S6496 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE September 20, 2012 

confusion over section 137 as to whether the language that is now incorporated in the CR expands DHS authority or allows implementation of a potential Executive order pertaining to 

cyber security. The answer to that 

question is no, absolutely not. The provision is limited to funding improvements in the Federal Network Security 

Program, which provides security systems that monitor cyber attacks on 

Federal Government computer networks. It helps enhance the protection 

for those existing networks that are in 

place. 

It is important that both the House 

and Senate homeland security appropriations bills included this additional 

funding, and it is considered so critical, 

it was added to the continuing resolution so that this implementation can 

continue without interruption. It does 

so because these networks are constantly under attack by individuals 

and groups and others who could cause 

real problems and real harm to our 

country. 

So let me be very clear on the language that has been agreed on in a bipartisan basis and what the colloquy 

said. This provision does not intrude 

upon the authorizers’ jurisdiction. This 

provision does not have anything to do 

with the regulation of private sector 

infrastructure. DHS has confirmed that 

in writing. And this provision does not 

enable a new Executive order in any 

way. I would be the first to object to 

this language if that were the case, and 

I believe we have now remedied any 

confusion that might exist over that 

particular language. 

I am hopeful that even though we 

were not able to ultimately pass and 

incorporate workable cyber protection 

language, that we can continue to 

work together. 

I wish to thank the chair of the Appropriations Homeland Security Subcommittee, Senator LANDRIEU, for joining me and clarifying this important 

provision included in the continuing 

resolution. 

With that, I wish to thank my colleague from Rhode Island for allowing 

me the time, and unfortunately his 

good presentation was interrupted. I 

thank my colleague for the time to 

clarify that. 

I yield the floor. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island. 

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I am very happy to allow my colleague from Indiana the time, and I appreciate his good work on cyber security and hope that he and I and others 

can work toward a legislative solution 

on that. 

f 

CLIMATE CHANGE 

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. My topic had 

been the acidification of our oceans as 

a result of carbon pollution now up 30 

percent in acidity and projected to increase 160 percent in acidity at unprecedented rates in millions of years. It 

has been 50 to 300 million years since 

we have seen this kind of dramatic 

change in ocean acidity. For species 

that use calcium carbonate to create 

their shells and skeletons, such as oysters, crabs, lobsters, and the little 

plankton that so many other species 

depend on as the base of the food chain, 

it becomes harder for these species to 

thrive. 

These unprecedented changes I am 

talking about in ocean acidity are not 

happening alone, they are happening 

on top of dramatically changing ocean 

temperature that is also driven by carbon pollution. 

Just this week on the surface of the 

Earth, we experienced one of the hottest summers on record. The National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration released this statement about the 

northeast shelf large marine ecosystem, which extends from the Gulf of 

Maine down to Cape Hatteras. Here is 

what they said: 

During the first 6 months of 2012, sea surface temperatures . . . were the highest ever 

recorded. Above average temperatures were 

found in all parts of the ecosystem, from the 

ocean bottom to the sea surface and across 

the region . . . The annual 2012 spring plankton bloom was intense, started earlier and 

lasted longer than average. This has implications for marine life from the smallest creatures to the largest marine mammals, like 

whales. Atlantic cod continued to shift 

northeastward from its historic distribution 

center. 

I don’t need to tell anybody in the 

Northeast how important the stability 

of the cod fishery is right now. That 

historic fishery is facing significant reductions in catch limits because the 

population is not rebounding as expected from the reduced catches that 

fishermen are already contributing to 

try to solve this problem. Something is 

causing that failure to rebound, and 

the unprecedented environmental 

changes occurring in the ecosystem 

can’t be overlooked as the culprit behind this unexplained phenomenon of 

failure to rebound. 

NOAA cited a 2009 study published in 

Marine Ecology Progress Series that 

analyzed survey data in the region 

from 1987 to 2007. It found that about 

half of 36 fish stocks evaluated have 

been shifting northward for the past 

four decades, with some disappearing 

from U.S. waters as they move farther 

offshore. 

In Narragansett Bay, in my home 

State of Rhode Island, average water 

temperatures have increased by 4 degrees. This amounts to an ecosystem 

shift. In fact, the bay, once dominated 

by bottom-dwelling fish, such as winter 

flounder, is now more populated by 

open-water species, such as squid and 

butterfish. 

Let’s look at winter flounder a little 

bit more closely. In the 1960s, the biomass of winter flounder in Narragansett Bay was as high as 4,500 metric 

tons. By 2011, it was down to just about 

900. This is the total estimated biomass 

on the blue line. The red line is the 

landmass. That is what the fishermen 

were able to catch and bring in. As my 

colleagues can see, it went from 1,000 

metric tons up to 2,000 metric tons and 

then, over time, it sagged and returned 

to 2,000 metric tons, and now it is left 

to virtually zero. This was a very productive fishery for Rhode Island fishermen and it is now virtually gone. 

Past overfishing had a role to play, 

but so too has the dramatic temperature change and the stock’s ability to 

recover is made all the more difficult 

by ongoing temperature change as well 

as acidification. 

The changes facing our oceans do not 

stop at higher temperatures and greater acidity. I wish they did. But as average global temperatures rise, water expands. Water expands as it gets warmer, and new fresh water pours out of 

the snowpack and ice sheets of Antarctica and Greenland. Long-term data 

from tide gauges in our traditional 

sailing port of Newport, RI, show an increase in average sea level of nearly 10 

inches since 1930. At these tide gauges, 

measurements show that the rate of 

sea-level rise has increased in the past 

two decades compared to the rate over 

the last century. The increase is not 

just happening, it is speeding up. This 

is consistent with reports that since 

1990, sea level has been rising faster 

than the rate predicted by scientific 

models used to generate the IPCC estimates. 

Global predictions for sea-level rise 

range from 20 to 39 inches by the year 

2100, with recent studies showing that 

the numbers could be even higher than 

that due to greater than expected melting of glaciers and ice sheets. 

Our Rhode Island Coastal Resources 

Management Council has used these 

predictions to estimate that by 2100, 

the sea level in Rhode Island could rise 

approximately 2 to 5 feet. For our 

coastal ocean State, that is a dramatic 

threat. 

Sea-level rise and the increase in 

storm surges that will accompany it 

threaten at-risk coastal areas, whose 

roads, powerplants, wastewater treatment plants, and public facilities may 

need to be reinforced or relocated. 

The natural environment there—estuaries, marshes, and barrier islands— 

has a role. They act as natural filtration systems and they act as buffers 

against storms, and they are being inundated by rising seas. In Rhode Island, local erosion rates doubled from 

1990 on to 2006. Some of the freshwater 

wetlands near our coast are already 

transforming themselves into salt 

marsh as a result of this inundation. 

Our Coastal Resources Management 

Council has documented places such as 

a beach in South Kingstown, where 160 

feet of shoreline has been lost to erosion since 1951 at a rate of 3 feet per 

year. 

In the small but vibrant coastal community of Matunuck, beaches have 

eroded 20 feet over the past 12 years. 

The town faces difficult decisions as 

the only road connecting the community and its restaurants and businesses 


tjames on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
September 20, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6497 

is protected by less than a dozen feet of 

sand. The road provides access for 

emergency vehicles and it lies on top of 

the water main. These are not easy 

concerns for communities with limited 

resources and lives and livelihoods at 

risk. 

Geo-engineering solutions have been 

theorized to keep the temperature of 

the planet in check as a result of global 

climate change by blocking in various 

ways the heat of the Sun. These notions may seem somewhat farfetched, 

but even given that, they will not stop 

the chemical process of acidification of 

our oceans. Only curbing global carbon 

dioxide emissions can do that. 

Sadly, our government in Washington these days responds more to 

dollars than to truth, and the dirty energy dollars are on the march this campaign season. Over the weekend, the 

New York Times analyzed 138 energyrelated campaign ads aired on television. It estimated that over $153 million has been spent this year to promote coal, argue for more oil and gas 

drilling, and to attack clean energy. 

With nearly 7 weeks to go before this 

Presidential election, 2012 ads promoting fossil fuels are nearly 150 percent higher than 4 years ago, and that 

is with 7 weeks to go, the peak buying 

season. 

Other disturbing details emerged 

from the New York Times article. Governor Romney, his PAC, and the RNC 

have received at least $13 million in 

campaign contributions from fossil fuel 

industry executives or related groups. 

Governor Romney has accepted $3 million in contributions from Oxbow, a 

coal company controlled by William 

Koch, a brother of David Koch. 

Nature could not be giving us clearer 

warnings. Whatever higher power gave 

us our advanced human capacity for 

perception, calculation, analysis, deduction, and foresight has laid out before us more than enough information 

to make the right decisions. These 

God-given human capacities provide us 

everything we need to act responsibly 

if only we will. 

But the polluting special interests 

appear to rule here. The party of Theodore Roosevelt, the great conservationist; the party of President Nixon, 

who founded the EPA; the party of 

John Chafee of Rhode Island, who was 

instrumental in the passage of the 

Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act; 

and the party of Russell Train who, as 

I mentioned earlier, died this week at 

the age of 92 after a distinguished career in environmental protection in the 

Republican Party—that party has now 

become the servant and handmaiden— 

perhaps ‘‘paid consort’’ would be a better way to say it given the money involved—of polluting special interests. 

All of this money can alter how Congress behaves, and all of this money 

can influence the laws we pass, but the 

laws of nature are not subject to repeal 

no matter how much special interest 

money flows into campaign coffers. 

The laws of chemistry don’t care about 

the filibuster. The laws of physics don’t 

care how Senators vote. Nature will 

work its will and one day there will be 

an accounting. 

Madam President, I yield the floor, 

and I note the absence of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. 

MCCASKILL). The clerk will call the 

roll. 

The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. 

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 

order for the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

f 

THE 47 PERCENT 

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, this week the leader of the Republican Party—their candidate for 

President—was seen in a video speaking at a fundraising meeting with 

wealthy campaign donors in Florida. In 

the privacy of the event, Mitt Romney 

spilled to the donors there what he 

really thinks about nearly half of the 

American people. That is almost 150 

million people. He disparagingly said 47 

percent of Americans support President Obama simply because they do 

not owe Federal income taxes or they 

are getting benefits from a government 

program. 

Just to make sure there is no misquote here, this is Mitt Romney’s 

statement. He said: 

There are 47 percent who are with him— 

‘‘Him’’ being President Obama 

who are dependent on government, who believe that they are victims. . . . my job— 

Mitt Romney says— 

is not to worry about those people. I’ll never 

convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives. 

This is coming from the leader of the 

Republican Party, a man who is running to represent every American—all 

310 million—from the Nation’s highest 

office. These comments are disturbing 

coming from anybody, but coming from 

him they are a disgrace. In plain 

English, he says that if you do not pay 

Federal income tax or you receive a 

government benefit, then you do not 

take responsibility personally for your 

life. 

So who are these 47 percent for whom 

Mitt Romney and his Republican 

friends feel such contempt? They are 

parents who work hard every day to 

give their families a better future. 

They are seniors who helped build this 

country and now depend on Social Security to keep food on the table. They 

are veterans who risked their lives in 

Iraq or Afghanistan. As it says on this 

chart, ‘‘Who Mitt Romney Says 

Doesn’t ‘Take Personal Responsibility 

And Care For Their Lives.’’’ Working 

families with children, senior citizens, 

veterans. Mitt Romney seems to think 

they are a bunch of lazies just taking 

money from the wealthy. So today I 

want to take a closer look at some of 

these Americans who Mitt Romney 

says do not take personal responsibility and care for their lives. 

Let’s first look at working families. 

He says: 

I’ll never convince them that they should 

take personal responsibility and care for 

their lives. 

What kind of contemptuous statement is that? We are talking about 

nearly 150 million people. 

Millions of parents across the country work long hours, struggling to put 

food on the table and clothes on their 

children’s back. A family of four making as much as $46,000 a year often will 

not owe any Federal income taxes. So 

these families would be part of the 47 

percent of Americans whom Mitt Romney accuses of being lazy and irresponsible. These families deserve our support, not our scorn. They did not ask 

anybody for a handout, and they certainly do not deserve Romney’s condemnation. 

Let’s now look at another group of 

Americans who by Mitt Romney’s definition are victims who do not take responsibility for their lives: senior citizens. 

More than half of those who do not 

pay Federal income or payroll taxes 

are senior citizens on fixed incomes. He 

says, ‘‘I will never convince them that 

they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.’’ People 

showing some age, they ought to take 

personal responsibility for their lives. 

Romney seems to think that because 

these seniors depend on Social Security 

they are not willing to take personal 

responsibility for their lives. Mitt 

Romney has no business lecturing 

these people, these Americans about 

personal responsibility. 

These seniors worked, paid taxes 

their whole lives, fought to defend our 

Nation’s freedom, and built the greatest middle class the world has ever 

known. It is Mitt Romney who needs a 

lesson from them about personal responsibility. 

Let’s look at another group of Americans that Romney has dismissed, 

troops and veterans. When we send our 

troops into harm’s way, their combat 

pay is not taxed. When veterans come 

back injured, physically and emotionally, we don’t ask them to pay taxes on 

their disability benefits. Should they 

pay taxes on these benefits in order to 

be honorable in Mitt Romney’s eyes? 

I believe they have already given 

their country more than their share. If 

you look at this picture, it tells you so 

much. In that hug a returning veteran 

gets, glad to see his family, they are 

glad to see him standing straight, able 

to communicate. Romney says, ‘‘I can 

never convince them that they should 

take personal responsibility and care 

for their lives.’’ Imagine that, for him 

to make statements such as that to include veterans. We give our veterans 

government benefits that they earn 

through their service. They get education benefits tax free under a new GI 

bill. Many receive health care from the 

VA and some get housing assistance. 


tjames on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with SENATE