just a few of the concerns I have with moving away from inding aims to legally-binding emissions targets that I'm le by international law. Let me just say, I will vigorously I think jeopardizes our competitiveness. Thank you, Mr. rd to hearing from our guests today.

nk you.

OF HON. ROD GRAMS, U.S. SENATOR
FROM MINNESOTA

ank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have a couple

ere today agrees that we need to protect our sake of future generations worldwide. But I going to be differences on how best to meet today's hearing will bring about some underus on how best to address the climate change

ud the State Department for engaging in an on the issue, I still remain concerned, howity that the United States could legally comI more taxes and regulations on our already rs, their families and businesses. Moreover, I at any actions brought about in these interare based on sound science. For too long, Government's actions have not been based on gs. And I hope that will not be the case in well.

earing from the witnesses today, and I hope to address any of my concerns.

ch, Mr. Chairman.

w, if we hurry, we will get our main witness one else that comes in, because I know other n who will have opening statements.

u, Tim. You certainly served as a member of ar previous life as a Senator from Colorado, back. You led the U.S. delegation during the

far-reaching challenge of global climate change. As parties to the Framework Convention on Climate upon and ratified by the Senate in 1992, recently major meeting, or "Conference of the Parties," in Ge

As requested in your letter of invitation, I would the rationale for the position articulated by the U Geneva, and then of course to answer any question of the committee may have.

The United States, Mr. Chairman, had four pr for the Geneva meeting. First, we wanted to put hind the outstanding and unparalleled science that oped by the world's best scientists, through the In Panel on Climate Change. Second, we wanted to s tions toward strategies that will achieve environm an economically sensible manner. So we rejected un als by some countries, and proposed that future realistic, verifiable and binding.

Third, we wanted to ensure that national and int bility were preserved, allowing for the use of the and cost-effective mechanisms here and abroad-s plementation and international emissions trading. wanted to make sure that all nations, including world, are involved in these negotiations and next be reached through them.

I want to begin, Mr. Chairman, with the issue is scientific research and broad consensus among t ing experts that form the foundation for our conce strategies on this issue. This committee has a lon gagement with scientific experts involved in the past 5 years, the IPCC has emerged as the world's entific and technical body concerned with the thre mate change. The IPCC, as we all know, involves scientists from more than 100 countries, and standards of peer review in its scientific method.

In December of last year, the IPCC finalized it ment report, representing the most recent, author prehensive scientific analysis that we have availab

unity cannot tell us precisely how much, e Earth's climate will respond to greenhouse , making the best possible estimate, based about the complex climate system, the scieves that current emission trends, resulting decades in the effective doubling from pres of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, will tures which, on average, are 2 to 6.5 degrees an today, increasing at a rate greater than t 10,000 years.

mates, the best scientific evidence indicates climate change, if allowed to continue profound consequences for the economy and future generations. For example, human hereto; food security and the problems that ater resources and the expected increased tant resources; coastal areas, where a very e global population lives-increasing in each

IPCC has clearly demonstrated to policytion must be taken to address this challenge. f that the IPCC's finding meet the highest integrity. This is the best science that we sponsibility of policymakers to consider the spond with corresponding thoughtfulness.

e established international scientific process nternational policy process has not been as mportant first step, there are a number of ramework Convention on Climate Change. nt, the current Convention structure has not ims. Few nations in either the developed or been fully successful in meeting their objechouse gas emissions. We have to do better. st Conference of the Parties in Berlin, treaty launch a new round of negotiations aimed at uld be taken after the year 2000. The sodefined the broad terms by which next steps would be negotiated. The Berlin Mandate di

advancing implementation of commitments by developing

In Berlin, as today, it was our belief that the final conser flects our belief that this is a global problem, requiring glob tions. All countries must work together to do more to guard harmful climate changes. While the Berlin agreement specif there will be no new commitments for developing country it calls for advancing the implementation of the existing commitment, agreed to by developing countries, and allows gotiations on new commitments to begin as soon as work un Berlin Mandate is complete.

Under the existing treaty, developing countries are requ adopt policies and measures to reduce greenhouse gas em We are working now to develop specific proposals for advand plementation of these existing commitments by the dev countries.

Over the past year, the United States has been engaged a and abroad in serious analysis of the successes and failure current Convention structure in preparation for the nego that have been underway since Berlin. Based on these exten forts, the United States articulated in Geneva a proposed st for next steps that we think should form the basis for nego over the next 16 months.

We call this a framework. It has yet to be fleshed out w cific numbers. And we have work to do to further develop issues associated with this approach. In the months ahead, going analysis and assessment will allow us to more preci ticulate the specific contents that the United States could s Before discussing the elements of our proposal, let me t the underlying rationale for the approach we recommended neva. The new U.S. approach is based most fundamentally desire to ensure that the negotiations focus on outcomes t real and achievable. We believe that sound policies, pursue near term, will allow us to avoid the prospect of truly dr and economically disruptive policies in the future. The old so appropriate to much of public policy, applies here: an prevention is worth a pound of cure. The cost of action in dium term is less than the cost of action in the long term.

Second, our approach was formulated on the premise t spective solutions must be flexible and cost effective. We view favorably a cookie cutter approach to the actions might take. And we certainly will not accept proposals tha fered for competitive advantage, not environmental progres And, third, our approach is based on the belief that th ment being negotiated should lay the foundation for co progress by all nations in the future. The United States is able in its belief that international cooperation on this chal mains critical to any effective response, and that all nation oped and developing, will have to become more ambitiou tributing to the solution to this challenge as we move forwa Based on these principles-environmental protection, prosperity, flexibility, fairness, and comprehensiveness-th States recommended in Geneva that future negotiations

sions reduction goals, knowing that the goal the need for all nations to contribute to the term.

vo ideas are critical prerequisites to enabling ective joint implementation and international ortunities, which we believe are essential. Fionsultations with key stakeholders, these efmake it clear over the long term where we are to help guide corporate planning and invest

road terms the basic components, or framethat we could support, as outlined in Geneth on what we did not say and what we will

we have not come to any conclusions about a timetable for emissions reduction. We have ensive interagency process, led by the Comundertake the necessary economic analysis to determine an approach that the United istic and achievable. We believe strongly that ssment is a necessary prerequisite to identirealistic, achievable and consistent with the national prosperity.

in any way repudiate the growing number of rograms that U.S. industry has launched to antary programs have played a central role in limate change action plan, have helped us to ificantly, simultaneously saving millions of rgy costs, and are really largely an outgrowth passed by this committee.

cted certain proposals for targets that had er countries or groups of countries. We also posals by some nations that the negotiations ration of some ambitious mandatory interpolicies and measures. We believe that signational circumstances suggest that few, if res are likely to be applicable to all countries.