Toward that end, Senator Larry Craig and I, a Republican who is a senior member on the Natural Resources Committee in Agriculture, he and I today are going to introduce a comprehensive bill to use trees as a key complement of our strategy to fight this problem. This is an approach that will bring together industry and the environmental community to address 25 percent of the problem. We are not going to deal with the entire problem using a tree that absorbs carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, but you can deal with a very significant portion of this problem under the approach that Senator Larry Craig and I will be introducing today.

So I hope our colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join us on this legislation in creating a revolving loan fund for private landowners to plant trees and keep them to sequester carbon. It is easy to administer. It is scientifically sound.

To give you an idea why something like this makes sense, it costs between $2 and $20 per ton to store carbon in trees. Alternative strategies can cost up to $100 per ton.

I think the distinguished Democratic Governor has made a very fine statement. I concur in it entirely. I happen to agree with what Chairman Voinovich has said, that we ought to get away from partisan bickering.

Folks, the scientific evidence is compelling here. Humans are contributing to this problem. Let us get on with forging a bipartisan approach to deal with it, one that makes sense, as Senator Smith said before he left, from the environmental standpoint and from the economic standpoint. Two Senators, Senator Craig and I, introduced legislation to try to advance that goal and look forward to working with our colleagues on a bipartisan basis.

Senator REID. How many trees do you have to plant?

Senator WYDEN. You have got to plant a significant number, Harry, but the point is that the savings relative to the alternative, $100 per ton compared to $2 and $20 per ton, are just staggering. There are approaches that could bring us together, that could allow me to go to Jim Inhofe and say, "Jim, Larry and I can work with you in a way that is going to make sense for industry and make sense from an environmental standpoint, deal with a quarter of the problem." Let's get on with it.

I think that is why Chairman Voinovich said let's get beyond the partisan bickering, and I would say it is time.

Senator VOINOVICH. Well, I would be interested in your legislation because one of the goals I had as Governor of Ohio was that I think we planted 11 million trees a year. Many of the States are involved and it would be interesting to see how that national program would fit in with the legislation that you have and maybe encourage the private sector to do a lot more than what they are now doing.

Senator Chafee?

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LINCOLN CHAFEE, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND Senator CHAFEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also would like to thank you for calling this hearing, the first one in a number of years. Being new here, I am very interested in hearing the testimony. I know there is going to be a great deal of debate just within

this semicircle as well as within the scientific community, and I look forward to that debate.

My own common sense tells me that every once in a while when you read in the newspapers about somebody who pulls into the garage and falls asleep in their car, and the coroner the next day says they died of carbon monoxide poisoning, that we have to do something on this subject. Therefore, I was disappointed in the new Administration backing away from addressing carbon dioxide in a comprehensive, multi-pollutant approach.

I also was disappointed that the new Administration is going to oppose the Kyoto agreement on global warming. This was not because I thought the Kyoto Protocol was a flawless document. The negotiations at Hague demonstrated that future work was necessary to reach a consensus on several aspects of that accord. But, instead, the Kyoto Protocol is a good framework for future negotiations on global climate policy. Without that foundation, the rest is tenuous. I do think it is incumbent on the United States to be a leader on this subject.

So I do look forward to working with my colleagues and also to hearing from the scientists. Six of the seven of the panelists are doctors and other leaders in industry, and I look forward to hearing their testimony.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Senator Chafee follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. LINCOLN CHAFEE, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE

ISLAND

I would like to welcome our witnesses and to thank Chairman Smith, subcommittee Chairman Voinovich, and Senators Reid and Lieberman for holding today's full committee hearing on the important and critical issue of global climate change.

The science supports the notion that human activities are disrupting the balance of carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, resulting in global climate alterations. A recent Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) report estimates that the earth may warm anywhere between 2.5 to 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit over the next century. The world's leading atmospheric scientists are telling us that global warming is already occurring and the hottest 10 years on record have all occurred since 1980, with 1998 recorded as the hottest year ever. Two decisions by the new Administration have spurred intense discussion in recent weeks: to back away from addressing carbon dioxide in a comprehensive multipollutant approach; and second, to oppose the Kyoto agreement on global warming. Like many of my colleagues, I was disappointed with these decisions. This was not because I thought the Kyoto Protocol was a flawless document-the negotiations at the Hague illustrated that future work was necessary to reach a consensus on several aspects of Kyoto accord. Instead, the Kyoto Protocol is a good framework for future negotiations on global climate policy. Without the foundation, the rest is ten

uous.

I am interested in learning from our witnesses today where the scientific consensus lies on climate change; what effects humans may have on the change and how quickly it may occur; and what options may exist for stabilizing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Committee and in the Senate as we review the science and determine the best course of action for addressing greenhouse gas emissions and global climate change.

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Corzine?

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JON S. CORZINE,

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

Senator CORZINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I join my other colleagues in complimenting you on having this hearing because this is one of those issues, at least among the community that I represent, people are most concerned about.

It really is as far-reaching an issue that we face today I think as a nation and as a globe. It is complex. We have made progress. There are good ideas that come in a bipartisan way, but we need to deal with the science, economics, and I think the politics of moving forward on this agenda. The pollutants bill was something that I was disappointed to see we were subtracting pieces from. Inattention and inaction I don't think is tolerable or consistent with the science, and the health and viability of our global ecosystems are too vital for us to talk indefinitely. I think we need to move forward.

I will leave the rest of my statement, with your approval, for unanimous consent and submit it. But I think this is terrific that we are having this and I hope we do that to the fullest possible extent, so that we have a real understanding of the issues as we approach deriving solutions and putting them on the table for folks in general.

Thank you.

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you.

Senator Inhofe?

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE,

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When you were talking about some of the Time magazine articles and the hysterias of the past, I was reminded that many years ago when I was in high school, they were saying that because of the changes in water levels and climate changes that within 50 years, which would have been the year 2000, the entire State of California would have slid into the Pacific Ocean, which would have solved some of the problems, of course, that they are facing today.

[Laughter.]

In the last few weeks there has been a lot of negative press about President Bush's carbon and Kyoto decisions, but with the allegations of politicized science, a looming recession, and a national energy crisis, I think that President Bush did the right thing.

There are three issues that I want to address today, and I have scratched off some of this, Mr. Chairman, because it would be redundant of some of the things that you have said, but there are a couple of things I am going to say in a different way.

First of all, the science and politics of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, keep in mind, as you pointed out, that it is the United Nations. Second, the science and politics of U.S. National Assessment, and, third, the need for more research in a number of areas.

As for the IPCC report, I am very interested in hearing about allegations that—and I will list about five of them here: A portion of the UN's process, the 18-page summary for policymakers, mis

leads readers and even distorts the underlying scientific conclusions. Second, the scientists did not write this document. Third, allegations that perhaps the most disturbing this summary was subsequently and materially altered. Fourth, the IPCC summary is designed to reflect policy decisions rather than the underlying science. Last, one of the most prominent scientists involved, a lead author, and many other scientists do not agree with or approve the conclusions with which their names are associated. Now these are very serious charges, and if true, the IPCC report should not be the basis of any policymakers' actions, other than possibly investigate and formally object to such actions.

of

Second, regardless of the IPCC process, the U.S. First National Assessment of Climate Change must be based on sound and objective science, based on the weight of the evidence, so that this assessment can be used to develop our nation's domestic and international strategies on climate change. It is an analysis of the effects of global climate change on the environment, agriculture, water, health, society, biological diversity, and on and on. The report is being prepared by the U.S. Global Change Research Program, a group that includes representatives from different Federal agencies. The total amount of taxpayer spending dedicated to detour assessment-related activities nears an estimated $10 billion, and it would be $1.4 billion for the year 2000.

In fact, Representatives Knollenberg and Emerson and I so strongly believed that it was so important that this assessment be an objective and sound work that we joined a suit against the National Assessment through the VEGA-chartered committee charges that the process, No. 1, violated the United States Global Change Research Act of 1990 by producing a report lacking certain specific issues, areas covered. Second, that same organization was in violation for producing a report including several issue areas not requested by Congress or by the statute, but by political appointee in the White House. Third, that same organization ignored the Emerson amendment to the relevant Fiscal Year 2000 Housepassed appropriations bill acceded to in Public Law 106-74 requiring the underlying science be performed prior to producing a report reportedly based on those conclusions.

If we are going to develop effective policies to deal with the issues surrounding climate change, the IPCC and the National Assessment must be of the highest integrity. There has never been a more compelling case to have a policy decision based on the objective weight of scientific evidence.

Last December the Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration released a study on regulating CO2 emissions from utilities. The study concluded that the mandatory regulation of CO2 from utilities will cost between $60 and $115 billion per year by the year 2005. The mandatory regulation of CO2 would make the price and availability of energy a national crisis at a scale our nation has never before experienced.

Well-thought-out, reflecting-consensus environmental regulations can certainly provide benefits to the American people, but as regulatory experts Wendy Gramm and Susan Dudley of the George Mason University's Mercatus Center recently wrote in an article in the Atlantic Journal, "When regulations are rushed into effect

without adequate thought, they are likely to do more harm than good."

If you do not do it in the extreme way that so many of the environmentalist groups want-and we see all the commercials detailing horror stories, while the energy crisis which would be caused by developing policies based on the IPCC report or the National Assessment so far would be a real live horror story. Let's not forget, when the price of energy rises, that means the less fortunate in our society must make the decision between keeping the heat and the lights on or paying for other essential needs. There is a real human cost to implementing policies based on political science rather than sound science.

Last, No. 3, regardless of the state of the science right now, I do fully support public and private research into climatic change science, energy efficiency, and alternative energy sources. Senator Reid talked about the potential of solar and wind energy. That would be great if we could get to that point, and I would very much support that. By doing these things, we will put our nation and the planet in a position to address carbon in our atmosphere, should the science 1 day show a need to do so.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you.

Senator Clinton?

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Senator CLINTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Obviously, this is an important hearing and there are differing points of view to be considered and reconciled. So I thank you for bringing us here together.

Obviously, this is a hot topic, literally and metaphorically, for all of us. I think it is indisputable that global warming and the impact of human activity on our environment is certainly one of the most pressing problems facing us, and as decisionmakers, we are going to have to confront what it means.

I have a very simple approach to it, and that is, if we look at statistics that are gathered from many different sources, it is apparent to me that a lot of the difficulties that we are confronting because of rising temperatures are likely to get worse. Today, for example, is the Fourth Annual Asthma Awareness Day here on Capital Hill, hosted by the Asthma and Allergy Network and Mothers of Asthmatics. I am proud to be an honorary co-chair along with a number of my colleagues here, including Senators Voinovich, Inhofe, and Corzine.

We know from any mother's perspective that increased temperatures actually worsen conditions for asthma sufferers. Pediatric asthma rates are reaching epidemic proportions in New York and other places in the country, and that is just one element of the kind of challenge that we are facing which has a relationship to what the temperature is and how we deal with the challenges that are posed by rising temperatures.

We know that air quality is still a very big difficulty in many parts of New York and other parts of the country. I am certainly devoted to cleaning up the air, as many of us are, of dealing with