[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 109 (Tuesday, July 29, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Page S8283]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

 Mr. DORGAN. Mr President, our Nation has an obligation to its 
citizens and to the world community to be a leader in working toward 
improvement of the global environment. Coming from an agricultural 
State, I am particularly concerned about the potential impacts of 
global climate changes on our ability to produce the food that is so 
vitally needed, both at home and abroad. However, if we are going to be 
effective in achieving our goals for a better global environment, we 
not only have to do what is necessary to reduce emissions here in our 
own country, we must also take the lead in negotiating agreements that 
will require the reduction of greenhouse gases in other countries 
around the world.
  Frankly, I am deeply concerned over the negotiations related to the 
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in which the 
United States and other countries are discussing the reduction of the 
emission of greenhouse gases. These negotiations are currently headed 
in a direction that will ask those who have already made great progress 
in reducing emissions to reduce them even further, while at the same 
time allowing those who have made no serious attempt to reduce the 
emission of greenhouse gases to do virtually nothing to comply.
  I'm proud to say that my State, North Dakota, was the first State in 
America to comply with the Clean Air Act. We have taken the 
responsibility of reducing emissions in my home State and throughout 
these United States very seriously. Even though we have doubled our use 
of energy in the past 20 years in this country, we now have cleaner 
air. Have we done all we could? No, we can do more and we will. But, 
everybody needs to do their fair share.
  The question in these negotiations is an issue of fairness. Is it 
fair to our economy to impose stringent controls that will cost 
substantial money to get a small margin of additional environmental 
benefit, when other have not even really started? Is it fair when we 
have already made significant strides in reducing emissions to exempt 
other countries, whose economies are competing with ours, from any 
meaningful compliance?
  In recent trips to China, I have observed the degradation of that 
country's air shed because of the lack of meaningful laws or 
enforcement restricting the emissions of greenhouse gases. Yet, these 
negotiations would effectively allow China, India and other countries 
in similar situations a free ride. They would have virtually no 
significant requirements to clean up their act in any reasonable time 
period.
  I refuse to accept negotiations that impose a burden on ourselves 
that we are unwilling to require of others, particularly when we have 
made progress and others have not. This reminds me of our negotiations 
on international trade in which we unilaterally have opened our markets 
to foreign goods, while allowing foreign markets to remain closed to 
our goods. While we bear the burden, others reap the profits. 
Unfortunately, we have not been willing to require other countries to 
take the reciprocal actions to achieve fair trade.

  I see exactly the same mentality in these negotiations on the 
reduction of air emissions. Our country once again appears willing to 
impose burdens on our own economy that we will not require of others. 
Even if we were not competing with these other economies, this would 
not make good sense.
  I want to make it clear that I think our country has done the right 
thing by insisting that part of the costs of producing a product 
includes the costs associated with reducing pollution and preventing 
the degradation of our air or water. I am proud that our country has 
been a leader on these environmental issues.
  As we move forward in establishing and developing compliance with 
global environmental standards that will protect the Earth's 
environment, we must do so in a fair and evenhanded way that does not 
put America at a significant disadvantage with its trading partners.
  For example, if we are competing with the Chinese in the production 
of goods and we are required to assume a burden in compliance with 
emissions standards that the Chinese are not required to follow, then 
we are imposing a penalty of fewer jobs and slower economic growth on 
our own economy. I think that's unfair to this country.
  The administration should not mistake the concern that we have in 
Congress about this issue as one of weakness on environmental issues. 
That is simply not the case. In fact, the Congress has demonstrated its 
strong support for environmental cleanup for more than two decades.
  If the administration intends to negotiate global requirements for 
environmental compliance, then this Congress will insist that these 
requirements are fair. We will insist that the negotiations do not 
impose burdens on our own country, while other countries are exempted 
from their enforcement responsibilities. This is a matter of fairness 
and doing what is right for our Nation and our planet.

                          ____________________