[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 112 (Friday, August 12, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 12, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
      U.S. INTERNATIONAL POSITION ON GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE TREATY

                                 ______


                             HON. TOM DeLAY

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                        Friday, August 12, 1994

  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, the Clinton/Gore administration is about to 
stumble into another foreign policy mistake. I'm not talking about 
Bosnia, Haiti, or North Korea. I'm talking about an important 
international environmental issue--global warming or global climate 
change.
  In 1992, the United States signed an international treaty to reduce 
the emissions of gases which some claim may cause global warming. The 
U.S. Senate ratified the treaty in late 1993 and it went into effect 
only in March of this year. Already, however, the Clinton 
administration has concluded that this treaty is not adequate to deal 
with the issue of global climate change and that more needs to be done.
  In a speech at the U.S. State Department on August 3, Under Secretary 
of State Tim Wirth asserted that the treaty is inadequate and that the 
first priority for the United States is to convince the international 
community to set a new aim to control emissions after the year 2000. 
This new ``aim'' is a code word, Mr. Speaker, for new international 
environmental standards, standards that the administration knows would 
not be approved if brought before Congress.
  This simply does not make sense. According to John Shlaes, executive 
director of the Global Climate Coalition, ``The President's voluntary 
climate action plan, which is just getting underway * * * indicates 
that the bulk of emissions reductions and energy savings will occur 
between 2000 and 2010.'' How can the administration have come to the 
conclusion now that new standards are needed for the years after 2000?
  Furthermore, although the treaty went into effect just 4 months ago, 
the administration wants to make changes that cannot be justified by 
the state of the science on climate change. In fact, the U.N.'s next 
assessment of the state of scientific understanding of climate change 
is still in the process of being developed and is not scheduled for 
release until the fall of 1995.
  Amending the treaty to include additional directives could also have 
dramatic negative consequences for the American economy. Some of the 
policies that could be necessary to implement new international 
environmental standards could dramatically raise energy prices and cost 
our economy hundreds of thousands of jobs. And we would be harmed more 
than some of our international trade competitors.
  Mr. Speaker, we do not need a United Nations bureaucracy setting new 
environmental mandates for the United States. As the U.S. delegates 
leave this coming week for a round of talks in Geneva on implementing 
the Climate treaty, they should resist any calls for new limitations 
beyond what is in the treaty.

                          ____________________