Volume 156, No. 37 covering the 2nd Session of the 111th Congress (2009 - 2010) was published by the Congressional Record.
The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“GLOBAL WARMING” mentioning the Environmental Protection Agency was published in the Senate section on pages S1492-S1496 on March 15, 2010.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
GLOBAL WARMING
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, after weeks of the global warming scandal--and we talked about it on the floor, what happened with climategate just prior to the Copenhagen convention--I had the opportunity to visit and to uncover some of the things we had suspected were going on for a long period of time. Five years ago, I had occasion to give a speech on this floor, where I outlined, from information that had come through the backdoor to me from scientists, how bad the science was and how it had been, in fact, cooked. Then, of course, along came climategate.
After weeks of the global warming scandal, the world's first potential climate billionaire is running for cover. Yes, I am talking about Al Gore. He is under siege these days. The credibility of the IPCC is eroding, EPA's endangerment finding is collapsing, and belief that anthropogenic global warming is leading to catastrophe is evaporating. Gore seems to be drowning in a sea of his own global warming illusions. Nevertheless, he is desperately trying to keep global warming alarmism alive.
It is my understanding that tonight he is having a high-level meeting of all his global warming alarmists around the country to see how they can resurrect this issue and regroup.
Consider Gore's nearly 2,000-word op-ed piece that recently appeared in the New York Times. It is a sure-fire sign of desperation. Gore's piece was about China, solar and wind power, globalization, rising sea levels, big polluters, melting glaciers, and cap and trade. One searches in vain for any explanation of the IPCC's errors and mistakes or of Phil Jones, the former director of the Climate Research Unit. That is in East Anglia. We heard a lot about him. He was the one who was actually assembling a lot of the science--or so-called science--or creating the science, I should say, to support the position of those who believe anthropogenic gases cause global warming.
Seven years ago, I believe this month, I had occasion to study on the floor and find out that, in fact, we had spent so much time on this issue that everyone was believing this to be true. When we realized the science was not there, I made the statement that the notion that anthropogenic gases are causing catastrophic global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.
What is Gore's take on the climategate scandal? Climate scientists, he wrote, were ``besieged'' by an ``onslaught'' of hostile information requests from climate ``skeptics.'' That is it, nothing else. Even the IPCC announced last week an independent review of its process and procedures.
You see, former Vice President Gore was saying: Oh, that was nothing; that was just a few comments. I might add, one of the largest and most respected publications in the UK, which is called the UK Telegraph, said this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation.
The Atlantic Monthly, the Financial Times, the New York Times, the Chicago Tribune, Newsweek and Time and many others are saying this is a legitimate scandal and reform of the IPCC is absolutely essential. Let's keep in mind, IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is the United Nations. They put this together back in 1988 to try to scare people into changing our policy in this country.
By the way, I mentioned Time magazine as one of the many magazines and publications that have now said, looking at climategate, this investigation should be there. This is the same Time magazine--and I don't blame them for doing this; I would have done the same thing--that back in 1975, on the cover they had: Another Ice Age is coming, we are all going to die. A couple years ago, you might remember the last polar bear standing on the last cube of ice and it said: Global warming is coming; we are all going to die. Anyway, the publications are coming around.
When it comes to reform, openness, transparency, and peer review, when it comes to practicing good science, Gore stands alone. He wants the world to put its head in the sand and pretend nothing is happening.
It reminds me of the story of the two boy ostriches chasing two girl ostriches through the woods, and they were catching them. One girl ostrich said to the other, when they came up to a clearing: What do we do? Well, let's hide. Each of the girl ostriches stuck their heads in a respective hole, and the boy ostriches came galloping up to the clearing and one looked at the other and said: Where did the girls go?
That is what we are looking at here. They are hiding their heads in the sand. Then Gore is writing in this op-ed piece, even if all these disasters will not happen, we still have to deal with national security risks and energy independence. Of course, Gore fails to mention that the United States leads the world in technically recoverable resources of oil, coal, and natural gas. According to a recent release from a report from the Congressional Research Service, America's combined recoverable natural gas, oil, and coal endowment is the largest on Earth. America's recoverable resources are far greater than those of Saudi Arabia, China, and Canada combined, and that is without including America's absolute immense oil shale and methane hydrate deposits.
It is always kind of humorous when people say: We have to get rid of our oil and gas and our coal. Yet those are the things which we are using to generate the energy necessary to run America.
They say: Well, we have to become independent. But they want to do away with all of that. We have enough oil and gas and coal--and now nuclear, which we are expanding--to take care of our needs so we wouldn't have to be dependent upon any foreign country for any of our energy. The problem is a political problem. Democrats will not allow us to go ahead and explore our own resources and exploit them. We are the only country that doesn't do that.
Gore has to know the edifice of alarmism is starting to crumble, so he is swinging for the fences, hoping for a home run to change the game. But Gore is striking out, as he loses his support almost daily in Congress and from the American people. Let's face it; Gore's side of the argument is collapsing. He and his allies are running short on facts, and Gore's criticism of recent events rings hollow. For example, after the climategate scandal broke, Gore was asked by an online publication called Slate as to what he thought of it.
Gore's response: Well, I haven't read all of the e-mails, but the most recent one is more than 10 years old. Obviously, of course, that is not true because they go all the way up to 2009. So all he is left with is a two-pronged fork of anger and attack. Just read the New York Times op-ed piece.
By the way, I was told his op-ed piece in the New York Times was three times larger than that which they normally will receive. He wrote that those who question climate alarmism are members of a ``criminal generation.'' That is me--a criminal? Is Roger Pielke, Jr., a criminal? How about Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama, Richard Lindzen of MIT, Chris Landsea of the National Hurricane Center? No, they haven't committed any crimes. They just want honest, open scientific debate.
I might add that thus far the only scientists who commit crimes are those at the CRU. Again, that is the collection point of all the science that the United Nations has put together in this thing called IPCC--those involved in climategate, according to findings of the UK's Information Commissioner.
The Weekly Standard recently placed Al Gore on its cover--we have that right here--showing that the emperor has no clothes. The cover story, by Steven Hayward, of the Weekly Standard is entitled, ``In Denial: The Meltdown of the Climate Campaign.''
Hayward writes a compelling narrative of climategate and its consequences. This story is a must read for anyone interested in the recent implosion of global warming alarmism.
Let me mention this: If you look at the movie ``An Inconvenient Truth,'' the one where he made, I guess, most of his money, the last sentence says, I believe: Are you willing to change the way you live?
Well, we thought that was probably a good idea, so let's put that up here. It has now been 1,009 days since we have invited Al Gore to sign this pledge. Here is what it says:
As a believer that human-caused global warming is a moral, ethical, and spiritual issue affecting our survival; that home energy use is a key component of overall energy use; that reducing my fossil fuel-based home energy usage will lead to lower greenhouse gas emissions; and that leaders on moral issues should lead by example; therefore, I pledge to consume no more energy for use in my home, my residence, than the average American household 1 year from today.
Well, it hasn't been a year; it was 3 years ago. It was 1,009 days ago.
Then, of course, there is always the question: What if we are wrong? What if we should do something? Since the Kyoto treaty failed--and we came this close, Mr. President. You weren't in your current position at that time, but this is how close we came to actually signing on and ratifying the Kyoto treaty. We didn't do it.
Then along came Members of Congress in 2003, where we had the McCain-
Lieberman bill--cap-and-trade bill--and in 2005 we had the McCain-
Lieberman bill, then the Warner-Lieberman bill in 2008, we had the Boxer-Sanders bill in 2009, and now it looks as if we are going to have the John Kerry and Lindsay Graham bill that is up. What do they all have in common? It is all cap and trade.
Mr. President, I have some respect for James Hansen. But the one thing I really respect is that he has made this statement about cap and trade. He said cap and trade is a devious way of getting away from the issue. The main issue is that we have to do something about greenhouse gas emissions, anthropogenic gas, CO2. Well, why not just go ahead and have a tax on them? There is a good reason the cap and traders don't want a tax. Because then the American people would know what it is costing them.
What is the cost of cap and trade? With any of these bills I just mentioned, it is approximately the same because cap and trade is cap and trade. You have to somehow make everyone think they are winners and everyone else is a loser. So we had the ranges come from the Wharton School of Economics, from MIT, from the CRA, and the range is always somewhere between $300 billion and $400 billion a year. Now, that is significant--$300 to $400 billion a year.
Mr. President, if you are like I am, it is kind of hard to relate to billions and trillions of dollars. So what I try to do is relate it to what it would cost the average family that pays taxes in my State of Oklahoma. How much would this cost that family? It comes out to be a little over $3,000 a year. Now, $3,000 a year is an awful lot of money.
What do we get for that? Let's get the other chart up here. I had occasion the other day to hear from Lisa Jackson, who is President Obama's Administrator of the EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency--
a fine lady whom I think an awful lot of--when she was testifying before us. Now, this chart--and people are not questioning this chart's reliability--reflects what would happen: U.S. action without international action will have no effect on world CO2. It just stands to reason. And these are the bills that have been introduced that I mentioned before--the McCain-Lieberman bill in 2003, McCain-Lieberman in 2005, Warner-Lieberman in 2008, and some of the rest of them. It reflects what would happen if we had passed those and what would happen if we don't pass them. The chart shows nothing.
I asked the question of Lisa Jackson, President Obama's Administrator of the EPA. I said: This chart up here, is this an accurate chart? In other words, to put it in plain words, to better understand it, if we were to pass--at that time it might have been the Markey bill. I am not sure which one it was, but it doesn't matter because cap and trade is cap and trade. If we had passed that bill or any of the Senate bills we have talked about, how would that have reduced CO2 worldwide?
Her response: Well, it wouldn't really reduce it because we are doing that unilaterally in the United States of America.
What happens when we take away our ability to have energy in America? We have to manufacture it somewhere, and they have estimated how many thousands of manufacturing jobs if we were to pass any of these bills.
Those are polar bears, by the way, and they are all smiling in case you can't see that too well, Mr. President.
We would lose our manufacturing jobs to countries such as China and Mexico and India. Right now, in China, they are cranking out two new coal-fired generating plants every week. Some people are saying: Oh, they are going to follow us and our example and start restricting their CO2. No, they are not. They are preparing right now to be able to generate the electricity necessary as the people start coming in. So that is what is happening right now.
I would say this, though. I don't want you to feel--even though his world is crumbling, don't feel sorry for Al Gore because he is doing all right. There is actually an article that just came out--this is the National Review--at the same time a New York Times article did, and I have kind of put together things from both of them. This from the New York Times says:
Former Vice President Al Gore thought he had spotted a winner last year when a small California firm sought financing for an energy-saving technology from the venture capital firm where Al Gore is a partner. The company, the Silver Spring Networks, produces hardware and software to make the electricity grid more efficient. It came to Mr. Gore's firm, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, one of Silicon Valley's top venture capital providers, looking for $75 million to expand its partnership with utilities seeking to install millions of so-called smart meters in homes and businesses.
Mr. Gore and his partners decided to back the company, and in gratitude Silver Spring retained him and John Doerr, another Kleiner Perkins partner, as unpaid corporate advisers. The deal appeared to pay off in a big way last week, when the Energy Department announced $3.4 billion in smart grid grants. Of the total, more than $560 million went to utilities with which Silver Spring has contacts.
Wait a minute, we are talking about Silver Spring, the company with which Al Gore is connected.
Kleiner Perkins and its partners, including Mr. Gore, could recoup their investment many times over in the coming years.
Silver Spring Networks is a foot soldier in the global green energy revolution Mr. Gore hopes to lead. Few people have been as vocal about the urgency of global warming and the need to reinvent the way the world produces and consumes energy. And few have put as much money behind their advocacy as Mr. Gore and are as well positioned to profit from this green transformation if and when it comes.
Critics, mostly the political right and among global warming skeptics, say Mr. Gore is poised to become the world's first ``carbon billionaire,'' profiteering from government policies he supports that would direct billions of dollars to the business ventures that he has invested in.
Representative Marsha Blackburn, a Republican from Tennessee, asserted at a hearing this year that Mr. Gore stood to benefit personally from the energy and climate policies he was urging Congress to adopt.
Mr. Gore says that he is simply putting his money where his mouth is. ``Do you think there is something wrong with being active in business in this country?'' Mr. Gore said. ``I am proud of it. I am proud of it.''
In an e-mail message this week, he said his investment activities were consistent with his public advocacy over the decades. ``I have advocated policies to promote renewable energy and accelerate reductions in global warming pollution for decades, including all the time I was in public service.'' Mr. Gore wrote: ``As a private citizen, I have continued to advocate the same policies. Even though the vast majority of my business career has been in areas that do not involve renewable energy or global warming pollution reductions, I absolutely believe in investing in ways that are consistent with my values and beliefs. I encourage others to invest in the same way.''
Mr. Gore has invested a significant portion of the tens of millions of dollars that he has earned since leaving government in 2001 in a broad array of environmentally friendly energy and technology business ventures, like carbon trading markets, solar cells, and waterless urinals. He has also given away millions more to finance the nonprofit he founded, the Alliance for Climate Protection, and to another group, the Climate Project, which trains people to present the slide show that was the basis of his documentary ``An Inconvenient Truth.'' Royalties from his new book on climate change, ``Our Choice,'' printed on 100 percent recycled paper, will go to the alliance, an aide said.
Other public figures, like speaker Nancy Pelosi and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., who have vocally supported government financing of energy-saving technologies have investments in alternative energy ventures. Some scientists and policy advocates also promote energy policies that personally enrich them.
As a private citizen, Mr. Gore asked not to have to disclose his income and assets, as he did--
as I do, as others do in this Chamber
in his years in Congress and the White House. When he left government in 2001, he listed assets of less than $2 million, including homes in suburban Washington and in Tennessee. Since then his net worth has skyrocketed, helped by timely investments in Apple and Google, profits from books and his movie, and the scores of speeches for which he can be paid more than $100,000 . . .
a speech. I suggest now that price may be going down a little bit for Al Gore.
Mr. Gore's spokeswoman would not give a figure for his current net worth, but the scale of his wealth is evident in a single investment of $35 million in Capricorn Investment Group. . . .
It goes on and on. I ask unanimous consent to submit the rest of this for the Record because it is pretty good reading.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
Mr. Gore's spokeswoman would not give a figure for his current net worth, but the scale of his wealth is evident in a single investment of $35 million in Capricorn Investment Group, a private equity fund started by his friend Jeffrey Skoll, the first president of eBay.
Ion Yadigaroglu, a co-founder of Capricorn, said that Mr. Gore does not sit on the fund's investment committee, but obviously agrees with the partners' strategy of putting long-term money into promising ventures in energy, technology and health care around the globe.
``Aspirationally,'' said Mr. Yadigaroglu, who holds a doctorate from Stanford in astrophysics, ``we're trying to make more money than others doing the same thing and do it in a way that is superior in ethics and impacts.''
Mr. Gore has said he invested in partnerships and funds that try to identify and support companies that are advancing cutting-edge green technologies and are paving the way toward a low-carbon economy.
He has a stake in the world's pre-eminent carbon credit trading market and in an array of companies in bio-fuels, sustainable fish farming, electric vehicles and solar power.
Capricorn holds a major stake in Falcon Waterfree Technologies, the world's leading maker of waterless urinals. Generation has holdings in Ausra, a solar energy company based in California, and Camco, a British firm that develops carbon dioxide emissions reduction projects. Kleiner Perkins has a green ventures fund with nearly $1 billion invested in renewable energy and efficiency concerns.
Mr. Gore also has substantial interests in technology, media and biotechnology ventures that have no direct tie to his environmental advocacy, an aide said.
Mr. Gore is not a lobbyist, and he has never asked Congress or the administration for an earmark or policy decision that would directly benefit one of his investments. But he has been a tireless advocate for policies that would move the country away from the use of coal and oil, and he has begun a
$300 million campaign to end the use of fossil fuels in electricity production in 10 years.
But Marc Morano, a climate change skeptic who until recently was a top aide to Senator James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma, said that what he saw as Mr. Gore's alarmism and occasional exaggerations distorted the debate and also served his personal financial interests.
Mr. Gore has testified numerous times in support of legislation to address climate change and to revamp the nation's energy policies.
He appeared before the House Energy and Commerce Committee in April to support an energy and climate change bill that was intended to reduce global warming emissions through a cap-and-trade program for major polluting industries.
Mr. Gore, who shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for his climate advocacy, is generally received on Capitol Hill as something of an oracle, at least by Democrats.
But at the hearing in April, he was challenged by Ms. Blackburn, who echoed some of the criticism of Mr. Gore that has swirled in conservative blogs and radio talk shows. She noted that Mr. Gore is a partner at Kleiner Perkins, which has hundreds of millions of dollars invested in firms that could benefit from any legislation that limits carbon dioxide emissions.
``I believe that the transition to a green economy is good for our economy and good for all of us, and I have invested in it,'' Mr. Gore said, adding that he had put ``every penny'' he has made from his investments into the Alliance for Climate Protection.
``And, Congresswoman,'' he added, ``if you believe that the reason I have been working on this issue for 30 years is because of greed, you don't know me.''
Mr. INHOFE. ``Marc Morano, a climate change skeptic who was recently a top aide to [me], Senator James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma, said that what he saw as Mr. Gore's alarmism and occasional exaggerations distorted the debate and also served his personal financial interests.''
I say don't feel sorry for Al Gore. He is doing fine right now.
Last, on this subject, my wife and I have been married for 50 years. We have 20 kids and grandkids. They are achievers. They are great people. All 20 of them, all but 6, live within walking distance of my home in Tulsa, OK. Not many people can say that. The one who doesn't is the family of six of my daughter Molly, her husband, and four children.
It happens one of these children you can't see very well right here, Zegita Marie, actually was one we found in Ethiopia. My daughter adopted her. Molly only had three boys and always wanted a girl so she adopted this cute little girl. This little girl, by the way, is 9 years old. She is reading at college level. She came up to Washington to speak to a group I sponsor every year. It is called the African Dinner, about 400 or so of them.
Anyway, when they are up here, I say to my friend in the chair, they found, because of the global warming problem we had, we had all these snowstorms and blizzards and consequently the airport was closed and they were stuck here. What do you do with a family of six when they are stuck? They went out and built, of all things, an igloo. They are kind of engineering oriented. This is not an igloo. It sleeps four people with ice bricks and all that. On top of that they put ``Al Gore's New Home.'' It is right next to the Library of Congress. This is a picture of it. I thought that was fun.
I regret to say one of the real liberal stations, Keith Olbermann, declared my daughter's family as ``The Worst Family in America.''
One last subject here I want to address. I want to compliment Sean Hannity for something I saw last night. I happened to get in at the last of it, so I found out what this guy is up to. What he has done is he has taken--there is a lot of wasteful, stupid spending in America. He has taken 102 of the ridiculous things that we spend money on around here and he has listed them. He started several days ago.
No. 102: Protecting a Michigan insect collection from other insects--$187,00O;
No. 101: Highway beautified by fish art in Washington--
$10,000.
It goes on and on.
Over those last few evenings he listed these. Last night was the last 20 of them. Let me quickly run over these in reverse order.
No. 20: Researching how paying attention improves performance of difficult tasks in Connecticut.
That was just $850,000.
No. 19: Kentucky Transportation Department awarded contracts to companies associated with the road contractor accused of bribing the previous state transportation secretary--$24 million.
No. 18: Amtrak losing $32 per passenger nationally but rewarded with windfall--$1.3 billion.
No. 17: Widening an Arizona interstate even though the company that won the contract has a history of tax fraud and pollution--$21.8 million.
I am going to submit this for the Record. To get on down to the last items--
No. 9: Resurfacing a tennis court in Montana--$50,000;
No. 8: University in Indiana studying why young men do not like to wear--
I will not say that.
No. 7: Funds for Massachusetts roadway construction, to companies that have defrauded taxpayers, polluted the environment, and have paid tens of thousands of dollars in fines for violating workplace safety laws
--in the millions of dollars.
No. 6: Sending 11 students and 4 teachers from an Arkansas university to the U.N. climate change convention in Copenhagen, using almost 54,000 pounds of carbon dioxide from air travel alone--$50,000.
No. 5: Storytelling festival in Utah--$15,000.
No. 4: Door mats to the Department of the Army in Texas--
$14,000;
No. 3: University in New York researching young adults who drink malt liquor and smoke pot--
that is only $389,000;
No. 2: Solar panels for a climbing gym in Colorado--
$157,800;
No. 1: Grant for one Massachusetts university for
``robobees''--miniature flying robot bees.
That was $2 million.
I want to ask you, Mr. President, what do you think all 102 of these projects have in common? Do you think they are congressional earmarks? A lot of people probably believe they are. They are not. The one thing they have in common is they are all done by the President, President Obama. He said back when they passed the $787 billion stimulus bill, there would not be one earmark in this bill. Everything you are looking at there was all in this bill. That was not done by Members of Congress, that was done by unelected bureaucrats.
The inconvenient truth is that we do have a problem with earmarks in America, but it is not congressional earmarks. I was distressed, the other day, last Thursday, when I saw my fellow Republicans over in the House did something they should not have done. They actually said we are going to stop, we are going to put a permanent moratorium on all earmarks that we in the Republican Party have over there.
Let's stop and think about that. One of the things people do not understand is if you kill what they call--what people think is a Congressional earmark, it does not save a penny. What happens to it, because it is part of an underlying bill, is it goes to the bureaucracies, the unelected bureaucrats, the President, President Obama. I suggest there is a serious problem with what the House did. They resolved that it is the policy of the Republican conference that no Member shall request a Congressional earmark, limited tax benefit, and so forth, all in conjunction with clause 9, rule XXI of the Rules of the House of the 111th Congress.
Let's see what that is. Clause 9 of rule XXI applies to all legislation in the House of Representatives, whether it be authorization, appropriation, tax or tariff.
That is what we are supposed to be doing here, and then said we are not going to do it. I think that is rather interesting because we all, everyone in this room who serves here--I have done it four times--takes an oath of office. In that oath of office we solemnly swear we will support and bear true allegiance to the Constitution of the United States.
Here they have come out and said we are not going to do that. This is mind boggling, that this can take place. It is something that will have to be reversed. When you go back and look at the Federalist Papers, James Madison, the father of the Constitution, made it very clear. He is the one who coined the phrase ``power of the purse.'' That is what we do here in the Constitution. In article I, section 9 it says what we are supposed to do. We are supposed to do the appropriations and spend the money that comes in. That is what we are supposed to do. That is our constitutional responsibility.
We have a serious problem in this, what they are talking about, the moratorium. I think there are some of those who want the Senate to do it. I am hoping we will not follow that course. I respect my friends over in the House but they made a mistake and we do not want to march down that same path. I think it is very important for us to understand earmarks, what they call appropriations over here; that is what an earmark is, if you want to define it. They do not save any money. That money merely goes to the bureaucracy so they can spend it. All 102 of the things I mentioned were bureaucratic earmarks. Not one of them was a congressional earmark.
We have this as a very serious problem right now. One of the reasons I have always said I do not like the idea of the earmark discussion is that people do not understand. They think they are something if you eliminate you save money. You don't save a cent. By the way, earmarks of the spending that takes place are discretionary, not mandatory spending. It constitutes 1.5 percent. I am concerned about the 98.5 percent. For that reason I have introduced a bill that is very similar to something President Obama said. Everyone rejoiced during the State of the Union Message when he stood up and said I am going to freeze nondefense discretionary spending at the 2010 level. Everyone applauded. They thought that was a great statement to make until I went back and I looked and found out that this nondiscretionary spending had increased between 2008 and 2010 by act of this President, Obama, by 20 percent. So what he is saying is we are going to increase discretionary spending by 20 percent and then we are going to freeze it. I do not want to freeze it. I want to bring it back down. So I have taken the same bill and said we are going to freeze that at 2008 levels.
I encourage my friends, we have now about 40-some cosponsors of that legislation. That being the case, I hope we will look very carefully and consider not just what people are thinking out there but do them a great service and tell them in fact what the real issue is on earmarks.
With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak up to 10 minutes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
Alerts Sign-up