Nick Smith

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think it is important, and I hope everyone agrees, that we have to depend on scientific information and testing, and not emotions, to be the basis of the decisions we make.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I want to share with my colleagues a few facts about climate change that have not gotten much press. The main point is uncertainty. There is still a great deal that we do not know or do not well understand about our global climate. For every study that seems to tell us something, there is another that confounds the previous conclusions. Uncertainty is a normal and maybe important part of the scientific process, but it is a part that the media are not comfortable with and so rarely report on. To its credit, The New York Times ran a piece last week entitled, ``Both Sides Now: New Way That Clouds May Cool,'' which noted that science is uncertainty, and how that uncertainty can dramatically change climate models. Clouds have long been a source of uncertainty in climate studies. Certain gases generated by the burning of fossil fuels, such as carbon dioxide, are widely held to play a role in warming the planet by trapping heat. However, aerosols, also produced from fossil fuels, have been found to contribute to the cooling of the planet by affecting the development of clouds that reflect sunlight, and thus it reflects heat away from the planet. Now, before we pass legislation meant to curb global warming, we need to understand better which human activities affect those and other processes. It seems, and I would suggest, the most important point to take from the recent round of reports is that our climate is a very complex system that is not well understood. As chairman of our Subcommittee on Research of the Committee on Science, we have held several hearings on this subject; and it is almost universally agreed by those testifying before our committee that scientific evidence and knowledge is lacking. Our best intentions can very easily produce the wrong outcome. Fredrick Seitz, former president of the National Academy of Sciences, did a piece for the Washington Times last week on this very point. Let me quote from that article entitled ``Beyond the Clouds of Fright.'' Quote: ``The science of climate change today does not call for rash action that could wreak havoc with economies worldwide and even cause worse damage to the environment over time.'' He also cautioned that ``researchers shouldn't be pressured by politics or encouraged by publicity to find a particular answer. They should be given the space, the time, the funding and the support to seek and find the truth.'' So in conclusion, I would like to urge my colleagues to resist the temptation to jump on the bandwagon of climate change before we better understand the science and better know the consequences of our actions. I understand the ranking member has a perfecting amendment that might help us, help guide us.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, American agriculture is in a predicament. Should we go to the free market system and say survival of the fittest in an international market and price for food and fiber? It is complicated by a couple of situations. One is the fact that other countries, such as Europe, subsidize their farmers up to five times as much as we subsidize our farmers. How interested are we in maintaining a vital agricultural economy in the United States? I would suggest to my colleagues that that ability to produce food is even more important than the production of energy for our national security. With our dependency on imported energy, we have seen what can happen when OPEC decides to hold back. Think what might happen with food. Right now, farmers are faced with low commodity prices. A 27-year low for soybeans, 25-year low for cotton, a 14-year low for wheat and corn, an 8-year low for rice. Over the past 3 years, net cash income fell in real dollars to its lowest point since the depression. Now is the time that we have to make the decision of standing up for the survival of American agriculture. I would just suggest that farmers need help to survive. In addition to low commodity prices we have seen increased fuel costs of $2.4 billion over the last year because of higher energy prices.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the President's Social Security commission met for the first time. Last night I stayed up quite late listening to, 10 or 12 of those commission members talk and speak about what they saw as their challenge to try to fix the Social Security problem. I was disappointed, number one, that some of the commissioners apparently were not in attendance; number two, I was disappointed that some of the commissioners appeared not to understand the complexity of the problem facing Social Security and, therefore, facing America. Social Security is probably one of our most successful programs to help retirees. We are faced with the challenge of keeping Social Security solvent. What I would like to stress is what I displayed on this first chart, and that is the biggest risk is doing nothing at all. Some of the commissioners I heard suggested the dangers of investing and do not risk Social Security. The problem is that if we do not do something, then we are going to end up increasing payroll taxes and probably also reducing benefits. The challenge is ahead of us. Social Security has a total unfunded liability of over $9 trillion. That means we would have to put $9 trillion today in an investment account, earning at least 2.7 percent interest to accommodate future payments in Social Security. The Social Security Trust Fund contains nothing but IOUs. This is an issue often overlooked when people suggest, look, the problem is not really going to confront us until 2035 or 2036 or 2037 because the trust fund owes Social Security some of that money. The problem is where are we going to come up with those funds 15 years from now, maybe as soon as 12 years from now when there is less Federal payroll tax revenues coming in for Social Security than is needed to pay the promised benefits? That is the challenge. And that is the point; if we continue to put off this decision, on what I consider the largest financial challenge of this country, we are going to end up with doing a disservice not only to workers by increasing the payroll tax that they pay but also for retirees as future Congresses look to reduce those particular benefits. This will be a huge burden on our kids and our grandkids that this Congress should not abide. I compliment the President for moving ahead to develop a solution. One of the challenges of the Social Security commission is going to be to inform the American people of the seriousness of this current problem and the fact that the longer we put off a solution the more drastic that solution must be. To keep paying promised Social Security benefits, the payroll tax will have to be increased by nearly 50 percent or benefits will have to be cut by 30 percent. This chart depicts a little temporary surplus, because we have increased social security taxes so much, by waiting too long for the last Social Security commission in 1983 we have a temporary blip of more money coming in from the Social Security tax than is required to pay benefits. That surplus is going to be depleted someplace between 2011 and 2016, and then we go into deficit spending. I mentioned $9 trillion that we need today to put in an investment account to keep Social Security solvent, if you use tomorrow's dollars, what we will need in future dollars over the next 75 years is $120 trillion to pay benefits, $120 trillion more than is going to be raised by the current Social Security tax. A serious problem. I urge these commissioners to attend the meetings. I urge these commissioners not to send staff, but to understand what the Social Security problem is and to give it their all to come up with a reasonable solution. Personal retirement accounts; a quick comment as I conclude. They do not come out of Social Security. They become part of the Social Security retirement benefits. A worker will own his or her own retirement account, and it is limited to safe investments that will earn more than the 1.7, percent that is going to be paid by Social Security as a return in the form of benefits on the taxes that the employer and the employee paid in. And just a final comment. Seventy-five percent of American workers today pay more into Social Security tax than they do into income tax. Again raising taxes should not be an option.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, the next bill we introduce should be that we make this permanent. This seems to me ridiculous that we come before this body every 4 or 5 or 6 months to make a temporary increase in legislation in the bankruptcy law that is so important to American farmers. Let me just tell my colleagues why it is so important to farmers. Farmers, under the other provisions of the bankruptcy law which the two previous speakers related to, have to file either under chapter 13 or 11 or 7; and in most cases, they are required to sell a lot of their machinery, which means that if they want to try to work themselves out of that financial situation, there is no possibility of doing it without machinery. It was just a few months ago that we were on this floor of the House urging our colleagues to vote for H.R. 256. This was a bill to retroactively bring chapter 12 to May 31. I am pleased that the bill was signed by the President, but also now we are with this bill that I urge my colleagues to support. I had hoped that by the end of May the House and Senate would have agreed to a major bankruptcy reform package that would have included permanent chapter 12 protection. Unfortunately, and through no fault of this House, these two bodies have still not reached agreement. Further, it is unclear when such an agreement is going to be reached. In the meantime, since May 31, family farmers have been without chapter 12 reorganization protection, and that is what brings us here today. Let us not allow the situation that has taken place this last year and the last several months to again disrupt farmers in their effort to be accommodated by chapter 12, which is especially designed for family farmers. This protection is vitally needed. American farmers continue to suffer drops in net farm income, and farmers are being forced into bankruptcy, and not having chapter 12 means greater hardship for those family farmers. Enacted, as the chairman said, in the 1986 farm crisis, chapter 12 made significant bankruptcy relief available to a group of Americans that has had difficulty getting credit and managing its assets since the country's founding over two centuries ago. For example, chapter 7 was accessible to farmers to give them the so- called ``fresh start'' promised to debtors under the Bankruptcy Code. However, under chapter 7, the farm, which might have been in the family for generations, was usually lost. Congress needed to find a way to ensure that creditors were protected while also ensure that the family farms were able to work themselves out of their current financial problems. In conclusion, let me say that family farms are in need of permanent chapter 12 relief. Until such relief is enacted, we have a responsibility to protect family farmers in the uncertainty that comes with the on-again off-again provision of chapter 12 protection. This bill provides protection to family farmers and provides enough time for Congress to reach agreement on permanent Chapter 12 protection a part of a larger reform effort. Before closing, I would like to thank the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Sensenbrenner, and my colleague from Michigan, Mr. Conyers, and the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law, the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Barr, and the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Watt, for their help in bringing this bill to the floor today. I also want to express my thanks to the original co-sponsor of this bill, Ms. Baldwin, who also was a co- sponsor of H.R. 256, and who agrees that this provision should be made permanent. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1914 is a noncontroversial bill that deserves widespread support from both sides of the aisle. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on H.R. 1914.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Madam Speaker, high school seniors from all over the United States will be graduating and receiving their diplomas at this time of year. Recently I have been named chairman of the Subcommittee on Research in the Committee on Science. I have told the administration as we talk about national security that I think probably the second greatest threat to national security is where we are going in our performance in science and math education in our schools. We now rank below any of the other G-7 countries of the industrialized world. We have got to be more aggressive in moving ahead in our efforts to interest and performance with science and math education. In my subcommittee, we will be holding hearings this week on legislation that will help us do a better job in this area. Science teachers need to be encouraged. But also we need to encourage the parents and the teachers of those students in the first 3 or 4 years of school if we are to be successful. This world is getting more complicated with biotechnology, information technology and other science based technology. Those kids are going to be better served if they have a better math and science education. I commend these graduating students throughout the Nation for what they have achieved so far but encourage them to study a little more math and science, as they enter college or the job market. It will pay big dividends.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. James Hettinger for over 20 years of dedicated service to the citizens of greater Battle Creek, MI. Today, Thursday, May 24, 2001, the citizens of Battle Creek, MI will gather to pay tribute to a man who's efforts over the past twenty-three years led to the formation and expansion of one of the nation's premier industrial parks, and the economic rebirth of a community. As Chief Executive Officer of Battle Creek Unlimited, the marketing and economic development arm of the City of Battle Creek, Jim has served as an excellent ambassador for the community, touting the positive attributes of locating facilities in the Cereal City to businesses around the world. To date, his efforts have led to the decision by approximately two dozen international companies to locate in the Fort Custer Industrial Park, resulting in over 3,000 jobs. Jim has forged cooperative agreements with surrounding communities in an effort to spur economic growth beyond the boundaries of the city. He has been a driving force behind countless critical projects in the area including: the establishment of an inland U.S. Customs Port of Entry and Foreign Trade Zone 43; the retention of hundreds of jobs at the Battle Creek Federal Center; the relocation of the Western Michigan University College of Aviation to Battle Creek, and most recently, the forging of an innovative e-learning agreement with the Canadian province of New Brunswick. Jim is among the most highly regarded economic development professionals in the country. And with good reason. He holds a Ph.D in Public Administration and Comparative Government and serves as an Adjunct Professor at Western Michigan University. He has published fifteen articles dealing with local government and economic development as well as a book on economic development and Japanese manufacturing investment. His work has been cited in numerous national publications including The Wall Street Journal, Business Week, The New York Times and USA Today. He is a past recipient of the MI Economic Developer of the Year award and the Kiwanis International Person of the Year award, as well as being named to the Oxford Elite Registry of Extraordinary Professionals. I am honored to recognize Jim Hettinger for his tremendous dedication both to his profession and to his community, and join with the citizens of Battle Creek in congratulating him on this special day.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I think it is worth mentioning that over the last 8 years, we have been so conscientious or the administration was so conscientious on the environment that we ended up closing down about one-third of our refineries in this country with regulations and increased costs. We ended up stopping a lot of the clean coal mining in this country. Right now I think the estimate is something around 250 to 300 years' worth of energy from coal, if we move ahead on that kind of technology. Or if we use some of technology that we have now, the administration and President Bush is suggesting another $2 billion over the next 10 years to do research on clean coal technology to even do a much better job of the nitrates and sulfur dioxide emission, besides the particle pollution that is happening. We are able to do a lot of that now. With a little more effort, we can make this kind of a fuel a very efficient contribution to a continuing strong economy in this country.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman talks about the national security of this country, of our country. Certainly there is power that a few countries in the world now have over our ability to produce. And look, we have changed. We are a new world. We are not where we were back in the thirties. We now have high-rise office buildings where we need the elevator to get up to that 15th or 20th floor; where the windows do not open, so we need the air conditioning in hot weather and we need some warming up in cold weather. We are a new society. We have got so many older individuals that are on the kind of life support system where it is actually a matter of life and death. We cannot be a government that accepts brownouts, certainly not blackouts, as a regular order of business. That means moving ahead aggressively with conservation, but conservation cannot do it all. It means expanding, and I am biased as chairman of the Subcommittee on Research, but it means dramatically expanding our research efforts.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. As we conclude this special order session, certainly I would like to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson). If the gentleman from Pennsylvania would like to give a wrap-up conclusion.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. And the market system works. I think we have a responsibility at the Federal level to make sure as best we can that there is competition, and there is not the kind of gouging. But if last year, the crude oil prices got for a little while over $30 a barrel, I think now they are around $26, but still if we were to say, you cannot sell crude oil for over the $8 a barrel that was a low point several years ago, I mean there would not be exploration. They would not be coming into Pennsylvania and Michigan doing some wildcatting. They would not be acidizing some of the old wells to drain them dry of oil, and there would not be the kind of research that can make sure that we can be environmentally friendly in the smaller drilling in the fact that we can now sit on one site and go for 4 miles in all directions to capture some of the oil down below, rather than having the congestion that we saw back in the 1940s and 1950s maybe in Oklahoma and Texas. So technology is a huge change.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania. In the authorizing bill for the State Department that went through the Committee on International Relations, there was an amendment in there, and that is what we have been talking about tonight, to go ahead with implementation of the Kyoto Protocol. It is interesting, that vote was very close. I think it was 20 to 22 that the amendment succeeded in going on that bill with something like 14 members absent, so it is a real question that needs debate. I would certainly encourage the conferees from the House and Senate, when they meet to reconcile the differences between the House and Senate, that they seriously look at the consequences of that language and consider removing it from the final bill.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. If the gentleman from Pennsylvania would yield, there is no question, and I totally agree the treaty lacks a firm scientific basis. And while there is no disagreement that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are in our atmosphere, before the industrial revolution they were there, they are there now, but scientists disagree about the extent of man-made gases and how much they contribute to global warming. The amount of warming or if the planet is warming at all, and like the gentleman from Pennsylvania suggests, some scientists have even come to the conclusion that maybe we are in a cooling-off period. I think nowhere is this more evident than in the divergence between atmospheric conditions, the data collected from satellites and weather balloons, and surface temperature data collected from ships which tell a different story. Highly accurate satellite measurements do not note any warming over the past 2 decades. What we have in the red, for those individuals that can make out the small details, the red is the surface temperature. The blue is the satellite-measured temperatures, and lower are the balloon-measured temperatures. If you take the satellite along with the weather balloon temperatures, they are almost on an even keel, and they show no global warming. The only global warming that is portrayed is the surface temperatures, and they could be caused by a lot of changes, such as expanded populations in some of the areas. In terms of the potential contributions of ocean, you see a big peak over here in 1998. That was actually credited to the impact of El Nino. I think the gentleman from Pennsylvania is totally correct. These and other shortcomings make climate models unreliable tools for predicting future climate change and for making energy policy. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, the historical consequences of such a modest warming, I mentioned have shown to be beneficial. An example I was looking at was during the Medieval climate optimum. During that optimum period of slightly warming temperatures from 800 to 1200 A.D., improved agricultural production linked to warmer weather led to economic expansion throughout Europe. There are many things that we need to give priority to to get answers to the 200 questions that the scientific community have suggested that we need answers to before we proceed in this type of venture.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. It seems to me that rather than negotiating in good faith, a lot of the countries of the world, but maybe particularly in Europe, seemed to be more willing to use the treaty as a way to reduce our competitive position. Do you think there is merit there to that?

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Let me add my birthday wishes to your daughter, where I understand you are going.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. The gentleman from Texas mentioned that a lot of individuals, Republicans and Democrats, questioned moving ahead with the Kyoto Protocol. In fact, in July of 1997, before the Kyoto Protocol was agreed to, the U.S. Senate passed what they called the Byrd-Hagel resolution, which says that the U.S. should not be signing any treaty that, one, would mandate reductions in greenhouse gas emissions for developed countries but not developing countries; and, two, would result in a serious economic harm to the Nation. And of course the Kyoto Protocol moves in both of these directions. It does not include countries for any reduction, such as China, India, Mexico, Brazil, and many other developing countries. It seems to me this common sense resolution, which was approved by a Senate vote of 95 to 0, set the minimal parameters for Senate ratification of any treaty. And with no realistic idea that a treaty was going to be signed and eventually ratified by the Senate, which it has to be ratified for it to work, the Bush administration said let us move ahead and make sure we reduce our CO2 emissions, reduce our greenhouse gases, but let us be very careful about signing on to a treaty that is demanding almost the impossible. And although many European governments have expressed bitter disappointment about the U.S. decision, it should be pointed out that Romania is the only developed country in the whole world that so far has ratified the treaty. At this time, Madam Speaker, I am going to yield to another leader in this area, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson), who was a leader in trying to introduce an amendment to take this language out of this particular authorizing legislation for the State Department.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, this chart shows, I think, something that we can be very proud of. The increase in gross domestic product in this country has been plus 147 percent, where U.S. coal consumption has increased 100 percent, but U.S. energy consumption in total has only gone up 42 percent, and the key air emissions have actually gone down 31 percent. Mr. Speaker, the United States is leading the world in terms of pushing the kind of research that is going to reduce CO2 emissions, but whether it is CO2 or whether it is vapor emissions going into those greenhouse gases, or whether it is the kind of new technology where we can develop new energy sources, the United States is moving ahead probably more aggressively than any other country, and we need to do that, but we do not need to sign and agree to the Kyoto protocol, which is not based on complete science and which would be a punishment to the United States.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. There is no question that making sense of climate variability is a hugely complex challenge, but one that we can make progress on, at least before we commit to onerous regulations. In a 1999 study, the National Research Council made recommendations for a research strategy focusing on unanswered scientific questions. The NRC identified over 200 questions that need answers if we are to understand and predict climate change. That is exactly what the gentleman from Pennsylvania is suggesting; we need real science and real answers to some of these questions. But in the meantime, there are things that we can do to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We can improve energy efficiency, and we are doing that. We are developing new energy sources, sources that do not emit CO2; and certainly the research to expand the sequestration of CO2 must be encouraged. I have one chart that I think is dramatic. This is a model by the UC National Center for Atmospheric Research. What this diagram shows, the red line is what is going to happen to global warming without the Kyoto treaty. The orange line that we see coming up slightly underneath it in the years 2040 to 2050, represents the possible reduction in temperature. And even if all of the Kyoto treaty was implemented, the reduction in climate is 0.07 degrees centigrade, almost unmeasurable in its extent. We still have scientists that came before me in my pursuit of what is the right answer suggesting that a little global warming might be good for agricultural expansion in this country. So with that small a degree in warming, I think it is very important that the Members of this Chamber, Madam Speaker, understand that we could go into grave consequences by the implementation of this. That is why I certainly want to encourage the negotiators on the conference committee that are taking up this State Department authorization bill to review this. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I thank the Speaker for this opportunity to address the House and join my colleagues to talk about global warming, to talk specifically about the Kyoto Protocol and the language that is currently in the bill of the Committee on International Relations, the authorizing bill for the State Department to implement the Kyoto Protocol. I am disappointed that there was not an amendment on the floor to take that particular amendment out of this legislation, because I think the consequences of implementing the Kyoto Protocol are so dramatic that it deserves a discussion before this House. That is why we have joined in this special hour to talk about the consequences if America was to implement the Kyoto Protocol. It is a bad deal for America, and the conferees should examine the implementation language in this bill. Let me just say that, under this protocol, by 2008 to 2012, the U.S. would be required to slash emissions of greenhouse gases to 7 percent below the 1990 level. That level was last achieved in 1979. Based on projections of the future growth in U.S. energy use, this would require a real cut in emissions of over 30 percent. In the meantime, major greenhouse gas emitters, such as China, India, Mexico, Brazil, would be able to continue business as usual. Let me just review the numbers of the total income in this country. The GDP in 1979, it was four trillion eight hundred sixty-nine. Today the GDP, or the total income, the total production of this country is nine trillion one hundred ninety-three. So based on that kind of efficiency that we had back in 1979, we would have to cut the gross domestic product, the output of this country in half. Of course we have increased our energy efficiency a little bit so, not totally half. But a dramatic change. So what we are going to be discussing tonight is how scientific is the evidence of global warming, how good is the scientific evidence of how much man contributes to that global warming. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), one of the experts in this area who is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality to start off our discussion tonight.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I put the last chart up to show some of the accomplishments that we have achieved in the last 35-40 years especially in terms of increased energy efficiency. The top black line represents the energy use at constant 1972 GDP. How much GDP does one unit of energy achieve. What has happened is our actual energy use to achieve this greater GDP, which has almost doubled since 1979, is way down below what we have expected. That shows this country has been very aggressive in trying to achieve the greater economy. It takes 30 percent less energy to produce a dollar of GDP than it did in 1970. So we are moving ahead. That greater efficiency means less emissions. That greater efficiency means less energy use that is also compounding our problem right now. It is an appropriate time to discuss this issue of the Kyoto protocol when we are looking at high energy prices because if we were to follow that protocol and reduce our energy use back to the 1979 levels, we would have to ration the amount of home heating fuel and gasoline and coal; and the way to ration it would be dramatically increasing price or some kind of law that says you can use only so much. Either way, there is a dramatic implication on the economy of this country, and that means on the standard of living of this country, because what other companies are going to do if energy prices were to go up in the United States, they are going to look at these countries like China and Mexico and the other ones that were impacted by this protocol and look at the energy price there that is going to be much lower, and they will say, hey, we are going to move our business and our factories and our production to those other countries. Of course, when that happens and those other countries start developing, it is very unlikely that they are going to sign a similar protocol some time in the future to impede their economy. So I think it behooves us all to make sure that we think very carefully before we emotionally move ahead on something that might cause more damage than it does good.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I joined the gentleman from Texas at the Hague, and what the Kyoto Protocol did is it left a lot of the details of implementation to further negotiations. One of the questions at the Hague was the so-called ``sinks,'' the sequestration of the CO2, and this chart, I think, demonstrates why the United States was trying to insist that sinks be a consideration in emissions. As we see by this chart, this is North America, and the red indicates the amount of CO2 emissions. The blue at the bottom displays the sequestration, or the sinks, how much of the CO2 we capture by our corn and our sorghum and our field crops and our woodlands. And when we compare that with Europe and the whole Eurasian and North African area, we can see that the amount of emissions of CO2 greatly exceeds the amount they sequester. It seems to me this was one of the reasons that Europe said, well, no, we cannot allow you any credit for sequestering those.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Let me put that chart back up. Just to review, Europe and the North Africa area, the red indicates the amount of CO2 that they are putting into the air. The blue at the bottom indicates how much they sequester or capture of CO2. And of course all living organisms live on CO2. Our plants collect that as part of their growing. Because our agriculture is so intense and expansive in the United States and our forest lands are so abundant, we capture about the same amount of CO2 as we emit. Unlike the European countries, as you see on the right, the tropics and the southern hemisphere capture more because of the forests and the growth of biological products in that area. We see a great sequestering. But the point needs to be made strongly that that has to be part of the consideration. And it has to be part of our research in the future. How do we increase our ability with technology to capture some of that CO2 just in case it might be causing a greenhouse gas out there. I am chairman of the Subcommittee on Research in the Committee on Science, and all of the scientists in the field on this issue agree that we need more research on global warming because there is so much that we do not know. We are basing so many conclusions on incomplete research. There is a lot of shooting from the hip. If we are going to make this dramatic change such as what is described in the Kyoto treaty, I think it behooves us to move ahead more aggressively with the same kind of scientific research and that is what we are going to do in the Committee on Science and that is what this administration has suggested.