John Kerry

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jean Toal and Tom Richey be granted the privilege of the floor for this debate.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. For what purpose?

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from Nebraska and the Senator from West Virginia for raising an issue of common sense and a very legitimate issue regarding the U.S. negotiating position with respect to global climate change. I have not been a cosponsor up until this point of the resolution because I shared with Senator Lieberman and Senator Chafee concerns about some of the phrasing and the meaning of some of the resolution with respect to the negotiating process. We thought it was important to seek clarification with respect to those points before having a vote. As a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, I raised those concerns during the markup. I voted to send this resolution to the floor for consideration today. Pending the ultimate discussion that we have on the floor here today, it is my intention to vote for this resolution because I think it embraces common sense. That common sense is the notion that if you are really going to do something to effect global climate change and you are going to do it in a fair-minded way that will permit you to build consensus in the country, which is important, and to build the necessary support to ratify a treaty, we are going to have to do this in a way that calls on everybody to share the burden of responding to this problem. That means that we need to have an agreement that does not leave enormous components of the world's contributors and future contributors of this problem out of the solution. It is simply wrong to assume that facing the difficulties we have had since the Rio treaty, the agreement in Rio, which 155 nations signed, that we are going to be able to now face up to those greater responsibilities without bringing everybody into the solution. The notion that China or India or other enormously rapidly developing countries, who will before too long also be adding very significantly to this problem, and already are to some degree, are going to somehow later negotiate their participation I think is contrary to common sense. So I have joined in the notion that it is appropriate to reconsider the Berlin Mandate and to discuss how the U.S. Senate properly thinks we should approach these negotiations. But let me also make it clear that, in this strange hybrid of Senators who have signed on as cosponsors to this resolution, there are some who do not want any treaty. There are some who do not think it is a problem. There are some who do not accept the science. There are some for whom the effort is one to really have nothing happen. I am pleased that Senator Byrd is not one of those and that many of those who will vote for this resolution, the sense-of-the-Senate resolution, join me and others in believing that this is a serious problem with science that supports it. It is not my purpose to debate the science very deeply here this morning because the science is not at issue in this resolution. This resolution is a question of negotiating tactics. This resolution is about how we will approach the question of reducing greenhouse gases, not whether. It is a question not entirely based on science. But nevertheless, the Record ought to reflect as we approach these issues that the science overwhelmingly documents the notion that a phenomenon known as global warming is already occurring, it is occurring. There is no debate among scientists as to whether or not it is happening. There is some debate as to what the impacts will be. There is debate about the models and how much those models show with certitude it is going to happen in what part of the country. Can we predict what will happen to Nebraska? The answer is no. Can we predict what will happen to my State of Massachusetts and the coastal zones? Well, to some degree some scientists are suggesting you can, but some people remain questioning that. Let me make it very clear--someone raised the question about how the Panel on Climate Change now predicts the global warming of only 1 degree to 3.5 degrees Celsius over the coming century. People say that is not really that bad and it is hardly a cause for concern. Let me point out to my colleagues that the global average temperature has changed by less than a degree Celsius up or down for 10,000 years. We know that. So the projected warming is expected to exceed any climate change that has occurred during the history of civilization. In addition, even apparently small global average temperature changes will be accompanied by much larger regional climate shifts. For example, a warming which is twice as large as the global average is projected to occur at high northern latitudes. Apparently, small global average changes have also led to very large climate shifts in the past. Moreover, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, representing the consensus of climate scientists worldwide, has concluded: . . . the balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate. And the year 1995 matched 1990 as the hottest year on record. What we know to a certainty also is that from the 1980's on we have been recording these increasingly heated periods. We then saw Mount Pinatubo's cooling effect. We saw that cooling effect begin to diminish as the impact of that volcanic disruption between the Sun's rays and the Earth dissipated. So we have begun to return to the high readings that we saw characteristic of the late 1980's. March through December of 1994 were the warmest periods on record according to the National Weather Service climate analysis. I could go on. The National Academy of Sciences has reported that despite uncertainties, greenhouse warming poses a potential threat, ``sufficient to merit prompt responses * * * Investment in mitigation measures acts as insurance protection against the great uncertainties and the possibility of dramatic surprises.'' In addition, the panel suggested that substantial mitigation could be accomplished at very modest costs; in other words, insurance is cheap, they said. Let me point out one other fact that was set forth at the hearings we had in the committee. We know that we are the world's greatest emitter of greenhouse gases. We know that carbon dioxide is the most significant of those. We know that the oceans mitigate the increase of carbon dioxide that we put into the atmosphere. The oceans consume the carbon dioxide. But what we have also learned as a matter of science is that there is some level at which there is this potential of saturation of the oceans. We do not know where that is. The oceans recirculate it. And the question remains whether or not you might have an extraordinary, dramatic impact because of the reaching of this saturation point. Some people may want to tempt that. Some people may not feel any kind of generational responsibility or any kind of global responsibility and suggest that, well, all of these thousands of scientists, all of the consensus reached by 155 nations--they may want to choose to ignore it. But when scientists tell me that the oceans are already rising and they are already rising at a discernible and measurable rate and that we are continuing a process of warming and that between now and the middle of the next century oceans will rise 1 to 3 feet and that the impact of that will be devastation on the coast of Florida, the loss of island nations, and the remarkable impact on wetlands all around the planet, I think we have a responsibility to say, well, we ought to try to think about that. And that is exactly what this effort to deal with global climate change is trying to do. Now, I am not going to debate all of the science and the models and what can or cannot be done here. But it is clear that one of the chief sponsors of this resolution, Senator Byrd--and you have heard him speak--agrees, and Senator Lieberman and Chafee and others do, that the prospect of human-induced global warming as an accepted thesis with adverse consequences for all is here, and it is real. There are some Senators, as I have said, who want to debate that science; and so be it. That is not what this resolution is about. This resolution is a question of how our negotiators will negotiate. What we ought to be seeking in Kyoto, as we pursue what most people have decided, is a legitimate concern. Senator Byrd's resolution makes a first step toward tackling the issue of changing the balance of how we approach this. As I have said, Senator Lieberman, Senator Chafee, and I would have worded some things differently. But we are convinced in our discussions with Senator Byrd that the intent here is similar, which is to guarantee that our negotiators have a changed position, a tougher position, but a reasonable position in negotiating how we will come to agreement in Kyoto. Let me point out a couple of those areas where we had some concerns. There is language in the resolution about the developing nations accomplishing their reductions within exactly the same compliance period as the developed nations. I have come to the conclusion that these words are not a treaty killer that some suggested it might have been. I am encouraged to learn that Senator Byrd's objective is to support entering into a binding international agreement to address climate change, and he also agrees that all nations, developed and less developed, ought to participate in this significant effort. We both recognize that, as a matter of global and national environmental protection, the global warming issue is not going to be able to be addressed effectively if any major emitting nation or group of nations stays outside the agreement. So, ultimately, all major emitting nations will need to reduce greenhouse emissions if we are going to make significant progress on global warming. I heard one of my colleagues talk earlier about who is going to police this, and how do you enter into this international agreement. Well, the fact is we enter into international agreements all the time. We have trade agreements. We have arms control agreements. We have environmental agreements. We police them by arriving at mutually agreeable means of being able to raise the issues with each of those nations that might be offending, and we have done so without ever giving up our sovereignty. So, that is just a red herring in this issue. We know that we can do that, and we will do that. We also know that we are trying to seek an equilibrium with other nations so we are not losing jobs while other people are gaining some foothold in the marketplace. We understand that. We are not seeking to consciously enter into an arrangement that will disadvantage the United States of America and our economy. On the other hand, every environmental agreement and every agreement we have reached so far requires some change in the way we do business. That change has generally produced more jobs, not less jobs. One of the fastest growing industries in Massachusetts has been environmental technology, as we develop new means of producing clean coal or scrubbers or as we create other kinds of mitigation for toxins or chemicals. I think that the same thing can happen here. If the United States is smart, we will be the provider of these technologies to the world. There still appears to be a little bit of uncertainty as to what this phrase within the same compliance period actually means. But after a number of discussions with Senator Chafee's and Senator Byrd's staffs, I believe that we have reached an understanding that it means essentially that we want countries to begin to reduce while we are reducing, we want them to engage in a reasonable schedule while we are engaged in a reasonable schedule, but that if a developing nation needs more time to get a plan in place or needs to have more time to raise the funds and be able to purchase the technology and do the things necessary, that as long as there is a good-faith track on which they are proceeding, that if it took them a number of years, 2 years, 3 years, 5, or longer to be able to reach a particular goal, that certainly means within the same compliance period they are operating similarly to try to meet the standards that we want to set out. We believe that, given that less-developed countries are not currently projected to emit more emissions than industrial countries until at least the year 2015, it is reasonable to permit some flexibility in the targets and the timing of compliance while at the same time requiring all countries to agree to make a legally binding commitment by a date certain. That is reasonable. But I think most of my colleagues would agree that if some country simply doesn't have the capacity, the plan, the money, or the technology, it may be they have to take a little more time and we should want to be reasonable in helping them to do that because the goal here is to get everybody to participate, not to create a divisiveness that winds up with doing nothing. There is a second issue here, and that is the issue of emissions trading. While this resolution includes provisions that address developing countries' participation, a number of us are critical of the fact that it is silent on the question of flexibility, a question of what market tools or what market access tools ought to be permissible for use by all countries. I believe that the record is clear that emissions trading is a vital market mechanism that will benefit the United States. Emissions trading not only advantages the U.S. business, but it would provide developing countries with incentives to sign up to binding legal commitments that most people believe are important in this treaty. I would like to point out to my colleagues that, currently in the negotiations, Europe is trying to create a bubble over Europe itself, trying to create a separate agreement where Europe will be able to have emissions trading among European countries, but we and others would not be able to engage in that trading. The result would be that you might have Belgium required to do a 10-percent reduction in 2010 for CO2 and CH4 and NOX. But at the same time, Greece would be able to increase by 30 percent. Spain would increase by 17 percent. Ireland would increase by 15 percent. Portugal would be able to increase by 40 percent. This is because they are trying to set up a structure where they can trade amongst each other for emissions without us having that same capacity. Now, if anything disadvantages American industry, it would be to have Europe create a bubble for itself to the exclusion of the United States to be able to emissions trade. I am against that. I think that is anticompetitive and it is anti-United States. This is silent on that. I hope my colleagues will agree with me that we want the United States to be able to trade with one of these countries. We want the United States to be able to trade with one of the less developed nations so that we can do what we have done in the United States. Let me point out, here is the impact. Referring to this chart, these are what we have done in the United States. This black line represents the actual SO2 emissions in the United States, and this was the projected rate of reduction if we were to engage, under the Clean Air Act, in emissions trading, and this pink line was what we projected. But because emissions trading has been such an effective market tool, this yellow line represents the actual rate of reductions in SO2 emissions. So we have had a phenomenal success through emissions trading in reducing emissions in our country. And it would be simply against common sense to have a negotiation which precluded the capacity of the United States to engage in this emissions trading. This chart shows the growth indicators and emissions. The black line represents the gross domestic product increase of the United States of America from 1985 to 1995. The electricity demand in the United States is the pink line, and the electricity demand went up almost concomitantly with the gross domestic product. At the same time, because we engaged in these tradings within our States, here is what happened with the emissions trading effect. The SO2 emissions dramatically went down, even as electricity demands went up. So it is a proven tool, it is a market force tool, and it is one that will enhance the economic competitiveness of the United States. I am pleased that, in my discussions with Senator Byrd, he has indicated that there is nothing in this resolution that precludes the capacity of our negotiators to pursue this as a tool in our negotiations and, conceivably, as one of the ingredients of a Kyoto treaty.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Scott Bunton and Gregg Rothschild, of my staff, be permitted access to the floor during the resolution deliberation.

Mr. KERRY. So we must yield time at this point?

Mr. KERRY. I understand that, and time for the proponents will be managed by the Senator from Nebraska, Senator Hagel?

Mr. KERRY. I want to inquire, are we now on the divided time, Mr. President?

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, if my colleague will permit.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I don't disagree with what Senator Byrd has just said. In a sense, I should correct my own comment when I talk about the Berlin mandate. Obviously, we are altering the way in which we are approaching the question of inclusiveness. When I say ``nothing inconsistent,'' I am talking about in the fundamentals of how you might approach the issue of timetable or compliance. We have discussed that in the course of this debate, and that is what I intended to say. I yield back any remaining time.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 60 seconds to clarify the record and respond.

Mr. KERRY. I yield 1 minute 45 seconds to the Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would like to just read that New York Times editorial and ask unanimous consent it be printed in the Record, and I yield myself such time as I use. With respect to the science it says: One reason why the industrial nations opted for voluntary targets in Rio was that mainstream scientists simply couldn't agree whether manmade emissions have contributed to the small rise in global temperatures that began in the late 19th century. In 1995, however, the U.N. intergovernmental panel on climate change consisting of about 2,500 scientists concluded that they had. The language was cautious, their forecasts were gloomy. Unless the current rates of combustion of carbon-based fuels, coal, gas, oil, could be reduced, they warned, temperatures would rise between 1.8 and 6.3 degrees Fahrenheit over the next century. Temperature changes in the middle level of that scale could cause a 20-inch rise in sea levels that would flood coastal lowlands and tropical islands, an increase in weather extremes and global damage to forests and croplands. Despite challenges from businesses which have been attacking the science in tobacco industry fashion, the U.N. panel has not retreated from its basic findings. So, Mr. President, we are going to have a good debate in this country in the next months on the science, and that is appropriate; we ought to have it. We ought to put to the test all of the theories. We should demand the most exacting models. We should press for the most certitude that we can gain. But there is no issue today scientifically about the fact that there is global warming taking place, about the fact that there is sea-level rise occurring, and that, if it continues at the current trend levels, the damages could be devastating. We can quarrel about how much happens at what point in time, about what model is better at predicting the impact. I will acknowledge there are inherent uncertainties in that process. Clearly there are. But we know we are living in the midst of the most significant increase that we have seen in 130 years, and the evidence of the prognosis of our best scientists is that it is going to continue at a rate that is greater than anything we have known since humankind, since civilization has existed, civilization within the last 8,000 to 10,000 years on this planet. We owe it to ourselves and to common sense to try to make the best judgments about that. This resolution today, I want to emphasize, is not about the science. This resolution is about how our team goes to Kyoto and how we negotiate in the next months. I want to emphasize with respect to my comments about the Berlin mandate that there is nothing in this resolution today that I deem to be inconsistent with the mandate; nothing inconsistent. I do believe that this begins to alter appropriately how we begin to approach some of the negotiations in Kyoto, and I accept what the Senator from Nebraska has said, I accept what the Senator from West Virginia has said, and others. It is a matter of fairness and common sense that the United States should not be placed at a disadvantage and make a set of choices that don't bring others into the process of solving this. So, Mr. President, thanking the Senator from West Virginia for the colloquy, clearly I am not calling my amendment up. Mr. President, I have extra time. I will yield 2 minutes of my time to the Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. KERRY. I yield the Senator an additional minute.

Mr. KERRY. How much time is remaining?

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I yield myself a couple of minutes before yielding to the Senator from Oregon. Mr. President, we have heard a couple of Senators refer to the fact that the science somehow, because of satellite observations, does not indicate the kind of warming that others are arguing is taking effect. This is an example of how an individual scientific fact is used to distort the record here for one purpose or another. We will have time later to discuss all of those purposes. But the argument is made that, although thermometers located at the Earth's surface show an increase in temperature today higher than it has been for 130 years, people say the satellite measurements, which are thousands of feet above the surface, show a cooling since 1979. That is true. That is the only part of this that is true. There is nothing in that fact that discredits the theory, the thesis, which has been accepted by scientists, with respect to the warming. Let me point out why. Thermometers in satellites and thermometers on the ground obviously measure temperatures at two very different places in the atmosphere, and it is not surprising, according to most scientists who interpret this, that there is a difference. At higher altitudes, temperatures fluctuate far more than they do at the surface due to natural climate influences like sunlight reflecting particles from volcanoes and other variabilities. What scientists called variability, or noise in the satellite record, obscures the warming trend due to the buildup of greenhouse gases that is apparent in the global surface temperature. Furthermore, the depletion of the ozone layer, which has occurred mostly since 1979, has had a cooling effect on the atmosphere which is more marked at higher levels than it is at surface levels. The Earth's surface has warmed over the northern and the southern hemispheres, which totally negates the notion of any kind of heat effect from urban centers or otherwise. There will be later times to discuss the science. But it is important to note that on June 22, 1997, the New York Times in an editorial said that the reason we had voluntary agreements out of Rio was science was somewhat murky. But in 1995, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, consisting of 2,500 scientists, concluded that there was a serious impact they could discern, and the science became certain. So I think as time goes on Americans will come to understand that. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Oregon.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Rhode Island.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator agree further that an emissions trading scheme also has the beneficial effect of easing the economic cost that might be incurred by U.S. industry as a result of a regime of binding commitments entered into at Kyoto?

Mr. KERRY. I yield to the Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, let me just also say to the Senator that I agree completely with his notion, as I said earlier, of the importance of our advising here about the importance of other countries being part of the solution. But I ask if the Senator would agree that the United States is placed at a disadvantage by this concept of the European bubble, and that the inclusion of free-market mechanisms in a treaty--particularly emissions trading schemes and so-called joint implementation--could be used to counter that challenge.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, this is on my time.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, if I may, I would like to ask if I might be able to enter into a colloquy with the Senator from West Virginia at this time.

Mr. KERRY. How much for the other side?

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, might I inquire? How much time remains on our side?

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I want to make it clear that, from my perspective, this agreement on tuna-dolphin does not represent a cave- in. It doesn't represent one side sort of being bullied by another side. Also, I certainly don't think it represents a partisan effort because Senator Bob Smith of New Hampshire, and a number of our colleagues across the aisle, were also very interested in the outcome of this and were prepared to join in a rigorous debate. What I believe has happened is that, as it often does in the U.S. Senate, when contentious views are brought together and people have a chance to be able to air those views and work at it over time, we have been able to arrive at what I believe is a very good, sensible compromise--not a cave-in, a compromise. It is a compromise which I think takes the very best of what was proposed originally by Senator Breaux and Senator Stevens and helps to amalgamate it with other people's ideas about what would make it even stronger. It is going to be a strong conservation ethic. It is going to guarantee that we take the cooperation of other countries that we are respectful of and grateful for their cooperation and utilize that in a way which is going to strengthen our relationship in the hemisphere and, at the same time, provide for a strong conservation capacity with respect to the dolphin stocks. I think everybody ought to be very pleased with the outcome. I am grateful to the Senator from Maine, Senator Snowe, for her efforts on this. I regret that, yesterday, there were some misunderstandings during the course of it. But she has exhibited great strength and willingness to help provide for our ability to move forward. I thank her publicly for that. I want to thank the chairman of the committee, Senator McCain, for his efforts and patience, particularly. I think he allowed people to work through this in a way that got us here. I particularly thank Senator Boxer for her tireless, tireless energy in fighting for what she thought was right in this situation and for helping to create the ability to come to this compromise. So I think it is positive for all concerned, and I think everybody ought to feel good about it, without any sense of partisanship or any divisiveness. I thank the Chair.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a fellow in my office, Tom Richey, be permitted access to the floor.