[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 9]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 13263-13264]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



   AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND 
               RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2002

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                            HON. MARK UDALL

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, July 11, 2001

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2330) making 
     appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and 
     Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 2002, and for other 
     purposes.

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
Gilchrest/Olver amendment. The amendment would strike the language that 
was inserted in the bill to ensure that the Kyoto Protocol is not 
implemented prior to its ratification in the Senate.
  This language has been added over the past several years ago to 
numerous appropriations bills. As I understand it, the reason what that 
some were concerned that President Clinton was moving too fast to 
address global warming.

[[Page 13264]]

  It's important to note that the Inspector Generals of the EPA, the 
Department of Energy, and the Department of State all agreed that the 
Clinton Administration was not trying to prematurely implement the 
Kyoto Protocol.
  But that's all beside the point now.
  We have a new President who has made it clear that he intends to do 
nothing about global warming, except study it. He has pronounced the 
Kyoto Protocol fundamentally flawed and ``dead,'' and he has reversed 
his campaign promise to regulate carbon dioxide.
  As it stands, this bill seems to say we still need to restrain any 
federal efforts to address global warming. But if there is ever a time 
NOT to send cautionary messages about acting too fast to address global 
warming, it's now. The danger we face today is in acting far too 
slowly.
  Last year, efforts on the floor to amend the Kyoto language were 
successful. I urge my colleagues to send the same good message that we 
sent last year--this anti-Kyoto language wasn't necessary in past 
years, and it's not necessary now. There is now a scientific consensus 
that global warming is real, and it is time for Congress to confront 
it.

                          ____________________