[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 102 (Monday, July 27, 1998)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1450-E1452]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND 
             INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                          HON. DAVID McINTOSH

                               of indiana

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, July 23, 1998

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4194) making 
     appropriations for the Departments of Veterans Affairs and 
     Housing and Urban Development, and for sundry independent 
     agencies, boards, commissions, corporations, and offices for 
     the fiscal year ending September 30, 1999, and for other 
     purposes:

  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, today, the House needs to retain the 
legislative restriction on new regulations in the VA-HUD bill to ensure 
that the Clinton-Gore Administration does not implement the Kyoto 
Protocol through the backdoor prior to Senate ratification of the 
treaty.
  Retaining this language will ensure that the Administration will not 
circumvent through regulation the Senate's constitutional 
responsibility of advice and consent with respect to treaties.
  In Kyoto, Vice President Al Gore already ignored the U.S. Senate's 
bi-partisan, unanimous resolution (the 95-0 Byrd-Hagel resolution) not 
to negotiate a treaty which either exempts developing countries or 
hurts the American economy.
  In a series of hearings entitled ``The Kyoto Protocol: Is the 
Clinton-Gore Administration Selling Out Americans?,'' my Subcommittee 
has heard from democratic and Republican State and local elected 
officials, businesses, labor, and consumers, that the Kyoto Protocol is 
a bad deal for America and will have dire consequences on Americans, 
including:
  Huge job losses, up to 1.5 million according to the AFL-CIO and more 
according to other studies; Cecil Roberts, the President of the United 
Mine Workers, testified that the Administration should not proceed 
prior to Senate ratification; Ande Abbot representing the Boilermakers 
union, part of the AFL-CIO, agreed--no implementation prior to 
ratification.
  Huge increase in the cost of living for American families ($2700 more 
per household for energy and other products);
  Greatly diminished U.S. trade competitiveness;
  Recently, a union machinist from my district testified before my 
Subcommittee that the Kyoto Protocol ``is bad news for the American 
worker'' and ``we want jobs, not assistance.''
  Al Gore's Kyoto Protocol is a fundamentally flawed treaty, with 
unrealistic targets and timetables.
  It commits the U.S. to reduce greenhouse gas emission by 7% below 
1990 levels within the 2008-2012 period.
  In real terms, this treaty mandates an unprecedented 41% reduction of 
fossil fuels use from business-as-usual.
  Al Gore's Kyoto Protocol is unfair and unworkable.
  It does not allow developing countries (like China, India, and 
Brazil), which will be emitting a majority of the world's greenhouse 
gas

[[Page E1451]]

emissions by 2015, to opt in to the targets and timetables.
  It allows the developing countries, which constitute a majority and 
which have no obligations to reduce emissions, to define the rules, 
procedures, and enforcement mechanisms of the treaty.
  CEA Chair Janet Yellen testified that the economic impact would be 
``modest'' if the U.S. was able to satisfy 85% of its Kyoto obligations 
by purchasing emission reduction credits from other countries. Other 
countries have refused to agree to such a trading system.
  Amazingly, the White House has been unwilling to disclose to Congress 
information and analyses to justify the president's request for a huge 
increase in funding (+$6.3 billion) for its climate change agenda and 
to support fully its policy positions about this major initiative; as a 
consequence, Chairman Burton has so far issued three subpoenas to 
obtain key documents and may be forced to issue more subpoenas and/or 
to go the next step by pursuing one or more contempt resolutions.
  While Al Gore, in a recent press conference, claimed that Congress is 
imposing a gag order on global warming, it is the Administration that 
is imposing a gag order by withholding documents that would supposedly 
help to explain and justify its budget request. What is the 
Administration hiding and why are they hiding it?
  Let's send a message to Al Gore that Congress is entitled to the 
information and documents we have requested since March and that the 
Clinton-Gore Administration cannot undermine Congress' Constitutional 
role through back-door implementation of the Kyoto Protocol prior to 
Senate ratification.

                 Vote ``No'' on the Greenwood Amendment


  A ``NO'' VOTE ON THE GREENWOOD AMENDMENT IS A NO VOTE ON THE KYOTO 
               TREATY UNTIL IT IS RATIFIED BY THE SENATE

       Let's make sure that the Clinton-Gore administration does 
     not make an end-run around our constitutional process to 
     implement the Kyoto Protocol.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Myth                                Reality          
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good Deal: The Administration says that     Bad Deal: The Kyoto Protocol
 the Kyoto Protocol will be good for         is a bad deal for America. 
 America.                                    It violates the Byrd-Hagel 
                                             Resolution (which passed   
                                             the Senate pre-Kyoto by a  
                                             95-0 vote) because it only 
                                             places restrictions on     
                                             developed nations          
                                             (exempting all developing  
                                             countries entirely) and    
                                             because it could result in 
                                             serious harm to the U.S.   
                                             economy. And, it would     
                                             result in no net           
                                             environmental gains.       
Achievable Target and Timetable: The        Unachievable Target and     
 Administration says that it negotiated      Timetable: This agreement  
 realistic and achievable U.S. targets and   requires the U.S. to reduce
 timeframes in the Kyoto Treaty.             its emissions of greenhouse
                                             gases by 7% below 1990     
                                             levels between the years   
                                             2008-2012. Even if America 
                                             stopped operating every    
                                             car, truck, boat, train,   
                                             and airplane in this       
                                             country, the energy savings
                                             would not be enough to meet
                                             the requirements of the    
                                             Kyoto Protocol. In fact,   
                                             Under Secretary of State   
                                             Stuart Eizenstat testified 
                                             that Congress should fund  
                                             the President's requested  
                                             $6.3 billion climate change
                                             budget increase in order to
                                             ``place us further down the
                                             road so that we won't have 
                                             to face the kind of drastic
                                             reductions that we would   
                                             otherwise have to face.''  
Fair: The Administration says that it will  Grossly Unfair: The Kyoto   
 obtain the ``meaningful participation''     Treaty exempts the vast    
 of developing countries.                    majority of the            
                                             international community    
                                             from making reductions in  
                                             their emissions of         
                                             greenhouse gases. There are
                                             not even voluntary opt-in  
                                             provisions for developing  
                                             countries. At Kyoto, the   
                                             China delegate announced   
                                             his 3-no policy: No, we    
                                             will not restrict our      
                                             emissions; No, we will not 
                                             promise to restrict our    
                                             emissions in the future;   
                                             No, we will not agree to a 
                                             voluntarily opt-in clause  
                                             in the treaty to reduce    
                                             emissions. Recently, in    
                                             Bonn, Germany, the G-77    
                                             nations and China adamantly
                                             opposed even including an  
                                             agenda item on voluntary   
                                             commitments by developing  
                                             countries for Buenos Aires 
                                             in November 1998.          
International Emissions Trading a Panacea:  International Emissions     
 The Administration says that the costs to   Trading No Panacea:        
 American workers, consumers, and            Developing countries and   
 businesses will be ``modest'' because a     the European Union are     
 significant portion of the U.S. emissions   firmly opposed to any      
 reductions requirements can be undertaken   unrestricted, global       
 by other nations through international      emissions trading system   
 emissions trading. In fact, the             that allows any country to 
 Administration's estimates assume that      buy its way into           
 the U.S. will satisfy 85% of its Kyoto      compliance. Developing     
 obligation by purchasing credits from       countries have stated that 
 other countries which can reduce            they will not commit to cap
 emissions more cheaply.                     their emissions so that    
                                             they can participate in    
                                             emissions trading. In May  
                                             1998 President Clinton     
                                             signed a G-8 National      
                                             Communique committing the  
                                             U.S. to ``undertake        
                                             domestically the steps     
                                             necessary to reduce        
                                             significantly greenhouse   
                                             gas emissions,'' and, as   
                                             the Kyoto Protocol says, to
                                             use trading simply to      
                                             ``supplement domestic      
                                             actions.''                 
Treaty Advances Technological Development:  Treaty Threatens            
 Based on a study performed by 5             Technological Development: 
 Department of Energy national               Even that 5-lab study      
 laboratories, the Administration claims     indicates that it will     
 that technologies can be developed and      require ``luck'' to achieve
 deployed between now and 2010 that could    the necessary technological
 reduce emissions and energy consumption     breakthroughs by 2010. At  
 sufficient to meet our Kyoto Protocol       hearings before the        
 target.                                     Subcommittee on Regulatory 
                                             Affairs, Dr. John McTague, 
                                             VP, Ford Motor Company,    
                                             testified that, contrary to
                                             the Administration's rosy  
                                             predictions, deployment of 
                                             new technology through the 
                                             joint government/industry  
                                             Partnership for a New      
                                             Generation of Vehicles will
                                             not meet the U.S. Kyoto    
                                             targets and timetable. He  
                                             stated that the treaty's   
                                             ``rigid timetables threaten
                                             significant disruption to  
                                             sound technological        
                                             development.'' The treaty's
                                             short timeframe for        
                                             compliance will divert     
                                             limited resources into high-
                                             cost, less effective       
                                             investments.               
Full disclosure of information: The         Stonewalling on disclosure  
 Administration claims that Council of       of information: The        
 Economic Advisers (CEA) Chair Janet         Administration has been    
 Yellen's so-called ``economic analysis''    unwilling to disclose to   
 (without any backup tables) and its         Congress information and   
 budget request provide sufficient           analyses to justify its    
 information for Congress to act             funding requests and its   
 favorably. It has stated one conclusion     policy positions. As a     
 after another about how the U.S. can meet   result, the Government     
 its Kyoto Protocol commitment through       Reform and Oversight       
 technology development and international    Committee was forced to    
 emissions trading.                          issue 3 subpoenas in order 
                                             to obtain documents and may
                                             even have to pursue        
                                             contempt resolutions.      
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                      IMPACT OF THE KYOTO PROTOCOL BY STATE                                     
                                            [Source: 1998 WEFA data]                                            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Unemployment rate in     State tax 
                                                               Number of             2010             revenue $ 
                                                               jobs lost  --------------------------   lost (in 
                            State                               by 2010                               millions) 
                                                              under Kyoto    Without    Under Kyoto    by 2010  
                                                                Protocol      Kyoto       Protocol   under Kyoto
                                                                             Protocol                  Protocol 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.....................................................       67,500         3.63         6.33          929
Alaska......................................................        4,300         7.20         8.51          239
Arizona.....................................................      102,300         3.03         5.73        1,700
Arkansas....................................................       20,600         4.72         6.13          513
California..................................................      278,800         6.10         7.73       11,500
Colorado....................................................       47,400         3.75         5.32        2,000
Connecticut.................................................       28,100         5.48         6.97        1,800
Delaware....................................................        4,500         4.71         5.64          264
Florida.....................................................      142,000         4.97         6.56        5,800
Georgia.....................................................       80,000         3.92         5.48        2,700
Hawaii......................................................        9,700         6.55         8.15          329
Idaho.......................................................       11,600         3.92         5.28          393
Illinois....................................................      190,700         3.38         6.06        5,200
Indiana.....................................................       99,700         3.65         6.15        1,800
Iowa........................................................       21,600         5.07         6.29          785
Kansas......................................................       18,400         4.21         5.39          780
Kentucky....................................................       56,500         4.60         7.10          997
Louisiana...................................................       64,500         6.35         8.85          945
Maine.......................................................        7,000         5.31         6.37          322
Maryland....................................................       33,300         4.71         5.92        2,000
Massachusetts...............................................       45,600         4.32         5.50        2,900
Michigan....................................................       96,500         3.80         5.54        3,400
Minnesota...................................................       46,900         3.45         4.93        1,800
Mississippi.................................................       28,600         5.86         7.94          423
Missouri....................................................       48,700         4.04         5.55        1,600
Montana.....................................................       41,500         6.04         9.94          288
Nebraska....................................................       19,000         3.09         4.82          502
Nevada......................................................       27,300         4.64         6.48        1,000
New Hampshire...............................................       12,400         4.39         6.12          447
New Jersey..................................................      120,500         5.15         7.84        3,600
New Mexico..................................................       13,500         7.26         8.68          377
New York....................................................      140,000         6.24         7.76        7,100
North Carolina..............................................      107,200         3.95         6.14        2,500
North Dakota................................................        3,600         2.78         3.66          173
Ohio........................................................      119,800         3.92         5.74        3,500
Oklahoma....................................................       26,600         3.83         5.41          753
Oregon......................................................       22,900         5.47         6.63        1,200
Pennsylvania................................................      108,000         4.65         6.37        3,800
Rhode Island................................................        3,400         4.57         5.27          260
South Carolina..............................................       32,500         5.48         6.99          815
South Dakota................................................        7,200         3.23         4.81          191
Tennessee...................................................       39,500         5.41         6.61        1,500
Texas.......................................................      124,600         5.21         6.32        6,000
Utah........................................................       12,700         3.09         3.89          713
Vermont.....................................................        2,300         4.12         4.79          167
Virginia....................................................       34,600         4.23         5.06        2,300
Washington..................................................       47,700         5.35         6.76        2,400
West Virginia...............................................       19,400         4.87         7.09          319
Wisconsin...................................................       69,800         2.59         4.71        1,800
Wyoming.....................................................        7,600         5.45         8.29          116
Total \1\...................................................      \2\ 2.4         5.43         6.95    \3\ 93.1 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The details do not add to totals because the totals, which are underestimated, are based on a national      
  model.                                                                                                        
\2\ Million.                                                                                                    
\3\ Billion.                                                                                                    


        PARTIES WITH BINDING COMMITMENTS UNDER THE KYOTO PROTOCOL       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Percentage
                          Country                             commitment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Australia..................................................          108
Austria....................................................           92
Belgium....................................................           92
Bulgaria...................................................           92
Canada.....................................................           94
Croatia....................................................           95
Czech Republic.............................................           92
Denmark....................................................           92
Estonia....................................................           92
European Community.........................................           92
Finland....................................................           92
France.....................................................           92
Germany....................................................           92
Greece.....................................................           92
Hungary....................................................           94
Iceland....................................................          110
Ireland....................................................           92
Italy......................................................           92
Japan......................................................           94
Latvia.....................................................           92
Liechtenstein..............................................           92
Lithuania..................................................           92
Luxembourg.................................................           92
Monaco.....................................................           92
Netherlands................................................           92
New Zealand................................................          100
Norway.....................................................          101
Poland.....................................................           94
Portugal...................................................           92
Romania....................................................           92
Russian Federation.........................................          100
Slovakia...................................................           92
Slovenia...................................................           92
Spain......................................................           92
Sweden.....................................................           92
Switzerland................................................           92
Ukraine....................................................          100
United States of America...................................           93
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.......           92
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parties Exempt From Binding Commitments Under the Kyoto Protocol

       Albania, Algeria, Antigua & Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, 
     Azerbaijan.
       Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Benin, 
     Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Buikina Faso, Burundi.
       Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Rep., Chad, 
     Chile, China, Columbia, Comoros, Congo, Cook Island, Costa 
     Rica, Cote d'Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus.
       Democratic Republic of the Congo, Democratic People's 
     Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Dominica.
       Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia.
       Fuji.
       Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, 
     Guinea Bissau, Guyana.
       Haiti, Honduras.
       India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Israel.
       Jamaica, Jordan.
       Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kiribati, Kuwait.
       Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho.

[[Page E1452]]

       Macedonia, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, 
     Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia 
     (Federated States of), Moldova (Republic of), Mongolia, 
     Morocco, Mazambique, Myanmar.
       Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Niger, Nive.
       Oman.
       Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, 
     Philippines.
       Qatar.
       Republic of Korea.
       Saint Kitts & Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the 
     Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, 
     Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South 
     Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syrian Arab 
     Republic.
       Tajikistan, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad & Tabago, Tunisia, 
     Turkmenistan, Tuvalu.
       Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, 
     Uruguay, Uzbekistan.
       Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam.
       Yemen.
       Zambia, Zimbabwe.

                          ____________________