National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016--Conference Report

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I would answer my colleague's question by saying that I think we are very definitely ready to go. We are particularly ready to go because of Senator Udall's achievement in securing the 60th vote, a filibuster-proof majority who are on this bill as cosponsors. That does not count people who are willing to vote for it. I think we always had 60 people voting for it, but to have 60 people willing to cosponsor it so it is clear from the get-go that if this bill is called up, it will get through.

I think that is very important. There was some dispute on the Environment and Public Works Committee. We had a very lively hearing. I think the impact of that hearing caused people to go back and say: We really do need to improve this bill in some way. I commend Senator Merkley and Senator Booker for joining me in I guess a little mini ``Gang of 3'' to pull the bill to a place where we would all support it in the committee. That is part of how it got to 15 and 5.

I think, since then, what Senator Udall has been able to accomplish is some of those 5 have now come over to join the 15. So to say that it is a 15-to-5 EPW committee-supported bill actually understates this support because of Senator Udall's continued work.

There is one issue on which I want to make a particular point because I know both Senator Udall and I have served as attorney general of our States. We take this question of a sovereign State's ability to defend its own citizens very seriously. We both were attorneys general. We had the responsibility to very often lead for the State those public protection efforts.

So we wanted to be very careful about making sure there was a significant role for the States in this bill to look out for the health and the safety of their citizens. What we came up with is a provision that I believe tracks very closely with the constitutional provisions that govern this. A State is restricted from taking action here if it would unduly burden interstate commerce. Well, that is a statutory restriction. But guess what. As Senator Udall knows, that is also the constitutional restriction under the so-called dormant commerce clause. So we were not going to be able to move much further than that anyway. That is essentially the commerce clause written into legislative text.

The next is if the action by the State would violate a Federal law or regulation. There is another part of the Constitution called the supremacy clause, which says that when Congress has made a decision, the States cannot overturn it. Once again, the restriction that we have on States coming to protect their citizens mirrors and matches a restriction that exists in the Constitution.

The last piece says that if a State is going to regulate in this area, it has to be based on peer-reviewed science. There is a third clause in the Constitution called the due process clause. Under the due process clause, the regulatory agency cannot just willy-nilly regulate. If it does, its regulation can be challenged as being arbitrary and capricious. In order to meet the challenge that it is arbitrary and capricious, it has to be based on a sound factual foundation.

Here in the realm of science, that foundation is peer-reviewed scientific evidence. So as a former attorney general working with a former attorney general, I think we are confident that where this bill is now gives our colleague attorneys general the ability to have a very strong case to be made that they still have the authority to take action where their State has a real problem and people's health and safety is suffering and somebody needs to act, even if somebody at EPW will not.

I will close by saying this. This has been an education in legislating for me. I came out of being a prosecutor, I came out of being an executive official, I came out of being a staff person for a Governor, and I came out of being a practicing lawyer. But watching Senator Udall work has been instructive because--he will not say but I am prepared to say that he cosponsored this bill at a time when he did not like it. I think he cosponsored this bill at a time when what he saw was not that ``this is the bill I am going to go with,'' but he saw that we need to fix TSCA, we need to have a bipartisan solution to this, and ``if it takes me signing up for a bill I don't like as the opener to begin building that consensus''--that went first with TOM, then with Senator Carper coming on, then with our MERKLEY-BOOKER-WHITEHOUSE contingent, and now most recently with Senators DURBIN and MARKEY joining us--he has been the thread that has made all of that possible.

I wish to close by expressing a personal appreciation to him for hanging in there--particularly through that early period when there was not a lot of support for this in our caucus--and working with us and Senator Inhofe and Senator Vitter to build the coalition that has today made 60-plus cosponsors possible.

Congratulations to Senator Udall, and I thank him for letting me say a few words.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. My only caution going forward is that, for all the wonderful work that has been done by Senator Vitter and Senator Udall to pull us together, for all the support that has been reached here, this is still a fairly delicate compromise. We first have to figure out and solve the procedural blockages that are preventing this from going through this Chamber.

I would suggest that the majority party ought to be supporting the passage of legislation that is led by the majority party. It is the minority party's role to throw up objections and to make demands against legislation proceeding. So maybe not everybody on the other side is completely taken aboard, but they are in the majority now. So I think those blocks will be cleared and we will have the chance to go forward. But then we have to do something with the House. Either they have to pass something or they have to pass this or we end up in conference. I think it is important that the record of this bill reflect that there is not a whole lot of wiggle room here for mischief to be accomplished between the House and the Senate.

My confidence is that--I really do think the industry supports this bill. They have worked with us, they have worked with you, and so I don't think there is a huge incentive for mischief, but I think we do have to be on our guard that the spirit, the structure, and the key points of this piece are preserved in anything that goes forward because otherwise we will be back where we started, with everybody back in their seats again.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I know that during our process, our staff worked enormously hard, and the Senator's has been at this for a longer time than just that intense period of negotiation where we moved the bill in our section, so I defer to the Senator to make those comments. I would applaud the Senator's staff and Senator Vitter's, who have been doing a terrific job.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. My team was led by Emily Enderle, who leads my environmental team. She has terrific credibility in the environmental community, and she knows these laws very well, but even with that it was an enormously complicated task. This was a big bill. I forget the number of changes we actually put into it in the course of that negotiation, but it was 20, 22. It was a large array of changes, so it was a lot of work in a short period of time. Emily, the Senator's staff, and everybody who was involved in that really dove in and worked hard in the best traditions of good staff work in the Senate with the intention to get to ``yes.''

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

CLIMATE CHANGE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, Americans across the board recognize the growing threat of global climate change. Last week was a big week on the conservative and corporate sides. New polling revealed strong support among conservatives for smart policies to stem carbon pollution. Coalitions of leading corporate voices--6 major banks and 10 major food and beverage companies--called on us to join them in backing strong climate action.

I come to the floor today, now for the 114th time, to join with them--with scientists and lay people, with military commanders and faith leaders, with environmentalists and capitalists, with Democrats and Republicans, all saying it is time to wake up to this crisis.

Yes, I said ``and Republicans.'' Outside this Chamber, Republicans are calling for action on climate. The poll out last week, conducted by three leading Republican pollsters, showed a majority of Republican voters, including 54 percent of conservative Republicans, agreeing that the climate is changing and that human activity contributes to the changes we are all seeing.

They want solutions from us. The same proportion of conservative Republicans--54 percent--would favor a carbon pollution fee on electric utilities, provided the revenue would then be rebated to consumers. As we know, a carbon fee is a market-based solution, very much in line with conservative principles. I recently introduced a bill that I hope both Republicans and Democrats can embrace. It would establish an economy-wide carbon fee on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions and then return 100 percent of the money to the American people.

It would work. A recent analysis said it would reduce U.S. carbon dioxide emissions by nearly 50 percent by 2030. The revenue would offset annual payroll taxes for every working person by $500, with a similar benefit to veterans and Social Security recipients. It would reduce the corporate income tax rate from 35 percent to 29 percent. It would return the remaining funds to States to be used locally, for transition costs, efficiency investments or whatever the States prefer.

With this bill, I extend to conservatives what my very conservative friend, former Republican Congressman Bob Inglis, has called not just an olive branch but an olive limb. Whether you want tax reform, a proper free market for energy or even to address climate change, please, let's get to work.

To state the obvious, Congress has been ruled by the lobbyists and political enforcers for the fossil fuel industry. The fossil fuel industry, with political threats and very big money and lots of phony front groups, has made the Republican Party in Congress its political wing. But outside this Chamber, where conservatives don't need fossil fuel industry money, there is considerable conservative support for a carbon fee, from leading right-of-center economists, conservative think tanks, and former Republican officials.

President Nixon's Treasury Secretary, George Shultz; President Reagan's economic adviser, Art Laffer; President George W. Bush's Treasury Secretary, Hank Paulson; and Bush Council of Economic Advisers Chair, Greg Mankiw, have all advocated for some form of a carbon fee as the efficient way to correct a market failure--the market failure where we all have to pick up the costs of carbon pollution for the fossil fuel industry. No wonder they spend so much money around here. That market failure is a sweet deal for the fossil fuel fellas, but it is not good free market economics.

In a 2013 New York Times op-ed, former Republican EPA Administrators Bill Ruckelshaus, Christine Todd Whitman, Lee Thomas, and William Reilly wrote: ``A market-based approach, like a carbon tax, would be the best path to reducing greenhouse-gas emissions.''

Republicans in Congress are being squeezed. On one side they see unequivocal scientific consensus, compelling economic theory, and mounting public opinion--all pointing toward the need for strong action on climate. On the other side, they see rich and powerful polluters who fund their politics and who make heavy-handed threats against any Republicans who might dare to cross them. That is why it was such glad news when a group of 11 House Republicans, led by Congressman Chris Gibson of New York, introduced a House resolution committing to address climate change by promoting ingenuity, innovation, and exceptionalism.

That is not a bill yet. We have a ways to go still. But it is another sign that the ``denier castle'' is crumbling. First, climate change was a hoax. Then, OK, maybe it is not a hoax, but it is natural variation. Then, OK, maybe it is real and humans do cause some of it. But, look, it paused. Then, OK, maybe it didn't pause. But we really can't do anything about it. And then, OK, we can do something about climate change, but please stop asking me about it because I am not a scientist.

And now this: A resolution by sitting Republican House Members that we need to take climate action. It has been quite a journey.

The escape of 11 Republicans from the dark, crumbling ramparts of denier castle gives dawning hope to Americans that bipartisan action on climate change is becoming possible, even in Congress.

Last Thursday, Congressman Gibson and I joined together, bicameral and bipartisan, to hear from major food and beverage companies how climate change affects their industry, supply chains, and bottom line. It marked--as far as I can recall--the first time in years that a sitting Democrat and a sitting Republican Member of Congress joined in a public event on climate change. I hope that is another sign that things in this building have begun to shift.

For these big companies, climate change is not a partisan issue. It is not even a political issue. It is business. It is their reality. ``Climate really matters to our business,'' Kim Nelson of General Mills told us. ``We fundamentally rely on Mother Nature.'' The choices we make to protect or forsake our climate, she said, will be ``important to the long-term viability of our company and our industry.''

Paul Bakus of Nestle agreed, impressing on us that this is not a hypothetical. Climate change ``is impacting our business today,'' he said. His company, Nestle, cans pumpkins under the Libby's brand. They have seen pumpkin yields crash in the United States. ``We have never seen growing and harvesting conditions like this in the Midwest,'' said Mr. Bakus.

Chief sustainability officer for Mars, Barry Parkin, was more blunt: ``We are on a path to a dangerous place.''

These companies are reducing carbon emissions and demanding sustainable supply chains. Mars, for example, recently invested in a 211-megawatt wind power farm in Texas to offset all of the electricity used by its U.S. operations. Unilever, in addition to shifting away from fossil fuels toward renewables and biofuel energy, is also fighting deforestation associated with farming.

Message No. 1 from these businesses was: This is important.

Message No. 2 was: They can't do it alone. They need us in government to pay attention. ``Business, government, civil society, and individuals all have a part to play,'' said General Mills. ``We need governments to be involved,'' said Unilever.

Specifically, the companies want a strong global climate deal at the Paris conference this December. They released a joint letter pledging to accelerate their own climate efforts and urging governments to do their part as well. They even took out full-page ads in the Washington Post. Here it is.

They had the full text of their letter and the signatures of the 10 CEOs printed in the Financial Times on the very day of our event.

The heads of Mars, General Mills, Nestle USA, Unilever, Kellogg Company, New Belgium Brewing Company, Ben & Jerry's, Cliff Bar, Stonyfield Farm, and Danone Dairy North America had the following statement in the letter:

Climate change is bad for farmers and agriculture. Drought, flooding, and hotter growing conditions threaten the world's food supply and contribute to food insecurity.

They also pledged:

We will: Use our voices to advocate for governments to set clear, achievable, measurable and enforceable science-based targets for carbon emissions reductions.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. We heard a similar appeal from America's largest financial powerhouses last week. Bank of America, Citi, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, and Wells Fargo released a strong call for governments to come together on a climate agreement.

Here is what they wrote:

Policy frameworks that recognize the costs of carbon are among the many important instruments needed to provide greater market certainty, accelerate investment, drive innovation in low carbon energy, and create jobs. ..... While we may compete in the marketplace, we are aligned on the importance of policies to address the climate challenge.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. These are serious people running big, successful companies. They don't take climate change lightly, they don't scoff and neither should we. They are asking that elected officials find the courage to address climate change. Majorities of voters of both parties and of Independents are also asking elected representatives to find the courage to address climate change. That brings us back to that squeeze I talked about.

If you are not willing to address carbon pollution and the climate change and ocean acidification it is causing, I ask my colleagues who are on the ballot in 2016: What are you going to say? What are you going to say to your voters? Are you going to say it is a hoax? Great. Good luck with that.

Are you going to say: OK. It is real, it is important, these companies are all right, but as far as fixing it, well, we have nothing--because right now that is what they have, nothing.

Maybe they should just beg: Please don't ask me about climate change because the big fossil fuel polluters are paying my party's bills and making mean threats to me. Those are not a great set of options.

At some point soon, I tell my friends: Your party's leaders are going to have to go to the fossil fuel billionaires and say: Enough. Enough. Let my people go. We held out for you as long as we could, but now you have to let my people go, and it has to be soon.

As one executive told Congressman Gibson and me quite directly, ``The window of opportunity to act on climate change is closing.''

It is time to wake up.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source