Chuck Hagel

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. May I ask? Point of inquiry. Is this on the time of the Senator from Massachusetts?

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, does Senator Kerry wish to go forward? Is he prepared?

Mr. HAGEL. I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Oklahoma, Senator Inhofe.

Mr. HAGEL. It is 2 minutes. It was 4 minutes 2 minutes ago, and I am sorry about that. I might add that we intend to continue this dialog and colloquy, hopefully, next week because as a result of the fact that we were given less time late last night than what was originally agreed to, even though I happen to be standing in this position, there is not much I can do with that. I live by the law. So that is why you have 2 minutes, and probably less.

Mr. HAGEL. I thank the Senator. I would like to yield to my friend from Kansas 2 minutes for his comments on this issue as well.

Mr. HAGEL. Thank you, Mr. President. Senator Kerry, is it your intent to enter into a colloquy with the Senator from West Virginia on this issue?

Mr. HAGEL. That is what I have said. I said I could not support that, will not support that, and I want to make sure my colleagues understand that, and that we stay focused on this.

Mr. HAGEL. We don't talk about the European bubble. More important, we don't talk about European trading and joint implementation. If Senator Byrd wants to say that, he can. This Senator wants to make it clear that I am not in favor of any sort or form of emissions trading or joint implementation. Furthermore, any kind of implied United Nations bureaucracy with the power to come in and inspect and penalize and fine and shut down American companies, which obviously is the legitimate logical conclusion of this, I want to be on record right now in saying I oppose that. Obviously, Senator Byrd can speak for himself.

Mr. HAGEL. This is interesting, I say to the Senator, but again it does not reflect on what the Byrd-Hagel resolution reflects.

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I yield myself whatever time I need. I just would like to make a quick response to my colleague. I noted that my colleague from Massachusetts keeps employing the name of Senator Byrd. I assume that Senator Byrd is going to have an opportunity to speak for himself on this. First, let's be very clear. This is all interesting, but it does not at all have anything to do with the Byrd-Hagel resolution. That is No. 1. Two, I am saying--and I think much of what we are talking about on the resolution that legally binding commitments are pretty tough, and we want to understand about those legally binding commitments before anybody gets legally bound, regarding if we are talking about a European bubble, or whatever.

Mr. HAGEL. I would like to respond, if I could.

Mr. HAGEL. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I thank Senator Byrd very, very much. I yield up to 5 minutes to my friend and distinguished colleague from Kentucky.

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, we have more than a dozen Senators on this side who want to speak on this issue. Under the time agreement, however, we have only 1 hour for proponents to debate. I, therefore, encourage Senators to insert their statements in the Record so they will be fully available to our negotiators before next week's meeting of the ad hoc group on the Berlin mandate in Bonn, Germany. I also hope to discuss this issue further on the Senate floor at a later date. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader and the minority leader for their leadership in bringing this resolution before the Senate. I also thank the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Foreign Relations Committee for their leadership as well. I particularly thank the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia. It has been a privilege for me to work on this important issue along side one of the Senate's giants. We are here today to debate a very important issue, one which will have a major impact on the future of this country. How our Nation addresses the global climate issue may prove to be one of the most important economic and environmental decisions of the next century. Let me say from the outset, this is not a debate about who is for or against the environment. We all agree on the need for a clean environment. We all want to leave our children a better, cleaner, more prosperous world. Nor is this debate about motives, personalities or politics. It is about finding the truth. What are the problems? If there are problems, what is the best solution? What are the costs? What are the consequences? And what do we need to do now? The debate on the Senate floor today is about the path the administration is taking on this issue. I believe they are on the wrong path in their negotiations for any treaty to be signed in Kyoto, Japan, this December. That is why my distinguished colleague from West Virginia and I have offered the Byrd-Hagel resolution. Senate Resolution 98, with its 65 cosponsors, puts the administration on notice that an overwhelming and bipartisan majority of the U.S. Senate rejects its current negotiating position on a proposed new global climate treaty. It is so important, as my friend, Senator Byrd, has repeatedly pointed out, that we in the U.S. Senate forcefully practice our constitutional role of advice and consent over these important negotiations. The credibility of the United States is not enhanced when the administration negotiates a treaty that has no hope of ratification in the U.S. Senate. The Byrd-Hagel resolution is a strong bipartisan wake-up call to the administration. This resolution rejects the United Nations' current negotiating strategy of binding United States and other developed nations to legally binding reductions without requiring any new or binding commitments from 130 developing nations, such as China, Mexico, and South Korea. In addition, this resolution rejects any treaty or other agreement that would cause serious economic harm to the United States. A simple reality of the current situation is that a core group of negotiators in the State Department has brought us near a point of no return. What this broad bipartisan coalition of 65 Senators is saying is ``we need a new direction in these negotiations.'' I approach this issue, Mr. President, believing that any action this serious that is undertaken by the United States must be based on sound science and common sense. This proposed treaty is based on neither. If anything has become clear during congressional hearings on this issue, it is that the science is unclear, that the scientific community has not even come close to definitively concluding that we have a problem. I mentioned earlier this morning, in the Wall Street Journal today, the very interesting article by Dr. Fred Singer about the science on this issue. Dr. Singer is professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia. I have already requested this be printed in the Record. The science is inconclusive and contradictory, and predictions for the future range from no significant problem to global catastrophe. The subcommittee I chair, International Economic Policy Export and Trade Promotion, has held two hearings on this issue. In the first hearing, we heard testimony from Dr. Patrick Michaels, a very distinguished climatologist and professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, who noted conditions in the real world simply have not matched changes projected by some computer models. Most of the warming of this century occurred in the first half of this century, before significant emissions of greenhouse gases began. And 18 years of satellite data actually shows a slight cooling trend in the world. Before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Dr. Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, testified that ``a decade of focus on global warming and billions of dollars of research funds have still failed to establish that global warming is a significant problem.'' At the same hearing, Dr. John Christy, an associate professor in the Department of Atmospheric Science at the University of Alabama, stated: ``The satellite and balloon data show that catastrophic warming is not now occurring. The detection of human effects on climate has not been convincingly proven because the variations we now have observed are not outside of the natural variations of the climate system.'' It is clear that the global climate is incredibly complex. It is influenced by far more factors than originally thought when some early crude computer models first raised alarms about the possible threat of imminent catastrophic global warming. The scientific community has simply not yet resolved the question of whether we have a problem with global warming. I suggest, again, that common sense dictates you don't come up with a solution to a problem until you are certain that you have a problem. However, the Clinton administration has proceeded to negotiate a solution before we have a confirmation that there is a problem. They have proposed that the United States and other developed nations submit to legally binding controls of greenhouse gas emissions. But they will not be asking for legally binding commitments from more than 130 ``developing nations,'' including, as I mentioned before, China, Mexico, South Korea, India, Singapore, and others. Mr. President, this makes no sense, no sense at all, given that these nations include some of the most rapidly developing economies in the world and are quickly increasing their use of fossil fuels. By the year 2015, China will surpass the United States as the largest producer of greenhouse gases in the world. It is the United States and other developed nations who are currently doing the most to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It is the developing nations that will be the biggest emitters of greenhouse gases during the next 25 years. It is complete folly to exclude them from legally binding emissions mandates. How could any treaty aimed at reducing global emissions of greenhouse gases be at all effective when it excludes these 130 nations? It won't. If these nations are excluded, greenhouse gas emissions will continue to rise, and we would see no net reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions. The exclusion of these nations is a fatal flaw in this treaty. Some analysts have even cautioned that the unequal treaty being negotiated at the United Nations could increase the emission of greenhouse gases. As industries flee the United States and other industrialized countries, they would reestablish themselves in developing countries that have much weaker environmental standards, like our neighbor to the south, Mexico. A draft economic report commissioned by this administration, this administration's Department of Energy, concluded that: Policy constraints placed on six large industries in the United States--petroleum refining, chemicals, paper products, iron and steel, aluminum and cement--would result in significant adverse impacts on the affected industries. Furthermore, they conclude: emissions would not be reduced significantly. The main effect of the assumed policy would be to redistribute output, employment, and emissions from participating to nonparticipating countries. Therefore, the U.N. Global Climate Treaty as being negotiated now by the Clinton administration cannot pass the first test of Byrd-Hagel. It will not include legally binding commitments from the developing nations. What about the second test of Byrd-Hagel, serious economic harm, serious economic harm to this country and our future generations? One of the notable aspects of this issue is that it has united American business, labor, and agriculture support. In my hearings, we heard testimony from the AFL-CIO, American Farm Bureau, National Association of Manufacturers, and many noted economists. They all agree on one very definite thing--the draft U.N. treaty now under consideration would have a devastating effect on American consumers, workers, farmers and businesses. Estimates of the proposed treaty's damage to our economy vary, mainly because the administration continually refused to offer its own economic assumptions. This, after the administration promised for more than a year to provide an economic model. However, last week the Clinton administration threw in the towel and gave up on even attempting to provide an economic model. At a hearing before the House Commerce Committee, Janet Yellen, chair of the Council of Economic Advisers for the President, admitted that the administration's long-awaited economic study had failed and claimed that it would be futile to attempt to assess the economic impacts of legally-binding emissions controls on our developed nations. So now the Clinton administration is proceeding to negotiate a treaty without any assessment of what it would do to the U.S. economy. That is incredible; absolutely stunning. But the bottom line is very clear. Even using conservative assumptions, Charles River Associates, a leading economic modeling firm, for example, has estimated that holding emissions at 1990 levels would reduce economic growth by 1 percent a year, rising to 3 percent in the later years, and that does not even consider Under Secretary of State Tim Wirth's long-term goal, which he stated during our hearings, of achieving a 70 percent reduction from current emissions levels. What this means to everyday Americans is very clear. The AFL-CIO has estimated the treaty would mean the loss of 1.25 to 1.5 million jobs. Energy prices will rise dramatically. Individual Americans will pay for this treaty either in their electric bills, at the gas pump, or by losing their jobs. Jerry Jasinowski, president of the National Association of Manufacturers, testified that the proposed treaty: . . . would hurt America's manufacturers, workers and families with little or no environmental benefit since new restrictive policies in the U.S. simply would force the flight of U.S. investment to developing countries. Millions of Americans would lose their jobs and American manufacturers would take a severe hit in the marketplace. What about the effects on American agriculture? It is little known that American agriculture produces 25 percent of our Nation's greenhouse gas emissions, which would make this critical sector of our economy vulnerable to the kind of major reductions envisioned by the U.N. global climate treaty. The American Farm Bureau has called the treaty a back-door Btu tax that would drive up fuel and overall energy costs as much as 50 percent. Again, this is outrageous. This would bankrupt many of our American farmers. Therefore the U.N. global climate treaty has no hope of satisfying the second test of Byrd-Hagel. It would clearly cause very serious economic harm to the United States. Mr. President, beyond the fairness and economic harm issues that are addressed in Senate Resolution 98, I am also very concerned about any treaty that would bind our Nation's economy to control by some U.N. multilateral entity. Who will administer a global climate treaty? Who will police it? Will we have an international police force, an agency capable of inspecting, finding, possibly shutting down American companies? No one has addressed these questions. The implications are most serious for our national security interests, national sovereignty interests. One of the biggest users of fossil fuels is the U.S. military. How would this treaty affect our military operations and our national defense capabilities? There are serious national sovereignty issues and other issues that we have not even begun to touch. I said at the outset that I believe any action taken by this Nation should be based on sound science and common sense. The current track of negotiations for the U.N. global treaty does neither. Why is this administration rushing headlong into signing a treaty in Kyoto this December? The scientific data is inconclusive, even contradictory. The economic costs are clear and devastating. This treaty would be a lead weight on our Nation's future economic growth, killing jobs and opportunities for generations of Americans to come. We need to take global climate issues seriously. Obviously we agree with that. We in the United States have made tremendous strides in cleaning up our environment. We will continue to make progress in the future. We are all concerned about the state of the environment and what we leave to our children and our grandchildren. But when we take actions that will reduce our children's and our grandchildren's economic opportunities, we must ensure that the benefits are real and that they would justify this very real economic hardship that we would be passing on to these future generations. I urge my colleagues to support Senate Resolution 98, the Byrd-Hagel resolution. I am grateful for the time that my colleagues have given this effort. At this time, I yield the floor to my distinguished colleague, the senior Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following members of my staff be granted the privilege of the floor during debate on Senate Resolution 98: Derek Schmidt, Ken Peel, Kent Bonham, David Kracman, and Tom McCarthy.

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, the pending resolution, Senate Resolution 98, with its 65 cosponsors, is intended to change the course of negotiations on the new global climate treaty now under discussion. The need for this treaty is questionable, but the harm that it would cause is certain. Two articles in this Monday's Wall Street Journal, written by Jack Kemp and Dr. Fred Singer, are excellent summaries against the direction the administration is taking in negotiating this treaty. I ask unanimous consent that these articles be printed in the Record.

Mr. HAGEL. I yield myself whatever time is necessary, Mr. President.

Mr. HAGEL. I yield to the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, the Framers of the Constitution gave the executive branch of our Government authority to negotiate treaties. But they also intended for the Senate's voice to carry weight in negotiations. This morning, the Senate is fulfilling its constitutional responsibility to give its advice to treaty negotiations.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. The Committee on Veterans' Affairs would like to request unanimous consent to hold a hearing on pending legislation on July 25, 1997, at 10 a.m., in room 418 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. I object to further proceedings on this matter at this time.

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I understand there is a bill at the desk due for its second reading.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, for the information of all Members, this morning, the Senate will begin consideration of Senate Resolution 98, the global warming resolution. Under the consent agreement, there will be 2 hours for debate on that resolution, with two amendments in order. Senators can, therefore, expect a rollcall vote at approximately 11:30 a.m. It is also possible that following the disposition of Senate Resolution 98, there will be a cloture vote on the motion to proceed to S. 39, the tuna-dolphin bill. If an agreement is reached on that measure, that cloture vote may be vitiated. All Senators will be notified if that vote remains necessary. I thank Members for their attention.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. I thank the Chair. I again say what I said this afternoon regarding my good friend and real neighbor next to me. His amendment I think at best is shortsighted. I came to this body with the background of a small businessman, Madam President. I know a little something about OPIC. I have marketed companies, built companies, that have worked around the world. I understand the importance of what OPIC is. This is an organization that, in fact, sends money back to the Treasury each year. This is an organization that creates jobs. It has a tremendous ripple effect all across this country. And as we are able to export American technology and products abroad, the support for all of those products comes from American companies in each of our States. I respectfully request that my colleagues vote against this amendment.