[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 26 (Thursday, March 12, 1998)]
[House]
[Page H1151]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). Under a 
previous order of the House, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Peterson) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, we are hearing increased 
rhetoric, some of it bordering on fantasy and hysteria, concerning 
global climate change. What is lacking and desperately needed is a full 
and open and robust debate. Is our climate changing?
  One temperature measuring system suggests that since 1900 there has 
been less than 1 degree of warming. Two other systems point to a slight 
cooling trend. While treaty supporters assert that the science of 
issues of global climate change are settled, the evidence clearly and 
loudly says that the debate should just be beginning.
  Here are some of the risks not mentioned by treaty supporters: the 
risk that energy suppression mandates will devastate employment in 
major U.S. industries; that rising fuel and electricity prices will 
depress the living standards of American families; that new tax and 
regulatory policies will handicap employers, enrich special interests 
and expand bureaucracy and risk the surrendering of more U.S. 
sovereignty to the U.N.
  Now, some people think that the Kyoto Protocol is the flawed 
execution of a bad idea, based on the conceit that government planners 
can know today what will be the worst calamity facing mankind 50 or 
even 100 years from now. Mobilizing the nations of the world and 
spending vast sums to fend off one possible threat that may prove to be 
nonexistent or trivial compared to the age-old scourges of poverty, 
hunger, disease and oppression is not a prudent insurance policy.
  The resources available to protect human health and safety are 
limited, especially in the Third World. Any policy that diverts 
trillions of dollars from real problems and real science to speculative 
and imaginary ones, or that locks mankind into politically correct and 
industrial policy schemes can only make societies less resilient, less 
able to meet the challenge of an unknown future.
  Mr. Speaker, should we risk the American economy and way of life 
before the evidence is conclusive? Let us have the debate first. Let us 
not approve the many billions of dollars that the President has 
requested to start implementing in this year's budget. The President 
has not submitted a treaty to the Senate. No debate has been held in 
the Senate. No ratification of a treaty has taken place.

  Let us tell the President, no, no, no, on funding until we have the 
debate first and until the evidence is conclusive. I have no doubt that 
if the evidence is conclusive, if we do come to that conclusion, this 
Congress will do whatever is necessary to resolve the problem.
  But until we have that debate, until the evidence is in, until we 
have absolute proof, let us say no to the President to spending 
billions of our tax dollars, starting this year, on a treaty that has 
not been approved by the Senate.

                          ____________________