April 10, 2019 - Issue: Vol. 165, No. 62 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 1st Session

[Pages S2363-S2365]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                             Climate Change

  Mr. President, now let me talk a little bit about climate change and 
why it might be of some interest to us in Delaware. Delaware is the 
First State--the first State to ratify in the Nation, on September 7, 
1787. Before any other State had ratified the Constitution, we did. For 
1 week, Delaware was the entire United States of America. We let in 
Maryland, and we let in Pennsylvania and about 47 others. I think it 
has turned out all right, until now. We will see. Hopefully, it will 
turn out for a much longer period of time.
  But the First State is also the lowest lying State in America. Think 
about that. It sits right on the Atlantic ocean, halfway between Maine 
and Florida. Our State is sinking and the oceans are rising. That is 
not a good combination, especially if you are as small as we are. So we 
have a personal interest in climate change, global warming, and sea 
level rise.
  We don't believe it is esoteric. We don't believe it is scientific 
dogma. We think it is real, and it faces--maybe not my generation so 
much, although we are seeing bad things happen because of sea level 
rise and climate change--my kids and their kids someday. The chickens 
will come home to roost.
  The question is, Can we do anything about it? And the answer is yes, 
we can do a lot.
  Where should we start?
  Well, we should start on a lot of places where carbon comes from. For 
me, one of the things we do is to make sure that we protect, if you 
will, the carbon-free sources of electricity generation to the extent 
that we can. As it turns out, 60 percent to 70 percent of the 
electricity in this country that is generated without creating carbon 
is from nuclear powerplants.
  There is technology and research going on--advanced technology and 
advanced nuclear reactors--to see if there are ways we can build on 
nuclear power and reduce the amount of spent fuel. Some people call it 
waste. I call it spent fuel rods.
  What can we do through new technology? There is actually reason to be 
encouraged. There is a lot we can do and we need to do.
  What else can we do? Well, we can pass our Diesel Emissions Reduction 
Act and build on the legacy of the last 13 or 14 years. I am encouraged 
that we are going to do that.
  We have nascent technology. I think that Europe is a little further 
ahead on this than we are, but we have the ability to not just take 
carbon dioxide out of a smokestack--say, out of a coal-fired plant 
generating electricity--but to literally pull carbon dioxide out of the 
air. It is ambient carbon dioxide, out of the air--to pull it out of 
the air and turn it into something useful.
  While those are, I think, promising technologies, there is something 
else that is right before us that is a lot more effective, and that is 
our cars, trucks, and vans. Why do I mention them? The greatest sources 
of carbon dioxide emissions come from our mobile sources--our cars, 
trucks, and vans. It wasn't always that way. It used to be coal-fired 
plants, utility plants. It could have been cement plants or other 
manufacturing plants that emitted emissions, including carbon dioxide.
  Today the largest source of CO2 emissions on our planet 
are mobile sources--cars, trucks and vans. That is the bad news. The 
good news is that we can actually reduce that.
  I was at the Detroit Auto Show. I have been going to the Detroit Auto 
Show for a long time. There was a time not that many years ago--a 
decade ago--when Delaware actually built more cars, trucks, and vans 
per capita than any other State. We had a huge interest in making sure 
our GM plant stayed in business and a huge interest in making sure that 
our Chrysler plant stayed in business.
  As the Governor of Delaware, I worked hard to make sure that those 
plants stayed in business. We had 3,000, 4,000 employees in each of 
those plants. For a little State like Delaware, that is a lot. At the 
bottom of the great recession, GM went into bankruptcy. We lost them 
both. Thousands of jobs were gone just like that.
  In any event, I still have a huge interest in automotives. One of the 
reasons I have a huge interest in the automobile industry is because of 
carbon dioxide emissions, and the largest source is in our cars, 
trucks, and vans--the automotive industry.
  I went to the Detroit Auto Show again this past January and the 
January before, and I was there 11 years ago. Eleven years ago at the 
Detroit Auto Show, the Car of the Year was a car called the Chevrolet 
Volt, a hybrid. The first 30, 40 miles ran on battery, and after that, 
it was a gasoline engine.
  It was the Car of the Year. It got only about 38 miles on a charge of 
electricity--a fully charged battery. Fast forward 10 years, and about 
a year ago, at the Detroit Auto Show, the Car of the Year was a 
Chevrolet Bolt. It got 140 miles on a charge. It was all electric, not 
a hybrid. The Chevrolet Volt went from 38 miles on a charge 11 years 
ago, and 10 years later, the Chevrolet Bolt goes 140 miles. That is 
pretty good progress.
  I was at the Detroit Auto Show this year, and I saw close to a dozen 
different vehicles and manufacturers from this country and around the 
world that have all-electric car vehicles, and they are getting about 
240 to 250 miles on a charge. Think about that. Eleven years ago, the 
Chevrolet Volt was getting 38 miles on a charge; a year and a half ago, 
the Chevrolet Bolt was getting 140 miles on a charge. This year, there 
are a number of cars getting 250 miles on a charge--off their battery. 
It is only going to get better.
  We have the ability to create propulsion for our vehicles by using 
hydrogen in conjunction with fuel cells to create electricity to power 
our vehicles. What is the waste product? Let me see--water. The waste 
product of the hydrogen-powered fuel cell vehicles is H20. It is so 
clean, you can drink it. That is where the future is for automotive 
transportation in this country--battery-powered vehicles and those that 
are powered by hydrogen in conjunction with fuel cells.
  In our committee, Senator Barrasso, some of our colleagues, and I are 
getting to work on the highway bill. It is not just the highway bill; 
it is roads, highways, bridges, transit. We do this about every 5 
years. We are starting to work on the next follow-on reauthorization of 
the transportation bill. The current bill expires on September 30 of 
next year.
  We are getting a head start on it this year. We want to make sure, as 
we prepare for the next 5 years in transportation, that we build roads, 
highways, bridges, and transit systems in ways in which we realize we 
have a real challenge on this planet with too much carbon in the air 
and make sure we build into our roads, highways, and bridges the 
ability to recharge batteries.
  Come 2030, half of the vehicles that are expected to be built and 
sold in this country will be battery-powered electric vehicles or they 
will be hydrogen-powered fuel cell vehicles. If we are smart about it, 
when we take up and legislate and build on past legislation to build 
roads, highways, bridges, and transit going forward, we will do it in a 
way that creates corridors where people traveling major roads in our 
country can easily stop and recharge their vehicle's battery or refuel 
hydrogen. That has to be part of our legislation.
  Since much of our carbon dioxide is coming from mobile sources, we 
want to make sure that, when we build roads, highways, and bridges, we 
do it in a way in which we reduce emissions in smart ways, if you will, 
and the infrastructure is more sustainable. These are some of the 
things we need to do.
  The other thing I want to say is that, for me, the Holy Grail of 
public policy right now, given the threat we face from climate change, 
extreme weather--I will give you a hint. We had too much rain in 
Delaware. We raise a lot of soybeans, a lot of corn, a lot of lima

[[Page S2364]]

beans, and a lot of chickens. If you asked a lot of farmers in Southern 
Delaware last year how things went, they will tell you that they got a 
whole lot of rain. We got a whole lot of rain last spring. You don't 
want to have too little rain, but you don't want too much. A lot of our 
farmers planted their crops last spring, and it rained, and it rained, 
and it rained. The crops did not come up. They plowed under and 
replanted, and it rained, and it rained, and it rained. Too many of our 
farmers didn't get a crop.
  The folks in the Midwest--Nebraska, South Dakota, and other places--
right now are going through even more extreme weather than that because 
they are getting a lot of rain all at once. I talked to one of our 
colleagues here in the Senate about his State this morning, and this is 
happening again, I think, maybe this week. That extreme weather is 
caused by too much carbon in the air. There is a great need to do 
something about it.
  The good news is this. We can do something about it and create jobs. 
How would that work in the automotive area? Right now, our friends in 
the automotive industry would like to build a lot more fuel cell-
powered vehicles and a lot of electric-powered vehicles. They plan to. 
They want to make sure that, when they do that and they are on the 
roads and highways across the country, people get their electric 
vehicles recharged and their hydrogen vehicles refueled.
  We need to put into our transportation legislation provisions that 
make those charging stations and those fueling stations a reality. Our 
auto industry needs certain predictability. Most businesses will tell 
you that, of all things, they need certainty and predictability. It is 
at the top of the list. Right now, the current administration is not 
interested, unfortunately, in providing the certainty and 
predictability that folks need in the auto industry.
  There is a 50-State deal to be made in terms of fuel efficiency 
standards going forward. It looks something like this: The Trump 
administration wants to have almost no increase in fuel efficiency 
standards between 2021 and 2025--almost nothing, almost flatline, and 
absolutely nothing beyond 2025. The current regulation in place by the 
last administration--the Obama administration--calls for, between 2021 
and 2025, annual increases in fuel efficiency standards by roughly 5 
percent. That is pretty steep. That doesn't sound like much, but after 
5 years in a row, it is a big increase.
  The auto industry is saying that they would like to have some near-
term flexibility between 2021 and 2025 in fuel efficiency standards. 
They are ready to ramp it up going forward.
  I think the current administration might be willing to agree on a 
compromise of fuel efficiency standards going up 1 percent a year 
between 2021 and 2025, but they don't want to do anything more after 
2025. We will be making a bunch of vehicles that get maybe 300, maybe 
400 miles on a charge. I think there might be a number between a 1-
percent increase in fuel efficiency standards between 2021 and 2025 and 
a 5-percent increase. There may be some middle ground between a 1-
percent-a-year and a 5-percent increase in what the Obama rules call 
for. Maybe it is 3 percent. So rather than making no progress in fuel 
efficiency standards, you have a 3-percent increase. The auto industry 
may not be crazy about it, but they can live with it. They can live 
with a good deal more than 3 percent after 2025. We ought to do that.
  If we do that kind of thing, we will make sure we don't spend the 
next 5, 6 years with the auto industry in legal battles in California 
and 13 other States, including Delaware and Rhode Island. The auto 
industry has a certain predictability that they need. If they build 
these vehicles, we will be competitive on the world stage and have a 
strong economy as a result, and we will have done good things for our 
planet. Why wouldn't we do that? Really, why wouldn't we do that?
  My dad was a big ``common sense'' guy. We can all probably remember 
things our parents said to us from time to time. Among other things, 
after my sister and I had done some bone-headed stunt, my dad would 
say: Just use common sense. He was an old chief petty officer in the 
Navy--tough as nails. He didn't say it that nicely, but he said ``just 
use common sense'' a lot.
  We need to use some common sense. In doing that, we will create a 
great bunch of jobs and make ours a competitive nation on the world 
stage in one of the most important industries we have; that is, the 
building, design, and development of vehicles. We will do good things 
for our planet and for those who are going to inherit this planet from 
us.
  That is pretty much what I wanted to say today.
  I want to take a minute to say something as a bigger State talking to 
another big State--I like to tell people Delaware is the 49th largest 
State. We are about a couple of acres larger than Rhode Island. These 
are two States that I think the Senator from Rhode Island will agree 
with--I will say this to our pages here. I don't know if you have heard 
the term used in boxing when you have a smaller fighter fighting 
against a bigger fighter. When the little boxer wins over the much 
bigger boxer, you say the smaller boxer ``punches above his weight.'' 
When it comes to climate change and trying to figure out the right 
thing to do for our planet, our country, our people, I would like to 
say that in Rhode Island and Delaware, we punch above our weight. This 
may not be a heavyweight title bout, but this is a big one. Where they 
have world championships, in terms of issues, this is a world 
championship issue. This is one we can win.
  I want to thank my friend Senator Whitehouse for taking a great 
leadership role in all of this, including today. He knows, as most of 
us on this floor and I think on our planet know, that it is time to 
wake up, or as my friend Congresswoman Lisa Rochester likes to say: 
Stay woke.
  Thank you, sir.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Thank you very much. It is not often that the 
distinguished ranking member on the EPW Committee gets to say he is 
from a bigger State and give his advice in those terms. I appreciate 
that we from Rhode Island were able to give him this moment.
  I also want to thank him for his leadership in trying to fight for 
strong fuel economy and greenhouse gas emission standards for our 
automobiles.
  The story of what is going on cannot be properly understood without 
understanding the oil industry's role in all of this. They are up to 
their usual mischief.
  Our offices obtained a draft letter to the Deputy Administrator of 
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, urging her to 
weaken the auto emission standards. Well, we were able to look at the 
metadata on this document, and guess who wrote it. It was written by 
one of Marathon Petroleum's in-house lobbyists.
  Marathon shopped this letter, which their lobbyist wrote, around to 
Members of Congress, convincing several to send similar letters in 
favor of weakening the standards. We took those letters, and we ran 
them through plagiarism software, and this is what we got. The red text 
is the text that is identical to the language of the Marathon 
lobbyist's letter. The black is where, in this case, Members of the 
Pennsylvania delegation added a little local information about 
Pennsylvania. It is an 80-percent match in the plagiarism software to 
the letter written by the Marathon Oil company lobbyist.
  Marathon and the oil industry weren't just recruiting Members of 
Congress to copy their lobbyist language into letters to the Trump 
administration; they got their trade associations involved as well. The 
American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers Association lobbied, for 
instance, to weaken the standards, according to their lobbying 
disclosure reports. It is always better to have your trade association 
do your dirty work. What company really wants the public to know it 
lobbied to lower fuel economy standards so that consumers could pay 
more at the pump? It is not a good look.
  In addition to cranking up its trade associations, the fossil fuel 
industry also cranked up its constellation of front groups that it has 
developed and funded over the years to kill laws and regulations that 
would reduce the carbon pollution that is driving climate change. The 
industry launched those front groups against the fuel economy and 
greenhouse gas emission auto standards. These front groups provide a 
veneer of fake public support for the oil industry's anti-climate 
campaign.

[[Page S2365]]

  Take Americans for Prosperity, for instance. It is a lovely, benign-
sounding name. Who could possibly be against prosperity? Yet, in 
reality, Americans for Prosperity is a front group that is funded by 
the fossil fuel billionaire Koch brothers, whose company, by the way, 
also lobbied against the standards. Americans for Prosperity doesn't 
disclose its donors. It is a secretive organization. So what little we 
know about its funders comes thanks to the hard work of a few 
muckraking, investigative journalists.
  We do know that both ExxonMobil and the fossil fuel industry's 
flagship trade association, the American Petroleum Institute, give the 
AFP money, and they give them big money. Since the Citizens United 
decision, the AFP has spent about $70 million on Federal elections. It 
is throwing its weight around.
  To oppose the auto standards, the AFP created an elaborate online 
deception campaign that was centered on this petition against the 
standards. Unfortunately, for them, the public was not buying its 
nonsense. Despite an onslaught of online advertising, only 231 people 
signed up. It looks like no one wanted to spend more on gas and that no 
amount of fossil fuel lies could convince them otherwise.
  FreedomWorks is yet another front group that has received millions in 
funding from the Koch brothers and fossil fuel interests like the 
American Petroleum Institute. It also started an online campaign 
against the standards, and that, too, bombed. There is a word for this 
stuff. It is called astroturf. It is fake grassroots. Real grassroots 
organizations don't need tens of millions of dollars from fossil fuel 
front groups. Real grassroots organizations thrive on the engagement 
and the passion of citizens, not on millions in special interest, dark 
money.
  In having flopped at astroturfing, the oil industry organized its 
front groups to write directly to Trump administration officials and 
lobby them to repeal the standards. Here is one of these letters, and a 
dozen phony front groups signed it. Like I said, they built a 
constellation of these phony front groups, and a dozen signed this 
letter. These groups together have received--like I said, mostly of 
secret money--a minimum of $196 million from fossil fuel industry 
interests, including from the Koch brothers, API, ExxonMobil, and 
Chevron.
  This $196 million did a lot of talking, for this letter found its way 
to an eager audience in the Trump administration, which is stuffed with 
fossil fuel lobbyists and flunkies. So they gave the oil industry 
exactly what it wanted--a proposal to freeze the auto emission 
standards and to challenge California and other States, like mine, our 
authority to set our own standards.
  What is strange about this is that this proposal isn't what the auto 
industry says it wanted. Once the oil industry jumped into the fray, 
the auto industry let Big Oil take over, or it got shoved aside by Big 
Oil. Big Oil barged in and got exactly what it wanted--weakened 
standards that would allow it to sell--hold your breath here--up to $1 
trillion in extra gasoline. For a mere expenditure of $196 million 
through these 12 phony front groups, they got to sell $1 trillion in 
extra gasoline. That is how you make big money--by renting out the U.S. 
Government. That, by the way, is $1 trillion that comes out of 
consumers' pockets and goes into Big Oil's. No wonder Big Oil is hiding 
behind front groups.
  In the press, unnamed auto industry lobbyists have complained that 
the proposed freeze isn't what they asked for. Well, that is not good 
enough. Auto industry executives need to step up and tell President 
Trump and Secretary Chao and Administrator Wheeler that their oily 
proposal is not acceptable.
  This car rule saga that we have seen play out is a microcosm of the 
climate change problem that we face. The fossil fuel industry, through 
its armada of phony front groups, fights to defend its own massive 
sales and massive, massive taxpayer subsidies for its product. The IMF 
has estimated that the fossil fuel industry receives a $700 billion--
with a ``b''--annual subsidy in the United States alone. So it has 
every incentive to spend whatever it takes to control things in 
Washington, like giving $196 million to these front groups. Meanwhile, 
the rest of corporate America, including car companies that claim to 
support reducing carbon pollution, just don't show up.
  One side lobbies Congress against climate action, and the other side 
doesn't show up. One side spends tens of millions on attack ads against 
candidates who support climate action, and the other side doesn't show 
up. One side pours hundreds of millions of dollars into trade 
associations and phony front groups, and the other side doesn't show 
up. The result is entirely predictable--money talks, unfortunately, 
around here, and big money commands.
  Things would change a bit if the rest of corporate America would 
challenge the fossil fuel industry's money and influence to help our 
colleagues on the other side get something done on climate change.
  I close by pointing out that democracy and the free market are the 
twin pillars of our American example. What does it say for them as 
institutions when one industry--the fossil fuel industry--can 
simultaneously capture our democracy and pervert the free market with 
its massive subsidies? It is not a good story.
  America's strength has always been our example. Our inaction on 
climate change--one of the foremost challenges of the world--sullies 
our American example. For the good of our country, for the good of 
those institutions, for the good of our American example, it is time to 
wake up.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I know of no further debate on this 
nomination.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cotton). Is there further debate?
  If not, the question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the 
Brady nomination?
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker) 
and the Senator from California (Ms. Harris) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 42, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 73 Ex.]

                                YEAS--56

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Braun
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Jones
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Manchin
     McConnell
     McSally
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Romney
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shelby
     Sinema
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--42

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Peters
     Reed
     Rosen
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Booker
     Harris
       
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that with 
respect to the Brady nomination, the motion to reconsider be considered 
made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified 
of the Senate's action.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________