Congressional RecordUN

UME PLURIBUS

United Statesof America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 105th

CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION

∑ This ‘‘bullet’’ symbol identifies statements or insertions which are not spoken by a Member of the Senate on the floor.

S8113

Vol. 143 WASHINGTON, FRIDAY, JULY 25, 1997 No. 107

SenateThe Senate met at 9:30 a.m. and was

called to order by the President protempore [Mr. THURMOND].

PRAYER

The Chaplain, Dr. Lloyd JohnOgilvie, offered the following prayer:

Gracious God, Sovereign of our landand source of courage, we thank Youthat You know our needs before we askfor Your help, but have ordained thatin the asking we would find releasefrom the anxiety of carrying the bur-dens of leadership on our own shoul-ders. Help us to remember that You arethe instigator of prayer. It begins withYou, moves into our hearts, gives usthe clarity of knowing how to pray,and then returns to You in petitionsYou have refined and guided us to ask.We are astonished that You have cho-sen to do Your work through us anduse prayer to reorient our mindsaround Your guidance for the issues wewill face today. We say with the psalm-ist, ‘‘You are my rock and my fortress;therefore, for Your name’s sake, leadme and guide me.’’—Psalm 31:3.

Suddenly, we see prayer in a wholenew perspective. It’s the method bywhich You brief us on Your plans andbless us with Your power. May thiswhole day be filled with magnificentmoments of turning to You so thatYour purposes, Your glory and honor inAmerica, may be done through us. Giveus vision to be dynamic leaders. In theall-powerful name of our Lord and Sav-iour. Amen.

RECOGNITION OF THE ACTINGMAJORITY LEADER

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Theable acting majority leader is recog-nized.

Mr. HAGEL. Thank you, Mr. Presi-dent.

SCHEDULEMr. HAGEL. Mr. President, for the

information of all Members, this morn-

ing, the Senate will begin consider-ation of Senate Resolution 98, the glob-al warming resolution. Under the con-sent agreement, there will be 2 hoursfor debate on that resolution, with twoamendments in order. Senators can,therefore, expect a rollcall vote at ap-proximately 11:30 a.m. It is also pos-sible that following the disposition ofSenate Resolution 98, there will be acloture vote on the motion to proceedto S. 39, the tuna-dolphin bill. If anagreement is reached on that measure,that cloture vote may be vitiated. AllSenators will be notified if that voteremains necessary.

I thank Members for their attention.

MEASURE PLACED ONCALENDAR—S. 1065

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I under-stand there is a bill at the desk due forits second reading.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.DEWINE). The clerk will read the billfor the second time.

The assistant legislative clerk readas follows:

A bill (S. 1065) to amend the Ethics in Gov-ernment Act with respect to appointment ofan independent counsel.

Mr. HAGEL. I object to further pro-ceedings on this matter at this time.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The billwill be placed on the calendar.

EXPRESSING SENSE OF SENATEREGARDING U.N. FRAMEWORKCONVENTION ON CLIMATECHANGE

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Underthe previous order, the clerk will nowreport the resolution.

The assistant legislative clerk readas follows:

A resolution (S. Res. 98) expressing thesense of the Senate regarding the conditionsfor the United States becoming a signatoryto any international agreement on green-house gas emissions under the United Na-

tions Framework Convention on ClimateChange.

The Senate proceeded to consider theresolution.

Mr. HAGEL addressed the Chair.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Nebraska.Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, the

Framers of the Constitution gave theexecutive branch of our Governmentauthority to negotiate treaties. Butthey also intended for the Senate’svoice to carry weight in negotiations.This morning, the Senate is fulfillingits constitutional responsibility to giveits advice to treaty negotiations.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, if my col-league will permit.

Mr. HAGEL. I yield to the Senatorfrom Massachusetts.

Mr. KERRY. I want to inquire, are wenow on the divided time, Mr. Presi-dent?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There isnow 2 hours equally divided on the res-olution.

Mr. KERRY. I understand that, andtime for the proponents will be man-aged by the Senator from Nebraska,Senator HAGEL?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. That iscorrect.

Mr. KERRY. So we must yield timeat this point?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator is correct.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from Nebraska is recognized.

Mr. HAGEL. I yield myself whatevertime is necessary, Mr. President.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from Nebraska.

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, the pend-ing resolution, Senate Resolution 98,with its 65 cosponsors, is intended tochange the course of negotiations onthe new global climate treaty nowunder discussion.

The need for this treaty is question-able, but the harm that it would causeis certain. Two articles in this Mon-day’s Wall Street Journal, written by

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES8114 July 25, 1997Jack Kemp and Dr. Fred Singer, are ex-cellent summaries against the direc-tion the administration is taking in ne-gotiating this treaty. I ask unanimousconsent that these articles be printedin the RECORD.

There being no objection, the articleswere ordered to be printed in theRECORD, as follows:[From the Wall Street Journal, July 25, 1997]

A TREATY BUILT ON HOT AIR . . .(By Jack Kemp)

In December, representatives of 150 nationswill gather in Kyoto, Japan, to sign a succes-sor treaty to the United Nations’ FrameworkConvention on Climate Change. Today, inanticipation of this momentous event, theSenate is scheduled to debate the Byrd-Hagelresolution, a non-binding measure sponsoredby 65 senators that will put that body onrecord against any treaty that would causeserious economic harm to the U.S. For morethan a year the Clinton administration hasbeen promising to provide its economicmodel of the treaty’s effects, but last week itannounced that it will not provide any for-mal estimate—a signal that the treaty won’tmeet the Byrd-Hagel criteria.

NO RELIABLE CONCLUSIONS

Everyone agrees that we need to keep ourplanet clean. Healthy plants and animals arevaluable, but at the same time the U.S. hasa solemn obligation to defend the rights ofthe people who inhabit our planet. It seemsthat the officials representing the U.S. in thetreaty negotiations have lost sight of thatduty.

The international negotiations focus onglobal warming, the theory that greenhousegases in the Earth’s atmosphere are steadilyand dangerously warming the planet. Someof our leaders, most notably Vice PresidentAl Gore, have bought into the theory eventhough scientists have reached no reliableconclusions about global warming (see storybelow). Yet the 150 nations involved in thesetalks are rapidly moving toward signing atreaty that would wreak havoc on the U.S.economy and, ironically, on our environ-ment. U.S. negotiators appear to be askingAmerican workers and families to foot thebill for massive reductions in greenhousegases.

This treaty would require a drastic andsudden cut in energy use that would be le-gally binding only on developed nations, noton major international trade competitors—including three of the 10 biggest carbon-diox-ide producers, India, South Korea, andChina. By excluding developing nations, notonly will we be missing an opportunity tomake further environmental gains, but we’llalso be working against the very purpose ofthe treaty.

Studies show that the high-growth devel-oping nations excluded from the proposedtreaty’s requirements are more likely to in-crease their greenhouse-gas emissions inorder to pick up the demand left unmet bydeveloped nations, where production wouldbe restricted. The AFL–CIO’s ExecutiveCouncil has declared that an agreement thatfails to bind developing nations to the samecommitments made by the U.S. cannot pos-sibly work.

The treaty’s impact on America’s workersand economy, meanwhile, could be severe.First, U.S. industry would face increasedproduction costs for virtually all goods. Thenet cost just to stabilize U.S. emissions at1990 levels could reach hundreds of billions ofdollars annually, and many nations are push-ing to reduce emissions below 1990 levels, atan even more oppressive cost. The resultinghigher prices would make American products

less competitive on the world market andless affordable at home.

Second, the treaty would send high-payingjobs in mining, manufacturing, transportand other important sectors abroad. CharlesRiver Associates, an econometric modelingfirm, has estimated that the administra-tion’s plans would increase U.S. unemploy-ment by 0.25% and reduce the gross domesticproduct by 3.3%. The likely result: 250,000American jobs lost.

Third, the treaty would saddle Americanswith higher energy bills as we are forced totax energy use. Some have estimated thatsuch a ‘‘carbon tax’’ could increase the costof gasoline by as much as 60 cents a gallon,and of home heating oil by 50%. What’smore, as the AFL–CIO has recognized:‘‘These taxes are highly regressive and willbe most harmful to citizens who live on fixedincomes and work at poverty-level wages.’’

This burden of drastically increased heat-ing, cooling and transportation costs couldhardly come at a worse time for lower-in-come families. The working poor, and peoplejust getting off welfare and beginning to paytheir own way, are already challenged tomake ends meet in today’s economy. But ourdiplomatic negotiators have spared little at-tention for the potentially devastating con-sequences that their proposals would havefor millions of lower-income Americans.

FAR PAST TIME

It is time for the American public to betold exactly what their government is pro-posing to give away in the global climatechange treaty. It is far past time for theClinton administration to give Congress adetailed economic analysis of the mandatorycutbacks in energy usage that our nego-tiators are offering on the altar of environ-mentalist politics. Until the public and theCongress are given the facts, the talk at theglobal conferences on greenhouse gas emis-sions will remain as little more than hot air.

. . . NOT SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS

(By S. Fred Singer)Yesterday, in opening a White House con-

ference on global warming, President Clin-ton announced, ‘‘The overwhelming balanceof evidence and scientific opinion is that it isno longer a theory but now a fact that globalwarming is real.’’ In support of this conten-tion, the president and other politicians havebeen busy citing the ‘‘2,500 scientists’’ whosupposedly endorse the U.N.’s 1996 Intergov-ernmental Panel on Climate Change report,and thus a forecast of catastrophic globalwarming.

Actual climate observations, however,show that global warming is mostly a phan-tom problem. Perhaps that’s why Mr. Clin-ton and Vice President Al Gore harp so muchon a ‘‘scientific consensus’’—which sounds soimpressive to nonscientists. Yet sciencedoesn’t operate by vote.

How did the IPCC come up with 2,500 sci-entists? If one were to add up all contribu-tors and reviewers listed in the three IPCCreports published in 1996, one would countabout 2,100. The great majority of these arenot conversant with the intricacies of atmos-pheric physics, although some may know alot about forestry, fisheries or agriculture.Most are social scientists—or just policy ex-perts and government functionaries. Everycountry in the world seems to be rep-resented—from Albania to Zimbabwe—though many are not exactly at the forefrontof research. The list even includes knownskeptics of global warming—much to theirpersonal and professional chagrin.

The IPCC report has some 80 authors forits 11 chapters, but only a handful actuallywrote the Policymakers’ Summary; most ofthe several hundred listed ‘‘contributors’’

are simply specialists who allowed theirwork to be cited, without necessarily endors-ing the other chapters or the summary. Con-trast these numbers with the nearly 100 cli-mate scientists who signed the Leipzig Dec-laration in 1996, expressing their doubtsabout the validity of computer-driven globalwarming forecasts. It takes a certainamount of courage to do this—given that itcould jeopardize research grants from U.S.government agencies that have adopted cli-mate catastrophe as an article of faith, andmanaged to convince Congress to ante upabout $2 billion a year.

Even some IPCC climate scientists, in thereport itself or in a May 16 Science articleheadlined ‘‘Greenhouse Forecasting StillCloudy,’’ have expressed doubts about thevalidity of computer models and about themain IPCC conclusion, that ‘‘the balance ofevidence suggests a discernible human influ-ence on global climate’’—whatever that am-biguous phrase may mean. A Dec. 20, 1995,Reuters report quoted British scientist KeithShine, one of IPCC’s lead authors, discussingthe IPCC Policymakers’ Summary: ‘‘Weproduce a draft, and then the policymakersgo through it line by line and change theway it is presented. . . . It’s peculiar thatthey have the final say in what goes into ascientists’ report.’’ The Science and Environ-mental Policy Project conducted a survey ofIPCC scientific contributors and reviewers;we found that about half did not support thePolicymakers’ Summary. Parallel surveysby the Gallup organization and even byGreenpeace International produced similarresults.

Of course, scientists do accept the exist-ence of a natural greenhouse effect in the at-mosphere, which has been known since the19th century and is not to be confused withany influence from human activity. Anotheraccepted fact is that greenhouse gases havebeen increasing as a consequence of an ex-panding world population: carbon dioxidefrom burning fossil fuels, for instance, andmethane from raising cattle. But the climatewarming of the past 100 years, which oc-curred mainly before 1940, in no way sup-ports the results of computer models thatpredict a drastic future warming. Even IPCCChairman Bert Bolin has admitted that thepre-1940 warming is likely a natural recoveryfrom a previous, natural cooling. Most im-portant, though, is the fact—not mentionedin the IPCC summary—that weather sat-ellite observations, independently backed bydata from balloon-borne sensors, have shownno global warming trend whatsoever in thepast 20 years.

The discrepancy between calculated pre-dictions of warming and the actual observa-tions of no warming has produced a crisis formany scientists. Those who believe in globalwarming keep hoping that proof is justaround the corner. Consider this passagefrom the May 16 Science article: ‘‘[M]anyscientists say it will be a decade before com-puter models can confidently link the warm-ing to human activities.’’

It is ironic that an environmental lobbyinggroup, the Environmental Defense Fund,would admit in a brochure on global warm-ing: ‘‘Scientists need to do considerablymore work to sort out which [hypotheses]are most likely to be true.’’ The EDF com-plains, however, that the ‘‘skepticism andconstant questioning that lie at the heart ofscience’’ sometimes ‘‘cloud the debate.’’ Per-haps so; but more often they advance thescience.

PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that the followingmembers of my staff be granted theprivilege of the floor during debate on

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S8115July 25, 1997Senate Resolution 98: Derek Schmidt,Ken Peel, Kent Bonham, DavidKracman, and Tom McCarthy.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, we havemore than a dozen Senators on thisside who want to speak on this issue.Under the time agreement, however,we have only 1 hour for proponents todebate. I, therefore, encourage Sen-ators to insert their statements in theRECORD so they will be fully availableto our negotiators before next week’smeeting of the ad hoc group on theBerlin mandate in Bonn, Germany. Ialso hope to discuss this issue furtheron the Senate floor at a later date.

Mr. President, I thank the majorityleader and the minority leader for theirleadership in bringing this resolutionbefore the Senate. I also thank thechairman and the ranking minoritymember of the Foreign Relations Com-mittee for their leadership as well. Iparticularly thank the distinguishedsenior Senator from West Virginia. Ithas been a privilege for me to work onthis important issue along side one ofthe Senate’s giants.

We are here today to debate a veryimportant issue, one which will have amajor impact on the future of thiscountry. How our Nation addresses theglobal climate issue may prove to beone of the most important economicand environmental decisions of thenext century.

Let me say from the outset, this isnot a debate about who is for oragainst the environment. We all agreeon the need for a clean environment.We all want to leave our children a bet-ter, cleaner, more prosperous world.Nor is this debate about motives, per-sonalities or politics. It is about find-ing the truth. What are the problems?If there are problems, what is the bestsolution? What are the costs? What arethe consequences? And what do weneed to do now?

The debate on the Senate floor todayis about the path the administration istaking on this issue. I believe they areon the wrong path in their negotiationsfor any treaty to be signed in Kyoto,Japan, this December.

That is why my distinguished col-league from West Virginia and I haveoffered the Byrd-Hagel resolution. Sen-ate Resolution 98, with its 65 cospon-sors, puts the administration on noticethat an overwhelming and bipartisanmajority of the U.S. Senate rejects itscurrent negotiating position on a pro-posed new global climate treaty. It isso important, as my friend, SenatorBYRD, has repeatedly pointed out, thatwe in the U.S. Senate forcefully prac-tice our constitutional role of adviceand consent over these important nego-tiations. The credibility of the UnitedStates is not enhanced when the ad-ministration negotiates a treaty thathas no hope of ratification in the U.S.Senate.

The Byrd-Hagel resolution is a strongbipartisan wake-up call to the adminis-

tration. This resolution rejects theUnited Nations’ current negotiatingstrategy of binding United States andother developed nations to legallybinding reductions without requiringany new or binding commitments from130 developing nations, such as China,Mexico, and South Korea. In addition,this resolution rejects any treaty orother agreement that would cause seri-ous economic harm to the UnitedStates.

A simple reality of the current situa-tion is that a core group of negotiatorsin the State Department has broughtus near a point of no return. What thisbroad bipartisan coalition of 65 Sen-ators is saying is ‘‘we need a new direc-tion in these negotiations.’’

I approach this issue, Mr. President,believing that any action this seriousthat is undertaken by the UnitedStates must be based on sound scienceand common sense. This proposed trea-ty is based on neither.

If anything has become clear duringcongressional hearings on this issue, itis that the science is unclear, that thescientific community has not evencome close to definitively concludingthat we have a problem.

I mentioned earlier this morning, inthe Wall Street Journal today, thevery interesting article by Dr. FredSinger about the science on this issue.Dr. Singer is professor emeritus of en-vironmental sciences at the Universityof Virginia. I have already requestedthis be printed in the RECORD.

The science is inconclusive and con-tradictory, and predictions for the fu-ture range from no significant problemto global catastrophe. The subcommit-tee I chair, International EconomicPolicy Export and Trade Promotion,has held two hearings on this issue. Inthe first hearing, we heard testimonyfrom Dr. Patrick Michaels, a very dis-tinguished climatologist and professorof environmental sciences at the Uni-versity of Virginia, who noted condi-tions in the real world simply have notmatched changes projected by somecomputer models. Most of the warmingof this century occurred in the firsthalf of this century, before significantemissions of greenhouse gases began.And 18 years of satellite data actuallyshows a slight cooling trend in theworld.

Before the Senate Environment andPublic Works Committee Dr. RichardLindzen, professor of meteorology atthe Massachusetts Institute of Tech-nology, testified that ‘‘a decade offocus on global warming and billions ofdollars of research funds have stillfailed to establish that global warmingis a significant problem.’’

At the same hearing, Dr. JohnChristy, an associate professor in theDepartment of Atmospheric Science atthe University of Alabama, stated:‘‘The satellite and balloon data showthat catastrophic warming is not nowoccurring. The detection of human ef-fects on climate has not been convinc-ingly proven because the variations we

now have observed are not outside ofthe natural variations of the climatesystem.’’

It is clear that the global climate isincredibly complex. It is influenced byfar more factors than originallythought when some early crude com-puter models first raised alarms aboutthe possible threat of imminent cata-strophic global warming. The scientificcommunity has simply not yet resolvedthe question of whether we have aproblem with global warming.

I suggest, again, that common sensedictates you don’t come up with a solu-tion to a problem until you are certainthat you have a problem. However, theClinton administration has proceededto negotiate a solution before we havea confirmation that there is a problem.

They have proposed that the UnitedStates and other developed nationssubmit to legally binding controls ofgreenhouse gas emissions. But theywill not be asking for legally bindingcommitments from more than 130 ‘‘de-veloping nations,’’ including, as I men-tioned before, China, Mexico, SouthKorea, India, Singapore, and others.

Mr. President, this makes no sense,no sense at all, given that these na-tions include some of the most rapidlydeveloping economies in the world andare quickly increasing their use of fos-sil fuels. By the year 2015, China willsurpass the United States as the larg-est producer of greenhouse gases in theworld.

It is the United States and other de-veloped nations who are currentlydoing the most to reduce greenhousegas emissions. It is the developing na-tions that will be the biggest emittersof greenhouse gases during the next 25years. It is complete folly to excludethem from legally binding emissionsmandates. How could any treaty aimedat reducing global emissions of green-house gases be at all effective when itexcludes these 130 nations? It won’t. Ifthese nations are excluded, greenhousegas emissions will continue to rise, andwe would see no net reductions in glob-al greenhouse gas emissions. The exclu-sion of these nations is a fatal flaw inthis treaty.

Some analysts have even cautionedthat the unequal treaty being nego-tiated at the United Nations could in-crease the emission of greenhousegases. As industries flee the UnitedStates and other industrialized coun-tries, they would reestablish them-selves in developing countries thathave much weaker environmentalstandards, like our neighbor to thesouth, Mexico.

A draft economic report commis-sioned by this administration, this ad-ministration’s Department of Energy,concluded that:

Policy constraints placed on six large in-dustries in the United States—petroleum re-fining, chemicals, paper products, iron andsteel, aluminum and cement—would result insignificant adverse impacts on the affectedindustries. Furthermore, they conclude:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES8116 July 25, 1997emissions would not be reduced signifi-cantly. The main effect of the assumed pol-icy would be to redistribute output, employ-ment, and emissions from participating tononparticipating countries.

Therefore, the U.N. Global ClimateTreaty as being negotiated now by theClinton administration cannot pass thefirst test of Byrd-Hagel. It will not in-clude legally binding commitmentsfrom the developing nations.

What about the second test of Byrd-Hagel, serious economic harm, seriouseconomic harm to this country and ourfuture generations? One of the notableaspects of this issue is that it has unit-ed American business, labor, and agri-culture support. In my hearings, weheard testimony from the AFL–CIO,American Farm Bureau, National Asso-ciation of Manufacturers, and manynoted economists. They all agree onone very definite thing—the draft U.N.treaty now under consideration wouldhave a devastating effect on Americanconsumers, workers, farmers and busi-nesses. Estimates of the proposed trea-ty’s damage to our economy vary,mainly because the administrationcontinually refused to offer its owneconomic assumptions. This, after theadministration promised for more thana year to provide an economic model.However, last week the Clinton admin-istration threw in the towel and gaveup on even attempting to provide aneconomic model.

At a hearing before the House Com-merce Committee, Janet Yellen, chairof the Council of Economic Advisersfor the President, admitted that theadministration’s long-awaited eco-nomic study had failed and claimedthat it would be futile to attempt toassess the economic impacts of legally-binding emissions controls on our de-veloped nations. So now the Clintonadministration is proceeding to nego-tiate a treaty without any assessmentof what it would do to the U.S. econ-omy. That is incredible; absolutelystunning. But the bottom line is veryclear. Even using conservative assump-tions, Charles River Associates, a lead-ing economic modeling firm, for exam-ple, has estimated that holding emis-sions at 1990 levels would reduce eco-nomic growth by 1 percent a year, ris-ing to 3 percent in the later years, andthat does not even consider Under Sec-retary of State Tim Wirth’s long-termgoal, which he stated during our hear-ings, of achieving a 70 percent reduc-tion from current emissions levels.

What this means to everyday Ameri-cans is very clear. The AFL–CIO has es-timated the treaty would mean the lossof 1.25 to 1.5 million jobs. Energy priceswill rise dramatically. IndividualAmericans will pay for this treaty ei-ther in their electric bills, at the gaspump, or by losing their jobs. JerryJasinowski, president of the NationalAssociation of Manufacturers, testifiedthat the proposed treaty:

. . . would hurt America’s manufacturers,workers and families with little or no envi-ronmental benefit since new restrictive poli-

cies in the U.S. simply would force the flightof U.S. investment to developing countries.Millions of Americans would lose their jobsand American manufacturers would take asevere hit in the marketplace.

What about the effects on Americanagriculture? It is little known thatAmerican agriculture produces 25 per-cent of our Nation’s greenhouse gasemissions, which would make this crit-ical sector of our economy vulnerableto the kind of major reductions envi-sioned by the U.N. global climate trea-ty. The American Farm Bureau hascalled the treaty a back-door Btu taxthat would drive up fuel and overall en-ergy costs as much as 50 percent.Again, this is outrageous. This wouldbankrupt many of our American farm-ers. Therefore the U.N. global climatetreaty has no hope of satisfying thesecond test of Byrd-Hagel. It wouldclearly cause very serious economicharm to the United States.

Mr. President, beyond the fairnessand economic harm issues that are ad-dressed in Senate Resolution 98, I amalso very concerned about any treatythat would bind our Nation’s economyto control by some U.N. multilateralentity. Who will administer a globalclimate treaty? Who will police it? Willwe have an international police force,an agency capable of inspecting, find-ing, possibly shutting down Americancompanies? No one has addressed thesequestions. The implications are mostserious for our national security inter-ests, national sovereignty interests.One of the biggest users of fossil fuelsis the U.S. military. How would thistreaty affect our military operationsand our national defense capabilities?There are serious national sovereigntyissues and other issues that we havenot even begun to touch.

I said at the outset that I believe anyaction taken by this Nation should bebased on sound science and commonsense. The current track of negotia-tions for the U.N. global treaty doesneither. Why is this administrationrushing headlong into signing a treatyin Kyoto this December? The scientificdata is inconclusive, even contradic-tory. The economic costs are clear anddevastating. This treaty would be alead weight on our Nation’s future eco-nomic growth, killing jobs and oppor-tunities for generations of Americansto come.

We need to take global climate issuesseriously. Obviously we agree withthat. We in the United States havemade tremendous strides in cleaningup our environment. We will continueto make progress in the future. We areall concerned about the state of the en-vironment and what we leave to ourchildren and our grandchildren. Butwhen we take actions that will reduceour children’s and our grandchildren’seconomic opportunities, we must en-sure that the benefits are real and thatthey would justify this very real eco-nomic hardship that we would be pass-ing on to these future generations.

I urge my colleagues to support Sen-ate Resolution 98, the Byrd-Hagel reso-

lution. I am grateful for the time thatmy colleagues have given this effort.

At this time, I yield the floor to mydistinguished colleague, the seniorSenator from West Virginia.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from West Virginia.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank mydistinguished colleague, Mr. HAGEL, forhis excellent statement. I thank himfor joining with me in the preparation,development and promotion of this res-olution. And I thank him for the timethat he has yielded to me.

Mr. HAGEL and I, along with 63 othercosponsors, developed S. Res. 98, whichwas reported favorably from the SenateForeign Relations Committee, and ispending before the Senate today. Theresolution seeks to provide the Sen-ate’s views as to the global climatechange negotiations now underway.These negotiations have, as a goal, arevision of the 1992 United NationsFramework Convention on ClimateChange, known as the Rio Pact.

Mr. President, my years of recollec-tion go back farther than that of mostSenators. I am not a scientist, but Ihave lived long enough to see what Ibelieve are some very definite changesin the climate pattern affecting ourcountry. Droughts, floods, storms ap-pear to me to be more erratic, more un-predictable, and more severe in theselater years of my life than in my ear-lier years. I can remember when therewere no air conditioning units in Wash-ington or anywhere else where I lived.We have recently seen heat waves—se-vere. We have seen droughts—severe.They seem to be happening more fre-quently. So I believe in my own mindand heart that something is happeningout there. Something is happening.Something is happening to our climate.As I say, I am not a scientist, but themajority of scientists who study cli-mate patterns tell us that there appar-ently are changes going on in the cli-mate pattern and that anthropogenicinterference is probably the cause ofsome of this change.

All the data are not in, but I, for one,believe that there is sufficient evidenceof, first, a probable trend toward in-creased warming of the Earth’s surfaceresulting from human interference innatural climate patterns. I believe thata steady increase in accumulation ofcarbon dioxide and other greenhousegases in the atmosphere is takingplace. I believe that there is some rela-tionship between the warming trendand such accumulations, enough to jus-tify our taking some action and takingit now. The scientific foundation ofthis case is plausible enough, in mypersonal judgment, to put into motiona sound global program, because thetrends and the effects are long term.Certainly the Senate, under the Con-stitution, is obligated to communicateits views and advice on the treaty ne-gotiations. The Constitution, in outlin-ing the powers of the President, sayshe—meaning the President—shall havepower ‘‘by and with the Advice and

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S8117July 25, 1997Consent of the Senate, to make Trea-ties’’; ‘‘by and with the Advice andConsent of the Senate, to make Trea-ties. . . .’’ It doesn’t just use the word‘‘consent’’ of the Senate. It also usesthe word of ‘‘advice.’’ All too often welet ourselves to be limited to consent-ing to or rejecting treaties. But wehave an obligation to advise the admin-istration as to the Senate’s views con-cerning a treaty, especially this treatywhich can have such far-reaching rami-fications.

I do not think the Senate should sup-port a treaty that requires only halfthe world—in other words, the devel-oped countries—to endure the eco-nomic costs of reducing emissionswhile developing countries are left freeto pollute the atmosphere and, in sodoing, siphon off American industries.There are those who say that the Unit-ed States is responsible for the situa-tion that has developed. They claimthat the United States should bear thebrunt of the burden. But the time forpointing fingers is over. In this par-ticular environmental game there areno winners; the world loses. And anyeffort to avoid the effects of global cli-mate change will be doomed to failurefrom the start without the participa-tion of the developing world, particu-larly those nations that are rapidly de-veloping and will rapidly increase theircarbon dioxide and other greenhousegas emissions. Count me as a global en-vironmentalist, who insists that all na-tions that spew forth major concentra-tions of carbon dioxide, or that will bespewing forth major concentrations ofcarbon dioxide, must step up to theplate in these negotiations and makegood-faith, specific, binding commit-ments to control and reduce theseemissions right from the start.

Industry is fueled, in large part, byfossil fuels, which are the primary—primary—cause of greenhouse gasemissions. Let us examine the role ofChina in that regard. As a percentageof total world consumption in the year2015, China alone will account for 42percent of all the coal burned world-wide while the United States will ac-count for only 16 percent. The increasein China’s use of coal should alarmevery environmentalist who is con-cerned about global warming.

So, if you are a true environmental-ist—I am not talking about fanatics—ifyou are a true environmentalist, as Iam, then you should be alarmed aboutthe situation that I have just men-tioned with respect to China. And thereare other countries, such as India, Mex-ico, Indonesia, Brazil, that are classi-fied as developing countries. I say theyneed to step up to the plate, just as wedo, just as the annex 1 countries do,just as the developed countries do,when the negotiations are taking placeand make binding, specific commit-ments to reductions of greenhousegases and to make those commitmentsto start now, not somewhere in the fu-ture.

From 1995 to 2015, China will increaseits coal consumption by a huge 111 per-

cent, compared to only 22 percent forthe United States. Yet, despite its fu-ture role as the world’s leading con-tributor to the problem of carbon emis-sions, China has indicated steadfast re-fusal to apply any type of binding obli-gations upon its own economy and in-dustry. I believe that, if the treatydoes not commit the developing na-tions like China to binding commit-ments, there will be no incentive forChina and the other nations of the de-veloping world to make responsible andenvironmentally sound choices as theydevelop.

The committee report that is beforethe Senate contains a brief but accu-rate summary of the history of theglobal change negotiations. Most of thenations of the world signed up at theEarth summit in Rio in 1992 to a Trea-ty that set voluntary goals for nationsto start limiting their carbon dioxideemissions. Unfortunately, most nationsof the world, ourselves included, failedto take the actions needed to meetthose voluntary goals.

As a result of this failure, the partiesmet again in Berlin in 1995 and soughtto impose a timetable whereby legallybinding limits on national carbon diox-ide reductions would be put into place.Unfortunately—unfortunately—a fun-damental error—I would use the word‘‘blunder’’—a fundamental blunder wasmade in Berlin in that only the so-called developed nations, or Annex Inations, were to impose such a legallybinding regime on themselves. Devel-oping nations got a free pass.

The concept which is embodied in theByrd-Hagel resolution is that develop-ing country parties should join the de-veloped world in making new specificscheduled commitments to limit or re-duce greenhouse gas emissions withinthe same compliance period.

Now, does this mean that the Senateis insisting on commitments to iden-tical levels of emissions among all theparties? Certainly not. The emissionslimitations goals, to be fair, should bebased on a country’s level of develop-ment. The purpose is not to choke offMexico’s development or China’s devel-opment. The purpose is to start ad-dressing the greenhouse gas problem inthe only meaningful way we can, thatis, through globally and through bind-ing commitments up front. The time-frame could be 5 years, 7 years, 10 yearsor whatever. The initial commitmentto action, starting upon signature inKyoto, could be relatively modest, pac-ing upwards depending upon variousfactors, with a specific goal to beachieved within a fixed time period.There are plenty of tools to encouragethe developing world to make meaning-ful commitments.

The message to U.S. negotiators isthat all nations—that is the message ofthis resolution—particularly thosethat are making and will in the futuremake a significant contribution togreenhouse gas emissions need to makecommitments at Kyoto that unequivo-cally demonstrate a tangible action

program—action, not just words—totackle the problem of climate change;and the need to start with their best ef-forts to act on those commitments im-mediately, not 5 years down the road,not 10 years down the road but imme-diately, and not settle for vague prom-ises to return to a future negotiationto get serious.

American industry has expressedconcern that a treaty without develop-ing country commitments would en-courage capital flight and a loss of jobsin the United States. We do not as yethave available the administration’scurrent best assessment of the eco-nomic impacts of various levels ofemissions targets in the United States.However, preliminary work done by theArgonne Laboratory on this matter isworrisome in that its worst case sce-nario shows a very negative economicimpact on American industry.

Mr. President, as I have said, we donot yet have a clearly articulated eco-nomic assessment by the administra-tion, and so it is impossible to makespecific judgments as to the economicimpacts on particular industries andhow they can be mitigated by othertools that could be included in thetreaty. Dr. Janet Yellen, Chairman ofthe Council of Economic Advisers, stat-ed in a hearing before the EnvironmentCommittee on July 17, the administra-tion has not settled on a particular setof policies to reduce emissions and in-tends to engage all interested partiesin a White House conference on climatechange this fall.

The American people need to under-stand the situation and the actions tobe taken. The President is committedto this major public education cam-paign, and I note that he yesterdayconvened a meeting of scientists at theWhite House to discuss the evidence re-garding global warming and to beginthat educational process.

There surely will be costs if the Unit-ed States is to make the changes to ourexisting industrial base and to our life-style necessary to meet the goals ofthe treaty. Our smokestacks must becleaner and our automobiles more effi-cient. There are many ways to achievethese goals, but we must be able to tellthe American people what will be re-quired to meet any proposed commit-ment.

The Senate is doing the right thingin addressing the negotiations in aprincipled way without attempting tomicromanage those negotiations. It ispossible that the Senate will have abinding revision to the Rio Pact pre-sented to it within a year. Given thetremendous implications for thisagreement, the Byrd-Hagel resolutionalso suggests that the leadership createa bipartisan group of Senators to mon-itor the negotiations and report peri-odically to the full Senate on the na-ture of the agreement as it is beingshaped by our negotiators. The nationsof the world are all in this global boattogether. It is not a boat of which onlyhalf will sink while the other half stays

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES8118 July 25, 1997afloat. Unless we all pull our oars inthe same direction and plug the largeleaks as well as the small leaks, ourship will flounder and surely sink. Thisresolution will give the Senate and theAmerican people a seat at the negotiat-ing table and add strength to our U.S.negotiating team.

I thank all Senators for their atten-tion, and I hope the resolution will beadopted by a substantial majority.

Now, some of the Senators who havesigned on to the resolution may havediffering views about the treaty, butthere is one thing that we are in agree-ment on—one or two things. These areset forth in the resolution beginningand concluding with the resolvingclause. One, that all nations, all na-tions must take steps now, at the timeof the signing of the treaty, to beginlimiting their emissions of greenhousegases. Mere promises will not be suffi-cient. Mere promises will not get bythis Senate. A treaty will have to havethe approval of a two-thirds super-majority in this Senate, and that iswhat we are telling the administration.We are letting the Administrationknow that this Senate is not just goingto consent or not consent on a treaty.This Senate is going to fulfill its con-stitutional obligations not only to con-sent but also to ‘‘advise’’ and consent.And the resolution also provides thatsuch a treaty must not result in seri-ous harm to the economy of the UnitedStates.

So I suggest that all Senators readthe resolution’s resolving clause. Thatis where we come together. That iswhere Mr. HAGEL’s views, my views,the views of others who are signatoriesof the resolution blend and constitute aconsensus.

Mr. President, I thank my friend andI yield the floor.

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I thankSenator BYRD very, very much.

I yield up to 5 minutes to my friendand distinguished colleague from Ken-tucky.

Mr. FORD. I thank the Senator fromNebraska.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from Kentucky.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, it is al-ways good to work with my longtimefriend, Senator BYRD, on a project thatwe both believe very strongly in, and itis good to work with a newfound friend.I have had an affection for people fromNebraska for a long time, and JimExon and I worked together as Gov-ernors and then here. I appreciate theSenator’s friendship and getting toknow each other. And so I thank himfor his cooperation and help here thismorning.

Mr. President, there is an old sayingthat when you run out of luck, you bet-ter get a new pair of dice. As far as Iam concerned, we have lost every rollof the dice during the climate changenegotiations, and we better get our-selves a new pair. Otherwise, Americanworkers will be out of luck. That iswhy I rise today to support Senate Res-

olution 98 which Senator BYRD andSenator HAGEL now have before theSenate.

If you take a good look at the globalclimate change treaty currently beingnegotiated, you will discover that de-veloping nations are the high rollerswhile the developed nations keep com-ing up with snake eyes and the bigloser is the global environment. That isbecause only developed nations wouldbe legally bound by the treaty ham-mered out by negotiators, the so-called‘‘Berlin Mandate’’ produced back in1995. Developing nations are off thehook.

That decision contained two glaringerrors. First, negotiators agreed tocomplete negotiations for the post-2000period by the artificial deadline of 1997before they began implementation ofthe 1992 convention and before therewas an understanding of the complex-ity of those negotiations.

Second, negotiators succumbed tothe demands of China and other devel-oping countries that any agreementreached in Kyoto in 1997 for post-2000commitments must exempt Asianeconomies such as China and India andthe rest of the developing world. Rightnow, developed nations and developingnations have about equal levels of car-bon emissions, but within 5 years ofthe deadline developing nations willhave more than 11⁄2 times the 1990 levelof the developing world.

So because of those bad rolls of thedice, the treaty is heavily weightedagainst America and especially againstAmerican workers. That is because theU.S. will have to make the steepest re-ductions and suffer the costliest andmost damaging consequences. Prelimi-nary estimates put the loss as high as600,000 American jobs each year. And600,000 jobs is probably a low estimatebecause the treaty creates an enor-mous incentive for American busi-nesses to shift more and more jobsoverseas to avoid the expensive emis-sion reductions that U.S. businesseswill have to meet.

The impact in Kentucky would be es-pecially bad. Not only miners workingin the coal fields of eastern and west-ern Kentucky suffer job losses butmany of the businesses and factoriesthat have created a ‘‘golden triangle,’’as we refer to it, between northernKentucky, Louisville and Lexingtonwould be forced to close, and every sin-gle Kentuckian will experience andface higher electric bills and higher gasprices. The sad thing is we will noteven get a cleaner environment. Thatis the sad thing. We will not stop glob-al warming. We will not even reducecarbon emissions. That is becauseevery ton of reduced emissions in theUnited States and other developed na-tions will be made up and then some inthe developing world.

The way I see it we have been stuckin a game with loaded dice. You have atreaty with devastating consequencesfor the American economy. You end upwith virtually no environmental bene-

fit. It looks like nothing more than amassive foreign aid package paid forwith American jobs.

It is clear that many American inter-ests are being neglected by our nego-tiators and that we must come up witha better solution for the problem ofglobal emissions. But time is limitedfor the Senate to send a message thatthe treaty as currently reported is notacceptable.

The answer is clearly not, as pro-posed by the State Department, aKyoto protocol and then a secondagreement of some kind after Kyoto in2005 or even later. That scenario ig-nores the fact that we have no assur-ances China and other developing coun-tries will become parties to any agree-ment with a commitment to simplystart discussions for a third agreement.

I believe Senator BYRD’s and SenatorHAGEL’s resolution is the right method.It sets commonsense parameters forour negotiators to work from andassures that any treaty meets the goalof reduced emissions without penaliz-ing one country over another.

I hope my colleagues will join us insending this important message, notonly to our negotiators, but to theAmerican people that both the globalenvironment and our national interestsmust be protected.

I thank my friends and yield thefloor.

Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. SES-

SIONS). The Senator from Massachu-setts.

PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that Scott Buntonand Gregg Rothschild, of my staff, bepermitted access to the floor duringthe resolution deliberation.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I yieldmyself such time as I may consume.

Mr. President, I want to thank theSenator from Nebraska and the Sen-ator from West Virginia for raising anissue of common sense and a very le-gitimate issue regarding the U.S. nego-tiating position with respect to globalclimate change.

I have not been a cosponsor up untilthis point of the resolution because Ishared with Senator LIEBERMAN andSenator CHAFEE concerns about someof the phrasing and the meaning ofsome of the resolution with respect tothe negotiating process. We thought itwas important to seek clarificationwith respect to those points before hav-ing a vote.

As a member of the Foreign Rela-tions Committee, I raised those con-cerns during the markup. I voted tosend this resolution to the floor forconsideration today. Pending the ulti-mate discussion that we have on thefloor here today, it is my intention tovote for this resolution because I thinkit embraces common sense.

That common sense is the notionthat if you are really going to do some-thing to effect global climate change

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S8119July 25, 1997and you are going to do it in a fair-minded way that will permit you tobuild consensus in the country, whichis important, and to build the nec-essary support to ratify a treaty, weare going to have to do this in a waythat calls on everybody to share theburden of responding to this problem.That means that we need to have anagreement that does not leave enor-mous components of the world’s con-tributors and future contributors ofthis problem out of the solution.

It is simply wrong to assume thatfacing the difficulties we have hadsince the Rio treaty, the agreement inRio, which 155 nations signed, that weare going to be able to now face up tothose greater responsibilities withoutbringing everybody into the solution.The notion that China or India or otherenormously rapidly developing coun-tries, who will before too long also beadding very significantly to this prob-lem, and already are to some degree,are going to somehow later negotiatetheir participation I think is contraryto common sense. So I have joined inthe notion that it is appropriate to re-consider the Berlin Mandate and to dis-cuss how the U.S. Senate properlythinks we should approach these nego-tiations.

But let me also make it clear that, inthis strange hybrid of Senators whohave signed on as cosponsors to thisresolution, there are some who do notwant any treaty. There are some whodo not think it is a problem. There aresome who do not accept the science.There are some for whom the effort isone to really have nothing happen. Iam pleased that Senator BYRD is notone of those and that many of thosewho will vote for this resolution, thesense-of-the-Senate resolution, join meand others in believing that this is aserious problem with science that sup-ports it.

It is not my purpose to debate thescience very deeply here this morningbecause the science is not at issue inthis resolution. This resolution is aquestion of negotiating tactics. Thisresolution is about how we will ap-proach the question of reducing green-house gases, not whether. It is a ques-tion not entirely based on science.

But nevertheless, the Record oughtto reflect as we approach these issuesthat the science overwhelmingly docu-ments the notion that a phenomenonknown as global warming is already oc-curring, it is occurring. There is no de-bate among scientists as to whether ornot it is happening. There is some de-bate as to what the impacts will be.There is debate about the models andhow much those models show with cer-titude it is going to happen in whatpart of the country.

Can we predict what will happen toNebraska? The answer is no. Can wepredict what will happen to my Stateof Massachusetts and the coastalzones? Well, to some degree some sci-entists are suggesting you can, butsome people remain questioning that.

Let me make it very clear—someoneraised the question about how thePanel on Climate Change now predictsthe global warming of only 1 degree to3.5 degrees Celsius over the comingcentury. People say that is not reallythat bad and it is hardly a cause forconcern. Let me point out to my col-leagues that the global average tem-perature has changed by less than a de-gree Celsius up or down for 10,000 years.We know that. So the projected warm-ing is expected to exceed any climatechange that has occurred during thehistory of civilization.

In addition, even apparently smallglobal average temperature changeswill be accompanied by much larger re-gional climate shifts. For example, awarming which is twice as large as theglobal average is projected to occur athigh northern latitudes. Apparently,small global average changes have alsoled to very large climate shifts in thepast.

Moreover, the IntergovernmentalPanel on Climate Change, representingthe consensus of climate scientistsworldwide, has concluded:

. . . the balance of evidence suggests thatthere is a discernible human influence onglobal climate. And the year 1995 matched1990 as the hottest year on record.

What we know to a certainty also isthat from the 1980’s on we have beenrecording these increasingly heated pe-riods. We then saw Mount Pinatubo’scooling effect. We saw that cooling ef-fect begin to diminish as the impact ofthat volcanic disruption between theSun’s rays and the Earth dissipated. Sowe have begun to return to the highreadings that we saw characteristic ofthe late 1980’s. March through Decem-ber of 1994 were the warmest periods onrecord according to the NationalWeather Service climate analysis.

I could go on. The National Academyof Sciences has reported that despiteuncertainties, greenhouse warmingposes a potential threat, ‘‘sufficient tomerit prompt responses * * * Invest-ment in mitigation measures acts asinsurance protection against the greatuncertainties and the possibility ofdramatic surprises.’’

In addition, the panel suggested thatsubstantial mitigation could be accom-plished at very modest costs; in otherwords, insurance is cheap, they said.

Let me point out one other fact thatwas set forth at the hearings we had inthe committee.

We know that we are the world’sgreatest emitter of greenhouse gases.We know that carbon dioxide is themost significant of those. We knowthat the oceans mitigate the increaseof carbon dioxide that we put into theatmosphere. The oceans consume thecarbon dioxide.

But what we have also learned as amatter of science is that there is somelevel at which there is this potential ofsaturation of the oceans. We do notknow where that is. The oceans recir-culate it. And the question remainswhether or not you might have an ex-

traordinary, dramatic impact becauseof the reaching of this saturationpoint.

Some people may want to temptthat. Some people may not feel anykind of generational responsibility orany kind of global responsibility andsuggest that, well, all of these thou-sands of scientists, all of the consensusreached by 155 nations—they may wantto choose to ignore it.

But when scientists tell me that theoceans are already rising and they arealready rising at a discernible andmeasurable rate and that we are con-tinuing a process of warming and thatbetween now and the middle of thenext century oceans will rise 1 to 3 feetand that the impact of that will be dev-astation on the coast of Florida, theloss of island nations, and the remark-able impact on wetlands all around theplanet, I think we have a responsibilityto say, well, we ought to try to thinkabout that. And that is exactly whatthis effort to deal with global climatechange is trying to do.

Now, I am not going to debate all ofthe science and the models and whatcan or cannot be done here. But it isclear that one of the chief sponsors ofthis resolution, Senator BYRD—and youhave heard him speak—agrees, andSenator LIEBERMAN and CHAFEE andothers do, that the prospect of human-induced global warming as an acceptedthesis with adverse consequences forall is here, and it is real.

There are some Senators, as I havesaid, who want to debate that science;and so be it. That is not what this reso-lution is about. This resolution is aquestion of how our negotiators willnegotiate. What we ought to be seekingin Kyoto, as we pursue what most peo-ple have decided, is a legitimate con-cern.

Senator BYRD’s resolution makes afirst step toward tackling the issue ofchanging the balance of how we ap-proach this. As I have said, SenatorLIEBERMAN, Senator CHAFEE, and Iwould have worded some things dif-ferently. But we are convinced in ourdiscussions with Senator BYRD that theintent here is similar, which is to guar-antee that our negotiators have achanged position, a tougher position,but a reasonable position in negotiat-ing how we will come to agreement inKyoto.

Let me point out a couple of thoseareas where we had some concerns.There is language in the resolutionabout the developing nations accom-plishing their reductions within ex-actly the same compliance period asthe developed nations. I have come tothe conclusion that these words are nota treaty killer that some suggested itmight have been.

I am encouraged to learn that Sen-ator BYRD’s objective is to support en-tering into a binding internationalagreement to address climate change,and he also agrees that all nations, de-veloped and less developed, ought toparticipate in this significant effort.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES8120 July 25, 1997We both recognize that, as a matter ofglobal and national environmental pro-tection, the global warming issue isnot going to be able to be addressed ef-fectively if any major emitting nationor group of nations stays outside theagreement. So, ultimately, all majoremitting nations will need to reducegreenhouse emissions if we are going tomake significant progress on globalwarming.

I heard one of my colleagues talkearlier about who is going to policethis, and how do you enter into thisinternational agreement. Well, the factis we enter into international agree-ments all the time. We have tradeagreements. We have arms controlagreements. We have environmentalagreements. We police them by arriv-ing at mutually agreeable means ofbeing able to raise the issues with eachof those nations that might be offend-ing, and we have done so without evergiving up our sovereignty. So, that isjust a red herring in this issue. Weknow that we can do that, and we willdo that.

We also know that we are trying toseek an equilibrium with other nationsso we are not losing jobs while otherpeople are gaining some foothold in themarketplace. We understand that. Weare not seeking to consciously enterinto an arrangement that will dis-advantage the United States of Amer-ica and our economy.

On the other hand, every environ-mental agreement and every agree-ment we have reached so far requiressome change in the way we do business.That change has generally producedmore jobs, not less jobs. One of thefastest growing industries in Massa-chusetts has been environmental tech-nology, as we develop new means ofproducing clean coal or scrubbers or aswe create other kinds of mitigation fortoxins or chemicals. I think that thesame thing can happen here. If theUnited States is smart, we will be theprovider of these technologies to theworld.

There still appears to be a little bitof uncertainty as to what this phrasewithin the same compliance period ac-tually means. But after a number ofdiscussions with Senator CHAFEE’s andSenator BYRD’s staffs, I believe that wehave reached an understanding that itmeans essentially that we want coun-tries to begin to reduce while we arereducing, we want them to engage in areasonable schedule while we are en-gaged in a reasonable schedule, butthat if a developing nation needs moretime to get a plan in place or needs tohave more time to raise the funds andbe able to purchase the technology anddo the things necessary, that as long asthere is a good-faith track on whichthey are proceeding, that if it tookthem a number of years, 2 years, 3years, 5, or longer to be able to reach aparticular goal, that certainly meanswithin the same compliance periodthey are operating similarly to try tomeet the standards that we want to set

out. We believe that, given that less-developed countries are not currentlyprojected to emit more emissions thanindustrial countries until at least theyear 2015, it is reasonable to permitsome flexibility in the targets and thetiming of compliance while at the sametime requiring all countries to agree tomake a legally binding commitment bya date certain. That is reasonable. ButI think most of my colleagues wouldagree that if some country simplydoesn’t have the capacity, the plan, themoney, or the technology, it may bethey have to take a little more timeand we should want to be reasonable inhelping them to do that because thegoal here is to get everybody to par-ticipate, not to create a divisivenessthat winds up with doing nothing.

There is a second issue here, and thatis the issue of emissions trading. Whilethis resolution includes provisions thataddress developing countries’ partici-pation, a number of us are critical ofthe fact that it is silent on the ques-tion of flexibility, a question of whatmarket tools or what market accesstools ought to be permissible for use byall countries. I believe that the recordis clear that emissions trading is avital market mechanism that will ben-efit the United States.

Emissions trading not only advan-tages the U.S. business, but it wouldprovide developing countries with in-centives to sign up to binding legalcommitments that most people believeare important in this treaty. I wouldlike to point out to my colleagues that,currently in the negotiations, Europeis trying to create a bubble over Eu-rope itself, trying to create a separateagreement where Europe will be able tohave emissions trading among Euro-pean countries, but we and otherswould not be able to engage in thattrading. The result would be that youmight have Belgium required to do a10-percent reduction in 2010 for CO2 andCH4 and NOX. But at the same time,Greece would be able to increase by 30percent. Spain would increase by 17percent. Ireland would increase by 15percent. Portugal would be able to in-crease by 40 percent. This is becausethey are trying to set up a structurewhere they can trade amongst eachother for emissions without us havingthat same capacity.

Now, if anything disadvantagesAmerican industry, it would be to haveEurope create a bubble for itself to theexclusion of the United States to beable to emissions trade. I am againstthat. I think that is anticompetitiveand it is anti-United States. This is si-lent on that. I hope my colleagues willagree with me that we want the UnitedStates to be able to trade with one ofthese countries. We want the UnitedStates to be able to trade with one ofthe less developed nations so that wecan do what we have done in the Unit-ed States.

Let me point out, here is the impact.Referring to this chart, these are whatwe have done in the United States.

This black line represents the actualSO2 emissions in the United States,and this was the projected rate of re-duction if we were to engage, under theClean Air Act, in emissions trading,and this pink line was what we pro-jected. But because emissions tradinghas been such an effective market tool,this yellow line represents the actualrate of reductions in SO2 emissions. Sowe have had a phenomenal successthrough emissions trading in reducingemissions in our country. And it wouldbe simply against common sense tohave a negotiation which precluded thecapacity of the United States to engagein this emissions trading.

This chart shows the growth indica-tors and emissions. The black line rep-resents the gross domestic product in-crease of the United States of Americafrom 1985 to 1995. The electricity de-mand in the United States is the pinkline, and the electricity demand wentup almost concomitantly with thegross domestic product. At the sametime, because we engaged in thesetradings within our States, here iswhat happened with the emissionstrading effect. The SO2 emissions dra-matically went down, even as elec-tricity demands went up.

So it is a proven tool, it is a marketforce tool, and it is one that will en-hance the economic competitiveness ofthe United States. I am pleased that, inmy discussions with Senator BYRD, hehas indicated that there is nothing inthis resolution that precludes the ca-pacity of our negotiators to pursue thisas a tool in our negotiations and, con-ceivably, as one of the ingredients of aKyoto treaty.

Mr. HAGEL. Will the Senator yield?Mr. KERRY. For what purpose?Mr. HAGEL. I would like to respond,

if I could.Mr. KERRY. I will finish up, and then

I want to reserve some time for Sen-ator CHAFEE, and others. If I can com-plete, then and the Senator, on histime, can certainly ask any questionthat he wants to.

Let me just say that we believe verystrongly that we need to put a struc-ture in place that will provide incen-tives for nations and industries to re-duce their emissions of greenhousegases. And we believe, obviously, thedeveloping world is poised to undertakea massive infrastructure investment inenergy, transportation, and other po-tentially high-emitting sectors. Theseinvestments are going to have long-term capital stock lifetimes, and if wewere to exclude that discussion of thembeing part of this, it would be an enor-mous error of judgment, I think, forthe longrun of this effort.

One final comment I will make onthe science. Even if we were to reduceour greenhouse gas emissions today to1990 levels, you will still continue tohave the greenhouse gas warming ef-fect, because the life of these gases inthe atmosphere will go on for 75 years,or longer, into the future and becauseof the cumulative effect and the lack of

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S8121July 25, 1997knowledge about where you may havea saturation point or a devastating im-pact, caution and common sense predi-cate that we should do everything pos-sible in order to avoid the potential ofthat kind of catastrophe.

I reserve the balance of our time.Mr. HAGEL addressed the Chair.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Nebraska.Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I yield

myself whatever time I need. I justwould like to make a quick response tomy colleague. I noted that my col-league from Massachusetts keeps em-ploying the name of Senator BYRD. Iassume that Senator BYRD is going tohave an opportunity to speak for him-self on this.

First, let’s be very clear. This is allinteresting, but it does not at all haveanything to do with the Byrd-Hagelresolution. That is No. 1. Two, I amsaying—and I think much of what weare talking about on the resolutionthat legally binding commitments arepretty tough, and we want to under-stand about those legally binding com-mitments before anybody gets legallybound, regarding if we are talkingabout a European bubble, or whatever.

Mr. KERRY. Let me answer the Sen-ator by saying we don’t disagree withthat at all.

Mr. HAGEL. This is interesting, I sayto the Senator, but again it does notreflect on what the Byrd-Hagel resolu-tion reflects.

Mr. KERRY. How doesn’t it reflect onit?

Mr. HAGEL. We don’t talk about theEuropean bubble. More important, wedon’t talk about European trading andjoint implementation. If Senator BYRDwants to say that, he can. This Senatorwants to make it clear that I am not infavor of any sort or form of emissionstrading or joint implementation.

Furthermore, any kind of impliedUnited Nations bureaucracy with thepower to come in and inspect and pe-nalize and fine and shut down Amer-ican companies, which obviously is thelegitimate logical conclusion of this, Iwant to be on record right now in say-ing I oppose that. Obviously, SenatorBYRD can speak for himself.

Mr. KERRY. To answer the Senator,since he wanted to engage in this dis-cussion, no one has suggested any suchthing, and I would be against that,also.

Second, the Senator would have toagree with me that this resolution issilent on the issue of emissions trad-ing. That is what I said; I said it is si-lent.

Mr. HAGEL. That is what I have said.I said I could not support that, will notsupport that, and I want to make suremy colleagues understand that, andthat we stay focused on this.

Mr. KERRY. We will let the Senatorfrom West Virginia speak for himself.But it is my understanding that theSenator from West Virginia has a dif-ferent view.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from Nebraska has the floor.

Mr. HAGEL. Thank you, Mr. Presi-dent. Senator KERRY, is it your intentto enter into a colloquy with the Sen-ator from West Virginia on this issue?

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, not nec-essarily. I am going to wait until Ihave had a moment to discuss this withSenator CHAFEE. But we can proceedwith the debate. There are people onhis side that would like to speak. I willreserve the balance of our time.

Mr. HAGEL. I thank the Senator. Iwould like to yield to my friend fromKansas 2 minutes for his comments onthis issue as well.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from Kansas.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, mightI inquire of my distinguished colleaguefrom Nebraska, was that 4 minutes or 2minutes?

Mr. HAGEL. It is 2 minutes. It was 4minutes 2 minutes ago, and I am sorryabout that. I might add that we intendto continue this dialog and colloquy,hopefully, next week because as a re-sult of the fact that we were given lesstime late last night than what wasoriginally agreed to, even though Ihappen to be standing in this position,there is not much I can do with that. Ilive by the law. So that is why youhave 2 minutes, and probably less.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, mightI inquire whether that dialog came outof my time? I assume I have an addi-tional 2 minutes. I was merely ques-tioning the distinguished Senator fromNebraska on the time.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator is recognized for 2 minutes.

Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the Chair. Iam upset. Talking about global warm-ing, I have a little global warming un-derneath the collar. Two minutes andone hour of debate for such a terribly,terribly serious question.

I rise in support of Senate Concur-rent Resolution 98, and that is a fancyword that puts the Senate on recordagainst any U.N.-sponsored, legallybinding greenhouse treaty. I come tothis issue as the former chairman ofthe House Agriculture Committee,where we spent years trying to addressour emission policies with soundscience, reasonable cost-benefit consid-erations, and I want to wake up farmcountry because that is not what isgoing to happen.

A U.N. scientific panel now blamesagriculture, under the auspices of thisplan, for 20 percent of human-causedgreenhouse gas emissions. They pro-pose the following things, Mr. and Mrs.Farmer, so get your pencil out, getyour yellow tablet out. We don’t havetime to really discuss this—Senatorswant to leap on their airplanes at 12o’clock—in terms of an issue that willaffect every life and every pocketbookin America. But we are here talkingabout it, and I probably have 30 sec-onds.

Wake up. Mandatory increased fueleconomy requirements. Phaseout ofdiesel fuel. How are our tractors goingto run? I don’t know. Limitations on

production. Been there, done that. Wepassed a new farm bill. Mandate for no-till; no-till farming, forcing farmers tobuy all sorts of new equipment. Here’sa good one: Restrictions on livestockproduction to reduce methane emissionfor the United Nations. We are going tocontrol what goes into the cow andnow, evidently, we are going to have aU.N. observer trying to control whatcomes out of the cow. And restrictionson processing and transportation offood products.

This is uncalled for. Many of my col-leagues joined to send a letter to theadministration to say, how on Earthare we going to do this and still feedAmerica in a troubled and hungryworld? That answer has not been forth-coming. We recommended five consid-erations, and then we follow with theletter that was sent to the Presidentlast November by every major agri-culture group.

I ask unanimous consent that thisletter be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the letterwas ordered to be printed in theRECORD, as follows:

NOVEMBER 8, 1996.THE PRESIDENT,The White House,Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: Last summer, par-ticipants in the second Conference of Partiesof the United Nations’ Framework Conven-tion on Climate Change (UNFCCC) agreed tonegotiations for legally binding numeric lim-its on greenhouse gas emissions. This dra-matic shift from voluntary to enforceablecaps on greenhouse gases was led by the U.S.According to your spokespeople, there is nowa consensus in the world scientific commu-nity which demands urgent action to reducegreenhouse gas emissions.

There is less than agreement outside theUnited Nation’s scientific body. Further-more, there is still a lively debate among re-spected scientists about the human versusnatural sources of greenhouse gases andtheir effect on climate. Controversy notwith-standing, the climate change treaty is mov-ing full-speed ahead with the Administra-tion’s enthusiastic support. A final agree-ment is scheduled to be completed in Decem-ber of 1997, with ratification by individualcountries beginning in 1998. If ratified by theU.S. Senate, the treaty will be binding onthe U.S. and other developed countries andmay be incorporated into U.S. law. However,developing countries will not have to com-ply.

Of great concern to agriculture are reportsunder consideration by the U.N. scientificpanel which blame agriculture for more than20 percent of human-caused greenhouse gasemissions. Specifically, we are concernedabout proposals for the following: fuel econ-omy requirements, reduction or phaseout ofthe use of diesel fuel, limitations on produc-tion per acre for some crops, requirementsfor ‘‘plowless’’ soil preparation, mandatoryfallowing of crop land, limits and restric-tions on livestock production to reducemethane emissions, restrictions on use offertilizer, restrictions on timber harvesting,restrictions on processing, manufacturingand transportation of food products.

Unfortunately, these proposals ignore agri-culture’s positive role in reducing green-house gases by removing carbon dioxide fromthe atmosphere through photosynthesis.Most importantly, they cavalierly disregardthe most valuable function of modern agri-culture—feeding a hungry world. Ironically,

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES8122 July 25, 1997rice production has been singled out as thenumber one culprit in human-caused meth-ane emissions.

We are very concerned that these rec-ommendations or similar ones will be incor-porated in the final climate change agree-ment, ratified and imposed on U.S. farmersand ranchers through U.S. laws. Binding andenforceable controls would apply only to de-veloped countries and would severely dis-advantage U.S. farmers and ranchers in to-day’s global markets.

Moreover, we are deeply concerned andsurprised that the Administration has notactively consulted with agriculture as theagreement has been developed. We respect-fully request that the Administration takethe following actions:

(1) The Administration must fully and ac-tively consult with agriculture. Agriculturalinterests have not been considered by theDepartment of State and other U.S. agencieswhich are closely involved with the develop-ment of the climate change agreement. Theagreement must include an open and exten-sive public debate which involves agricul-tural producers and members of Congress,USDA and other agencies.

(2) The Administration should withdraw itssupport for legally binding and enforceablecaps on emissions until here is a strongerconsensus from the scientific communitythat they are justified. If it is determinedthat controls are justified, they should be ac-complished voluntarily or in ways whichminimize disruption of U.S. agricultural pro-ducers.

(3) The final climate change agreement,scheduled for completion in December of1997, must be delayed to provide sufficienttime for consultation with agriculture andfor adequate risk, cost and benefit assess-ment.

Without proper scientific and economicanalyses and assessment, U.S. farmers andranchers may be placed at a serious dis-advantage with agricultural producers incountries which do not plan to reduce green-house gases.

If the Administration does not adequatelyaddress the above concerns, we may raisethem with Congress during the ratificationprocess.

Sincerely,American Farm Bureau Federation,

American Crop Protection Association,American Sheep Industries Associa-tion, American Soybean Association,CENEX, National Association of WheatGrowers, National Cattlemen’s BeefAssociation, National Corn GrowersAssociation, National Cotton Council,National Food Processors Association,National Grange, National Milk Pro-ducers Federation, National Pork Pro-ducers Council, The Fertilizer Insti-tute, United Agribusiness League,United Fresh Fruit and Vegetable As-sociation, USA Rice, Western GrowersAssociation.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ampleased to join a bipartisan majority ofmy colleagues today in support of Sen-ate Resolution 98 that puts the Senateon record against any United Nations-sponsored global climate change treatythat would be binding on only devel-oped nations.

It had been U.S. policy until lastyear that the United States would pur-sue voluntary programs to reducegreenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels.This made sense, the science is notclear on global warming and no nationshould risk their economic well beingbecause of environmental extremismthat ignores the call for sound science.

However, Deputy Secretary of StateTim Wirth last year at the Berlinmeeting of the Conference of Parties ofthe U.N. Framework Convention onClimate Change suddenly changed thevoluntary course of action. Under theWhite House’s supervision, Deputy Sec-retary Wirth proposed global warmingtreaty language that would force theUnited States and smaller developednations like Great Britain and Ger-many, to control their greenhouse gasemissions, but purposefully exemptsso-called developing nations such asChina, India, South Korea, Mexico, andBrazil, from the binding treaty lan-guage.

It is fact that China and India willexceed United States greenhouse gasemissions early next century, but theywill be exempt from this U.N.-designedtreaty. These developing nations willhave no international authority regu-lating their industries or way of life.As a result, the White House is meeklydeclining to be forceful in its negotia-tions and would rather unilaterally dis-arm our economy that is based onpower. If Deputy Secretary Wirth andothers supporting this treaty are soconcerned, perhaps they can tell mehow stopping United States carbon di-oxide emissions while letting Chinaand India pollute will help their envi-ronmental cause. What is the benefit?There is none under this treaty if thesenations are not brought into the sameglobal scheme as the United States.

Mr. President we are really talkingabout a legally binding greenhouse gastreaty. Sounds like Washingtonese toMr. and Mrs. America, but what it real-ly means is the White House is tellingthe world that developed nations feelguilty about their strong and vibrantindustrial base, therefore they must becausing global warming. Deputy Sec-retary of State Tim Wirth in his June19 testimony before the Senate ForeignRelations Committee admitted that be-cause the United States produces 20percent of the world’s carbon emissionsand has only 4 percent of the world’spopulation that Congress, withoutsound science on global warming, man-date that business and consumers stopusing their cars, trucks, combines,trains, and boats, not to mention shut-ting down factories to ease the pain ofothers about our quality of life.

In 1990, the United States producedmore than 26 percent of the world’sgoods and services, while producingonly 20 percent of its carbon emissions.Deputy Secretary Wirth also failed toshow that America’s air is gettingcleaner because in the EnvironmentalProtection Agency’s report NationalAir Quality and Emissions Trends Re-port, 1995 documented improvement inair quality over the past 9 years. Thisimprovement in air quality seems tobaffle the EPA and supporters of thebinding treaty because our air qualitykeeps improving despite the growth ofthe U.S. population, more automobileuse, not to mention the growth in ourgross domestic product.

And, what are the particulars of thisglobally binding treaty? Perhaps theyare reluctant to tell the folks in DodgeCity, America, this treaty will estab-lish a global greenhouse trading emis-sions system. This means some inter-national body, probably the United Na-tions, will be responsible for trackingour use of fossil fuels in the UnitedStates. The United Nations will be re-quired to know how much jet fuel anddiesel the Marines, Air Force, Army,and Navy use. The White House has noteven discussed the national securityimplications of this treaty with theSenate Armed Services Committee.

Wake up, farm country, the U.N. sci-entific panel blames agriculture formore than 20 percent of human-causedgreenhouse gas emissions and has pro-posed the following proposals for agri-culture:

Increased fuel economy require-ments, meaning that pickups will belighter and cannot carry as much feedand seed;

Phaseout of diesel fuel. What doesthe President propose we burn in trac-tors?

Limitations on production per acre;been there done that.

Mandate for no-till, forcing farmersto use planters that may not be rightfor their crops or soil;

Restrictions on livestock productionto reduce methane emission. Evidentlythe United Nations does not like cowflatulence;

Restrictions on fertilizer; andRestrictions on processing and trans-

portation of food products.This is uncalled for and I joined with

my Senate colleagues on the Agri-culture Committee in a letter to theVice President on March 14 expressingour deep concern that the White Housegreenhouse proposal was ignorant ofthe likely mandatory restrictions onthe world’s food and fiber supplier. Ouragriculture policies are the responsibil-ity of the U.S. Congress in consultationwith the President. The United Nationsshould have no say whatsoever inplanting, tilling, or harvesting. In ourletter we asked the administration toanalyze and brief us on the followingpoints regarding agriculture.

First, the potential effect of climatechange on U.S. agriculture and live-stock production.

Second, the estimated greenhousegas emission resulting from the pro-duction of crops and livestock in theUnited States.

Third, the net contribution of U.S.forests and crops soaking up green-house gases.

Fourth, actions and controls nec-essary to reduce agricultural green-house gas emissions to comply with ob-ligations that may arise under thetreaty and an economic analysis oftheir impact on U.S. farmers andranchers.

Fifth, whether and to what extentgreenhouse gas emission controlswould disadvantage agriculture produc-ers in this country compared to pro-ducers in other countries with fewer

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S8123July 25, 1997stringent emission controls or no con-trols at all.

The silence from the White Houseabout our concern is evident that theyare waiting until December when Con-gress is safely at home that they willreveal the treaty includes a carbon fueltax. Fortunately, my astute colleaguesin the Senate have been able to extractpieces of this plan through congres-sional hearings. The White House willimpose a Btu tax on energy sourceslike gasoline, diesel, and electricity.According to congressional testimonyby Dr. Janet Yellen, chairman of thePresident’s Council of Economic Advi-sors, that a $100 tax for every ton ofcarbon produced from fossil fuels willbe needed to reduce U.S. greenhousegas emissions to 1990 levels. I knowthat some of my seasoned colleaguesrecall that this is the same administra-tion that in 1993 proposed a com-plicated Btu tax on fossil fuels.

Mr. President, a Btu tax is unneededand goes against everything the Con-gress and White House has been strug-gling for over the past 2 months, a bal-anced budget with income-tax breaks.What would this Btu tax cost the fam-ily, the small businessman, or farmer?Well, some economists believe that toreach the 1990 level of U.S. carbon diox-ide emissions that the Btu tax wouldbe comparable to an increase of atleast a quarter, if not two, in the Fed-eral gas tax. That’s a lot of money forthe pizza man or the single mothershuttling kids between school and soc-cer practice. The same thing happenson these folks’ power bills every monthbecause coal or natural gas is used togenerate electricity that provides thema warm home in the winter and a coolhouse in the summer.

Coming from an energy-intensiveState where we have to drive long waysto reach home or work, this tax issenseless. Specifically, it will hurt ourfarmers, who EPA AdministratorBrowner called earlier this week the‘‘backbone of America.’’ A Btu tax willdramatically affect the bottom line offarmers and ranchers. An analysis ofthe 1993 Btu tax proposal by the KansasState University Department of Agri-culture Economics determined thatwould have cost Kansas farmers from$1,311 to $4,531 depending on their loca-tion in the Sunflower State. That is alot of money, and if the crops are bad,it hurts producers’ bottom line evenmore.

Here are some specifics from the re-port that need to be closely examinedbecause they will mirror what theWhite House will be proposing. A RiceCounty, KS, farmer planting continu-ous cropped wheat under the 1993 pro-posed Btu tax cost per acre would haveincreased by $1.45. For a northeastKansas dryland milo farmer in BrownCounty, his cost per acre would haverisen by $2.90. The same Brown Countyfarmer growing corn, which Kansas isincreasing its acreage under freedom tofarm, would have paid $3.58 per acre forcorn under a Btu tax. A Miami County

farmer raising hay and alfalfa costs peracre would have gone up $2.91. whycan’t the White House give us this in-formation about their treaty proposal?

What concerns me is that the admin-istration is paying attention to thequestionable science on global warm-ing and is blindly putting the U.S. agri-culture industry in an uneconomicalproduction straitjacket that will domore harm on a global scale. The Kan-sas State University study determinedthat the majority of a Btu tax will bepassed on in the price of fertilizer, agchemicals, fuels, and grain dryingcosts. I would like to quote directlyfrom the study: ‘‘[I]n return, the man-ager will not be able to pass these costson in terms of higher commodityprices. Farm managers may reduce theuse of energy-intensive inputs to somedegree, resulting in smaller productionand increased commodity prices.’’While I am never one to question high-er wheat prices, I would if it meantforcing farmers from using diesel orfallowing fields because the United Na-tions suggested it to meet the treaty’srequirement.

The study summary goes on. ‘‘An in-crease in the costs of production willreduce the supply of farm crops.’’ We,the United States, who proudly sup-plies the rest of the world with wheat,corn and almost every imaginable nat-ural product, probably cannot providefood to these developing nations clam-oring for international food aid if ourproduction costs increase. If our pro-duction goes down, our domestic mar-ket will become paramount and theUnited States may have to ignore thepoor and hungry of other nations thatwe have been feeding for tens of years.

My colleagues, the administrationwas in the process of trying to developa specific economic model to predictwhat the costs of this binding treatywould be on America, not only farms,but all industries. But, the administra-tion told the Congress they specificallywanted the model to be peer reviewedto ensure there would be no questionsabout its results. However, when theypresented it for peer review, the re-viewers told the White House thattheir model did not work and, if theydid find one, it would clearly show thetreaty would substantially hurt theeconomy. The White House refuses nowto speculate what the impacts wouldbe. Could it be they are afraid of spook-ing Wall Street and its meteoric riseabove 8,000? Why should companies in-vest in plants and people only to betaxed more here in the United States?As you can see, this treaty will costjobs.

Mr. President, I urge my colleaguesto oppose any weakening amendmentsto the resolution. This strongly wordedsense of the Senate needs to be sharednot only with the appropriate adminis-tration officials but world leaders indeveloped and developing nations. Iknow that there will be a meeting inBonn, Germany, in several weeks and Ihope the administration will reveal to

the world that if they propose such amisguided treaty to the U.S. Senate, itwill fail.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I supportSenate Resolution 98, the sense-of-the-Senate resolution on the Global Cli-mate Change Treaty submitted by Sen-ators BYRD and HAGEL and supportedby nearly two-thirds of the Senate.Like many of my colleagues on bothsides of the aisle, I have many seriousconcerns about the economic impactthat this treaty would have on our Na-tion.

By adopting this amendment, theSenate will be exercising its constitu-tional role of advising the executivebranch as part of a treaty process. ThePresident should take this resolutionas a serious and constructive step inthe treaty process.

Before we take another step towardratification, I believe that the Senatemust insure that the economic impactand inequity of this internationalagreement be fully aired for the Amer-ican people.

As written, this legally binding trea-ty would require the United States andother developed countries to reducetheir carbon dioxide and greenhousegas emissions to 1990 levels by the year2010. In order to meet these targets, theUnited States would either have toissue new regulations or levy hugetaxes on all fossil fuels in proportion totheir carbon contents. Economistshave suggested that stabilizing emis-sions at 1990 levels with a tax could cutAmerica’s gross domestic product by$350 billion. Further regulations wouldlikely take even billions more from oureconomy.

And what would the developing na-tions contribute?

What would our neighbors in Mexicohave to do to help stop global warm-ing? Nothing.

What about other so-called develop-ing nations like Korea, China, India,and Brazil?

The treaty lets them off the hook.Mr. President, this is not an equi-

table international policy.This is not a level playing field for

the United States.Simply put, I believe the United

States should not ratify this treaty asit stands.

I do not believe that this Nation hasbeen a bad actor when it comes tocharacterizing our environmental pub-lic policy. In fact, I believe Americahas already set the example. An exam-ple which all Americans have throughtheir taxes and prices on many com-modities has already paid for. Unlessall the citizens of the globe are in-volved, there is a clear inequity.

Mr. President, this does not mean Ido not want to address the issue of cur-tailing carbon emissions.

It means that we should only partici-pate in a fair, balanced equitableagreement where all nations must par-ticipate.

Is there such a thing as global warm-ing?

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES8124 July 25, 1997We must admit that there is no con-

sensus among scientists about the va-lidity of this theory. While some crythat the polar ice caps are melting aswe speak, others point out that thelower atmosphere has shown no statis-tically significant warming in the past19 years.

I do not believe this is the place tolaunch a debate on the quality of thescientific data. I simply point out thatthe science is not settled or certain. Sowhy rush into signing a legally bindingand economically damaging inter-national agreement?

This much is certain—in order forAmerica to reach the treaty’s goal ofreducing greenhouse gas emissions to1990 levels by 2010, the United Stateswill have to reduce their fossil fuel useby at least 25 percent.

How do those who advocate this trea-ty think this will impact our country?

Mr. President, let me give my col-leagues some illustrations of what ourNation could face: First, energy taxeson energy use which would reduce eco-nomic growth by nearly 3 percent an-nually, increasing consumer costs by$110 billion; second, the loss of under 2million American jobs, most of whichwill actually move overseas; and third,harm to the steel, basic chemicals, pe-troleum refining, aluminum, paper andcement industries, which would be tar-geted for severe restrictions by thetreaty.

The Byrd-Hagel resolution statesthat the United States should not be asignatory to any agreement that‘‘would result in serious harm to theeconomy of the United States.’’ I be-lieve this is a reasonable and respon-sible action.

Mr. President, this treaty imposesvery serious burdens on our economywith little environmental gain. This isjust not a sound public policy.

I have but one question for those whowant to sign the treaty: How canAmerica help the global environmentby wreaking havoc and permanentharm on our own economy?

This administration says that theUnited States—all alone—should de-crease its energy use for 40 years beforethe developing nations are required toparticipate. There is no guarantee thatthese developing nations will be anymore interested in curtailing their en-ergy use then than they are now.Today, China is accelerating its use offossil fuels, and by 2015, will likely passthe United States in total carbon emis-sions. Is it fair to let them off the hooknow while we are subject to such strin-gent regulation?

The Byrd-Hagel resolution would re-quire developing nations to complywith the same regulations at the sametime in the same treaty as the UnitedStates. This is not only equitable, it isthe only way that there can be any realbenefit to the global environment.

Mr. President, the debate over globalwarming is tremendously important tothe future of all Americans. The threatof losing 2.5 percent of our GDP will

impose enormous hardships on the av-erage consumer. The treaty is essen-tially an attack on America’s lifestyle.

The United States has already spentmore than a trillion dollars to cleanthe environment. American taxpayersmust be assured that any new environ-mental programs actually provide ben-efits that outweigh their costs and thatare grounded in sound science. At thesame time, we must not enter into anyinternational agreement that puts theUnited States at a significant dis-advantage in the global arena.

Mr. President, I believe the GlobalClimate Change Treaty is unacceptableas it stands at the very least it needsthe Byrd-Hagel correction.

I would like to thank and commendSenators BYRD and HAGEL for theirdedicated efforts to educate our col-leagues on this issue. I appreciate theirleadership and thoughtful consider-ation of this important internationalenvironmental issue. Thank you, Sen-ator BYRD and Senator HAGEL.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagueson both sides of the aisle to join me insupporting the Byrd-Hagel resolution.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I risein support of the Byrd resolution.

I will vote for this resolution, first,because the concerns of Americanworkers and industry must be consid-ered in any treaty into which thiscountry enters. This resolution un-equivocally sends that message.

Second, it should be without disputethat developing nations must controltheir emissions if we are to reducegreenhouse gas. This resolutionstrengthens our bargaining position toensure real, attainable standards areestablished for developing countries,too.

I want to make it clear, however,that I support a negotiated globalwarming treaty. I believe science andcommon sense mandate that we workto reduce emissions and increase forestconservation to offset emissions.

Regarding the developed-developingnation debate, I believe it is also clearthat we developed nations have histori-cally emitted more greenhouse gasesper capita than have developing coun-tries. In addition, we are economicallymore able to absorb whatever increasedcosts occur based on the need to reduceemissions. Therefore, we should assistour neighbors through technologytransfer, economic assistance, andjoint ventures in meeting whateveremissions goals are established.

I offer my strong support to the ad-ministration as it continues negotia-tions to reduce greenhouse gases world-wide. I thank Senator BYRD forstrengthening the American bargainingposition with this resolution.

Mr. MCCONNELL. Mr. President, Irise in support of the Byrd/Hagel reso-lution. This legislation expresses thesense of the Senate regarding the con-ditions for the United States to becomea signatory to any international agree-ment on global climate change. Consid-

eration of this legislation is critical toshaping the upcoming debate on globalclimate issues and amending theFramework Convention on Global Cli-mate Change. An upcoming meeting inKyoto, Japan, has the potential tocripple our economic potential, whileallowing the emissions from less devel-oped nations to grow unchecked.

The Rio Treaty signed by PresidentBush called for industrialized nationsto voluntarily reduce greenhouse gasemissions to 1990 levels or lower by theyear 2000. All but two countries willmiss the goals, including the UnitedStates which missed the mark by 10percent. The administration blamedthis on low fuel prices and a strongeconomy. Mr. President, this is not aliability or something the UnitedStates should apologize for.

Nonetheless, in an effort to reversethis success, the Clinton administra-tion signed on to the Berlin mandate in1995. This is an agreement of industri-alized nations to further reduce emis-sions after 2000. Unfortunately, thisagreement exempts 130 developingcountries from reductions or commit-ments in greenhouse gases. This enor-mous loophole will guarantee the fail-ure of this agreement. In 1996, the ad-ministration decided that it would usethe Berlin mandate to create a newtreaty with legally binding mandateson emission levels.

Mr. President, I am very concernedwith the administration’s intention tosign an agreement that commits theUnited States to legally-binding emis-sions levels that will not achieve sig-nificant environmental gains. The fatalflaw of this agreement is that it ex-empts developing nations, includingChina which is estimated to exceed theUnited States in greenhouse gas emis-sions by 2015. By 2010, the share of U.S.global emissions will fall from 20 per-cent to just 10 percent as developingnations continue to grow in populationand industrial capability. By the year2100, developing nations are estimatedto produce three-quarters of the totalgreenhouse gases.

In testimony before the Senate For-eign Relations Committee on July 21,Under Secretary Tim Wirth argued thisagreement was like a row boat and theUnited States should ‘‘pull a heavieroar at the beginning; over time, wemust all pull together.’’

Mr. President, anybody who has everoperated a rowboat knows that whenyou pull harder on one oar you end upgoing in circles. And that is preciselywhat this agreement will do. It won’tachieve any net environmental gainsand worse, will succeed in sending oureconomy into a tailspin.

Left unchanged, this agreement willprovide a significant advantage to ourcompetitors. In order to achieve loweremission levels, new energy costs andother costly regulatory burdens re-quired to reduce energy use reduce ourcompetitive advantage in all indus-tries. It is likely to force our most en-ergy-intensive industries like steel,

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S8125July 25, 1997aluminum, chemicals, refining, andpaper production to move overseas. Mr.President, this is unacceptable.

Study after study has demonstratedthat this agreement would cripple oureconomy. A DRI/McGraw Hill studyshows our Nation’s GDP would be re-duced annually by 2 to 3 percent. Ac-cording to the AFL–CIO, between 1.25million and 1.5 million U.S. jobs wouldbe lost. These jobs would reemerge inother countries where, as a result ofthe flawed agreement, emission levelsand high energy taxes are not a con-cern. On top of this consumer costswould rise by $50 to $100 billion annu-ally. Higher energy prices would meanincreased costs on all goods includinggroceries, electricity, and gasoline.

Mr. President, I represent a Statethat this treaty puts right in the crosshairs. There are 25,000 people whosejobs are tied directly to the coal indus-try. Higher energy taxes, like the Btutax proposed by this administration,hits coal harder than any other energysource. Thousands of well-paying jobswould be lost in my State as this ad-ministration seeks to eliminate coal asour primary energy source, while giv-ing developing nations an unfair advan-tage.

It is important to keep in mind thatcoal provides over 50 percent of ourpower needs nationwide. This is thelow cost fuel source that helps main-tain this Nation’s competitive edge andreduces increased dependency on for-eign oil.

Not only would the Kentucky miningindustry be devastated, but industriesacross my State would feel the impactof higher energy prices. As I noted ear-lier, industries like chemical, steel,paper, and aluminum would be greatlyimpacted. Three of our leading manu-facturers General Electric, Ford andToyota use significant amounts of en-ergy. The 30,000 jobs at these facilitieswould all be threatened by our foreigncompetitors.

The Byrd/Hagel resolution addressesthe unfairness in the agreement beingconsidered by the administration. Thisresolution mandates specific scheduledcommitments to limit or reduce green-house gas emission for developing na-tions, with the same compliance pe-riod.

If every nation doesn’t agree to thesame emission levels and timetables,what incentive will they have to nego-tiate in the future when they have anoverwhelming competitive advantage?It is important that we not bargainaway the economic advantages we haveworked so hard to achieve.

Passage of this resolution will send aclear message to the administrationwhen they begin negotiations in Kyoto.I am hopeful this will prevent the ad-ministration from signing an unaccept-able agreement that puts the burden ofcleaning up the environment on Amer-ican workers just to have these gainswiped out by developing nations.

Mr. President, I urge my colleaguesto join me in sending a strong message

to the administration by voting for theByrd/Hagel resolution. This is a votefor jobs and a vote for the environ-ment.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, laterthis year the 166 countries that signedthe 1992 climate change treaty willmeet in Kyoto, Japan. They will beseeking stronger measures to control apotential threat to the future of ourplanet and to the lives of everyone liv-ing today and children yet to be born.

The threat is easy to understand,even if the science is complicated and abit uncertain. In hearings before theEnvironment and Public Works Com-mittee earlier this month, a panel ofrespected scientists gave us their as-sessment of the problem.

They told us that man-made emis-sions of greenhouse gasses, such as car-bon dioxide, have led to a distinctwarming of the Earth over the past 100years. More troubling, however wastheir prediction.

If left unchecked, the continuedgrowth in these emissions, which trapthe sun’s heat, will have potentially se-rious effects. These consequences in-clude shifting climate patterns andmore frequent violent weather events,such as floods and droughts.

Now most areas of the country expe-rience extreme weather conditionsfrom time to time. But permanentshifts in climate patterns can seriouslyalter our lives and our economy.

For instance, in an agriculturalState, such as Montana, the prospect ofmore flooding and longer dry spells is athreat to the livelihood of our farmingand ranching families and their com-munities. And, if weather patternschange, crop yields can be seriously de-creased.

These kinds of threats to our futureare serious enough that we must takeaction to avoid them. We can begin bycontrolling our greenhouse gas emis-sions. And if we start with modeststeps now, instead of waiting, we willlikely avoid any serious economic dis-ruptions.

In 1992, the Rio summit asked devel-oped countries to lead the way. The cli-mate change treaty committed thesecountries to voluntarily reduce theiremissions of carbon dioxide to 1990 lev-els by 2000.

Unfortunately, the voluntary actionsdidn’t work. The good intentions ofmost countries never translated intoconcrete results. So if we are to controlthese emissions, the new treaty mustcontain binding limits on emissions.

However, we also need to make an-other change in the 1992 treaty.

We certainly need binding controlson developed countries, which cur-rently emit about 60 percent of globalgreenhouse gases. But we also needthem on developing countries, whichare responsible for the remaining 40percent.

We simply can’t reach a solution byaddressing only 60 percent of the prob-lem. Furthermore, unless all countriesparticipate, we run the risk of giving

our economic competitors an unfair ad-vantage.

Yet developing countries are resist-ing such efforts. So how can we changetheir thinking? Perhaps by broadeningour own.

Let me take one country, China, asan example. Why China? For one, be-cause over the next 20 years, China willbe responsible for one-third of the in-crease in greenhouse gas emissions.

For another because the UnitedStates has a lot of issues to deal withChina on. Trade, human rights, re-gional security, and environmentalprotection, to name a few.

So despite fundamental disagree-ments on some issues, we share manymutual interests, including climatechange.

China has more people potentially atrisk from rising sea levels and violentweather than any other nation. It alsohas an urgent need to increase its do-mestic energy supplies. If we considerthe broad array of interests we share, Isuspect we will find ways to gain theirsupport on climate change issues.

After all, China is a growing part ofthe problem, it must be part of the so-lution.

Another aspect of encouraging devel-oping nations to participate in newemission controls is to include in thetreaty flexible, market-based strate-gies, such as joint implementation andemissions trading.

Market-based strategies have beenvery successful here at home. For in-stance, the acid rain program in the1990 Clean Air Act included trading ofsulfur dioxide emissions credits.

This program stimulated techno-logical innovation. It also reduced sul-fur dioxide emissions at a cost that wasless than one-tenth that predicted byindustry.

By including similar programs in aclimate change treaty, we can achievegreenhouse gas reductions at the low-est possible cost. It gives U.S firms theflexibility to comply with emissiontargets in a way that makes the mostsense for them. And it will protect ourworldwide economic competitiveness.

For developing countries, emissiontrading can give them access to newtechnology and financial support thatwill make it easier for them to complywith their new obligations.

The language contained in SenateResolution 98 will help achieve the goalof including all countries in the newtreaty.

It requires that the treaty mandatenew specific scheduled commitments tolimit or reduce greenhouse gas emis-sions for developing country partieswithin the same compliance period asdeveloped countries.

But since developing and developednations are starting from differentplaces, it makes sense to require dif-ferent targets. Here again, the lan-guage crafted by Senator BYRD helps.It does not specify that developed anddeveloping countries meet the sametargets and timetables.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES8126 July 25, 1997When Under Secretary of State Tim

Wirth recently appeared before the En-vironment and Public Works Commit-tee, he spoke in support of SenatorBYRD’s resolution. I believe he said itwas ‘‘largely on the button.’’ He addedthat the administration ‘‘very muchagrees with the thrust of what [Sen-ator BYRD] is saying related to develop-ing country commitments.’’

So although the language of the reso-lution requires new commitments fromdeveloping countries, the administra-tion should seek emission targets thatare more consistent with their level ofindustrialization.

I plan to follow the treaty negotia-tions carefully to be sure that develop-ing countries have agreed to commit tocontrolling their greenhouse gases.

And while the resolution unfortu-nately omits any mention of the needfor market-based strategies to achievethe emissions targets, I believe thetreaty must include them. They simplymake much more sense for all coun-tries than the command-and-controlapproach being advocated by some.

In closing, Mr. President, let me saythat the toughest issues for democ-racies to handle are those in which thethreat to society builds gradually, butinexorably, over time, such as withglobal climate change. We deal wellwith immediate crises.

My hope is that by debating thisissue today, by passing this resolution,we will elevate the public discussionabout climate change and avoid theneed for a future crisis to spur us intoaction.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I take thisopportunity to comment on the resolu-tion now before the Senate. It is clearfrom the number of Members who aresignatories to this resolution that themajority of this Chamber has signifi-cant reservations, as it should, aboutthe ratification of any internationalagreement on greenhouse gas emissionsunder the U.N. Framework Conventionon Climate Change. I intend to vote forthe resolution, but I must say I believeit does not go far enough in bringing tolight the faults of the convention. I’dlike to amplify some points that aretouched upon only briefly in the reso-lution.

I am very concerned about the call tomove away from voluntary goals, asframed in the original convention, to-ward legally binding emissions-limita-tion targets and timetables for theUnited States, as well as the other de-veloped, or annex I, countries that areparty to the convention. The 1992 trea-ty, ratified by the Senate, called forthe economically developed countriesto undertake voluntary actions to aimto reduce their greenhouse gas emis-sions. Unfortunately, the only majordeveloped nations that will meet thisvoluntary target of 1990 levels by 2000are Britain—because it switched itsfuel for electricity production fromheavily subsidized coal to North Seanatural gas—and Germany—because itis able to count efficiency gains from

replacing its ancient East German pow-erplants. Despite the fact that theUnited States is expected to miss itsown target by about 10 percent, the ad-ministration, by signing the Berlinmandate in March of 1995, now believesit is a good idea to pursue additionalemissions reduction targets after theyear 2000. The Berlin mandate, whichwas not presented to the Senate for ap-proval, sets up a process to negotiate anew treaty that will: First, commit theUnited States, and other developedcountries to a legally binding agree-ment—contrary to the earlier approvedagreement; and second, specifically ex-empt the 130 developing countries, in-cluding the emerging economies ofChina, Mexico, and Korea, from any ad-ditional commitments.

It does not make sense, either envi-ronmentally or economically, to focuson the nations which are alreadyspending billions on pollution controland making substantial progress, whileignoring the so-called developing coun-tries. U.S. companies, using the bestavailable technology, are able to elimi-nate a great deal of pollution fromtheir emissions. To achieve an addi-tional increment of pollution reductionrequires a much larger amount ofmoney to be spent. Because of the lawof diminishing returns, the costs willheavily outweigh any benefits. How-ever, in developing countries, wherethe pollution control technology is notbe as advanced or widespread as it ishere in the United States, a dollarspent on pollution control will stretchmuch further and achieve far more sig-nificant reductions in overall pollu-tion. Thus, the cost/benefit ratio favorssignificant pollution reduction in de-veloping, not developed, countries.

In addition to the simple cost/benefitanalysis, many scientists predict thegreatest increase of future greenhouseemissions will come from developingcountries like China, Mexico, Brazil,and Korea. As much as 60 percent ofglobal carbon emissions are expectedto come from such countries in thenext few decades, with China becomingthe single-largest emitter in the nearfuture. Since these countries are ex-pected to produce the bulk of futuregreenhouse emissions, exempting themwill not reduce net global emissions.Both cost-benefit analysis and commonsense say that the most effective wayto reduce net global pollution is to re-duce emissions in the developing na-tions.

While I presume many supporters ofthis resolution agree that under no cir-cumstances should the United Statesbe subjected to legally binding emis-sions limitations, I believe the resolu-tion is somewhat unclear. As I read it,it says the United States will agree tolegally binding emissions if ‘‘the proto-col or other agreements also mandatesnew specific scheduled commitments tolimit or reduce greenhouse gas emis-sions for developing country partieswithin the same compliance period.’’Unfortunately, I believe this condition

is not sufficient. As many of you know,it has been interpreted by differentpeople in different ways. Some read itto mean that the Senate will not ap-prove a treaty that does not includeidentical emissions level and targetdate requirements. Others, however,have read the same language and deter-mined that it means any treaty musthave equal commitments when itcomes to setting time tables but notemissions levels. Unfortunately, it iseasy to set developing countries on atime table and allow then to continueto pollute in any amount they desire.The emissions levels can be easily setso that the developed countries havevery stringent, and perhaps unattain-able levels, while the developing coun-tries have very lax, easily reachedgoals—all the while, all countries areoperating within the same time table.The time table alone does not deter-mine the amount of pollution emitted;the emission level is more important.Setting the developing countries to thesame timetables without meaningfulemissions limitations will not precludethem from emitting larger amounts ofgreenhouse gases. This approach, I be-lieve, defeats the purpose of the treatyratified by the Senate, which is to vol-untarily reduce greenhouse-gas emis-sions on a global scale. The original in-tent was not to legally bind the annexI countries to set timetables and emis-sions levels while only requiring thedeveloping countries to comply withparallel timetables but not the sameemissions standards.

Also of concern is the fact that theadministration is basing its climate-change policy on questionable science.The science on climate change is verymuch an open inquiry into an as-yet-unconfirmed phenomenon over whichthe scientific community remainssharply divided. Discrepancies exist inthe evidence now being considered. So,before the administration binds theUnited States legally to costly, andpossibly unnecessary, standards andgoals, shouldn’t we allow for thescience on this matter to first evolveand, in turn, allow for us to base ourdecision on facts?

Finally, there is the question of whythe United States would embark on acourse of action that many scientistssay would do little environmentalgood. A report released in January ofthis year, January 10, 1997, by the Con-gressional Research Service poses thequestion: ‘‘Given the scientific uncer-tainties regarding the magnitude, tim-ing, rate, and regional consequences ofthe potential climatic change, what arethe appropriate policy responses?’’ I be-lieve the appropriate response is towait for the science to evolve; not toleap into legally binding emission lim-its that, if developed, would not nec-essarily improve the environment andwould cost American citizens billionsof dollars.

Confirming this approach, Dr. RobertC. Balling, Jr. of Arizona State Univer-sity issued a report entitled ‘‘Global

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S8127July 25, 1997Warming: Messy Models, Decent Data,Pointless Policy.’’ In it he states,‘‘Global warming is presented as a cri-sis that can be stopped or minimizedwith appropriate policy actions. How-ever, the evidence suggests that realis-tic policies are likely to have minimalclimatic impact. Recent research alsosuggests that a delay in implementingpolicy responses will have little effecton the efficacy of global warming miti-gation strategies.’’ He continues: ‘‘It isabsolutely imperative that the policiesdeveloped for the global warming issuebe built on the best science.’’ Mr.President, I could not agree more.

This December in Kyoto, Japan, theadministration will further commit it-self to the convention; it will be offer-ing protocols to that instrument thatlack the necessary support of the sci-entific community. Because we do notknow enough to support these termsand allow for the administration to ex-ploit the ends to justify the means forclimate-change policy, the responsibil-ity to ensure that the United States isnot legally committed to reducinggreenhouse-gas emissions will beplaced in the hands of the U.S. Senate.We must preserve the right to questionthe validity of these protocols. Con-gressional oversight of the negotia-tions is crucial and any agreementreached in Kyoto must be brought be-fore us for advice and consent. Oncethe science on this issue has evolved,we will then be able to base our laws onthe science and avoid the costly mis-take of basing the science on the laws.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I risein strong support of the Byrd resolu-tion on global climate change and Iurge my colleagues to support it. I amproud to be a cosponsor of this resolu-tion.

This resolution explains what theground rules should be if the UnitedStates is to become a signer of theUnited Nations Framework Conventionon Climate Change. This resolutionwould prohibit the ratification of anytreaty that would seriously threatenthe economy of the United States. Itsays that both industrialized nationsand developing countries must sharethe burden of any globally bindingtreaty on climate change equally.

I support the Byrd resolution for onesimple, but very compelling reason—jobs. For those of you who thoughtyou’d hear a vacuum sound pulling jobsoverseas following NAFTA implemen-tation—you ain’t heard nothin’ yet.The only thing this treaty will do, theway it is written now, is destroy Amer-ican industry as we know it. I will notbe a party to any treaty or agreementthat sends American jobs overseas.Business won’t have any incentive tomaintain or build new factories in theUnited States.

Let me be clear: I support inter-national efforts to improve the envi-ronment. But the effort must truly beinternational if we are to make anyprogress. I do not believe efforts tocontrol or reduce global warming will

be successful unless rapidly developingcountries are forced to take the kind oftough steps that the United States willhave to take.

We cannot be a part of a bindinginternational agreement that letscountries such as China, South Korea,and India off the hook. Developing na-tions do contribute to global warming.If we exempt them from the restric-tions mandated for the industrializednations, we will simply see a shifting ofpollution, not a reduction. This is notwhat anyone wants to see happen.

The objective of the treaty being ne-gotiated is to curb global climatechange. The United States has alreadytaken steps to achieve this goal. At thebeginning of President Clinton’s firstterm, he released his administration’sversion of a domestic climate changeaction plan.

This plan relies on a comprehensiveset of voluntary actions by industry,utilities, and other large-scale energyusers. It also promotes energy effi-ciency upgrades through new buildingcodes in residential and commercialsectors. Large-scale tree planting andforest reserves are encouraged, as wellas increased use of hydroelectric powersources.

These are important steps which willhave a positive impact on our globalclimate. We certainly must continue toresearch causes of global climatechange, and come up with scientif-ically sound solutions. Our viability asa nation and planet depends on it.

But we cannot throw away Americanjobs based on a plan that could haveonly a marginal impact on climatechange. Coming up with the right planshould have little effect on the Amer-ican economy, because it will mean anoverall sustainability of the global en-vironment, and the continuation of theUnited States as a leader of techno-logical and industrial innovation.

Once again, Mr. President, I supportthis commonsense resolution, whichwill simply ensure that American jobswon’t be lost as we address the issue ofglobal climate change. I am hopeful wecan pass this resolution and move on tothe next stage of protecting our globalenvironment. I thank the Chair.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I risetoday in strong support and, as anoriginal cosponsor, of Senate Resolu-tion 98, the Byrd-Hagel global warmingresolution.

I want to thank the Senate leader-ship and Senators BYRD and HAGEL, forscheduling floor time for this impor-tant initiative before negotiators begintalks in Bonn, Germany.

The administration’s current go-at-it-alone plan regarding global climatechange is grossly unfair to the UnitedStates.

I am opposed to setting legally bind-ing targets and timetables on the Unit-ed States and other developed coun-tries to reduce greenhouse gas emis-sions, while at the same time exempt-ing China, Mexico, Brazil, South Korea,and India from those identical regula-tions.

This will only worsen the problemthe administration claims it wants tofix.

Developing countries are projected tocontinue increasing their use of fossilfuels.

And by the year 2015, China alone isexpected to surpass the United Statesin total carbon emissions.

The Clinton administration’s planwill also drive the economy down andsend jobs overseas.

The AFL–CIO estimates that between1.25 and 1.5 million American jobswould go overseas.

And the plan would put the UnitedStates at a severe competitive dis-advantage and reduce our GDP by $200billion.

Nevertheless, the administration—led by Under Secretary of State TimWirth—is on a mad rush to sign a le-gally binding treaty in Kyoto, Japan,this December.

This is in spite of:Uncertain global warming science;The administration’s unwillingness

to reveal its final targets and time-tables for emissions reductions; and

The fact that they have now thrownout their economic analysis models,which were supposed to help guide pol-icy makers.

The Byrd-Hagel resolution addressesthese discrepancies.

It would direct the United States notto sign any agreement that would:‘‘Mandate new commitments to limit

or reduce greenhouse gas emissions,unless it also mandates specific sched-uled commitments to reduce gas emis-sions for developing countries withinthe same compliance period’’; and‘‘Result in serious harm to the econ-

omy of the United States.’’Sixty-four of my colleagues have co-

sponsored this initiative and I urgetheir support of this resolution.

Mr. President, I strongly encouragethe administration to listen to the con-cerns being expressed by this Chamber.

Be honest with us and the Americanpeople, and realize that we will not rat-ify any treaty which commits the Unit-ed States to one set of standards to re-duce gas emissions, but will let China,India, Mexico, and other developingcountries off the hook.

We ought to focus on bringing all ofthe countries of the world to the table.Everyone ought to contribute to thecause.

Asking all nations to contribute—within the same compliance period—will help the environment and helpU.S. industries stay competitive.

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I risetoday to voice my support for SenateResolution 98 regarding the U.N.Framework Convention on ClimateChange. Like my colleagues in the Sen-ate, I too am concerned about the ef-fects on the economy of any nationalor international agreements that theUnited States enters into. I am par-ticularly concerned with any agree-ment that may impact the well-beingof the American public and the ecologi-cal balance of this Nation. The U.N.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES8128 July 25, 1997Framework Convention on ClimateChange has the potential to do both.

The United States is scheduled tojoin with leaders of 160 nations inKyoto, Japan in December of this yearto conclude negotiations on a globalclimate change treaty. The Kyoto sum-mit is the latest in a series of meetingsthat have been held since this bodyratified the U.N. Framework Conven-tion on Climate Change in 1992. AtKyoto, the United States and othercountries hope to adopt a protocol orlegal instrument to deal with thethreat of climate change in the post2000 period.

It is my belief that the United Statesmust take the leadership role in thesenegotiations, and steer the course toachieve an equitable, reasoned ap-proach to global climate change miti-gation, an approach that seeks inclu-sion of all countries and that offers asolution to the issue. While I believethe resolution before us will allow suchan approach, I want to emphasize tothe administration the essential natureof a negotiated framework to which allcountries can accede.

Before I summarize my analysis ofthe need for global action, let me re-view the facts. First, global climatechange is real. If it were not, 160 coun-tries would not be meeting to addressit. However, there are uncertaintiesabout the effects of global climatechange—uncertainties relative to thetiming, the magnitude, and regionalpatterns of climate change. We mustacknowledge these uncertainties, butacknowledge also that they do not jus-tify inaction.

As stated recently by Dr. WilliamNordhaus of Yale University: ‘‘The re-sults (of studies) definitely reject inac-tion; uncertainty alone cannot justifywaiting for the revealed truth to act,particularly when the revealed truth, ifit ever comes, is probably going to ar-rive at the point where the effects areirreversible.’’

Second, a leading indicator of cli-mate change is increased emissions ofglobal greenhouse gases. Concentra-tions of atmospheric carbon dioxide—the largest component of greenhousegas emissions—are about 26 percenthigher now than they were 100 yearsago. Also, globally averaged air tem-peratures at the Earth’s surface havewarmed by nearly 1 degree Fahrenheitover the last 100 years.

Increased emissions of greenhousegases are virtually entirely due to theactivities of man. As a general rule, acountry’s greenhouse gas emissionsrise in concert with increased indus-trialization. It is no surprise, then,that the United States is the greatestemitter of greenhouse gases, both interms of gross and per capita emis-sions. However, the emissions of somedeveloping countries are rapidly esca-lating, and the emissions of some areexpected to surpass that of this coun-try in the first quarter of the next cen-tury.

Which takes me back to my call forU.S. leadership. As the world’s indus-

trial leader, the United States shouldtake a clear lead in negotiating aframework for all countries to partici-pate in global climate change abate-ment. A global approach, and globalparticipation, is requisite to a success-ful outcome. This approach may re-quire a new framework and a fresh lookat timetables and current directions.My understanding of the data is thatwe have time to do this—we have timeto assess where we are and how best tocraft equitable policies. But inaction isnot appropriate.

The resolution before us requirescommitments of developing countriesto mitigate greenhouse gas emissionsin the same timeframes as developedcountries. This may resonate as pro-moting a policy that discourages theparticipation of many developing coun-tries. However, the resolution willallow developing countries appropriateflexibilities in commitments to addressglobal climate change abatement. TheUnited States and other developedcountries must accord newly developedand developing countries flexibilitiesand incentives to participate, and theseneed not create economic disadvan-tages to the United States or any otherdeveloped country.

I cannot emphasize enough the im-portance of this point. Without allcountries on board, inaction becomesinevitable, because emission reductionsachieved by one country will soon beoffset by increased emissions from an-other.

An equitable approach that encour-ages commitments by all parties andthat offers incentives to developingcountries is needed. Market-based solu-tions to curb emissions will allow con-tinued economic growth with minimalimpacts. Developed countries are in abetter position to implement emis-sions-curbing activities and tech-nologies at low cost and impact, and toalso transfer these abilities and tech-nologies to developing countries and toaid in their economic advancement in away that tempers emissions growth.

While measures to stabilize green-house gases at a certain level will in-evitably lead to some energy price in-creases, an international emissions-trading scheme could substantially re-duce the potential costs. What is need-ed, however, is a policy to ensure thatincremental costs of reducing or sta-bilizing emissions are equalized acrossfirms, across sectors, and across coun-tries. This can only occur if we takeinto account the economies, emissionsand abilities of countries to partici-pate, and if we assign actions accord-ingly and in appropriate timeframes.

Market mechanisms can reduce costimpacts of emissions reductions agree-ments. A preferable policy would be toset short- and long-term goals to sta-bilize greenhouse gas emissions, and toset quantity limits on emissions thatare linked to prices. Targets and time-tables for emission limitations cannotoperate independently of marketprices. An international tradeable

emissions permits system, with pricecaps and floors, would have revenue po-tential and would be cost-efficient.

Technology transfer and developmentis an important policy aspect for theabatement of global climate change.The United States and other develop-ing countries have within our currentcapabilities technologies which canlead to dramatic reductions in green-house gas emissions. We can increasethe efficiencies of industry, of trans-portation, of many energy-intensiveactivities, all with what we alreadyknow. By implementing these capabili-ties and by transferring these tech-nologies to developing countries we cancurb emissions significantly. Contin-ued technology development is alsonecessary.

Lastly, and perhaps most impor-tantly, we must continue to advancethe science related to these policies,and to allow policy changes as the datawarrant.

Mr. President, I conclude my re-marks by repeating that I, too, am con-cerned about any agreements or poli-cies that effect the well being of thiscountry. However, I believe it is in ourbest interests and that of the worldcommunity to approach global climatechange in an inclusive, proactive man-ner that seeks continued economicgrowth. That approach demands ac-tion, and global coalition building, andit is incumbent upon the United Statesto steer that course.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise insupport of Senate Resolution 98. Thenegotiations on limiting post-2000emissions of greenhouse gas emissions,which are scheduled to conclude in De-cember in Kyoto, Japan, will have asignificant impact on all Americans.This resolution addresses concerns thatthe administration has chosen to ig-nore while pursuing an internationalagreement that will bind the UnitedStates for decades to come.

Science should lead policy. Onceagain, the administration is pursuingan environmental policy that is basedon insufficient research and analysis.Many in the scientific community be-lieve that we are still years away fromcomputer models that can confidentlylink global warming to human activ-ity. Yet without strong scientific data,the administration is ready to committhe United States to binding actionsthat will impose economic and socialburdens on every American.

Recently, the Department of Energyreleased a report by the Argonne Na-tional Laboratory containing severaltroubling findings on the effects of theproposed treaty on our economy.Among the conclusions, the studyfound that without requiring develop-ing countries to meet the same emis-sions standards as the rest of theworld, up to hundreds of thousands ofU.S. jobs will move overseas to so-called developing countries that haverefused to participate in any new cli-mate agreement. Higher energy priceswill lead manufactures to produce less

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S8129July 25, 1997at higher costs resulting in job loss,higher consumer prices and an inabil-ity to compete in a global market-place. This will devastate our Nation.Yet, the administration is pushing tocommit the American people to par-ticipate.

The developed countries should notshoulder the responsibility for reducinggreenhouse gas emissions around theworld. It seems obvious that in thelong-run increasing emissions in devel-oping countries will far outweigh anyactions taken by the developed coun-tries. Any binding actions by the Unit-ed States must be accompanied bybinding commitments from developingcountries. I believe a majority ofAmericans would agree that devastat-ing our Nation’s economy by promot-ing industry flight overseas is not theanswer to a global issue.

The public has a right to know howthe administration’s commitments re-quiring them to reduce fossil fuel en-ergy will be accomplished and howtheir lives, jobs, and futures will be af-fected. I am greatly disturbed that theadministration has not sought, andtherefore has not received, supportfrom Congress or the American publicon this matter.

Mr. President, the American peopledeserve an open, objective and honestdebate on the development of U.S. cli-mate change policy. Without that, Ican not and I will not support commit-ting the United States to limiting post-2000 greenhouse gas emissions.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, Irise today in support of Senate Resolu-tion 98. I believe climate change is aserious problem that requires credibleaction by the international commu-nity. Negotiations on an internationalagreement to limit greenhouse gasemissions will conclude this Decemberin Kyoto, Japan. This is an essentialstep in the long-term, global efforts todeal with climate change. While I sup-port Senate resolution’s call for in-creased involvement of developingcountries in the Kyoto agreement, theresolution does not take into accountother key components of the treatythat are essential to its success, par-ticularly for the United States’ busi-ness community.

The scientific basis for moving for-ward with an international agreementto limit greenhouse gas emissions iscompelling and significant. Accordingto the Intergovernmental Panel on Cli-mate Change—a group of 2,500 expertscientists representing more than 50countries, the ever-increasing emis-sions of greenhouse gases from humanactivities are changing the global cli-mate. Given the potential impacts ofclimate change predicted by theIPCC—more droughts, more floods, sealevel rise, water scarcity, and increasedincidence of infectious diseases—it isnot surprising that nations of theworld agreed to find more effectiveways to understand and deal with theproblem. If we don’t agree to long-termgreenhouse gas limits soon, and instead

wait to see how our climate changes, itmay be too late. Greenhouse gases re-main in the atmosphere for decades tocenturies, and there is a long lag timebetween when gases are emitted andwhen the climate consequences ofthose emissions appear. So we need tobegin reductions soon to have anylong-term effect. And, a new genera-tion of energy-efficient technologiesrequires a long lead time for develop-ment and implementation. This won’thappen without clear signals to themarket that an international agree-ment on climate change would provide.

Senate Resolution 98 focuses on therole of developing countries in theKyoto agreement. The principles ex-pressed in the resolution regarding de-veloping countries are on target. Cli-mate change cannot be solved by thedeveloped countries alone—we are in-deed all in the same boat.

New commitments by developingcountries regarding their performanceunder the Framework Convention onClimate Change, of course, need to beconsistent with their historic respon-sibility for the problem, as well astheir current capabilities. The groundrules for the negotiations—the Berlinmandate—recognize these common, butdifferentiated responsibilities.

It is clear that the Berlin mandatecan be carried out in a way that is con-sistent with Senate Resolution 98. Theresolution says that developing coun-tries can start with a commitmentthat is lower relative to the industri-alized countries at first. Over time,however, the commitments of develop-ing and developed countries must be-come comparable to ensure that everycountry does its fair share to addressthe problem.

Senate Resolution 98 states that de-veloping countries have to start mak-ing quantified emissions reductions ob-jectives within the same complianceperiod as developed countries. Thismeans that at a stage to be negotiatedover the compliance period of theKyoto agreement, developing countriesmust begin to make quantified emis-sions reductions objectives. SenateResolution 98 says that it is entirelyappropriate for industrialized countriesto start making quantified emissionsreductions first, as long as developingcountries also commit to making quan-tified emissions reductions before theend of the time period worked out forthe Kyoto agreement. I agree with thisbasic approach—the sooner developingcountries take on quantified emissionsreductions targets, the sooner we canachieve a global solution to the cli-mate problem.

At the same time, I am concernedthat the resolution does not take intoaccount other key components of thetreaty that are essential to protectU.S. competitiveness. I am concernedthat elevating one issue to a level ofimportance that will overshadow otherkey matters may harm the UnitedStates’ efforts to ensure that the cli-mate agreement is realistic, achiev-

able, and will not harm the U.S. econ-omy. For example, the need for flexi-bility in implementing a treaty is crit-ical to protect U.S. competitiveness.Some countries, such as members ofthe European Union, would prefer high-ly prescriptive policies and measuresto meet reduction targets. The UnitedStates’ negotiating team has madeflexibility an absolute prerequisite forany agreement, and I want to commendthem for this approach. I believe that,to be acceptable, our businesses musthave the most flexibility possible tofind the least-cost ways to reduce emis-sions. This means the agreement mustcontain provisions that are so impor-tant to our business community: emis-sions trading, joint implementation be-tween nations, and appropriate creditsfor those countries that have alreadymade certain emissions reductions.Senate Resolution 98 is silent regard-ing these provisions.

As we grapple with the human judg-ments and values that inevitably willdetermine how we handle climatechange, we must base our actions onthe facts—the scientific evidence of cli-mate change, the physical effects thatare likely to result from it, and theways we can credibly address this prob-lem on a global basis. While SenateResolution 98 is only part of a biggerpicture that needs to be addressed, it isa step toward adressing this globalissue.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I risetoday to express my strong support forthe Byrd-Hagel resolution regardingglobal climate change. I was an origi-nal cosponsor of this bipartisan resolu-tion, and I believe it sends an impor-tant, commonsense message that wecannot enter into a treaty that re-quires the United States to limit itsemissions of greenhouse gases withoutrequiring developing countries to alsoagree to limitations on their emissions.Such a proposal would not make envi-ronmental sense and it certainly wouldnot make sense for our Nation’s econ-omy.

This resolution is very simple. Itsays that a treaty will not be ratifiedby the U.S. Senate if it does not in-clude both developed and developingcountries in binding timetables andemission limitations. It seems to methat the only way the world will beable to stabilize the concentration ofgreenhouse gases in the atmosphere isif every nation participates in a mean-ingful way in limiting its emissions.The resolution does not say that allcountries must make identical emis-sion reductions; only that they must beparticipants in limiting greenhouse gasemissions in the same timeframe asthe developed world.

Mr. President, I fear that a treatythat requires us to place significant re-strictions on our economy will onlylead to a flight of jobs and capital fromthis country to nations that do notface greenhouse gas emissions limita-tions. That could be a potential disas-ter for our Nation’s economy, for its

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES8130 July 25, 1997workers, and for our long-term eco-nomic stability and growth. So theByrd resolution also requires the ad-ministration to develop a detailedanalysis of the potential financial costsand other impacts on our economy.That is not an unreasonable request.We would clearly need to know the po-tential consequences of any treaty onour Nation’s economy before the Sen-ate could be asked to ratify such atreaty.

Mr. President, the U.S. Senate has aconstitutional duty to advise and con-sent on treaties negotiated by the ad-ministration with other nations. Thisis a responsibility I take very seri-ously, and I know every other Memberof this body considers it one of ourmost important duties. I hope the ad-ministration will listen carefully tothe debate on this resolution, and payclose attention to the guidance pro-vided in the Byrd-Hagel resolution as itnegotiates with other nations in prepa-ration for a final meeting in Decemberin Kyoto, Japan.

Mr. President, I thank the Chair andyield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Whoyields time?

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, does Sen-ator KERRY wish to go forward? Is heprepared?

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, might Iinquire? How much time remains onour side?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thirty-five minutes.

Mr. KERRY. How much for the otherside?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from Nebraska has 16 minutes.

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

Mr. HAGEL. May I ask? Point of in-quiry. Is this on the time of the Sen-ator from Massachusetts?

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, this is onmy time.

Mr. HAGEL. I thank the Senator.Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would

like to ask the views of the Senatorfrom West Virginia on the proposal bythe Europeans to erect the so-calledEuropean bubble, and its effect on U.S.competitiveness.

It appears to me that this proposal isdriven more by economic consider-ations than concern for limiting carbondioxide emissions.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, if the Sen-ator will yield.

Mr. KERRY. I yield to the Senatorfor his views on that.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I am gladthe Senator has asked this question.Earlier he had indicated that we hadagreed on certain things. We agreed onone thing: that we would enter into acolloquy. And I always reserve theright to express my own views on mat-ters, and not necessarily agree to theexpressions of others as to how theythink and what they think I say.

May I say that I am only expressinga personal viewpoint here. The Senator

said earlier that there were Senators inthis body who signed onto the resolu-tion who want to kill the treaty. Thatmay be so. This Senator is not one ofthose. I am not out to kill the treaty.

But what I was out to say—and thereason I got behind this effort—was tosend a message to the administrationthat if the Senate is not included inthe takeoff, if the Senate is not in-cluded at the beginning, if the Senateis intended to be shut out of doing itsconstitutional responsibility of advis-ing as well as consenting in making atreaty, then count me out.

If you want to really kill this treaty,abide by the Berlin Mandate and letthe developing countries off the hookuntil some future time. That is whatwill surely kill the treaty, and I willjoin in stabbing it in the heart, if thatis the case. If that treaty comes backhere and the developing countries areleft off the hook, count me in on theassassination of the treaty. It will bedone in public view. It won’t be behinda bush.

Mr. President, the Senator raised animportant point. The Europeans haveerected what they call a bubble, whichis simply a mechanism for them totrade off emissions levels from onecountry to another so long as theyhonor overall an average which con-forms to the treaty-imposed cap on de-veloped country emissions. This isviewed by some, including me, as atechnique to maximize the economiccompetitiveness of European countriesby keeping emissions reductions to aminimum as a result of the trades thatwould be available under the bubblefrom one country to another within theEuropean Union.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, let mejust also say to the Senator that Iagree completely with his notion, as Isaid earlier, of the importance of ouradvising here about the importance ofother countries being part of the solu-tion.

But I ask if the Senator would agreethat the United States is placed at adisadvantage by this concept of the Eu-ropean bubble, and that the inclusionof free-market mechanisms in a trea-ty—particularly emissions tradingschemes and so-called joint implemen-tation—could be used to counter thatchallenge.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, if the Sen-ator would yield.

Mr. KERRY. I yield to the Senatorfrom West Virginia.

Mr. BYRD. I believe that if the Unit-ed States is going to enter into bindingcommitments to limit or reduce ourgreenhouse gas emissions, we need toremain competitive vis-a-vis the Euro-peans, and everybody else, for thatmatter. Therefore, an emissions trad-ing mechanism whereby we can ex-change our higher level emissions bybuying emissions credits from, let ussay, Russia or other nations with loweremissions, is an example of one poten-tial tool that the U.S. negotiatorsmight explore in the climate changenegotiations.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, will theSenator agree further that an emis-sions trading scheme also has the bene-ficial effect of easing the economic costthat might be incurred by U.S. indus-try as a result of a regime of bindingcommitments entered into at Kyoto?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, if the Sen-ator will yield, I personally believethat it could have such an effect. Thereare a number of other tools that areunder development, and these, in myjudgment, should be further exploredfor inclusion in the proposed treaty inorder that our own economic growthnot be penalized by the treaty. Thesetools include joint implementation in-volving partnerships among industriesin the developed and developing coun-tries. There are, as well, many areaswhere other U.S. programs and initia-tives could be enhanced to further thesame objectives, such as cooperativetechnology ventures and enhanced re-search and development of both fossilfuel development technologies and al-ternate fuel technologies. These toolsand programs may also have an advan-tage in encouraging the developingworld to make meaningful bindingcommitments. So they should be ex-plored as a natural companion to provi-sions establishing binding commit-ments.

The purpose would be to level thecompetitive playing field so that theUnited States is not placed at a dis-advantage and to help insure that allthe world’s economies will share theresponsibilities to tackle the globalwarming problem.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thankthe Senator from West Virginia for hisexplanation and his views.

I believe that the administrationmust pursue the development of thesetools and initiatives and their inclu-sion in any binding treaty that is ar-rived at in order to reduce any nega-tive impact of higher energy prices onour economy. And I believe this wouldcertainly enhance the prospects of Sen-ate approval of any treaty that is ar-rived at.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, if the dis-tinguished Senator will again yield, ingeneral, I personally agree with thisoverall proposition, although I wouldnote the administration has not yetsettled on its specific policies regard-ing the negotiations, and it leads tofurther work on developing and ex-plaining the workings of these marketmechanisms so that they will be morefully understood.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thankthe Senator from West Virginia forthose views and for entering into thiscolloquy with me.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, theissue of the extent to which human-in-duced global climate change is occur-ring, and the proper societal response

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S8131July 25, 1997to this change, is one of the most dif-ficult public policy issues facing ustoday.

We are emitting into the atmospherean unprecedented amount of the gasesthat we know trap heat in the Earth’satmosphere, and thus result in what isknown as the greenhouse effect. At thesame time, the connection betweenthis artificial elevation of greenhousegas levels and changes to the world’sclimate is only slowly coming intoview. The global climate system is ex-tremely complex, and we are still mak-ing major scientific discoveries aboutthe components of that system. Theconsensus of the world’s climate sci-entists on the human contribution toglobal climate change has recognizedboth these uncertainties and the grow-ing evidence that there is a human fin-gerprint on climate change. The keyconclusion of the most recent consen-sus report of the global change sci-entific community is as follows:

Our ability to quantify the human influ-ence on global climate is currently limitedbecause the expected signal is still emergingfrom the noise of natural [climate] varia-bility, and because there are uncertainties inkey factors. These include the magnitudeand patterns of long term natural variabilityand the time-evolving pattern of forcing by,and response to, changes in concentrationsof greenhouse gases and aerosols, and landsurface changes. Nevertheless, the balance ofevidence suggests that there is a discerniblehuman influence on global climate.

The current state of uncertaintyshould not be a cause for comfort.There is a substantial lag in global cli-mate response, so even if we were tomagically reduce our greenhouse gasemissions to zero tomorrow, theworld’s climate would still be respond-ing, over the next few decades, to pastemissions. It is also clear that theglobal climate system is not a well-be-haved linear system, like traveling ona straight road over a gentle predict-able hill. It is more like a wild moun-tainous road, full of unexpected curvesand cliffs. In such a situation, igno-rance of what might lie ahead is notbliss, and it is prudent to slow downuntil you have a better appreciation ofwhat you are dealing with.

For this reason, we are engaged ininternational negotiations to discusshow the world might arrive at a jointinternational plan for slowing downthe emissions of the principal green-house gas, carbon dioxide, into the at-mosphere. Because of the central rolethat burning carbon plays in our en-ergy, transportation, and economicsystems, it is important that such dis-cussions focus on sophisticated, as op-posed to simple-minded, approaches tothe problem.

I believe that the Clinton administra-tion deserves credit for having putforth, in the current negotiation, whatis easily the most complete and sophis-ticated proposal of any that has beenadvanced to date.

The administration’s proposal rejectsthe command-and-control approachesput forward by many of the other par-ties.

The administration’s proposal, in-stead, relies on market-based mecha-nisms for controlling the rate of futureemissions of greenhouse gases, extend-ing our successful experience to date inthis country with such mechanisms forcontrolling emissions of sulfur dioxide.

The administration’s proposal allowsfor maximum flexibility on the part ofeach participating country in designingand implementing greenhouses gascontrol measures that make economicsense for that country.

The administration’s proposal en-courages the development and use ofadvanced technologies.

These approaches—market-basedmechanisms, individual flexibility, andmore reliance on advanced tech-nologies in place of command and con-trol—are precisely the approaches thatso many of my colleagues said shouldbe at the basis of all regulatory policy,during consideration of the Dole-John-ston regulatory reform bill in the lastCongress. It is commendable that theadministration has made these ap-proaches the foundation for its nego-tiating position.

The central issue for us today is therole that the United States and otherdeveloped countries will play in any ef-fort to control greenhouse gas emis-sions, compared to the role that devel-oping countries will play. Here, too,the administration has shown consider-able sophistication, compared to otherparties in the negotiations. All devel-oping countries are not alike—there isa world of difference between SouthKorea and Gambia, despite the factthat both are non-annex-I countries.The world should expect more fromSouth Korea, which aspires to join theOECD in the near future, than it shouldfrom Gambia. But there should also bea minimum level of expectations man-dated by the upcoming agreement,even for countries like Gambia.

I believe that a careful examinationof the proposal put forward by the ad-ministration shows that it is trying tomake these principles part of the pro-tocol. We should go on record, in thisresolution, in support of such prin-ciples. But we need to do so in a carefuland sophisticated way, befitting thecomplexities of the problem of human-induced global climate change, and theinternational policy response to it.

I did not cosponsor the resolutionthat is now before us because of myconcerns about how it expressed the re-lationship between what the UnitedStates should do and what the develop-ing countries should do. It used thewords ‘‘new commitments’’ for both de-veloped and developing countries in away that suggested to me, at least,that the intent of the resolution wasthat the United States should notagree to any commitment that was notalso going to be agreed to and imple-mented simultaneously by the world’spoorest countries. That would seem tobe a rather simplistic approach. Weshouldn’t ignore legitimate differencesbetween countries at vastly differentstages of development.

I was greatly encouraged by the re-marks on this issue made by the spon-sor of this resolution, the senior Sen-ator from West Virginia, when he testi-fied before the Committee on ForeignRelations. At that time, he stated thatcountries at different levels of develop-ment should make unique and bindingcommitments of a pace and kind con-sistent with their industrialization,and that the schedule for these com-mitments should be aggressive and ef-fective, but also consistent with a fairsharing of any burden. These are prin-ciples that I support, and the seniorSenator from West Virginia and I haveentered into a colloquy that seeks toestablish that the explanation of theresolution on this point that he pro-vided in his testimony is, in fact, thenormative one for the administrationto heed, once we pass the resolution.With this clarification, I believe that Ican support the resolution now beforeus, and I urge my colleagues to do thesame.

I would like to engage in a colloquywith the senior Senator from West Vir-ginia regarding the correct interpreta-tion of the language of the resolutionon one particular point of importance.The resolution refers to ‘‘new commit-ments to limit or reduce greenhousegas emissions for the Annex I Parties’’as well as to ‘‘new specified scheduledcommitments to limit or reduce green-house gas emissions for DevelopingCountry Parties.’’ Would it be correctto interpret the use of the words ‘‘newcommitments’’ in both phrases as sug-gesting that the United States shouldnot be a signatory to any protocol un-less Annex I Parties and DevelopingCountry Parties agree to identicalcommitments?

Mr. BYRD. That would not be a cor-rect interpretation of the resolution. Inmy testimony before the Committee onForeign Relations on June 19, I madethe following statement and delib-erately repeated it for emphasis: ‘‘Fi-nally, while countries have differentlevels of development, each must makeunique and binding commitments of apace and kind consistent with their in-dustrialization.’’ I believe that the de-veloping world must agree in Kyoto tobinding targets and commitments thatwould begin at the same time as thedeveloped world in as aggressive andeffective a schedule as possible giventhe gravity of the problem and theneed for a fair sharing of the burden.That is what the resolution means. Theresolution should not be interpreted asa call for identical commitments be-tween Annex I Parties and DevelopingCountry Parties.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the Sen-ator. I agree with him that a fair shar-ing of responsibility for actions to ad-dress global climate change is crucialto any agreement, and that such com-mitments should reflect the pace andtype of industrialization that thosecountries have achieved.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I yield 10minutes to the Senator from Rhode Is-land.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES8132 July 25, 1997The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Rhode Island.Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, earlier

this week I met with Senator BYRD todiscuss S. Res. 98, which, of course,deals with climate change. In thismeasure, the Senator has identifiedone of the more important features re-quired to address this global problem,namely, global participation.

Gradually, many have come to theconclusion that man is indeed contrib-uting to changes in the global climate.Human activities—particularly theburning of fossil fuels—have increasedatmospheric concentrations of carbondioxide and other trace greenhousegases. These gases, combined with thenatural levels of CO2 and water vapor,act like panes of a greenhouse and re-tain the Sun’s heat around the earth.

The burning of fossil fuels has con-tinued to grow, at least in ever greateramounts of CO2. Global carbon emis-sions from fossil fuels reached a recordof just over 6 billion tons in 1995.

The Earth’s climate has remainedstable for the past 10,000 years. But, asAmbassador Paul Nitze said in theWashington Post earlier this month,‘‘Global warming threatens the stabil-ity that fostered modern civilization.’’

What is being done about this threat?Of the 35 industrial countries that com-mitted themselves under the 1992Framework Convention on ClimateChange in Rio, they agreed there tohold their greenhouse gas emissions to1990 levels in the year 2000. In otherwords, by the year 2000 we would getthe levels down to what they were in1990.

But, regrettably, Mr. President, onlya handful of the countries are expectedto meet that target. The United Stateswill miss its target by an estimated 13percent. In some developing countries,emissions are on a course to nearlydouble between 1990 and 2000.

The failure by many industrializedcountries to meet these voluntary aimsis what is leading us to this debatetoday. This debate is over the imposi-tion of legally binding greenhouse gasemissions reductions. In other words,should we enter something that isbinding?

Because of the link between green-house gases and activities fundamentalto industrialized and developing econo-mies, many anticipate, or at least fear,that the costs of limiting their emis-sions will be high.

Unlike most other ambient air andwater pollution problems, there is nopollution control technology for CO2.In many of the emissions problems wehave dealt with in the past, technologycan reduce the amount of emissions.But we don’t have that for CO2. You ei-ther make CO2 or you don’t.

Some have argued that the UnitedStates and, indeed the entire world,should wait to address the loomingthreat of climate change. In otherwords, don’t do anything. Let’s waitawhile. The scientists are divided onthis. How much has the temperature

gone up? Has it indeed risen in the last100 years by 1 degree Fahrenheit?There are arguments over that. ‘‘Timeis on our side,’’ some say, believingthat if we simply wait long enough,new and inexpensive technologies willcome along to make this solution pain-less.

But the citizens of my State, for ex-ample, have concerns. We are a sea-bordering State. There are possibilitiesof rises in the sea level which would af-fect us dramatically. Indeed, theywould affect all but one major city inour country because all but one majorcity in our country occupies tidalshorelines. I know that if the AtlanticOcean begins to warm and expands asit warms, rising sea levels will be withus for centuries.

I am also concerned about the eco-nomic consequences of actions to ad-dress global warming. Senator BYRDhas addressed these, and I salute himfor that. He is concerned about theissue of U.S. competitiveness in rela-tion to developing countries. And I joinwith him in urging our negotiators torecognize that we are serious about theconcerns Senator BYRD is expressing.

The position taken by the EuropeanUnion is a major concern. As represent-atives of the Global Climate Coalitionindicated to the Foreign RelationsCommittee last month, the prospect ofEuropean Union bubble, which was justaddressed here, with no ability for theUnited States to address similar alli-ances with other nations, would permitthe European Union to steal a competi-tive march on the United States.

This concerns me. In trade terms, ourbilateral trade with the EuropeanUnion, of course, is mammoth cer-tainly when compared to the trade thatwe have with China. Last year we had$128 billion in exports to the EuropeanUnion, more than 10 times of thatgoing to China.

I believe our negotiators in Kyotowould fail us if they did not bring homean agreement with developing countrycommitments as described in the reso-lution and with the market-based toolsof joint implementation emissionstrading and emissions banking.

I want to say that many countries inthe U.S. are already taking steps to ad-dress these problems. Farsighted com-panies like Tucson Electric are goingahead with a pilot joint implementa-tion project in cooperation with thecity of Sava in Honduras to display die-sel-fired power generation with bio-mass fuels. Companies like AmericanElectric Power, which is the largestelectric utility in West Virginia, andBritish Petroleum are getting togetherwith the Nature Conservancy and theGovernment of Bolivia to offset someof American Electric Power’s coal-firedplant emissions by expanding parksand sustainable forests in Bolivia.

The Southern Co. has joined forceswith State forestry commissions inplanting 20 million trees in Georgia,Alabama, and the Florida Panhandle.These projects boost environmental

protection while lowering costs. But ontheir own, the voluntary projects willnot be sufficient to address the poten-tial problem. We need legally bindingmeasures to spur technological innova-tion that will be needed to solve thegreenhouse problem.

The resolution makes clear that anexemption for developing countrieswould be inconsistent with the need forglobal action.

In light of the seriousness of theissue, Mr. President, I welcome theconcern that Senator BYRD and othershave shown for the twin goals of envi-ronmental protection and economiccompetitiveness.

Mr. President, I had a brief colloquyI was going to enter into with the dis-tinguished Senator from West Virginia.It is as follows:

Senate Resolution 98 includes twoimportant conditions for U.S. agree-ments to any future treaty to limitgreenhouse gases.

Quoting directly from the text of theresolution—that is, Senator BYRD’s res-olution:

The United States should not be a signa-tory to any protocol to, or other agreementregarding, the U.N. Framework Conventionon Climate Change of 1992, at negotiations inKyoto in December 1997, or thereafter, whichwould—(A) mandate new commitments tolimit or reduce greenhouse gas emissionsfrom the Annex I Parties, unless the protocolor other agreement also mandates new spe-cific scheduled commitments to limit or re-duce greenhouse gas emissions for Develop-ing Country Parties within the same compli-ance period, or (B) would result in seriousharm to the economy of the United States.

Without losing my right to the floor,I wish to ask the primary sponsor ofthe resolution a couple of questions.

I am curious as to whether the Sen-ator from West Virginia intends for hisresolution to speak to the scientificunderstanding of global climatechange.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will thedistinguished Senator yield with theunderstanding that the time——

Mr. CHAFEE. On my time.Mr. BYRD. I use will not be charged

against Mr. HAGEL.Mr. CHAFEE. Absolutely.Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, again, may

I say that this resolution has been in-troduced and developed every stepalong the way with concurrence be-tween Mr. HAGEL and myself. It just sohappens that my name is at the begin-ning of what is called the Byrd-Hagelresolution. I have no problem if it iscalled the Hagel-Byrd resolution; weare both in this resolution. We both be-lieve the words of the resolution, andwe both believe that the resolutionspeaks for itself. And we also under-stand we may have different views asto specific questions. I respect theviews of every Senator. So I will at-tempt to respond to the distinguishedSenator from Rhode Island. I thankhim for his statement which indicatesthat he is concerned, has studied thematter, and is a reasonable man.

I thank Mr. CHAFEE for this oppor-tunity to discuss in greater detail the

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S8133July 25, 1997resolution that Mr. HAGEL and I andothers of our colleagues have broughtto the Senate. In response to the Sen-ator’s question, I will repeat a portionof the testimony I delivered on June 19of this year before the Committee onForeign Relations. There I stated thatthe resolution accepts the thesis,which is still the subject of some dis-pute, that the increasing release of car-bon dioxide—CO2—and its accumula-tion in our atmosphere are causing avery gradual heating of the globewhich has many adverse consequencesfor us all and I am, indeed, convincedthat climate change is a loomingthreat to the global environment. Thatis a statement I made at that time.

Mr. CHAFEE. I appreciate the Sen-ator’s fundamental candor on thispoint and agree with his assessment.

With regard to specific provisionscontained in the resolution, I am inter-ested in what the Senator intends—andI might say Senator HAGEL has beenactive in all of this. He is the chief co-sponsor of the resolution.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. ROB-ERTS). Will the Senator suspend. Thetime allotted, the 10 minutes allottedto the Senator has expired.

Mr. CHAFEE. Could I have 2 moreminutes?

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I yield 2minutes to the Senator from Rhode Is-land.

Mr. CHAFEE. Senator HAGEL hasbeen active in all of this, and we havedealt with his folks, and wherever Irefer to the Byrd resolution, I reallyshould have referred to the Byrd-Hagelresolution and will attempt to makethat change in the transcript.

With regard to specific provisionscontained in the resolution, I am inter-ested in what the Senators intend onpage 4, lines 9 through 11 by the phrase‘‘new specific scheduled commitmentsto limit or reduce greenhouse gas emis-sions for developing country parties.’’

Is it the Senators’ intentions thatthe developing country parties, irre-spective of the national incomes andgreenhouse gas emission rates, be man-dated to the very same commitmentsto limit or reduce greenhouse gas emis-sions for the annex 1 parties?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, if the Sen-ator will yield, no, that is not my in-tention. That is not what the resolu-tion says. I have stated previously thatunder this resolution the developingworld must fully participate in thetreaty negotiations and commitmentsand must play a meaningful role in ef-fectively addressing the problem ofglobal climate change. Such participa-tion by the developing country partiescould, in my judgment, come in a num-ber of forms. As I stated before theForeign Relations Committee, whileindividual countries have different lev-els of development, the resolutionholds that each country must makeunique and binding contributions of apace and kind consistent with their in-dustrialization. The developing worldmust agree in Kyoto to adopt some

manner of binding targets and commit-ments which would begin during thesame compliance period as the——

The PRESIDING OFFICER. TheChair would observe the 2 minutes al-lotted to the Senator from Rhode Is-land have expired.

Mr. KERRY. I yield an additionalminute to the Senator.

Mr. BYRD. The developing worldmust agree in Kyoto to adopt somemanner of binding targets and commit-ments that would begin during thesame compliance period as the devel-oped world in as aggressive and effec-tive a schedule as possible, given thegravity of the problem and the need fora fair sharing of the burden.

Mr. CHAFEE. Because greenhousegas emissions from the developingworld will, on a cumulative basis, ex-ceed those of the developed worldsometime during the first quarter ofthe next century, the Senator’s posi-tion appears quite sound on both envi-ronmental and economic grounds, and Ithank the Senator very much.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thankthe Senator.

Mr. CHAFEE. I yield the floor.Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I reserve

the remainder of our time.Mr. HAGEL addressed the Chair.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Nebraska is recognized.Mr. HAGEL. I yield 2 minutes to my

colleague from Oklahoma, SenatorINHOFE.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that I be recog-nized for up to 15 minutes as if inmorning business.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is thereobjection?

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, reservingthe right to object.

Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there

objection?Mr. KERRY. There is objection.Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I object.The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objec-

tion is heard.Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, as chair-

man of the Clean Air Subcommittee,we have had about 40 hours of hearingson this subject, on global warming aswell as ambient air quality standardchanges that have been proposed bythis administration. I think it is unre-alistic to try to condense that into 2minutes. There is not any way it canbe done.

I will just say, Mr. President, that as1 of the 66 cosponsors of this resolu-tion, I support it, although I would sayalso it doesn’t go far enough. And Iwould also say that regardless of whathappens—this is going to pass, but re-gardless of that, I am still going to op-pose the ratification of this treaty. Iam going to do so for two reasons.First, is that the science is not there.This is analogous to the proposal bythe administration to lower the ambi-ent air standards in both particulatematter and in ozone, unrealisticallycosting the American people billions

and billions of dollars a year withoutany science to back it up.

Mr. President, I am going to readreal quickly and enter the entire state-ment in the RECORD, but before mycommittee, Dr. John Christy of the De-partment of Atmospheric Science andEarth System Science Laboratory,University of Alabama, Huntsville,said—I don’t think there is anyone whois considered to be a greater authoritythan he is—

The satellite data show that catastrophicwarming is not now occurring. The detectionof human effects on climate has not beenconvincingly proven because the variationswe have observed are not outside of the natu-ral variations of the climate system.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator’s time has expired.

Mr. INHOFE. Could I have 1 moreminute?

Mr. HAGEL. I yield 1 minute to theSenator.

Mr. INHOFE. The second reason isthe administration has not been honeston this, as well as the ambient air,when they come along and they say, asMary Nichols, Deputy Secretary, saidyesterday, that the cost to the Amer-ican people for the changes in the am-bient air would be $9.1 billion when thePresident’s own Council of EconomicAdvisers puts the price tag at some-thing over $60 billion and the ReasonFoundation out in California has itsomewhere between $90 and $150 billion.

So anyway, Mr. President, it is notrealistic to do this. I would also ob-serve I can’t imagine that anyone whowould be opposed to the ratification ofthis treaty wouldn’t also be opposed tothe changes in the ambient air stand-ards. We will be introducing legislationnext week. It will be bipartisan. Sen-ator BREAUX and I will be introducinglegislation to reject these changes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Whoseeks time?

Mr. HAGEL. I yield 2 minutes to mycolleague from Wyoming, SenatorENZI.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from Wyoming is recognized.

Mr. ENZI. I thank the Chair.Mr. President, I rise today in support

of the resolution offered by the seniorSenator from West Virginia and thejunior Senator from Nebraska, ofwhich I am a cosponsor, and which con-cerns the issue of global warming ingeneral and the impending relatedtreaty specifically.

Mr. President, many of us are notsurprised by the content of this pro-posed treaty. We saw the 1992 Frame-work Convention on Global ClimateChange for what it was: The nose of thecamel. And now, 5 years later and justas expected, we find ourselves face toface with the whole critter. He’s in thetent, he’s huge, and he’s very frighten-ing.

The agreement signed in Brazil 5years ago was voluntary. It called forthe economically developed nations toundertake voluntary actions to reducegreenhouse gas emissions to their 1990

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES8134 July 25, 1997levels by the year 2000. Now the admin-istration wants a legally binding agree-ment that will require a handful of de-veloped countries to reach 1990 levels offossil fuels emissions by the year 2010.But here is the amazing part, Mr.President: Though the United Statesand several other developed countrieswill be subject to the new enforcementregime, the rest of the world will not.Utterly amazing. Where in the worlddid this administration learn to nego-tiate? I see a lot of give, but I am stilllooking for the take.

So we really believe we can placeshackles on our economy, leave theeconomies of our trade competitors un-affected, and not lose countless jobsand industries overseas? It has been allwe can do to stop the loss of jobs over-seas under the best conditions. Everydeveloping nation has cheaper laborcosts than we do. Every developing na-tion has fewer environmental regula-tions than we do. Every developing na-tion has fewer worker protection ex-penses than we do. These nations areunderstandably concerned, first andforemost, with elevating the livingconditions of their own people. Theirleaders would be derelict if theyweren’t. Does anyone seriously believethey will not take advantage of thenew regime at the expense of our work-ers? Is a little fairness too much toask? Does the administration find theconcept of simple equity so unreason-able?

The AFL–CIO is apoplectic at theprospect of this ill-advised treaty, andwith good reason. They understand howmany American jobs it will kill. As arepresentative from the largest coalproducing State in the Nation, I knowonly too well just what it means forthe people of my State. This resolutionsimply calls for all nations to share theburden in the effort to avoid an envi-ronmental problem, which, I mightadd, is supported by a scientific con-sensus that is generously referred to asunsettled.

This resolution, if adopted, would bea treaty enhancer, not a treaty killer.For this reason, if no other, the admin-istration should embrace it. In its cur-rent form the treaty will most cer-tainly not survive this body. We want agood treaty. We are not opposed to aglobal antipollution effort. But wewant a fair treaty. You just cannothave the former without the latter. Weneed to bring developing countries onboard in a responsible fashion. And ifthe Byrd-Hagel resolution is not adopt-ed the administration will have misseda valuable opportunity to do so.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who

seeks time?Mr. HAGEL. I yield 2 minutes to the

Senator from Michigan.Mr. ABRAHAM. I thank the Senator.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Michigan is recognized.Mr. ABRAHAM. I thank the Chair.I would like to begin today by thank-

ing the Senator from West Virginia for

his leadership on this issue as well asthe Senator from Nebraska. Citizens inmy State are extraordinarily con-cerned about the potential treaty thathas been in the media very much late-ly.

The people of Michigan care greatlyabout their environment and the rami-fications of various emissions that arereleased into it. At the same time, I be-lieve people of Michigan want agree-ments negotiated overseas and adoptedin Washington to be based upon soundscience and hard facts.

They also want those agreements tobe ones that require all nations towork toward a common objective rath-er than singling out developed nationsfor all the pain while allowing develop-ing nations to gain competitive advan-tages by continuing practices thatmight contribute to an internationalproblem.

Mr. President, the people of Michiganare proud of their State, its natural re-sources, and the industry with whichthey have made Michigan’s economyamong the best in the Nation. Theywant to keep their jobs, to raise theirfamilies, and see their children growand enjoy the opportunities our Stateprovides.

By all accounts, Mr. President,Michigan would suffer disproportion-ately should a treaty go into effectthat does not fairly bind all countries.Whether it is the business community,the agriculture community or orga-nized labor, I have heard concerns fromthem all, Mr. President.

Therefore, I commend the Senatorswho have introduced this resolution. Iam happy to be a cosponsor. I look for-ward to supporting it and seeing itpassed today so that we might, as acountry, work in a constructive waytoward resolving these issues whileavoiding a path that is detrimental toAmerica and the interests of the hard-working men and women of my State.

I yield the floor.Mr. HAGEL. I yield 2 minutes of my

time to the Senator from Alaska.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Alaska is recognized.Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I

rise in strong support of the Byrd-Hagel resolution expressing the senseof the Senate on international agree-ments covering greenhouse gas emis-sions.

I wish to thank and commend mycolleagues, Senator BYRD and SenatorHAGEL, for their efforts in forging thisbipartisan, common sense resolution. Iwas proud to join them as an originalcosponsor.

The Energy and Natural ResourcesCommittee, which I chair, has had sig-nificant interest and long involvementin the issue of greenhouse gas emis-sions and climate change because anyattempt to address carbon emissionsfundamentally affects energy invest-ment, use, and policy.

Our committee has held a variety ofhearings, seminars, and briefings onthis subject for the benefit of members,staff, and the public.

Moreover, we have remained closelyattuned to the negotiations toward anew climate treaty through close andregular contact with the principalState Department and Department ofEnergy officials.

My predecessor as chairman, SenatorBennett Johnston, also had a keen in-terest in this subject, and made it acenterpiece of the committee’s over-sight responsibilities.

So this is not a new issue to us.Having said that, I believe Senators

BYRD and HAGEL have done a superbjob with this resolution expressing theSenate’s aspirations and concerns withrespect to any eventual climate treaty.

This resolution will strengthen thehand of our negotiators during upcom-ing meetings in August, October, andDecember.

Although this is not a binding resolu-tion, it conveys the legitimate con-cerns of the Senate to other parties inthe negotiations.

Our negotiators can use this resolu-tion to inform other nations of the ele-ments that must be contained in anynew climate treaty that can be ratifiedby this body.

Turning now to the substance of theresolution, I have a letter from Presi-dent Clinton, dated August 21, 1996,that contains a statement I very muchagree with. And I quote:

Establishing a sound framework is a criti-cal first step in the negotiating process. Weare already conducting additional analysesand technical assessments . . . our ultimateposition will fully reflect economic consider-ations and our commitment to the principlethat environmental protection and economicprosperity go hand-in-hand.

The President is right. Economicconsiderations are important. We mustnot proceed down a path that will bringadverse economic consequences, com-petitive disadvantages, and energyprice increases.

The importance of economic consid-erations, as expressed by the Presidentin his letter, are very much in linewith this resolution.

This resolution simply says that anynew climate treaty must not result inserious economic harm to the UnitedStates.

The Byrd-Hagel resolution alsostates that any new climate treatymust be global in its approach:

New commitments on the part of de-veloped countries to limit or reducegreenhouse gas emissions must be ac-companied by new commitments on thepart of developing countries to do thesame.

The issue of developing countries andtheir participation is critically impor-tant:

According to the Energy InformationAdministration, an arm of the Depart-ment of Energy, carbon emissions fromChina will exceed ours by the year 2015.Their greenhouse gas emissions are ex-pected to grow 185 percent above 1990levels.

Emissions from developing nations asa whole will also exceed those from in-dustrialized nations by 2015.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S8135July 25, 1997Clearly, this is a global issue that re-

quires a global approach. If furtherscience confirms the fact that carbonemission do indeed have dangerous im-plications for the climate, then all na-tions must take meaningful steps.

The industrial nations simply do nothave it in their power to do it alone,even if they wanted to.

But here is some good news: We havetime to approach this issue in a care-ful, deliberative manner.

We gain nothing by getting ahead ofthe science. Indeed, we risk a greatdeal by moving too quickly:

According to economic analysis bythe Stanford Energy Modeling Forum,an orderly, long-term strategy ofachieving a scientifically-justified car-bon emission reduction costs just one-fifth what it would cost to achieve thesame reduction over the near-term.

In other words, you can get the sameresult 80 percent cheaper by taking along-term view, and allowing capitalequipment to be retired in an orderlyfashion as new energy efficient tech-nologies come on line.

Mr. President, there is simply noneed to compel working American fam-ilies to pay five times as much as theyneed to for the same eventual outcome.

Clearly, there is not a need for ex-treme actions such as carbon taxes,strict command and control regula-tions, and one-sided treaties that willimpose economic harm.

Let’s take the time to do the jobright and enjoy tremendous economicsavings.

Turning to the broader issue of cli-mate change and climate science, letme say we should all be concernedabout increasing concentrations of car-bon dioxide and other greenhouse gas-ses in the atmosphere.

It is an indisputable scientific factthat concentrations of greenhouse gas-ses are on the rise.

Yet significant scientific uncertain-ties remain.

Some scientists believe that highercarbon dioxide concentrations willbring only moderate change, warmerwinters, reduced energy demands, andlonger growing seasons.

Virtually every climate scientist willtell you that the warming signal sug-gested by some data sets are all withinthe bounds of natural variability, andthat climate change is the rule ratherthan the exception. Throughout theplanet’s history, the climate haschanged.

I will confess to my own personal fas-cination with the Greenland ice corerecords that I first became familiarwith when the University of Alaska re-moved an ice core record spanning theentire depth of the Greenland ice cap.

These ice cores are high-resolutionrecords of climate which can be ana-lyzed like the rings of a tree—onlythese records go back 100,000 years ormore.

The Greenland ice core record tellsus that the earth’s climate has alwayschanged and shifted, often dramati-

cally and over surprisingly short peri-ods of time.

Thus, the investments we’ve made inthe U.S. Global Climate Change Re-search Program, approaching $2 billionper year and more, are expensive butworthwhile. Because there is muchmore scientific work to do.

The common refrain that I hear fromclimate scientists, virtually withoutexception, is this:

The climate system is remarkablycomplex, and exceedingly difficult tomodel.

Meanwhile, our current climate mod-els are comparatively crude.

We lack sufficient data for model in-puts, particularly information aboutthe effects of clouds and water vapor.

And finally, as we have learned moreand refined our computer models, esti-mates of future warming have fallen,not risen.

Clearly, the science is uncertain, andthe scientific debate is not over. Norshould it be.

And that brings me to what I see asa troubling trend:

Some who have argued for immediateand urgent action to sharply reducegreenhouse gas emissions have claimedthat the science arguing for quick ac-tion is unassailable, and that the sci-entists who express doubts are some-how extreme or out of the mainstream.

Frankly, talk such as that makes mecringe, because the scientific methoditself is based on challenge and peer re-view.

Contrarians should not be shouteddown for the sake of political correct-ness.

Whenever scientists are called out ofthe mainstream or extreme by a politi-cal leader or a journalist, you can betthat an attempted subversion of thescientific method is at hand.

We should condemn any subversion ofthe scientific method whenever we seeit occur in the climate debate. Toomuch is at stake.

Continued investment in science willonly enhance our understanding. Wehave invested billions in a climatechange research program that is onlynow beginning to yield significant re-sults.

We should not stake our economic fu-ture on partial information.

Since extreme, unilateral actions areunwarranted at this point, we havetime to encourage developing nationssuch as China to participate in mean-ingful commitments.

The resolution before us states thatnew commitments on the part of devel-oped countries to limit or reducegreenhouse gas emissions must be ac-companied by new commitments on thepart of developing countries to do thesame.

I believe the Senate would have dif-ficulty ratifying any new climate trea-ty that imposed legally binding green-house gas reduction targets and time-tables, which are essentially energyquotas, only on the most developed na-tions.

Such an approach would be unfair,economically devastating, and ineffec-tive.

To repeat: New energy quotas, im-posed only on one set of nations, wouldbe unfair, economically devastating,and ineffective. Let me explain:

One-sided energy quotas would be un-fair:

They would allow some nations togain tremendous competitive advan-tages over others by encouraging themovement of jobs, manufacturing andcapital from nations that are subjectto the energy quotas, to nations thatare not.

One-sided energy quotas would beeconomically devastating:

They would require carbon taxes orregulation that would cost jobs, harmour economy, and diminish our stand-ard of living.

One-sided energy quotas would be in-effective:

Because manufacturing, capital, jobs,and even emissions would move fromnations that are subject to the energyquotas, to nations that are not, emis-sions would not diminish, they mighteven increase.

Moreover, because the total green-house gas emissions from developingnations will soon exceed those from de-veloped nations, exempting developingnations wouldn’t do anything to im-prove the problem. Greenhouse gaseswould still increase. We would suffereconomic pain without environmentalgain.

What I am saying here today hasbeen confirmed by some of the admin-istration’s own economic analysis. Anew study produced by the Departmentof Energy’s Argonne National Labora-tory contains some surprising and com-pelling findings. Let me cite some ofthem:

Increased energy and fuel prices inindustrial nations resulting from a newclimate treaty that does not containmeaningful commitments for develop-ing nations such as India, China andSouth Korea would encourage a re-allocation of investments away fromindustrial countries towards the devel-oping countries. To the extent this oc-curs, emissions would simply be redis-tributed and could even increase.

Some 20 to 30 percent of the energyintensive basic chemical industrycould move to developing countriesover 15 to 30 years, with 200,000 jobslost.

U.S. steel production could fall 30percent with accompanying job lossesof 100,000.

All primary aluminum plants in theUnited States could close by 2010.

Many petroleum refiners in theNortheast and Gulf Coast could close,and imports would displace more do-mestic production.

Mr. President, these are serious eco-nomic impacts, and I believe we can allagree that this is precisely what wemust avoid.

That’s what this resolution is about,and that’s why I feel it should passwith a broad, bipartisan margin.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES8136 July 25, 1997Some will argue that we cannot be

successful in efforts bring developingnations along in the negotiations intime for the December 1997 meeting inKyoto, Japan.

But I believe we should try. And if wecannot achieve a new treaty that in-cludes developing nations in this time-frame, then perhaps Kyoto can at leastproduce a roadmap leading to meaning-ful commitments by all nations.

Mr. President, there is no need for aheadlong rush toward rash policies.

The carbon problem didn’t appearovernight. It won’t be addressed over-night. We have time to devise and con-sider balanced approaches that canwork.

Time will allow new energy and effi-ciency technologies to mature.

Time will provide for global solutionsthat include the developing nations.

Time will allow us to sharpen ourscience and better understand the truethreat of climate change, if it is indeeda dangerous threat.

Yes, the climate issue is a seriousone. But it’s not a reason to panic.

This resolution helps our nego-tiators. It sends an important messagethat this is a global problem that re-quires the attention and participationof all nations.

I urge the Senate’s adoption of theresolution, and I again commend Sen-ators BYRD and HAGEL for their leader-ship and tireless efforts.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator’s time has expired.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. As chairman ofthe Natural Resources Committee, Iam vitally interested in this area be-cause it is our responsibility. I thankmy friends, the managers of the bill,and my good friend, Senator BYRD.

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I yieldthe remainder of my time to the Sen-ator from Idaho.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from Idaho is recognized.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thankmy colleague for yielding, and let methank Senator HAGEL and SenatorBYRD for bringing this resolution tothe floor in a timely manner. I knowseveral of my colleagues wish theycould have spent a longer period oftime this morning debating the issue,and I can’t blame them. Let me suggestto them that this is only the beginningof a long and very important debate forour country to become involved in. Italso was very important, though, thatthe Senate of the United States, theratifying body of our Government andour country, speak out clearly andboldly before the ad hoc climatechange negotiating group convenesnext Wednesday in Bonn, and carriestheir meetings through August 8. Thereason it is important that the Senatespeak out is because we do not believethe sky is falling. We are not sure ifthe sky is cracked, and if it is, maybewe need to build a superstructure tohold it up. But this country cannotcommit itself to this kind of bindingagreement unless the science is clearer

and the understanding of the Americanpeople is fairly reached when it comesto this issue.

Let me speak for a few momentsabout my frustration that our Presi-dent has decided to use his bully pul-pit, in my opinion, to terrorize theAmerican people into supporting theadministration’s quest for commit-ments for energy use reduction thatare legally binding on the UnitedStates. The President has been quitefrank about building a propagandacampaign about calamities of futureglobal warming, beginning with yester-day’s White House meeting on climatechange. The President has indicatedhis propaganda drive will culminate ina White House conference on globalwarming in October. The conference isnot likely to be a thoughtful round-table. It may now be more thoughtful,because I think the administration hasfinally recognized that the Senate infact will become engaged and must be-come engaged.

Why did I use the words I just used?Here is the reason. Here is the planthat our administration is now sup-porting: That they would cause us toenter into a binding agreement thatthe United States would be responsiblefor 48 percent of the world’s obligationto reduce energy use. We said a longtime ago that any climate changeagreement that affects the UnitedStates should not be binding, but vol-untary on the world. Is the administra-tion’s plan a dramatic departure fromwhere we were? Here is where it is. It isdramatic because when we arrive atthe year 2010, to achieve our 1990 levels,the United States will be contributingabout 20 percent of the world’s emis-sions, while the rest of the world willbe contributing 80 percent. Yet Chinaand India and other Asian nations anddeveloping countries, by this adminis-tration’s negotiations, would be ex-empt. That is why it is time we cometo the floor to speak about this.

Senate Resolution 98, under the au-thorship of Senator BYRD and SenatorHAGEL, says just that, that we cannotbecome involved unless we are all in-volved and that we should not becomeinvolved unless the science is sure, orso sure that we will commit this coun-try and the rest of the world into acourse that could bind us and reshapeour economies and clearly design a dif-ferent destiny for the American peoplethan one that we might otherwisechoose.

The President and the Vice Presidentstand next to flooded homes in the Da-kotas and suggest that this unfortu-nate event is a product of global warm-ing. That is not fair, because thescience doesn’t prove it. So when I usethe word ‘‘terrorize,’’ or I use the word‘‘propaganda,’’ it is not by chance thatI use those words. The science simplydoesn’t support the claims being madeby this administration, it is importantto understand that. Last year, in theLeipzig Declaration, 100 scientists fromaround the world, climate scientists—

not politicians, but scientists—ex-pressed their doubts about the validityof computer-driven warming forecasts.Why? You heard the Senator fromOklahoma just now say the reason isthe science isn’t bearing it up. Peoplewho watch our satellites say that oursatellites tell us we are getting cooler.Yet people who watch our ground tem-peratures suggest we might be gettingwarmer. Instead of sponsoring a fairdebate, the administration is onlyusing part of the available science,while denegrating the other side.

What is so important for this countryto understand, what is more importantfor the parliamentarians of the worldto understand, is that the Presidentdoes not necessarily speak for this Sen-ate. But what is critically important isthat this Senate will speak for itself.And it is, without question, the respon-sibility of the Senate of the UnitedStates to approve treaties. What we donot want to happen is the lifting of thelevel of expectation projected by therhetoric and the selective science by anadministration that would bring usinto negotiations to produce a treatyin Kyoto in December that simplywould not speak to the realities or theresponsibilities that we ought to be en-gaged in.

The administration must realize thata strong American economy is essen-tial to our Nation if we are going tospend upwards of $2 billion a year onclimate change research, if we aregoing to adapt to changing climate, ifneeded, and if we are going to adjustour economy and our economic base forthose purposes.

So, I am pleased to endorse, and Ihope Senators will join with me in astrong endorsement, of Senate Resolu-tion 98. It is important that we speaknow. I view, as others do, that this is apreliminary statement in what will bea long and complex debate for all of usto become involved in, because I don’tknow where our science will lead us.But if it, in fact, can show us the wayand clearly demonstrate that there is aclimate change responsibility for thisNation, then all the rest of the nationsin the world must participate. We can-not shoulder 48 percent of the burdenfor the rest of the world.

Mr. President, let me close with thislast chart. If you were to turn theUnited States into a forest with noemissions whatsoever, by the year 2100here is the problem with the rest of theworld. The problem is that we want tobe at 1990 levels by 2010. If you take theUnited States out of the equation, thetotal concentration of greenhousegases hardly changes. Yet this adminis-tration, at least by their rhetoric ofthe last several months, would takeChina out of it, the other developingworld nations out, and leave us to bearthe burden. That is why S. Res. 98 is socritical for us today, for the world to-morrow, as we march toward Kyoto inDecember.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The timeof the Senator has expired. Who seekstime?

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S8137July 25, 1997Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I yield

myself a couple of minutes beforeyielding to the Senator from Oregon.

Mr. President, we have heard a cou-ple of Senators refer to the fact thatthe science somehow, because of sat-ellite observations, does not indicatethe kind of warming that others are ar-guing is taking effect. This is an exam-ple of how an individual scientific factis used to distort the record here forone purpose or another. We will havetime later to discuss all of those pur-poses. But the argument is made that,although thermometers located at theEarth’s surface show an increase intemperature today higher than it hasbeen for 130 years, people say the sat-ellite measurements, which are thou-sands of feet above the surface, show acooling since 1979.

That is true. That is the only part ofthis that is true. There is nothing inthat fact that discredits the theory,the thesis, which has been accepted byscientists, with respect to the warm-ing. Let me point out why. Thermom-eters in satellites and thermometers onthe ground obviously measure tempera-tures at two very different places inthe atmosphere, and it is not surpris-ing, according to most scientists whointerpret this, that there is a dif-ference. At higher altitudes, tempera-tures fluctuate far more than they doat the surface due to natural climateinfluences like sunlight reflecting par-ticles from volcanoes and othervariabilities. What scientists calledvariability, or noise in the satelliterecord, obscures the warming trend dueto the buildup of greenhouse gases thatis apparent in the global surface tem-perature.

Furthermore, the depletion of theozone layer, which has occurred mostlysince 1979, has had a cooling effect onthe atmosphere which is more markedat higher levels than it is at surfacelevels. The Earth’s surface has warmedover the northern and the southernhemispheres, which totally negates thenotion of any kind of heat effect fromurban centers or otherwise.

There will be later times to discussthe science. But it is important to notethat on June 22, 1997, the New YorkTimes in an editorial said that the rea-son we had voluntary agreements outof Rio was science was somewhatmurky. But in 1995, the U.N. Intergov-ernmental Panel on Climate Change,consisting of 2,500 scientists, concludedthat there was a serious impact theycould discern, and the science becamecertain.

So I think as time goes on Americanswill come to understand that.

I yield 3 minutes to the Senator fromOregon.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from Oregon is recognized.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I com-mend particularly Senator BYRD andSenator KERRY for their leadership inthis area and say I come to the floor asa U.S. Senator from a State that is thefirst State in the country to put man-

datory limits on carbon dioxide, theprimary manmade source of globalwarming. We have shown in our homeState that it is possible to have athriving, prosperous economy and takesteps to limit these environmentalproblems that our colleagues havetalked about.

The fact is, our country can help playa leadership role in controlling globalwarming without causing an economicmeltdown. There are, really, three ap-proaches that the State of Oregon hasused, as the first State in the countryto have mandatory controls on carbondioxide emissions.

First, as Senators BYRD and KERRYhave talked about, we give great em-phasis on market mechanisms. We arenot talking about a big government ap-proach. We are talking about using themarket.

Second, we have taken steps to buildthese new approaches into new power-plant design. It is prospective, so thatall those who are constructing our newpowerplants understand the rules.

Third, we have given special rewards,credits, for innovative approaches suchas proper management of our forests.

I conclude by saying that properlymanaged forests can be very effectivein helping to capture greenhouse gases,carbon dioxide, and removing themfrom the air. Our Northwest forests aresome of the very best carbon sinks inthe world. The older forests are esti-mated to be two to three times as ef-fective in capturing carbon dioxideemissions as new growth.

I have heard several of my colleaguestalk about some of the alternatives.Carbon taxes——

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The timeof the Senator from Oregon has ex-pired.

Mr. WYDEN. I ask unanimous con-sent for 30 additional seconds?

Mr. KERRY. How much time is re-maining?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There re-main 7 minutes 35 seconds.

Mr. KERRY. I yield the Senator anadditional minute.

Mr. WYDEN. My last point is weknow, for example, that properly man-aged forests are a cost-effective alter-native to end-of-pipe emission controlsor carbon taxes. There are alternativesout there. My home State has shownthey can work, and I thank SenatorKERRY for the extra time.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I wouldlike to just read that New York Timeseditorial and ask unanimous consent itbe printed in the RECORD, and I yieldmyself 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 thatmainstream scientists simply couldn’t agreewhether manmade emissions have contrib-uted to the small rise in global temperaturesthat began in the late 19th century. In 1995,however, the U.N. intergovernmental panelon climate change consisting of about 2,500scientists concluded that they had. The lan-guage was cautious, their forecasts weregloomy. Unless the current rates of combus-

tion of carbon-based fuels, coal, gas, oil,could be reduced, they warned, temperatureswould rise between 1.8 and 6.3 degrees Fahr-enheit over the next century. Temperaturechanges in the middle level of that scalecould cause a 20-inch rise in sea levels thatwould flood coastal lowlands and tropical is-lands, an increase in weather extremes andglobal damage to forests and croplands. De-spite challenges from businesses which havebeen attacking the science in tobacco indus-try fashion, the U.N. panel has not retreatedfrom its basic findings.

So, Mr. President, we are going tohave a good debate in this country inthe next months on the science, andthat is appropriate; we ought to haveit. We ought to put to the test all ofthe theories. We should demand themost exacting models. We should pressfor the most certitude that we cangain. But there is no issue today sci-entifically about the fact that there isglobal warming taking place, about thefact that there is sea-level rise occur-ring, and that, if it continues at thecurrent trend levels, the damages couldbe devastating.

We can quarrel about how much hap-pens at what point in time, about whatmodel is better at predicting the im-pact. I will acknowledge there are in-herent uncertainties in that process.Clearly there are. But we know we areliving in the midst of the most signifi-cant increase that we have seen in 130years, and the evidence of the progno-sis of our best scientists is that it isgoing to continue at a rate that isgreater than anything we have knownsince humankind, since civilization hasexisted, civilization within the last8,000 to 10,000 years on this planet. Weowe it to ourselves and to commonsense to try to make the best judg-ments about that.

This resolution today, I want to em-phasize, is not about the science. Thisresolution is about how our team goesto Kyoto and how we negotiate in thenext months.

I want to emphasize with respect tomy comments about the Berlin man-date that there is nothing in this reso-lution today that I deem to be incon-sistent with the mandate; nothing in-consistent. I do believe that this beginsto alter appropriately how we begin toapproach some of the negotiations inKyoto, and I accept what the Senatorfrom Nebraska has said, I accept whatthe Senator from West Virginia hassaid, and others. It is a matter of fair-ness and common sense that the UnitedStates should not be placed at a dis-advantage and make a set of choicesthat don’t bring others into the processof solving this.

So, Mr. President, thanking the Sen-ator from West Virginia for the col-loquy, clearly I am not calling myamendment up.

Mr. President, I have extra time. Iwill yield 2 minutes of my time to theSenator from West Virginia.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. TheChair observes that the Senator has 1minute 45 seconds remaining.

Mr. KERRY. I yield 1 minute 45 sec-onds to the Senator from West Vir-ginia.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES8138 July 25, 1997Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unan-

imous consent that I may have an addi-tional 30 seconds over and above thetime referred to.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, it wasJohn Stuart Mill who said that ‘‘On allgreat subjects, much remains to besaid.’’ I think we will all be saying agood bit more than has been said hereas the days come and go. We are notyet debating the treaty itself. But mydistinguished friend, Mr. KERRY, hasjust said, in his judgment, there isnothing in this resolution that is in-consistent with the Berlin mandate.

Mr. President, that is not my view atall. I think we only have to read theresolution itself—it speaks for itself—and we will find that it is inconsistentwith the Berlin Mandate, and I in-tended to say that.

Mr. President, I will try to elaborateon my view with a two-part observa-tion. First, with respect to significantemitters, such as China, it makes nosense for the international communityto begin this effort by agreeing to un-checked emissions growth from newlyconstructed, but inefficient, power-gen-erating and industrial facilities. It isneither cost-effective nor environ-mentally beneficial to go back and ret-rofit dirty smokestacks.

We all know that China in particularhas near-term plans to increase itspower-generating capacityexponentially. We must anticipate theprospect of significant new industrialdevelopment in China and other placesby providing incentives for deploymentof new, cleaner technologies. In short,we must bring back from Kyoto somecommitments that China and otherlarge emitters will grow in a smartway.

I want to make it clear that the cur-rent approach of the State Departmentis not acceptable to this Senator underthe terms of the resolution. Their ap-proach will not work. A promise by thedeveloping countries to only negotiateat a later date is simply unacceptable.Any agreement resulting from negotia-tions in Kyoto, or thereafter, that in-cludes binding commitments for devel-oped countries must also include seri-ous, specific, and binding commitmentsby the developing world.

I thank all Senators.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

Chair observes that all time has ex-pired.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent for 60 seconds toclarify the record and respond.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator is recognized.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I don’tdisagree with what Senator BYRD hasjust said. In a sense, I should correctmy own comment when I talk aboutthe Berlin mandate. Obviously, we arealtering the way in which we are ap-proaching the question of inclusive-ness. When I say ‘‘nothing inconsist-ent,’’ I am talking about in the fun-

damentals of how you might approachthe issue of timetable or compliance.We have discussed that in the course ofthis debate, and that is what I intendedto say.

I yield back any remaining time.Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I ask for

the yeas and nays.The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a

sufficient second?There appears to be a sufficient sec-

ond.The yeas and nays were ordered.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

question is on agreeing to the resolu-tion. The yeas and nays have been or-dered. The clerk will call the roll.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that theSenator from Minnesota [Mr. GRAMS] isnecessarily absent.

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Sen-ator from Nevada [Mr. BRYAN], theSenator from California [Mrs. FEIN-STEIN], the Senator from Iowa [Mr.HARKIN], and the Senator from Nevada[Mr. REID] are necessarily absent.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are thereany other Senators in the Chamber de-siring to vote?

The result was announced—yeas 95,nays 0, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 205 Leg.]YEAS—95

AbrahamAkakaAllardAshcroftBaucusBennettBidenBingamanBondBoxerBreauxBrownbackBumpersBurnsByrdCampbellChafeeClelandCoatsCochranCollinsConradCoverdellCraigD’AmatoDaschleDeWineDoddDomeniciDorganDurbinEnzi

FairclothFeingoldFordFristGlennGortonGrahamGrammGrassleyGreggHagelHatchHelmsHollingsHutchinsonHutchisonInhofeInouyeJeffordsJohnsonKempthorneKennedyKerreyKerryKohlKylLandrieuLautenbergLeahyLevinLiebermanLott

LugarMackMcCainMcConnellMikulskiMoseley-BraunMoynihanMurkowskiMurrayNicklesReedRobbRobertsRockefellerRothSantorumSarbanesSessionsShelbySmith (NH)Smith (OR)SnoweSpecterStevensThomasThompsonThurmondTorricelliWarnerWellstoneWyden

NOT VOTING—5BryanFeinstein

GramsHarkin

Reid

The resolution (S. Res. 98) was agreedto.

The preamble was agreed to.The resolution, with its preamble, is

as follows:S. RES. 98

Whereas the United Nations FrameworkConvention on Climate Change (in this reso-lution referred to as the ‘‘Convention’’),adopted in May 1992, entered into force in1994 and is not yet fully implemented;

Whereas the Convention, intended to ad-dress climate change on a global basis, iden-tifies the former Soviet Union and the coun-tries of Eastern Europe and the OrganizationFor Economic Co-operation and Develop-ment (OECD), including the United States,

as ‘‘Annex I Parties’’, and the remaining 129countries, including China, Mexico, India,Brazil, and South Korea, as ‘‘DevelopingCountry Parties’’;

Whereas in April 1995, the Convention’s‘‘Conference of the Parties’’ adopted the so-called ‘‘Berlin Mandate’’;

Whereas the ‘‘Berlin Mandate’’ calls forthe adoption, as soon as December 1997, inKyoto, Japan, of a protocol or another legalinstrument that strengthens commitmentsto limit greenhouse gas emissions by AnnexI Parties for the post-2000 period and estab-lishes a negotiation process called the ‘‘AdHoc Group on the Berlin Mandate’’;

Whereas the ‘‘Berlin Mandate’’ specificallyexempts all Developing Country Partiesfrom any new commitments in such negotia-tion process for the post-2000 period;

Whereas although the Convention, ap-proved by the United States Senate, calledon all signatory parties to adopt policies andprograms aimed at limiting their greenhousegas (GHG) emissions, in July 1996 the Under-Secretary of State for Global Affairs calledfor the first time for ‘‘legally binding’’ emis-sion limitation targets and timetables forAnnex I Parties, a position reiterated by theSecretary of State in testimony before theCommittee on Foreign Relations of the Sen-ate on January 8, 1997;

Whereas greenhouse gas emissions of De-veloping Country Parties are rapidly increas-ing and are expected to surpass emissions ofthe United States and other OECD countriesas early as 2015;

Whereas the Department of State has de-clared that it is critical for the Parties tothe Convention to include Developing Coun-try Parties in the next steps for global ac-tion and, therefore, has proposed that con-sideration of additional steps to include lim-itations on Developing Country Parties’greenhouse gas emissions would not beginuntil after a protocol or other legal instru-ment is adopted in Kyoto, Japan in Decem-ber 1997;

Whereas the exemption for DevelopingCountry Parties is inconsistent with theneed for global action on climate change andis environmentally flawed;

Whereas the Senate strongly believes thatthe proposals under negotiation, because ofthe disparity of treatment between Annex IParties and Developing Countries and thelevel of required emission reductions, couldresult in serious harm to the United Stateseconomy, including significant job loss,trade disadvantages, increased energy andconsumer costs, or any combination thereof;and

Whereas it is desirable that a bipartisangroup of Senators be appointed by the Major-ity and Minority Leaders of the Senate forthe purpose of monitoring the status of nego-tiations on Global Climate Change and re-porting periodically to the Senate on thosenegotiations: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senatethat—

(1) the United States should not be a signa-tory to any protocol to, or other agreementregarding, the United Nations FrameworkConvention on Climate Change of 1992, at ne-gotiations in Kyoto in December 1997, orthereafter, which would—

(A) mandate new commitments to limit orreduce greenhouse gas emissions for theAnnex I Parties, unless the protocol or otheragreement also mandates new specific sched-uled commitments to limit or reduce green-house gas emissions for Developing CountryParties within the same compliance period,or

(B) would result in serious harm to theeconomy of the United States; and

(2) any such protocol or other agreementwhich would require the advice and consent

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S8139July 25, 1997of the Senate to ratification should be ac-companied by a detailed explanation of anylegislation or regulatory actions that may berequired to implement the protocol or otheragreement and should also be accompaniedby an analysis of the detailed financial costsand other impacts on the economy of theUnited States which would be incurred bythe implementation of the protocol or otheragreement.

SEC. 2. Secretary of the State shall trans-mit a copy of this resolution to the Presi-dent.

Mr. LOTT. I move to reconsider thevote.

Mr. KERRY. I move to lay that mo-tion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table wasagreed to.

UNANIMOUS-CONSENTAGREEMENT—S. 39

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unan-imous consent that the order enteredJuly 24 with respect to S. 39, order No.11, which is with regard to the tuna-dolphin issue, be vitiated.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

Mr. LOTT. I further ask that the ma-jority leader, after consultation withthe Democratic leader, may turn to S.39, and one managers’ amendment be inorder, and time for the amendment andthe debate on the bill be limited to 30minutes, equally divided in the usualform, and following the conclusion oryielding back of time, the Senate pro-ceed to vote on the amendment, to befollowed by third reading and passageof S. 39, as amended, if amended.

Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right toobject, and I shall not object, I want tosay to our majority leader that I thankhim for his patience. I want to use thistime in reserving my right to object,which I shall not, to thank the major-ity leader for his patience in allowingus the time we needed to come to whatI think is a good compromise on thisbill.

I want to say that Senator JOHNKERRY stepped into the breach at themoment we needed him to do so, and inworking with Senator MCCAIN and Sen-ator SNOWE, Senator BREAUX, SenatorBIDEN, myself, Senator STEVENS—itwas a big group of us, and a group thatis pretty much known for some verystrong opinions. I want to thank him.And the administration was at thetable. It was not easy.

But in the end, what we are going todo basically is keep the label the wayit is and give some time for a study tobegin, put all the other wonderful partsof that bill into place, and then whenthe preliminary results are known, wewill make a decision—the Secretary ofCommerce will—on whether or not tochange the definition of what con-stitutes ‘‘dolphin safe’’ tuna. So Ithink it is a victory for American con-sumers.

Just in concluding my brief remarkshere—and I will not object to the unan-imous-consent request—I want tothank the more than 44 Senators who

stood with us, who were going to votewith us, so we were able to have thestrength to negotiate this compromise.

I will not object to the request.The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there

an objection?Hearing none, without objection, it is

so ordered.Mr. LOTT. Let me wrap this up right

quick because Senator MCCAIN needs tobe able to comment on this, too.

For the information of all Senators,in light of this agreement with respectto the tuna-dolphin legislation, the clo-ture vote was vitiated; therefore, therewill be no further votes to occur today.The next votes will occur in stacked se-quence on Tuesday, July 29, beginningat 9:30 a.m.

I want to thank all Senators for theircooperation, especially the Senatorfrom Maine, Senator SNOWE. She didoutstanding work. She did not alwaysreceive the type of consideration sheshould have, but she has risen abovethat. Without her agreement, thiswould not have been possible. Also, ofcourse, Senator MCCAIN has been dili-gent in his work, as always, and alsoSenator KERRY, who got involved tohelp us work this out.

I would like to make sure now thatSenator MCCAIN has a chance to speakand put the proper perspective on all ofthis.

Mr. MCCAIN. Mr. President, I re-ceived a letter from the National Secu-rity Adviser. I ask unanimous consentthat it be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the letterwas ordered to be printed in theRECORD, as follows:

THE WHITE HOUSE,Washington, July 25, 1997.

Hon. JOHN MCCAIN,Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Science,

and Transportation, U.S. Senate, Washing-ton, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I want to thank youfor your hard work and support to find an ac-ceptable compromise on S. 39 the Inter-national Dolphin Conservation Act. I amwriting to inform you that we accept theagreement that has been struck betweenyourself and other Senators involved withthe discussions on the legislation. I alsowant to inform you that we have consultedwith the Government of Mexico and thatthey do not object to the agreement. They,in turn, are discussing this with the othersignatories of the Panama Declaration inorder to secure their acceptance of this com-promise. I am hopeful that all the signato-ries will be able to accept this compromiseas well.

Again, thank you for your efforts to bringabout a successful conclusion to the discus-sions on S. 39.

Sincerely,SAMUEL R. BERGER,

Assistant to the PresidentFor National Security Affairs.

Mr. MCCAIN. Mr. President, this let-ter indicates that negotiations we haveentered into making changes to thelegislation will keep the InternationalDolphin Conservation Program intact.That has been our sole objective. Withthe administration’s assurance, I be-lieve we are prepared to enter into atime agreement for final passage of thebill.

Again, President Clinton has askedus to pass this legislation. Greenpeace,the Center for Marine Conservation,the Environmental Defense Fund, theWorld Wildlife Fund, and the NationalWildlife Federation have asked us topass this bill. My only test for accept-ing changes to the bill is that the con-servation agreement remains intact.

The agreement, which still must beput into legislative language, lifts theembargo on tuna from the easterntropical Pacific, and would require thelabel change after the Secretary ofCommerce makes a finding on imple-mentation of the international agree-ment does not adversely affect dolphinin any substantial way, by a time cer-tain. We have had months of negotia-tions on this issue.

Mr. President, I want to make onething perfectly clear. This agreementwould not be where it is today withoutthe Senator from Maine, SenatorSNOWE, the subcommittee chairperson,who conducted weeks and months ofnegotiations on this issue. The Senatorfrom Maine is the one that made thishappen. Whenever there is a victory,there are all kinds of people that liketo take credit for it. The Senator fromMaine, Senator SNOWE, entered into amonths-long series of negotiations, andhas accepted amendments and reserva-tions that she would not otherwisewant to. I am sorry that the thing thatheld up this agreement was extremepartisanship, which motivated peopleto vote for cloture on a bill that theadministration and the environmentalcommunity supported, and the charac-terization of this bill as some kind ofcave-in is wrong. We demanded thatthe international signatories wouldagree to any compromise that wasmade. That was done so in this bill.There will be, at a time certain, a la-beling which will allow this Nation—and the other nations who are signato-ries—to have the importation of tunainto this country. I am sorry that theseissues, which are really in the best in-terests of the Nation, somehow get po-liticized so much, as this issue hasbeen. The Senator from Maine has re-frained from that all along.

I yield the floor.PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that a fellow in myoffice, Tom Richey, be permitted ac-cess to the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I want tomake it clear that, from my perspec-tive, this agreement on tuna-dolphindoes not represent a cave-in. It doesn’trepresent one side sort of being bulliedby another side. Also, I certainly don’tthink it represents a partisan effort be-cause Senator BOB SMITH of New Hamp-shire, and a number of our colleaguesacross the aisle, were also very inter-ested in the outcome of this and wereprepared to join in a rigorous debate.

What I believe has happened is that,as it often does in the U.S. Senate,