[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 36 (Wednesday, February 27, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1514-S1519]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Climate Change
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, it was 1986, a third of a century ago.
Six U.S. Senators wrote a letter to the Office of Technology
Assessment, the office then charged with providing technical and
scientific advice to Congress.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that their letter be printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
United States Senate,
Committee on Environment
and Public Works,
Washington DC, December 23, 1986.
Dr. John Gibbons,
Executive Director, U.S. Congress, Office of Technology
Assessment, Washington, DC.
Dear Dr. Gibbons: The Senate Environment and Public Works
Committee has held three days of hearings this year on the
massive and, to some degree irrevocable, alterations in the
stratosphere commonly referred to as the ``greenhouse
affect'', as well as ozone depletion.
The testimony convincingly portrayed a fundamentally
altered planet, with shifts in ocean circulation and climate
zones; altered precipitation and storm patterns; more
frequent and extreme weather events such as droughts,
monsoons, and lowland floods. Individually and collectively,
these changes bring about others, ranging from disruption of
forest, crop, and ocean productivity to shifts in
populations. Witnesses before the Committee testified that
the Earth is now committed to a substantial greenhouse
warming, projected to be about 2 degrees Centigrade, as well
as an ozone layer depletion.
We are deeply troubled by the prospect of such a rapid and
unprecedented change in the composition of the atmosphere and
its implications for the human and natural worlds. It may be
necessary to act soon to at least slow these trends or,
perhaps, halt them altogether.
We therefore request that the Office of Technology
Assessment undertake a study for the Committee on Environment
and Public Works of policy options that, if enacted, could
lead to the stabilization and minimization of greenhouse
gases in the atmosphere. These gases include carbon dioxide,
methane, nitrous oxide, tropospheric ozone and
chlorofluorocarbons. This is a large and difficult task but
fundamental and perhaps permanent alteration of the
stratosphere has profound implications for the future of the
world as we know it.
The Office of Technology Assessment has proven itself
capable of policy analysis on difficult and complex issues.
Despite this, OTA may find it difficult to immediately
provide a set of options which both complete and detailed.
However, the Congress must soon begin to weigh the
alternatives facing the United States and other nations. For
this purpose, we hope that you can provide information on
omissions as well as other considerations relevant to those
decisions.
Due to the likelihood that legislation will be seriously
considered by the Committee early in the next Congress, it
would be most helpful if this analysis could be undertaken
without delay. If we or our staffs can be of assistance to
you or your staff, please do not hesitate to call upon us.
Sincerely,
Robert T. Stafford,
U.S. Senate,
John H. Chafee,
U.S. Senate,
Dave Durenberger,
U.S. Senate,
Quentin N. Burdick,
U.S. Senate,
George J. Mitchell,
U.S. Senate,
Max Baucus,
U.S. Senate.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. These six U.S. Senators were troubled by testimony
they had heard about climate change in three separate hearings of the
Senate's Environment and Public Works Committee. They wrote:
The testimony convincingly portrayed a fundamentally
altered planet, with shifts in ocean circulation and climate
zones; altered precipitation and storm patterns; more
frequent and extreme weather events such as droughts,
monsoons, and lowland floods. Individually and collectively,
these changes bring about others, ranging from disruption of
forest, crop, and ocean productivity to shifts in
populations. Witnesses before the Committee testified that
the Earth is now committed to a substantial greenhouse
warming, projected to be about 2 degrees Centigrade, as well
as an ozone layer depletion.
Well, that was quite a prediction. Who were these six Senators?
Quentin
[[Page S1515]]
Burdick, Democrat from North Dakota; Max Baucus, Democrat from Montana;
George Mitchell, Democrat from Maine; Robert Stafford, Republican from
Vermont, the chairman then of the committee; Dave Durenberger,
Republican of Minnesota; and Rhode Island's Republican Senator, John
Chafee.
You cannot help but be struck that the prediction back then by these
six Senators is now our reality. Everything they predicted is
happening. The scientists they listened to had it right. Global
temperatures have already risen by around 1 degree Celsius, and we are
headed to over 2 degrees Celsius of global warming by the end of the
century.
Their grim predictions, which we now live with as fact, motivated
these six Senators to ask the Office of Technology Assessment for
policy options that ``could lead to the stabilization and minimization
of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.''
Why did they want these policy options? They wanted to learn about
policy options because, as they continued in their letter:
Congress must soon begin to weigh the alternatives facing
the United States and other nations. . . . Due to the
likelihood that legislation will be considered by the
Committee early in the next Congress, it would be most
helpful if this analysis could be undertaken without delay.
``Without delay.'' Since then, Republicans have demolished the Office
of Technology Assessment; that office no longer exists. Republicans
have relentlessly blockaded legislation to address carbon emissions and
have trafficked in phony climate denial, all while accepting hundreds
of millions of dollars of political contributions from the fossil fuel
industry.
Today, five of those six States are represented again, having a
reunion on the Senate floor. I see Senator Tester from Montana here. I
will yield to him now. We will also be joined by Patrick Leahy of
Vermont, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, and Angus King of Maine.
I yield to Jon Tester of Montana, taking the position of his
predecessor, Max Baucus--whom, by one of the weird coincidences of the
Senate, I just passed coming out of the trolley.
Senator Tester, the floor is yours.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. TESTER. I thank Senator Whitehouse.
I could not in my wildest dreams be able to replace Senator Baucus in
what he did. But what he did back in 1986, along with a number of other
Senators Senator Whitehouse just talked about, was visionary.
He signed a letter asking Federal researchers to study solutions for
limiting the causes of climate change. This was in 1986, some 33 years
ago. That same year, as I am today, my wife and I were farming in North
Central Montana, a farm that then had been in the family for about 70
years.
During the time before 1986, and since 1986, we have seen a lot of
changes on the farm. That is why it is interesting--because those
changes have increased more than ever, I believe, in the last 20 years.
When this letter was sent off to study solutions in 1986, it was
incredibly visionary because it was before climate change was even
talked about much. Yet this group of Senators was able to see the
negative impacts of this coming down the pike.
By the way, when we talk about negative impacts of climate change--
you probably have this, Senator Whitehouse, but somebody ought to put
together how many hundreds of billions of dollars we have spent on
natural disasters in the last 10 or 12 years compared to how much we
spent in years previous. I can tell you, it was a few years ago that
every State in the Union except one or maybe two had a natural
disaster. That is because our climate is changing. It is because our
climate is getting more erratic. I have seen it on our farm. I have
seen August turn from the driest month to one of the wettest months.
Over the last 20 years, I have seen a reservoir--a reservoir is a
manmade area to hold water for livestock. I have seen a reservoir that
never went dry from the time my father built it in the early 1950s to
going dry for consecutive years. I have seen dangerous floods. I have
seen water where we have never had it before. I have seen drought like
we have never had it before.
I would just say, in regard to that, we just had a vote on a guy by
the name of Wheeler, whom the President nominated to lead the EPA, who
actually is one of these guys who doesn't believe in climate change at
all. I don't know where the President finds these people, and I don't
know how this body can support somebody who is this big of a denier,
who wants to slow enforcement on polluters.
There is one thing we need to keep in mind in this country when we
try to put people like Wheeler up for head of EPA. If you take a look
at the third-world nations in this world, those are the nations that
have destroyed their resource base. If you want to pollute our water
and if you want to pollute our air, that is destroying our resource
base. I guarantee you, that is not a way to make America great. It is
not even a way to keep America great.
This nominee is rolling back the clean water rule. He has allowed
more uses for asbestos in commerce when, in our State of Montana, Libby
can tell you all about asbestos. People are still dying from its
effects.
That aside--the Wheeler nomination, which is a catastrophe in
itself--I could tell you that the Senators who stood on this very floor
33 years ago understood--understood--that we have a challenge in front
of us greater than any other challenge we have faced before, and that
is climate. As we talk about what they did in 1986--we are in 2019
now--now is the time to come up with some workable solutions--workable
for our climate and workable for our economy--to get our arms around
this very serious problem.
I am going to tell you what is at risk here. I love Nevada, but I
don't want Montana turning into an ecosystem like Nevada has. We raise
some of the best wheat and the best cattle and the best post-crops in
the world, but it takes a predictable environment to do that. In some
places in our State, we are on the edge of desertification, turning
into desert.
The issue that revolves around climate change impacts each and every
one of us in this body. Whether we are in denial or not, that is a
fact, and it is incumbent upon us, as Senators who represent great
States all around this Nation, to come up with solutions that our kids
and our grandkids will be proud of.
I yield the floor back to Senator Whitehouse.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I thank Senator Tester.
I will turn to the Rhode Islander who was in that early bipartisan
effort to understand and address climate change. Senator John Chafee's
history of service to his State and country was remarkable. He saw
bloody combat in World War II on Guadalcanal and Okinawa with the 1st
Marine Division. He went back as a Marine rifle company commander
during the Korean war with Dog Company, 2nd Battalion, 7th Marines. He
served in Rhode Island's legislature and as our Governor. In 1969, he
was appointed Secretary of the Navy. He was elected to the U.S. Senate
in 1976 and chaired the Environment and Public Works Committee from
1995 until his death in 1999. In the small Rhode Island world, he was
also my father's college roommate and lifelong friend.
The environment was an abiding passion for this man, and his devotion
showed in his work in the Senate. His legacy includes the Superfund
Program, the Oil Pollution Act, and the 1990 amendments to the Clean
Air Act, and his legacy is his early recognition that climate change,
driven by carbon pollution, caused by fossil fuels, poses an
existential threat to humanity and the planet we call home.
At the 1986 hearing that led to this bipartisan letter, Chafee
declared:
This is not a matter of Chicken Little telling us the sky
is falling. The scientific evidence . . . is telling us we
have a problem; a serious problem.
This is 1986, and the Republican chairman of the Environment and
Public Works Committee is saying that the scientific evidence is
telling us we have a serious problem.
He went on to say:
Scientists have characterized our treatment of the
greenhouse effect as a global experiment. It strikes me as a
form of planetary Russian roulette. . . . By not making
policy choices today, by sticking to a ``wait and see''
approach . . . [b]y allowing these
[[Page S1516]]
gases to continue to build in the atmosphere, this generation
may be committing all of us to severe economic and
environmental disruption without ever having decided that the
value of ``business as usual'' is worth the risks.
Those who believe that these are problems to be dealt with
by future generations are misleading themselves.
Senator John Chafee, 1986.
I yield now to the distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations
Committee and honorary Senator pro tempore, Patrick Leahy, here on
behalf of the State of Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague from
Rhode Island.
I could not help but think--as I saw the picture of John Chafee, with
whom I had the honor of serving here in the Senate--of John Chafee's
close friendship with Robert Stafford, who was my senior Senator when I
came here, both having served in World War II, both with a naval
background, both people who cared first and foremost about the country
and the environment. I am going to speak a little bit further about Bob
Stafford as we go.
When we laid John Chafee to rest in Rhode Island, I remember sitting
there and listening to the eulogies. Both Republicans and Democrats
were speaking about this man.
Also, referring to what the Senator from Rhode Island has said, more
than 30 years ago we had cooperation and bipartisanship. It was a
hallmark of the U.S. Senate. It was a bipartisan group of Senators who
sounded the alarm about climate change. They made a very modest request
to the Office of Technology Assessment. They said: Study the issue of
climate change and make recommendations to avert global disaster.
Those Senators, Republicans and Democrats alike, were concerned that
human activity might directly cause permanent, destructive, and
widespread changes to our planet's climate system--changes that would
put our entire economy, ecosystem, and, our very own existence at risk.
As I said, one of these Senators was my senior Senator, my mentor,
when I came here and one of the finest Senators who ever served--
Republican Robert Stafford, from Vermont.
Today, led by Senator Whitehouse, I think that what many of us are
trying to do is what Senator Chafee and Senator Stafford did. We want
to recall that moment in 1986 and renew the warning those Senators
issued 33 years ago.
Let me speak about Senator Stafford. When I came here at the ripe old
age of 34, I was the only Democrat ever elected in my State. Robert
Stafford was ``Mr. Republican.'' He took me under his wing. He had been
a Congressman. He had been a Governor. He had been an attorney general.
He served in World War II and in Korea. He was a mentor, but he was
also an example. His legacy is one of sensible, pragmatic Vermont
values that he brought to Washington for decades. They weren't
Republican or Democratic.
Senator Stafford was--like most Vermonters--a champion for the
natural environment. With his work on landmark environmental
legislation, like the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and the
Superfund program, Senator Stafford represented the best of Vermont's
commitment to sustainability.
His appeals to reason and for common ground, and his belief in sound
science resonate even more today than when he left this body three
decades ago. If he were here today, I believe he would be calling on
both sides of the aisle to act now to ensure that we can pass on a
secure and livable planet for generations to come and to act before it
is too late.
Today, so many people still refuse to accept what is now an
overwhelming scientific consensus--that climate change is real and that
humans are the dominant cause of it. What is worse, for the last 2
years many in Congress have willfully accelerated the devastation
caused by global warming by enabling the Trump administration's erosion
of our Nation's bedrock environmental protections--protections that I
have fought for throughout my nearly 45 years in the Senate.
As climate scientists warn of the urgent need to reduce emissions and
reverse the global rise in temperatures, many Senators have refused to
preserve even the status quo. Instead, in the last 2 years, we have
seen the rollback of commonsense regulations, often at the behest of
private interests that have spent decades misinforming the public and
suppressing their own science on the long-term hazards of the fossil
fuel industry.
Alarmingly, this week the Senate is poised to confirm someone to lead
the Environmental Protection Agency--the Agency that is charged with
safeguarding the air and water on which we depend--who, despite the
scientific consensus, denies that climate change is the great threat we
face today.
To growing numbers of Americans it is saddening--actually, it is
maddening--and most of all, deeply alarming that the Trump
administration and many others in leadership positions have made
Trumpism's anti-science, know-nothing agenda their default position.
This poses existential threats not only to our children and
grandchildren but to our generation.
More than three decades ago, long before protecting our planet became
a partisan issue, the Environment and Public Works Committee held 3
days of hearings on climate change. Those 1986 hearings compelled a
bipartisan group of Senators to acknowledge and warn the public about a
``fundamentally altered planet'' as a result of the ``substantial
greenhouse warming'' that was projected.
They asked what could be done to prevent consequences ``ranging from
disruption of forest, crop, and ocean productivity to shifts in
population,'' and ``extreme weather events, such as droughts, monsoons,
and lowland floods.'' These words of warning were neither radical nor
partisan. They were sensible.
So what has changed since then? The ice caps are melting--only
faster. Certainly, the glaciers I saw when I visited Antarctica 25 or
so years ago had been there for eons, and they are now fast
disappearing. Our coastline is still disappearing but faster. Farmers
and ranchers are still concerned about prolonged droughts and extreme
weather, only, today, the fires and storms are more frequent and more
devastating.
Just last month, the intelligence community's ``Worldwide Threat
Assessment'' offered a sobering conclusion. This is the intelligence
community's assessment: ``Global environmental and ecological
degradation, as well as climate change, are likely to fuel competition
for resources, economic distress, and social discontent through 2019
and beyond.''
We know that bipartisan action on big environmental threats is
possible. In fact, soon after the climate change hearings in 1986,
Marcelle and I climbed Vermont's Camel's Hump with President Reagan's
EPA Administrator. We wanted to show him the terrible damage caused by
acid rain. We could see that mountain from our home. We could see the
changes up close. They were very obvious. With President Reagan's EPA
Administrator's support, we moved ahead with the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990, and they were signed into law by President George
H. W. Bush. It was not a partisan issue. The result was a great
reduction in the scourge of acid rain. We see these results every day.
Today we are in danger of taking such results for granted. It is up
to us to protect this planet. If we don't, who will? There is no more
urgent responsibility.
There are bold ideas for how to address this challenge. The Green New
Deal offers a valuable roadmap for debate and a pathway for action. The
time for dallying around the edges of the issue is over. We all share
responsibility for where we are today. So, likewise, we have an
obligation to attack this issue, but not with cynical show votes, not
with feel-good votes intended to demonstrate a political divide rather
than what should be universal acknowledgment of what we know to be
true--that climate change is real, and human activity is the primary
cause of these threats to our way of life, our communities, and our
planet.
We have to channel the American innovative spirit that has improved
our lives for centuries. We have to find creative solutions for
reducing carbon emissions, and then we have to invest in those
solutions. We have to reorient our workforce toward the great
opportunities that are opening for green-economy jobs. We should invest
in
[[Page S1517]]
leading the whole world in developing clean energy solutions. We have
to address this real emergency head-on. Not only can we curb climate
change, but, in doing so, we can transform the American economy.
Over 30 years ago, a handful of forward-looking Republicans and
Democrats stood together in this Senate. I was proud to be here when
they issued their challenge, but the time for delay is over. In fact,
our time is running out.
Let this renewed vigor in addressing climate change, brought about by
the bold proposed Green New Deal, be the catalyst for real change.
Let's stand together.
Senator Whitehouse has enlightened us on so many of these issues, but
we have also learned, as he did, from our mentors--like Senator Chafee,
Senator Stafford, and the others who got together in 1986. It is not
partisan and it is not political. It is survival.
I yield the floor.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I thank the distinguished Senator from Vermont, who
is not only a towering physical presence on the floor of the Senate but
a towering historic presence on this floor, as well, and brings a rare
and valuable perspective. I appreciate his words so much.
The sad thing that we face is that despite words like those uttered
by Senator John Chafee--``allowing these gases to continue to build in
the atmosphere . . . may be committing all of us to severe economic and
environmental disruption''--or the words in the letter that John Chafee
signed right here and that Senator Leahy's mentor, Bob Stafford, signed
right here back on December 23, 1986, no Republican Senator can utter
those words today. Today's Republican Party will not even acknowledge
that climate change is a serious problem--let alone put forward a
serious proposal to tackle it. Republican Leader Mitch McConnell's
latest trick is to call, for the first time, a climate-related measure
on the Senate floor for his side to vote against it. The leader has not
brought a single piece of climate legislation to the floor for a vote,
ever, until this vote, which he is bringing up for his side to vote
against.
It actually gets worse. Since the infamous Citizens United Supreme
Court decision almost 10 years ago, no Republican in the Senate has
offered or sponsored comprehensive climate legislation to limit carbon
pollution--none.
So we look back with some real sorrow to 1986, when this bipartisan
letter was written. Of course, Minnesota was represented in that letter
by Dave Durenberger, and Minnesota is represented here on the floor
today by Senator Klobuchar.
I yield to her.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Rhode Island
for his leadership day in and day out on this issue.
I rise to join him and my other colleagues to talk about this letter
and to look back at that moment in time but really to do it to look
forward because we know it is long past time for bipartisan action on
climate change.
As the Senator from Rhode Island has explained with a copy of that
letter, back in 1986, a bipartisan group of Senators came together to
voice their concerns about the future of our world.
This forward-thinking group of our predecessors, who were from the
same States as my colleagues who are here today, held 3 days of
hearings on climate change. That sounds like a pretty good idea for
something we should be doing right now. It was chaired by, of course,
the Republican Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. John Chafee.
Minnesota Senator David Durenberger was among that group of Senators.
He was born in St. Cloud. He earned his law degree from the University
of Minnesota, was the top-rated cadet in his ROTC class, and served as
a lieutenant in the Army Counter Intelligence Corps and as a captain in
the U.S. Army Reserve.
Senator Durenberger took over the seat left by Senator Humphrey, and
during his 17 years of service in the Senate, Senator Durenberger
proved time and again that he is a true believer in bipartisanship. He
worked across the aisle to tackle big issues, and that included talking
about climate change way back in 1986.
I called Senator Durenberger this week to talk to him, and our staff
did, to get some sense of where he was on climate change years later.
He reported to us that, in his words, he wanted to remind Americans
there was a time in our very recent history when the U.S. Senate made
it its responsibility to define and address some of the critical
national and international policy issues that threaten the security of
our communities, our Nation, and the world.
This is Senator Durenberger speaking in the year 2019. He said he
could say ``without reservation that it was bipartisan Senate
leadership that encouraged the four Presidents with whom [he] served--
Carter, Reagan, [George H.W.] Bush, and Clinton--to prioritize
environmental problem definition and solution.''
He also recalled working with his colleagues on the Environment and
Public Works Committee to ``challenge''--and these are his words--
``challenge the scientific community and the business community to work
harder at reducing the impact [of greenhouse gases] and suggesting what
policies best incentivize alternative fuels.''
It was in this bipartisan spirit that this group of Senators sent a
letter to Dr. John Gibbons, who was then the executive director of the
Office of Technology Assessment. In that letter, they talked about the
need to meet ``the massive and, to some degree irrevocable, alterations
in the stratosphere commonly referred to as the greenhouse effect.''
The letter goes on to discuss concerns about ``altered precipitation
and storm patterns,'' something certainly the Senator from Rhode Island
knows we are seeing right now. These Senators were ahead of their
time--altered precipitation and storm patterns.
``[M]ore frequent and extreme weather events,'' they talked about
that. Look at what we are seeing with the hurricanes, with the rising
sea levels, and with the wildfires in Colorado and in California.
``[D]isruption of forest, crop, and ocean productivity.'' That letter
may have been sent in 1986, but certainly those Democratic and
Republican Senators were ahead of their time. Americans are now
increasingly feeling the effects of changing climate patterns and
extreme weather events. Farmers are already living through these
disruptions to crop productivity.
So what else did the letter say? Well, it said this: ``We are deeply
troubled by the prospect of such a rapid and unprecedented change in
the composition of the atmosphere and its implications for the human
and natural worlds.'' It also stated that ``it may be necessary to act
soon to at least slow these trends or, perhaps, halt them altogether.''
Think of those words way back in 1986 asking us to act soon. They
were right back then, and they are still right today. The true tragedy
is that the final paragraph of the letter notes that any analysis
should be undertaken without delay ``due to the likelihood that
legislation will be seriously considered by the Committee early in the
next Congress.''
Well, the truth is, we are still waiting for that legislation to be
seriously considered. The bipartisan call in that 1986 letter came in
the 99th Congress, and we are now beginning the 116th. Just as
troubling, we have lost some of the bipartisan spirit that guided David
Durenberger and those 1986 lawmakers. Our inaction has outlasted even
the Office of Technology Assessment itself.
I ask my colleagues, in the spirit of bipartisanship--from back in
1986, my colleague Senator Durenberger, who I hope is listening today--
let us continue that spirit, and let's get some serious climate
legislation to the floor of the U.S. Senate.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, let me thank Senator Klobuchar for her
wonderful remarks, and of course Minnesota is a Northern State which
sees this up close all the time.
The Senator spoke of bipartisanship. Do you know who voted with
Senator Chafee for the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990? The Republican
Senate majority leader did, as did a majority of the Republican caucus
in the Senate.
In fact, those powerful 1990 Clean Air Act amendments passed 89 to
10. Where do I go to get a majority leader like that back? Where do I
go to get a Senate Republican Party like that back?
[[Page S1518]]
As late as 2009, Donald Trump published an advertisement in the New
York Times that said that the climate science was ``scientifically
irrefutable''--scientifically irrefutable--and that if we didn't do
anything about it, there would be ``catastrophic and irreversible
consequences for humanity and our planet.'' That is Donald Trump in
2009.
Where do I go to get that Donald Trump back? What happened? In 2007,
when I first joined this body, there were Republicans working on
climate legislation all over the place. Senator Klobuchar and I came
together that year. We had, by my count, five pieces of bipartisan
climate legislation that were working through this body in various
stages in 2007, 2008, and 2009, when Donald Trump put this
advertisement in the New York Times saying that the science was
scientifically irrefutable and the consequences would be catastrophic
and irreversible.
Then came January of 2010. Then came the Citizens United decision.
Then came unlimited and often anonymous fossil fuel money sloshing
around in America's politics and all the threats and promises that
unlimited money allows special interest to engage in. Now, those days,
the Donald Trump of 2009, Republican cooperation of 2007, 2008, and
2009, and of course this letter from as long ago as 1986 seems
impossible, but I hope we can get together. We have to do better than
Republican political mischief on climate change.
Calling up bills that you intend to vote against--give me a break.
Where is the plan, the Republican, conservative, serious plan for
addressing the climate crisis? I will tell you where it is. It is
nowhere. Zero. Nada. Nothing. That has to stop.
Here, on this letter, is one of the most distinguished, wonderful men
ever to serve in the U.S. Senate, Mr. George Mitchell of the State of
Maine, and here, representing him today, is Senator Angus King from the
great State of Maine.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Mr. KING. Mr. President, I rise in sadness and somewhat perplexed
because what we are doing in this colloquy is recreating a statement, a
letter, as the Senator from Minnesota outlined, that was sent by six of
our predecessors in December of 1986, warning about the dangers of
climate change, warning about what this can do to our country and to
our world, about costs, and about how we had to take action.
One of those Senators was George Mitchell of Maine, one of the great
legislators of the 20th century. I am honored to be in the seat that
once was occupied by George Mitchell and also by his predecessor,
Edmund Muskie. I think the story of the major environmental legislation
of the 20th century, sponsored principally at the beginning by Edmund
Muskie, the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, is worth mentioning, if
only briefly.
The most important point is that the Clean Air Act, one of the most
important and comprehensive environmental pieces of legislation in our
Nation's history, passed this body unanimously. It passed this body
unanimously.
It disturbs me that we couldn't agree on the time of day around here
unanimously these days. I don't know when this issue became a partisan
issue, but I deeply regret it because it is causing harm to our
country.
What I would like to do is step into George Mitchell's shoes for a
moment and read a statement that he himself wrote and made back in
1986, and you are not going to believe how prescient this statement is.
It could have been written yesterday. Here are George Mitchell's words:
The problem of global warming is one of immense
significance. It is the most serious and more pressing than
anticipated. Previously, most of the models forecasting the
rate of global warming focused on the air pollutants produced
by the combustion of fossil fuels. More recent data suggest
that trace gases may also increase the rate of warming by a
factor of two. This means that warming may be increasing
twice as fast as previously thought.
The data produced to date suggests there may be an average
increase in temperature of 1 deg.C since the beginning of the
industrial revolution.
This was in 1986. We are now at about 1.5 degrees centigrade.
Considering how much warmer this June has been than
average, a 1 degree difference may appear to be
insignificant, but an average of 1 degree increase could be
devastating, so the experts tell us. A 1 degree increase in
the average global temperature would melt glaciers--
That is happening--
and such melting would increase the sea level.
That is happening.
There are uncertainties in predicting how much the sea
level would increase in a particular area. In some cases, it
could be an average increase of a few feet; in others, much
more. For a coastal State like Maine and to other States
along the coastline, such an increase would be devastating.
To deviate from George's words for a moment, this is what we see
happening. We are now seeing what are called rainy day floods, flooding
in areas of our country along the coast that were rare. Six-month
events are now every high tide.
George Mitchell says:
An average of 1 degree increase in temperature could have
major impacts on agriculture. This country's Midwestern bread
basket could again become a dust bowl. More heat would mean
less water for crops and variations in growing seasons. It is
important to keep in mind that this average increase is
global in nature. It is not a national or regional problem.
If American farmers suffer for lack of water, so will farmers
all over the planet. If shorelines along our coasts are
flooded, so will shorelines everywhere in the world.
The enormity of this phenomenon is staggering, and we have
a responsibility to limit emissions of pollutants that trap
the heat in our atmosphere. As difficult, as immense, and as
seemingly remote as the problem is to our daily lives, we
cannot delay.
This was George Mitchell in 1986--we cannot delay.
There will be those who argue that more research is
necessary to completely understand the phenomenon and to
answer every scientific question.
We are still hearing that argument today--we need more science; we
need more studies; we are not sure.
George goes on:
As in the case of acid rain, such complete understanding
will come only after we flounder in the weight of our
shortsighted policies. This is one more indication that the
benefits of industrialization carry with them the burden of
controlling pollutants. These pollutants threaten our lakes,
fish, health, and forests today in the form of acid
deposition.
We will hear today that these pollutants also threaten the
future of our planet, which cannot tolerate such a sudden and
dramatic increase in temperature and survive in a form
familiar to us.
In 1986 George Mitchell said:
Solutions are possible and available. The statement
released at the conclusion of the Villach Conference in
Austria last October--
This was in 1985--
addresses the common nature of some of our environmental
problems. That statement said in part that ``climate change
and sea level rises due to greenhouse gases are closely
linked with other major environmental issues, such as acid
deposition and threats to the Earth's ozone shield, mostly
due to changes in the composition of the atmosphere by human
activity.''
Reduction in coal and oil use and energy conservation
undertaken to reduce acid deposition will also lower
concentration of greenhouse gases. Reductions in emissions of
chlorofluorocarbons--
Which we achieved--
will help protect the ozone layer and will also slow the rate
of climate change. The rate and degree of future warming
could be profoundly affected by governmental policies on
energy conservation, use of fossil fuels, and the emission of
greenhouse gases.
Those words were written 32 years ago.
The rate and degree of future warming could be profoundly
affected by governmental policies on energy conservation, use
of fossil fuels, and the emission of greenhouse gases.
The testimony that they were intending to hear at the hearing that
George is describing demonstrated ``that such governmental policies are
needed . . . nationally and on a global basis.''
I pause on ``a global basis''--the tragedy of leaving the Paris
climate accord, because the only solution to this problem has to be
local, national, and global.
The testimony from Federal Agencies will be that the current
government policy is to conduct more research, a familiar refrain on
issues of this type. George Mitchell said:
What is missing in the Federal effort is action. The
problem of global warming brings another round of scientists
before us decrying the folly of waiting until it is too late
to
[[Page S1519]]
prevent irreversible damage. In the case of acid rain,
research has been offered as a substitute for much-needed
action. This policy has produced more bodies of water that
cannot sustain life, more trees that are dying, and more
people who find it hard to breathe.
The policy has produced more studies, not any meaningful
change in policy. I hope these two days of hearings will help
persuade the administration--
And the people of the country--
that inaction has its own costs, almost invariably higher
than the cost of action.
George Mitchell was right. The cost of inaction is invariably higher
than the cost of action.
George concluded by saying:
I represent a State that already has been affected by acid
deposition. I want to do all I can to keep Maine, the rest of
our country, and our planet from facing potentially more
dramatic environmental damage from global warming. The best
way to avoid these undesirable outcomes is to begin taking
action now to prevent further damage rather than spending
twice as much time and later money repairing damage.
George Mitchell was right in 1986. Tragically, he is even more right
today because we did not heed his call. We did not take action. We have
avoided action.
I don't want to be the generation that our children and grandchildren
look back on and say: Where were you and what did you do when the
climate was deteriorating, when the glaciers were melting, when the ice
sheets were melting, when the sea level was rising, when the storms
were increasing in intensity, when the wildfires were burning our
States? What did you do, Senator?
I, for one, want the answer to be ``I took action.'' The answer
should be ``we took action.''
Today, this is a challenge even greater--significantly greater--than
it was in 1986, but the very fact that people like Quentin Burdick,
George Mitchell, John Chafee, Bob Stafford, and David Durenberger saw
the future and predicted it so succinctly and profoundly should spur us
to the type of action that is necessary to meet, confront, and overcome
this most serious of challenges before us.
Thank you.
I yield to my colleague from Rhode Island.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I will close out this colloquy by pointing out that
the Republicans of 2007, 2008, and 2009 who were working on climate
legislation before the Citizens United decision have left or died or
gone to ground. It is sad to see. These Republicans of 1986, a third of
a century ago, would be shocked at what has become of their party. So,
today, we, their successors in five of these six States, gathered on
the floor to honor their memory, to mourn what has become in the
intervening years of the Republican Party, and to grieve for what this
body has lost.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.