February 27, 2019 - Issue: Vol. 165, No. 36 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 1st Session

[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.


                               S. Res. 70

  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, on February 13 the Rules Committee approved 
S. Res. 70, which authorizes funding for the Senate's committees from 
March 1, 2019, through February 28, 2021. For this 24-month period, the 
18 committees covered by this resolution are authorized to spend up to 
$214,055,860. This is a small increase over the funding authorized by 
the current committee funding resolution, S. Res. 62. For the 
information of my colleagues, committee funding authorized by S. Res. 
70 remains 13 percent below levels from a decade ago.
  Committees are the lifeblood of the legislative process. It is in our 
committees that policy is created and programs and agencies are 
overseen. Our committees are where the Senate first exercises its 
advice and consent function over the executive branch's nominees. Well-
functioning committees are crucial to the Senate's role as a separate 
but equal branch of the government.
  The resolution before the Senate is the result of a bipartisan 
process Senator Klobuchar, the Rules Committee's ranking member, and I 
undertook this year to solicit more input from committee chairmen and 
ranking members. The resolution reflects the needs identified by our 
colleagues and will help ensure our committees are able to carry out 
their responsibilities and duties.
  I would like to thank Fitz Elder and Rachelle Schroeder from my 
committee staff; Lizzy Peluso and Lindsey Kerr from Senator Klobuchar's 
committee staff; and Cindy Qualley, the Rules Committee's chief clerk. 
Additionally, I would like to thank Ileana Garcia and Ted Ruckner from 
the Disbursing Office and John Henderson from the Office of Legislative 
Counsel. I greatly appreciate their hard work in developing this 
resolution.

                          ____________________