Executive Calendar
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I thank the distinguished Senator from West Virginia for her work on the highway bill that we voted out of the Environment and Public Works Committee today and on our industrial emissions bill and on carbon capture. It has been a terrific working relationship. Tribute to Dr. Kim Binsted and Dr. Ryan Edwards
Madam President, as I begin my 251st ``Time to Wake Up'' remarks, I would like to thank two AAAS fellows who will be shortly leaving my office.
Dr. Kim Binsted came to us from the University of Hawaii, where she was principal investigator on the NASA-sponsored Hi-Seas project, studying conditions like those that astronauts would encounter on Mars. Next month, she returns to Hawaii to continue her research.
Dr. Ryan Edwards joined us after completing his Ph.D. at Princeton University, where he studied carbon capture and storage. He hails from Australia and is thus by far the best cricket player on my staff--low bar. Next up for him will be Houston and more carbon capture research.
I thank both of them for their service and their expertise, and I wish them the best. Climate Change
Madam President, tomorrow, about 2\1/2\ miles from here, executives from some of the biggest fossil fuel companies in the world will be meeting at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. It is a power-packed event. The chamber is the most powerful lobbying force here in Washington and a fierce political operator. The fossil fuel industry runs remorseless and often covert political operations. They are defending a $650 billion annual subsidy, as the International Monetary Fund estimates, so hundreds of millions spent on lobbying and election mischief is money well spent: The Chamber and Big Oil together have stopped climate progress here.
For the member companies of the chamber, including companies that say they support climate action, it is time to confront the relationship between the chamber and the fossil fuel industry. The Earth is spinning toward climate catastrophe. Action in Congress to limit carbon pollution is essential to averting this catastrophe. Yet the chamber, according to the watchdog InfluenceMap, is in a virtual tie as the most obstructive group on climate change, blocking legislation, opposing Executive action, and even seeking to undermine climate science. The chamber is so obstructive, it would be better called the Chamber of Carbon.
The chamber has opposed one comprehensive climate bill after another-- first, the bipartisan cap-and-trade bill in 2005, the Energy Policy Act. The chamber helped defeat it with a Key Vote Alert--a signal that whoever voted in favor of the bill could face an onslaught of Chamber political attacks in the next election.
In 2007, the chamber ran political TV ads against climate legislation, claiming that it would prevent people from heating their homes or that they wouldn't be able to drive to work any longer. Here is somebody cooking an egg over candles.
In 2009, the chamber led the charge against the Waxman-Markey bill. For that legislation, the chamber pulled out all the stops--haranguing Members, more ``vote alerts'' and ``how they voted'' scorecards, sending more messages of election doom if they dared to support Waxman- Markey. Since the U.S. Chamber tanked Waxman-Markey, Republicans in Congress have refused to hold hearings on, mark up, debate, or vote on any legislation proposing a policy framework for economy-wide reductions in carbon pollution.
It is not just in Congress that the chamber wields its baleful influence; the chamber also fought climate action in the courts and at the executive branch. In fact, in 2010, the chamber sued the EPA to overturn the finding that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health and welfare. You would think it would be obvious that they do. Look around, and you will see that they do. Disabling the endangerment finding would cripple the Agency's ability to regulate carbon pollution under the Clean Air Act, so off went the chamber.
When the courts rejected this lawsuit on the endangerment finding, then the chamber became central command for corporate lawyers, coal lobbyists, and Republican political strategists to devise legal schemes to fight climate regulations. This produced another chamber lawsuit to block the Clean Power Plan reducing carbon pollution from powerplants.
Of course, once President Trump took office, the chamber went from defense to offense and attacked many Obama administration rules limiting carbon pollution. The chamber even funded the phony report the Trump administration used to justify leaving the Paris accord.
Perhaps, worst of all, the Chamber has fought against science itself. It has proposed putting the evidence--the scientific evidence--of climate change on trial in what its own officials have branded the ``Scopes monkey trial of the 21st century.'' That is what this crowd was for. Indeed, the Chamber has said the trial ``would be evolution versus creationism.'' Guess what side it would be on.
This is not your hometown Chamber, folks.
The Chamber has even tried to limit the scientific studies that regulators could consider. The Chamber's evident target was public health studies that demonstrate just how dangerous burning fossil fuels is to public health. The Chamber is an electioneering force, not just a lobbying force, and it spends massive sums in politics to shore up its control in Congress. Since the 2010 Citizens United decision has allowed outside groups to spend unlimited sums on electioneering activities, the Chamber has funneled, roughly, $150 million into congressional races, which has made the Chamber the largest distributor of undisclosed donations--dark money, we call it--in congressional races.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I thank the Presiding Officer. I appreciate that courtesy.
Blocking action on climate has been the central focus of the Chamber's campaign spending. It ran this ad in Pennsylvania in 2016. Two moms watch their children on a playground. One comments on how much energy the children have. The other says: Oh, don't say that. The candidate wants to tax that energy. The ad gets even weirder when a faceless woman arrives in a car and steps out toward the children. Alarmed, one of the mothers yells the ad's punch line: ``Run, Jimmy. Run.'' Classy stuff. I wonder who the Chamber was fronting for.
So how does the Chamber's anti-climate crusade square with its big corporate members?
It has members like Coke and Pepsi, which have good internal climate policies and websites that are full of commitments to reduce corporate carbon footprints, and they have signed letters on climate action.
Pepsi signed the Ceres BICEP Climate Declaration. Coke plans to reduce CO
Yet both Coke and Pepsi fund the Chamber of Commerce, and they fund the American Beverage Association, which, in turn, runs more money to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The end result? Two companies that are actively reducing their carbon emissions and that enthusiastically support good climate policy have the position in Congress, via their funding of the Chamber, of opposing climate action here in Washington-- the place where it really counts.
Verizon has reduced its carbon intensity by 28 percent since 2016, and its CEO has publicly stated Verizon's commitment to combat climate change. Yet Verizon, too, funds the Chamber's obstruction.
Then there is Google with its motto: ``Don't be evil.'' Google is warning its investors that climate change threatens its systems. It says that it is vulnerable to damage or interruption from natural disasters and to the effects of climate change, such as sea level rise, drought, flooding, wildfires, and increased storm severity. Google has signed pledges to fight climate change; yet Google, too, funds the Chamber's anti-climate crusade.
Coke, Pepsi, Verizon, and Google are just four examples among many. These companies say they support climate action but fund one of climate action's worst opponents.
Why does the Chamber put these members in this position? The best explanation I have is that the fossil fuel industry is secretly calling the shots at the Chamber; that is, it is secretly funding the Chamber. That would explain the Chamber's refusal to disclose its funders.
I think this is a governance issue now for these companies, particularly for those members who serve on the Chamber's board. Board members of nonprofit organizations have a common law duty of care. Not knowing who is funding your organization looks like a breach of that duty of care.
The Chamber's member companies need to ask themselves: Do we know who is funding the Chamber? Do we know how much each donor is giving? Do those donations explain the Chamber's years of obstruction?
The Chamber holds itself out as a business association. Another question: Why is it accepting money from nonbusinesses?
In 2012 and 2014, the Chamber took at least $5.5 million from front groups that have been backed by the Koch brothers. In 2014, it took $5.25 million from a front group that was affiliated with Karl Rove.
Did the Chamber's board members know this? Did they exercise the proper duty of care? Do they know what nonbusiness money is funding the Chamber these days? Do they know what percentage of the Chamber's funding comes secretly from fossil fuel interests?
I don't think the Chamber's board members know the answers to any of these questions.
Here is a question for the general counsel of these board member corporations: Should they know or are you going to go with willful ignorance? Good luck with that.
The bottom line is simple. Chamber board members with good climate policies are supporting one of the worst climate obstructors in America. Indeed, they are writing big checks to do so. This, I believe, is not just a moral problem but a governance problem. If these companies aren't asking these tough questions and if they are not pushing the Chamber to be transparent about its funding sources, they are answerable. Until this mess gets sorted out, in spite of all of corporate America's efforts to reduce emissions, its funding of the ``U.S. Chamber of Carbon'' means that corporate America is doing more harm than good for our climate.
Again, I thank the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma for his courtesy in allowing me the extra time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source