[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 7869-7870]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                    ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE POLICY

  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, in the midst of the energy challenges 
facing our Nation lies a very unique opportunity. We have a chance to 
develop energy and environmental policies that work together. A clean 
environment and a strong energy policy need not be mutually exclusive. 
The forces of reality have brought us to this point. We have an energy 
problem that we cannot ignore. We also have a new administration which 
is re-evaluating our environmental policies, as any new administration 
would do, to ensure that what we are pursuing, and how we are pursuing 
it, is relevant, realistic, and achievable.
  In the past, there has been a division of these issues. Energy and 
environmental policies have been considered separately--and mostly at 
odds with one another. This has led to an unnecessary gap of confidence 
in both efforts. We have an opportunity to reverse this division and 
create integrated policies to pursue both critically important 
objectives of a steady energy supply and a clean environment.
  In the next few days, President Bush will release the 
administration's new energy policy. This policy will provide a balanced 
approach to meet the supply and demand imbalance we are now facing in 
this country. It will reflect our absolute need for a wide and deep 
energy supply portfolio, including the use of renewable energy and 
alternative energy sources. It would have been easy to defer this 
challenge, to delay the tough choices. But that's what got us into this 
mess. For the last 8 years, this country drifted without an energy 
policy, and today we are literally paying the price.
  Gas prices have hit record levels and are predicted to continue 
rising. The energy shortages in California will spread to other areas 
of this country during the hot summer months when the demand for energy 
will continue to outstrip supply.
  Finding solutions to problems requires bold ideas, common sense, 
imagination and sometimes unpopular choices. President Bush has shown 
courage and leadership for his willingness to address the problem and 
develop solutions. As we create a comprehensive and balanced policy to 
address our energy needs, we need to take into account our 
environmental priorities, particularly in the area of climate change.
  Just one example of where we can do this is nuclear energy 
production. Like solar and wind power, nuclear power produces no 
greenhouse gases--zero emissions. It is one of the most cost effective, 
reliable, available, and efficient forms of energy we have. Vast 
improvements in technology have made it one of the safest forms of 
energy production. Having nuclear energy play a vital role in our 
energy policy will enhance not only our energy supply but our 
environmental health as well.
  President Bush has assembled a cabinet level environmental task force 
to review climate change. They have been listening to and learning from 
some of the world's foremost meteorologists, climatologists, 
physicists, scientists, and environmental experts. The President has 
said that his administration will offer a science based, realistic, and 
achievable alternative to the Kyoto protocol.
  That is the responsible thing to do. President Bush merely stated the 
obvious when he declared the Kyoto protocol dead. Although his actions 
have been criticized, the forthrightness and clarity are refreshing on 
this issue. The Kyoto protocol would never have been in a position to 
be ratified by the U.S. Senate. The Clinton-Gore administration knew 
this as well. That is why they never submitted the treaty to the Senate 
even for debate and consideration.
  Despite the heated rhetoric on this issue from the other side of the 
Atlantic, no major industrialized nation has ratified the Kyoto 
protocol. In fact, Australia has said it will follow in rejecting the 
treaty. There is a reason for that. The Kyoto protocol would not work. 
It left out 134 nations, some of whom are among the world's largest 
emitters of greenhouse gases. A treaty claiming to attempt to reduce 
global emissions of greenhouse gases has no chance of being effective 
when it exempts some of the largest greenhouse gas emitters in the 
world--nations like China, India, South Korea, Brazil, and 130 other 
nations.
  My colleague from West Virginia, Senator Byrd, whom I worked with in 
1997 on S. Res. 98, addressed this point last week. S. Res. 98, or the 
Byrd-Hagel

[[Page 7870]]

resolution, which the Senate agreed to by a vote of 95 to 0, stated 
that the United States should not agree to any treaty in Kyoto, or 
thereafter, which would place binding limits on the United States and 
other industrialized nations unless ``the protocol or other agreement 
also mandates new specificly scheduled commitments to reduce greenhouse 
gas emissions for Developing County Parties within the same compliance 
period.'' As Senator Byrd reiterated last week, developing countries 
must be included in any international agreement to limit greenhouse gas 
emissions.
  From the moment it was signed, the Kyoto protocol was never a 
realistic or achievable way to move forward on climate change. In the 
meantime, we've lost precious time when we could have been exploring 
achievable and realistic ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We 
have an opportunity now to discard an unworkable protocol and build a 
new consensus that will address climate change, and initiate efforts 
that are realistic and achievable.
  The United States is still a party to the Framework Convention on 
Climate Change (Rio Treaty), which was signed by the United States and 
ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1992. We should go back to the framework 
of that treaty, before the Berlin Mandate that excluded developing 
countries from participation, and lay the groundwork for future 
international efforts. This gives us a strong base to work from. Many 
of the discussions during the negotiations for the Kyoto protocol have 
worked to build consensus on areas that will need to be part of any 
international initiative--flexible measures to reduce greenhouse gas 
emissions, the role of carbon sinks, and other areas. We can build on 
this progress in developing an alternative to Kyoto.
  If we are creative and if our partners will work with us in good 
faith, we can negotiate arrangements that are responsible and 
proactive. By addressing this issue domestically, the United States can 
demonstrate our commitment to climate change and show that meeting this 
challenge can be done in an integrated way that ensures a sound energy 
supply and economic stability. The world will not be better off if the 
United States slips into an energy crisis or if our economy falters. 
Both would set off shock waves that would reverberate around the world. 
By creating our own integrated policy, we can provide direction for how 
the world can address the dual challenges of energy and climate change.
  Senators Murkowski and Breaux have introduced a comprehensive energy 
bill, of which I am an original cosponsor, that will increase our 
domestic resources, and increase the use of renewable and alternative 
fuels. In the last Congress, Senators Murkowski, Byrd, Craig, and I had 
legislation that would dramatically increase funding for the research 
and development of technologies to provide cleaner energy sources, and 
to incentivize efforts to reduce or sequester greenhouse gases. We are 
building upon that legislation and will be reintroducing it soon. It 
will improve our scientific knowledge and lay out positive steps that 
we can take now to address climate change.
  A forward-looking domestic policy will demonstrate our commitment to 
this important issue, enhance what we genuinely know abut climate 
change, create more efficient energy sources, include the efforts of 
our agricultural sector, and have the additional effect of reducing air 
pollutants.
  Mr. President, as I stated earlier, we have an historic opportunity 
to create policies that will address both our energy and environmental 
priorities in a way that is not mutually exclusive. Policies that 
compliment each other and work together. As we enter the 21st century, 
we face a world that is integrated like never before in history. Just 
as foreign policy cannot be considered separate from national security 
or trade policy--energy policy cannot and should not be considered 
separate from environmental and economic policy. What we do in one 
policy area has dramatic implications for another--both in our nation 
and across the globe. Building sound policies for our future requires 
that we create integrated policies to address the challenges facing 
America and the world.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allen). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.

                          ____________________