[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 144 (Thursday, October 23, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11007-S11011]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       THE GLOBAL CLIMATE TREATY

  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, yesterday the President of the United 
States announced the United States negotiating position on the U.N. 
global climate treaty. Some have called the President's position a 
compromise. I would say that is the case only if you define compromise 
as an action that would have devastating consequences for the United 
States without any meaningful progress toward the overall goal.
  This is how an editorial in Investors Business Daily defined the 
President's proposal yesterday morning. This doesn't make any sense. 
``Signing a treaty that hobbles U.S. growth getting no environmental 
payoff in return.'' Now, here is what does make sense. ``Listening to 
science rather than overheated rhetoric and acting on the basis of real 
events, not computer models.''
  The President's announcement follows along the same lines of what 
this administration has been pushing in international circles for 
years. No matter how he wraps his package, the President is still 
talking about making the United States, our businesses, our people, 
subject to legally binding international mandates while letting more 
than 130 nations off the hook. Most important for this body, the U.S. 
Senate, is how does the administration's position stack up against the 
Byrd-Hagel resolution which passed this body in July by a vote of 95 to 
zero? The Clinton administration's position announced yesterday falls 
woefully short on all counts.
  The President obviously realizes this since he stated yesterday that 
America cannot wait for the U.S. Senate on this issue. The President 
said:

       I want to emphasize that we cannot wait until the treaty is 
     negotiated and ratified to act.

  This flies in the face of the Constitution and the powers it gives to 
the U.S. Senate to give approval for the ratification of treaties. Why 
does the President's proposal fall short? Regarding participation by 
the developing nations, the Byrd-Hagel resolution states very clearly 
that no treaty will get the support of the U.S. Senate unless, and I 
read from the Byrd-Hagel resolution, ``* * * unless the protocol or 
agreement also mandates new specific scheduled commitments to limit or 
reduce greenhouse gas emissions for developing country parties within 
the same compliance period.''
  That is very clear. I noted some of my colleagues yesterday, and 
others, have said what the President proposed yesterday is in full 
compliance with Byrd-Hagel. I strongly recommend to those colleagues 
who actually believe that, that they go back and read the Byrd-Hagel 
resolution. It is only five pages long. It is not legal. It is very 
clearly understood by everyone.
  What this means also is that support of the U.S. Senate is contingent 
upon China, Mexico, India, Brazil and the other 130 developing nations 
committing to specific limitations on greenhouse gas emissions within 
the same time period as the United States and the other industrialized 
nations. Anything less, anything less than this, what is clearly 
defined in the Byrd-Hagel resolution put forward by the U.S. Senate, is 
not in compliance and it is the U.S. Senate that will have the final 
say on any treaty signed by the administration in Kyoto, Japan, in 
December.
  At the same time President Clinton was calling for ``meaningful 
participation''--those were his words--meaningful participation by the 
developing countries, at the same time he was saying that, this is what 
his negotiator in Bonn, Germany, Ambassador Mark Hambley, was saying in 
a prepared release. ``In our view,'' said Ambassador Hambley, the 
President's negotiator in Bonn Germany this week--``In our view, this 
proposal is fully consistent with the Berlin mandate--it imposes no new 
substantive commitments on developing countries now. Instead, it calls 
for such obligations to be developed following the third conference of 
the parties'' in Kyoto in December.

  I think that is rather clear, what Ambassador Hambley said: That the 
Third World, the developing nations, would not be called upon for any 
commitments, any obligations in this treaty. It is obvious that this 
administration has no intention of ensuring that the developing 
countries have to meet the same obligations as the United States.

[[Page S11008]]

  What about the second condition of the Byrd-Hagel resolution, which 
stated the Senate would not ratify a treaty that would cause serious 
economic harm to the United States? Most of the economic impact studies 
are based exactly on what the President proposed yesterday, in terms of 
timetables, targets, reducing emissions to 1990 levels by the year 
2010, and excluding the developing nations from any binding limitations 
of greenhouse gases. The President's own analysis shows that this will 
require a 30-percent cut in projected energy use by the year 2010.
  So, we are going to cut our energy use, between now and the year 
2010, by 30 percent; at the same time the administration says we don't 
have an economic analysis to really understand what economic impact 
this might have on our economy, on jobs. After a year and a half of the 
administration promising to me and others in both the House and the 
Senate that they would come forward with an economic model and economic 
analysis showing that there would be no harm to our economy, they have 
now said: Well, economic models don't mean anything. But we are going 
to surge forward and sign that treaty having no understanding 
whatsoever of what it might do to our economy, to jobs.
  I have seen studies, I have seen economic models and analyses done by 
the AFL-CIO, done by independent economists, done by business, done by 
industry, done by the agriculture industry, farmers, ranchers. The 
results are not good. Here is what these studies have shown: Job losses 
in the millions for this country, lower economic growth in this country 
meaning a lower standard of living and less opportunities for all 
Americans, energy rationing. What the Clinton administration is talking 
about is the rationing of energy use in the United States.
  Remember the gas lines the last time this country rationed energy use 
in the 1970's? I remember them very well. Energy taxes--I know the 
administration has said we don't think this is going to require any 
taxes. We are not sure, but we will kind of get going, sign that treaty 
and bind the United States to these commitments, and allow an 
international body to enforce and police and administer it. Maybe we 
will need more taxes, who knows, they say.
  In an October 4 article in the Washington Times an unnamed Clinton 
administration official said that the President's proposal would raise 
energy taxes up to five times greater than the Btu tax the Clinton 
administration proposed back in 1993. That is devastating. That is 
devastating. Much of the State that I represent, Nebraska, is 
agricultural. Agriculture is an energy-intensive industry. When you 
start talking about raising taxes on energy five times greater than 
what President Clinton proposed in 1993, that will put literally 
thousands of farmers and ranchers and agricultural interests out of 
business. What I find incredible about this is at the same time the 
President is asking for fast-track legislation because we are trying to 
do something about our deficit of payments, deficit in the balance of 
payments to China, to Japan, all the other areas of trade we are trying 
to pursue, what this would do is go the other way, make our products 
less competitive because they would cost more. Higher prices for all 
goods because of higher energy costs mean American goods cost more 
worldwide, making American products and services less competitive in 
the world market. And when you are allowing China and Mexico and Brazil 
and India, South Korea, and 130 other nations not to legally bind 
themselves to this, what do you think happens in the world marketplace? 
Our products cost more, our services cost more, and these other 
nations' economies will thrive as their products cost less. Does that 
put us in a stronger competitive position worldwide? I don't think so.

  The real question is, for what? Why are we doing this? Why are we 
doing this? The nations that would be excluded, the over 130 nations 
that would be excluded from this treaty are the nations that will be 
responsible for 60 percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions 
within the next 20 years. Not the United States, the nations that we 
are not asking to bind themselves to this treaty.
  China, which has said very forcefully that it will never agree to 
legally binding emission limits, will be the largest emitter of 
greenhouse gases by the year 2015. By 2025, China will surpass the 
United States, Japan and Canada combined, as the greatest emitter of 
greenhouse gases in the world. Yet we are not asking them to sign up to 
any legally binding mandate to do something about their greenhouse gas 
emissions. So how can any treaty that exempts these 134 nations be at 
all effective in reducing global greenhouse gas emissions? It will not. 
This is folly. This is feel-good folly. It makes great press, but it is 
insane that we would bind our Nation to this kind of folly and allow 
these other nations to go untouched.
  What President Clinton proposed yesterday is for the American people 
to bear the cost and suffer the pain of a treaty that will not work. 
That is the legacy, or more appropriately the lunacy he would leave to 
the children of America. I have always said that this debate is not 
about who is for or against the environment. That is not the debate. We 
are all concerned about the environment. We are concerned about the 
environment we leave to our children and our grandchildren, our future 
generations. But let's use some common sense here. Let's use some 
American common sense.
  Mr. President, in its present form, this treaty will not win Senate 
approval. We can do better. We must do better. Our future generations 
are counting on us to do better. Let's bring some balance, some 
perspective and some common sense to this issue and do it right.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I join with my colleague, the Senator from 
Nebraska, this morning to speak out against the proposal that our 
President yesterday announced to the Nation and to the world as it 
relates to this country's concept of how the world ought to be when it 
comes to the issue of global warming.
  But first let me thank the Senator from Nebraska for the leadership 
role he is taking on behalf of a very large bipartisan coalition of 
Senators in bringing clarity to this issue and demonstrating what is a 
clear opposing point of view, an opposing point of view based on 
science, an opposing point of view based on economics and an opposing 
point of view based on one of the largest coalition-building efforts I 
have witnessed, at least in my public life, between labor and business 
and public officials in this country.
  The Senator spoke out very clearly this morning on the discrepancy as 
it relates to what our President announced yesterday compared to what 
the Hagel-Byrd resolution that was adopted by the Senate some months 
ago spoke to. That was, if we are to enter an agreement, that agreement 
must be, by its definition, a world agreement, that all parties 
involved, that is, all nations of the world, must come together in 
recognition of what may or may not be an environmental problem.
  I am disappointed that the President of the United States, clearly 
recognizing the constitutional obligation of this body, chose largely, 
yesterday, in his proposal, to ignore us. While he gave us lip service 
and while his spokespeople have given us lip service over the last 
several months since the almost unanimous adoption of the Hagel-Byrd 
resolution, I must tell you that what our President laid down for his 
negotiators in Bonn yesterday is not reflective of what he has been 
saying or what his people have been saying.
  To the parliamentarians of the world, it is important that you 
understand that we are not a parliament and the President is not a 
prime minister. He does not speak for the majority of the U.S. 
Congress. He speaks for himself and for what I believe to be a narrow 
interest of people whose agendas take them well beyond just the concept 
of a better environment, but to a desire to do some industrial or 
economic planning nationwide, if not universally, all without any 
reliance whatsoever on the good judgment of the American consumer and/
or the free market that this country has relied on since its very 
beginning.
  ``Serious harm,'' those are important words. Those are words that the 
Hagel-

[[Page S11009]]

Byrd resolution spoke to, ``serious harm to the U.S. economy.'' 
Important words, simple words, easy to understand, a relatively small 
measurement and threshold to be understood by anyone negotiating a 
treaty that, in the long term, might bind this country in an 
international obligation.
  We will not, nor should we, seriously harm our citizens, the economy 
in which they live, and the opportunities for which they strive. And 
yet, the President, we believe, ignored that and talked about the need 
for catastrophic emissions reductions by the year 2012. Mr. President, 
2012. A long time off? No, not really; clearly within my lifetime, 
clearly within everybody's reasonable imagination, and something that 
if you are to accomplish a 30-percent reduction of fossil fuel 
emissions off from the current path, then you must start now in 
significant ways to change that and alter it. It is something that you 
do not wait until you get out to 2008 and then you say, ``Oh, my 
goodness.'' Because if we are to be responsible in relation to a 
negotiated treaty, a ``binding'' relationship by that point would draw 
us into a situation that we could not meet, or, if we chose to meet it, 
we would truly handicap the economy of this country.

  This Senator will not vote to make our country and its citizens 
second class to the rest of the world. I cannot nor will I do that nor 
do I believe any Senator in this body will knowingly vote in that way. 
Yet, the President is proposing that we allow 130 economies, 130 
nations of the world, be exempt, to be able to do anything they choose 
while we would choose to restrict and control ourselves.
  Mr. President, we are a nation today that is proud of its 
environmental legacy. We have moved faster and more directly in the 
last two decades to improve the environment in which our citizens live 
than any other nation of the world, and we have paid a big price for 
it. But we have been willing to pay it. We have been willing to pay it 
and able to pay it because we are a rich nation. Rich nations move to 
do things to clean up their environment. Poor nations simply cannot 
afford to. They are too busy trying to feed themselves, clothe 
themselves and put shelters over the heads of their citizens. All of 
those items in this country are secondary considerations because we 
take them for granted, because we are rich, and we are rich because of 
a free-market system unfettered by Government rule and regulation and, 
in my opinion, by the silly politics that this administration 
perpetrates today on faulty science or certainly a lack of science or a 
knowledge of what all of this means.
  I have to say, in all fairness, the President gave some reasonable 
suggestions for conservation, and there is no question we ought to 
create the kind of incentives within our economy that move our 
citizens, and the economy that drives us, toward conservation. That is 
fair and that is reasonable, and we could assume a better world with 
all of that in mind.
  But the thing that frustrates me most is that there is emerging out 
of all of the current negotiations a reminder that the developing world 
is saying something to us that is most significant, and I am not sure 
that our President is listening at this moment. They are, in essence, 
saying, and when they laid down their position on the table in Bonn on 
October 22, that developing countries are demanding reductions of 35 
percent below 1990 levels of emissions and that fines be assessed 
against the United States and the other developed nations if those 
targets are missed. They want global warming gas reductions, but guess 
who is supposed to pay for it? Not the consumers of the developing 
world, but us rich Americans. Rich Americans are supposed to pay for 
any economic inconvenience the developing world would encounter because 
we are foolish enough to agree to impose these kinds of reduction 
targets on ourselves.
  I am sorry, Mr. President, I don't buy that, the American consumer is 
not about to buy it, nor do I believe the U.S. Senate will.
  So in 10 to 14 years, at about the time that the baby boomers are 
retiring and our Social Security system is challenged, at about the 
time when we are once again going to have to make tough decisions in 
this country about our social character and the economics that drive 
our social well-being, the President yesterday said we are going to lay 
yet a bigger burden on the economy; we are going to say that you are 
going to have to be at a certain level of emissions reductions and, if 
not, we are going to take drastic measures to drive up the cost of 
energy, to drive down the amount of consumption, and that's what we are 
prepared to do based on faulty science and interesting politics.
  I suggest, Mr. President, that what you have proposed to the world 
and to the Nation and to this Congress is unacceptable. It certainly 
appears to be unacceptable at this moment to the U.S. Senate and to all 
who have spent any time studying the critical issue of global warming.
  While this Nation will continue to strive for a cleaner world--and it 
should--and a cleaner nation and will be reasonable and responsible 
players, we expect the rest of the world to do the same. But we can 
also understand that where a nation tries to feed itself and clothe 
itself and cause its citizens, by the economy in which they live, to 
rise to a higher standard of living, we understand that we have had 
that privilege and opportunity over the years and we should not 
restrict nor should we cause them to achieve anything less.

  Our technology can assist, and we need to be there to help. But I 
suggest, Mr. President, that binding obligations, no matter how far out 
you push them to allegedly conform with what our country believes ought 
to be done, simply do not work. This proposal won't work. I agree with 
my colleague from Nebraska, this Senate, in my opinion, will not concur 
in this, will not agree to the kind of treaty that our President and 
his associates are attempting to cause the rest of the world to agree 
to.
  So, Mr. President, I hope that you understand and I hope the world 
understands that this Senate, the Senate responsible for the 
ratification of these kinds of agreements, will, at this time, not 
ratify what you are proposing.
  Mr. THOMAS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I join my colleagues for just a few 
moments with respect to the question that we are addressing this 
morning, that question of global warming, but more particularly the 
specifics with respect to it.
  I am sure you already heard, but let me say again, there was a 
measure adopted by this Senate 95-0 that expressed two main points: 
One, the United States should not be signatory to any treaty that would 
``result in serious harm to the U.S. economy.'' And, No. 2, that 
mandates developing countries to have specific scheduled commitments to 
limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions within the same compliance 
period.
  So we have been working at this for some time. We have had several 
hearings in our Committee on the Environment and Public Works and also 
in Energy. We have had representatives of the administration there. 
This goes clear back to Rio, I think, in 1992. It goes back more 
specifically now to Geneva about a year ago, in which promises were 
apparently made at that meeting with respect to what the United States 
would do. We called the Assistant Secretary to our committee to talk 
about that. He indicated, no, that wasn't true, there were no 
commitments made. In fact, I think there were.
  Now we move on to the meeting in Bonn, which will go on almost 
immediately, and then the Kyoto meeting to take place something over a 
month from now.
  So this is the result of a good long time in planning and a good long 
time in difficulty in trying to bring together the issues as they 
relate to developed countries, as they relate to developing countries.
  The President has finally made somewhat of an understandable 
statement. We have not had that before.

  Just 2 weeks ago we had another hearing in our committee, brought the 
Assistant Secretary on Global Affairs to talk to us, asked specific 
questions about what they had in mind without any specific answers. 
There was no response from the administration's witness.
  So now the President has come forth with statements. That is good. We 
should have had them some time before, statements which he indicates--

[[Page S11010]]

and I quote--``Would be painless and even economically beneficial.'' Of 
course that is what he would say. Many people disagree with that, 
including myself. I cannot imagine that whatever we do that is 
meaningful is going to ``be painless and economically beneficial.'' But 
specifically, of course we have not had time to analyze the full thing.
  It talks about reaching 1990 levels by the year 2010, emission levels 
that occurred in 1990, reaching back to those by 2010, with some cap by 
2008. And then to move below the 1990 levels by 2020. He calls that a 
fairly modest proposal.
  Interesting how often these things are set out. I think if you go 
back, you find that the air quality statutes were given a great deal of 
time before implementation, so the argument was, ``Don't worry, don't 
worry about some regulation. Don't worry about the cost because it's 
way out in the future.'' I do not think that is a good recommendation.
  We should worry about what the impacts are on the economy, what the 
impacts are on costs, what the impacts are on our ability to compete in 
the world and worry about them regardless of the fact that they are out 
there.
  China, on the other hand, and some of the other countries that are 
developing countries, ask for a 15 percent reduction from the 1990 
levels by 2010, a 7.5 percent reduction by 2025, 7.5 below 1990. 
Remember, the President said we will not reach 1990 until 2010. The 
Chinese and their group also want a 35 percent reduction from 1990 
levels by the year 2020.
  The problem, of course, is, as we go into this negotiation--and those 
who are involved say, ``Well, they've set the parameters, somehow the 
results will be between these two.'' That is kind of scary. The 
President is saying, this is where we are. They are saying, we want to 
be way up here. And probably they will end up somewhere in between.
  I go back to the action of the Senate which 95 to nothing said we 
will not accept a treaty that does the kinds of things that we have 
already talked about.
  So, Mr. President, I know this is a difficult problem. But I agree 
with my friend, the Senator from Idaho. We have done a good job of 
emissions.
  I have been to China several times, and I can tell you, if you want 
to look forward to where the emissions problems are going to be, it is 
going to be there in those developing countries.
  I think we need to make the changes that we want to have happen in 
our country, encourage others. But I am very concerned about us going 
to this meeting in Kyoto and coming out seeking to agree to the kinds 
of things that have been set forth by the developing countries who wish 
not to have any containment put on theirs.
  So we are looking for a fair agreement. We are looking for some kind 
of an arrangement that will allow us to continue to do what we have 
done and we are proud of doing.
  I think, Mr. President, that you need to be more specific than you 
have been with this idea that we want you to do some things, and then 
we will decide later what the reimbursement is going to be, we will 
decide later what the incentives are going to be, which I understand is 
what the President said yesterday.
  So I think we need to continue. And I want to say to my friend from 
Nebraska that he has done an excellent job of holding hearings, taking 
positions, following this issue, which is one of the most important 
issues to the future of the country. And I commend him for that and 
join with him.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the old adage says everybody likes to 
talk about the weather, but nobody can do anything about it. A 
particularly strong El Nino has meteorologists predicting strange 
weather this year, so expect lots of people to be talking about the 
weather in the months ahead. But in a new twist, many will claim that 
there is something we can do about the weather as well.
  I'm talking about efforts to curb global warming. And if you'll 
pardon the pun, this is one of the hottest debates we are likely to see 
over the next year.
  Is human activity the cause of this particularly strong El Nino, or 
the warming that some say is underway? Or is this just natural climate 
variation? Scientists are divided. The prestigious journal Science, in 
its issue of May 16, says that climate experts are a long way from 
proclaiming that human activities are heating up the earth. Indeed, the 
search for the human fingerprint in observed warming is far from over 
with many scientists saying that a clear resolution is at least a 
decade away. We continue to spend over $2 billion each year on the U.S. 
Global Climate Change Research Program for the simple reason that the 
science is not settled.
  One thing that scientists can agree on is that the Earth's climate 
has always changed--the ice core and fossil records bear that out. 
Hippos once grazed in European rivers. Sea levels were low enough 
during periodic ice ages to allow humans to walk from Asia to North 
America. The climate changes. It always has. And it will continue to 
change regardless of what we do or don't do.
  Yesterday, the President revealed his negotiating position on a new 
climate treaty. He has proposed reducing our carbon emissions to 1990 
levels between 2008 and 2012. The Department of Energy estimates that 
we will have to engage in a crash course of research and development, 
plus impose a $50 per ton carbon permit price--or tax--to achieve this 
target.
  Talks are underway at this moment in Bonn, and everyone is preparing 
for December negotiations in Kyoto, Japan. It is almost certain that 
legally binding targets and timetables will be a central feature of the 
new climate treaty expected to emerge in Kyoto--and that these targets 
and timetables will not apply to developing nations. Even if you are a 
proponent of strong action to address increasing concentrations of 
atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases thought to warm 
the Earth's climate, there are plenty of good reasons to oppose 
selectively applied, legally binding targets and timetables for 
greenhouse gas reductions as the President has proposed.
  First, these are really just emissions controls targeted at just a 
few of the 168 nations that are parties to this treaty. Aside from 
being just plain unfair, these new emissions controls will be 
devastating to large sectors of our economy. They will raise energy 
prices in the United States, Canada, Australia, and Europe--while 
China, South Korea, and Mexico are specifically exempted from them.
  As a consequence, energy-intensive industrial production, capital, 
jobs, and emissions will shift from the U.S. to developing nations not 
subjected to the new controls. What will result from that? According to 
a study by the Department of Energy: 20 to 30 percent of the U.S. 
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.
  Needless to say, China, South Korea, Mexico, and some of our other 
most competitive trading partners salivate at the prospect of this 
monumental shift in capital, production, and jobs.
  Putting economic and competitive aspects aside for a moment, it's 
important to ask the questions: Will these emissions controls applied 
only to a few nations work? Can they decrease emissions and stabilize 
atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations?
  The answer is no. Actual global emissions won't decrease--only their 
point of origin will change. In fact, because our industrial processes 
are more energy efficient than those found in most developing nations, 
global carbon emissions per unit of production would actually increase 
under the administration's approach.
  In other words, the United States and a few leading industrial 
nations would suffer domestic economic pain, without realizing any 
global environmental gain.
  The U.S. Senate has passed a resolution by a vote of 95 to 0 urging 
that the new climate treaty avoid legally binding targets and 
timetables on developed nations unless there are ``new, specific 
scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for 
Developing Country Parties within the same compliance period.''

[[Page S11011]]

  Thus, we have the makings of a train wreck: The developing nations 
will not participate in a climate treaty that contains legally binding 
targets and timetables that apply to them. Yet, the U.S. Senate is 
unwilling to ratify a treaty that does not contain new commitments for 
developing countries.
  There are other practical problems as well. Legally binding targets 
and timetables would be impossible to verify and enforce. For example, 
how does one measure the methane being produced by a rice paddy or 
landfill? How do you calculate the carbon dioxide being sequestered by 
a forest? While good scientific estimates can be offered, the legally 
binding nature of the controls might require greater precision. What 
kind of new strict and intrusive international regulatory regime would 
be needed for enforcement?
  These are all questions that have not been answered in the rush 
toward Kyoto. Practically speaking, legally binding targets and 
timetables won't reduce global emissions. In addition, they present 
potentially insurmountable implementation problems, and would even kill 
the treaty. Thus, they endanger well meaning efforts to address the 
global climate issue.
  If we want to keep the new treaty from becoming an international 
embarrassment as an environmental initiative, we should reconsider the 
rush to Kyoto and hammer out solutions that can really work.
  So, you may ask--what can really work? How does one generate large 
amounts of carbon-free electricity for a growing economy here at home 
and a developing world abroad? There are two ways in the short term--
hydropower and nuclear.
  So what is our official U.S. policy toward hydropower? Domestically, 
we are studying tearing down a few dams out west. Environmental 
interests want to tear down, for example, the Glen Canyon Dam on the 
Colorado River in Northern Arizona in hopes of ``restoring the natural 
wonder of the once wild Glen Canyon.'' In so doing, we would: Drain 
Lake Powell--a 252 square mile lake which guarantees water supplies for 
Los Angeles, Phoenix, and Las Vegas; Eliminate the source of carbon-
free electricity for four million consumers in the Southwest; Scuttle a 
$500 million tourist industry and the water recreation area frequented 
by 2.5 million visitors each year.
  On the international front, we have refused to participate in efforts 
such as China's ``Three Gorges Dam,'' a project that will produce 
electricity equivalent to thirty-six 500 megawatt coal plants.
  Of course, all this makes no sense if you claim that carbon emissions 
are your preeminent environmental concern.
  Let's turn to nuclear, which produces 22% of our electricity and 
about 17% of global electricity. The President says he will veto our 
nuclear waste bill, and that could cause some of our nuclear plants to 
close prematurely as they run out of space for spent fuel. And we can't 
sell nuclear technology to China, something we hope to change in the 
very near future.
  Well, you can't be anti-nuclear, anti-hydropower, and anti-carbon. 
Let's do the math: Coal produces 55% of our electricity, and our coal 
use is likely to decrease in the face of: A new climate treaty; the 
EPA's new air quality standards on ozone and particulate matter; the 
EPA's tightened air quality standards on oxides of sulphur and 
nitrogen; the EPA's proposed regional haze rule; and the possibility of 
a new EPA mercury emissions rule.
  So if you knock coal out of the picture, what's next? Nuclear is in 
second place with 22% of our electrical generation. But as I mentioned, 
the President has threatened to veto our nuclear waste bill, and we 
haven't ordered a new nuclear plant since 1975. Moreover, if we can't 
recover ``stranded costs'' of nuclear power plants in the electricity 
restructuring effort, you can say goodbye to nuclear.
  What's next? Hydropower produces 10%. But all of our large hydropower 
potential outside Alaska has been tapped, and as I mentioned earlier, 
the administration is entertaining notions of tearing down some dams.
  What's next? Natural Gas produces 10% of electricity generation. Gas 
also emits carbon, although not as much as coal. So expect gas 
generation to increase, demand to rise, prices to increase and 
shortages to result from time to time. Does that sound like a solid 
strategy on which to gamble our economy?
  No coal, no nukes, no hydro; that leaves us with 13% of our 
generation capacity. What's left? Wind power? I like wind and solar, 
but you can't count on them all the time. And recently, the Sierra Club 
came out against wind farms in California, calling them ``cuisinarts 
for birds.''
  So the choices are tough, and a dose of realism is badly needed down 
at EPA and the White House. To sum things up, we are negotiating a 
treaty in Kyoto that is unrealistic, can't be verified, and can't 
achieve the advertised results. If this were an arms control treaty, 
we'd be guilty of unilateral disarmament if we were to agree to it.
  We should reconsider this rush to Kyoto and a new treaty. There is no 
reason to join the lemmings in their rush over the cliff. 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.
  Mr. TORRICELLI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hagel). The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Thank you, Mr. President.

                          ____________________