[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 142 (Tuesday, October 21, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H8857-H8860]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  REGARDING MANAGEMENT OF NATIONAL FORESTS TO REDUCE GREENHOUSE GASES

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and 
agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 151) expressing the 
sense of the Congress that the United States should manage its public 
domain national forests to maximize the reduction of carbon dioxide in 
the atmosphere among many other objectives and that the United States 
should serve as an example and as a world leader in actively managing 
its public domain national forests in a manner that substantially 
reduces the amount of carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere, as 
amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                            H. Con. Res. 151

       Whereas carbon dioxide, a major greenhouse gas, can be 
     removed from the atmosphere by trees through photosynthesis 
     and stored in wood;
       Whereas releases of carbon dioxide can be prevented by the 
     use of wood products as substitutes for products whose 
     manufacture consumes fossil fuels and releases substantial 
     amounts of carbon dioxide; and
       Whereas managing our forests by planting and growing our 
     forest resources will remove carbon dioxide from the 
     atmosphere: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
     concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that the 
     United States--
       (1) should manage its forests to maximize the reduction of 
     carbon dioxide in the atmosphere among many other objectives; 
     and
       (2) should serve as an example and as a world leader in 
     managing its forest in a manner that substantially reduces 
     the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Alaska [Mr. Young] and the gentleman from American Samoa [Mr. 
Faleomavaega], each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young].
  (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  In December, representatives of 150 nations will gather in Kyoto, 
Japan, to sign a successor treaty to the United Nations 1992 framework 
convention on climate change. Today, as we anticipate this important 
event, we will debate a nonbinding measure putting the House on record 
as supporting proper management of our Nation's forests to maximize the 
reduction of greenhouse gases, among other important objectives. This 
resolution is similar to the Byrd-Hagel resolution passed by the Senate 
earlier this year that put them on record opposing any treaty that 
would cause serious economic harm to the United States.
  Everyone agrees that we must have clean environment, but we must do 
it in a way that does not impair or harm our economy. This resolution 
represents the fact we can have both a healthy environment and a 
vibrant economy.
  By the Clinton-Gore administration's own economic model, the effect 
of mandatory reductions of greenhouse gases would be devastating to 
this economy of ours. The United States has an obligation to defend the 
rights of people who inhabit our planet. It seems that officials 
representing the United States in the climate change treaty 
negotiations have lost sight of that duty. Science has proven to us 
that carbon dioxide, the leading greenhouse gas, can be taken out of 
the atmosphere by properly managing our forests. Carbon dioxide is kept 
out of the atmosphere by harvesting the forest before it begins to 
decompose or burn, thus storing the carbon in wood products that are 
environmentally friendly, as well as providing an economic benefit to 
society.
  The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which may 
commit the United States to mandatory greenhouse gas reductions, could 
lead to enormous burdens and costs on the American people, the economy, 
and our way of life. The key issue is whether the Clinton-Gore 
administration will commit the United States to mandatory reductions of 
carbon dioxide.
  Mandatory reductions will cost taxpayers billions of dollars and will 
cost many Americans their jobs. There are alternatives to mandatory 
reductions of carbon emissions. The alternative we bring before the 
Congress today is to properly manage our forests in order to take from 
the atmosphere carbon dioxide.
  This means using the controls on greenhouse gases that Mother Nature 
gives to us rather than controls that Government mandates for us to 
follow. For that reason, we would move to agree on House Concurrent 
Resolution 151 and urge our colleagues to give it their full support.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  (Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  As cosponsor of House Concurrent Resolution 151, I am proud to rise 
today in strong support of this important measure introduced by our 
distinguished chairman, the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young]. The 
chairman's legislation sends a crucial message. Carbon dioxide and 
other greenhouse gas emissions constitute a serious problem of global 
dimension. We can begin, in part, to address and control gas emissions 
and the growing crisis of global warming by proper and prudent 
management of our national forests and Federal lands.
  Madam Speaker, coming from the South Pacific, I am particularly 
sensitive to the related phenomena of

[[Page H8858]]

global climate warming and rising sea levels. For many low-level 
Pacific island nations, especially those that rise only 6 feet at their 
highest point of elevation, increasing sea levels threaten to flood, 
engulf and destroy the very homelands of many Pacific peoples.
  Global climate warming presents a real and terrifying danger in the 
region that cannot be dismissed.
  I have introduced a companion-related resolution, House Concurrent 
Resolution 157, to address the need for the United States to work with 
the Pacific island leaders on these issues. I have attached a copy of 
House Concurrent Resolution 157 for the Record and urge our colleagues' 
support.
  Madam Speaker, just last month, as a member of the House Committee on 
International Relations, I attended the South Pacific Forum meetings in 
Rarotonga in the Cook Islands as a representative of the U.S. Congress. 
As Members know, the South Pacific Forum is the annual meeting of the 
Heads of State of 16 Pacific island nations, including Australia and 
New Zealand.
  The Forum meetings revealed that the most urgent priority of the 
island leaders concerned global climate warming and the related 
phenomenon of rising sea levels.
  House Concurrent Resolution 157 expresses the sense of the Congress 
regarding the effects of global warming-induced climate disruptions to 
Pacific nations that are longtime allies of the United States. The 
measure calls on the United States to work with the island nations to 
address this extremely serious problem.
  As I foresee the process unfolding, the United States will play a 
leadership role to ensure that all nations and major economies in the 
world--including China, India and Mexico--fairly share the burden of 
reducing global greenhouse emissions. All members of the international 
community must bear the sacrifice for the greater good of the world. No 
nation should be exempt from doing its part.
  As to the measure before us, House Concurrent Resolution 151, Madam 
Speaker, the ranking member of the committee, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Miller], has contributed immensely to the amended 
legislation. Unfortunately, the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], 
is at the White House and is unable to be here with us to urge adoption 
of this measure.
  House Concurrent Resolution 151, as amended in committee with the 
leadership of the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], recognizes 
that our forests have an important role to play in removing carbon 
dioxide, a major greenhouse gas, from the atmosphere. In our view, 
however, the amended resolution clearly does not endorse the original 
premise that it is desirable to increase old growth harvests of U.S. 
national forests in order to reduce global warming. That would be a 
horribly misguided message to send to the rest of the world, especially 
as we seek to encourage conservation of forest resources in other 
countries.
  Instead, we believe that the old growth forest reserves of the United 
States should be protected. The temperate rain forests in the Pacific 
Northwest are among the most effective carbon sinks in the world. If 
the old growth is harvested it takes many decades to recover the vast 
amount of carbon released in the process.
  We do recognize that carbon dioxide reduction can and should be 
improved by planting and growing more forest cover in the United 
States, especially on marginal crop and pasture lands. That is why the 
amended resolution applies not only to national forests, but to all 
U.S. forests including private lands.
  Finally, Madam Speaker, we want to be very clear that forest-based 
carbon sequestration, while important, does not replace the need to 
reduce fossil fuel emissions.
  Just yesterday, the Department of Energy reported U.S. emissions of 
carbon dioxide and other gases, which contribute to global warming, 
significantly increased in 1996. Contrary to our 1992 treaty 
obligations, such emissions have increased by 7.4 percent since 1990. 
This should give the administration a sense of urgency as they prepare 
to engage in global warming talks with the rest of the world in Kyoto, 
Japan, this December.
  Madam Speaker, I would urge our colleagues to adopt House Concurrent 
Resolution 151, a worthy measure that symbolizes America's commitment 
to address the growing crisis of global climate warming.

                            H. Con. Res. 157

       Whereas the world's leading climate experts who comprise 
     the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (hereafter in 
     this preamble referred to as the ``IPCC'') have reported that 
     ``the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human 
     influence on global climate'';
       Whereas the IPCC has concluded that the effects of global 
     climatic disruption due to increased greenhouse gas emissions 
     could result in (1) a global temperature increase of 1.8 to 
     6.3 degrees Fahrenheit by the year 2100; (2) a rise in sea 
     level of 6 inches to 3 feet by the year 2100; (3) extreme 
     weather events due to a more vigorous hydrological cycle, 
     such as increased flooding in some areas and more severe 
     droughts in others; (4) saltwater intrusion into freshwater 
     supplies; and (5) the spread of infectious diseases, 
     including malaria and dengue fever;
       Whereas the IPCC estimates that today's carbon emissions 
     will remain in our atmosphere for a century or more;
       Whereas more than 2,600 scientists recently signed the 
     Scientists' Statement on Global Climatic Disruption calling 
     on the United States, and the world leader in greenhouse gas 
     emissions, to provide leadership this December in Kyoto, 
     Japan, where an international protocol to the United Nations 
     Framework Convention on Climate Change, to which the United 
     States is party, is scheduled to be signed;
       Whereas relations between the United States and Pacific 
     island nations historically have been marked by a spirit of 
     mutual understanding and cooperation on a wide range of 
     issues;
       Whereas Pacific island nations and the United States share 
     a commitment to world peace, and the Pacific islands have 
     traditionally been supportive of major United States 
     initiatives, including United States positions at the United 
     Nations;
       Whereas at the Seventh Economic Summit of Smaller Island 
     States (SIS), held September 17, 1997, in the Cook Islands, a 
     statement was issued to reaffirm, recognize, and endorse the 
     Second Assessment Report of the Inter-Governmental Panel on 
     Climate Change (IPCC) of 1996;
       Whereas the United States is a Forum Dialogue Partner in 
     the South Pacific Forum and is a participant or contributor 
     to other regional organizations, including the South Pacific 
     Regional Environment Programme, the South Pacific Commission, 
     the Forum Fisheries Agency, the El Nino research in 
     conjunction with the United States National Oceanic and 
     Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the South Pacific 
     Geoscience Commission (SOPAC), the Joint Commercial 
     Commission (JCC), the U.S. Studies Country Program (USSCP), 
     in connection with the Integrated Coastal Zone Management 
     (ICZM) Program, the International Coral Reef Initiative 
     (ICRI), the South Pacific Nuclear-Free Zone (SPNFZ) Treaty, 
     the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), the World Bank, 
     and the Asian Development Bank;
       Whereas the bonds of cooperation are established between 
     the United States and Pacific island nations either through 
     independent territorial, commonwealth, or free association 
     relationships;
       Whereas certain Pacific island nations, in alliance with 
     the United States, have historically provided for an 
     important U.S. regional strategic presence and have continued 
     to provide such vital assistance in recent years;
       Whereas the world is becoming more politically and socially 
     volatile, with growing security threats in proximity to the 
     Pacific region and in other potentially hostile global 
     theaters;
       Whereas Pacific island nations, with many inhabited atolls, 
     lie only a few feet above sea level and are faced with the 
     constant threat of flooding and the possible loss of their 
     nations due to a rise in sea level induced by global warming;
       Whereas Pacific island nations such as Nauru, Tuvalu, 
     Kiribati, Niue, Tonga, the Cooks Islands, the Marshall 
     Islands, and the Federated States of Micronesia are already 
     experiencing the effects of an accelerated sea level rise, 
     such as salinization of soil and water, erosion, and rising 
     tides;
       Whereas the National Academy of Sciences has determined 
     that the efficiency of nearly every United States energy use 
     can be improved and that the United States could reduce its 
     greenhouse gas emissions significantly at low cost or 
     potential savings; and
       Whereas research and development into advanced energy 
     saving technologies would position the United States as the 
     leading exporter of these technologies, reduce the dependency 
     of the United States on foreign oil, and help balance the 
     trade deficit: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
     concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that--
       (1) the United States, with its advanced technologies and 
     comprehensive studies on global climate conditions, should be 
     committed to the proposition that global warming is a very 
     serious international issue, and the United States take 
     appropriate measures to consult closely with the nations of 
     the world to address this serious problem; and

[[Page H8859]]

       (2) the leaders and peoples of Pacific island nations 
     should be commended for their efforts to enhance the 
     consciousness and sensitivity of the world community by 
     raising the issue of global warming and greenhouse gas 
     emissions.

  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth], subcommittee chairman.
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Alaska for 
yielding me the time. This is a very interesting subject. I listened 
with great intrigue to the gentleman from American Samoa [Mr. 
Faleomavaega]. I can identify with his remarks and appreciate them.
  Today, as the administration considers its position on global 
warming, though, the House will send a message to the White House that 
regardless of whether you believe that human-induced global climate 
change is occurring are not, our forests should play an integral part 
in reducing greenhouse gases.
  At the 11th World Forestry Congress taking place in Antalya, Turkey, 
many professional forest managers in other countries have criticized 
the Clinton administration for its lack of management of our national 
forests. This is very interesting to me, Madam Speaker, because they 
feel that we have great resources here in America and we are not using 
them. Instead, we are demanding that the wood that we export now from 
other countries be harvested in other countries putting an undue 
pressure on those countries to produce the wood.
  By not applying good silviculture treatments to our forests, we are 
creating burdens for the rest of the world. The ramification is 
decertification and destruction of tropical forests because of the 
pressures of the world demand as well as increases in world levels of 
greenhouse gases that are leading to some of the problems we are 
talking about today.
  Science has proven to us that carbon dioxide, the leading greenhouse 
gas, can be taken out of the atmosphere by allowing a young vibrant 
forest to absorb carbon through photosynthesis and storing it as wood. 
In 1 year, an acre of healthy forest can absorb approximately 3 tons of 
carbon dioxide by sequestering 1 ton of carbon in woody tissue and 
converting 2 tons into oxygen for our use. Tree planting, forest 
management and increasing forest productivity research can positively 
reduce greenhouse gas buildup.
  Carbon dioxide can also be kept out of the atmosphere by harvesting 
the forest before it begins to decompose on the forest floor or burn, 
thus storing the carbon dioxide in wood products that are 
environmentally friendly as well as providing an environmental and 
economic benefit to society.
  In December of this year, the United Nations Framework Convention on 
Climate Change, which may commit the United States to mandatory 
greenhouse gas reductions, is expected to meet in Kyoto, Japan. The 
ramifications of this treaty could be enormous for the American people, 
for our environment, for our economy and our way of life.
  The key issue, Madam Speaker, is whether the Clinton-Gore 
administration will commit the United States to mandatory reductions of 
carbon dioxide. Mandatory reductions will cost taxpayers billions of 
dollars and will cost many Americans their jobs and that is very sad, 
Madam Speaker. This is based on the fact that we do not know how much 
greenhouse gas emissions, especially carbon dioxide, from the burning 
of fossil fuels contributes to the rise in temperatures.
  There are alternatives to mandatory reductions of carbon emissions. 
To suggest that the United States now take radical steps to curb 
greenhouse gases such as imposing heavy taxes on carbon dioxide 
emissions, such as 50 cents per gallon of gasoline, to all of the 
people who drive cars, is a horrible burden for the United States of 
America. Rather than head down this road void of scientific information 
that will lead to devastating economic, environmental consequences, we 
should begin to manage our public forests through sound silviculture 
methods. This means using the controls on greenhouse gases that mother 
nature gives to us rather than controls that Government mandates us to 
follow.
  We must send a message that the Federal Government itself should take 
the lead by reducing the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, 
but not by mandating unrealistic, costly, ambient air quality 
standards, but by doing that which comes natural. That is, that we as 
good stewards of this Earth should help manage our forests to 
reestablish themselves as healthy forests.
  By managing our national forests to minimize additions of carbon 
dioxide to the atmosphere, we will improve our air quality, the health 
of our Nation's forests, and set an example for other nations as the 
world prepares for the negotiations in Kyoto, Japan.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Certainly I would commend and thank the gentlewoman from Idaho for 
her eloquent statement and her thoughts and reasoning, which are well 
taken.
  With regard to the Global Climate Treaty to be negotiated in Kyoto, I 
do not think there is any question that the Administration is very 
mindful of the concerns of both private industry as well as the many 
hundreds of thousands of American workers. The impacts upon the U.S. 
business community and labor force from the Kyoto conference will be 
significant but positive. Aside from all of that, I think the jury is 
still out. We will see tomorrow what the Administration's decisions 
will be as far as greenhouse gas emissions and the United States' role, 
which I am sure will be very critical, in the upcoming conference this 
December in Kyoto.
  Madam Speaker, I have no additional requests for time, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen], the chairman of the subcommittee.
  Mr. HANSEN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  This week in Bonn, Germany, representatives from around the world 
will meet on the issues of greenhouse gases. They will be negotiating 
how quickly the industrial nations must rein in the emissions of carbon 
dioxide and other so-called greenhouse gases. These talks are in 
preparation for later negotiations in December in Kyoto, Japan.
  Global warming has been an issue of great debate and discussion in 
Congress. Nearly all of the discussion on global warming surrounds the 
mandatory reduction of carbon dioxide through costly government 
controls. The Clinton administration's own studies show that this 
effort would result in substantial increases in energy prices and 
damage to the economy.
  Quoting from ``Economic Effects on Global Climate Change Policies'' 
published by the administration's own Interagency Analytical Team, the 
higher energy costs would produce GDP losses between 0.2 and 1.0 
percent of GDP. For an economy which grew 5.1 percent last year, 1.0 
percent would financially hurt every single American.
  There is no doubt that everyone agrees that we need to keep our 
planet clean. To this end, we are here today to put the House on record 
as supporting proper management of our Nation's forests to maximize 
reductions of greenhouse gases. Science has conclusively proven that 
carbon dioxide can be reduced in the atmosphere by allowing a young 
vibrant forest to absorb carbon through photosynthesis and store it in 
wood.
  Proper management of our forests is important to the environment as 
well as our economy. There is no doubt that how we are currently 
managing our Federal forests is neither good for the economy nor is it 
good for the environment. This resolution puts us on record as 
supporting good forest management. The forests can and should be 
managed to help reduce greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume to restate what has been said very eloquently by the 
gentlewoman from Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth], the gentleman from Utah [Mr. 
Hansen], and my good friend, the gentleman from American Samoa [Mr. 
Faleomavaega]. We cannot have it

[[Page H8860]]

both ways. We must have sound forest management and we must have young 
trees growing today.
  I remember when there was the old saying ``plant a tree today for 
tomorrow,'' and we have forgotten that. Many people now want the old 
trees, the constant dying old trees, which contribute very little to 
mankind. They will either burn or they will die from beetle kill and 
they will stand and they do nothing to clean the air.
  All this concurrent resolution says is we say it is time for us to 
have sound management, scientific management of our new forests; to 
plant those trees, to harvest the older trees and have these forests 
clean up our air.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this 
resolution. Over the last several months the Committee on Agriculture 
has held a series of hearings on the management of our Nation's forest 
resources. The scientists who have appeared before the committee have 
taught us a great deal about the environmental benefits of proactive 
forest management. This resolution on the minimization of greenhouse 
gases addresses one of the foremost of these benefits.
  Those who truly care for the environment should be quick to realize 
that wood is our most environmentally friendly building material. 
Processing construction grade wood releases a tiny fraction of the 
carbon dioxide produced by steel, concrete, brick, and other non-
renewable construction materials that are processed using fossil fuels.
  Wood also stores vast amounts of carbon for long periods of time. 
Wood extracted from the forest for construction purposes continues to 
store carbon. Furthermore, the resulting regeneration of trees in the 
forest sequesters carbon from the atmosphere. In other words, when we 
use wood for homes, furniture and pulp and paper products, we both 
minimize carbon releases into the atmosphere and provide an efficient 
means of removing carbon from the atmosphere. This is a win-win 
proposition for both the environment and our economy.
  In contrast, failing to actively manage our forests to both provide 
useful wood products to society and to maximize the ability of our 
forests to store carbon can have devastating results. In 1996, six 
million acres of national forest burned in one of the worst fire 
seasons of the century. This tragedy came on the heels of the 1994 fire 
season during which over 4 million acres of national forest burned.
  These fires, because of their size and intensity, released staggering 
amounts of particulate matter into the air. One study indicates that 
the fires of 1994 alone emitted as much as a ton of particulate matter 
into the atmosphere for each acre of forest burned and over 400 million 
tons of carbon in the aggregate.
  Proactive forest management, that focuses on reducing fuel loading 
and tree density in overstocked timber stands, can significantly reduce 
carbon emissions caused by wildfire. It can also improve the ability of 
the forest to store carbon by replacing denser stands of sick, fire 
prone small diameter trees with more vigorous, fire resistant stands 
where tree growth and health are both maximized.
  Scientifically managing our forests to reduce atmospheric carbon 
dioxide levels is a policy that America should enthusiastically 
embrace, particularly in preparation of the upcoming conference in 
Kyoto. Yet, surprisingly, the administration does not yet appear to 
have included a forest management component to its official policy 
position.
  This resolution fills that void. It frames a policy that will enable 
the United States to lead the world in pursuit of scientific, proactive 
forest management practices that will both clean our air and improve 
our quality of life. I urge my colleagues to support the resolution.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for 
time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] that the House suspend 
the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution, House Concurrent 
Resolution 151, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the concurrent resolution, as 
amended, was agreed to.
  The title was amended so as to read:

       Concurrent resolution expressing the sense of the Congress 
     that the United States should manage its forests to maximize 
     the reduction of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere among many 
     other objectives, and that the United States should serve as 
     an example and as a world leader in managing its forests in a 
     manner that substantially reduces the amount of carbon 
     dioxide in the atmosphere.

  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________