Policy Luncheon, June 2, 1992

Item

Other Media: lead_404_003_all_tr.txt

Transcription (Scripto): Read Full Text Only (TXT)
Extent (Dublin Core): 21 Pages
File Name (Dublin Core): lead_404_003_all
Title (Dublin Core): Policy Luncheon, June 2, 1992
Date (Dublin Core): 1992-06-02
Date Created (Dublin Core): 1992-06-02
Congress (Dublin Core): 102nd (1991-1993)
Policy Area (Curation): Congress
Creator (Dublin Core): Dole, Robert J., 1923-2021
Record Type (Dublin Core): memorandums
Rights (Dublin Core): http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/CNE/1.0/
Language (Dublin Core): eng
Collection Finding Aid (Dublin Core): https://dolearchivecollections.ku.edu/index.php?p=collections/findingaid&id=26&q=
Physical Location (Dublin Core): Collection 007, Box 404, Folder 3
Institution (Dublin Core): Robert J. Dole Institute of Politics, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS
Archival Collection (Dublin Core): Robert J. Dole Republican Leadership Collection, 1985-1996
Full Text (Extract Text): (Page 1)

POLICY LUNCHEON AGENDA
Tuesday, June 2, 1992
SCHEDULE:
1. Sports Gambling
· Pending
· Vote on final passage expected after lunch.
2. National Bankruptcy Review Commission Act, S. 1985 -- (Heflin, Grassley)
· Mitchell would like to schedule but problems on both sides of the aisle.
3. Corporation for Public Broadcasting
· Immediately after Sports -- series of amendments expected. See Attached.
OTHER ISSUES:
1. Urban Package
· Negotiations have barely begun.
· We do not have a Democrat proposal.
· Our designees will be:
Packwood
Domenici
Garn
Hatfield
Seymour
2. Reception for new Director/Deputy of Office of Fair Employment. PLEASE STOP BY. The first complaint could be about you!
RECEPTION: 4:00 P.M. today in S-207.

(Page 2)

MEMORANDUM
June 2, 1992
TO: SENATOR DOLE
FROM: JIM WHITTINGHILL
SUBJECT: CORPORATION FOR PUBLIC BROADCASTING
Two major reforms have been agreed to by Senator Inouye and Republican Senators:
BALANCE -- The existing law calls for objectivity and balance in all programming of a controversial nature. The amendment restates current law, requires an on-going review by the Board Members, creates a system for public comment and requires the Board to either cut off funding for offenders or make grants to programs with the opposite point of view.
ACCOUNTABILITY -- Since the CPB is not a government agency, it is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act. Further, records kept by CPB, PBS, NPR, stations and producers are void of significant information about where the federal funds flow, what profits are made, which producers receive periodic funding, etc. The Amendment requires a strict reporting system under which all relevant information should be available to the Congress and the public through the CPB.
Several amendments appear to be worked out and should be taken on voice votes:
MCCONNELL -- Requires disclaimers such as "Paid for in part by the Federal Government"
BYRD -- Indecency -- No indecent programming prior to midnight (with certain exceptions for stations which go off the air at midnight).
PRESSLER -- Study of distance learning projects in rural areas.
BINGAMAN -- Study of a "Ready-to-Learn" public television channel.

(Page 3)

That would leave two "controversial" amendments:
FUNDING LEVEL -- Senator Helms was going to offer; it appears Senator Lott will now offer. Reduces the authorized level from $310 million (FY '94), $375 million (FY '95), and $425 million (FY '96) to $275 million for each year -- the President's requested level. The difference is $283 million (more than an entire year under the President's levels).
ITVS -- This is the amendment which is prepared for you. ITVS was set up by Congressman Waxman to take care of his friends in Hollywood and New York City. It contracts with independent producers to obtain programs for the traditionally undeserved communities (minorities, etc.). However, this is part of the requirement in the law for CPB. This is a redundant system, an alternative to the alternative which recently awarded a grant to the producer of "Tongues Untied." The money would be transferred to the Summer Jobs Program.

(Page 4)

SCHEDULE FOR THE WEEK OF JUNE 1, 1992
TODAY, TUESDAY, JUNE 2
THE SENATE WILL RECONVENE AT 2:15 P.M., AND SHORTLY THEREAFTER, WILL CONDUCT A ROLL CALL VOTE ON FINAL PASSAGE OF THE SPORTS GAMBLING BILL. IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE VOTE, THE SENATE WILL PROCEED TO THE CONSIDERATION OF THE CORPORATION FOR PUBLIC BROADCASTING BILL, UNDER THE TIME AGREEMENT OF MAY 21ST. THEREFORE, ADDITIONAL VOTES COULD OCCUR, HOWEVER, A LATE SESSION IS NOT ANTICIPATED.
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 3 - THURSDAY, JUNE 4
RESUME AND COMPLETE ACTION ON THE CORPORATION OF PUBLIC BROADCASTING. THEREFORE, VOTES WILL OCCUR. FOLLOWING THE CONSIDERATION OF THE C.P.B. BILL, THE SENATE COULD BE ASKED TO TURN TO ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
N.I.H. CONFERENCE REPORT
THE GOVERNMENT-SPONSORED ENTERPRISE BILL S. 2733
THEREFORE, VOTES WILL OCCUR EACH DAY OF SENATE SESSION THIS WEEK.
NOTE:
THE MAJORITY LEADER HAS INDICATED THAT THE SENATE WOULD NOT BE IN SESSION FRIDAY, JUNE 5, OR MONDAY, JUNE 8TH. (DUE TO THE EARTH SUMMIT IN RIO)

(Page 5)

U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee
Don Nickles, Chairman Kelly D. Johnston, Staff Director
Economic Indicators
June 2, 1992 (April Data

LEADING INDICATORS
The composite index of leading economic indicators is designed by the Department of Commerce to predict monthly movements in economic activity.

Consumer Expectations
Index
Apr. 92 70.5 +0.3%
Mar. 92 70.3 +13.8%
Feb. 92 61.8 +4.6%

This index consists of eleven data series, including consumer expectations.

Up +0.4%
Apr. +0.4%
Mar. +0.4%
Feb +0.8%
Jan. +1.0%
Dec. -0.2%
Nov. -0.2%
Oct. +0.1%

COINCIDENT INDICATORS
The composite index of coincident economic indicators tends to show the current trend in Gross Domestic Product.
Real GDP Growth
1st Qtr. 92 $4,896.9 +2.4%
4th Qtr. 91 4,868.0 +0.4%
3rd Qtr. 91 4,862.7 +1.8%
2nd Qtr. 91 4,840.7 +1.4%
Billions of 1987 dollars annualized

This index consists of four data series, including employment and industrial production.
Unchanged
Apr. 0.0%
Mar. +0.1%
Feb. +0.6%
Jan. -0.6%
Dec. -0.5%
Nov. -0.7%
Oct. -0.2%

LAGGING INDICATORS
After a time lag, this index should move in the same direction as the coincident index, thus confirming any trend in GDP growth.
Average Unemployment
Rate Duration
Apr. 92 7.2% 17.0 weeks
Mar. 92 7.3% 17.1 weeks
Feb. 92 7.3% 17.0 weeks

This index consists of seven data series, including the average duration of unemployment.
Down -0.2%
Apr. -0.5%
Mar. -0.5%
Feb. -1.0%
Jan. -1.2%
Dec. -0.2%
Nov. -0.2%
Oct. -0.3%
Staff Contact: Joe Cobb, 224-2946

(Page 6)

HOWARD O. GREENE, JR.
United States Senate SECRETARY FOR THE MINORITY
MEMORANDUM
TO: SENATOR DOLE
FROM : ELIZABETH GREENE
RE: STATUS OF S. 1985, THE BANKRUPTCY BILL
DATE: JUNE 2, 1992
The bankruptcy bill is sponsored by Senators Heflin and Grassley and would establish a commission to review and amend the Bankruptcy Code. The bill was reported out of Judiciary on May 7, 1992.
The following Senators have written to you asking to be protected with respect to action on the bill:
Danforth re: use of airline gates by New Airline carriers, instead of original carriers in bankruptcy, (to avoid KCI airport post-Braniff bankruptcy).
Hatch re: use of airline gates by Airlines in bankruptcy, (opposite side of Danforth).
Danforth/Kasten re: possible product liability amendment
Gramm re: possible Crime bill amendment
D'Amato re: similar concerns has Hatch
Grassley/Managers substitute amendment (expected to be accepted) .
Other possible issues to be raised on Bankruptcy bill are:
Graham re: pension benefits guarantee corporation (expected to be very controversial).

(Page 7)

U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee
Don Nickles, Chairman Kelly D. Johnston, Staff Director
Policy Analysis
June 1, 1992
THE RIO "EARTH SUMMIT"
Alt text: drawing of an outline of the map of the world
Summary
The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, is scheduled for June 3-14, 1992. Popularized as the "Earth Summit," the U.N.'s 1989 proposal for a Rio Conference was highly ambitious in scope. Nevertheless, at least some general agreement has been reached on many of the proposed issues.
Specifically, the Rio Conference is expected to result in the following agreements:
1) Adoption of a non-binding "Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, comprised of 27 principles (previously referred to as the "Earth Charter"). The United States is seeking a few changes at Rio, but generally supports the document.
2) Adoption of "Agenda 21," a non-binding environmental action plan encompassing 100 environmental and developmental issues. Although most issues were resolved, several were left open for negotiation at Rio, such as technology transfer/cooperation, atmosphere, bio-diversity and bio-technology. The United States intends to join in adoption of most of the Agenda 21 issues. Financial aid remains the key unresolved issue.
3) Adoption of a non-binding agreement on Forestry Management Principles (the United States had hoped for agreement on a treaty);
4) Signature of a Biological Diversity Convention to protect endangered species (which the United States and France, among others, have already indicated they will not sign); and
5) Signature of a Framework Convention on Climate Change (which the United States and 142 other countries have indicated they will sign).

(Page 8)

The Real Issue: Financial Aid
Although the treaty on global climate change has received the lion's share of the pre-conference press coverage in the United States and the European Community (EC), the most important environmental issues to the developing world are not the consequences of economic progress, but the consequences of poverty: desertification from overgrazing and over timbering, inadequate clean water and inadequate sewage treatment.
As is typical with meetings between the developing and industrialized nations, the developing countries are most concerned about financial aid. As recently as May 26, the EC environment commissioner encouraged the EC member states to set a date for reaching the 1970 Stockholm Declaration target of 0.7 percent of gross national product for official development assistance to developing countries. [Note: see op-ed, Financial Times, p. 14. The Stockholm Declaration, U.N. Resolution 2626, adopted October 24, 1970, set forth a non-binding target for developed countries to provide seven-tenths of a percent of their GNP to developing countries. That would amount to an annual United States foreign aid budget of about $40 billion (nine times the total State Department budget.)]
Two decades later, the tune is the same, but the pitch has changed: the developing world is now playing upon the United States' and EC's guilt over the environmental consequences of economic progress. The real goal of the developing world for the Rio Conference has been financial and technological assistance without strings or payments for intellectual property rights.
Senate Activity with Respect to the Rio Conference
Recent Senate Action:
The Senate has acted once this year with respect to the Rio Conference. On April 7, 1992, the Senate passed a Sense of Congress Resolution, H.Con.Res. 292 in support of a United States leadership position on greenhouse gas emissions at the Rio Conference. The measure passed 87-11, and was returned to the House.
Senate Delegation to Rio:
Attending the Rio Conference from the United States will be the President and Administration officials, hundreds of Americans representing "non-governmental organizations," and a congressional delegation, led by Senator Gore, that is expected to leave for Rio on June 4. Republican Senators attending the Rio Conference include Senators Chafee, Pressler and Symms. In addition to Senator Gore, Democratic Senators planning to attend the Rio Conference include Senators Baucus, Graham, Kerry, Lautenberg, Pell, Wellstone and Wirth.
2

(Page 9)

Ratification of the Climate Change Treaty:
During the Rio Conference, the United States is prepared to sign the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC), which was adopted by 143 nations on May 9, 1992, after more than a year-long period of negotiations. The FCCC is a formal convention, or multilateral treaty, that must be submitted to the Senate for ratification. The President is expected to submit the FCCC to the Senate after an inter-agency review, along with any accompanying "understandings" that might be proposed. Excerpts of the May 10 draft FCCC are reprinted in the Appendix.
Proposed enabling legislation to implement the United States financial obligations under the treaty is not expected to be transmitted by the Administration when the FCCC is submitted to the Senate. The initial funding requirements to administer the Framework Convention bureaucracy are not expected to require new authorizations.
Background on the Rio Conference
The Rio Conference, officially called the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), was called for by the U.N. General Assembly Resolution 44/228 (Dec. 22, 1989). The resolution established the following objectives for the UNCED meeting in Rio: The adoption (by acclamation) of two non-binding statements of principles and the signing of two multi-national treaties covering global climate change and bio-diversity. Based on a United States initiative, the goals of the conference were later expanded to include adoption of a non-binding agreement on forestry management principles.
On May 12, 1992, President Bush announced he would travel to Rio for the "Earth Summit." This announcement followed the May 9 agreement on the Framework Convention on Climate Change, which the United States indicated it would sign. Although certainly the most publicized, the agreement on global climate change is only one of several documents that will be prepared for signature or adoption at the Rio Conference.
What are the Rio Documents?
Rio Declaration
The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development is a non-binding declaration of basic principles governing environmentally sustainable development (previously referred to as the "Earth Charter.") In April, the negotiating body agreed to forward a chairman's draft of the principles for consideration at Rio. The draft consists of 27 principles, such as "eradicating poverty," "eliminat[ing] unsustainable patterns of production and consumption" and "appropriate demographic policies." [A draft text of the Rio Declaration was published in the New York Times, 4/5/92, p. A10]. As of June 1, the United States is still considering a few specific language changes, including references to the right to development and industrialized countries' responsibilities.
3

(Page 10)

Agenda 21
A non-binding agreement, Agenda 21 is the name used to describe an "action plan" hundreds of pages long covering 100 program areas which span the entire spectrum of environment and development issues. The Agenda 21 agreements would encompass, among other issues, financial resources, waste management, protection of freshwater and oceans, environmental conditions of the poor, the role of women, and improvement of the quality of life. In addition, negotiations for treaties covering climate change and bio-diversity and for non-binding principles on forestry management were being conducted simultaneously, apart from the overall Agenda 21 negotiations.
General agreement has been reached on draft language for most of the Agenda 21 issues, although several areas remain open for negotiation at Rio, including technology transfer/cooperation, atmosphere, bio-diversity and biotechnology. Financial aid remains the key unresolved issue, according to Maurice Strong, Secretary-General of UNCED, in an interview with The Christian Science Monitor, published May 29, 1992.
Agenda 21's Failure - Financial Assistance: The financial aid debate is relatively straightforward. Essentially, the developing nations want huge amounts of financial aid from the developed nations. Secretary-General Strong has advocated $125 billion in developmental aid, $70 billion more than the $55 billion currently given to developing nations. He has stated that the Agenda 21 programs would require an annual expenditure of $625 billion by the developing world. In addition, the developing world wants to supplement the existing Global Environment Facility (GEF), which is administered by U.N. agencies and the World Bank, with a new disbursing agency under greater control of the developing countries. The EC and Japan generally support the United States' insistence on using the existing GEF (over which the developed nations exert considerable influence) and its resistance to any assessed contributions to such a fund.
Biological Diversity Treaty
An agreement on a text was reached May 22, 1992, in Nairobi. France has indicated it will not sign, stating that the treaty is too weak. On May 30, President Bush indicated that the United States will not sign the Biological Diversity Convention, stating that United States concerns regarding biotechnology, financial aid and protections for intellectual property had not been met.
Statement of Forest Principles
Although the United States had originally hoped that an acceptable treaty would be available to be signed at Rio, forestry issues will be covered instead in a non-binding Statement of Forest Principles. The original aim of the treaty effort was to provide mechanisms to save tropical rain forests in the developing world. There immediately arose a counter-charge that the developed world should protect its virgin timber as well, such as
4

(Page 11)

the Federally-owned "old growth" forests in the Pacific Northwest. Negotiations continue on a draft of a non-binding statement of principles on forest management, but there remain a number of "bracketed" (not in agreement) terms. On June 1, 1992, President Bush announced a $150 million increase in United States aid to help developing countries conserve their forests. The would be in addition to $120 million already proposed by the Administration in the Fiscal Year 1993 budget.
Framework Convention On Climate Change (FCCC)
An agreement was reached in New York City on the Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) on May 9. This convention (multi-national treaty) will be open for signature at the Rio Conference. Despite the negotiated agreement on the text, the global climate change issue remains the Rio Conference's most visible and contentious international environmental issue in both the United States and the EC.
From the outset of the formal negotiations in Chantilly, Virginia, in February 1991, the Framework Convention on Climate Change was essentially deadlocked between two camps of the developed countries, with the developing world united in its refusal to moderate its growth potential without financial and technological assistance from the developed countries. The EC and most other OECD countries were pushing for a treaty mandating CO2 reductions to each country's 1990 emissions levels by the year 2000. The United States pressed for a flexible convention in which each country would come forward with its own program to reduce all greenhouse gases [CO2, methane, Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and nitrous oxides]. Scientists generally agree that CO2 accounts for about 60 percent of the world's annual man-made greenhouse gas emissions, weighted by greenhouse efficiency.
The United States negotiators, leveraged with President Bush's withholding of his announcement to go to Rio, finally persuaded advocates of "targets and timetables" that the better course was to seek reductions of all greenhouse gases during this decade, with "an aim of returning [emissions to]. . . 1990 levels" and report back specific measures each country will implement toward meeting those goals.
The convention commits industrialized countries to:
· Submit individual action plans to the Framework Convention with the "aim of returning" greenhouse gas emission levels to the levels each country or group of countries emitted in 1990.
· Provide technology cooperation (the United States' term, rather than "technology transfer," the developing countries' term); and
· Provide financial resources to countries in need of assistance in implementing their obligations under the Convention, such as conducting emissions inventories. The GEF will be the interim financing institution until the parties agree on a permanent financing institution at the first meeting of the Convention following the Rio Conference.
5

(Page 12)

In addition to the non-binding financial assistance language, the Convention will require financial support for a Conference of the Parties and for the many follow-on meetings for, among other things, reviewing the industrialized countries' action plans. In a show of good negotiating faith, the United States committed in February 1992, $50 million to the core fund of the restructured GEF and an additional $25 million for bilateral "global warming country studies." This is in addition to $125 million in United States contributions in parallel financing.
The final FCCC language is essentially an adoption of the United States position in favor of an internationally accepted legal framework creating an action-oriented, long-term process for dealing with climate change concerns. The elements of the EC position of CO2 reduction to 1990 levels by the end of the decade have been transformed into guidelines for all greenhouse gases, rather than mandates for CO2 reduction.
The adoption of the United States position is a major victory for the Bush Administration and the United States economy, while at the same time calling the bluff of those countries that may have been willing to sign a "targets and timetables" treaty, only to ignore it. If the United States had acceded to the EC demands for specific CO2 emissions reductions to 1990 levels by 2000, the United States probably would have been one of only a few developed countries in the world to abide by the agreement.
What Will Happen in Rio to the Climate Change Convention?
The FCCC text has been adopted and thus it is not open for negotiation in Rio. Nevertheless, the EC environment commissioner, di Meana, and the political leaderships of Germany and Denmark, in particular, have expressed strong disappointment with the United States's refusal to "commit" to reduce CO2 emissions by the year 2000, and earlier this month vowed to put pressure on the United States in Rio. It now appears unlikely that the pressure will be in the form of a formal request that the United States join with "like-minded" nations to declare an interest in pursuing "targets and timetables" in the near future. Instead, di Meana has vowed to take the issue of "targets and timetables" to the next meeting of the parties to the FCCC. [Financial Times, op-ed, 5/26/92, p. 14]
The Administration Position on Global Climate Change
The Bush Administration has proposed over a billion dollars per year in funding for climate change research for FY 1991 and FY 1992, and the FY 1993 Budget Request is for $1.37 billion, a 24 percent increase over FY 1992. In addition, the Administration has been urging the Congress to finish the national energy strategy, which has made it s way through the House and is now on its way back to the Senate. That strategy contains numerous energy conservation measures and non-fossil fuel development programs that not only help reduce CO2 emissions, but make good sense as economic and energy policies.
6

(Page 13)

Upon first taking office, the Bush Administration enunciated its global warming policy of immediately taking "prudent steps already justified on grounds other than climate change." [Speech by Secretary Baker to the IPCC, January 30, 1989.] The Administration has proposed actions that in its view make sense for a number of reasons such as conservation, energy security, and pollution reduction, but are not costly actions that are undertaken solely to reduce CO2. This has been referred to as a "no regrets" policy.
U.S. Views on Global Change
Shortly before the May 9 agreement was reached on the climate change convention, the State Department released a 10-page inter-agency position paper entitled, "U.S. Views on Global Climate Change" (available at RPC, SR-347). This document includes an analysis of the anticipated progress the United States will make over the 1990s to reduce emissions of all greenhouse gases and is the type of "action plan" envisioned by the United States for the FCCC. The document assumed passage of the national energy strategy by Congress and contained a number of very optimistic assumptions of the impact of energy conservation by utilities and methane recovery from landfills.
Several Senators have cited the "U.S. Views" as stating the United States could easily meet 1990 levels of carbon dioxide by 2000.2 However, the "U.S. View" did not contain a description of the projected baseline of carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions from which the anticipated reductions were to be subtracted. An analysis provided by Charles River Associates, using two projections for fossil energy use increases to the year 2000 (resulting in a 16.2 percent increase in carbon emissions according to GRI and 9.6 percent according to EIA), indicated that even if the "U.S. Views" optimistic forecasts of greenhouse gas reductions were to happen-which the analyst believes unlikely-greenhouse gases would still be 2 to 6 percent above 1990 levels in the year 2000, or 24 to 72 million tons of carbon, with the high range the most likely. Charles River Associates asserts a 20 percent increase in the price of fossil fuels would be needed to reduce carbon emissions by 5 percent. Such a reduction is in the range of the tax that has
1 The Administration clearly was interested in making the best possible case that the United States was already making a serious effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The largest action listed in the document is a projected reduction in 39 million tons of carbon equivalent in methane from landfills that can be captured over the next decade pursuant to EPA regulations. The document's estimation of the voluntary energy efficiency improvements are also optimistic, perhaps involving double-counting of improvements already assumed in the baseline projection of future energy use, according to an analysis of the U.S. Views by Charles River Associates.
2 Senator Mitchell, " ... avoiding increases in carbon dioxide emissions will not be burdensome," Cong. Rec. S.6272, May 7, 1992; Senator Wirth, “ ... could be achieved by doing virtually nothing. .. ", Cong. Rec. S.6258, May 7, 1992; Senator Gore," ... the United States can nearly achieve stabilization of CO2 emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000, largely with voluntary measures," statement at the Joint Economic Comm. hearing on The Cost of Stabilizing Carbon Dioxide Emissions, April 28, 1992.
7

(Page 14)

been proposed by the European Commission, although the negative effects of such a tax on GNP are likely to be great on the United States economy, which has a larger land area, with significantly higher transportation costs, and higher per capita GNP, than the EC.3
Domestic Pressure on the Administration to Move to Targets and Timetables
Domestic pressure on President Bush to accept a targets and timetables approach will persist both here and in Rio. For example, it is expected that liberal Democrats and environmental lobbyists will continue to insist that they are "appalled by President Bush's energetic efforts to stop progress toward meaningful agreements at the Earth Summit," as Senator Gore put it in a recent press conference [May 28, 1992.] A number of Republican Senators have responded on the Floor in support of the Administration position on the global climate change treaty. Statements were made by Senators Burns, Simpson, Symms, McConnell, Wallop and Murkowski on May 7, 1992 (Cong. Rec. S.6280-6301); and a statement was made by Senator Domenici on May 12, 1992 (Cong. Rec. S.6475-76). A discussion of some of the arguments made to pressure the United States to sign a targets and timetables treaty follows.
1. "Everyone Agrees We Should Cut Back CO2". The view that man-made emissions are causing the globe to heat up with catastrophic results has seized the popular media since the late 1980s, when virtually every national magazine had at least one cover story on "Global Warming" illustrated with a blazing sun. Actually, the temperature records do indicate an increase in global temperatures over the past century of between .3 and .6 degrees centigrade (1992 IPCC Supplement). This is about the same magnitude as natural climate variability. [Statement of William Happer, Director of the Office of Energy Research, Department of Energy, before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.] The records further indicate that most of the increase occurred before 1950, rather than in the past forty years when two-thirds of all man-made greenhouse gases have been emitted. Thus the linkage between carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, which has increased by about 27 percent since the 1850s, remains unproven. Moreover, there is intense disagreement on whether any significant warming has even occurred in the Northern Hemisphere since 1950.
The science of modeling the climate on computers is still developing, with major disagreements on how to treat the primary and feedback effects of clouds or oceans, the two most important climate-control mechanisms on Earth. Research that does not support the original catastrophic global warming hypothesis is finally receiving some attention in the popular press. For recent articles on the state of the science of global warming, see, e.g., "A House of Cards," Gregg Easterbrook, Newsweek, June 1, 1992; "The Earth
3 Charles River Associates, citing a DRI/McGraw-Hill 1992 study, concluded that "the U.S. is among those nations most affected by the carbon tax in terms of economic loss."
8

(Page 15)

Summit," The Washington Post, May 31, 1992, A22-A23; and "A Guide to the Global Warming Theory," Heritage Foundation, May 21, 1992.
Given the uncertainties of the basic science, most United States scientists agree that the prudent course of action would be to invest heavily in research on global climate change issues and renewable energy technologies, and to take reasonable steps to improve the efficiency of our fossil fuel consumption.4 As noted above, this approach-adoption of "no-regrets" policies-has been the position of the Bush Administration.
2. "Europeans Want Targets and Timetables, So We Should Too." Another theme of those criticizing the Bush Administration for opposing targets and timetables is that the EC has already established a goal of reducing CO2 emission to 1990 levels by the year 2000 and thus, the United States should as well. (see, e.g., Senator Wirth, Cong. Rec. S.6474, May 12, 1992). Yet, the EC umbrella organization, the European Commission, has had to propose a "carbon tax" to deliver half the needed reductions in CO2 needed to meet the goal of a 1990 emissions cap. (Financial Times, 5/28/92, quoting EC environment commissioner di Meana).
The EC carbon tax proposal, although strongly advocated by the European Commission and at least five of the 12 member countries, has not been accepted by the other member countries. The tax, equal to $10 per barrel of crude oil, is replete with exemptions and includes two major pre-conditions: that the United States and Japan adopt a similar tax, and that the tax not apply to any individual EC member country unless adopted by that country."
Despite great pressure from the European Commission for use of an EC carbon tax at the Rio Conference, the tax was not adopted at a meeting of the EC environment ministers on May 25. Consequently, EC environment commissioner di Meana, who has been the strongest advocate of the tax, decided to boycott the Rio conference. It remains likely, however, that the EC tax proposal will be used by some to embarrass President Bush at Rio and in the Congress.
4 See, generally, the testimony of four scientists introduced into the Congressional Record by Senator Wallop on May 7, 1992 (pp. S.6288-99); and the National Academy of Sciences report, "Policy Implications for Greenhouse Warming," 1991.
5 On its face, the EC carbon tax proposal seems a significant commitment. It is a two-part excise tax, half on crude oil equivalent carbon content and half on crude oil equivalent energy content. This carbon/energy tax would start at $3 per barrel of oil in 1993, and rises to $10 per barrel in 2000, resulting in an increase of 6% on EC's current gasoline price (already highly taxed) and a 58% increase on EC's average coal prices (in a few countries, such as Germany, still heavily subsidized). The 6 percent increase in gasoline cost would be on top of the average EC price of over $3.50/gallon (2/3 of price is tax), or 21 cents per gallon. This price increase compares with the United States increase of 7.5 cents per gallon in Federal and State excise taxes (not counting local taxes) that have been imposed on gasoline since January 1990 (5 cents of this increase was from the 1990 Budget Reconciliation Act).
9

(Page 16)

The Department of Energy (in remarks by Linda G. Stuntz, Acting Deputy Secretary of Energy, at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research on April 30, 1992) has put together the following list of additional areas in which the United States has been far ahead of the EC countries in environmental protection:
· Diesel fuel sulfur content: diesel fuel in the U.S. must contain no more than 0.05 percent sulfur by October 1993, while in Europe, the new sulfur limit will only be 0.2 percent by October 1994;
· The EC has no law to protect wetlands or deal with underground storage of hazardous wastes;
· Ninety percent of the sewage discharged from the southern shore of Europe into the Mediterranean is completely untreated;
· Three-quarters of all industrial pollution of the northern countries of Europe ends up in the Mediterranean;
· In the Mediterranean, the many small oil spills and oil washed from tankers each year spill about 17 times as many tons of oil into the sea as were spilled from the Exxon Valdez.
3. The U. S. is the Largest Emitter of CO2 in the World. The United States is the world's largest emitter of CO2, producing approximately 22 percent of the world's annual CO2, however, the U.S. also has the world's highest per capita GNP and a much larger land area per capita than the EC or Japan. ("Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming," National Academy of Science, 1991). Moreover, it is generally accepted that China and India will be increasing their coal use exponentially over the near future. The fossil energy growth and additional deforestation in the developing world is expected to overwhelm any efforts by the developed nations to reduced CO2 emissions. The chart below, prepared by the Global Climate Coalition, shows the rapid decrease of the CO2 emissions of the United States as a percentage of the total world's emissions.
PERCENT CO2 EMISSIONS BY ECONOMIC REGION Actual: 1960 -1985 / Projected Thru 2050
Alt Text: A graph that shows the total CO2 emission by economic region, including (in order from highest emission to lowest): other LDC's, China, Former Soviet Bloc, Other OECD, United States. The X axis shows the years from 1960-2050, and the Y-Axis shows the percentage of total global CO2 emission.
10

(Page 17)

The economic costs of any proposal which has as its primary purpose the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions in the United States must be carefully weighed against other policies that may cost less that involve decreasing carbon dioxide emission in the developing world. Since 1970, the United States has already reduced energy usage almost 40 percent per dollar of GNP. Moreover, the next generation of energy efficient power plants is now being demonstrated, and new conservation procedures are being demonstrated at the State level and are included in the energy bill. To get each additional ton of carbon out of the air will involve greater and greater cost. Certainly, directing foreign aid to energy-efficient technologies would produce many times the carbon dioxide reduction of a carbon tax on domestic fuel use.
4. The U.S. Should be a Leader in the Environmental Movement. The United States is and has been a leader in setting environmental standards. This point was discussed in responses by Senators Chafee and McCain (Cong. Rec. S. 6476-78) to attacks on the Administration's position in the UNSED negotiations. Senator Chafee particularly took to task those who would have the United States shamed by the Europeans. Senator Chafee noted that the United States began limiting use of CFC's in the mid-1970's while the Europeans are just beginning those phase-outs now. In addition, he stated that the United States mandated catalytic converters to reduce air pollutants on all new automobiles built since the mid-1970s, while Europe's catalytic converter mandate will not go into effect until January 1, 1993. One consequence, he noted, is that the emissions of lead in the air in the United States has now declined by 98 percent since the Federal lead phase-out began in the mid-1970s.
In a speech on June 1, 1992, to employees of the Goddard Space Flight Center, President Bush noted some of the international environmental achievements of the United States, including:
"new agreements to stop the irresponsible export of toxic waste, to ban trade in ivory, and thereby stop the extinction of elephants due to poaching, and to use debt forgiveness to protect the environment through the debt for nature swap. In short, our country, America, retains its place at the forefront of international environmental accomplishment."
The United States is also the world's largest donor of foreign assistance. The Bush Administration is requesting an estimated $698 million in environmentally related foreign assistance in FY 1993, up from $441 million in FY 1990.
11

(Page 18)

U.S. Environmental Experience
According to the EPA, the United States spent approximately $115 billion in 1990 on environmental compliance. EPA estimates this compliance cost figure will grow to $185 billion by 2000. Moreover, the real cost to the economy of this massive body of environmental legislation runs far higher than just direct compliance costs. It forces all of us to sacrifice the chance to invest the capital in more highly valued opportunities, particularly greater economic growth.º
The United States is paying a high price for its leadership in environmental controls, and has also paid the price for moving forward with command and control regulation prior to fully understanding the science. Aggressive Federal programs were undertaken in response to "Acid Rain," which is costing Americans billions of dollars per year now, and may eventually cost another $4-$7 billion per year due to the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments [National Coal Association estimate]. The rush to impose on the United States economy a second round of sulfur emission reductions under the 1990 amendments was called into question by the National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program (NAPAP), a 10-year, $500 million congressionally authorized study. The NAPAP findings were available during consideration of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, but were ignored. As Senator Wallop stated in a May 6, 1992 hearing held by the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
"Little attention was given to NAPAP's observation that many of the early scientific claims about aquatic damage were exaggerated. If we are not careful we are going to make that mistake again. We are going to produce a lot of good climate change science, but it is not going to be timely or relevant to the policy decisions that the United States and other nations face over the next decade."
6 See, e.g., Dale Jorgenson and Peter Wilcoxen, "Impact of Environmental Legislation on United States Economic Growth, Investment, and Capital Costs," in United States Environmental Policy and Economic Growth: How Do We Fare?, American Council for Capital Formation Center for Policy Research, March 1992) where the authors estimate that the cumulative economic costs of environmental regulation prior to 1990 has been a 2.59 percent reduction in the United States gross national product. This is one-and-a half times the maximum drop in GNP during the recent recession. They further estimate that by the year 2005, the 1990 Clean Air Act will reduce the United States gross national product by an additional four-tenths of one percent.
12

(Page 19)

Conclusion
In insisting on its position on the climate change convention, the Administration refused to ignore the lack of scientific understanding regarding man-made changes to the climate. Rather than rush to yet another very expensive environmental program, the Administration has led the world toward a more pragmatic, flexible approach that is in step with the scientific understanding.
The Administration also has reemphasized the superiority of market-based mechanisms and flexibility over command-control approaches as the better way to solve environmental challenges, including the world's concern over global climate change. In his June 1, 1992 speech, President Bush stated:
"I came to this office committed to extend America's record of environmental leadership and I've worked to do so in a way that is compatible with economic growth, because this balance is absolutely essential, and because these are twin goals not mutually exclusive objectives. . . I invite comparison of the record that we as a country and as an administration have built. It is aggressive. It is comprehensive. And it is ambitious, but carefully balanced. What we've done in this administration reflects the new environmentalism - more sophisticated in its approach - that harnesses the power of the marketplace in the service of the environment."
Staff Contact: Mark Whitenton, 224-2946
13

(Page 20)

APPENDIX Excerpts from the Framework Convention on Climate Change Draft of May 10, 1992
Objectives
"The ultimate objective of this convention ... is to achieve ... stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Such a level should be achieved within a time frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner."
"Commitments
"All parties ... shall: Develop, periodically update and make available to the Conference of the Parties ... national inventories of anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of all greenhouse gases not controlled by the Montreal Protocol ..
"The developed country parties and other parties included in annex I [industrialized nations and former communist states] commit themselves specifically as provided for in the following: Each of these parties shall adopt national policies and take corresponding measures on the mitigation of climate change, by limiting its anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases and protecting and enhancing its greenhouse gas sinks and reservoirs.
"These policies and measures will demonstrate that developed countries are taking the lead in modifying longer-term trends in anthropogenic emissions consistent with the objective of this convention, recognizing that the return by the end of the present decade to earlier levels of anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases not controlled by the Montreal Protocol would contribute to such modification and taking into account the differences in these parties starting points and approaches, economic structures and resource bases, the need to maintain strong and sustainable economic growth, available technologies and other individual circumstances, as well as the need for equitable and appropriate contributions by each of these parties to the global effort regarding that objective. These parties may implement such policies and measures jointly with other parties and may assist other parties in contributing to the achievement of the objective of the convention. . .
"In order to promote progress to this end, each of these parties shall communicate, within six months of the entry into force of the convention for it and periodically thereafter ... detailed information of its policies and measures referred to ... [above] as well as on its resulting projected anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases not controlled by the Montreal Protocol for the period referred to ... (above), with the aim of returning individually or jointly to their 1990 levels of these anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases not controlled by the Montreal Protocol. This information will be reviewed by the Conference of the Parties, at its first session and periodically thereafter. .. "
14

(Page 21)

SCHEDULE FOR THE WEEK OF JUNE 1, 1992

TODAY, TUESDAY, JUNE 2
THE SENATE WILL RECONVENE AT 2:15 P.M., AND AT (Circled: 3:00 P.M.) WILL CONDUCT A ROLL CALL VOTE ON FINAL PASSAGE OF THE SPORTS GAMBLING BILL. IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE VOTE, THE SENATE WILL PROCEED TO THE CONSIDERATION OF THE CORPORATION FOR PUBLIC BROADCASTING BILL, UNDER THE TIME AGREEMENT OF MAY 21ST. THEREFORE, ADDITIONAL VOTES COULD OCCUR, HOWEVER, A LATE SESSION IS NOT ANTICIPATED.

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 3 - THURSDAY, JUNE 4
RESUME AND COMPLETE ACTION ON THE CORPORATION OF PUBLIC BROADCASTING. THEREFORE, VOTES WILL OCCUR. FOLLOWING THE CONSIDERATION OF THE C.P.B. BILL, THE SENATE COULD BE ASKED TO TURN TO ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:

N.I.H. CONFERENCE REPORT
THE GOVERNMENT-SPONSORED ENTERPRISE BILL S. 2733
S. 1985, THE BANKRUPTCY BILL
THEREFORE, VOTES WILL OCCUR EACH DAY OF SENATE SESSION THIS WEEK.

NOTE:
THE MAJORITY LEADER HAS INDICATED THAT THE SENATE WOULD NOT BE IN SESSION FRIDAY, JUNE 5, OR MONDAY, JUNE 8TH. (DUE TO THE EARTH SUMMIT IN RIO)

Position: 3577 (3 views)