic acid. We burn so much carbon dioxide 
that we changed the acidity of the ocean. Can you imagine that is 
possible? It seems impossible, but it speaks to how much carbon dioxide 
we released within a few decades of human civilization on this planet.
  You can keep going on with this story around Oregon. Our kelp beds 
are disappearing. They provide protection for all kinds of fish 
species. The kelp are dying because the blue sea urchins are eating 
them. The blue sea urchins are expanding rapidly because the starfish 
are dying because the ocean got too warm for them. It is one story 
after another. There is less irrigation water, less snowpack, warmer 
streams, and harsher conditions for trout and salmon all within the 
State of Oregon, and there are similar stories throughout our Nation.
  Perhaps the most destructive factor, though, has been the increased 
number of forest fires. There are bigger fires, hotter fires, and a 
longer fire season. They are not just ravaging our forests but 
producing smoke that has a huge impact on our towns. We take a lot of 
pride in our wine in Oregon, and a lot of our grapes had smoke taint 
and weren't usable this last year.
  We have towns where furniture salesmen said they couldn't sell the 
furniture because it had the lingering smell of smoke.
  It had an impact on the entertainment world. The Shakespeare Festival 
had to shut down and partially move inside to smaller venues, which is 
having a huge impact on their finances and a huge impact on the tourism 
attraction.
  This stuff is real. It is why we should all be here, Democrats and 
Republicans, talking about the challenge and saying: What higher 
calling is there in our life than to come together to discuss this 
honestly and to work together to find solutions?
  This isn't something where we can just say that the next generation 
can deal with it because the effects are cumulative. They build up. 
They become worse. It is a lot worse now than it was 10 years ago, and 
10 years from now, it will be more so.
  There is no easy, fast way to strip the carbon dioxide back out of 
the air. We can work at it, but it is not easy. We can plant more 
trees, yes, but, meanwhile, those hotter fires are killing more trees. 
Those pine beetles are killing more trees. In other words, it is 
urgent. The time to act is now.
  In 1988 George H. W. Bush ran for President as an environmentalist. 
He announced he was going to take on global warming. His opponent, the 
Democrat, ran on the coal industry. That is not the same partisan 
alliance as you might hear today. George H. W. Bush said: ``Our land, 
water and soil support a remarkable range of human activities, but they 
can only take so much and we must remember to treat them not as a given 
but as a gift.''
  Those words should echo in this Chamber. We have other words in this 
Chamber that seem to not address all of the facts that are right in 
front of us. One individual said: ``The satellite says it ain't 
happening.'' Well, one could probably pick out some one piece of data 
from one satellite somewhere and say it doesn't show the story, but you 
collect all the data together and it is happening.
  Here is a chart of how the globe is warming over time. It shows the 
difference in average temperatures. Here we are with just one tiny 
cache where there is a significant drop in temperature. There is a 
little bit of white and light blue showing that it stayed about the 
same, and there is a whole lot of red saying things are getting a lot 
worse. That is the collected data. Maybe there is some satellite that 
took a picture of one little spot here, but to cherry-pick data like 
that is dishonest.
  We can't afford to pretend that things are OK when we are facing such 
a dramatic challenge to our blue-green home in the universe. NOAA, or 
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, works at this, and 
they record all kinds of data from all around the world.
  Here is another chart that shows the Earth's climate record. This one 
shows the zigs and zags over time. We are going back to 1880, but if we 
look from 1880 to 1980, we see a significant rise in the temperature of 
the planet. If we go from 1980 until now, it is this absolutely 
frightening horror show of increasing temperature. That is what is 
happening when we talk about snowpacks. We talk about glaciers, we talk 
about coral, we talk about pine beetles, and we talk about 100 of these 
things where there is that feedback. All of those affect humans. Those 
aren't just some abstract things, like if a tree falls in the woods but 
nobody hears it, did it really happen? Did we really hear it? Does it 
matter? No.
  These reverberate back on our quality of life in this planet, 
including security concerns. The civil war in Syria that produced 
millions of refugees trying to get to Europe started with an extended 
drought because of the stresses of a warming planet.
  Our military weighs in and says that climate chaos accentuates all 
the security concerns we have. It creates instability around the world. 
If one doesn't want to listen to the scientists, how about if we listen 
to our own military?
  That is what the discussion of Senator Carper's resolution is all 
about. That is what the Green New Deal is all about. The Green New Deal 
says a few simple things. It says we have a big problem. Check. Yes, we 
do. It says we need to take it on boldly and aggressively. Check. Yes, 
we do. It says when we take it on boldly, we can create millions of 
jobs, and that will be a good thing for our economy. Check. Yes, it is.
  Creating those jobs is good. It says when we do that, we shouldn't 
leave our frontline communities behind. We should make sure those 
communities--rural communities and inner-city communities that have 
been left behind previously in different economic expansions--can't be 
left behind now. Check. That is absolutely right.
  Let's make this economic surge benefit everyone in every community, 
with special attention to communities that have been struggling.
  My colleague is here from Virginia. I am so glad he is. I am talking 
a lot about what is happening on the west coast of America. Perhaps he 
will fill us in a little bit on the perspective from the east coast. 
This is not one isolated spot on our planet. This is a concern to all 
of us. We need bipartisan work on this. Some suggest we put a fee on 
carbon. Let's have that conversation. Some suggest we provide more 
subsidies to renewable energy. Let's have that conversation. Some say 
we should do a green workforce--green corps training. Let's talk about 
that. Let's talk about every strategy we can bring to bear and come to 
a collective plan because there is no space in the urgency of this 
issue for us to retreat into blue and red corners. There is no time. It 
is unacceptable.
  I feel it is such a privilege to come to this floor and be part of 
this conversation, and I encourage all of my colleagues to do likewise. 
There are few issues that threaten us on this scale, but this one does. 
Let's work together to save our country and save our planet.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I rise and want to compliment my colleague 
from Oregon for putting on the table the

[[Page S1551]]

need for this body--the greatest deliberative body in the world--to 
deliberate upon a situation of grave importance to the world--the 
reality of climate change and what we as American leaders can do to 
tackle it. I will take the floor to talk about this in the coming days.

                          ____________________