[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 68 (Thursday, May 17, 2001)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E840-E841]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    FOREIGN RELATIONS AUTHORIZATION ACT, FISCAL YEARS 2002 AND 2003

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                       HON. C.L. ``BUTCH'' OTTER

                                of idaho

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, May 16, 2001

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration: The bill (H.R. 1646) to 
     authorize appropriations for the Department of State for 
     fiscal years 2002 and 2003, and for other purposes:

  Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice my reasons for voting 
against final passage of H.R. 1646, the Foreign Relations Authorization 
Act. I wish for my colleagues and constituents to know the reasons for 
my action.
  There were many good provisions in H.R. 1646 that I am glad were in 
the final bill that the House passed. I support the sale of Kidd class 
destroyers to Taiwan. I support the call for moving the United States 
Embassy in Israel to the capital of Israel, Jerusalem. I also voted for 
several amendments that made H.R. 1646 a better bill. I joined my 
colleagues in voting for Mr. Delay's amendment to protect United States 
servicemen from the clutches of the United Nation's new international 
Criminal Court. America's service men and women serve our nation under 
our Constitution, not international bureaucrats under a foreign flag. I 
am pleased that this House voted to pass the amendment of the 
distinguished gentleman from California, Mr. Lantos, prohibiting United 
States military aid to Lebanon until they step up their efforts to stop 
terrorist attacks against Israel. I am particularly pleased that the 
Hyde Amendment restoring the Mexico City policy was added to the final 
bill.
  Despite these improvements, I could not vote for final passage of 
this bill for two reasons. The first reason is the failure of this 
House to pass the amendment of my friend and colleague from Colorado, 
Mr. Tancredo. I cannot support a bill that authorizes $118 million for 
rejoining the United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural 
Organization (UNESCO). UNESCO is a profoundly anti-western, anti-
American organization. President Ronald Reagan was correct in 
withdrawing the United States from this group, and I will not vote to 
send my constituents' tax dollars to an unelected intelligentsia who 
hate this country.
  The second reason I voted against this bill is because of language 
urging United States acceptance of the Kyoto treaty on the environment. 
There is no way I could vote for this bill with the language intact. 
This provision is unsound constitutionally and economically. The Kyoto 
language is unsound constitutionally because the other body has refused 
to ratify this treaty. The Constitution specifically reserves the 
treaty ratification power to the Senate. This house has no place urging 
the President to enforce a treaty that our country is not bound by. We 
have very strict laws restricting air and water pollution. If the House 
of Representative thinks these laws aren't strict enough, which I do 
not believe, then the House should pass a bill changing those laws. 
International negotiations are not the way the Founding Fathers 
intended for our environmental laws to be changed.
  More importantly, Mr. Chairman, the Kyoto treaty is monumentally 
flawed. If ratified it would require the United States and other 
developed countries to reduce their emission of so-called ``greenhouse 
gasses'' at least 7% below 1990 levels by 2010. At the same time 
developing countries, such as China, Brazil, and India, were exempted 
from the greenhouse requirements.
  If implemented, the Kyoto treaty would have driven manufacturing 
industries entirely out of the United States. The United States already 
has strict Clean Air laws. Requiring a 7% decline in emissions for 
every industry would impose enormous costs on manufacturers and has not 
been scientifically proven to prevent global warming. If given the 
opportunity to choose between a country with these strict laws and a 
nation that was not bound to reduce emissions, I am of no doubt as to 
which country that firm will move to.
  In addition to driving industry off-shore, full implementation of the 
Kyoto treaty would require increases in gasoline and electricity prices 
of up to 50%, and an estimated job loss of 2.4 million, according to 
one study. Mr. Chairman, the Clinton Administration did not sign a 
treaty at Kyoto, they signed a death sentence for the American economy. 
President Bush sensibly announced on March 28 that the United States 
would not take steps to implement the Kyoto treaty. I could not join 
this House in urging our President to destroy the American economy, and 
voted against H.R. 1646.

[[Page E841]]



                          ____________________