[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 136 (Friday, October 3, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10308-S10311]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             GLOBAL WARMING

  Mr. HAGEL. On just as important business, Mr. President, I will 
address this morning the issue of global warming.
  Let me first say that the more attention the media and the American 
people pay to this issue, the better. For the global climate issue will 
have a major impact on the future of our country, our people, and, 
indeed, the entire world. How the nations of the world address the 
global climate issue will be one of the most important global economic 
and environmental decisions of the next century.

  There are differing opinions on the conclusiveness of global warming 
and how we should address it. But this is not a debate nor has it ever 
been a debate about who is for or against the environment. I have yet 
to meet any American who wants dirty air, dirty water, dirty 
environment or declining standards of living for their children or 
grandchildren. We all agree on the need for a clean environment. We all 
want to leave our children a better, cleaner, more prosperous world. So 
the debate is not about those for or against a clean environment.
  As my colleagues, the media and many people in America know, the 
nations of the world are currently negotiating a treaty to limit 
worldwide emissions of greenhouse gasses. This treaty will be presented 
for signatures this December in Kyoto, Japan. Many of my colleagues and 
I fear the current treaty negotiations will shackle the United States' 
economy--meaning fewer jobs, lower economic growth and a lower standard 
of living for our children and our future generations. This treaty 
would do so without any meaningful reduction in greenhouse gasses 
because--because--it leaves out the very nations who will be the 
world's largest emitters of greenhouse gasses, the more than 130 
developing nations including China, India, Mexico, South Korea, and 
many others.
  The U.S. Senate took a very strong and unequivocal stand against this 
treaty in July when it approved the Byrd-Hagel resolution 95-0. That 
resolution states that any treaty signed by this administration must 
come before the Senate for ratification, and the U.S. Senate has stated 
very clearly that it will not approve a treaty that excludes the 
developing nations or that would cause serious economic harm to the 
United States. This body is on record by a vote of 95-0, stating that 
very clearly.
  There is simply no way for the terms of current negotiations of the 
Global Climate Treaty to satisfy the conditions of the Byrd-Hagel 
resolution. In fact, I was very disturbed, Mr. President, to learn this 
week when the administration's chief negotiator on this treaty, Under 
Secretary of State Tim Wirth, briefed the Senate's global climate 
change observer group that he said it was very unlikely that the 
developing nations will be included in any treaty to be signed in 
Kyoto, Japan, this December. The exemption of these nations would 
surely bring about the treaty's defeat here in the U.S. Senate.
  However, this is not preventing the administration from pressing 
forward with this treaty. Although its final negotiating position has 
not yet been made public, instead of telling the Senate, the media, the 
American people, exactly what the administration will be pushing for at 
Kyoto in respect to exact emission levels and timetables, the White 
House has unleashed its typical spin campaign.
  For example, Secretary of Interior Babbitt has been out all over 
America on college campuses lecturing our young people about the dire 
and horrific consequences of global warming, while failing to mention 
the contradicting science, the very clear contradicting science or the 
very real economic consequences that would have a very real impact on 
this country's standard of living--jobs, future.
  In fact, I have to say, Mr. President, in almost unparalleled 
arrogance Mr. Babbitt has gone so far as to say the following about 
those who dare disagree with him or the administration on the issue of 
global warming, and who would have the audacity--can you imagine anyone 
challenging the administration on this issue--to argue against the 
treaty? I quote from the Secretary of Interior: ``* * * what they're 
doing is un-American in the most basic sense.'' From the Secretary of 
Interior.
  The Energy Department released a study which they said shows that the 
United States can achieve these reductions of emissions called for in 
the Global Climate Treaty without acknowledging that what they really 
meant to say was we could get one-third of the way to the goals under 
the most rosy assumptions by completely shutting down a number of 
American industries such as the coal industry and by increasing energy 
costs either through taxes or regulation. They have failed to mention 
that.
  The administration claims that the debate over the science is over. 
The administration said there is no debate, anymore, on the fact that 
the globe is warming up. While newspapers across America are writing 
front page-stories on alternative scientific explanations for the 
Earth's warming, still the administration persists.
  I noted that the White House hosted a session this week for weather 
forecasters from across America to learn more about global warming and 
to broadcast their weather forecasts from the White House lawn. That is 
an interesting photo-op, good public relations. This is what one 
weathercaster had to say: ``I was somewhat skeptical that human beings 
were really doing anything to affect the weather. But hearing the 
President and the Vice President state emphatically that the scientific 
debate is over, well, that went a long way toward convincing me.''
  The scientific debate is over? Oh, no. No, quite the contrary. The 
scientific debate is still very much ongoing. Perhaps the White House 
did not read the lengthy September 23 story in the New York Times 
describing how a number of respected scientists and climatologists from 
around the world believe that variations in the Earth's temperature are 
the result of changes in, imagine this, solar activity. The Sun might, 
in fact, have something to do with global climate changes. Judith Lean 
of the Naval Research Laboratory here in Washington was quoted as 
saying, ``We figure that half the climate change from 1850 to now can 
be accounted for by the Sun.'' Scientists at the Harvard-Smithsonian 
Center studied records of the past 120 years and determined that the 
Sun is responsible for up to 71 percent of the Earth's changes in 
temperature. Imagine that, when they added other factors into their 
research, that figure rose to 94 percent.
  Perhaps the White House didn't see the ``NBC Nightly News'' in August 
on a research ship funded by 23 nations that is going thousands of feet 
below the surface of the ocean and studying the Earth's geological 
history. So far, these scientists have sampled 87 miles of rock and 
sediment from all over the world. And according to one of the main 
scientists on the ship, Prof. Nicholas Christie-Block of Columbia 
University, they have captured about 10 million years of the Earth's 
history in a single core sample of mud, sand, and rock. He said, ``The 
information we have to judge the modern climate is incomplete. We don't 
have that long-term perspective.''

  Studying these core samples gives the scientists information on when 
the Earth's oceans rose and fell. They can chart the Earth's ice ages 
and hot spells. Some of these scientists believe as you look at the 
history--specifically the history of the climate of the Earth--that we 
are actually at the warmest point between two ice ages. The weather 
forecast from that report? ``Hot tomorrow, and 50,000 years from now, 
skiing in Texas and sledding in Florida.'' I am sorry to say, Mr. 
President, that prohibits skiing in Colorado.
  Perhaps the White House has never heard from Dr. Richard Lindzen, 
professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 
who testified before the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works 
Committee 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.''
  Perhaps the White House is unaware of the research by Dr. Patrick 
Michaels, a distinguished climatologist

[[Page S10309]]

and professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia. 
In a Senate hearing, Dr. Michaels noted that conditions in the real 
world simply have not matched changes projected by some computer 
models. Most of the warming this century occurred in the first half of 
the century when there was not a greenhouse gas emissions problem. He 
further testified that 18 years of satellite data actually show a 
slight cooling trend. These data are backed up by balloon data.
  Even the chairman of the U.S. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 
Change, Dr. Bert Bolin, admits the uncertainty. When informed that 
Undersecretary of State Tim Wirth stated in testimony that the science 
was settled, Dr. Bolin stated, ``I've spoken to [Tim Wirth], and I know 
he doesn't mean it.''
  I fear the White House Conference on Global Warming this Monday will 
be just as one-sided. There will not be an attempt to present the 
American people with a full discussion of all aspects of the global 
warming issue. It will be a propaganda tool to spread the truth 
according to the White House--another photo op--irrespective of 
legitimate differing views. I fear that it will not be a serious 
discussion of all sides.
  The administration underlined this attitude last week when they 
refused to send any witnesses at all to the Senate Energy Committee 
Hearing held by Senator Murkowski. I will be holding a Foreign 
Relations subcommittee hearing on this issue next Thursday, and I hope 
the administration has changed its views about sending witnesses to 
Senate hearings.
  The arrogance of the administration on this issue has been 
unparalleled. It does not serve the American people, nor the world, 
when the White House only gives them one side of an issue that will 
directly affect the lives of all our people and their future.
  And the White House, Mr. President, is not alone. Yesterday, Ted 
Turner ordered that all ads opposed to this treaty be pulled from CNN. 
This is the kind of suppression of speech we usually expect from 
totalitarian countries. These ads were being run by American business, 
business organizations, agriculture, consumer groups, and labor unions, 
which very much oppose the White House approach to global warming and 
have very legitimate concerns about the impact this treaty would have 
on them and the American people. Why are they running these ads? 
Because the White House is only telling one side of the story and 
because it has been difficult to get the media to cover any alternative 
points of view. Yet, Ted Turner thinks the treaty is a great idea. He 
has spoken on it all over the world--the world is coming to an end. So 
he unilaterally pulls the ads of those who disagree with him and 
prevents this viewpoint from being aired to the millions of Americans 
who watch CNN. Mr. President, we have heard an awful lot about free 
speech this week in the debate on campaign finance reform--the first 
amendment, the Constitution, expressions of our people, and the very 
foundation of America is the first amendment. Mr. Turner's action is a 
prime example of what will happen when you allow free speech to be cut 
off. This isn't even free; our people are having to buy it.
  I am here to talk about the rest of the story--the point of view you 
won't hear from Mr. Turner or the White House, and you surely won't 
hear it on Monday--the point of view you won't hear in many media. Mr. 
Turner's conduct is outrageous, his arrogance and disregard for the 
American public and their right to express themselves on the public 
airwaves is truly unparalleled. I intend, Mr. President, to ask for a 
Senate hearing on this and get an explanation on Mr. Turner's actions.
  I note that in this morning's Wall Street Journal, a rather 
significant editorial was written about Mr. Turner's actions. I ask 
unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record as follows:

                              This Is CNN?

       President Clinton is intent on using television to pitch 
     his support for a United Nations treaty to curb global 
     warming. This week, he invited 100 TV weather forecasters to 
     the White House hoping they'd propagandize local viewers on 
     behalf of his crusade. Meanwhile, it appears that some other 
     backers of the treaty don't want to allow its opponents to 
     contradict them on TV. Take CNN. After running two ads 
     skeptical of the treaty for three weeks, CNN has ordered them 
     off the air. The cable-news network says it doesn't want them 
     running while they do extended coverage of the issue.
       The ads are, or were, being run by the Global Climate 
     Information Project, a coalition of business, labor and 
     consumer groups who think the climate treaty would force the 
     U.S. to cut energy use by 20% while countries such as China, 
     India and Mexico are exempt. Project members include groups 
     such as the National Association of Manufacturers that you 
     might expect to oppose the treaty. But it also includes the 
     National Black Chamber of Commerce, the Small Business 
     Survival Committee, the Seniors Coalition and the United Mine 
     Workers and the AFL-CIO.
       The Project's ads lay out the case that higher energy costs 
     imposed by the treaty will raise prices for U.S. consumers 
     while citizens of countries ``responsible for almost half the 
     world's emissions won't have to cut back.'' The ads began 
     running on CNN and many radio stations September 10.
       Ben Goddard, an executive with the First Tuesday group that 
     prepared the ads, says he got a call from a CNN executive 
     yesterday morning. He was told the ads were being taken off 
     the air. When Mr. Goddard inquired, he was later told that 
     the decision had been made by Tom Johnson, CNN's chairman, 
     and CNN founder Ted Turner, now a vice chairman of the parent 
     company Time-Warner.
       To its credit, CNN, unlike other networks, does accept 
     ``issue advocacy'' ads of this type. But as CNN spokesman 
     Steve Haworth explained, it has a policy of pulling such ads 
     ``during periods of intense media coverage of the subject 
     matter.'' He argues that inattentive viewers might confuse 
     the ads with the news coverage and vice versa. Mr. Haworth 
     says the decision was made after a ``coincidental'' complaint 
     alleging the ads were inaccurate was filed by the pro-treaty 
     Environmental Information Center. CNN executives didn't rule 
     on the Center's complaint, but decided to pull the ads 
     because CNN's coverage of the treaty was being stepped up. 
     Mr. Haworth says he ``doesn't know'' if Mr. Turner 
     participated in the decision.
       Mr. Haworth could come up with only two other examples when 
     CNN invoked what he admitted was its ``subjective'' policy. 
     It didn't pull ads at the height of the debates over NAFTA, 
     health care reform and tort reform.
       Let's see if we get the logic here: Insofar as CNN decided 
     not to offer live coverage of the Thompson campaign finance 
     hearings, it presumably would accept ``issues'' ads promoting 
     their importance to the public.
       CNN of course has a right to carry or not carry any ads it 
     wishes. But its sudden reversal on the anti-climate treaty 
     ads smacks of, well, an overheated response. Treaty 
     supporters tend to become apoplectic at anyone who dares 
     suggest that the threat of global warming is theory, not 
     established fact. Last July, Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt 
     lost it when he claimed that ``oil companies and the coal 
     companies in the U.S. have joined in a conspiracy to hire 
     pseudo scientists to deny the facts.'' He went on to say that 
     ``what they are doing is un-American in the most basic 
     sense.''
       By pulling the plug on a responsible point of view in a 
     public debate, CNN is circumscribing give-and-take over an 
     international treaty of direct consequence to every American. 
     Given that media coverage is already tilted toward global 
     warming doomsayers, the public will be less informed as a 
     result. Ted Turner may now have become the world's number one 
     supporter of the United Nations, but when it comes to 
     citizens of the United States he apparently would just as 
     soon they not hear arguments against the U.N.'s pet treaty.

  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, the fact is this treaty is not based on 
sound science. The scientific community has not definitively--even 
close to definitively--concluded that there is global warming caused by 
human actions. The science is inconclusive and often contradictory. 
Predictions for the future range from no significant problem to global 
catastrophe. The testimony of some of our most eminent scientists and 
climatologists have made this abundantly clear. The global climate is 
incredibly complex. It is influenced by far more factors than 
originally thought. The scientific community has simply not yet 
resolved the question of whether we have a problem with global warming. 
But the lack of conclusive scientific data is only one of five reasons 
why the U.N. Global Climate Treaty is such a very, very bad idea.
  The other four reasons are these:
  The treaty excludes the over 130 developing nations, including the 
world's biggest emitters of greenhouse gases over the next 15 years. 
The treaty excludes these people, rendering the treaty's objectives 
meaningless. It would not accomplish--even if you accepted the 
science--what it intends to accomplish.
  The economic impact would be devastating for the United States. We 
would see the loss of millions of jobs,

[[Page S10310]]

entire industries would flee to other countries, our people would face 
higher fuel costs, higher taxes, leading to lower productivity and a 
lower standard of living. It is not because I say this. Why, Mr. 
President, do we have an almost unparalleled development where American 
business, American industry, American agriculture, and America's labor 
unions are all united against this? There must be a reason. There is a 
good reason. The testimony is very clear on this.
  This also cuts to the heart of our national sovereignty. We don't 
hear much about our national sovereignty. Is that important to me? Yes, 
it is. I think it is important to every American. It cuts to the heart 
of our national sovereignty by setting up an international authority 
that would subject U.S. businesses and industries to its authority and 
penalties. Never before in the history of this free Nation has that 
occurred. This is one U.S. Senator that will not allow it to occur.
  And it would have a devastating impact on our national security 
interests. There is not much talk about that either. One of the biggest 
users of fossil fuels in America is what? The U.S. military. So are we 
really talking about subjecting our national security and our national 
defense to unknown environmental quests? I don't think that is smart. I 
don't think the American people want this body of policymakers to do 
that.
  Even if the scientists could agree--and they don't--this global 
climate treaty would do nothing to provide a long-term solution because 
of the first factor here, excluding the world's largest emitters of 
greenhouse gases over the next 15 years. They don't have to sign up to 
any mandatory requirements--mandatory by the force of law, 
incidentally--that the United States and other developing nations would 
subject themselves to. Over 130 other nations would not have to do 
that.
  This makes no sense, given that these nations include some of the 
most rapidly developing economies in the world. What would that do to 
our competition? How would we be able to compete? By the year 2015, 
China alone will be the world's largest producer of greenhouse gases. 
They are held harmless in this treaty. Mr. President, let the record 
show that in all the negotiating sessions leading up to the Kyoto 
treaty signing, China has made it very clear that it will never agree 
to binding limits on its emissions of greenhouse gases.
  It is the United States and other developed nations who are already 
doing the most to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The United States is 
far beyond most countries here, and we continue to be. So how could any 
treaty aimed at reducing global emissions of greenhouse gases be at all 
effective when it excludes these other nations. The exclusion of these 
nations is a fatal flaw.
  It should be pointed out that these treaty negotiations are being 
chaired by--and this is a particularly interesting point--a diplomat 
from one of the developing nations. So we have an individual who is 
chairing these negotiations, whose country will not be required to 
adhere to the treaty. Yet, he is directing the United States and other 
developed nations to abide by mandatory treaties obligations. In fact, 
four of the five U.N. working groups charged with drafting the language 
of this treaty are chaired by diplomats from developing countries who 
would not be included in this treaty. All would be exempt from any 
binding commitments. That doesn't make sense to me, Mr. President.
  Third, this global climate treaty would cause a significant slowdown 
in the U.S. economy. One of the notable aspects of this issue in the 
United States is that it has united all the different groups that I 
mentioned. We have heard testimony from the AFL-CIO, the American Farm 
Bureau, National Association of Manufacturers, noted economists, and 
dozens of other organizations that represent the rank and file, the 
working American men and women in this country. They have all agreed on 
one thing: This treaty would have a devastating affect on America. I 
could go on and cite economic models, economic analyses, as to what 
degree. Would we lose 3 percent, as some forecasts have said, from our 
annual growth? Would we lose 1.5 or 2 million jobs if this treaty goes 
into effect?
  The Wall Street Journal reported yesterday that the President's own 
economic advisers are very concerned. The President's own economic 
advisers are very concerned about the impact this treaty would have on 
the U.S. economy. It was a large back-page story in yesterday's Wall 
Street Journal. According to the article, some are concerned that 
``ambitious targets for reducing carbon emissions * * * could trigger 
economic upheaval greater than the 1970's oil shocks.'' Does anybody 
remember that? I do.
  Lawrence Summers, Deputy Secretary of the Treasury stated, ``What we 
have to do, what we are all working to do, is find the best way to meet 
environmental objectives along with meeting strong economic growth.''
  These are not the rantings and ravings of big business, or the energy 
industries, or some bizarre group of people--these are the concerns of 
the President's own economic advisers.
  I have not spoken with any American who would choose to relive the 
high energy prices and gas lines of the 1970's--all for a treaty which 
excludes so many nations that it wouldn't work anyway.
  The Argonne National Labs study, commissioned by the U.S. Department 
of Energy, concluded that constraints on six large industries in the 
United States--pertroleum refining, chemicals, paper products, iron and 
steel, aluminum, and cement--would result in significant adverse 
impacts on the affected industries. They furthermore concluded that 
emissions would not be significantly reduced. The main effect of the 
assumed policy would be to redistribute output, employment, and 
emissions from participating to nonparticipating countries.
  The fourth troubling aspect of this treaty is one which has received 
very little discussion, but would have long-range and far-reaching 
consequences. This treaty has the potential of bringing under direct 
international control virtually every aspect of our Nation's economy. 
The power of legally binding emissions mandates in this proposed treaty 
would control nearly all forms of a country's energy use. This kind of 
international authority cuts to the very heart of a nation's 
sovereignty. Do we want U.S. companies answering to an international 
authority on how much and what kinds of fuel they can use at what cost? 
Do we ant an international body dictating energy prices in America and 
enforcing these mandates? I don't think so.
  The fifth problem with this treaty is another which has received 
little discussion. America's military is one of our Nation's largest 
users of fossil fuels. How would legally binding controls on the 
emission of greenhouse gases affect our military capabilities, military 
readiness, flying our planes, driving our tanks, our ships?
  This treaty could have a serious impact on the readiness of our Armed 
Forces, and our ability to defend our national security interests 
around the world. Sherri Goodman, the Defense Department Undersecretary 
for Environmental Security has said that the U.N. Global Climate Treaty 
could have large impacts on our military. Two weeks ago Senator Inhofe 
and I wrote a letter to Secretary of Defense Cohen asking him for an 
answer to press reports that the administration was planning to adopt 
draconian new restrictions on U.S. Government use of fossil fuels and 
asking for any studies the Defense Department had done to assess the 
impact of forced reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
  Why are we rushing headlong into signing a treaty in Kyoto this 
December? The scientific data is inconclusive, at times even 
contradictory. The treaty excludes the nations who will be the world's 
largest emitters of greenhouse gases. The economic costs would be 
devastating. This treaty would be a lead weight on America's economic 
growth, killing jobs and opportunities for future generations. It would 
cause U.S. companies to have to answer to an international authority. 
And this treaty could have dramatic consequences for America's national 
security interests.
  An additional threat to the United States on this issue is coming 
from the Clinton administration. According to press reports, President 
Clinton is being pressured by environmental organizations to sign the 
kind of draconian

[[Page S10311]]

treaty that would have all of the consequences I've just described. 
Some administration officials have recommended that the President sign 
a treaty in Kyoto and then withhold it from the Senate for 
ratification. In the words of one participant in that meeting, 
``anything that could get through the Senate next year is probably not 
worth doing.'' Last month, Majority Leader Trent Lott and I sent a 
letter to President Clinton warning him that it ``would be a grave 
error to go forward with this kind of strategy and treaty, with the 
explicit intention of withholding such a treaty from the Senate for 
domestic political considerations.''
  Undersecretary of State Tim Wirth testified before my Foreign 
Relations Subcommittee on June 19, and I specifically asked him for 
assurances that the administration would submit any agreement reached 
in Kyoto to the Senate in the form of a treaty. Undersecretary Wirth 
testified that ``it will either be a protocol to a treaty or an 
amendment to a treaty * * * (that) will have to come back up in front 
of the United States Senate.'' I expect President Clinton and the 
administration to honor the commitment stated publicly by 
Undersecretary Wirth.

  Well, Mr. President, we could go on. It is very clear that we have a 
real concern, a real problem. Many of us in this body are taking a 
rather active role in addressing this issue. I would like to end, Mr. 
President, with this quote. This is a quote from a recent newspaper 
article from Bryan Tucker of Australia, the past president of the 
International Association of Meteorology and Atmospheric Science, who 
makes one of the best arguments for why this track to Kyoto is entirely 
off base. He writes,

       The impossibility of attaining the 1992 Rio targets was not 
     acknowledged at Berlin, let alone the lunacy of setting still 
     more stringent ones . . . The real trade offs were not 
     mentioned, and many new strains of hypocrisy were in evidence 
     . . . Environmental opportunists, grasping at any information 
     no matter how selective or exaggerated to foment alarm, 
     appeared completely oblivious to the downstream effects of 
     their extravagant demands.
  This says it straight. This says it directly.
  I know that in this body the American people will hear more about 
this issue, as they should, and I am grateful for an opportunity this 
morning to talk a little bit about a very, very important issue. I 
yield the floor.
  Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: It is my 
understanding that the next hour is under my control or a designee of 
my selection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is correct.

                          ____________________