[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 88 (Tuesday, July 11, 2000)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1206]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND 
               RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                       HON. SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                         Monday, July 10, 2000

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4461) making 
     appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and 
     Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other 
     purposes:

  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment which 
will strike damaging language and replace it with more sensible policy.
  The language this amendment strikes would have crippled the nation's 
ability to discuss and advance reasonable measures that would protect 
the environment in the most economically efficient way.
  The language would have blocked all government work on carbon 
emissions trading--all work, including discussion and analysis--even 
though corporations increasingly are embracing such trading and have 
entered into voluntary programs to engage in it. Carbon trading is the 
most economically efficient way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; if 
we don't do the work to develop it now, we will be left with no tools 
other than command and control to limit carbon, if we choose to impose 
limits in the future.
  Similarly, the Clean Development Mechanism that the bill language 
would have blocked is an economically beneficial way to attack 
greenhouse gas emissions in the developing world. The Mechanism will 
encourage the sale of American-made clean technologies in the 
developing world. Why on Earth would we want to discourage something 
that helps other nations implement their own climate change policies 
while creating business for our own companies and workers?
  I am pleased that so many people in industry and the Congress, from 
all points of the political spectrum, recognized the folly of this 
language.
  The language the amendment would substitute is far from ideal, but it 
is moderate language that has been signed into law in past years.
  But as someone who encouraged this strike and replace amendment, let 
me make clear my interpretation of what the amendment language says. 
The amendment prohibits the proposing or issuance of rules related to 
Kyoto. It does not prohibit the development of policies; it does not 
prohibit the discussions of policies in the U.S. or abroad; and it does 
not prohibit activities designed to carry out the Rio agreement on 
carbon dioxide, which was signed by President Bush and ratified by the 
Senate.
  In other words, the United States, under this language, can send 
representatives to international conference to discuss carbon trading 
or the Clean Development Mechanisms, can help other nations develop 
such policies, can undertake activities to figure out how such a policy 
would be implemented here. All that is being prohibited is the actual 
implementation of such policies; anything up to the point of proposal 
and issuance may continue.
  This amendment would not have the broad support it is receiving if 
Members believed in the cramped interpretation put forward by some of 
its proponents. The amendment means what it says on its face; it should 
not be interpreted in fanciful ways by those who were unsuccessful in 
getting more restrictive language approved.
  I hope future appropriation bills with this language will include the 
report language from the fiscal 1999 VA-HUD conference report, which 
provides the clearest, more accurate interpretation--which is that this 
amendment blocks activities that are solely related to implementing the 
Kyoto Protocol.
  And so, with that in mind, I urge support for the amendment.

                          ____________________