names-who were predicting that we would see another ice age. I mean, it seems to me that we've had scientists who are making these predictions, and, it's like the economist, as long as they don't make them in writing, apparently, it doesn't really matter. But I do want to get to one final point

Mr. EIZENSTAT. May I say something on that point? The IPCC has met, essentially, every 5 years. They met in 1990, and their report in 1990 was much more equivocal than it was in 1995. In 1995, they said that the balance of evidence suggested there is a discernible human interest on global climate. That's the first time they had done that, so, clearly, the scientific evidence is accumulating, and, indeed, we are learning a great deal.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Can I get back to the point about

Mr. EHLERS [presiding]. I'm sorry, the gentleman's time has expired, and we have Ms. Jackson Lee waiting. I presume we'll have a second round later.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much, and thank you for your presence here at this hearing. I have gleaned and heard the dynamics of that particular proceeding and negotiations at Kyoto, and I do want to thank you for your leadership. Obviously, there is a tension between the haves and the have nots to a certain extent. POTENTIAL PROBLEMS OF GLOBAL WARMING AND ALLOCATION OF FY 1999 BUDGET FUNDS

Ms. JACKSON LEE. As it relates to understanding what we achieved, what we got-when I speak to constituents at home, when we try to articulate the potential problems of global warming-if you can tell me what we got, if you will, as Americans, and then, two, with the Fiscal Year 1999 budget allocations, how you will utilize that in implementing or ensuring that we are getting what we should get; that the others who have joined in with all of the potential discomfort will also follow through, how will those monies be used that are allotted in Fiscal Year 1999, and I thank you very much. And, Mr. Chairman, I'd ask unanimous consent for my statement to be submitted in the record.

Mr. EHLERS. Without objection, so ordered.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you.

Mr. EIZENSTAT. Thank you very much. What we got is an affordable insurance policy against a significant change in our climate which in turn would lead to increased flooding; which would lead to very increased levels of pollutants in the air with health costs; which would lead to a drying of soil and potential damage to our agriculture; which would lead to a planet that is subject to much more erratic and dangerous weather patterns, and which will have warming trends so substantial that there is no historical precedent for it. We achieve that at a relatively reasonable and cheap cost, but if we wait the cost will go up and go up very substantially.

What we would intend to do with the money that the President has requested, the R&D tax cut money and the money for technology, is to jump start the process of getting on the right track to correct this problem. It's developing everything from clean cars to more efficient power plants to ways in which to reduce natural

and employ people at the same time in doing so, and that's really the purpose of the President's initiative.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. As an affordable insurance policy, do you believe that it is enforceable? It is not a second rate or second class? Mr. EIZENSTAT. It's a world class agreement, and in Janet Yellen's testimony, the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors, her estimates of cost which I would be glad to summarize are very, very modest. We're talking about 3 to 5 cents per gallon of— around 4 to 6 cents per gallon of gasoline something in that order; electricity prices, 3 to 4 percent going up. By 2012, if we act, we're talking about $14 to $23 per ton of carbon equivalent in terms of emission price. So, this is affordable, and it's also necessary. If we wait, these buildups which are scientifically determined-again, this is not projections; these are actual measurements in Hawaii and taken from ice cores-will continue to exponentially increase. The steeper that slope in the left hand chart, then the steeper will be the slope of the temperature rising, and, therefore, the more erratic the weather patterns and the more damage will be done to our very fragile environment.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you, Mr. Eizenstat. I'd appreciate a copy of that if I don't already have that statement. I'd appreciate it very much.

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Ms. Jackson Lee. Mrs. Morella.

Mrs. MORELLA. I'd like to make an announcement that Mr. Eizenstat is a constituent of mine.

Mr. EIZENSTAT. She knocked on my door for a vote some years ago.

Mrs. MORELLA. That's right, exactly. I'll be back, I'll be back.
Mr. EHLERS. And I hope she got it.

[Laughter.]

EMISSIONS TRADING

Mrs. MORELLA. I was going to ask you about how the trading situation is worked out. I know you have a section in your testimony on that.

Mr. EIZENSTAT. Yes, this, Madam Congresswoman, is one of the key issues that we need to decide between now and the Buenos Aires convention in November, but the essence of it is that through free market trading, as we're doing domestically with the acid rain program, companies and countries could purchase low cost permits from those countries or companies who are below their emissions budgets. It is a very cost effective way for a utility in Maryland to be able to afford to meet their burden without necessarily having, perhaps, to put another scrubber on.

COSTS OF KYOTO PROTOCOL

Mrs. MORELLA. I would like to also ask you to get back to us in terms of responding to a statement I have with regard to what the cost will be for each of our States looking at Maryland as an example that is put together by the Wharton Forecasting Association.

Mr. EIZENSTAT. Yes, we believe that Wharton did not take into account the kind of flexible market driven mechanisms we've now achieved, trading rights and so forth, which dramatically reduce

yesterday with this study, not even including the $20 billion in savings we get from electricity restructuring which would mitigate the full increase in cost of this which is very modest to begin with, would translate into an increase in energy prices between 2008 and 2012 at the household level of 3 to 5 percent-that's 15 years from now-an increase in fuel prices of about 5 to 9 percent; gasoline prices of 3 to 4 percent which would be about 4 to 6 cents a gallon; electricity prices of 3 to 4 percent. The average household's energy bill would increase by the Year 2010 between $70 and $100. That's in line, by the way, with the kinds of regular increases we're getting in energy prices anyway, and if you take the restructuring from the proposal on electricity that we have before the Congress, that would fully offset those costs.

COSTS OF KYOTO PROTOCOL TO MARYLAND

Mrs. MORELLA. If I could also get you to respond at some later date in terms of how you would measure, specifically, what the statement is on Maryland, I'd appreciate it.

Mr. EIZENSTAT. Sure.

Mrs. MORELLA. I've got to go vote. Thank you for being here.
Mr. BARTLETT [presiding]. Thank you, Mrs. Morella. Ms. Rivers.

IMPACT OF KYOTO PROTOCOL ON NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY

Ms. RIVERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, I have a couple of questions that really refer back to a previous hearing that we've had, and they all deal with the whole issue of national sovereignty and our rights and responsibilities under any ultimate treaty. I'm interested, in particular, there was an argument made by a witness for the Global Climate Coalition that suggested that any additional agreements to this treaty would be made as decisions of the parties to the convention and could be passed and enforced upon the United States without our agreement and Senate review. Is that true?

Mr. EIZENSTAT. Well, let me explain the amendment process. First, the Protocol, itself, strictly speaking, can't be amended before it enters into enforcement although it is possible that the conference of parties could adopt a supplementary Protocol which would be an integral part of Kyoto. Second, after entry into force of the Protocol, it can be amended pursuant, as the Chairman indicated, to article 20 of the Protocol. Under that, the parties would try to adopt the amendment by consensus, but failing that could do so by only a 34 vote. Once adopted, however, it would not bind a party until it ratifies the amendment. So, we have a substantial number of protections.

Ms. RIVERS. So, in fact, that we could-could not be any changes could not be enforced upon us without our agreement to those and review of the Senate.

Mr. EIZENSTAT. Exactly.

KYOTO PROTOCOL AND ROLE OF U.N. RELATIVE TO U.S. ECONOMIC GROWTH AND FOREIGN POLICY

Ms. RIVERS. Okay. The further question I have on that is this

the United States to cede its powers to the United Nations in order to control our economic growth and our foreign policy. What role did the United Nations have relative to our own economic growth and our foreign policy relative to this treaty?

Mr. EIZENSTAT. It's very important to indicate and this is why I stress it even in my brief summary-that this does not give the UN Secretariat or some UN body control over our economic future. We determine the rules for trading. Trading will be done under a free market system. Verification is done by intergovernmental groups that are already operating and have been since 1992. They've met with Congressional staff. They can't do any verification or inspection in the United States without being invited to do so by the U.S. Government. They can't come onto private property unless the property owner approves of that investigation. So, we don't have a situation here where you have some all powerful Secretariat that can command and control our economy. Quite the contrary, that's why we insisted on flexible market driven mechanisms to achieve these results.

KYOTO PROTOCOL IMPACT ON U.S. MILITARY MISSIONS OR

NATIONAL SECURITY

Ms. RIVERS. Okay, and to follow up on that, I would also like to hear your comments on how, if at all, this agreement would impact on our ability as a Nation to carry out any military mission or protect our national security?

Mr. EIZENSTAT. The military issue is one that was our-one of our greatest goals, and if I may so, one of our greatest achievements. We were able to exempt overseas military activities from emissions targets. We were able to exempt so-called bunker fuels which our military relies on. We were able to exempt multilateral operations that are expressly authorized by the UN Security Council, and we were able to exempt multilateral operations like Grenada that are only done pursuant to the charter but not expressly authorized. So, we really met the objectives our military had. I had a very excellent relationship in Kyoto with the uniformed military who had representatives on our negotiating team, and, as Secretary Cohen in the February 24th letter-and I'm quoting-"based on achieving our international objectives, the Department's fully satisfied with the Kyoto results."

CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE TO MEET KYOTO PROTOCOL TARGETS Ms. RIVERS. Lastly, if we fail to meet our required targets-if we agree to this treaty, ultimately, whatever form it takes, and we fail to meet our required target, what happens and who does it?

Mr. EIZENSTAT. That's a very good question. At this point, there is only the following sanction: countries that fail to meet their targets cannot participate in joint implementation with credit-type projects. We had also hoped to get in even stronger sanctions. For example, that you couldn't do emissions trading, international emissions trading. That was not accepted, but it was accepted that if you don't meet your targets that you cannot participate in the clean development mechanism which is the joint implementation

Ms. RIVERS. Thank you, Mr. Eizenstat. Thank you, Mr. Chair

man.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentlewoman's time has expired. The gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Bartlett.

Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Chairman, if you will indicate when my time has expired

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. You'll hear a little beep.

Mr. BARTLETT [continuing]. And if we'll have time for a second round, and I will continue my questioning at the second round, if I have not finished. Thank you very much.

HOW DO WE KNOW THAT CO2 CAUSES GLOBAL WARMING?

Let me return, Mr. Eizenstat, to the science part of it. You have demonstrated in your charts an approximate correlation between CO2 and temperature, although, I note that between 1825 and 1850 while CO2 is static or going up, temperatures are falling, so that would appear not to be a really positive correlation, but even, sir, if there is a positive correlation, how do we determine cause and effect. Two things that are positively correlated could both be the effect of another cause or either one could cause-could be the cause and the effect. Why isn't reasonable to assume that increasing temperatures would increase life activity? There will be a balance between animals which produce CO2 and plants which use CO2, and you could, therefore, postulate that with rising Earth temperatures you would have either an increase or a decrease in CO2 depending upon the relationship between the animals and plants? So, I'm not sure that we know for sure that rising CO2 increases temperatures.

HOW DO WE KNOW THAT WE ARE TRULY WARMING RATHER THAN HEADING INTO AN ICE AGE?

Our Earth in the past has been both very much colder-we have had ice ages with glaciers as far south as southeastern Ohio. We also have had a globe which is very much warmer. We still can find mastodons frozen in the tundra with subtropical vegetation in their stomach indicating that we had a very much warmer Earth at that time. And, also, as you go from warming to cooling or vice versa, there will be little ups and downs as you are going up or down. How we can be sure that the very modest warming we've had now, most of which has occurred before real industrialization-the increase over the last century-how can we be sure that we're not simply on a little upswing on what is generally a down swing, and we are, in fact, heading to an ice age?

Mr. EIZENSTAT. The scientific data indicates, first of all, very unmistakenly, that the concentrations of CO2 are dramatically increasing and that this adaptability which you refer to is, in fact, not occurring, and that's the dramatic evidence in that chart. I mean, it's just unmistakable. These are actual readings of CO2 concentrations, and they are increasing at a dramatic rate, and the slope demonstrates that. Second, there has been, according to actual measurements, a 1 percent fahrenheit increase in temperature since the industrial revolution. And, last, according the computer simulations and calculations of physicists and mathematicians