sition showed it would result in the loss of up to 2 million U.S. jobs, the relocation of at least six major U.S. industries to developing nations, a major slow down in economic growth and much higher energy prices for the American people. Yet, our negotiators agreed to a treaty that would have an even more devastating impact on the U.S. economy.

As Senator Robert C. Byrd noted in his floor statement of two weeks ago, the Kyoto Protocol fails to meet either of the requirements of Senate Resolution 98. It fails to meet the minimum criteria set unanimously by the United States Senate. Therefore, I join Senator Byrd in calling on the President not to sign this treaty, a treaty that so clearly runs against our country's national interests.

So what happened in Kyoto? How did we agree to such a bad deal for the American people? Today, Undersecretary of State Stuart Eizenstat will be testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and hopefully he will be able to provide some answers. Stuart Eizenstat brings professionalism and seriousness of purpose to every task he takes on. He was thrust into the position of being the chief U.S. negotiator in Kyoto after the man who had guided this process for years, Undersecretary of State Tim Wirth, abruptly resigned immediately prior to the Kyoto conference.

Despite his abilities, Undersecretary Eizenstat was severely hampered in his eleventh hour efforts to negotiate a treaty in Kyoto that would actually advance U.S. interests. The U.N. climate change negotiation process was critically restricted by the so-called "Berlin Mandate" that prohibited the negotiations from even considering any new commitments by developing countries. Under the guise of this "Berlin Mandate," which was made part of the negotiating process by Undersecretary Wirth in 1995, developing countries refused to even consider language that would allow them to "voluntarily opt-in" to an agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. While all of the developing nations especially China, Mexico, India, Brazil and Argentina-were represented in force in Kyoto and took part in writing and approving the language binding the U.S. and the other industrialized nations, they had no intention of participating in the treaty. And they got off without having to agree to anything, not even voluntary commitments at a later date.

Again, I believe even the Administration's position, as laid out by President Clinton last October, did not satisfy the basic minimum requirements of economic harm and developing country participation set by the U.S. Senate. However, at least the U.S. negotiators were holding firm to the Administration's position during the first week of the Kyoto conference, rather than caving to the European Union, the developing nations, U.N. climate change bureaucrats and international environmentalists who wanted the United States to agree to much larger cuts. That resolve vanished after Vice President Gore made a whirlwind visit to Kyoto for less than a day in the middle of the conference, and publicly instructed U.S. negotiators to show "increased flexibility." At this point, the United States lost any last vestige of leverage in the negotiations. The U.S. negotiating position became "get a deal at any cost.' Which our negotiators did, at a great cost to the American people. As far as I can tell, the United States is the only country that came out of Kyoto worse than we came in.

In my view, the Kyoto Protocol is so seriously flawed that its problems go far beyond those specific criteria laid out in S. Res. 98. These problems can be grouped in five general areas: (1) developing country commitments, (2) economic harm, (3) fair treatment for U.S. interests, (4) impact on national sovereignty, and (5) impact on national security.

First, as already noted, the treaty fails to include new legally-binding commitments on the developing nations. In fact, Article IO of the treaty goes so far as to restate the so-called "Berlin Mandate" by emphasizing that the Protocol must be implemented "without introducing any new commitments for Parties not included in Annex I." The Administration has stated that it hopes to get "meaningful participation by key developing countries"-whatever that means-at the next U.N. conference planned for Buenos Aires next November. But the language of the Protocol itself clearly exempts developing nations from the binding commitments it requires. Second, every serious economic study I have found predicted serious economic harm even if the Administration had held to its position of last October. Those included independent studies, some commissioned by the AFL-CIO, and some commissioned by business and consumer groups. These studies found job losses in the rage of 2 million, large increases in energy costs, a 50-cent increase in gas prices, and a drop in economic growth rates of over 1% a year. These economic consequences would be particularly severe for American agriculture. Dramatic increases in energy costs would force production costs so high for many farmers that it would drive them right out of business.

The Administration questions these economic findings, but we are still awaiting the comprehensive economic model promised more than two years ago by the Clinton Administration. The Administration struggled with the model for a year and a half before finally abandoning the effort last summer after receiving strong criticism through the peer review process. In fact, the Chair of the Council for Economic Advisors went so far as to call economic modeling in this area "futile." Twice now, the Administration has pulled witnesses that were to address the economic consequences of this treaty in Senate hearings. At the hearing today in the Foreign Relations Committee, Janet Yellen, Chair of the Council for Economic Advisors, was scheduled to accompany Undersecretary Eizenstat, but pulled out of the hearing two days ago. I invited Deputy Secretary of the Treasury Larry Summers to testify on economic issues before my subcommittee last October. I have been told he was willing to appear but was prevented from doing so by the White House.

Third, this treaty is unfair to the United States. It gives the European Union the ability to pool its supposed "cuts" under the umbrella of the so-called "European Bubble." This permits Europe to avoid the kind of economic harm that will hit the American economy because the EU benefits from two unique circumstances: the collapse of dirty industry in eastern Germany and Britain's shift from coal to North Sea natural gas for economic reasons. Throughout the treaty, one finds provisions that protect developing country interests, require increases in U.S. foreign aid, and shift trade advantages away from the U.S. to our European and developing country trading partners.

Fourth, the treaty will undermine U.S. sovereignty. For the first time, the United States would give control of our economy to an international bureaucracy within the United Nations. Domestic energy policy is a basic component fueling economic growth. The Kyoto Protocol would give this new U.N. environmental bureaucracy the authority to determine energy use in the United States by determining what energy sources we could use and how much, effectively setting price controls and the rationing of U.S. energy. I fear we would set up a process where the United Nations could come in and shut down an American business because they violate U.N. mandates, or where the U.N. would place trade sanctions on the United States if we were to fail to comply with its mandates.

Finally, the treaty will have a severe impact on U.S. national security. We all know that our armed forces are the largest users of fossil fuels in the U.S. government. Before Kyoto, the Department of Defense asked for our negotiators to request a blanket exemption for our armed forces. The White House reportedly refused to seek such an exemption, afraid that other U.N. negotiators would not agree to such a demand. The Administration has claimed that the Kyoto protocol does, in fact, exempt our armed forces. It does not. All it does is exempt multilateral operations approved by the United Nations. If America should have to take military action alone, or without the approval of the U.N., does that mean the use of the United States military will be limited by the amount of greenhouse gases they would emit? Since when do U.N. bureaucrats set our national security and national defense policy? Clearly, the entire concept is ludicrous. But so is the Kyoto Protocol.

This returns us to the question of whether the President will choose to sign this treaty when it is opened for signature on March 16, 1998, and if he does whether he intends to send it to the Senate this year. I hope Undersecretary Eizenstat will be able to give us a clear answer to these questions.

The President claims that the treaty is "a work in progress." If so, it makes no sense to sign a flawed treaty, thereby giving away our leverage and negotiating strength. That would only compound the President and Vice President's past mistakes. These include agreeing to the Berlin Mandate and publicly calling on our negotiators to show "increased flexibility" when the negotiators were trying to hold to the President's own position of last October. The President's position included insistence that emissions cuts not go below the 1990 levels and the so-called "meaningful participation" of developing countries. I will be very interested in understanding from Undersecretary Eizenstat precisely what the Administration means by "meaningful participation" of developing countries-since you gave it away in Kyoto.

If the President believes this treaty is good enough to sign, it should be good enough to submit to the Senate for an honest and open debate. The American people have a right to know exactly what obligations the United States would have under this treaty. There is a document known as the United States Constitution. This document gives the Unites States Senate the responsibility to provide its advice and consent for all treaties agreed to by the President. If President Clinton signs this treaty, he should immediately submit it to the Senate. To do anything else would be a deliberate attempt to bypass the Constitutional authority of the United States Senate.

Unless and until this treaty is ratified by the Senate, there should be no action taken by the Administration to implement obligations under the treaty through executive order, regulation or budgetary fiat. I look forward to receiving Undersecretary Eizenstat's comments on this point as well.

Members of the Senate and the House will remain actively engaged in this issue. Oversight hearings will be held this year to ensure that the Administration is not attempting to implement this treaty prior to ratification. The Administration should be put on notice that the Congress will not allow this treaty to be forced piecemeal upon the American people until it is given the proper debate and receives the required 67 votes in support of ratification in the US. Senate. We will continue to monitor the ongoing negotiations leading to the fourth Conference of Parties in Buenos Aires in November.

The Senate's bottom line, as represented in the unanimous vote on S. Res. 98, remains unchanged. The United States Senate will not support the ratification of any treaty that does not include binding commitments by the developing nations in the same compliance period, or any treaty that will cause serious harm to the U.S. economy. That is the very least we expect.

Prepared Statement of Senator Feingold

Thank you Mr. Chairman, I wanted to have an opportunity to make a brief statement on the Kyoto Protocol and the subject of climate change.

In general, as do many other members of this Committee, I support the objective of reducing greenhouse gas emissions into the environment. In fact, in part due to my interests in climate change, I joined with my colleague from Wisconsin (Sen. Kohl) in introducing legislation (S. 1375) on November 5, 1997, to create a federal energy revolving fund or "energy bank."

When President Clinton announced his plan for meeting the challenge of global climate change on October 22, 1997, in preparation for the Bonn negotiating meetings on the Kyoto Protocol, among the items he cited was the need to do more in the area of federal energy management.

Aggressive energy management can reduce carbon emissions from the activities of the federal government, which, the President indicated, has the Nation's largest energy bill at almost $8 billion per year. The President specifically stated that there is a need to improve federal procurement of energy efficient technologies, and the measure I introduced with my colleague from Wisconsin (Sen. Kohl) is a positive, proactive measure to ensure that federal agencies specifically set aside funds to achieve this goal. I also view such legislation as having the potential to benefit the country fiscally as we reap the benefits of reduced federal energy bills.

However, I find myself, as do other Committee members who did not have the benefit of accompanying the Administration to Kyoto, in a position of not yet knowing the full details of the impact of the Protocol on the country and, in particular, on Wisconsin.

This hearing, which will review for the Committee the evolution of the United States' negotiating position from stabilizing its emissions at 1990 levels to agreeing to a 7% reduction, is a first step in my developing that understanding. Some of the predictions that have been made regarding the impact of the Kyoto Protocol are very serious and concerning and they need to be addressed.

I look forward to the Administration's testimony on this matter and to future hearings on this topic. Thank you.

Prepared Statement of Hon. Stuart E. Eizenstat

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

At the outset, let me thank those members of Congress, in this chamber and in the House of Representatives, who participated with us in the Kyoto Conference and who lent their advice and support to our efforts there. In particular I wish to thank Senators Hagel, Baucus, Chafee, Enzi, Kerry and Lieberman for taking the time to be present. I must also thank Senator Byrd, who could not be with us in Kyoto, for his interest and leadership. Rarely has there been an environmental issue more important or complex than global warming, and rarely has there been a greater need for the Executive Branch and the Congress to work closely together.

It is with great pleasure that I appear here today to explain the Administration's position on global warming. To this end, I will divide my testimony into four parts: (1) a short discussion of the science the driving force for all the efforts we have taken to date to mitigate a significant and growing global environmental problem; (2) a discussion of the results of the recent Kyoto Conference and key features of the Kyoto Protocol; (3) an effort to correct misperceptions; and (4) a brief review of the President's Climate Change Technology Initiative. I hope to leave you with a clear understanding of why we believe that it is necessary to act, of how we intend to proceed internationally, and of what the President plans to do here at home.

The Science

Human beings are changing the climate by increasing the global concentrations of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide. Burning coal, oil and natural gas to heat our homes, power our cars and illuminate our cities produces carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases as by-products-more than 6 billion metric tons worth of carbon in the form of carbon dioxide annually. Similarly, deforestation and land clearing also release significant quantities of such gases-another 1 to 2 billion tons a year. Over the last century, greenhouse gases have been released to the atmosphere faster than natural processes can remove them. There is no ambiguity in the data; since 1860, concentrations of carbon dioxide have risen 30 percent, from 280 parts per million (ppm) to 365 ppm.

In December 1995, the authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), representing the work of more than 2,000 of the world's leading climate change scientists from more than 50 countries, concluded that "the balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate."

The IPCC Assessment represents the best synthesis of the science of climate change. It concludes:

• Concentrations of greenhouse gases could exceed 700 ppm by 2100 under "business as usual”-levels not seen on the planet for 50 million years. The projected temperature increase of 2 to 6.5 degrees Fahrenheit over the next 100 years, could exceed rates of change for the last 10,000 years. For perspective, while there is some uncertainty, tropical sea surface temperatures in the last ice age were anywhere from 2 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit cooler than today.

• Increased temperatures are expected to speed up the global water cycle. Faster evaporation will lead to a drying of soils and in some areas increased drought. Overall, however, due to the faster global cycling of water, there will be an increase in precipitation.

• Sea levels are expected to rise between 6 and 37 inches over the next century. A 20 inch sea level rise could double the global population at risk from storm surges from roughly 45 million to over 90 million, even if coastal populations do not increase. Low-lying areas are particularly vulnerable (e.g., much of coastal Louisiana and the Florida Everglades).

• Human health is likely to be affected. Warmer temperatures will increase the chances of heat waves (like the Chicago event in 1995 that killed over 400 people) and can exacerbate air quality problems such as smog, and lead to an increase in allergic disorders. Diseases that thrive in warmer climates, such as dengue fever, malaria, yellow fever, encephalitis, and cholera are likely to spread due to the expansion of the range of disease carrying organisms. By 2100, there could be an additional 50-80 million cases of malaria each year. Agriculture, forests, and natural ecosystems are also likely to be affected. The poorest countries, already subject to food production and distribution problems, will likely suffer the greatest agricultural impacts. Doubling current carbon dioxide concentrations could lead to a dramatic change in the geographic distribution of one-third of the Earth's forests. (For example, the ideal range of some North American forest species would shift by as much as 300 miles to the north in the next 100 years-far faster than their ability to migrate on their own.) Such changes could have profound effects on parks and wildlife refuges, and lead to a reduction in species diversity.

What Changes Have We Seen to Date?

The earth's temperature is increasing: Scientists from our National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the U.K. Meteorological Office and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) all recently announced that 1997 was the warmest year on record. In fact, nine of the last 11 years are among the warmest ever recorded.

The water cycle of the planet may be speeding up: Since the beginning of the century, NOAA estimates that precipitation in the United States has increased by about 5-10 percent, while the frequency of heavy downpours (where more than 2 inches fall in a day) has increased by about 20 percent. The United States has had many recent reminders of how costly extreme events can be: the Mississippi flooding of 1993 led to damages of between $10 and $20 billion; the Southern Plains drought of 1996 was estimated to cost $4 billion; and the Northwest floods of 1996-97 about $3 billion. We have yet to learn what the current floods in California will cost. While no single event can be attributed to global warming, increases in floods and droughts are expected as global warming occurs.

Action Needed Now

Some have argued that we can wait to act until all the details of the climate system have been fully understood. The science tells us that this is a recipe for disaster. We will only fully confirm predictions when we experience them. At that point it will be too late. The concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere continue to rise each year, and because these gases will persist for many decades to centuries, this problem is only slowly reversed. The earth will continue to warm and the seas continue to rise as long as we continue to load the entire atmosphere of the earth with greenhouse gases. The problem has developed over the course of a century and it will take many decades to solve. Already, we have another 1.0 degree Fahrenheit of warming in the pipeline from emissions that have previously occurred, so some impacts will happen no matter what actions we take. Nevertheless, we can still forestall many others if we begin taking cost-effective actions now.

We should look at the Kyoto Protocol as an insurance policy against the potentially devastating and irreversible impacts of global warming. This insurance policy is fully justified today, based solely on our current understanding of the science. If we act now the premium will be far more reasonable than if we delay and hope the problem created by greenhouse gases will go away. It is like a life insurance policy whose costs grow significantly if we delay year after year insuring ourselves.

But there is a critical difference in the case of the climate system. In most insurance policies, the loser can be made whole-restitution is possible; the building can be rebuilt, the stolen car replaced, the fire or flood damage repaired. In the case of global warming, we will not have a second chance-failure to act will lead to irreversible consequences. We will be committing ourselves, our children and our grandchildren to a very different planet, and they will never forgive us.

But the premium for this insurance policy must be reasonable. For this reason we rejected unrealistic targets in Kyoto; we insisted on full recourse to marketmechanisms; and we opposed mandatory policies and measures like carbon taxes. The totality of our scientific information, including that on vulnerability and impacts of global warming, provides a compelling reason to act. Let me now turn to the recent Kyoto Conference.

Kyoto Protocol

Last December in Kyoto, Japan, the nations of the world reached agreement on an historic step to control greenhouse gas emissions which cause global warming. No sooner had the negotiating session ended, however, than some critics on both ends of the political spectrum, without a full examination of the results achieved, denounced the agreement as either too little too late or too much too soon. In fact, the Kyoto Protocol, reached only through the exercise of vigorous American leadership, represents an important achievement in the best interests of the United States. But it is a framework for action, a work in progress, not a finished product ready for Senate consideration.

U.S. Negotiating Objectives

In order to secure an effective agreement that is environmentally strong and economically sound, while protecting the unique worldwide interests of the U.S. military, President Clinton and Vice President Gore established three major objectives. As a result of the Kyoto negotiations, we achieved the first two-realistic targets and timetables for reducing greenhouse gas emissions among the world's major industrial nations, which fully protect the unique role of our military in its global reach; and flexible market-based mechanisms for achieving those targets. The third, meaningful participation of developing countries, will be the focus of our work in the coming months and years, but with the Kyoto Protocol we have made an important down payment.