2011 has imposed caps on defense spending. and despite periodic relief from those caps, including the bipartisan budget act passed last year, every one of our military services -- the a.m., the navy -- the army, the navy, the air force, and, yes, the manner kor -- remains undersized, unready, and underfunded to meet current and fiewmp threats. unfortunately, the president's defense budget request for the coming year does little to nothing to address this problem. instead it continues down the dangerous path of budgeting based not on what our military needs, but on what arbitrary defense spending constraints allow. in order to strictly adhere to the defense spending floor in last year's bipartisan budget act, the department of defense cut $17 billion from what it
said it needed last year. does anybody believe that the situation in the world has improved to the point where you can reduce by $17 billion from what we paid last year, what we spent last year? that's billions of dollars of cuts for things our military needs right now. army helicopters, air force fighters, navy ships, marine corps fighting vehicles and critical training and maintenance across the services. former chairman of the joint chief of staffs, general martin dempsey, described last year's defense budget as -- quote -- "the lower ragged edge of manageable risk in our ability to execute the defense strategy. one year later the president of the united states has sent us a budget request that is less in real dollars than last year and $17 billion less than what our
military needed and planned for. the military services unfunded requirements total near $23 billion for the coming fiscal year alone. meanwhile, sequestration threatens to return in 2018, taking away another $100 billion from our military through 2021. i don't know what lies beneath the lower ragged edge of manageable risk, but this is what i fear it means. that our military is becoming less and less able to deter conflict and that if, god forbid, deterrence does fail somewhere and we end up in conflict, our nation will deploy young americans into battle without sufficient training or equipment to fight a war that will take longer, be larger,
cost more and ultimately claim more american lives than it otherwise would have. and if that comes to pass, who will be responsible, who is responsible for the military's readiness crisis? who is to blame for the increasing risk to the lives of the men and women who volunteer to serve and defend our nation? the answer is clear. we are. we are. the white house, the congress, democrats and republicans, every politician that designed, agreed to, or went along with the budget control act and the mindless mechanism of sequestration. and every politician that in the past five years has failed to realize our mistake or perhaps having realized it, failed to do anything and everything possible to fix it. what's worse is the two-faced
hypocrisy of it all. democrats who say they favor more funding for our military but only if they get dollar for dollar increases for their pet domestic programs first. republicans who say they favor a strong defense, but when it comes time to do the hard work of funding it are nowhere to be found. for five years we've been playing politics with funding our military service with funding that our military service members need and deserve. for five years we've been playing a rigged game where the politicians win and our military loses. this must all end before it's too late. we cannot continue to avert our eyes and ignore the grave impact budget cuts are having on our military. the warning signs are clear. marine aircraft that can't fly.
pilots that can't train and young marines trying to hold it all together by stealing parts from one aging airplane to give to another. the potential consequences are clear that our nation could soon find itself in a position where it must either abandon an important national interest or send young americans into a conflict which they are not prepared. this is the reality our soldiers, sailor, airmen and marines are facing. and it is our urging and solemn task to confront it. this congress can begin to chart a better course, one that is worthy of the service and sacrifice of those who volunteer to put themselves in harm's way on our behalf. i am committed to doing everything i can as chairman of the armed services committee to accomplishing this task, and i will work with any of my
colleagues to find a solution. despite the odds, i'm ever hopeful that we can live up to our highest constitutional duty and moral responsibility to provide for the common defense. mr. president, i yield the floor. may i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee.
alexander -- mr. alexander: i want to thank dashes. the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. alexander: i ask unanimous consent to vitiate the quorum. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. alexander: i want to thank the senator from arizona for his comments. one of the advantages of having a full appropriations process is it puts the spotlight on -- i'm having a chart coming out here. it puts a spotlight on the money we spend here. and i'm asking to put this so that the senator from arizona can see it. we'll be debating 12, 12 appropriations bills hopefully in the next few weeks. this is the first one today. it's $37.5 billion. a little more than half of it is defense spending. our weapons, our plutonium enrichment, necessary things for our country. but all of the, all of the spending that we're talking about in these 12 bills adds up
to $1 trillion. the federal spending for this year is $4 trillion. the money that senator mccain, the distinguished senator from arizona, was talking about is our defense money. it's down here on this blue line. it's in the trillion dollars. it's nearly half of that. so what is happening is we look toward the future -- as we look back since 2008, this blue line has stayed level. over the next ten years is projected to stay, to stay -- to rise at about the level of the rate of inflation. at the same time this line, which is the $3 trillion line, which is mandatory spending,
entitlements, all that is going up like that, the end result will be after about ten years that this will go from about 32% of our total spending to about 22%. now what is that going to do to our defense spending? what's that going to do to our defense spending? we have strong speeches made over here sometimes, but let's get spending under control. but on both sides of the aisle, there's not a lot of courage shown when it comes to this red line because this is medicare, medicaid, social security, entitlements and other benefits, and it is squeezing out not only our national defense but our cancer research, the other things that we need to do as a country. so, mr. president, i think it's important that over these next few weeks that we use this as an occasion on both sides of the aisle to recognize what we're doing with money here. no one can say this is part of
the budget problem. in fact, we just turned an eloquent speech -- heard an eloquent speech from the senator from arizona who said we've not spent enough to defend ourselves in an unsafe world. nobody's doing anything about this. mr. mccain: would the gentleman yield for a question? would you yield for a question? mr. alexander: of course. mr. mccain: is the interest on the national debt included in that red line? mr. alexander: the answer to the senator from arizona is no, it's not. and in fact, if it were, this line would be higher. so it's this line plus the interest on it. mr. mccain: obviously it makes it much more compelling, and that obviously would be moved one way or the other. obviously it's going to go up. but if we return to inflation, would dramatically increase that red line. mr. alexander: yes, i would. mr. mccain: i thank the senator. mr. alexander: i thank the senator from arizona. and i have heard that there might be an effort to commit our
bill back to the committee in order to reduce spending to a lower level. well, if we do that, someone needs to say which division needs to lose troops, which country do we not want to defend, which airplane do we not want to fly, which pilot do we not want to train? we're talking about real decisions here, and we're talking about not setting priorities. i don't think most of the american people know that when we talk about the federal debt, it's not national defense that's driving up the federal debt. it's in the blue line. it's our unwillingness on both sides of the aisle to confront this. just one statistic that i was reminded of by my colleague, the senator from tennessee, an american family today, i think an average age couple, 50 years of age, would pay about $140,000 into medicare. they'll get back about $430,000
in medicare. we can sthaupbd how people who pay -- we can understand how people who pay into medicare would want to get their medicare back, but we can also understand, i think, how that's not a sustainable program. and i think all of us as americans can see that. so one of the things i hope we do over the next several weeks is talk honestly about that problem. we're not solving that problem in this debate. we're talking about this $1 trillion. what are we going to do about the other $3 trillion that adds to our $19 trillion debt? i thank the president and yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:
quorum call: mrs. ernst: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mrs. ernst: i would ask for unanimous consent that we dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. ernst: mr. president, my amendment is pretty straightforward. it eliminates duplicative and wasteful spending. it eliminates $200 million from the appalachian regional commission, the delta regional authority, the denali commission, and the northern border regional commission. these entities have a mission to provide strategic investments for economic development,
broadband deployment, infrastructure improvements, housing -- you name it there's funding for it. laudable that there's already several federal, state, and local promises that fund these -- programs that fund these types of projects. what's yet, a quick look at some of the grants awarded from these entities shows questionable choices. should $100,000 be awarded to lake placid ski club to build ski jumps? should $125,000 be awarded for a chinese medicine herb grower's consortium. should $250,000 be awarded to a tribe in maine to build a maple processing facility? after it was awarded about $100,000 from usda to launch
maple syrup ventures. this through the federal government. i don't believe. so -- i don't believe so. i ask you to support my amendment and stop such duplicative and wasteful spending. thank you, mr. president. and i would note -- i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:
mr. cardin: i would ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cardin: mr. president, i i understand that it's likely that we shortly will be considering the ernst amendment that would eliminate funding for the appalachia regional commission, the delta regional authority,
denali authority and the northern border regional commission. i want to talk about the appalachia regional commission. i know a little bit about this. the western part of my state known as mountain maryland, it is a beautiful part of maryland, i visit there frequently. there is not a lot of people, and it's slairn hearty life. -- and it's certainly a hearty life. it is not easy to attract business to the western rural part of maryland. these people work hard and they are preserving a way of life and an economy that is critically important to the state of maryland. the appalachia regional commission is absolutely essential for the economic growth of western maryland. the appalachia region is a region of a proud history, and we've given them a future, and the ernst amendment would take away one of the most important tools towards their future. let me just mention a few things about the appalachia regional commission and the projects that they fund on an annual basis. funding is critically important
-- critically important to have access to -- be bi glad to yiel. mr. alexander: i thank the senator for a unanimous consent request. i ask unanimous consent on behalf of senator feinstein and myself that the following amendments be called up and reported by number: 3802 schatzs, 3803 ernst. further, at 4:55 p.m., april, april 20, today, the senate vote in relation to the amendments in the order listed and in a second-degreeempts a be in order, either of the amendments prior to the votes and there be two minutes prior to each vote. the presiding officer: without objection? without objection. the clerk will report the amendments by number. the clerk: mr. alexander proposes amendments numbered 2803 and -- 3803 and 3802.
mr. alexander: mr. president, i thank the senator from maryland for allowing me to interrupt his comments. mr. cardin: mr. president, i'm glad to see that we have the ability to vote on a couple of amendments. i'm glad i was able to accommodate through yielding the floor. if i might, mr. president, let me just continue. now that the ernst amendment is going to be voted on in a few moments, i would urge my colleagues to reject that amendment. the appalachian regional commission approves funding for more than 400 projects annually throughout this 13 state region. in the western part of our state, in order for them to to e a viable economy and viable future they need help on economic opportunities. they need help in improving health care. the appalachian regional commission helped the communities of western maryland improving health care. the a.r.c. funding was used for the garrett county hospital telehealth initiative to enhance
community health care by happenstance, the c.e.o. of garrett county hospital was in my office yesterday. that's a hospital located in oakland maryland. for those not familiar it's on the border with west virginia, not too far from pennsylvania and the western part of the maryland. the people who use the hospital come from west virginia, they come from maryland and it provides a hospital service in a rural area that otherwise would not be there. but for the type of health -- help they get through the appalachian regional commission it is difficult how they could perform the health care essential for the appalachian regional. the regional commission was used to, for the phase 3 of the last mile wireless broadband network so that they can have high-speed broadband access in the western part of maryland. i know the presiding officer and i know all of my colleagues, if
you don't have broadband it's difficult to see how you can attract industry. and the appalachian regional commission has been critically important to make sure we effectively can provide p high speed access to the western part of our state. the a.r.c. grants have been used to access the impacts of energy production and consumption in our economy and the environment. our funding was used by the garrett county shale impact study which assess the impact of hydraulic fracturing. it's been essential for the development in the appalachia region. it has worked and is continuing to work. i would urge my colleagues to make sure this tool continues for the benefit of the people in the appalachia region, a commitment that we made. lastly, mr. president, let me just remind my colleagues what my friends tell me who are very actively engaged in the appalachia regional commission in all of the 13 states.
since 1978 this program, for every dollar that's been invested by the appalachia regional commission has leveraged an average of $6.40 from the private sector. it leverages private-sector investment in the appalachia region which is critically important to the economic growth of the appalachia region. otherwise, mr. president, this is a tough area. and if we were committed to economic growth in this country, i would urge my colleagues to reject the ernst amendment. the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. feinstein: mr. president, i rise to support the comments of the distinguished senator from the state of maryland. i must say when i first came to the senate, i looked at these perhaps with not as full an understanding of them as i have now. but i think the committee supports it, the bill supports it, the appropriations committee supports it. so i certainly agree with you and support you.
thank you very much, mr. chairman. the presiding officer: the senator from mississippi. a senator: i rise to speak on the amendments for three minutes if i might. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. wicker: mr. president, i appreciate that. first of all, i don't think the senate is going to pass the ernst amendment because we authorized, reauthorized this important a.r.c. program just last year on a bipartisan basis in both the house and senate. but i want to make this point that this is discretionary spending that's largely under control. this is discretionary spending since 2008 to, projected out to 2026. as you can see, it hardly keeps up with inflation. now we've got a spending problem in this country, but it's mandatory programs. the red line. not this discretionary line from which comes the appalachian regional commission. i want to make that point. this amendment is targeted at the wrong type of spending. now what do we get out of
a.r.c.? my friend from maryland is exactly right. we leverage private dollars for investments to create jobs, and we build infrastructure that creates jobs and supports jobs. we have revolving loan programs that have created 50,000 jobs since 1977 and retained 51,000 jobs. so let's attack spending. let's get together and talk about bowls-simpson and do what we need to do about the problem that's given us this $19 trillion debt. but for heaven's sake we've got a program that was reauthorized almost unanimously last year that helps people get a job and persuades private industry to contribute to that effort at a 6-1 or 7-1 ratio. we want to keep that type of investment to create jobs for our families, and so i will be voting against the ernst
amendment and urge my colleagues to do so. thank you, and i yield back. the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii. mr. schatz: thank you. i'd like to call up amendment. the presiding officer: the amendment is pending. mr. schatz: i want to thank the chair and vice chair, and especially their staff who were instrumental in finding offsets to increase funding for a great, successful bipartisan program, arpa-e which funds research at the cutting edge. this amendment takes unspent money from prior years appropriations for expired programs. c.b.o. has confirmed this amendment does not score. this amendment does not score. this amendment uses unspent balances to increase funding for arpa-e. i want to thank the chair and
vice chair for helping us find resources for this program and cosponsoring this amendment. i ask all of my colleagues for their support. the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: mr. president, i congratulate senator schatz. i support and cosponsor the schatz amendment. he has identified a priority that senator feinstein and i already made as a priority. it's one of the two parts of the department of energy that got any increase in the non-defense area, office the science and this. he worked with us in committee, worked with us on the floor. he found an offset so it is paid for, so we're reducing other spending to increase this spending. this is called setting priorities and discretionary spending which is under control. it's not the part of the budget that creates the federal debt. we should do more of this energy research, but we should do it by reducing other spending. i would suggest reducing subsidies to wind power, oil and gas would be a good way to start. so i ask for a "yes" vote for
the schatz amendment. the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. feinstein: mr. president, i heard what our chairman said. i thoroughly support him. i commend the senator from hawaii for seeing this and proposing this amendment. we recommend it do pass. mr. alexander: we yield back all time here. the presiding officer: without objection, all time is yielded back. the question occurs on amendment 3802. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:
the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, the ayes are 70, the nays are 26. the amendment is agreed to. a senator: mr. president? mr. alexander: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: mr. president, if i could have the attention the senate, i'd like to make an aons noment on behalf of senator feinstein and myself about -- the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the senate will come tomplet to. mr. alexander: this is important -- mr. leahy: could we have order, mr. president. mr. alexander: thank you, mr. president. senator feinstein and i wish to thank all the senators on both sides, senator mcconnell, senator reid for creating an environment in which we could get so much done. we have more than 80 senators
who have policy that is already a part of this bill. that's happened over the last few weeks. but several amendments have been adopted and accepted. we're voting on two this afternoon. tomorrow we expect to have two votes in the morning, one vote after lunchment now, we hav lun. we have a request of senators. we would like to get an agreement to have all of our amendments in by 1:00 tomorrow. and if we can do that, we can finish the bill early next week. so if you can ask your staff and the legislative counsel to do that we'd like to really do that by consensus as much as possible. that's the old-fashioned way of doing a bill. we'd like to set a good example for the other 11 bills that are coming. so that's the schedule as we look forward. senator ernst has the remaining amendment, and there will be no further votes after her vote. the presiding officer: there will now be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment
number 3803 offered by otosnrr eye -- by the senator from iowa, mrs. ernst. mrs. ernst: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mrs. ernst: yes, mr. president, my amendment is straightforward, and i am asking for support on amendment 3083 -- i'm ask consent to call up amendment 3083. the presiding officer: the amendment spending. -- is pending. the amendment is pending. mrs. ernst: okay. thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: one minute to debate the amendment. mrs. ernst: okay. thank you, mr. president. the amendment is pretty straightforward. what we're doing is eliminating duplicative programs. many programs exist out there already which will provide for housing needs, for infrastructure needs, many other needs -- the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. the senate will be in order. please take your conversations out of the well.
the senate will be in order. mrs. ernst: what we are doing is stating that we shouldn't be providing separate funds for very specific regions and duplicating processes that are found in the federal government. just a few examples of those: $100,000 awarded to lake placid ski club to build ski jumps. $125,000 awarded for chinese medicine herb growers consortium. and $250,000 awarded to a tribe in maine to build a maple processing facility, after it received $100,000 from the usda to launch maple syrup ventures. i don't believe this is activity that the federal government should be engaged in. again, duplicative programs. there are many other programs available out there. so i'm asking for support in this amendment. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont.
mr. leahy: mr. president, i would certainly oppose this regional commission's. joint, state economic development effort. it includes some of the most economically dis-stressed counties of vermont, maine, northern new york. these people have faced tough economic circumstances for decade. these have helped. more importantly, every federal dollar invested leverages on average $2.6 in matching federal -- in matching funds in return. new jobs are created. thousands of jobs are retained. that's really how we should be investing our federal dollars. investing in other countries around the world. we ought to be investing in our own country and support programs like the northern border regional commission, not eliminate them. i hope senators will oppose this amendment. mr. alexander: as the manager of the bill, i was asking to take that time.
i ask consent for two minutes and to give senator ernst two more minutes to make her point. the presiding officer: sl snooks without objection. mr. alexander: thank you, mr. president. the issue is spending and this is an opportunity as we consider these 12 bills to consider where the spending prab is. this is discretionary spending. it includes defense. it includes cancer research. it includes roads. it includes locks and dams and it includes the appalachian regional commission, the denali commission and other commissions that would be defunded by this amendment. this is not our spending problem. that's $1 trillion we're spending through these 12 bills. we're spending $3 billio -- $3 n more through mandatory spend and interest on top of that. we have not been rebrave on the republican side of the aisle or the democratic side of the aisle on the real spending problems.
we've done pretty well on this. i have said to some of my colleagues that maybe the senate should turn over to the appropriations committee the real spending problem and see if we can make the red spending line like the blue spending line because that's where we've done. so we've set a priority for projects like sewer improvement in alabama and planning and development in mississippi, automotive workforce in georgia, rural in kentucky. it is all spending that's under control. this is not under control. we can't fix that. these 12 weeks. but i hope we pay attention to this difference and sooner or later have the courage to deal with it. i urge a "no" vote on this amendment. mrs. ernst: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator iowa. mrs. ernst: yes, again, this is $200 million, and i would beg to differ that this is not a lot of spending. $200 million is a lot of money for folks back in iowa. now, iowa does not have one of these funds. many other states don't have
these same types of funds. this is just an additional way for certain regions to tap into federal dollars. and so there are many programs, as i stated earlier. i have a heard folks say, it is about jocks. we have workforce investment programs that everyone across the nation can dive into to provide opportunity for everyone. everyone needs opportunity. so everyone should be able to tap into these federal dollars. $200 million is a lot of federal spending. thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: question is on amendment. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:
lex further, that at 11:45 a.m. on thursday, april 21st the senate vote on that amendment and that it be subject to a 60 affirmative vote threshold for adoption. further that no second-degree amendments be in order prior to the vote. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection so ordered. the clerk will report the number by -- amendment by number. the clerk: the senator from tennessee mr. alexander for mr. hoeven proposes amendment number 3811 to amendment number 3801. mr. alexander: mr. president, i thank the senators for their cooperation today. as i indicated earlier, senator feinstein and i have been in touch with every senate office over the last few weeks asking for advice, policy and amendments. senators have been terrific in getting that to us. for example, senator schatz
amendment, we worked with him in committee. it came to the floor. that's typical of what has happened. i would judge senators have contributed policy to this bill and there are really not many more amendments that will be offered. but we'll have this one amendment at least tomorrow morning at 11:45. then the last vote will be at about 2:00 p.m. tomorrow after lunch. there may be other votes before that. and i would ask as i said earlier that senators and their staffs get any other amendments that we don't know about to us by 1:00 tomorrow. then perhaps we can come to an agreement about how to proceed from there to the end of the bill, maybe even without the necessity of cloture. i thank the president and i yield the floor.
a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. a senator: mr. president, i wanted to reassure the house and thank the chairman alexander for making sure that this legislation has 285 -- $285 million in it for advanced computing. it also includes the kirk language to ensure the united states remains the home to the number one fastest computer in the world. mr. kirk: but today china has the fastest computer in the world. it's clocked in at 33.8pedoflops per second. computers in the u.s. national labs should soon topple china. it is a priority issue i share with chairman alexander. the titan computer which is in oak ridge, tennessee, is ranked as number two in the world and the national laboratory in illinois, we are working on a computer to be upgraded which
will soon be number one in the world. it will clock in at 180petaflops per second. that's 18 times faster than the current computer called mirror and three times faster than china's top computer today. and with that supercomputing is essential for american competitiveness in the future. i think it's essential that we pass this legislation to make sure we're always number one in supercomputer. with that i would yield back the balance of my time. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: i would thank the senator from illinois for his advocacy of keeping america or number one in the world of supercomputers. he has a special knowledge of that because of his knowledge of argon national laboratory in illinois. i know of it because of the national laboratory in tennessee. the obama administration has consistently funded
supercomputing and we have consistently supported that recommendation of funding. we've been able to do that for the last four, five years. senator feinstein and i. there's been no more vigorous advocate to keep our country or to cause our country to be number one in supercomputing and senator kirk of illinois -- than senator kirk of illinois. i thank him for his leadership and contribution to the bill. i ask unanimous consent that the senate be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each. the presiding officer: objection. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. a senator: i ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 20 minutes as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: thank you, mr. president. i'm here for the 134th time to
urge the senate to wake up to the growing threat of global climate change. i'm afraid my chart here is getting a little bit beat up after all of these speeches. mr. whitehouse: and i hope we can begin to make progress, but we continue here in this body to be besieged by persistent and meretricious denial. of course the polluters want us to do nothing. they are so happy to offload to everybody else the costs of the harms from fossil fuels. the cost of heat waves, the cost of sea level rise, the cost of ocean acidification, the cost of dying forests and the rest of it. they are running a very profitable we keep the profits, you bear the costs racket. and they spend rivers of money on lobbying and on politics and on a complex p.r. machine that
fills the airwaves with sound bites of cooked up, paid for doubt about climate change. i believe the worst of them actually know better but they do it anyway. in this turbulence, "the wall street journal's" editorial page regularly sides with the right wing climate denial operation. so naturally they have challenged my call for an appropriate inquiry into whether the fossil fuel industry's decades long and purposeful campaign of misinformation has run afoul of federal, civil racketeering laws. now, it is very hard for them to argue that the fossil fuel industry should be exempt from fraud laws. it is very hard for them to argue that the tobacco lawsuit years ago was ill founded --
il-founded although certainly they tried right up until the government won the case. so they turn instead to invention. "the wall street journal" repeatedly and falsely has accused me of seeking to punish anyone who rejects the scientific evidence of climate change. that is of course a crock. i never said anything close to that, but that doesn't stop them. in fact, this line of counterattack fits the journa journalist's play book for defending polluting industries. the journal ed page has a record on acid rain, on the ozone layer and now on climate change. and there is a pattern. they denied a science. they questioned the motives of those who call for change. and they exaggerate the costs of taking action. at all costs they protect the polluting industry. when the journal is wrong as they have repeatedly been proven
to be, they keep at it over and over. in the 1970's, scientists first warned that color row floor row carbons could erode the strategy fear and that would increase human exposure to cancer causing ultraviolet rays. the "wall street journal" editorial page fought back attacking any regulation of c.f.c.'s. in at least two editorials "the wall street journal" proclaimed that the connection between c.f.c.'s and depletion is "only a theory and will remain until further efforts are made to at validity" suggested the ozone layer -- quote -- "may even be increasing" insinuated and i quote, "it is simply not