[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 107 (Friday, July 25, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8113-S8139]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   EXPRESSING SENSE OF SENATE REGARDING U.N. FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON 
                             CLIMATE CHANGE

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the clerk will now 
report the resolution.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A resolution (S. Res. 98) expressing the sense of the 
     Senate regarding the conditions for the United States 
     becoming a signatory to any international agreement on 
     greenhouse gas emissions under the United Nations Framework 
     Convention on Climate Change.

  The Senate proceeded to consider the resolution.
  Mr. HAGEL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, the Framers of the Constitution gave the 
executive branch of our Government authority to negotiate treaties. But 
they also intended for the Senate's voice to carry weight in 
negotiations. This morning, the Senate is fulfilling its constitutional 
responsibility to give its advice to treaty negotiations.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, if my colleague will permit.
  Mr. HAGEL. I yield to the Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. I want to inquire, are we now on the divided time, Mr. 
President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 hours equally divided on the 
resolution.
  Mr. KERRY. I understand that, and time for the proponents will be 
managed by the Senator from Nebraska, Senator Hagel?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. KERRY. So we must yield time at this point?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska is recognized.
  Mr. HAGEL. I yield myself whatever time is necessary, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, the pending resolution, Senate Resolution 
98, with its 65 cosponsors, is intended to change the course of 
negotiations on the new global climate treaty now under discussion.
  The need for this treaty is questionable, but the harm that it would 
cause is certain. Two articles in this Monday's Wall Street Journal, 
written by

[[Page S8114]]

Jack Kemp and Dr. Fred Singer, are excellent summaries against the 
direction the administration is taking in negotiating this treaty. I 
ask unanimous consent that these articles be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the articles were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             [From the Wall Street Journal, July 25, 1997]

                    A Treaty Built on Hot Air . . .

                             (By Jack Kemp)

       In December, representatives of 150 nations will gather in 
     Kyoto, Japan, to sign a successor treaty to the United 
     Nations' Framework Convention on Climate Change. Today, in 
     anticipation of this momentous event, the Senate is scheduled 
     to debate the Byrd-Hagel resolution, a non-binding measure 
     sponsored by 65 senators that will put that body on record 
     against any treaty that would cause serious economic harm to 
     the U.S. For more than a year the Clinton administration has 
     been promising to provide its economic model of the treaty's 
     effects, but last week it announced that it will not provide 
     any formal estimate--a signal that the treaty won't meet the 
     Byrd-Hagel criteria.


                        no reliable conclusions

       Everyone agrees that we need to keep our planet clean. 
     Healthy plants and animals are valuable, but at the same time 
     the U.S. has a solemn obligation to defend the rights of the 
     people who inhabit our planet. It seems that the officials 
     representing the U.S. in the treaty negotiations have lost 
     sight of that duty.
       The international negotiations focus on global warming, the 
     theory that greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere are 
     steadily and dangerously warming the planet. Some of our 
     leaders, most notably Vice President Al Gore, have bought 
     into the theory even though scientists have reached no 
     reliable conclusions about global warming (see story below). 
     Yet the 150 nations involved in these talks are rapidly 
     moving toward signing a treaty that would wreak havoc on the 
     U.S. economy and, ironically, on our environment. U.S. 
     negotiators appear to be asking American workers and families 
     to foot the bill for massive reductions in greenhouse gases.
       This treaty would require a drastic and sudden cut in 
     energy use that would be legally binding only on developed 
     nations, not on major international trade competitors--
     including three of the 10 biggest carbon-dioxide producers, 
     India, South Korea, and China. By excluding developing 
     nations, not only will we be missing an opportunity to make 
     further environmental gains, but we'll also be working 
     against the very purpose of the treaty.
       Studies show that the high-growth developing nations 
     excluded from the proposed treaty's requirements are more 
     likely to increase their greenhouse-gas emissions in order to 
     pick up the demand left unmet by developed nations, where 
     production would be restricted. The AFL-CIO's Executive 
     Council has declared that an agreement that fails to bind 
     developing nations to the same commitments made by the U.S. 
     cannot possibly work.
       The treaty's impact on America's workers and economy, 
     meanwhile, could be severe. First, U.S. industry would face 
     increased production costs for virtually all goods. The net 
     cost just to stabilize U.S. emissions at 1990 levels could 
     reach hundreds of billions of dollars annually, and many 
     nations are pushing to reduce emissions below 1990 levels, at 
     an even more oppressive cost. The resulting higher prices 
     would make American products less competitive on the world 
     market and less affordable at home.
       Second, the treaty would send high-paying jobs in mining, 
     manufacturing, transport and other important sectors abroad. 
     Charles River Associates, an econometric modeling firm, has 
     estimated that the administration's plans would increase U.S. 
     unemployment by 0.25% and reduce the gross domestic product 
     by 3.3%. The likely result: 250,000 American jobs lost.
       Third, the treaty would saddle Americans with higher energy 
     bills as we are forced to tax energy use. Some have estimated 
     that such a ``carbon tax'' could increase the cost of 
     gasoline by as much as 60 cents a gallon, and of home heating 
     oil by 50%. What's more, as the AFL-CIO has recognized: 
     ``These taxes are highly regressive and will be most harmful 
     to citizens who live on fixed incomes and work at poverty-
     level wages.''
       This burden of drastically increased heating, cooling and 
     transportation costs could hardly come at a worse time for 
     lower-income families. The working poor, and people just 
     getting off welfare and beginning to pay their own way, are 
     already challenged to make ends meet in today's economy. But 
     our diplomatic negotiators have spared little attention for 
     the potentially devastating consequences that their proposals 
     would have for millions of lower-income Americans.


                             far past time

       It is time for the American public to be told exactly what 
     their government is proposing to give away in the global 
     climate change treaty. It is far past time for the Clinton 
     administration to give Congress a detailed economic analysis 
     of the mandatory cutbacks in energy usage that our 
     negotiators are offering on the altar of environmentalist 
     politics. Until the public and the Congress are given the 
     facts, the talk at the global conferences on greenhouse gas 
     emissions will remain as little more than hot air.
                                                                    ____


                     . . . Not Scientific Consensus

                          (By S. Fred Singer)

       Yesterday, in opening a White House conference on global 
     warming, President Clinton announced, ``The overwhelming 
     balance of evidence and scientific opinion is that it is no 
     longer a theory but now a fact that global warming is real.'' 
     In support of this contention, the president and other 
     politicians have been busy citing the ``2,500 scientists'' 
     who supposedly endorse the U.N.'s 1996 Intergovernmental 
     Panel on Climate Change report, and thus a forecast of 
     catastrophic global warming.
       Actual climate observations, however, show that global 
     warming is mostly a phantom problem. Perhaps that's why Mr. 
     Clinton and Vice President Al Gore harp so much on a 
     ``scientific consensus''--which sounds so impressive to 
     nonscientists. Yet science doesn't operate by vote.
       How did the IPCC come up with 2,500 scientists? If one were 
     to add up all contributors and reviewers listed in the three 
     IPCC reports published in 1996, one would count about 2,100. 
     The great majority of these are not conversant with the 
     intricacies of atmospheric physics, although some may know a 
     lot about forestry, fisheries or agriculture. Most are social 
     scientists--or just policy experts and government 
     functionaries. Every country in the world seems to be 
     represented--from Albania to Zimbabwe--though many are not 
     exactly at the forefront of research. The list even includes 
     known skeptics of global warming--much to their personal and 
     professional chagrin.
       The IPCC report has some 80 authors for its 11 chapters, 
     but only a handful actually wrote the Policymakers' Summary; 
     most of the several hundred listed ``contributors'' are 
     simply specialists who allowed their work to be cited, 
     without necessarily endorsing the other chapters or the 
     summary. Contrast these numbers with the nearly 100 climate 
     scientists who signed the Leipzig Declaration in 1996, 
     expressing their doubts about the validity of computer-driven 
     global warming forecasts. It takes a certain amount of 
     courage to do this--given that it could jeopardize research 
     grants from U.S. government agencies that have adopted 
     climate catastrophe as an article of faith, and managed to 
     convince Congress to ante up about $2 billion a year.
       Even some IPCC climate scientists, in the report itself or 
     in a May 16 Science article headlined ``Greenhouse 
     Forecasting Still Cloudy,'' have expressed doubts about the 
     validity of computer models and about the main IPCC 
     conclusion, that ``the balance of evidence suggests a 
     discernible human influence on global climate''--whatever 
     that ambiguous phrase may mean. A Dec. 20, 1995, Reuters 
     report quoted British scientist Keith Shine, one of IPCC's 
     lead authors, discussing the IPCC Policymakers' Summary: ``We 
     produce a draft, and then the policymakers go through it line 
     by line and change the way it is presented. . . . It's 
     peculiar that they have the final say in what goes into a 
     scientists' report.'' The Science and Environmental Policy 
     Project conducted a survey of IPCC scientific contributors 
     and reviewers; we found that about half did not support the 
     Policymakers' Summary. Parallel surveys by the Gallup 
     organization and even by Greenpeace International produced 
     similar results.
       Of course, scientists do accept the existence of a natural 
     greenhouse effect in the atmosphere, which has been known 
     since the 19th century and is not to be confused with any 
     influence from human activity. Another accepted fact is that 
     greenhouse gases have been increasing as a consequence of an 
     expanding world population: carbon dioxide from burning 
     fossil fuels, for instance, and methane from raising cattle. 
     But the climate warming of the past 100 years, which occurred 
     mainly before 1940, in no way supports the results of 
     computer models that predict a drastic future warming. Even 
     IPCC Chairman Bert Bolin has admitted that the pre-1940 
     warming is likely a natural recovery from a previous, natural 
     cooling. Most important, though, is the fact--not mentioned 
     in the IPCC summary--that weather satellite observations, 
     independently backed by data from balloon-borne sensors, have 
     shown no global warming trend whatsoever in the past 20 
     years.
       The discrepancy between calculated predictions of warming 
     and the actual observations of no warming has produced a 
     crisis for many scientists. Those who believe in global 
     warming keep hoping that proof is just around the corner. 
     Consider this passage from the May 16 Science article: 
     ``[M]any scientists say it will be a decade before computer 
     models can confidently link the warming to human 
     activities.''
       It is ironic that an environmental lobbying group, the 
     Environmental Defense Fund, would admit in a brochure on 
     global warming: ``Scientists need to do considerably more 
     work to sort out which [hypotheses] are most likely to be 
     true.'' The EDF complains, however, that the ``skepticism and 
     constant questioning that lie at the heart of science'' 
     sometimes ``cloud the debate.'' Perhaps so; but more often 
     they advance the science.


                         Privilege of the Floor

  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following 
members of my staff be granted the privilege of the floor during debate 
on

[[Page S8115]]

Senate Resolution 98: Derek Schmidt, Ken Peel, Kent Bonham, David 
Kracman, and Tom McCarthy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, we have more than a dozen Senators on this 
side who want to speak on this issue. Under the time agreement, 
however, we have only 1 hour for proponents to debate. I, therefore, 
encourage Senators to insert their statements in the Record so they 
will be fully available to our negotiators before next week's meeting 
of the ad hoc group on the Berlin mandate in Bonn, Germany. I also hope 
to discuss this issue further on the Senate floor at a later date.
  Mr. President, I thank the majority leader and the minority leader 
for their leadership in bringing this resolution before the Senate. I 
also thank the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Foreign 
Relations Committee for their leadership as well. I particularly thank 
the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia. It has been a 
privilege for me to work on this important issue along side one of the 
Senate's giants.
  We are here today to debate a very important issue, one which will 
have a major impact on the future of this country. How our Nation 
addresses the global climate issue may prove to be one of the most 
important economic and environmental decisions of the next century.
  Let me say from the outset, this is not a debate about who is for or 
against the environment. We all agree on the need for a clean 
environment. We all want to leave our children a better, cleaner, more 
prosperous world. Nor is this debate about motives, personalities or 
politics. It is about finding the truth. What are the problems? If 
there are problems, what is the best solution? What are the costs? What 
are the consequences? And what do we need to do now?
  The debate on the Senate floor today is about the path the 
administration is taking on this issue. I believe they are on the wrong 
path in their negotiations for any treaty to be signed in Kyoto, Japan, 
this December.
  That is why my distinguished colleague from West Virginia and I have 
offered the Byrd-Hagel resolution. Senate Resolution 98, with its 65 
cosponsors, puts the administration on notice that an overwhelming and 
bipartisan majority of the U.S. Senate rejects its current negotiating 
position on a proposed new global climate treaty. It is so important, 
as my friend, Senator Byrd, has repeatedly pointed out, that we in the 
U.S. Senate forcefully practice our constitutional role of advice and 
consent over these important negotiations. The credibility of the 
United States is not enhanced when the administration negotiates a 
treaty that has no hope of ratification in the U.S. Senate.
  The Byrd-Hagel resolution is a strong bipartisan wake-up call to the 
administration. This resolution rejects the United Nations' current 
negotiating strategy of binding United States and other developed 
nations to legally binding reductions without requiring any new or 
binding commitments from 130 developing nations, such as China, Mexico, 
and South Korea. In addition, this resolution rejects any treaty or 
other agreement that would cause serious economic harm to the United 
States.
  A simple reality of the current situation is that a core group of 
negotiators in the State Department has brought us near a point of no 
return. What this broad bipartisan coalition of 65 Senators is saying 
is ``we need a new direction in these negotiations.''
  I approach this issue, Mr. President, believing that any action this 
serious that is undertaken by the United States must be based on sound 
science and common sense. This proposed treaty is based on neither.
  If anything has become clear during congressional hearings on this 
issue, it is that the science is unclear, that the scientific community 
has not even come close to definitively concluding that we have a 
problem.
  I mentioned earlier this morning, in the Wall Street Journal today, 
the very interesting article by Dr. Fred Singer about the science on 
this issue. Dr. Singer is professor emeritus of environmental sciences 
at the University of Virginia. I have already requested this be printed 
in the Record.
  The science is inconclusive and contradictory, and predictions for 
the future range from no significant problem to global catastrophe. The 
subcommittee I chair, International Economic Policy Export and Trade 
Promotion, has held two hearings on this issue. In the first hearing, 
we heard testimony from Dr. Patrick Michaels, a very distinguished 
climatologist and professor of environmental sciences at the University 
of Virginia, who noted conditions in the real world simply have not 
matched changes projected by some computer models. Most of the warming 
of this century occurred in the first half of this century, before 
significant emissions of greenhouse gases began. And 18 years of 
satellite data actually shows a slight cooling trend in the world.

  Before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Dr. Richard 
Lindzen, professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of 
Technology, testified that ``a decade of focus on global warming and 
billions of dollars of research funds have still failed to establish 
that global warming is a significant problem.''
  At the same hearing, Dr. John Christy, an associate professor in the 
Department of Atmospheric Science at the University of Alabama, stated: 
``The satellite and balloon data show that catastrophic warming is not 
now occurring. The detection of human effects on climate has not been 
convincingly proven because the variations we now have observed are not 
outside of the natural variations of the climate system.''
  It is clear that the global climate is incredibly complex. It is 
influenced by far more factors than originally thought when some early 
crude computer models first raised alarms about the possible threat of 
imminent catastrophic global warming. The scientific community has 
simply not yet resolved the question of whether we have a problem with 
global warming.
  I suggest, again, that common sense dictates you don't come up with a 
solution to a problem until you are certain that you have a problem. 
However, the Clinton administration has proceeded to negotiate a 
solution before we have a confirmation that there is a problem.
  They have proposed that the United States and other developed nations 
submit to legally binding controls of greenhouse gas emissions. But 
they will not be asking for legally binding commitments from more than 
130 ``developing nations,'' including, as I mentioned before, China, 
Mexico, South Korea, India, Singapore, and others.
  Mr. President, this makes no sense, no sense at all, given that these 
nations include some of the most rapidly developing economies in the 
world and are quickly increasing their use of fossil fuels. By the year 
2015, China will surpass the United States as the largest producer of 
greenhouse gases in the world.
  It is the United States and other developed nations who are currently 
doing the most to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It is the developing 
nations that will be the biggest emitters of greenhouse gases during 
the next 25 years. It is complete folly to exclude them from legally 
binding emissions mandates. How could any treaty aimed at reducing 
global emissions of greenhouse gases be at all effective when it 
excludes these 130 nations? It won't. If these nations are excluded, 
greenhouse gas emissions will continue to rise, and we would see no net 
reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions. The exclusion of these 
nations is a fatal flaw in this treaty.
  Some analysts have even cautioned that the unequal treaty being 
negotiated at the United Nations could increase the emission of 
greenhouse gases. As industries flee the United States and other 
industrialized countries, they would reestablish themselves in 
developing countries that have much weaker environmental standards, 
like our neighbor to the south, Mexico.
  A draft economic report commissioned by this administration, this 
administration's Department of Energy, concluded that:

       Policy constraints placed on six large industries in the 
     United States--petroleum refining, chemicals, paper products, 
     iron and steel, aluminum and cement--would result in 
     significant adverse impacts on the affected industries. 
     Furthermore, they conclude:

[[Page S8116]]

     emissions would not be reduced significantly. The main effect 
     of the assumed policy would be to redistribute output, 
     employment, and emissions from participating to 
     nonparticipating countries.

  Therefore, the U.N. Global Climate Treaty as being negotiated now by 
the Clinton administration cannot pass the first test of Byrd-Hagel. It 
will not include legally binding commitments from the developing 
nations.
  What about the second test of Byrd-Hagel, serious economic harm, 
serious economic harm to this country and our future generations? One 
of the notable aspects of this issue is that it has united American 
business, labor, and agriculture support. In my hearings, we heard 
testimony from the AFL-CIO, American Farm Bureau, National Association 
of Manufacturers, and many noted economists. They all agree on one very 
definite thing--the draft U.N. treaty now under consideration would 
have a devastating effect on American consumers, workers, farmers and 
businesses. Estimates of the proposed treaty's damage to our economy 
vary, mainly because the administration continually refused to offer 
its own economic assumptions. This, after the administration promised 
for more than a year to provide an economic model. However, last week 
the Clinton administration threw in the towel and gave up on even 
attempting to provide an economic model.
  At a hearing before the House Commerce Committee, Janet Yellen, chair 
of the Council of Economic Advisers for the President, admitted that 
the administration's long-awaited economic study had failed and claimed 
that it would be futile to attempt to assess the economic impacts of 
legally-binding emissions controls on our developed nations. So now the 
Clinton administration is proceeding to negotiate a treaty without any 
assessment of what it would do to the U.S. economy. That is incredible; 
absolutely stunning. But the bottom line is very clear. Even using 
conservative assumptions, Charles River Associates, a leading economic 
modeling firm, for example, has estimated that holding emissions at 
1990 levels would reduce economic growth by 1 percent a year, rising to 
3 percent in the later years, and that does not even consider Under 
Secretary of State Tim Wirth's long-term goal, which he stated during 
our hearings, of achieving a 70 percent reduction from current 
emissions levels.
  What this means to everyday Americans is very clear. The AFL-CIO has 
estimated the treaty would mean the loss of 1.25 to 1.5 million jobs. 
Energy prices will rise dramatically. Individual Americans will pay for 
this treaty either in their electric bills, at the gas pump, or by 
losing their jobs. Jerry Jasinowski, president of the National 
Association of Manufacturers, testified that the proposed treaty:

       . . . would hurt America's manufacturers, workers and 
     families with little or no environmental benefit since new 
     restrictive policies in the U.S. simply would force the 
     flight of U.S. investment to developing countries. Millions 
     of Americans would lose their jobs and American manufacturers 
     would take a severe hit in the marketplace.

  What about the effects on American agriculture? It is little known 
that American agriculture produces 25 percent of our Nation's 
greenhouse gas emissions, which would make this critical sector of our 
economy vulnerable to the kind of major reductions envisioned by the 
U.N. global climate treaty. The American Farm Bureau has called the 
treaty a back-door Btu tax that would drive up fuel and overall energy 
costs as much as 50 percent. Again, this is outrageous. This would 
bankrupt many of our American farmers. Therefore the U.N. global 
climate treaty has no hope of satisfying the second test of Byrd-Hagel. 
It would clearly cause very serious economic harm to the United States.
  Mr. President, beyond the fairness and economic harm issues that are 
addressed in Senate Resolution 98, I am also very concerned about any 
treaty that would bind our Nation's economy to control by some U.N. 
multilateral entity. Who will administer a global climate treaty? Who 
will police it? Will we have an international police force, an agency 
capable of inspecting, finding, possibly shutting down American 
companies? No one has addressed these questions. The implications are 
most serious for our national security interests, national sovereignty 
interests. One of the biggest users of fossil fuels is the U.S. 
military. How would this treaty affect our military operations and our 
national defense capabilities? There are serious national sovereignty 
issues and other issues that we have not even begun to touch.
  I said at the outset that I believe any action taken by this Nation 
should be based on sound science and common sense. The current track of 
negotiations for the U.N. global treaty does neither. Why is this 
administration rushing headlong into signing a treaty in Kyoto this 
December? The scientific data is inconclusive, even contradictory. The 
economic costs are clear and devastating. This treaty would be a lead 
weight on our Nation's future economic growth, killing jobs and 
opportunities for generations of Americans to come.
  We need to take global climate issues seriously. Obviously we agree 
with that. We in the United States have made tremendous strides in 
cleaning up our environment. We will continue to make progress in the 
future. We are all concerned about the state of the environment and 
what we leave to our children and our grandchildren. But when we take 
actions that will reduce our children's and our grandchildren's 
economic opportunities, we must ensure that the benefits are real and 
that they would justify this very real economic hardship that we would 
be passing on to these future generations.
  I urge my colleagues to support Senate Resolution 98, the Byrd-Hagel 
resolution. I am grateful for the time that my colleagues have given 
this effort.
  At this time, I yield the floor to my distinguished colleague, the 
senior Senator from West Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague, Mr. 
Hagel, for his excellent statement. I thank him for joining with me in 
the preparation, development and promotion of this resolution. And I 
thank him for the time that he has yielded to me.
  Mr. Hagel and I, along with 63 other cosponsors, developed S. Res. 
98, which was reported favorably from the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee, and is pending before the Senate today. The resolution seeks 
to provide the Senate's views as to the global climate change 
negotiations now underway. These negotiations have, as a goal, a 
revision of the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate 
Change, known as the Rio Pact.
  Mr. President, my years of recollection go back farther than that of 
most Senators. I am not a scientist, but I have lived long enough to 
see what I believe are some very definite changes in the climate 
pattern affecting our country. Droughts, floods, storms appear to me to 
be more erratic, more unpredictable, and more severe in these later 
years of my life than in my earlier years. I can remember when there 
were no air conditioning units in Washington or anywhere else where I 
lived. We have recently seen heat waves--severe. We have seen 
droughts--severe. They seem to be happening more frequently. So I 
believe in my own mind and heart that something is happening out there. 
Something is happening. Something is happening to our climate. As I 
say, I am not a scientist, but the majority of scientists who study 
climate patterns tell us that there apparently are changes going on in 
the climate pattern and that anthropogenic interference is probably the 
cause of some of this change.
  All the data are not in, but I, for one, believe that there is 
sufficient evidence of, first, a probable trend toward increased 
warming of the Earth's surface resulting from human interference in 
natural climate patterns. I believe that a steady increase in 
accumulation of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the 
atmosphere is taking place. I believe that there is some relationship 
between the warming trend and such accumulations, enough to justify our 
taking some action and taking it now. The scientific foundation of this 
case is plausible enough, in my personal judgment, to put into motion a 
sound global program, because the trends and the effects are long term. 
Certainly the Senate, under the Constitution, is obligated to 
communicate its views and advice on the treaty negotiations. The 
Constitution, in outlining the powers of the President, says he--
meaning the President--shall have power ``by and with the Advice and

[[Page S8117]]

Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties''; ``by and with the Advice and 
Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties. . . .'' It doesn't just use 
the word ``consent'' of the Senate. It also uses the word of 
``advice.'' All too often we let ourselves to be limited to consenting 
to or rejecting treaties. But we have an obligation to advise the 
administration as to the Senate's views concerning a treaty, especially 
this treaty which can have such far-reaching ramifications.
  I do not think the Senate should support a treaty that requires only 
half the world--in other words, the developed countries--to endure the 
economic costs of reducing emissions while developing countries are 
left free to pollute the atmosphere and, in so doing, siphon off 
American industries. There are those who say that the United States is 
responsible for the situation that has developed. They claim that the 
United States should bear the brunt of the burden. But the time for 
pointing fingers is over. In this particular environmental game there 
are no winners; the world loses. And any effort to avoid the effects of 
global climate change will be doomed to failure from the start without 
the participation of the developing world, particularly those nations 
that are rapidly developing and will rapidly increase their carbon 
dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions. Count me as a global 
environmentalist, who insists that all nations that spew forth major 
concentrations of carbon dioxide, or that will be spewing forth major 
concentrations of carbon dioxide, must step up to the plate in these 
negotiations and make good-faith, specific, binding commitments to 
control and reduce these emissions right from the start.
  Industry is fueled, in large part, by fossil fuels, which are the 
primary--primary--cause of greenhouse gas emissions. Let us examine the 
role of China in that regard. As a percentage of total world 
consumption in the year 2015, China alone will account for 42 percent 
of all the coal burned worldwide while the United States will account 
for only 16 percent. The increase in China's use of coal should alarm 
every environmentalist who is concerned about global warming.
  So, if you are a true environmentalist--I am not talking about 
fanatics--if you are a true environmentalist, as I am, then you should 
be alarmed about the situation that I have just mentioned with respect 
to China. And there are other countries, such as India, Mexico, 
Indonesia, Brazil, that are classified as developing countries. I say 
they need to step up to the plate, just as we do, just as the annex 1 
countries do, just as the developed countries do, when the negotiations 
are taking place and make binding, specific commitments to reductions 
of greenhouse gases and to make those commitments to start now, not 
somewhere in the future.
  From 1995 to 2015, China will increase its coal consumption by a huge 
111 percent, compared to only 22 percent for the United States. Yet, 
despite its future role as the world's leading contributor to the 
problem of carbon emissions, China has indicated steadfast refusal to 
apply any type of binding obligations upon its own economy and 
industry. I believe that, if the treaty does not commit the developing 
nations like China to binding commitments, there will be no incentive 
for China and the other nations of the developing world to make 
responsible and environmentally sound choices as they develop.
  The committee report that is before the Senate contains a brief but 
accurate summary of the history of the global change negotiations. Most 
of the nations of the world signed up at the Earth summit in Rio in 
1992 to a Treaty that set voluntary goals for nations to start limiting 
their carbon dioxide emissions. Unfortunately, most nations of the 
world, ourselves included, failed to take the actions needed to meet 
those voluntary goals.
  As a result of this failure, the parties met again in Berlin in 1995 
and sought to impose a timetable whereby legally binding limits on 
national carbon dioxide reductions would be put into place. 
Unfortunately--unfortunately--a fundamental error--I would use the word 
``blunder''--a fundamental blunder was made in Berlin in that only the 
so-called developed nations, or Annex I nations, were to impose such a 
legally binding regime on themselves. Developing nations got a free 
pass.
  The concept which is embodied in the Byrd-Hagel resolution is that 
developing country parties should join the developed world in making 
new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas 
emissions within the same compliance period.
  Now, does this mean that the Senate is insisting on commitments to 
identical levels of emissions among all the parties? Certainly not. The 
emissions limitations goals, to be fair, should be based on a country's 
level of development. The purpose is not to choke off Mexico's 
development or China's development. The purpose is to start addressing 
the greenhouse gas problem in the only meaningful way we can, that is, 
through globally and through binding commitments up front. The 
timeframe could be 5 years, 7 years, 10 years or whatever. The initial 
commitment to action, starting upon signature in Kyoto, could be 
relatively modest, pacing upwards depending upon various factors, with 
a specific goal to be achieved within a fixed time period. There are 
plenty of tools to encourage the developing world to make meaningful 
commitments.
  The message to U.S. negotiators is that all nations--that is the 
message of this resolution--particularly those that are making and will 
in the future make a significant contribution to greenhouse gas 
emissions need to make commitments at Kyoto that unequivocally 
demonstrate a tangible action program--action, not just words--to 
tackle the problem of climate change; and the need to start with their 
best efforts to act on those commitments immediately, not 5 years down 
the road, not 10 years down the road but immediately, and not settle 
for vague promises to return to a future negotiation to get serious.
  American industry has expressed concern that a treaty without 
developing country commitments would encourage capital flight and a 
loss of jobs in the United States. We do not as yet have available the 
administration's current best assessment of the economic impacts of 
various levels of emissions targets in the United States. However, 
preliminary work done by the Argonne Laboratory on this matter is 
worrisome in that its worst case scenario shows a very negative 
economic impact on American industry.
  Mr. President, as I have said, we do not yet have a clearly 
articulated economic assessment by the administration, and so it is 
impossible to make specific judgments as to the economic impacts on 
particular industries and how they can be mitigated by other tools that 
could be included in the treaty. Dr. Janet Yellen, Chairman of the 
Council of Economic Advisers, stated in a hearing before the 
Environment Committee on July 17, the administration has not settled on 
a particular set of policies to reduce emissions and intends to engage 
all interested parties in a White House conference on climate change 
this fall.
  The American people need to understand the situation and the actions 
to be taken. The President is committed to this major public education 
campaign, and I note that he yesterday convened a meeting of scientists 
at the White House to discuss the evidence regarding global warming and 
to begin that educational process.

  There surely will be costs if the United States is to make the 
changes to our existing industrial base and to our lifestyle necessary 
to meet the goals of the treaty. Our smokestacks must be cleaner and 
our automobiles more efficient. There are many ways to achieve these 
goals, but we must be able to tell the American people what will be 
required to meet any proposed commitment.
  The Senate is doing the right thing in addressing the negotiations in 
a principled way without attempting to micromanage those negotiations. 
It is possible that the Senate will have a binding revision to the Rio 
Pact presented to it within a year. Given the tremendous implications 
for this agreement, the Byrd-Hagel resolution also suggests that the 
leadership create a bipartisan group of Senators to monitor the 
negotiations and report periodically to the full Senate on the nature 
of the agreement as it is being shaped by our negotiators. The nations 
of the world are all in this global boat together. It is not a boat of 
which only half will sink while the other half stays

[[Page S8118]]

afloat. Unless we all pull our oars in the same direction and plug the 
large leaks as well as the small leaks, our ship will flounder and 
surely sink. This resolution will give the Senate and the American 
people a seat at the negotiating table and add strength to our U.S. 
negotiating team.
  I thank all Senators for their attention, and I hope the resolution 
will be adopted by a substantial majority.
  Now, some of the Senators who have signed on to the resolution may 
have differing views about the treaty, but there is one thing that we 
are in agreement on--one or two things. These are set forth in the 
resolution beginning and concluding with the resolving clause. One, 
that all nations, all nations must take steps now, at the time of the 
signing of the treaty, to begin limiting their emissions of greenhouse 
gases. Mere promises will not be sufficient. Mere promises will not get 
by this Senate. A treaty will have to have the approval of a two-thirds 
supermajority in this Senate, and that is what we are telling the 
administration. We are letting the Administration know that this Senate 
is not just going to consent or not consent on a treaty. This Senate is 
going to fulfill its constitutional obligations not only to consent but 
also to ``advise'' and consent. And the resolution also provides that 
such a treaty must not result in serious harm to the economy of the 
United States.
  So I suggest that all Senators read the resolution's resolving 
clause. That is where we come together. That is where Mr. Hagel's 
views, my views, the views of others who are signatories of the 
resolution blend and constitute a consensus.
  Mr. President, I thank my friend and I yield the floor.
  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I thank Senator Byrd very, very much.
  I yield up to 5 minutes to my friend and distinguished colleague from 
Kentucky.
  Mr. FORD. I thank the Senator from Nebraska.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, it is always good to work with my longtime 
friend, Senator Byrd, on a project that we both believe very strongly 
in, and it is good to work with a newfound friend. I have had an 
affection for people from Nebraska for a long time, and Jim Exon and I 
worked together as Governors and then here. I appreciate the Senator's 
friendship and getting to know each other. And so I thank him for his 
cooperation and help here this morning.

  Mr. President, there is an old saying that when you run out of luck, 
you better get a new pair of dice. As far as I am concerned, we have 
lost every roll of the dice during the climate change negotiations, and 
we better get ourselves a new pair. Otherwise, American workers will be 
out of luck. That is why I rise today to support Senate Resolution 98 
which Senator Byrd and Senator Hagel now have before the Senate.
  If you take a good look at the global climate change treaty currently 
being negotiated, you will discover that developing nations are the 
high rollers while the developed nations keep coming up with snake eyes 
and the big loser is the global environment. That is because only 
developed nations would be legally bound by the treaty hammered out by 
negotiators, the so-called ``Berlin Mandate'' produced back in 1995. 
Developing nations are off the hook.
  That decision contained two glaring errors. First, negotiators agreed 
to complete negotiations for the post-2000 period by the artificial 
deadline of 1997 before they began implementation of the 1992 
convention and before there was an understanding of the complexity of 
those negotiations.
  Second, negotiators succumbed to the demands of China and other 
developing countries that any agreement reached in Kyoto in 1997 for 
post-2000 commitments must exempt Asian economies such as China and 
India and the rest of the developing world. Right now, developed 
nations and developing nations have about equal levels of carbon 
emissions, but within 5 years of the deadline developing nations will 
have more than 1\1/2\ times the 1990 level of the developing world.
  So because of those bad rolls of the dice, the treaty is heavily 
weighted against America and especially against American workers. That 
is because the U.S. will have to make the steepest reductions and 
suffer the costliest and most damaging consequences. Preliminary 
estimates put the loss as high as 600,000 American jobs each year. And 
600,000 jobs is probably a low estimate because the treaty creates an 
enormous incentive for American businesses to shift more and more jobs 
overseas to avoid the expensive emission reductions that U.S. 
businesses will have to meet.
  The impact in Kentucky would be especially bad. Not only miners 
working in the coal fields of eastern and western Kentucky suffer job 
losses but many of the businesses and factories that have created a 
``golden triangle,'' as we refer to it, between northern Kentucky, 
Louisville and Lexington would be forced to close, and every single 
Kentuckian will experience and face higher electric bills and higher 
gas prices. The sad thing is we will not even get a cleaner 
environment. That is the sad thing. We will not stop global warming. We 
will not even reduce carbon emissions. That is because every ton of 
reduced emissions in the United States and other developed nations will 
be made up and then some in the developing world.
  The way I see it we have been stuck in a game with loaded dice. You 
have a treaty with devastating consequences for the American economy. 
You end up with virtually no environmental benefit. It looks like 
nothing more than a massive foreign aid package paid for with American 
jobs.
  It is clear that many American interests are being neglected by our 
negotiators and that we must come up with a better solution for the 
problem of global emissions. But time is limited for the Senate to send 
a message that the treaty as currently reported is not acceptable.
  The answer is clearly not, as proposed by the State Department, a 
Kyoto protocol and then a second agreement of some kind after Kyoto in 
2005 or even later. That scenario ignores the fact that we have no 
assurances China and other developing countries will become parties to 
any agreement with a commitment to simply start discussions for a third 
agreement.
  I believe Senator Byrd's and Senator Hagel's resolution is the right 
method. It sets commonsense parameters for our negotiators to work from 
and assures that any treaty meets the goal of reduced emissions without 
penalizing one country over another.
  I hope my colleagues will join us in sending this important message, 
not only to our negotiators, but to the American people that both the 
global environment and our national interests must be protected.
  I thank my friends and yield the floor.
  Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). The Senator from Massachusetts.


                         Privilege Of The Floor

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Scott Bunton 
and Gregg Rothschild, of my staff, be permitted access to the floor 
during the resolution deliberation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from Nebraska and the 
Senator from West Virginia for raising an issue of common sense and a 
very legitimate issue regarding the U.S. negotiating position with 
respect to global climate change.
  I have not been a cosponsor up until this point of the resolution 
because I shared with Senator Lieberman and Senator Chafee concerns 
about some of the phrasing and the meaning of some of the resolution 
with respect to the negotiating process. We thought it was important to 
seek clarification with respect to those points before having a vote.
  As a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, I raised those 
concerns during the markup. I voted to send this resolution to the 
floor for consideration today. Pending the ultimate discussion that we 
have on the floor here today, it is my intention to vote for this 
resolution because I think it embraces common sense.
  That common sense is the notion that if you are really going to do 
something to effect global climate change

[[Page S8119]]

and you are going to do it in a fair-minded way that will permit you to 
build consensus in the country, which is important, and to build the 
necessary support to ratify a treaty, we are going to have to do this 
in a way that calls on everybody to share the burden of responding to 
this problem. That means that we need to have an agreement that does 
not leave enormous components of the world's contributors and future 
contributors of this problem out of the solution.
  It is simply wrong to assume that facing the difficulties we have had 
since the Rio treaty, the agreement in Rio, which 155 nations signed, 
that we are going to be able to now face up to those greater 
responsibilities without bringing everybody into the solution. The 
notion that China or India or other enormously rapidly developing 
countries, who will before too long also be adding very significantly 
to this problem, and already are to some degree, are going to somehow 
later negotiate their participation I think is contrary to common 
sense. So I have joined in the notion that it is appropriate to 
reconsider the Berlin Mandate and to discuss how the U.S. Senate 
properly thinks we should approach these negotiations.
  But let me also make it clear that, in this strange hybrid of 
Senators who have signed on as cosponsors to this resolution, there are 
some who do not want any treaty. There are some who do not think it is 
a problem. There are some who do not accept the science. There are some 
for whom the effort is one to really have nothing happen. I am pleased 
that Senator Byrd is not one of those and that many of those who will 
vote for this resolution, the sense-of-the-Senate resolution, join me 
and others in believing that this is a serious problem with science 
that supports it.
  It is not my purpose to debate the science very deeply here this 
morning because the science is not at issue in this resolution. This 
resolution is a question of negotiating tactics. This resolution is 
about how we will approach the question of reducing greenhouse gases, 
not whether. It is a question not entirely based on science.
  But nevertheless, the Record ought to reflect as we approach these 
issues that the science overwhelmingly documents the notion that a 
phenomenon known as global warming is already occurring, it is 
occurring. There is no debate among scientists as to whether or not it 
is happening. There is some debate as to what the impacts will be. 
There is debate about the models and how much those models show with 
certitude it is going to happen in what part of the country.
  Can we predict what will happen to Nebraska? The answer is no. Can we 
predict what will happen to my State of Massachusetts and the coastal 
zones? Well, to some degree some scientists are suggesting you can, but 
some people remain questioning that.

  Let me make it very clear--someone raised the question about how the 
Panel on Climate Change now predicts the global warming of only 1 
degree to 3.5 degrees Celsius over the coming century. People say that 
is not really that bad and it is hardly a cause for concern. Let me 
point out to my colleagues that the global average temperature has 
changed by less than a degree Celsius up or down for 10,000 years. We 
know that. So the projected warming is expected to exceed any climate 
change that has occurred during the history of civilization.
  In addition, even apparently small global average temperature changes 
will be accompanied by much larger regional climate shifts. For 
example, a warming which is twice as large as the global average is 
projected to occur at high northern latitudes. Apparently, small global 
average changes have also led to very large climate shifts in the past.
  Moreover, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, representing 
the consensus of climate scientists worldwide, has concluded:

       . . . the balance of evidence suggests that there is a 
     discernible human influence on global climate. And the year 
     1995 matched 1990 as the hottest year on record.

  What we know to a certainty also is that from the 1980's on we have 
been recording these increasingly heated periods. We then saw Mount 
Pinatubo's cooling effect. We saw that cooling effect begin to diminish 
as the impact of that volcanic disruption between the Sun's rays and 
the Earth dissipated. So we have begun to return to the high readings 
that we saw characteristic of the late 1980's. March through December 
of 1994 were the warmest periods on record according to the National 
Weather Service climate analysis.
  I could go on. The National Academy of Sciences has reported that 
despite uncertainties, greenhouse warming poses a potential threat, 
``sufficient to merit prompt responses * * * Investment in mitigation 
measures acts as insurance protection against the great uncertainties 
and the possibility of dramatic surprises.''
  In addition, the panel suggested that substantial mitigation could be 
accomplished at very modest costs; in other words, insurance is cheap, 
they said.
  Let me point out one other fact that was set forth at the hearings we 
had in the committee.
  We know that we are the world's greatest emitter of greenhouse gases. 
We know that carbon dioxide is the most significant of those. We know 
that the oceans mitigate the increase of carbon dioxide that we put 
into the atmosphere. The oceans consume the carbon dioxide.
  But what we have also learned as a matter of science is that there is 
some level at which there is this potential of saturation of the 
oceans. We do not know where that is. The oceans recirculate it. And 
the question remains whether or not you might have an extraordinary, 
dramatic impact because of the reaching of this saturation point.
  Some people may want to tempt that. Some people may not feel any kind 
of generational responsibility or any kind of global responsibility and 
suggest that, well, all of these thousands of scientists, all of the 
consensus reached by 155 nations--they may want to choose to ignore it.
  But when scientists tell me that the oceans are already rising and 
they are already rising at a discernible and measurable rate and that 
we are continuing a process of warming and that between now and the 
middle of the next century oceans will rise 1 to 3 feet and that the 
impact of that will be devastation on the coast of Florida, the loss of 
island nations, and the remarkable impact on wetlands all around the 
planet, I think we have a responsibility to say, well, we ought to try 
to think about that. And that is exactly what this effort to deal with 
global climate change is trying to do.
  Now, I am not going to debate all of the science and the models and 
what can or cannot be done here. But it is clear that one of the chief 
sponsors of this resolution, Senator Byrd--and you have heard him 
speak--agrees, and Senator Lieberman and Chafee and others do, that the 
prospect of human-induced global warming as an accepted thesis with 
adverse consequences for all is here, and it is real.
  There are some Senators, as I have said, who want to debate that 
science; and so be it. That is not what this resolution is about. This 
resolution is a question of how our negotiators will negotiate. What we 
ought to be seeking in Kyoto, as we pursue what most people have 
decided, is a legitimate concern.
  Senator Byrd's resolution makes a first step toward tackling the 
issue of changing the balance of how we approach this. As I have said, 
Senator Lieberman, Senator Chafee, and I would have worded some things 
differently. But we are convinced in our discussions with Senator Byrd 
that the intent here is similar, which is to guarantee that our 
negotiators have a changed position, a tougher position, but a 
reasonable position in negotiating how we will come to agreement in 
Kyoto.

  Let me point out a couple of those areas where we had some concerns. 
There is language in the resolution about the developing nations 
accomplishing their reductions within exactly the same compliance 
period as the developed nations. I have come to the conclusion that 
these words are not a treaty killer that some suggested it might have 
been.
  I am encouraged to learn that Senator Byrd's objective is to support 
entering into a binding international agreement to address climate 
change, and he also agrees that all nations, developed and less 
developed, ought to participate in this significant effort.

[[Page S8120]]

 We both recognize that, as a matter of global and national 
environmental protection, the global warming issue is not going to be 
able to be addressed effectively if any major emitting nation or group 
of nations stays outside the agreement. So, ultimately, all major 
emitting nations will need to reduce greenhouse emissions if we are 
going to make significant progress on global warming.
  I heard one of my colleagues talk earlier about who is going to 
police this, and how do you enter into this international agreement. 
Well, the fact is we enter into international agreements all the time. 
We have trade agreements. We have arms control agreements. We have 
environmental agreements. We police them by arriving at mutually 
agreeable means of being able to raise the issues with each of those 
nations that might be offending, and we have done so without ever 
giving up our sovereignty. So, that is just a red herring in this 
issue. We know that we can do that, and we will do that.
  We also know that we are trying to seek an equilibrium with other 
nations so we are not losing jobs while other people are gaining some 
foothold in the marketplace. We understand that. We are not seeking to 
consciously enter into an arrangement that will disadvantage the United 
States of America and our economy.
  On the other hand, every environmental agreement and every agreement 
we have reached so far requires some change in the way we do business. 
That change has generally produced more jobs, not less jobs. One of the 
fastest growing industries in Massachusetts has been environmental 
technology, as we develop new means of producing clean coal or 
scrubbers or as we create other kinds of mitigation for toxins or 
chemicals. I think that the same thing can happen here. If the United 
States is smart, we will be the provider of these technologies to the 
world.
  There still appears to be a little bit of uncertainty as to what this 
phrase within the same compliance period actually means. But after a 
number of discussions with Senator Chafee's and Senator Byrd's staffs, 
I believe that we have reached an understanding that it means 
essentially that we want countries to begin to reduce while we are 
reducing, we want them to engage in a reasonable schedule while we are 
engaged in a reasonable schedule, but that if a developing nation needs 
more time to get a plan in place or needs to have more time to raise 
the funds and be able to purchase the technology and do the things 
necessary, that as long as there is a good-faith track on which they 
are proceeding, that if it took them a number of years, 2 years, 3 
years, 5, or longer to be able to reach a particular goal, that 
certainly means within the same compliance period they are operating 
similarly to try to meet the standards that we want to set out. We 
believe that, given that less-developed countries are not currently 
projected to emit more emissions than industrial countries until at 
least the year 2015, it is reasonable to permit some flexibility in the 
targets and the timing of compliance while at the same time requiring 
all countries to agree to make a legally binding commitment by a date 
certain. That is reasonable. But I think most of my colleagues would 
agree that if some country simply doesn't have the capacity, the plan, 
the money, or the technology, it may be they have to take a little more 
time and we should want to be reasonable in helping them to do that 
because the goal here is to get everybody to participate, not to create 
a divisiveness that winds up with doing nothing.

  There is a second issue here, and that is the issue of emissions 
trading. While this resolution includes provisions that address 
developing countries' participation, a number of us are critical of the 
fact that it is silent on the question of flexibility, a question of 
what market tools or what market access tools ought to be permissible 
for use by all countries. I believe that the record is clear that 
emissions trading is a vital market mechanism that will benefit the 
United States.
  Emissions trading not only advantages the U.S. business, but it would 
provide developing countries with incentives to sign up to binding 
legal commitments that most people believe are important in this 
treaty. I would like to point out to my colleagues that, currently in 
the negotiations, Europe is trying to create a bubble over Europe 
itself, trying to create a separate agreement where Europe will be able 
to have emissions trading among European countries, but we and others 
would not be able to engage in that trading. The result would be that 
you might have Belgium required to do a 10-percent reduction in 2010 
for CO2 and CH4 and NOX. But at the 
same time, Greece would be able to increase by 30 percent. Spain would 
increase by 17 percent. Ireland would increase by 15 percent. Portugal 
would be able to increase by 40 percent. This is because they are 
trying to set up a structure where they can trade amongst each other 
for emissions without us having that same capacity.
  Now, if anything disadvantages American industry, it would be to have 
Europe create a bubble for itself to the exclusion of the United States 
to be able to emissions trade. I am against that. I think that is 
anticompetitive and it is anti-United States. This is silent on that. I 
hope my colleagues will agree with me that we want the United States to 
be able to trade with one of these countries. We want the United States 
to be able to trade with one of the less developed nations so that we 
can do what we have done in the United States.
  Let me point out, here is the impact. Referring to this chart, these 
are what we have done in the United States. This black line represents 
the actual SO2 emissions in the United States, and this was 
the projected rate of reduction if we were to engage, under the Clean 
Air Act, in emissions trading, and this pink line was what we 
projected. But because emissions trading has been such an effective 
market tool, this yellow line represents the actual rate of reductions 
in SO2 emissions. So we have had a phenomenal success 
through emissions trading in reducing emissions in our country. And it 
would be simply against common sense to have a negotiation which 
precluded the capacity of the United States to engage in this emissions 
trading.
  This chart shows the growth indicators and emissions. The black line 
represents the gross domestic product increase of the United States of 
America from 1985 to 1995. The electricity demand in the United States 
is the pink line, and the electricity demand went up almost 
concomitantly with the gross domestic product. At the same time, 
because we engaged in these tradings within our States, here is what 
happened with the emissions trading effect. The SO2 
emissions dramatically went down, even as electricity demands went up.
  So it is a proven tool, it is a market force tool, and it is one that 
will enhance the economic competitiveness of the United States. I am 
pleased that, in my discussions with Senator Byrd, he has indicated 
that there is nothing in this resolution that precludes the capacity of 
our negotiators to pursue this as a tool in our negotiations and, 
conceivably, as one of the ingredients of a Kyoto treaty.
  Mr. 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 
Senator Chafee, and others. If I can complete, then and the Senator, on 
his time, can certainly ask any question that he wants to.
  Let me just say that we believe very strongly that we need to put a 
structure in place that will provide incentives for nations and 
industries to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases. And we 
believe, obviously, the developing world is poised to undertake a 
massive infrastructure investment in energy, transportation, and other 
potentially high-emitting sectors. These investments are going to have 
long-term capital stock lifetimes, and if we were to exclude that 
discussion of them being part of this, it would be an enormous error of 
judgment, I think, for the longrun of this effort.
  One final comment I will make on the science. Even if we were to 
reduce our greenhouse gas emissions today to 1990 levels, you will 
still continue to have the greenhouse gas warming effect, because the 
life of these gases in the atmosphere will go on for 75 years, or 
longer, into the future and because of the cumulative effect and the 
lack of

[[Page S8121]]

knowledge about where you may have a saturation point or a devastating 
impact, caution and common sense predicate that we should do everything 
possible in order to avoid the potential of that kind of catastrophe.

  I reserve the balance of our time.
  Mr. HAGEL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I yield myself whatever time I need. I just 
would like to make a quick response to my colleague. I noted that my 
colleague from Massachusetts keeps employing the name of Senator Byrd. 
I assume that Senator Byrd is going to have an opportunity to speak for 
himself on this.
  First, let's be very clear. This is all interesting, but it does not 
at all have anything to do with the Byrd-Hagel resolution. That is No. 
1. Two, I am saying--and I think much of what we are talking about on 
the resolution that legally binding commitments are pretty tough, and 
we want to understand about those legally binding commitments before 
anybody gets legally bound, regarding if we are talking about a 
European bubble, or whatever.
  Mr. KERRY. Let me answer the Senator by saying we don't disagree with 
that at all.
  Mr. HAGEL. This is interesting, I say to the Senator, but again it 
does not reflect on what the Byrd-Hagel resolution reflects.
  Mr. KERRY. How doesn't it reflect on it?
  Mr. HAGEL. We don't talk about the European bubble. More important, 
we don't talk about European trading and joint implementation. If 
Senator Byrd wants to say that, he can. This Senator wants to make it 
clear that I am not in favor of any sort or form of emissions trading 
or joint implementation.
  Furthermore, any kind of implied United Nations bureaucracy with the 
power to come in and inspect and penalize and fine and shut down 
American companies, which obviously is the legitimate logical 
conclusion of this, I want to be on record right now in saying I oppose 
that. Obviously, Senator Byrd can speak for himself.
  Mr. KERRY. To answer the Senator, since he wanted to engage in this 
discussion, no one has suggested any such thing, and I would be against 
that, also.
  Second, the Senator would have to agree with me that this resolution 
is silent on the issue of emissions trading. That is what I said; I 
said it is silent.
  Mr. HAGEL. That is what I have said. I said I could not support that, 
will not support that, and I want to make sure my colleagues understand 
that, and that we stay focused on this.
  Mr. KERRY. We will let the Senator from West Virginia speak for 
himself. But it is my understanding that the Senator from West Virginia 
has a different view.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska has the floor.
  Mr. HAGEL. Thank you, Mr. President. Senator Kerry, is it your intent 
to enter into a colloquy with the Senator from West Virginia on this 
issue?
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, not necessarily. I am going to wait until I 
have had a moment to discuss this with Senator Chafee. But we can 
proceed with the debate. There are people on his side that would like 
to speak. I will reserve the balance of our time.
  Mr. HAGEL. I thank the Senator. I would like to yield to my friend 
from Kansas 2 minutes for his comments on this issue as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, might I inquire of my distinguished 
colleague from Nebraska, was that 4 minutes or 2 minutes?
  Mr. HAGEL. It is 2 minutes. It was 4 minutes 2 minutes ago, and I am 
sorry about that. I might add that we intend to continue this dialog 
and colloquy, hopefully, next week because as a result of the fact that 
we were given less time late last night than what was originally agreed 
to, even though I happen to be standing in this position, there is not 
much I can do with that. I live by the law. So that is why you have 2 
minutes, and probably less.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, might I inquire whether that dialog came 
out of my time? I assume I have an additional 2 minutes. I was merely 
questioning the distinguished Senator from Nebraska on the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 2 minutes.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the Chair. I am upset. Talking about global 
warming, I have a little global warming underneath the collar. Two 
minutes and one hour of debate for such a terribly, terribly serious 
question.
  I rise in support of Senate Concurrent Resolution 98, and that is a 
fancy word that puts the Senate on record against any U.N.-sponsored, 
legally binding greenhouse treaty. I come to this issue as the former 
chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, where we spent years 
trying to address our emission policies with sound science, reasonable 
cost-benefit considerations, and I want to wake up farm country because 
that is not what is going to happen.
  A U.N. scientific panel now blames agriculture, under the auspices of 
this plan, for 20 percent of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions. 
They propose the following things, Mr. and Mrs. Farmer, so get your 
pencil out, get your yellow tablet out. We don't have time to really 
discuss this--Senators want to leap on their airplanes at 12 o'clock--
in terms of an issue that will affect every life and every pocketbook 
in America. But we are here talking about it, and I probably have 30 
seconds.
  Wake up. Mandatory increased fuel economy requirements. Phaseout of 
diesel fuel. How are our tractors going to run? I don't know. 
Limitations on production. Been there, done that. We passed a new farm 
bill. Mandate for no-till; no-till farming, forcing farmers to buy all 
sorts of new equipment. Here's a good one: Restrictions on livestock 
production to reduce methane emission for the United Nations. We are 
going to control what goes into the cow and now, evidently, we are 
going to have a U.N. observer trying to control what comes out of the 
cow. And restrictions on processing and transportation of food 
products.
  This is uncalled for. Many of my colleagues joined to send a letter 
to the administration to say, how on Earth are we going to do this and 
still feed America in a troubled and hungry world? That answer has not 
been forthcoming. We recommended five considerations, and then we 
follow with the letter that was sent to the President last November by 
every major agriculture group.
  I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                 November 8, 1996.
     The President,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: Last summer, participants in the second 
     Conference of Parties of the United Nations' Framework 
     Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) agreed to negotiations 
     for legally binding numeric limits on greenhouse gas 
     emissions. This dramatic shift from voluntary to enforceable 
     caps on greenhouse gases was led by the U.S. According to 
     your spokespeople, there is now a consensus in the world 
     scientific community which demands urgent action to reduce 
     greenhouse gas emissions.
       There is less than agreement outside the United Nation's 
     scientific body. Furthermore, there is still a lively debate 
     among respected scientists about the human versus natural 
     sources of greenhouse gases and their effect on climate. 
     Controversy notwithstanding, the climate change treaty is 
     moving full-speed ahead with the Administration's 
     enthusiastic support. A final agreement is scheduled to be 
     completed in December of 1997, with ratification by 
     individual countries beginning in 1998. If ratified by the 
     U.S. Senate, the treaty will be binding on the U.S. and other 
     developed countries and may be incorporated into U.S. law. 
     However, developing countries will not have to comply.
       Of great concern to agriculture are reports under 
     consideration by the U.N. scientific panel which blame 
     agriculture for more than 20 percent of human-caused 
     greenhouse gas emissions. Specifically, we are concerned 
     about proposals for the following: fuel economy requirements, 
     reduction or phaseout of the use of diesel fuel, limitations 
     on production per acre for some crops, requirements for 
     ``plowless'' soil preparation, mandatory fallowing of crop 
     land, limits and restrictions on livestock production to 
     reduce methane emissions, restrictions on use of fertilizer, 
     restrictions on timber harvesting, restrictions on 
     processing, manufacturing and transportation of food 
     products.
       Unfortunately, these proposals ignore agriculture's 
     positive role in reducing greenhouse gases by removing carbon 
     dioxide from the atmosphere through photosynthesis. Most 
     importantly, they cavalierly disregard the most valuable 
     function of modern agriculture--feeding a hungry world. 
     Ironically,

[[Page S8122]]

     rice production has been singled out as the number one 
     culprit in human-caused methane emissions.
       We are very concerned that these recommendations or similar 
     ones will be incorporated in the final climate change 
     agreement, ratified and imposed on U.S. farmers and ranchers 
     through U.S. laws. Binding and enforceable controls would 
     apply only to developed countries and would severely 
     disadvantage U.S. farmers and ranchers in today's global 
     markets.
       Moreover, we are deeply concerned and surprised that the 
     Administration has not actively consulted with agriculture as 
     the agreement has been developed. We respectfully request 
     that the Administration take the following actions:
       (1) The Administration must fully and actively consult with 
     agriculture. Agricultural interests have not been considered 
     by the Department of State and other U.S. agencies which are 
     closely involved with the development of the climate change 
     agreement. The agreement must include an open and extensive 
     public debate which involves agricultural producers and 
     members of Congress, USDA and other agencies.
       (2) The Administration should withdraw its support for 
     legally binding and enforceable caps on emissions until here 
     is a stronger consensus from the scientific community that 
     they are justified. If it is determined that controls are 
     justified, they should be accomplished voluntarily or in ways 
     which minimize disruption of U.S. agricultural producers.
       (3) The final climate change agreement, scheduled for 
     completion in December of 1997, must be delayed to provide 
     sufficient time for consultation with agriculture and for 
     adequate risk, cost and benefit assessment.
       Without proper scientific and economic analyses and 
     assessment, U.S. farmers and ranchers may be placed at a 
     serious disadvantage with agricultural producers in countries 
     which do not plan to reduce greenhouse gases.
       If the Administration does not adequately address the above 
     concerns, we may raise them with Congress during the 
     ratification process.
           Sincerely,
         American Farm Bureau Federation, American Crop Protection 
           Association, American Sheep Industries Association, 
           American Soybean Association, CENEX, National 
           Association of Wheat Growers, National Cattlemen's Beef 
           Association, National Corn Growers Association, 
           National Cotton Council, National Food Processors 
           Association, National Grange, National Milk Producers 
           Federation, National Pork Producers Council, The 
           Fertilizer Institute, United Agribusiness League, 
           United Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Association, USA Rice, 
           Western Growers Association.

  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join a bipartisan 
majority of my colleagues today in support of Senate Resolution 98 that 
puts the Senate on record against any United Nations-sponsored global 
climate change treaty that would be binding on only developed nations.
  It had been U.S. policy until last year that the United States would 
pursue voluntary programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 
levels. This made sense, the science is not clear on global warming and 
no nation should risk their economic well being because of 
environmental extremism that ignores the call for sound science.
  However, Deputy Secretary of State Tim Wirth last year at the Berlin 
meeting of the Conference of Parties of the U.N. Framework Convention 
on Climate Change suddenly changed the voluntary course of action. 
Under the White House's supervision, Deputy Secretary Wirth proposed 
global warming treaty language that would force the United States and 
smaller developed nations like Great Britain and Germany, to control 
their greenhouse gas emissions, but purposefully exempts so-called 
developing nations such as China, India, South Korea, Mexico, and 
Brazil, from the binding treaty language.
  It is fact that China and India will exceed United States greenhouse 
gas emissions early next century, but they will be exempt from this 
U.N.-designed treaty. These developing nations will have no 
international authority regulating their industries or way of life. As 
a result, the White House is meekly declining to be forceful in its 
negotiations and would rather unilaterally disarm our economy that is 
based on power. If Deputy Secretary Wirth and others supporting this 
treaty are so concerned, perhaps they can tell me how stopping United 
States carbon dioxide emissions while letting China and India pollute 
will help their environmental cause. What is the benefit? There is none 
under this treaty if these nations are not brought into the same global 
scheme as the United States.
  Mr. President we are really talking about a legally binding 
greenhouse gas treaty. Sounds like Washingtonese to Mr. and Mrs. 
America, but what it really means is the White House is telling the 
world that developed nations feel guilty about their strong and vibrant 
industrial base, therefore they must be causing global warming. Deputy 
Secretary of State Tim Wirth in his June 19 testimony before the Senate 
Foreign Relations Committee admitted that because the United States 
produces 20 percent of the world's carbon emissions and has only 4 
percent of the world's population that Congress, without sound science 
on global warming, mandate that business and consumers stop using their 
cars, trucks, combines, trains, and boats, not to mention shutting down 
factories to ease the pain of others about our quality of life.
  In 1990, the United States produced more than 26 percent of the 
world's goods and services, while producing only 20 percent of its 
carbon emissions. Deputy Secretary Wirth also failed to show that 
America's air is getting cleaner because in the Environmental 
Protection Agency's report National Air Quality and Emissions Trends 
Report, 1995 documented improvement in air quality over the past 9 
years. This improvement in air quality seems to baffle the EPA and 
supporters of the binding treaty because our air quality keeps 
improving despite the growth of the U.S. population, more automobile 
use, not to mention the growth in our gross domestic product.
  And, what are the particulars of this globally binding treaty? 
Perhaps they are reluctant to tell the folks in Dodge City, America, 
this treaty will establish a global greenhouse trading emissions 
system. This means some international body, probably the United 
Nations, will be responsible for tracking our use of fossil fuels in 
the United States. The United Nations will be required to know how much 
jet fuel and diesel the Marines, Air Force, Army, and Navy use. The 
White House has not even discussed the national security implications 
of this treaty with the Senate Armed Services Committee.
  Wake up, farm country, the U.N. scientific panel blames agriculture 
for more than 20 percent of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions and 
has proposed the following proposals for agriculture:
  Increased fuel economy requirements, meaning that pickups will be 
lighter and cannot carry as much feed and seed;
  Phaseout of diesel fuel. What does the President propose we burn in 
tractors?
  Limitations on production per acre; been there done that.
  Mandate for no-till, forcing farmers to use planters that may not be 
right for their crops or soil;
  Restrictions on livestock production to reduce methane emission. 
Evidently the United Nations does not like cow flatulence;
  Restrictions on fertilizer; and
  Restrictions on processing and transportation of food products.
  This is uncalled for and I joined with my Senate colleagues on the 
Agriculture Committee in a letter to the Vice President on March 14 
expressing our deep concern that the White House greenhouse proposal 
was ignorant of the likely mandatory restrictions on the world's food 
and fiber supplier. Our agriculture policies are the responsibility of 
the U.S. Congress in consultation with the President. The United 
Nations should have no say whatsoever in planting, tilling, or 
harvesting. In our letter we asked the administration to analyze and 
brief us on the following points regarding agriculture.
  First, the potential effect of climate change on U.S. agriculture and 
livestock production.
  Second, the estimated greenhouse gas emission resulting from the 
production of crops and livestock in the United States.
  Third, the net contribution of U.S. forests and crops soaking up 
greenhouse gases.
  Fourth, actions and controls necessary to reduce agricultural 
greenhouse gas emissions to comply with obligations that may arise 
under the treaty and an economic analysis of their impact on U.S. 
farmers and ranchers.

  Fifth, whether and to what extent greenhouse gas emission controls 
would disadvantage agriculture producers in this country compared to 
producers in other countries with fewer

[[Page S8123]]

stringent emission controls or no controls at all.
  The silence from the White House about our concern is evident that 
they are waiting until December when Congress is safely at home that 
they will reveal the treaty includes a carbon fuel tax. Fortunately, my 
astute colleagues in the Senate have been able to extract pieces of 
this plan through congressional hearings. The White House will impose a 
Btu tax on energy sources like gasoline, diesel, and electricity. 
According to congressional testimony by Dr. Janet Yellen, chairman of 
the President's Council of Economic Advisors, that a $100 tax for every 
ton of carbon produced from fossil fuels will be needed to reduce U.S. 
greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels. I know that some of my 
seasoned colleagues recall that this is the same administration that in 
1993 proposed a complicated Btu tax on fossil fuels.
  Mr. President, a Btu tax is unneeded and goes against everything the 
Congress and White House has been struggling for over the past 2 
months, a balanced budget with income-tax breaks. What would this Btu 
tax cost the family, the small businessman, or farmer? Well, some 
economists believe that to reach the 1990 level of U.S. carbon dioxide 
emissions that the Btu tax would be comparable to an increase of at 
least a quarter, if not two, in the Federal gas tax. That's a lot of 
money for the pizza man or the single mother shuttling kids between 
school and soccer practice. The same thing happens on these folks' 
power bills every month because coal or natural gas is used to generate 
electricity that provides them a warm home in the winter and a cool 
house in the summer.
  Coming from an energy-intensive State where we have to drive long 
ways to reach home or work, this tax is senseless. Specifically, it 
will hurt our farmers, who EPA Administrator Browner called earlier 
this week the ``backbone of America.'' A Btu tax will dramatically 
affect the bottom line of farmers and ranchers. An analysis of the 1993 
Btu tax proposal by the Kansas State University Department of 
Agriculture Economics determined that would have cost Kansas farmers 
from $1,311 to $4,531 depending on their location in the Sunflower 
State. That is a lot of money, and if the crops are bad, it hurts 
producers' bottom line even more.
  Here are some specifics from the report that need to be closely 
examined because they will mirror what the White House will be 
proposing. A Rice County, KS, farmer planting continuous cropped wheat 
under the 1993 proposed Btu tax cost per acre would have increased by 
$1.45. For a northeast Kansas dryland milo farmer in Brown County, his 
cost per acre would have risen by $2.90. The same Brown County farmer 
growing corn, which Kansas is increasing its acreage under freedom to 
farm, would have paid $3.58 per acre for corn under a Btu tax. A Miami 
County farmer raising hay and alfalfa costs per acre would have gone up 
$2.91. why can't the White House give us this information about their 
treaty proposal?
  What concerns me is that the administration is paying attention to 
the questionable science on global warming and is blindly putting the 
U.S. agriculture industry in an uneconomical production straitjacket 
that will do more harm on a global scale. The Kansas State University 
study determined that the majority of a Btu tax will be passed on in 
the price of fertilizer, ag chemicals, fuels, and grain drying costs. I 
would like to quote directly from the study: ``[I]n return, the manager 
will not be able to pass these costs on in terms of higher commodity 
prices. Farm managers may reduce the use of energy-intensive inputs to 
some degree, resulting in smaller production and increased commodity 
prices.'' While I am never one to question higher wheat prices, I would 
if it meant forcing farmers from using diesel or fallowing fields 
because the United Nations suggested it to meet the treaty's 
requirement.
  The study summary goes on. ``An increase in the costs of production 
will reduce the supply of farm crops.'' We, the United States, who 
proudly supplies the rest of the world with wheat, corn and almost 
every imaginable natural product, probably cannot provide food to these 
developing nations clamoring for international food aid if our 
production costs increase. If our production goes down, our domestic 
market will become paramount and the United States may have to ignore 
the poor and hungry of other nations that we have been feeding for tens 
of years.
  My colleagues, the administration was in the process of trying to 
develop a specific economic model to predict what the costs of this 
binding treaty would be on America, not only farms, but all industries. 
But, the administration told the Congress they specifically wanted the 
model to be peer reviewed to ensure there would be no questions about 
its results. However, when they presented it for peer review, the 
reviewers told the White House that their model did not work and, if 
they did find one, it would clearly show the treaty would substantially 
hurt the economy. The White House refuses now to speculate what the 
impacts would be. Could it be they are afraid of spooking Wall Street 
and its meteoric rise above 8,000? Why should companies invest in 
plants and people only to be taxed more here in the United States? As 
you can see, this treaty will cost jobs.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to oppose any weakening 
amendments to the resolution. This strongly worded sense of the Senate 
needs to be shared not only with the appropriate administration 
officials but world leaders in developed and developing nations. I know 
that there will be a meeting in Bonn, Germany, in several weeks and I 
hope the administration will reveal to the world that if they propose 
such a misguided treaty to the U.S. Senate, it will fail.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I support Senate Resolution 98, the sense-
of-the-Senate resolution on the Global Climate Change Treaty submitted 
by Senators Byrd and Hagel and supported by nearly two-thirds of the 
Senate. Like many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I have 
many serious concerns about the economic impact that this treaty would 
have on our Nation.
  By adopting this amendment, the Senate will be exercising its 
constitutional role of advising the executive branch as part of a 
treaty process. The President should take this resolution as a serious 
and constructive step in the treaty process.
  Before we take another step toward ratification, I believe that the 
Senate must insure that the economic impact and inequity of this 
international agreement be fully aired for the American people.
  As written, this legally binding treaty would require the United 
States and other developed countries to reduce their carbon dioxide and 
greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2010. In order to 
meet these targets, the United States would either have to issue new 
regulations or levy huge taxes on all fossil fuels in proportion to 
their carbon contents. Economists have suggested that stabilizing 
emissions at 1990 levels with a tax could cut America's gross domestic 
product by $350 billion. Further regulations would likely take even 
billions more from our economy.
  And what would the developing nations contribute?
  What would our neighbors in Mexico have to do to help stop global 
warming? Nothing.
  What about other so-called developing nations like Korea, China, 
India, and Brazil?
  The treaty lets them off the hook.
  Mr. President, this is not an equitable 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 
as it stands.
  I do not believe that this Nation has been a bad actor when it comes 
to characterizing our environmental public policy. In fact, I believe 
America has already set the example. An example which all Americans 
have through their taxes and prices on many commodities has already 
paid for. Unless all the citizens of the globe are involved, there is a 
clear inequity.
  Mr. President, this does not mean I do not want to address the issue 
of curtailing carbon emissions.
  It means that we should only participate in a fair, balanced 
equitable agreement where all nations must participate.
  Is there such a thing as global warming?

[[Page S8124]]

  We must admit that there is no consensus among scientists about the 
validity of this theory. While some cry that the polar ice caps are 
melting as we speak, others point out that the lower atmosphere has 
shown no statistically significant warming in the past 19 years.
  I do not believe this is the place to launch a debate on the quality 
of the scientific data. I simply point out that the science is not 
settled or certain. So why rush into signing a legally binding and 
economically damaging international agreement?
  This much is certain--in order for America to reach the treaty's goal 
of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2010, the United 
States will have to reduce their fossil fuel use by at least 25 
percent.
  How do those who advocate this treaty think this will impact our 
country?
  Mr. President, let me give my colleagues some illustrations of what 
our Nation could face: First, energy taxes on energy use which would 
reduce economic growth by nearly 3 percent annually, increasing 
consumer costs by $110 billion; second, the loss of under 2 million 
American jobs, most of which will actually move overseas; and third, 
harm to the steel, basic chemicals, petroleum refining, aluminum, paper 
and cement industries, which would be targeted for severe restrictions 
by the treaty.

  The Byrd-Hagel resolution states that the United States should not be 
a signatory to any agreement that ``would result in serious harm to the 
economy of the United States.'' I believe this is a reasonable and 
responsible action.
  Mr. President, this treaty imposes very serious burdens on our 
economy with little environmental gain. This is just not a sound public 
policy.
  I have but one question for those who want to sign the treaty: How 
can America help the global environment by wreaking havoc and permanent 
harm on our own economy?
  This administration says that the United States--all alone--should 
decrease its energy use for 40 years before the developing nations are 
required to participate. There is no guarantee that these developing 
nations will be any more interested in curtailing their energy use then 
than they are now. Today, China is accelerating its use of fossil 
fuels, and by 2015, will likely pass the United States in total carbon 
emissions. Is it fair to let them off the hook now while we are subject 
to such stringent regulation?
  The Byrd-Hagel resolution would require developing nations to comply 
with the same regulations at the same time in the same treaty as the 
United States. This is not only equitable, it is the only way that 
there can be any real benefit to the global environment.
  Mr. President, the debate over global warming is tremendously 
important to the future of all Americans. The threat of losing 2.5 
percent of our GDP will impose enormous hardships on the average 
consumer. The treaty is essentially an attack on America's life style.
  The United States has already spent more than a trillion dollars to 
clean the environment. American taxpayers must be assured that any new 
environmental programs actually provide benefits that outweigh their 
costs and that are grounded in sound science. At the same time, we must 
not enter into any international agreement that puts the United States 
at a significant disadvantage in the global arena.
  Mr. President, I believe the Global Climate Change Treaty is 
unacceptable as it stands at the very least it needs the Byrd-Hagel 
correction.
  I would like to thank and commend Senators Byrd and Hagel for their 
dedicated efforts to educate our colleagues on this issue. I appreciate 
their leadership and thoughtful consideration of this important 
international environmental issue. Thank you, Senator Byrd and Senator 
Hagel.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
join me in supporting the Byrd-Hagel resolution.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Byrd resolution.
  I will vote for this resolution, first, because the concerns of 
American workers and industry must be considered in any treaty into 
which this country enters. This resolution unequivocally sends that 
message.
  Second, it should be without dispute that developing nations must 
control their emissions if we are to reduce greenhouse gas. This 
resolution strengthens our bargaining position to ensure real, 
attainable standards are established for developing countries, too.
  I want to make it clear, however, that I support a negotiated global 
warming treaty. I believe science and common sense mandate that we work 
to reduce emissions and increase forest conservation to offset 
emissions.
  Regarding the developed-developing nation debate, I believe it is 
also clear that we developed nations have historically emitted more 
greenhouse gases per capita than have developing countries. In 
addition, we are economically more able to absorb whatever increased 
costs occur based on the need to reduce emissions. Therefore, we should 
assist our neighbors through technology transfer, economic assistance, 
and joint ventures in meeting whatever emissions goals are established.
  I offer my strong support to the administration as it continues 
negotiations to reduce greenhouse gases worldwide. I thank Senator Byrd 
for strengthening the American bargaining position with this 
resolution.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Byrd/Hagel 
resolution. This legislation expresses the sense of the Senate 
regarding the conditions for the United States to become a signatory to 
any international agreement on global climate change. Consideration of 
this legislation is critical to shaping the upcoming debate on global 
climate issues and amending the Framework Convention on Global Climate 
Change. An upcoming meeting in Kyoto, Japan, has the potential to 
cripple our economic potential, while allowing the emissions from less 
developed nations to grow unchecked.
  The Rio Treaty signed by President Bush called for industrialized 
nations to voluntarily reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels 
or lower by the year 2000. All but two countries will miss the goals, 
including the United States which missed the mark by 10 percent. The 
administration blamed this on low fuel prices and a strong economy. Mr. 
President, this is not a liability or something the United States 
should apologize for.
  Nonetheless, in an effort to reverse this success, the Clinton 
administration signed on to the Berlin mandate in 1995. This is an 
agreement of industrialized nations to further reduce emissions after 
2000. Unfortunately, this agreement exempts 130 developing countries 
from reductions or commitments in greenhouse gases. This enormous 
loophole will guarantee the failure of this agreement. In 1996, the 
administration decided that it would use the Berlin mandate to create a 
new treaty with legally binding mandates on emission levels.
  Mr. President, I am very concerned with the administration's 
intention to sign an agreement that commits the United States to 
legally-binding emissions levels that will not achieve significant 
environmental gains. The fatal flaw of this agreement is that it 
exempts developing nations, including China which is estimated to 
exceed the United States in greenhouse gas emissions by 2015. By 2010, 
the share of U.S. global emissions will fall from 20 percent to just 10 
percent as developing nations continue to grow in population and 
industrial capability. By the year 2100, developing nations are 
estimated to produce three-quarters of the total greenhouse gases.
  In testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on July 
21, Under Secretary Tim Wirth argued this agreement was like a row boat 
and the United States should ``pull a heavier oar at the beginning; 
over time, we must all pull together.''
  Mr. President, anybody who has ever operated a rowboat knows that 
when you pull harder on one oar you end up going in circles. And that 
is precisely what this agreement will do. It won't achieve any net 
environmental gains and worse, will succeed in sending our economy into 
a tailspin.
  Left unchanged, this agreement will provide a significant advantage 
to our competitors. In order to achieve lower emission levels, new 
energy costs and other costly regulatory burdens required to reduce 
energy use reduce our competitive advantage in all industries. It is 
likely to force our most energy-intensive industries like steel,

[[Page S8125]]

aluminum, chemicals, refining, and paper production to move overseas. 
Mr. President, this is unacceptable.
  Study after study has demonstrated that this agreement would cripple 
our economy. A DRI/McGraw Hill study shows our Nation's GDP would be 
reduced annually by 2 to 3 percent. According to the AFL-CIO, between 
1.25 million and 1.5 million U.S. jobs would be lost. These jobs would 
reemerge in other countries where, as a result of the flawed agreement, 
emission levels and high energy taxes are not a concern. On top of this 
consumer costs would rise by $50 to $100 billion annually. Higher 
energy prices would mean increased costs on all goods including 
groceries, electricity, and gasoline.
  Mr. President, I represent a State that this treaty puts right in the 
cross hairs. There are 25,000 people whose jobs are tied directly to 
the coal industry. Higher energy taxes, like the Btu tax proposed by 
this administration, hits coal harder than any other energy source. 
Thousands of well-paying jobs would be lost in my State as this 
administration seeks to eliminate coal as our primary energy source, 
while giving developing nations an unfair advantage.
  It is important to keep in mind that coal provides over 50 percent of 
our power needs nationwide. This is the low cost fuel source that helps 
maintain this Nation's competitive edge and reduces increased 
dependency on foreign oil.
  Not only would the Kentucky mining industry be devastated, but 
industries across my State would feel the impact of higher energy 
prices. As I noted earlier, industries like chemical, steel, paper, and 
aluminum would be greatly impacted. Three of our leading manufacturers 
General Electric, Ford and Toyota use significant amounts of energy. 
The 30,000 jobs at these facilities would all be threatened by our 
foreign competitors.
  The Byrd/Hagel resolution addresses the unfairness in the agreement 
being considered by the administration. This resolution mandates 
specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas 
emission for developing nations, with the same compliance period.
  If every nation doesn't agree to the same emission levels and 
timetables, what incentive will they have to negotiate in the future 
when they have an overwhelming competitive advantage? It is important 
that we not bargain away the economic advantages we have worked so hard 
to achieve.
  Passage of this resolution will send a clear message to the 
administration when they begin negotiations in Kyoto. I am hopeful this 
will prevent the administration from signing an unacceptable agreement 
that puts the burden of cleaning up the environment on American workers 
just to have these gains wiped out by developing nations.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me in sending a strong 
message to the administration by voting for the Byrd/Hagel resolution. 
This is a vote for jobs and a vote for the environment.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, later this year the 166 countries that 
signed the 1992 climate change treaty will meet in Kyoto, Japan. They 
will be seeking stronger measures to control a potential threat to the 
future of our planet and to the lives of everyone living today and 
children yet to be born.
  The threat is easy to understand, even if the science is complicated 
and a bit uncertain. In hearings before the Environment and Public 
Works Committee earlier this month, a panel of respected scientists 
gave us their assessment of the problem.
  They told us that man-made emissions of greenhouse gasses, such as 
carbon dioxide, have led to a distinct warming of the Earth over the 
past 100 years. More troubling, however was their prediction.
  If left unchecked, the continued growth in these emissions, which 
trap the sun's heat, will have potentially serious effects. These 
consequences include shifting climate patterns and more frequent 
violent weather events, such as floods and droughts.
  Now most areas of the country experience extreme weather conditions 
from time to time. But permanent shifts in climate patterns can 
seriously alter our lives and our economy.
  For instance, in an agricultural State, such as Montana, the prospect 
of more flooding and longer dry spells is a threat to the livelihood of 
our farming and ranching families and their communities. And, if 
weather patterns change, crop yields can be seriously decreased.
  These kinds of threats to our future are serious enough that we must 
take action to avoid them. We can begin by controlling our greenhouse 
gas emissions. And if we start with modest steps now, instead of 
waiting, we will likely avoid any serious economic disruptions.
  In 1992, the Rio summit asked developed countries to lead the way. 
The climate change treaty committed these countries to voluntarily 
reduce their emissions of carbon dioxide to 1990 levels by 2000.
  Unfortunately, the voluntary actions didn't work. The good intentions 
of most countries never translated into concrete results. So if we are 
to control these emissions, the new treaty must contain binding limits 
on emissions.
  However, we also need to make another change in the 1992 treaty.
  We certainly need binding controls on developed countries, which 
currently emit about 60 percent of global greenhouse gases. But we also 
need them on developing countries, which are responsible for the 
remaining 40 percent.
  We simply can't reach a solution by addressing only 60 percent of the 
problem. Furthermore, unless all countries participate, we run the risk 
of giving our economic competitors an unfair advantage.
  Yet developing countries are resisting such efforts. So how can we 
change their thinking? Perhaps by broadening our own.
  Let me take one country, China, as an example. Why China? For one, 
because over the next 20 years, China will be responsible for one-third 
of the increase in greenhouse gas emissions.
  For another because the United States has a lot of issues to deal 
with China on. Trade, human rights, regional security, and 
environmental protection, to name a few.
  So despite fundamental disagreements on some issues, we share many 
mutual interests, including climate change.
  China has more people potentially at risk from rising sea levels and 
violent weather than any other nation. It also has an urgent need to 
increase its domestic energy supplies. If we consider the broad array 
of interests we share, I suspect we will find ways to gain their 
support on climate change issues.
  After all, China is a growing part of the problem, it must be part of 
the solution.
  Another aspect of encouraging developing nations to participate in 
new emission controls is to include in the treaty flexible, market-
based strategies, such as joint implementation and emissions trading.
  Market-based strategies have been very successful here at home. For 
instance, the acid rain program in the 1990 Clean Air Act included 
trading of sulfur dioxide emissions credits.
  This program stimulated technological innovation. It also reduced 
sulfur dioxide emissions at a cost that was less than one-tenth that 
predicted by industry.
  By including similar programs in a climate change treaty, we can 
achieve greenhouse gas reductions at the lowest possible cost. It gives 
U.S firms the flexibility to comply with emission targets in a way that 
makes the most sense for them. And it will protect our worldwide 
economic competitiveness.
  For developing countries, emission trading can give them access to 
new technology and financial support that will make it easier for them 
to comply with their new obligations.
  The language contained in Senate Resolution 98 will help achieve the 
goal of including all countries in the new treaty.
  It requires that the treaty mandate new specific scheduled 
commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for developing 
country parties within the same compliance period as developed 
countries.
  But since developing and developed nations are starting from 
different places, it makes sense to require different targets. Here 
again, the language crafted by Senator Byrd helps. It does not specify 
that developed and developing countries meet the same targets and 
timetables.

[[Page S8126]]

  When Under Secretary of State Tim Wirth recently appeared before the 
Environment and Public Works Committee, he spoke in support of Senator 
Byrd's resolution. I believe he said it was ``largely on the button.'' 
He added that the administration ``very much agrees with the thrust of 
what [Senator Byrd] is saying related to developing country 
commitments.''
  So although the language of the resolution requires new commitments 
from developing countries, the administration should seek emission 
targets that are more consistent with their level of industrialization.
  I plan to follow the treaty negotiations carefully to be sure that 
developing countries have agreed to commit to controlling their 
greenhouse gases.
  And while the resolution unfortunately omits any mention of the need 
for market-based strategies to achieve the emissions targets, I believe 
the treaty must include them. They simply make much more sense for all 
countries than the command-and-control approach being advocated by 
some.
  In closing, Mr. President, let me say that the toughest issues for 
democracies to handle are those in which the threat to society builds 
gradually, but inexorably, over time, such as with global climate 
change. We deal well with immediate crises.
  My hope is that by debating this issue today, by passing this 
resolution, we will elevate the public discussion about climate change 
and avoid the need for a future crisis to spur us into action.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to comment on the 
resolution now before the Senate. It is clear from the number of 
Members who are signatories to this resolution that the majority of 
this Chamber has significant reservations, as it should, about the 
ratification of any international agreement on greenhouse gas emissions 
under the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change. I intend to vote 
for the resolution, but I must say I believe it does not go far enough 
in bringing to light the faults of the convention. I'd like to amplify 
some points that are touched upon only briefly in the resolution.
  I am very concerned about the call to move away from voluntary goals, 
as framed in the original convention, toward legally binding emissions-
limitation targets and timetables for the United States, as well as the 
other developed, or annex I, countries that are party to the 
convention. The 1992 treaty, ratified by the Senate, called for the 
economically developed countries to undertake voluntary actions to aim 
to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Unfortunately, the only major 
developed nations that will meet this voluntary target of 1990 levels 
by 2000 are Britain--because it switched its fuel for electricity 
production from heavily subsidized coal to North Sea natural gas--and 
Germany--because it is able to count efficiency gains from replacing 
its ancient East German powerplants. Despite the fact that the United 
States is expected to miss its own target by about 10 percent, the 
administration, by signing the Berlin mandate in March of 1995, now 
believes it is a good idea to pursue additional emissions reduction 
targets after the year 2000. The Berlin mandate, which was not 
presented to the Senate for approval, sets up a process to negotiate a 
new treaty that will: First, commit the United States, and other 
developed countries to a legally binding agreement--contrary to the 
earlier approved agreement; and second, specifically exempt the 130 
developing countries, including the emerging economies of China, 
Mexico, and Korea, from any additional commitments.
  It does not make sense, either environmentally or economically, to 
focus on the nations which are already spending billions on pollution 
control and making substantial progress, while ignoring the so-called 
developing countries. U.S. companies, using the best available 
technology, are able to eliminate a great deal of pollution from their 
emissions. To achieve an additional increment of pollution reduction 
requires a much larger amount of money to be spent. Because of the law 
of diminishing returns, the costs will heavily outweigh any benefits. 
However, in developing countries, where the pollution control 
technology is not be as advanced or widespread as it is here in the 
United States, a dollar spent on pollution control will stretch much 
further and achieve far more significant reductions in overall 
pollution. Thus, the cost/benefit ratio favors significant pollution 
reduction in developing, not developed, countries.
  In addition to the simple cost/benefit analysis, many scientists 
predict the greatest increase of future greenhouse emissions will come 
from developing countries like China, Mexico, Brazil, and Korea. As 
much as 60 percent of global carbon emissions are expected to come from 
such countries in the next few decades, with China becoming the single-
largest emitter in the near future. Since these countries are expected 
to produce the bulk of future greenhouse emissions, exempting them will 
not reduce net global emissions. Both cost-benefit analysis and common 
sense say that the most effective way to reduce net global pollution is 
to reduce emissions in the developing nations.

  While I presume many supporters of this resolution agree that under 
no circumstances should the United States be subjected to legally 
binding emissions limitations, I believe the resolution is somewhat 
unclear. As I read it, it says the United States will agree to legally 
binding emissions if ``the protocol or other agreements also mandates 
new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas 
emissions for developing country parties within the same compliance 
period.'' Unfortunately, I believe this condition is not sufficient. As 
many of you know, it has been interpreted by different people in 
different ways. Some read it to mean that the Senate will not approve a 
treaty that does not include identical emissions level and target date 
requirements. Others, however, have read the same language and 
determined that it means any treaty must have equal commitments when it 
comes to setting time tables but not emissions levels. Unfortunately, 
it is easy to set developing countries on a time table and allow then 
to continue to pollute in any amount they desire. The emissions levels 
can be easily set so that the developed countries have very stringent, 
and perhaps unattainable levels, while the developing countries have 
very lax, easily reached goals--all the while, all countries are 
operating within the same time table. The time table alone does not 
determine the amount of pollution emitted; the emission level is more 
important. Setting the developing countries to the same timetables 
without meaningful emissions limitations will not preclude them from 
emitting larger amounts of greenhouse gases. This approach, I believe, 
defeats the purpose of the treaty ratified by the Senate, which is to 
voluntarily reduce greenhouse-gas emissions on a global scale. The 
original intent was not to legally bind the annex I countries to set 
timetables and emissions levels while only requiring the developing 
countries to comply with parallel timetables but not the same emissions 
standards.
  Also of concern is the fact that the administration is basing its 
climate-change policy on questionable science. The science on climate 
change is very much an open inquiry into an as-yet-unconfirmed 
phenomenon over which the scientific community remains sharply divided. 
Discrepancies exist in the evidence now being considered. So, before 
the administration binds the United States legally to costly, and 
possibly unnecessary, standards and goals, shouldn't we allow for the 
science on this matter to first evolve and, in turn, allow for us to 
base our decision on facts?
  Finally, there is the question of why the United States would embark 
on a course of action that many scientists say would do little 
environmental good. A report released in January of this year, January 
10, 1997, by the Congressional Research Service poses the question: 
``Given the scientific uncertainties regarding the magnitude, timing, 
rate, and regional consequences of the potential climatic change, what 
are the appropriate policy responses?'' I believe the appropriate 
response is to wait for the science to evolve; not to leap into legally 
binding emission limits that, if developed, would not necessarily 
improve the environment and would cost American citizens billions of 
dollars.
  Confirming this approach, Dr. Robert C. Balling, Jr. of Arizona State 
University issued a report entitled ``Global

[[Page S8127]]

Warming: Messy Models, Decent Data, Pointless Policy.'' In it he 
states, ``Global warming is presented as a crisis that can be stopped 
or minimized with appropriate policy actions. However, the evidence 
suggests that realistic policies are likely to have minimal climatic 
impact. Recent research also suggests that a delay in implementing 
policy responses will have little effect on the efficacy of global 
warming mitigation strategies.'' He continues: ``It is absolutely 
imperative that the policies developed for the global warming issue be 
built on the best science.'' Mr. President, I could not agree more.
  This December in Kyoto, Japan, the administration will further commit 
itself to the convention; it will be offering protocols to that 
instrument that lack the necessary support of the scientific community. 
Because we do not know enough to support these terms and allow for the 
administration to exploit the ends to justify the means for climate-
change policy, the responsibility to ensure that the United States is 
not legally committed to reducing greenhouse-gas emissions will be 
placed in the hands of the U.S. Senate. We must preserve the right to 
question the validity of these protocols. Congressional oversight of 
the negotiations is crucial and any agreement reached in Kyoto must be 
brought before us for advice and consent. Once the science on this 
issue has evolved, we will then be able to base our laws on the science 
and avoid the costly mistake of basing the science on the laws.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Byrd 
resolution on global climate change and I urge my colleagues to support 
it. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this resolution.
  This resolution explains what the ground rules should be if the 
United States is to become a signer of the United Nations Framework 
Convention on Climate Change. This resolution would prohibit the 
ratification of any treaty that would seriously threaten the economy of 
the United States. It says that both industrialized nations and 
developing countries must share the burden of any globally binding 
treaty on climate change equally.
  I support the Byrd resolution for one simple, but very compelling 
reason--jobs. For those of you who thought you'd hear a vacuum sound 
pulling jobs overseas following NAFTA implementation--you ain't heard 
nothin' yet. The only thing this treaty will do, the way it is written 
now, is destroy American industry as we know it. I will not be a party 
to any treaty or agreement that sends American jobs overseas. Business 
won't have any incentive to maintain or build new factories in the 
United States.
  Let me be clear: I support international efforts to improve the 
environment. But the effort must truly be international if we are to 
make any progress. I do not believe efforts to control or reduce global 
warming will be successful unless rapidly developing countries are 
forced to take the kind of tough steps that the United States will have 
to take.
  We cannot be a part of a binding international agreement that lets 
countries such as China, South Korea, and India off the hook. 
Developing nations do contribute to global warming. If we exempt them 
from the restrictions mandated for the industrialized nations, we will 
simply see a shifting of pollution, not a reduction. This is not what 
anyone wants to see happen.
  The objective of the treaty being negotiated is to curb global 
climate change. The United States has already taken steps to achieve 
this goal. At the beginning of President Clinton's first term, he 
released his administration's version of a domestic climate change 
action plan.
  This plan relies on a comprehensive set of voluntary actions by 
industry, utilities, and other large-scale energy users. It also 
promotes energy efficiency upgrades through new building codes in 
residential and commercial sectors. Large-scale tree planting and 
forest reserves are encouraged, as well as increased use of 
hydroelectric power sources.
  These are important steps which will have a positive impact on our 
global climate. We certainly must continue to research causes of global 
climate change, and come up with scientifically sound solutions. Our 
viability as a nation and planet depends on it.
  But we cannot throw away American jobs based on a plan that could 
have only a marginal impact on climate change. Coming up with the right 
plan should have little effect on the American economy, because it will 
mean an overall sustainability of the global environment, and the 
continuation of the United States as a leader of technological and 
industrial innovation.
  Once again, Mr. President, I support this commonsense resolution, 
which will simply ensure that American jobs won't be lost as we address 
the issue of global climate change. I am hopeful we can pass this 
resolution and move on to the next stage of protecting our global 
environment. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support and, as an 
original cosponsor, of Senate Resolution 98, the Byrd-Hagel global 
warming resolution.
  I want to thank the Senate leadership and Senators Byrd and Hagel, 
for scheduling floor time for this important initiative before 
negotiators begin talks in Bonn, Germany.
  The administration's current go-at-it-alone plan regarding global 
climate change is grossly unfair to the United States.
  I am opposed to setting legally binding targets and timetables on the 
United States and other developed countries to reduce greenhouse gas 
emissions, while at the same time exempting China, Mexico, Brazil, 
South Korea, and India from those identical regulations.
  This will only worsen the problem the administration claims it wants 
to fix.
  Developing countries are projected to continue increasing their use 
of fossil fuels.
  And by the year 2015, China alone is expected to surpass the United 
States in total carbon emissions.
  The Clinton administration's plan will also drive the economy down 
and send jobs overseas.
  The AFL-CIO estimates that between 1.25 and 1.5 million American jobs 
would go overseas.
  And the plan would put the United States at a severe competitive 
disadvantage and reduce our GDP by $200 billion.
  Nevertheless, the administration--led by Under Secretary of State Tim 
Wirth--is on a mad rush to sign a legally 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 
timetables for emissions reductions; and
  The fact that they have now thrown out their economic analysis 
models, which were supposed to help guide policy makers.
  The Byrd-Hagel resolution addresses these discrepancies.
  It would direct the United States not to sign any agreement that 
would:
  ``Mandate new commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas 
emissions, unless it also mandates specific scheduled commitments to 
reduce gas emissions for developing countries within the same 
compliance period''; and
  ``Result in serious harm to the economy of the United States.''
  Sixty-four of my colleagues have cosponsored this initiative and I 
urge their support of this resolution.
  Mr. President, I strongly encourage the administration to listen to 
the concerns being expressed by this Chamber.
  Be honest with us and the American people, and realize that we will 
not ratify any treaty which commits the United States to one set of 
standards to reduce gas emissions, but will let China, India, Mexico, 
and other developing countries off the hook.
  We ought to focus on bringing all of the countries of the world to 
the table. Everyone ought to contribute to the cause.
  Asking all nations to contribute--within the same compliance period--
will help the environment and help U.S. industries stay competitive.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my support for 
Senate Resolution 98 regarding the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate 
Change. Like my colleagues in the Senate, I too am concerned about the 
effects on the economy of any national or international agreements that 
the United States enters into. I am particularly concerned with any 
agreement that may impact the well-being of the American public and the 
ecological balance of this Nation. The U.N.

[[Page S8128]]

Framework Convention on Climate Change has the potential to do both.
  The United States is scheduled to join with leaders of 160 nations in 
Kyoto, Japan in December of this year to conclude negotiations on a 
global climate change treaty. The Kyoto summit is the latest in a 
series of meetings that have been held since this body ratified the 
U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1992. At Kyoto, the 
United States and other countries hope to adopt a protocol or legal 
instrument to deal with the threat of climate change in the post 2000 
period.
  It is my belief that the United States must take the leadership role 
in these negotiations, and steer the course to achieve an equitable, 
reasoned approach to global climate change mitigation, an approach that 
seeks inclusion of all countries and that offers a solution to the 
issue. While I believe the resolution before us will allow such an 
approach, I want to emphasize to the administration the essential 
nature of a negotiated framework to which all countries can accede.
  Before I summarize my analysis of the need for global action, let me 
review the facts. First, global climate change is real. If it were not, 
160 countries would not be meeting to address it. However, there are 
uncertainties about the effects of global climate change--uncertainties 
relative to the timing, the magnitude, and regional patterns of climate 
change. We must acknowledge these uncertainties, but acknowledge also 
that they do not justify inaction.
  As stated recently by Dr. William Nordhaus of Yale University: ``The 
results (of studies) definitely reject inaction; uncertainty alone 
cannot justify waiting for the revealed truth to act, particularly when 
the revealed truth, if it ever comes, is probably going to arrive at 
the point where the effects are irreversible.''
  Second, a leading indicator of climate change is increased emissions 
of global greenhouse gases. Concentrations of atmospheric carbon 
dioxide--the largest component of greenhouse gas emissions--are about 
26 percent higher now than they were 100 years ago. Also, globally 
averaged air temperatures at the Earth's surface have warmed by nearly 
1 degree Fahrenheit over the last 100 years.
  Increased emissions of greenhouse gases are virtually entirely due to 
the activities of man. As a general rule, a country's greenhouse gas 
emissions rise in concert with increased industrialization. It is no 
surprise, then, that the United States is the greatest emitter of 
greenhouse gases, both in terms of gross and per capita emissions. 
However, the emissions of some developing countries are rapidly 
escalating, and the emissions of some are expected to surpass that of 
this country in the first quarter of the next century.
  Which takes me back to my call for U.S. leadership. As the world's 
industrial leader, the United States should take a clear lead in 
negotiating a framework for all countries to participate in global 
climate change abatement. A global approach, and global participation, 
is requisite to a successful outcome. This approach may require a new 
framework and a fresh look at timetables and current directions. My 
understanding of the data is that we have time to do this--we have time 
to assess where we are and how best to craft equitable policies. But 
inaction is not appropriate.
  The resolution before us requires commitments of developing countries 
to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions in the same timeframes as 
developed countries. This may resonate as promoting a policy that 
discourages the participation of many developing countries. However, 
the resolution will allow developing countries appropriate 
flexibilities in commitments to address global climate change 
abatement. The United States and other developed countries must accord 
newly developed and developing countries flexibilities and incentives 
to participate, and these need not create economic disadvantages to the 
United States or any other developed country.
  I cannot emphasize enough the importance of this point. Without all 
countries on board, inaction becomes inevitable, because emission 
reductions achieved by one country will soon be offset by increased 
emissions from another.
  An equitable approach that encourages commitments by all parties and 
that offers incentives to developing countries is needed. Market-based 
solutions to curb emissions will allow continued economic growth with 
minimal impacts. Developed countries are in a better position to 
implement emissions-curbing activities and technologies at low cost and 
impact, and to also transfer these abilities and technologies to 
developing countries and to aid in their economic advancement in a way 
that tempers emissions growth.
  While measures to stabilize greenhouse gases at a certain level will 
inevitably lead to some energy price increases, an international 
emissions-trading scheme could substantially reduce the potential 
costs. What is needed, however, is a policy to ensure that incremental 
costs of reducing or stabilizing emissions are equalized across firms, 
across sectors, and across countries. This can only occur if we take 
into account the economies, emissions and abilities of countries to 
participate, and if we assign actions accordingly and in appropriate 
timeframes.
  Market mechanisms can reduce cost impacts of emissions reductions 
agreements. A preferable policy would be to set short- and long-term 
goals to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions, and to set quantity limits 
on emissions that are linked to prices. Targets and timetables for 
emission limitations cannot operate independently of market prices. An 
international tradeable emissions permits system, with price caps and 
floors, would have revenue potential and would be cost-efficient.
  Technology transfer and development is an important policy aspect for 
the abatement of global climate change. The United States and other 
developing countries have within our current capabilities technologies 
which can lead to dramatic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. We 
can increase the efficiencies of industry, of transportation, of many 
energy-intensive activities, all with what we already know. By 
implementing these capabilities and by transferring these technologies 
to developing countries we can curb emissions significantly. Continued 
technology development is also necessary.
  Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, we must continue to advance the 
science related to these policies, and to allow policy changes as the 
data warrant.
  Mr. President, I conclude my remarks by repeating that I, too, am 
concerned about any agreements or policies that effect the well being 
of this country. However, I believe it is in our best interests and 
that of the world community to approach global climate change in an 
inclusive, proactive manner that seeks continued economic growth. That 
approach demands action, and global coalition building, and it is 
incumbent upon the United States to steer that course.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise in support of Senate Resolution 98. 
The negotiations on limiting post-2000 emissions of greenhouse gas 
emissions, which are scheduled to conclude in December in Kyoto, Japan, 
will have a significant impact on all Americans. This resolution 
addresses concerns that the administration has chosen to ignore while 
pursuing an international agreement that will bind the United States 
for decades to come.
  Science should lead policy. Once again, the administration is 
pursuing an environmental policy that is based on insufficient research 
and analysis. Many in the scientific community believe that we are 
still years away from computer models that can confidently link global 
warming to human activity. Yet without strong scientific data, the 
administration is ready to commit the United States to binding actions 
that will impose economic and social burdens on every American.
  Recently, the Department of Energy released a report by the Argonne 
National Laboratory containing several troubling findings on the 
effects of the proposed treaty on our economy. Among the conclusions, 
the study found that without requiring developing countries to meet the 
same emissions standards as the rest of the world, up to hundreds of 
thousands of U.S. jobs will move overseas to so-called developing 
countries that have refused to participate in any new climate 
agreement. Higher energy prices will lead manufactures to produce less

[[Page S8129]]

at higher costs resulting in job loss, higher consumer prices and an 
inability to compete in a global marketplace. This will devastate our 
Nation. Yet, the administration is pushing to commit the American 
people to participate.
  The developed countries should not shoulder the responsibility for 
reducing greenhouse gas emissions around the world. It seems obvious 
that in the long-run increasing emissions in developing countries will 
far outweigh any actions taken by the developed countries. Any binding 
actions by the United States must be accompanied by binding commitments 
from developing countries. I believe a majority of Americans would 
agree that devastating our Nation's economy by promoting industry 
flight overseas is not the answer to a global issue.
  The public has a right to know how the administration's commitments 
requiring them to reduce fossil fuel energy will be accomplished and 
how their lives, jobs, and futures will be affected. I am greatly 
disturbed that the administration has not sought, and therefore has not 
received, support from Congress or the American public on this matter.
  Mr. President, the American people deserve an open, objective and 
honest debate on the development of U.S. climate change policy. Without 
that, I can not and I will not support committing the United States to 
limiting post-2000 greenhouse gas emissions.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Senate 
Resolution 98. I believe climate change is a serious problem that 
requires credible action by the international community. Negotiations 
on an international agreement to limit greenhouse gas emissions will 
conclude this December in Kyoto, Japan. This is an essential step in 
the long-term, global efforts to deal with climate change. While I 
support Senate resolution's call for increased involvement of 
developing countries in the Kyoto agreement, the resolution does not 
take into account other key components of the treaty that are essential 
to its success, particularly for the United States' business community.
  The scientific basis for moving forward with an international 
agreement to limit greenhouse gas emissions is compelling and 
significant. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 
Change--a group of 2,500 expert scientists representing more than 50 
countries, the ever-increasing emissions of greenhouse gases from human 
activities are changing the global climate. Given the potential impacts 
of climate change predicted by the IPCC--more droughts, more floods, 
sea level rise, water scarcity, and increased incidence of infectious 
diseases--it is not surprising that nations of the world agreed to find 
more effective ways to understand and deal with the problem. If we 
don't agree to long-term greenhouse gas limits soon, and instead wait 
to see how our climate changes, it may be too late. Greenhouse gases 
remain in the atmosphere for decades to centuries, and there is a long 
lag time between when gases are emitted and when the climate 
consequences of those emissions appear. So we need to begin reductions 
soon to have any long-term effect. And, a new generation of energy-
efficient technologies requires a long lead time for development and 
implementation. This won't happen without clear signals to the market 
that an international agreement on climate change would provide.
  Senate Resolution 98 focuses on the role of developing countries in 
the Kyoto agreement. The principles expressed in the resolution 
regarding developing countries are on target. Climate change cannot be 
solved by the developed countries alone--we are indeed all in the same 
boat.
  New commitments by developing countries regarding their performance 
under the Framework Convention on Climate Change, of course, need to be 
consistent with their historic responsibility for the problem, as well 
as their current capabilities. The ground rules for the negotiations--
the Berlin mandate--recognize these common, but differentiated 
responsibilities.
  It is clear that the Berlin mandate can be carried out in a way that 
is consistent with Senate Resolution 98. The resolution says that 
developing countries can start with a commitment that is lower relative 
to the industrialized countries at first. Over time, however, the 
commitments of developing and developed countries must become 
comparable to ensure that every country does its fair share to address 
the problem.
  Senate Resolution 98 states that developing countries have to start 
making quantified emissions reductions objectives within the same 
compliance period as developed countries. This means that at a stage to 
be negotiated over the compliance period of the Kyoto agreement, 
developing countries must begin to make quantified emissions reductions 
objectives. Senate Resolution 98 says that it is entirely appropriate 
for industrialized countries to start making quantified emissions 
reductions first, as long as developing countries also commit to making 
quantified emissions reductions before the end of the time period 
worked out for the Kyoto agreement. I agree with this basic approach--
the sooner developing countries take on quantified emissions reductions 
targets, the sooner we can achieve a global solution to the climate 
problem.
  At the same time, I am concerned that the resolution does not take 
into account other key components of the treaty that are essential to 
protect U.S. competitiveness. I am concerned that elevating one issue 
to a level of importance that will overshadow other key matters may 
harm the United States' efforts to ensure that the climate agreement is 
realistic, achievable, and will not harm the U.S. economy. For example, 
the need for flexibility in implementing a treaty is critical to 
protect U.S. competitiveness. Some countries, such as members of the 
European Union, would prefer highly prescriptive policies and measures 
to meet reduction targets. The United States' negotiating team has made 
flexibility an absolute prerequisite for any agreement, and I want to 
commend them for this approach. I believe that, to be acceptable, our 
businesses must have the most flexibility possible to find the least-
cost ways to reduce emissions. This means the agreement must contain 
provisions that are so important to our business community: emissions 
trading, joint implementation between nations, and appropriate credits 
for those countries that have already made certain emissions 
reductions. Senate Resolution 98 is silent regarding these provisions.
  As we grapple with the human judgments and values that inevitably 
will determine how we handle climate change, we must base our actions 
on the facts--the scientific evidence of climate change, the physical 
effects that are likely to result from it, and the ways we can credibly 
address this problem on a global basis. While Senate Resolution 98 is 
only part of a bigger picture that needs to be addressed, it is a step 
toward adressing this global issue.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support 
for the Byrd-Hagel resolution regarding global climate change. I was an 
original cosponsor of this bipartisan resolution, and I believe it 
sends an important, commonsense message that we cannot enter into a 
treaty that requires the United States to limit its emissions of 
greenhouse gases without requiring developing countries to also agree 
to limitations on their emissions. Such a proposal would not make 
environmental sense and it certainly would not make sense for our 
Nation's economy.
  This resolution is very simple. It says that a treaty will not be 
ratified by the U.S. Senate if it does not include both developed and 
developing countries in binding timetables and emission limitations. It 
seems to me that the only way the world will be able to stabilize the 
concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is if every nation 
participates in a meaningful way in limiting its emissions. The 
resolution does not say that all countries must make identical emission 
reductions; only that they must be participants in limiting greenhouse 
gas emissions in the same timeframe as the developed world.
  Mr. President, I fear that a treaty that requires us to place 
significant restrictions on our economy will only lead to a flight of 
jobs and capital from this country to nations that do not face 
greenhouse gas emissions limitations. That could be a potential 
disaster for our Nation's economy, for its

[[Page S8130]]

workers, and for our long-term economic stability and growth. So the 
Byrd resolution also requires the administration to develop a detailed 
analysis of the potential financial costs and other impacts on our 
economy. That is not an unreasonable request. We would clearly need to 
know the potential consequences of any treaty on our Nation's economy 
before the Senate could be asked to ratify such a treaty.
  Mr. President, the U.S. Senate has a constitutional duty to advise 
and consent on treaties negotiated by the administration with other 
nations. This is a responsibility I take very seriously, and I know 
every other Member of this body considers it one of our most important 
duties. I hope the administration will listen carefully to the debate 
on this resolution, and pay close attention to the guidance provided in 
the Byrd-Hagel resolution as it negotiates with other nations in 
preparation for a final meeting in December in Kyoto, Japan.
  Mr. President, I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, does Senator Kerry wish to go forward? Is 
he prepared?
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, might I inquire? How much time remains on 
our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thirty-five minutes.
  Mr. KERRY. How much for the other side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska has 16 minutes.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, if I may, I would like to ask if I might be 
able to enter into a colloquy with the Senator from West Virginia at 
this time.
  Mr. HAGEL. May I ask? Point of inquiry. Is this on the time of the 
Senator from Massachusetts?
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, this is on my time.
  Mr. HAGEL. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would like to ask the views of the 
Senator from West Virginia on the proposal by the Europeans to erect 
the so-called European bubble, and its effect on U.S. competitiveness.
  It appears to me that this proposal is driven more by economic 
considerations than concern for limiting carbon dioxide emissions.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield.
  Mr. KERRY. I yield to the Senator for his views on that.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I am glad the Senator has asked this 
question. Earlier he had indicated that we had agreed on certain 
things. We agreed on one thing: that we would enter into a colloquy. 
And I always reserve the right to express my own views on matters, and 
not necessarily agree to the expressions of others as to how they think 
and what they think I say.
  May I say that I am only expressing a personal viewpoint here. The 
Senator said earlier that there were Senators in this body who signed 
onto the resolution who want to kill the treaty. That may be so. This 
Senator is not one of those. I am not out to kill the treaty.
  But what I was out to say--and the reason I got behind this effort--
was to send a message to the administration that if the Senate is not 
included in the takeoff, if the Senate is not included at the 
beginning, if the Senate is intended to be shut out of doing its 
constitutional responsibility of advising as well as consenting in 
making a treaty, then count me out.
  If you want to really kill this treaty, abide by the Berlin Mandate 
and let the developing countries off the hook until some future time. 
That is what will surely kill the treaty, and I will join in stabbing 
it in the heart, if that is the case. If that treaty comes back here 
and the developing countries are left off the hook, count me in on the 
assassination of the treaty. It will be done in public view. It won't 
be behind a bush.
  Mr. President, the Senator raised an important point. The Europeans 
have erected what they call a bubble, which is simply a mechanism for 
them to trade off emissions levels from one country to another so long 
as they honor overall an average which conforms to the treaty-imposed 
cap on developed country emissions. This is viewed by some, including 
me, as a technique to maximize the economic competitiveness of European 
countries by keeping emissions reductions to a minimum as a result of 
the trades that would be available under the bubble from one country to 
another within the European Union.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, let me just also say to the Senator that I 
agree completely with his notion, as I said earlier, of the importance 
of our advising here about the importance of other countries being part 
of the solution.
  But I ask if the Senator would agree that the United States is placed 
at a disadvantage by this concept of the European bubble, and that the 
inclusion of free-market mechanisms in a treaty--particularly emissions 
trading schemes and so-called joint implementation--could be used to 
counter that challenge.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, if the Senator would yield.
  Mr. KERRY. I yield to the Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. I believe that if the United States is going to enter into 
binding commitments to limit or reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, we 
need to remain competitive vis-a-vis the Europeans, and everybody else, 
for that matter. Therefore, an emissions trading mechanism whereby we 
can exchange our higher level emissions by buying emissions credits 
from, let us say, Russia or other nations with lower emissions, is an 
example of one potential tool that the U.S. negotiators might explore 
in the climate change negotiations.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator agree further that an 
emissions trading scheme also has the beneficial effect of easing the 
economic cost that might be incurred by U.S. industry as a result of a 
regime of binding commitments entered into at Kyoto?
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I personally 
believe that it could have such an effect. There are a number of other 
tools that are under development, and these, in my judgment, should be 
further explored for inclusion in the proposed treaty in order that our 
own economic growth not be penalized by the treaty. These tools include 
joint implementation involving partnerships among industries in the 
developed and developing countries. There are, as well, many areas 
where other U.S. programs and initiatives could be enhanced to further 
the same objectives, such as cooperative technology ventures and 
enhanced research and development of both fossil fuel development 
technologies and alternate fuel technologies. These tools and programs 
may also have an advantage in encouraging the developing world to make 
meaningful binding commitments. So they should be explored as a natural 
companion to provisions establishing binding commitments.

  The purpose would be to level the competitive playing field so that 
the United States is not placed at a disadvantage and to help insure 
that all the world's economies will share the responsibilities to 
tackle the global warming problem.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from West Virginia for 
his explanation and his views.
  I believe that the administration must pursue the development of 
these tools and initiatives and their inclusion in any binding treaty 
that is arrived at in order to reduce any negative impact of higher 
energy prices on our economy. And I believe this would certainly 
enhance the prospects of Senate approval of any treaty that is arrived 
at.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, if the distinguished Senator will again 
yield, in general, I personally agree with this overall proposition, 
although I would note the administration has not yet settled on its 
specific policies regarding the negotiations, and it leads to further 
work on developing and explaining the workings of these market 
mechanisms so that they will be more fully understood.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from West Virginia for 
those views and for entering into this colloquy with me.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the issue of the extent to which human-
induced global climate change is occurring, and the proper societal 
response

[[Page S8131]]

to this change, is one of the most difficult public policy issues 
facing us today.
  We are emitting into the atmosphere an unprecedented amount of the 
gases that we know trap heat in the Earth's atmosphere, and thus result 
in what is known as the greenhouse effect. At the same time, the 
connection between this artificial elevation of greenhouse gas levels 
and changes to the world's climate is only slowly coming into view. The 
global climate system is extremely complex, and we are still making 
major scientific discoveries about the components of that system. The 
consensus of the world's climate scientists on the human contribution 
to global climate change has recognized both these uncertainties and 
the growing evidence that there is a human fingerprint on climate 
change. The key conclusion of the most recent consensus report of the 
global change scientific community is as follows:

       Our ability to quantify the human influence on global 
     climate is currently limited because the expected signal is 
     still emerging from the noise of natural [climate] 
     variability, and because there are uncertainties in key 
     factors. These include the magnitude and patterns of long 
     term natural variability and the time-evolving pattern of 
     forcing by, and response to, changes in concentrations of 
     greenhouse gases and aerosols, and land surface changes. 
     Nevertheless, the balance of evidence suggests that there is 
     a discernible human influence on global climate.

  The current state of uncertainty should not be a cause for comfort. 
There is a substantial lag in global climate response, so even if we 
were to magically reduce our greenhouse gas emissions to zero tomorrow, 
the world's climate would still be responding, over the next few 
decades, to past emissions. It is also clear that the global climate 
system is not a well-behaved linear system, like traveling on a 
straight road over a gentle predictable hill. It is more like a wild 
mountainous road, full of unexpected curves and cliffs. In such a 
situation, ignorance of what might lie ahead is not bliss, and it is 
prudent to slow down until you have a better appreciation of what you 
are dealing with.
  For this reason, we are engaged in international negotiations to 
discuss how the world might arrive at a joint international plan for 
slowing down the emissions of the principal greenhouse gas, carbon 
dioxide, into the atmosphere. Because of the central role that burning 
carbon plays in our energy, transportation, and economic systems, it is 
important that such discussions focus on sophisticated, as opposed to 
simple-minded, approaches to the problem.
  I believe that the Clinton administration deserves credit for having 
put forth, in the current negotiation, what is easily the most complete 
and sophisticated proposal of any that has been advanced to date.

  The administration's proposal rejects the command-and-control 
approaches put forward by many of the other parties.
  The administration's proposal, instead, relies on market-based 
mechanisms for controlling the rate of future emissions of greenhouse 
gases, extending our successful experience to date in this country with 
such mechanisms for controlling emissions of sulfur dioxide.
  The administration's proposal allows for maximum flexibility on the 
part of each participating country in designing and implementing 
greenhouses gas control measures that make economic sense for that 
country.
  The administration's proposal encourages the development and use of 
advanced technologies.
  These approaches--market-based mechanisms, individual flexibility, 
and more reliance on advanced technologies in place of command and 
control--are precisely the approaches that so many of my colleagues 
said should be at the basis of all regulatory policy, during 
consideration of the Dole-Johnston regulatory reform bill in the last 
Congress. It is commendable that the administration has made these 
approaches the foundation for its negotiating position.
  The central issue for us today is the role that the United States and 
other developed countries will play in any effort to control greenhouse 
gas emissions, compared to the role that developing countries will 
play. Here, too, the administration has shown considerable 
sophistication, compared to other parties in the negotiations. All 
developing countries are not alike--there is a world of difference 
between South Korea and Gambia, despite the fact that both are non-
annex-I countries. The world should expect more from South Korea, which 
aspires to join the OECD in the near future, than it should from 
Gambia. But there should also be a minimum level of expectations 
mandated by the upcoming agreement, even for countries like Gambia.
  I believe that a careful examination of the proposal put forward by 
the administration shows that it is trying to make these principles 
part of the protocol. We should go on record, in this resolution, in 
support of such principles. But we need to do so in a careful and 
sophisticated way, befitting the complexities of the problem of human-
induced global climate change, and the international policy response to 
it.
  I did not cosponsor the resolution that is now before us because of 
my concerns about how it expressed the relationship between what the 
United States should do and what the developing countries should do. It 
used the words ``new commitments'' for both developed and developing 
countries in a way that suggested to me, at least, that the intent of 
the resolution was that the United States should not agree to any 
commitment that was not also going to be agreed to and implemented 
simultaneously by the world's poorest countries. That would seem to be 
a rather simplistic approach. We shouldn't ignore legitimate 
differences between countries at vastly different stages of 
development.
  I was greatly encouraged by the remarks on this issue made by the 
sponsor of this resolution, the senior Senator from West Virginia, when 
he testified before the Committee on Foreign Relations. At that time, 
he stated that countries at different levels of development should make 
unique and binding commitments of a pace and kind consistent with their 
industrialization, and that the schedule for these commitments should 
be aggressive and effective, but also consistent with a fair sharing of 
any burden. These are principles that I support, and the senior Senator 
from West Virginia and I have entered into a colloquy that seeks to 
establish that the explanation of the resolution on this point that he 
provided in his testimony is, in fact, the normative one for the 
administration to heed, once we pass the resolution. With this 
clarification, I believe that I can support the resolution now before 
us, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  I would like to engage in a colloquy with the senior Senator from 
West Virginia regarding the correct interpretation of the language of 
the resolution on one particular point of importance. The resolution 
refers to ``new commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions 
for the Annex I Parties'' as well as to ``new specified scheduled 
commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for Developing 
Country Parties.'' Would it be correct to interpret the use of the 
words ``new commitments'' in both phrases as suggesting that the United 
States should not be a signatory to any protocol unless Annex I Parties 
and Developing Country Parties agree to identical commitments?
  Mr. BYRD. That would not be a correct interpretation of the 
resolution. In my testimony before the Committee on Foreign Relations 
on June 19, I made the following statement and deliberately repeated it 
for emphasis: ``Finally, while countries have different levels of 
development, each must make unique and binding commitments of a pace 
and kind consistent with their industrialization.'' I believe that the 
developing world must agree in Kyoto to binding targets and commitments 
that would begin at the same time as the developed world in as 
aggressive and effective a schedule as possible given the gravity of 
the problem and the need for a fair sharing of the burden. That is what 
the resolution means. The resolution should not be interpreted as a 
call for identical commitments between Annex I Parties and Developing 
Country Parties.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the Senator. I agree with him that a fair 
sharing of responsibility for actions to address global climate change 
is crucial to any agreement, and that such commitments should reflect 
the pace and type of industrialization that those countries have 
achieved.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from 
Rhode Island.

[[Page S8132]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, earlier this week I met with Senator Byrd 
to discuss S. Res. 98, which, of course, deals with climate change. In 
this measure, the Senator has identified one of the more important 
features required to address this global problem, namely, global 
participation.
  Gradually, many have come to the conclusion that man is indeed 
contributing to changes in the global climate. Human activities--
particularly the burning of fossil fuels--have increased atmospheric 
concentrations of carbon dioxide and other trace greenhouse gases. 
These gases, combined with the natural levels of CO2 and 
water vapor, act like panes of a greenhouse and retain the Sun's heat 
around the earth.
  The burning of fossil fuels has continued to grow, at least in ever 
greater amounts of CO2. Global carbon emissions from fossil 
fuels reached a record of just over 6 billion tons in 1995.
  The Earth's climate has remained stable for the past 10,000 years. 
But, as Ambassador Paul Nitze said in the Washington Post earlier this 
month, ``Global warming threatens the stability that fostered modern 
civilization.''
  What is being done about this threat? Of the 35 industrial countries 
that committed themselves under the 1992 Framework Convention on 
Climate Change in Rio, they agreed there to hold their greenhouse gas 
emissions to 1990 levels in the year 2000. In other words, by the year 
2000 we would get the levels down to what they were in 1990.
  But, regrettably, Mr. President, only a handful of the countries are 
expected to meet that target. The United States will miss its target by 
an estimated 13 percent. In some developing countries, emissions are on 
a course to nearly double between 1990 and 2000.
  The failure by many industrialized countries to meet these voluntary 
aims is what is leading us to this debate today. This debate is over 
the imposition of legally binding greenhouse gas emissions reductions. 
In other words, should we enter something that is binding?
  Because of the link between greenhouse gases and activities 
fundamental to industrialized and developing economies, many 
anticipate, or at least fear, that the costs of limiting their 
emissions will be high.
  Unlike most other ambient air and water pollution problems, there is 
no pollution control technology for CO2. In many of the 
emissions problems we have dealt with in the past, technology can 
reduce the amount of emissions. But we don't have that for 
CO2. You either make CO2 or you don't.
  Some have argued that the United States and, indeed the entire world, 
should wait to address the looming threat of climate change. In other 
words, don't do anything. Let's wait awhile. The scientists are divided 
on this. How much has the temperature gone up? Has it indeed risen in 
the last 100 years by 1 degree Fahrenheit? There are arguments over 
that. ``Time is on our side,'' some say, believing that if we simply 
wait long enough, new and inexpensive technologies will come along to 
make this solution painless.
  But the citizens of my State, for example, have concerns. We are a 
sea-bordering State. There are possibilities of rises in the sea level 
which would affect us dramatically. Indeed, they would affect all but 
one major city in our country because all but one major city in our 
country occupies tidal shorelines. I know that if the Atlantic Ocean 
begins to warm and expands as it warms, rising sea levels will be with 
us for centuries.
  I am also concerned about the economic consequences of actions to 
address global warming. Senator Byrd has addressed these, and I salute 
him for that. He is concerned about the issue of U.S. competitiveness 
in relation to developing countries. And I join with him in urging our 
negotiators to recognize that we are serious about the concerns Senator 
Byrd is expressing.
  The position taken by the European Union is a major concern. As 
representatives of the Global Climate Coalition indicated to the 
Foreign Relations Committee last month, the prospect of European Union 
bubble, which was just addressed here, with no ability for the United 
States to address similar alliances with other nations, would permit 
the European Union to steal a competitive march on the United States.
  This concerns me. In trade terms, our bilateral trade with the 
European Union, of course, is mammoth certainly when compared to the 
trade that we have with China. Last year we had $128 billion in exports 
to the European Union, more than 10 times of that going to China.
  I believe our negotiators in Kyoto would fail us if they did not 
bring home an agreement with developing country commitments as 
described in the resolution and with the market-based tools of joint 
implementation emissions trading and emissions banking.
  I want to say that many countries in the U.S. are already taking 
steps to address these problems. Farsighted companies like Tucson 
Electric are going ahead with a pilot joint implementation project in 
cooperation with the city of Sava in Honduras to display diesel-fired 
power generation with biomass fuels. Companies like American Electric 
Power, which is the largest electric utility in West Virginia, and 
British Petroleum are getting together with the Nature Conservancy and 
the Government of Bolivia to offset some of American Electric Power's 
coal-fired plant emissions by expanding parks and sustainable forests 
in Bolivia.

  The Southern Co. has joined forces with State forestry commissions in 
planting 20 million trees in Georgia, Alabama, and the Florida 
Panhandle. These projects boost environmental protection while lowering 
costs. But on their own, the voluntary projects will not be sufficient 
to address the potential problem. We need legally binding measures to 
spur technological innovation that will be needed to solve the 
greenhouse problem.
  The resolution makes clear that an exemption for developing countries 
would be inconsistent with the need for global action.
  In light of the seriousness of the issue, Mr. President, I welcome 
the concern that Senator Byrd and others have shown for the twin goals 
of environmental protection and economic competitiveness.
  Mr. President, I had a brief colloquy I was going to enter into with 
the distinguished Senator from West Virginia. It is as follows:
  Senate Resolution 98 includes two important conditions for U.S. 
agreements to any future treaty to limit greenhouse gases.
  Quoting directly from the text of the resolution--that is, Senator 
Byrd's resolution:

       The United States should not be a signatory to any protocol 
     to, or other agreement regarding, the U.N. Framework 
     Convention on Climate Change of 1992, at negotiations in 
     Kyoto in December 1997, or thereafter, which would--(A) 
     mandate new commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas 
     emissions from the Annex I Parties, unless the protocol or 
     other agreement also mandates new specific scheduled 
     commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for 
     Developing Country Parties within the same compliance period, 
     or (B) would result in serious harm to the economy of the 
     United States.

  Without losing my right to the floor, I wish to ask the primary 
sponsor of the resolution a couple of questions.
  I am curious as to whether the Senator from West Virginia intends for 
his resolution to speak to the scientific understanding of global 
climate change.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator yield with 
the understanding 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 introduced and developed every step along the way with concurrence 
between Mr. Hagel and myself. It just so happens that my name is at the 
beginning of what is called the Byrd-Hagel resolution. I have no 
problem if it is called the Hagel-Byrd resolution; we are both in this 
resolution. We both believe the words of the resolution, and we both 
believe that the resolution speaks for itself. And we also understand 
we may have different views as to specific questions. I respect the 
views of every Senator. So I will attempt to respond to the 
distinguished Senator from Rhode Island. I thank him for his statement 
which indicates that he is concerned, has studied the matter, and is a 
reasonable man.
  I thank Mr. Chafee for this opportunity to discuss in greater detail 
the

[[Page S8133]]

resolution that Mr. Hagel and I and others of our colleagues have 
brought to the Senate. In response to the Senator's question, I will 
repeat a portion of the testimony I delivered on June 19 of this year 
before the Committee on Foreign Relations. There I stated that the 
resolution accepts the thesis, which is still the subject of some 
dispute, that the increasing release of carbon dioxide--
CO2--and its accumulation in our atmosphere are causing a 
very gradual heating of the globe which has many adverse consequences 
for us all and I am, indeed, convinced that climate change is a looming 
threat to the global environment. That is a statement I made at that 
time.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I appreciate the Senator's fundamental candor on this 
point and agree with his assessment.
  With regard to specific provisions contained in the resolution, I am 
interested in what the Senator intends--and I might say Senator Hagel 
has been active in all of this. He is the chief cosponsor of the 
resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Roberts). Will the Senator suspend. The 
time allotted, the 10 minutes allotted to the Senator has expired.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Could I have 2 more minutes?
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Rhode 
Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Senator Hagel has been active in all of this, and we have 
dealt with his folks, and wherever I refer to the Byrd resolution, I 
really should have referred to the Byrd-Hagel resolution and will 
attempt to make that change in the transcript.
  With regard to specific provisions contained in the resolution, I am 
interested in what the Senators intend on page 4, lines 9 through 11 by 
the phrase ``new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce 
greenhouse gas emissions for developing country parties.''
  Is it the Senators' intentions that the developing country parties, 
irrespective of the national incomes and greenhouse gas emission rates, 
be mandated to the very same commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse 
gas emissions for the annex 1 parties?
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, no, that is not 
my intention. That is not what the resolution says. I have stated 
previously that under this resolution the developing world must fully 
participate in the treaty negotiations and commitments and must play a 
meaningful role in effectively addressing the problem of global climate 
change. Such participation by the developing country parties could, in 
my judgment, come in a number of forms. As I stated before the Foreign 
Relations Committee, while individual countries have different levels 
of development, the resolution holds that each country must make unique 
and binding contributions of a pace and kind consistent with their 
industrialization. The developing world must agree in Kyoto to adopt 
some manner of binding targets and commitments which would begin during 
the same compliance period as the----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would observe the 2 minutes allotted 
to the Senator from Rhode Island have expired.
  Mr. KERRY. I yield an additional minute to the Senator.
  Mr. BYRD. The developing world must agree in Kyoto to adopt some 
manner of binding targets and commitments that would begin during the 
same compliance period as the developed world in as aggressive and 
effective a schedule as possible, given the gravity of the problem and 
the need for a fair sharing of the burden.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Because greenhouse gas emissions from the developing 
world will, on a cumulative basis, exceed those of the developed world 
sometime during the first quarter of the next century, the Senator's 
position appears quite sound on both environmental and economic 
grounds, and I thank the Senator very much.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the 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 Senator from Nebraska is recognized.
  Mr. HAGEL. I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Oklahoma, Senator 
Inhofe.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
recognized for up to 15 minutes as if in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, reserving the 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. Objection is heard.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, as chairman of the Clean Air Subcommittee, 
we have had about 40 hours of hearings on this subject, on global 
warming as well as ambient air quality standard changes that have been 
proposed by this administration. I think it is unrealistic to try to 
condense that into 2 minutes. There is not any way it can be done.
  I will just say, Mr. President, that as 1 of the 66 cosponsors of 
this resolution, I support it, although I would say also it doesn't go 
far enough. And I would also say that regardless of what happens--this 
is going to pass, but regardless of that, I am still going to oppose 
the ratification of this treaty. I am going to do so for two reasons. 
First, is that the science is not there. This is analogous to the 
proposal by the administration to lower the ambient air standards in 
both particulate matter and in ozone, unrealistically costing the 
American people billions and billions of dollars a year without any 
science to back it up.
  Mr. President, I am going to read real quickly and enter the entire 
statement in the Record, but before my committee, Dr. John Christy of 
the Department of Atmospheric Science and Earth System Science 
Laboratory, University of Alabama, Huntsville, said--I don't think 
there is anyone who is considered to be a greater authority than he 
is--

       The satellite data show that catastrophic warming is not 
     now occurring. The detection of human effects on climate has 
     not been convincingly proven because the variations we have 
     observed are not outside of the natural variations of the 
     climate system.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. INHOFE. Could I have 1 more minute?
  Mr. HAGEL. I yield 1 minute to the Senator.
  Mr. INHOFE. The second reason is the administration has not been 
honest on this, as well as the ambient air, when they come along and 
they say, as Mary Nichols, Deputy Secretary, said yesterday, that the 
cost to the American people for the changes in the ambient air would be 
$9.1 billion when the President's own Council of Economic Advisers puts 
the price tag at something over $60 billion and the Reason Foundation 
out in California has it somewhere between $90 and $150 billion.
  So anyway, Mr. President, it is not realistic to do this. I would 
also observe I can't imagine that anyone who would be opposed to the 
ratification of this treaty wouldn't also be opposed to the changes in 
the ambient air standards. We will be introducing legislation next 
week. It will be bipartisan. Senator Breaux and I will be introducing 
legislation to reject these changes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time?
  Mr. HAGEL. I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Wyoming, Senator 
Enzi.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
  Mr. ENZI. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I rise today in support of the resolution offered by 
the senior Senator from West Virginia and the junior Senator from 
Nebraska, of which I am a cosponsor, and which concerns the issue of 
global warming in general and the impending related treaty 
specifically.
  Mr. President, many of us are not surprised by the content of this 
proposed treaty. We saw the 1992 Framework Convention on Global Climate 
Change for what it was: The nose of the camel. And now, 5 years later 
and just as expected, we find ourselves face to face with the whole 
critter. He's in the tent, he's huge, and he's very frightening.
  The agreement signed in Brazil 5 years ago was voluntary. It called 
for the economically developed nations to undertake voluntary actions 
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to their 1990

[[Page S8134]]

levels by the year 2000. Now the administration wants a legally binding 
agreement that will require a handful of developed countries to reach 
1990 levels of fossil fuels emissions by the year 2010. But here is the 
amazing part, Mr. President: Though the United States and several other 
developed countries will be subject to the new enforcement regime, the 
rest of the world will not. Utterly amazing. Where in the world did 
this administration learn to negotiate? I see a lot of give, but I am 
still looking for the take.
  So we really believe we can place shackles on our economy, leave the 
economies of our trade competitors unaffected, and not lose countless 
jobs and industries overseas? It has been all we can do to stop the 
loss of jobs overseas under the best conditions. Every developing 
nation has cheaper labor costs than we do. Every developing nation has 
fewer environmental regulations than we do. Every developing nation has 
fewer worker protection expenses than we do. These nations are 
understandably concerned, first and foremost, with elevating the living 
conditions of their own people. Their leaders would be derelict if they 
weren't. Does anyone seriously believe they will not take advantage of 
the new regime at the expense of our workers? Is a little fairness too 
much to ask? Does the administration find the concept of simple equity 
so unreasonable?
  The AFL-CIO is apoplectic at the prospect of this ill-advised treaty, 
and with good reason. They understand how many American jobs it will 
kill. As a representative from the largest coal producing State in the 
Nation, I know only too well just what it means for the people of my 
State. This resolution simply calls for all nations to share the burden 
in the effort to avoid an environmental problem, which, I might add, is 
supported by a scientific consensus that is generously referred to as 
unsettled.
  This resolution, if adopted, would be a treaty enhancer, not a treaty 
killer. For this reason, if no other, the administration should embrace 
it. In its current form the treaty will most certainly not survive this 
body. We want a good treaty. We are not opposed to a global 
antipollution effort. But we want a fair treaty. You just cannot have 
the former without the latter. We need to bring developing countries on 
board in a responsible fashion. And if the Byrd-Hagel resolution is not 
adopted the administration will have missed a 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 Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. I thank the Chair.
  I would like to begin today by thanking the Senator from West 
Virginia for his leadership on this issue as well as the Senator from 
Nebraska. Citizens in my State are extraordinarily concerned about the 
potential treaty that has been in the media very much lately.
  The people of Michigan care greatly about their environment and the 
ramifications of various emissions that are released into it. At the 
same time, I believe people of Michigan want agreements negotiated 
overseas and adopted in Washington to be based upon sound science and 
hard facts.
  They also want those agreements to be ones that require all nations 
to work toward a common objective rather than singling out developed 
nations for all the pain while allowing developing nations to gain 
competitive advantages by continuing practices that might contribute to 
an international problem.
  Mr. President, the people of Michigan are proud of their State, its 
natural resources, and the industry with which they have made 
Michigan's economy among the best in the Nation. They want to keep 
their jobs, to raise their families, and see their children grow and 
enjoy the opportunities our State provides.
  By all accounts, Mr. President, Michigan would suffer 
disproportionately should a treaty go into effect that does not fairly 
bind all countries. Whether it is the business community, the 
agriculture community or organized labor, I have heard concerns from 
them all, Mr. President.
  Therefore, I commend the Senators who have introduced this 
resolution. I am happy to be a cosponsor. I look forward to supporting 
it and seeing it passed today so that we might, as a country, work in a 
constructive way toward resolving these issues while avoiding a path 
that is detrimental to America 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 Senator from Alaska is recognized.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Byrd-
Hagel resolution expressing the sense of the Senate on international 
agreements covering greenhouse gas emissions.
  I wish to thank and commend my colleagues, Senator Byrd and Senator 
Hagel, for their efforts in forging this bipartisan, common sense 
resolution. I was proud to join them as an original cosponsor.
  The Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which I chair, has had 
significant interest and long involvement in the issue of greenhouse 
gas emissions and climate change because any attempt to address carbon 
emissions fundamentally affects energy investment, use, and policy.
  Our committee has held a variety of hearings, seminars, and briefings 
on this subject for the benefit of members, staff, and the public.
  Moreover, we have remained closely attuned to the negotiations toward 
a new climate treaty through close and regular contact with the 
principal State Department and Department of Energy officials.
  My predecessor as chairman, Senator Bennett Johnston, also had a keen 
interest in this subject, and made it a centerpiece of the committee's 
oversight responsibilities.
  So this is not a new issue to us.
  Having said that, I believe Senators Byrd and Hagel have done a 
superb job with this resolution expressing the Senate's aspirations and 
concerns with respect to any eventual climate treaty.
  This resolution will strengthen the hand of our negotiators during 
upcoming meetings in August, October, and December.
  Although this is not a binding resolution, it conveys the legitimate 
concerns of the Senate to other parties in the negotiations.
  Our negotiators can use this resolution to inform other nations of 
the elements that must be contained in any new climate treaty that can 
be ratified by this body.
  Turning now to the substance of the resolution, I have a letter from 
President Clinton, dated August 21, 1996, that contains a statement I 
very much agree with. And I quote:

       Establishing a sound framework is a critical first step in 
     the negotiating process. We are already conducting additional 
     analyses and technical assessments . . . our ultimate 
     position will fully reflect economic considerations and our 
     commitment to the principle that environmental protection and 
     economic prosperity go hand-in-hand.

  The President is right. Economic considerations are important. We 
must not proceed down a path that will bring adverse economic 
consequences, competitive disadvantages, and energy price increases.
  The importance of economic considerations, as expressed by the 
President in his letter, are very much in line with this resolution.
  This resolution simply says that any new climate treaty must not 
result in serious economic harm to the United States.
  The Byrd-Hagel resolution also states that any new climate treaty 
must be global in its approach:
  New commitments on the part of developed countries to limit or reduce 
greenhouse gas emissions must be accompanied by new commitments on the 
part of developing countries to do the same.
  The issue of developing countries and their participation is 
critically important:
  According to the Energy Information Administration, an arm of the 
Department of Energy, carbon emissions from China will exceed ours by 
the year 2015. Their greenhouse gas emissions are expected to grow 185 
percent above 1990 levels.
  Emissions from developing nations as a whole will also exceed those 
from industrialized nations by 2015.

[[Page S8135]]

  Clearly, this is a global issue that requires a global approach. If 
further science confirms the fact that carbon emission do indeed have 
dangerous implications for the climate, then all nations must take 
meaningful steps.
  The industrial nations simply do not have it in their power to do it 
alone, even if they wanted to.
  But here is some good news: We have time to approach this issue in a 
careful, deliberative manner.
  We gain nothing by getting ahead of the science. Indeed, we risk a 
great deal by moving too quickly:
  According to economic analysis by the Stanford Energy Modeling Forum, 
an orderly, long-term strategy of achieving a scientifically-justified 
carbon emission reduction costs just one-fifth what it would cost to 
achieve the same reduction over the near-term.
  In other words, you can get the same result 80 percent cheaper by 
taking a long-term view, and allowing capital equipment to be retired 
in an orderly fashion as new energy efficient technologies come on 
line.
  Mr. President, there is simply no need to compel working American 
families to pay five times as much as they need to for the same 
eventual outcome.
  Clearly, there is not a need for extreme actions such as carbon 
taxes, strict command and control regulations, and one-sided treaties 
that will impose economic harm.
  Let's take the time to do the job right and enjoy tremendous economic 
savings.
  Turning to the broader issue of climate change and climate science, 
let me say we should all be concerned about increasing concentrations 
of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere.
  It is an indisputable scientific fact that concentrations of 
greenhouse gasses are on the rise.
  Yet significant scientific uncertainties remain.
  Some scientists believe that higher carbon dioxide concentrations 
will bring only moderate change, warmer winters, reduced energy 
demands, and longer growing seasons.
  Virtually every climate scientist will tell you that the warming 
signal suggested by some data sets are all within the bounds of natural 
variability, and that climate change is the rule rather than the 
exception. Throughout the planet's history, the climate has changed.
  I will confess to my own personal fascination with the Greenland ice 
core records that I first became familiar with when the University of 
Alaska removed an ice core record spanning the entire depth of the 
Greenland ice cap.
  These ice cores are high-resolution records of climate which can be 
analyzed like the rings of a tree--only these records go back 100,000 
years or more.
  The Greenland ice core record tells us that the earth's climate has 
always changed and shifted, often dramatically and over surprisingly 
short periods of time.
  Thus, the investments we've made in the U.S. Global Climate Change 
Research Program, approaching $2 billion per year and more, are 
expensive but worthwhile. Because there is much more scientific work to 
do.
  The common refrain that I hear from climate scientists, virtually 
without exception, is this:
  The climate system is remarkably complex, and exceedingly difficult 
to model.
  Meanwhile, our current climate models are comparatively crude.
  We lack sufficient data for model inputs, particularly information 
about the effects of clouds and water vapor.
  And finally, as we have learned more and refined our computer models, 
estimates of future warming have fallen, not risen.
  Clearly, the science is uncertain, and the scientific debate is not 
over. Nor should it be.
  And that brings me to what I see as a troubling trend:
  Some who have argued for immediate and urgent action to sharply 
reduce greenhouse gas emissions have claimed that the science arguing 
for quick action is unassailable, and that the scientists who express 
doubts are somehow extreme or out of the mainstream.
  Frankly, talk such as that makes me cringe, because the scientific 
method itself is based on challenge and peer review.
  Contrarians should not be shouted down for the sake of political 
correctness.
  Whenever scientists are called out of the mainstream or extreme by a 
political leader or a journalist, you can bet that an attempted 
subversion of the scientific method is at hand.
  We should condemn any subversion of the scientific method whenever we 
see it occur in the climate debate. Too much is at stake.
  Continued investment in science will only enhance our understanding. 
We have invested billions in a climate change research program that is 
only now beginning to yield significant results.
  We should not stake our economic future on partial information.
  Since extreme, unilateral actions are unwarranted at this point, we 
have time to encourage developing nations such as China to participate 
in meaningful commitments.
  The resolution before us states that new commitments on the part of 
developed countries to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions must be 
accompanied by new commitments on the part of developing countries to 
do the same.
  I believe the Senate would have difficulty ratifying any new climate 
treaty that imposed legally binding greenhouse gas reduction targets 
and timetables, which are essentially energy quotas, only on the most 
developed nations.
  Such an approach would be unfair, economically devastating, and 
ineffective.
  To repeat: New energy quotas, imposed only on one set of nations, 
would be unfair, economically devastating, and ineffective. Let me 
explain:
  One-sided energy quotas would be unfair:
  They would allow some nations to gain tremendous competitive 
advantages over others by encouraging the movement of jobs, 
manufacturing and capital from nations that are subject to the energy 
quotas, to nations that are not.
  One-sided energy quotas would be economically devastating:
  They would require carbon taxes or regulation that would cost jobs, 
harm our economy, and diminish our standard of living.
  One-sided energy quotas would be ineffective:
  Because manufacturing, capital, jobs, and even emissions would move 
from nations that are subject to the energy quotas, to nations that are 
not, emissions would not diminish, they might even increase.
  Moreover, because the total greenhouse gas emissions from developing 
nations will soon exceed those from developed nations, exempting 
developing nations wouldn't do anything to improve the problem. 
Greenhouse gases would still increase. We would suffer economic pain 
without environmental gain.
  What I am saying here today has been confirmed by some of the 
administration's own economic analysis. A new study produced by the 
Department of Energy's Argonne National Laboratory contains some 
surprising and compelling findings. Let me cite some of them:
  Increased energy and fuel prices in industrial nations resulting from 
a new climate treaty that does not contain meaningful commitments for 
developing nations such as India, China and South Korea would encourage 
a reallocation of investments away from industrial countries towards 
the developing countries. To the extent this occurs, emissions would 
simply be redistributed and could even increase.
  Some 20 to 30 percent of the energy intensive basic chemical industry 
could move to developing countries over 15 to 30 years, with 200,000 
jobs lost.
  U.S. steel production could fall 30 percent with accompanying job 
losses of 100,000.
  All primary aluminum plants in the United States could close by 2010.
  Many petroleum refiners in the Northeast and Gulf Coast could close, 
and imports would displace more domestic production.
  Mr. President, these are serious economic impacts, and I believe we 
can all agree that this is precisely what we must avoid.
  That's what this resolution is about, and that's why I feel it should 
pass with a broad, bipartisan margin.

[[Page S8136]]

  Some will argue that we cannot be successful in efforts bring 
developing nations along in the negotiations in time for the December 
1997 meeting in Kyoto, Japan.
  But I believe we should try. And if we cannot achieve a new treaty 
that includes developing nations in this timeframe, then perhaps Kyoto 
can at least produce a roadmap leading to meaningful commitments by all 
nations.
  Mr. President, there is no need for a headlong rush toward rash 
policies.
  The carbon problem didn't appear overnight. It won't be addressed 
overnight. We have time to devise and consider balanced approaches that 
can work.
  Time will allow new energy and efficiency technologies to mature.
  Time will provide for global solutions that include the developing 
nations.
  Time will allow us to sharpen our science and better understand the 
true threat of climate change, if it is indeed a dangerous threat.
  Yes, the climate issue is a serious one. But it's not a reason to 
panic.
  This resolution helps our negotiators. It sends an important message 
that this is a global problem that requires the attention and 
participation of all nations.
  I urge the Senate's adoption of the resolution, and I again commend 
Senators Byrd and Hagel for their leadership and tireless efforts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. As chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, I am 
vitally interested in this area because it is our responsibility. I 
thank my friends, the managers of the bill, and my good friend, Senator 
Byrd.
  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time to the 
Senator from Idaho.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for yielding, and let 
me thank Senator Hagel and Senator Byrd for bringing this resolution to 
the floor in a timely manner. I know several of my colleagues wish they 
could have spent a longer period of time this morning debating the 
issue, and I can't blame them. Let me suggest to them that this is only 
the beginning of a long and very important debate for our country to 
become involved in. It also was very important, though, that the Senate 
of the United States, the ratifying body of our Government and our 
country, speak out clearly and boldly before the ad hoc climate change 
negotiating group convenes next Wednesday in Bonn, and carries their 
meetings through August 8. The reason it is important that the Senate 
speak out is because we do not believe the sky is falling. We are not 
sure if the sky is cracked, and if it is, maybe we need to build a 
superstructure to hold it up. But this country cannot commit itself to 
this kind of binding agreement unless the science is clearer and the 
understanding of the American people is fairly reached when it comes to 
this issue.
  Let me speak for a few moments about my frustration that our 
President has decided to use his bully pulpit, in my opinion, to 
terrorize the American people into supporting the administration's 
quest for commitments for energy use reduction that are legally binding 
on the United States. The President has been quite frank about building 
a propaganda campaign about calamities of future global warming, 
beginning with yesterday's White House meeting on climate change. The 
President has indicated his propaganda drive will culminate in a White 
House conference on global warming in October. The conference is not 
likely to be a thoughtful roundtable. It may now be more thoughtful, 
because I think the administration has finally recognized that the 
Senate in fact will become engaged and must become engaged.
  Why did I use the words I just used? Here is the reason. Here is the 
plan that our administration is now supporting: That they would cause 
us to enter into a binding agreement that the United States would be 
responsible for 48 percent of the world's obligation to reduce energy 
use. We said a long time ago that any climate change agreement that 
affects the United States should not be binding, but voluntary on the 
world. Is the administration's plan a dramatic departure from where we 
were? Here is where it is. It is dramatic because when we arrive at the 
year 2010, to achieve our 1990 levels, the United States will be 
contributing about 20 percent of the world's emissions, while the rest 
of the world will be contributing 80 percent. Yet China and India and 
other Asian nations and developing countries, by this administration's 
negotiations, would be exempt. That is why it is time we come to the 
floor to speak about this.
  Senate Resolution 98, under the authorship of Senator Byrd and 
Senator Hagel, says just that, that we cannot become involved unless we 
are all involved and that we should not become involved unless the 
science is sure, or so sure that we will commit this country and the 
rest of the world into a course that could bind us and reshape our 
economies and clearly design a different destiny for the American 
people than one that we might otherwise choose.
  The President and the Vice President stand next to flooded homes in 
the Dakotas and suggest that this unfortunate event is a product of 
global warming. That is not fair, because the science doesn't prove it. 
So when I use the word ``terrorize,'' or I use the word ``propaganda,'' 
it is not by chance that I use those words. The science simply doesn't 
support the claims being made by this administration, it is important 
to understand that. Last year, in the Leipzig Declaration, 100 
scientists from around the world, climate scientists--not politicians, 
but scientists--expressed their doubts about the validity of computer-
driven warming forecasts. Why? You heard the Senator from Oklahoma just 
now say the reason is the science isn't bearing it up. People who 
watch our satellites say that our satellites tell us we are getting 
cooler. Yet people who watch our ground temperatures suggest we might 
be getting warmer. Instead of sponsoring a fair debate, the 
administration is only using part of the available science, while 
denegrating the other side.

  What is so important for this country to understand, what is more 
important for the parliamentarians of the world to understand, is that 
the President does not necessarily speak for this Senate. But what is 
critically important is that this Senate will speak for itself. And it 
is, without question, the responsibility of the Senate of the United 
States to approve treaties. What we do not want to happen is the 
lifting of the level of expectation projected by the rhetoric and the 
selective science by an administration that would bring us into 
negotiations to produce a treaty in Kyoto in December that simply would 
not speak to the realities or the responsibilities that we ought to be 
engaged in.
  The administration must realize that a strong American economy is 
essential to our Nation if we are going to spend upwards of $2 billion 
a year on climate change research, if we are going to adapt to changing 
climate, if needed, and if we are going to adjust our economy and our 
economic base for those purposes.
  So, I am pleased to endorse, and I hope Senators will join with me in 
a strong endorsement, of Senate Resolution 98. It is important that we 
speak now. I view, as others do, that this is a preliminary statement 
in what will be a long and complex debate for all of us to become 
involved in, because I don't know where our science will lead us. But 
if it, in fact, can show us the way and clearly demonstrate that there 
is a climate change responsibility for this Nation, then all the rest 
of the nations in the world must participate. We cannot shoulder 48 
percent of the burden for the rest of the world.
  Mr. President, let me close with this last chart. If you were to turn 
the United States into a forest with no emissions whatsoever, by the 
year 2100 here is the problem with the rest of the world. The problem 
is that we want to be at 1990 levels by 2010. If you take the United 
States out of the equation, the total concentration of greenhouse gases 
hardly changes. Yet this administration, at least by their rhetoric of 
the last several months, would take China out of it, the other 
developing world nations out, and leave us to bear the burden. That is 
why S. Res. 98 is so critical for us today, for the world tomorrow, as 
we march toward Kyoto in December.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. Who seeks 
time?

[[Page S8137]]

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I yield myself a couple of minutes before 
yielding to the Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. President, we have heard a couple of Senators refer to the fact 
that the science somehow, because of satellite observations, does not 
indicate the kind of warming that others are arguing is taking effect. 
This is an example of how an individual scientific fact is used to 
distort the record here for one purpose or another. We will have time 
later to discuss all of those purposes. But the argument is made that, 
although thermometers located at the Earth's surface show an increase 
in temperature today higher than it has been for 130 years, people say 
the satellite measurements, which are thousands of feet above the 
surface, show a cooling since 1979.
  That is true. That is the only part of this that is true. There is 
nothing in that fact that discredits the theory, the thesis, which has 
been accepted by scientists, with respect to the warming. Let me point 
out why. Thermometers in satellites and thermometers on the ground 
obviously measure temperatures at two very different places in the 
atmosphere, and it is not surprising, according to most scientists who 
interpret this, that there is a difference. At higher altitudes, 
temperatures fluctuate far more than they do at the surface due to 
natural climate influences like sunlight reflecting particles from 
volcanoes and other variabilities. What scientists called variability, 
or noise in the satellite record, obscures the warming trend due to the 
buildup of greenhouse gases that is apparent in the global surface 
temperature.

  Furthermore, the depletion of the ozone layer, which has occurred 
mostly since 1979, has had a cooling effect on the atmosphere which is 
more marked at higher levels than it is at surface levels. The Earth's 
surface has warmed over the northern and the southern hemispheres, 
which totally negates the notion of any kind of heat effect from urban 
centers or otherwise.
  There will be later times to discuss the science. But it is important 
to note that on June 22, 1997, the New York Times in an editorial said 
that the reason we had voluntary agreements out of Rio was science was 
somewhat murky. But in 1995, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on 
Climate Change, consisting of 2,500 scientists, concluded that there 
was a serious impact they could discern, and the science became 
certain.
  So I think as time goes on Americans will come to understand that.
  I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Oregon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is recognized.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I commend particularly Senator Byrd and 
Senator Kerry for their leadership in this area and say I come to the 
floor as a U.S. Senator from a State that is the first State in the 
country to put mandatory limits on carbon dioxide, the primary manmade 
source of global warming. We have shown in our home State that it is 
possible to have a thriving, prosperous economy and take steps to limit 
these environmental problems that our colleagues have talked about.
  The fact is, our country can help play a leadership role in 
controlling global warming without causing an economic meltdown. There 
are, really, three approaches that the State of Oregon has used, as the 
first State in the country to have mandatory controls on carbon dioxide 
emissions.
  First, as Senators Byrd and Kerry have talked about, we give great 
emphasis on market mechanisms. We are not talking about a big 
government approach. We are talking about using the market.
  Second, we have taken steps to build these new approaches into new 
powerplant design. It is prospective, so that all those who are 
constructing our new powerplants understand the rules.
  Third, we have given special rewards, credits, for innovative 
approaches such as proper management of our forests.
  I conclude by saying that properly managed forests can be very 
effective in helping to capture greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide, and 
removing them from the air. Our Northwest forests are some of the very 
best carbon sinks in the world. The older forests are estimated to be 
two to three times as effective in capturing carbon dioxide emissions 
as new growth.
  I have heard several of my colleagues talk about some of the 
alternatives. Carbon taxes----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Oregon has 
expired.
  Mr. WYDEN. I ask unanimous consent for 30 additional seconds?
  Mr. KERRY. How much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There remain 7 minutes 35 seconds.
  Mr. KERRY. I yield the Senator an additional minute.
  Mr. WYDEN. My last point is we know, for example, that properly 
managed forests are a cost-effective alternative to end-of-pipe 
emission controls or carbon taxes. There are alternatives out there. My 
home State has shown they can work, and I thank Senator Kerry for the 
extra time.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would like to just read that New York 
Times editorial and ask unanimous consent it be printed in the Record, 
and I yield myself such time as I use.
  With respect to the science it says:

       One reason why the industrial nations opted for voluntary 
     targets in Rio was that mainstream scientists simply couldn't 
     agree whether manmade emissions have contributed to the small 
     rise in global temperatures that began in the late 19th 
     century. In 1995, however, the U.N. intergovernmental panel 
     on climate change consisting of about 2,500 scientists 
     concluded that they had. The language was cautious, their 
     forecasts were gloomy. Unless the current rates of combustion 
     of carbon-based fuels, coal, gas, oil, could be reduced, they 
     warned, temperatures would rise between 1.8 and 6.3 degrees 
     Fahrenheit over the next century. Temperature changes in the 
     middle level of that scale could cause a 20-inch rise in sea 
     levels that would flood coastal lowlands and tropical 
     islands, an increase in weather extremes and global damage to 
     forests and croplands. Despite challenges from businesses 
     which have been attacking the science in tobacco industry 
     fashion, the U.N. panel has not retreated from its basic 
     findings.

  So, Mr. President, we are going to have a good debate in this country 
in the next months on the science, and that is appropriate; we ought to 
have it. We ought to put to the test all of the theories. We should 
demand the most exacting models. We should press for the most certitude 
that we can gain. But there is no issue today scientifically about the 
fact that there is global warming taking place, about the fact that 
there is sea-level rise occurring, and that, if it continues at the 
current trend levels, the damages could be devastating.
  We can quarrel about how much happens at what point in time, about 
what model is better at predicting the impact. I will acknowledge there 
are inherent uncertainties in that process. Clearly there are. But we 
know we are living in the midst of the most significant increase that 
we have seen in 130 years, and the evidence of the prognosis of our 
best scientists is that it is going to continue at a rate that is 
greater than anything we have known since humankind, since civilization 
has existed, civilization within the last 8,000 to 10,000 years on this 
planet. We owe it to ourselves and to common sense to try to make the 
best judgments about that.
  This resolution today, I want to emphasize, is not about the science. 
This resolution is about how our team goes to Kyoto and how we 
negotiate in the next months.
  I want to emphasize with respect to my comments about the Berlin 
mandate that there is nothing in this resolution today that I deem to 
be inconsistent with the mandate; nothing inconsistent. I do believe 
that this begins to alter appropriately how we begin to approach some 
of the negotiations in Kyoto, and I accept what the Senator from 
Nebraska has said, I accept what the Senator from West Virginia has 
said, and others. It is a matter of fairness and common sense that the 
United States should not be placed at a disadvantage and make a set of 
choices that don't bring others into the process of solving this.
  So, Mr. President, thanking the Senator from West Virginia for the 
colloquy, clearly I am not calling my amendment up.
  Mr. President, I have extra time. I will yield 2 minutes of my time 
to the Senator from West Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair observes that the Senator has 1 
minute 45 seconds remaining.
  Mr. KERRY. I yield 1 minute 45 seconds to the Senator from West 
Virginia.

[[Page S8138]]

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may have an 
additional 30 seconds over and above the time referred to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, it was John Stuart Mill who said that ``On 
all great subjects, much remains to be said.'' I think we will all be 
saying a good bit more than has been said here as the days come and go. 
We are not yet debating the treaty itself. But my distinguished friend, 
Mr. Kerry, has just said, in his judgment, there is nothing in this 
resolution that is inconsistent with the Berlin mandate.
  Mr. President, that is not my view at all. I think we only have to 
read the resolution itself--it speaks for itself--and we will find that 
it is inconsistent with the Berlin Mandate, and I intended to say that.
  Mr. President, I will try to elaborate on my view with a two-part 
observation. First, with respect to significant emitters, such as 
China, it makes no sense for the international community to begin this 
effort by agreeing to unchecked emissions growth from newly 
constructed, but inefficient, power-generating and industrial 
facilities. It is neither cost-effective nor environmentally beneficial 
to go back and retrofit dirty smokestacks.
  We all know that China in particular has near-term plans to increase 
its power-generating capacity exponentially. We must anticipate the 
prospect of significant new industrial development in China and other 
places by providing incentives for deployment of new, cleaner 
technologies. In short, we must bring back from Kyoto some commitments 
that China and other large emitters will grow in a smart way.
  I want to make it clear that the current approach of the State 
Department is not acceptable to this Senator under the terms of the 
resolution. Their approach will not work. A promise by the developing 
countries to only negotiate at a later date is simply unacceptable. Any 
agreement resulting from negotiations in Kyoto, or thereafter, that 
includes binding commitments for developed countries must also include 
serious, specific, and binding commitments by the developing world.
  I thank all Senators.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair observes that all time has expired.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 60 seconds to 
clarify the record and respond.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I don't disagree with what Senator Byrd has 
just said. In a sense, I should correct my own comment when I talk 
about the Berlin mandate. Obviously, we are altering the way in which 
we are approaching the question of inclusiveness. When I say ``nothing 
inconsistent,'' I am talking about in the fundamentals of how you might 
approach the issue of timetable or compliance. We have discussed that 
in the course of this debate, and that is what I intended to say.
  I yield back any remaining time.
  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the resolution. 
The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Grams] 
is necessarily absent.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Nevada [Mr. Bryan], the 
Senator from California [Mrs. Feinstein], the Senator from Iowa [Mr. 
Harkin], and the Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 95, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 205 Leg.]

                                YEAS--95

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Bryan
     Feinstein
     Grams
     Harkin
     Reid
  The resolution (S. Res. 98) was agreed to.
  The preamble was agreed to.
  The resolution, with its preamble, is as follows:

                               S. Res. 98

       Whereas the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate 
     Change (in this resolution referred to as the 
     ``Convention''), adopted in May 1992, entered into force in 
     1994 and is not yet fully implemented;
       Whereas the Convention, intended to address climate change 
     on a global basis, identifies the former Soviet Union and the 
     countries of Eastern Europe and the Organization For Economic 
     Co-operation and Development (OECD), including the United 
     States, as ``Annex I Parties'', and the remaining 129 
     countries, including China, Mexico, India, Brazil, and South 
     Korea, as ``Developing Country Parties'';
       Whereas in April 1995, the Convention's ``Conference of the 
     Parties'' adopted the so-called ``Berlin Mandate'';
       Whereas the ``Berlin Mandate'' calls for the adoption, as 
     soon as December 1997, in Kyoto, Japan, of a protocol or 
     another legal instrument that strengthens commitments to 
     limit greenhouse gas emissions by Annex I Parties for the 
     post-2000 period and establishes a negotiation process called 
     the ``Ad Hoc Group on the Berlin Mandate'';
       Whereas the ``Berlin Mandate'' specifically exempts all 
     Developing Country Parties from any new commitments in such 
     negotiation process for the post-2000 period;
       Whereas although the Convention, approved by the United 
     States Senate, called on all signatory parties to adopt 
     policies and programs aimed at limiting their greenhouse gas 
     (GHG) emissions, in July 1996 the UnderSecretary of State for 
     Global Affairs called for the first time for ``legally 
     binding'' emission limitation targets and timetables for 
     Annex I Parties, a position reiterated by the Secretary of 
     State in testimony before the Committee on Foreign Relations 
     of the Senate on January 8, 1997;
       Whereas greenhouse gas emissions of Developing Country 
     Parties are rapidly increasing and are expected to surpass 
     emissions of the United States and other OECD countries as 
     early as 2015;
       Whereas the Department of State has declared that it is 
     critical for the Parties to the Convention to include 
     Developing Country Parties in the next steps for global 
     action and, therefore, has proposed that consideration of 
     additional steps to include limitations on Developing Country 
     Parties' greenhouse gas emissions would not begin until after 
     a protocol or other legal instrument is adopted in Kyoto, 
     Japan in December 1997;
       Whereas the exemption for Developing Country Parties is 
     inconsistent with the need for global action on climate 
     change and is environmentally flawed;
       Whereas the Senate strongly believes that the proposals 
     under negotiation, because of the disparity of treatment 
     between Annex I Parties and Developing Countries and the 
     level of required emission reductions, could result in 
     serious harm to the United States economy, including 
     significant job loss, trade disadvantages, increased energy 
     and consumer costs, or any combination thereof; and
       Whereas it is desirable that a bipartisan group of Senators 
     be appointed by the Majority and Minority Leaders of the 
     Senate for the purpose of monitoring the status of 
     negotiations on Global Climate Change and reporting 
     periodically to the Senate on those negotiations: Now, 
     therefore, be it
       Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that--
       (1) the United States should not be a signatory to any 
     protocol to, or other agreement regarding, the United Nations 
     Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1992, at 
     negotiations in Kyoto in December 1997, or thereafter, which 
     would--
       (A) mandate new commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse 
     gas emissions for the Annex I Parties, unless the protocol or 
     other agreement also mandates new specific scheduled 
     commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for 
     Developing Country Parties within the same compliance period, 
     or
       (B) would result in serious harm to the economy of the 
     United States; and
       (2) any such protocol or other agreement which would 
     require the advice and consent

[[Page S8139]]

     of the Senate to ratification should be accompanied by a 
     detailed explanation of any legislation or regulatory actions 
     that may be required to implement the protocol or other 
     agreement and should also be accompanied by an analysis of 
     the detailed financial costs and other impacts on the economy 
     of the United States which would be incurred by the 
     implementation of the protocol or other agreement.
       Sec. 2. Secretary of the State shall transmit a copy of 
     this resolution to the President.

  Mr. LOTT. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. KERRY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________