[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 51 (Thursday, April 30, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3936-S3937]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. ASHCROFT:
  S. 2019. A bill to prohibit the use of Federal funds to implement the 
Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate 
Change unless or until the Senate has given its advice and consent to 
ratification of the Kyoto Protocol and to clarify the authority of 
Federal agencies with respect to the regulation of the emissions of 
carbon dioxide; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.


           the economic growth and sovereignty protection act

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to 
protect the strength and future growth of the American economy, and to 
uphold the system of checks and balances that is central to our 
government. The Clinton Administration's irresponsibility at the Kyoto 
Summit makes it necessary for Congress to act. On December 11, 1998, 
this administration agreed to an amendment to the United Nations 
Framework Convention on Climate Change.
  An amendment that clearly did not meet the standards for ratification 
established by this body in the Byrd-Hagel Resolution by a vote of 95-
0. The administration simply ignored the Senate's resolution--thereby 
ignoring the will of the American people. The resolution was clear and 
unmistakable it in its criteria. It stated that the administration 
should not agree to binding emission targets unless developing 
countries also were bound by the targets and that the administration 
must not agree to anything that severely damages the economy of the 
United States. The Kyoto Protocol fails both tests.
  On the first criteria, the Kyoto Protocol does not include a single 
developing nation. One hundred and thirty-four developing nations, 
including China, Mexico, India, Brazil, and South Korea, many of whom 
compete with the United States for trade opportunities, are completely 
exempt from any obligations or responsibilities for reducing greenhouse 
gas emissions.
  The Kyoto Protocol would legally bind the United States to reduce our 
greenhouse gas emissions to 7 percent below 1990 levels by the years 
2008 to 2012. It even goes much further than President Clinton's own 
bottom line that he personally announced last October pledging would 
not accept a baseline below 1990 levels in greenhouse gas emissions. He 
also said there must be ``meaningful participation'' from all 
developing countries.
  It is clear that the Protocol fails the second criteria. Numerous 
independent economic studies predicted serious economic harm even if 
the administration had held to its position that it enunciated last 
October. These studies found 2.4 million job losses, significant 
increases in energy costs, a 50-cent increase in gas prices per gallon, 
a drop in economic growth rates of more than 1 percent a year, and 
major American industries being driven out of business or driven out of 
the United States--industries like steel, aluminum, petroleum refining, 
chemicals, iron, paper products, and cement.
  That is why American agriculture, American labor, American business 
and industry and many consumer groups have all united in opposition to 
this treaty. Yet, our negotiators in Kyoto--the ones who were supposed 
to be looking out for the American people--cut a deal that would have 
had an even more devastating and extreme impact on the U.S. economy and 
on the lives of the American people.
  The administration's recent attempt to develop an economic analysis 
showing ``minimal'' harm to the U.S. economy clearly are flawed. No 
models, no numbers, no percentages, no economics. It is based on 
fabrication and vapor, on what Senator Hagel called ``wildly optimistic 
assumptions'' such as China, India and Mexico agreeing to the binding 
commitments in this treaty.

  This is what one observer in Kyoto--the leader on this issue in the 
United States Senate, along with Senator Byrd--Senator Hagel, had to 
say about the administration's activities in Kyoto. ``After Vice 
President Gore came to Kyoto and instructed our negotiators to show 
`increased flexibility' the doors were thrown open and the objective 
became very clear. The objective was: Let us get a deal at any cost. 
The clear advice of the U.S. Senate and the economic well-being of the 
American people were abandoned under pressure from the U.N. 
bureaucrats, international environmentalists and the 134 developing 
countries that were not even included--not even included--in the 
treaty. The United States of America was the only Nation to come out of 
these negotiations worse than it came in. In fact, there was no 
negotiation in Kyoto; there was only surrender.''
  From an environmental standpoint, the Kyoto ``deal'' is completely 
inadequate. The treaty is so flawed that it will do virtually nothing 
to slow the growth of manmade greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. Even 
if one accepts the validity of the science on global warming, which is 
still uncertain and at best contradictory, this treaty would do nothing 
to stop any of these emissions. The Kyoto ``deal'' excludes the very 
developing nations who will be responsible for more than 60 percent of 
the world's manmade greenhouse gas emissions early in the next century.

[[Page S3937]]

  In fact, as more and more American scientists review the available 
data on global warming, it is becoming increasingly clear that the vast 
majority believe the commitments for reduction of greenhouse gas 
emissions made by the Administration in the Kyoto ``deal'' is an 
unnecessary response to an exaggerated threat--``to an exaggerated 
threat'' that the Vice President himself is caught up in making. Last 
week, more than 15,000 scientists, two-thirds with advanced academic 
degrees, released a petition they signed urging the United States to 
reject the Kyoto ``deal.'' The petition, expressly states that:

       There is no convincing scientific evidence that human 
     release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases 
     is causing or will cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's 
     atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate.

  The administration understands that the Kyoto ``deal'' does not meet 
these standards because they have made it clear that the President will 
not send this document to the Senate for ratification.
  However, not only did the administration ignore the Senate when 
agreeing to this deal, they are continuing to ignore it even today. A 
number of my constituents, particularly farmers and small business 
owners, have come to me with grave concerns over the administration's 
``back door'' implementation of the Protocol's requirements.
  For example, the Administration has requested $6.3 billion in its 
1999 budget in order to begin meeting its obligations under the Kyoto 
Protocol. This money would go to a number of federal agencies and 
departments including the Department of Energy, the Environmental 
Protection Agency, Housing and Urban Development, the Commerce 
Department, and the Department of Agriculture.
  The administration, in a document relating to electricity 
restructuring, which was circulating through the Environmental 
Protection Agency, referenced reducing emission to ``meet our 
greenhouse gas emission budget under the Kyoto Protocol.'' The 
memorandum further states that electricity restructuring also should 
take environmental concerns into account in order to ``deliver on the 
President's commitments.''
  Many federal agencies are in the process of establishing Kyoto 
implementation offices. The Environmental Protection Agency currently 
is discussing whether the agency has the power under the Clean Air Act 
or the Energy Policy Act to regulate carbon dioxide emissions--a key 
emission limited under the Kyoto Protocol.
  In the news conference after cutting the deal in Kyoto, 
administration officials seemed to indicate that since the U.S. has ten 
years to meet the greenhouse gas emission targets established at 
Kyoto--the administration has ten years to involve the Senate in its 
activities.
  Mr. President, the Constitution clearly states that while the 
Executive Branch has the authority to negotiate international treaties, 
that only the United States Senate has the authority to ratify such 
treaties. We cannot allow the Executive Branch to usurp the power of 
Congress by implementing the treaty--a treaty that will have such a 
devastating impact on the United States--without the Senate first being 
ratified by this body.
  A treaty is the most solemn international obligation that can be 
entered upon by sovereign people. The sovereignty of the United States 
was purchased with the blood of patriots, and the Constitution defined 
the treaty making power with great care. The blood and treasure of our 
nation may not be placed at hazard by a treaty unless the President and 
Congress are in agreement. The Framers created this shared power in 
part because the United States intended to reject utterly the European 
tradition that invested the monarch with unfettered power to conduct 
foreign policy--even to the extremity of spending the lives of citizens 
in wars conducted to satisfy his vanity or dynastic ambition. Under our 
Constitution, the President may not on his own bind the sovereignty of 
the United States to the terms of a treaty unless that treaty has been 
ratified by two-thirds of the Senate.
  The treaty making power, then is not only shared and checked, but 
ratification must meet the high standard of a two-third vote. The 
Administration's Kyoto agenda is constitutionally offensive in several 
respects. First, the President is not to behave like a pre-democratic 
ruler who makes commitments at will that bind the nation. Second, the 
Executive branch is proceeding to inflict severe damage on our economy 
and our people, without deliberation by the Congress. Finally, the 
Administration is proceeding to impose an unratified--and therefore 
meaningless--treaty, a treaty so badly flawed that it would, on its 
face, be rejected by the Senate.
  Unfortunately, it is unlikely that the administration's activities 
will stop merely because members of the Senate, members of the House of 
Representatives, or citizens of the United States point out the 
Constitutional implications. Therefore, today I am offering the 
Economic Growth and Sovereignty Protection Act. This act simply would 
prohibit any federal agency from spending federal funds on implementing 
the treaty until such time that it is ratified by the United States 
Senate.

  In addition, since the EPA has raised the issue of whether it has the 
ability to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, this act would make it 
clear that no federal agency has such power without the express 
authority from the Congress.
  Mr. President, the Constitution cannot be ignored. It established a 
system of checks and balances which must be preserved and protected. 
The interests and the sovereignty of this great Nation cannot be 
ignored. To allow other nations' interests to become more important--to 
dictate our domestic policy--would be unconscionable. The will of the 
American people cannot be ignored. To do so would crush the very 
foundation on which this democracy was established.
                                 ______