The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“REGARDING MANAGEMENT OF NATIONAL FORESTS TO REDUCE GREENHOUSE GASES” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Energy was published in the House of Representatives section on pages H8857-H8860 on Oct. 21, 1997.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
REGARDING MANAGEMENT OF NATIONAL FORESTS TO REDUCE GREENHOUSE GASES
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 151) expressing the sense of the Congress that the United States should manage its public domain national forests to maximize the reduction of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere among many other objectives and that the United States should serve as an example and as a world leader in actively managing its public domain national forests in a manner that substantially reduces the amount of carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H. Con. Res. 151
Whereas carbon dioxide, a major greenhouse gas, can be removed from the atmosphere by trees through photosynthesis and stored in wood;
Whereas releases of carbon dioxide can be prevented by the use of wood products as substitutes for products whose manufacture consumes fossil fuels and releases substantial amounts of carbon dioxide; and
Whereas managing our forests by planting and growing our forest resources will remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that the United States--
(1) should manage its forests to maximize the reduction of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere among many other objectives; and
(2) should serve as an example and as a world leader in managing its forest in a manner that substantially reduces the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] and the gentleman from American Samoa [Mr. Faleomavaega], each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young].
(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
In December, representatives of 150 nations will gather in Kyoto, Japan, to sign a successor treaty to the United Nations 1992 framework convention on climate change. Today, as we anticipate this important event, we will debate a nonbinding measure putting the House on record as supporting proper management of our Nation's forests to maximize the reduction of greenhouse gases, among other important objectives. This resolution is similar to the Byrd-Hagel resolution passed by the Senate earlier this year that put them on record opposing any treaty that would cause serious economic harm to the United States.
Everyone agrees that we must have clean environment, but we must do it in a way that does not impair or harm our economy. This resolution represents the fact we can have both a healthy environment and a vibrant economy.
By the Clinton-Gore administration's own economic model, the effect of mandatory reductions of greenhouse gases would be devastating to this economy of ours. The United States has an obligation to defend the rights of people who inhabit our planet. It seems that officials representing the United States in the climate change treaty negotiations have lost sight of that duty. Science has proven to us that carbon dioxide, the leading greenhouse gas, can be taken out of the atmosphere by properly managing our forests. Carbon dioxide is kept out of the atmosphere by harvesting the forest before it begins to decompose or burn, thus storing the carbon in wood products that are environmentally friendly, as well as providing an economic benefit to society.
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which may commit the United States to mandatory greenhouse gas reductions, could lead to enormous burdens and costs on the American people, the economy, and our way of life. The key issue is whether the Clinton-Gore administration will commit the United States to mandatory reductions of carbon dioxide.
Mandatory reductions will cost taxpayers billions of dollars and will cost many Americans their jobs. There are alternatives to mandatory reductions of carbon emissions. The alternative we bring before the Congress today is to properly manage our forests in order to take from the atmosphere carbon dioxide.
This means using the controls on greenhouse gases that Mother Nature gives to us rather than controls that Government mandates for us to follow. For that reason, we would move to agree on House Concurrent Resolution 151 and urge our colleagues to give it their full support.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
(Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
As cosponsor of House Concurrent Resolution 151, I am proud to rise today in strong support of this important measure introduced by our distinguished chairman, the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young]. The chairman's legislation sends a crucial message. Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions constitute a serious problem of global dimension. We can begin, in part, to address and control gas emissions and the growing crisis of global warming by proper and prudent management of our national forests and Federal lands.
Madam Speaker, coming from the South Pacific, I am particularly sensitive to the related phenomena of global climate warming and rising sea levels. For many low-level Pacific island nations, especially those that rise only 6 feet at their highest point of elevation, increasing sea levels threaten to flood, engulf and destroy the very homelands of many Pacific peoples.
Global climate warming presents a real and terrifying danger in the region that cannot be dismissed.
I have introduced a companion-related resolution, House Concurrent Resolution 157, to address the need for the United States to work with the Pacific island leaders on these issues. I have attached a copy of House Concurrent Resolution 157 for the Record and urge our colleagues' support.
Madam Speaker, just last month, as a member of the House Committee on International Relations, I attended the South Pacific Forum meetings in Rarotonga in the Cook Islands as a representative of the U.S. Congress. As Members know, the South Pacific Forum is the annual meeting of the Heads of State of 16 Pacific island nations, including Australia and New Zealand.
The Forum meetings revealed that the most urgent priority of the island leaders concerned global climate warming and the related phenomenon of rising sea levels.
House Concurrent Resolution 157 expresses the sense of the Congress regarding the effects of global warming-induced climate disruptions to Pacific nations that are longtime allies of the United States. The measure calls on the United States to work with the island nations to address this extremely serious problem.
As I foresee the process unfolding, the United States will play a leadership role to ensure that all nations and major economies in the world--including China, India and Mexico--fairly share the burden of reducing global greenhouse emissions. All members of the international community must bear the sacrifice for the greater good of the world. No nation should be exempt from doing its part.
As to the measure before us, House Concurrent Resolution 151, Madam Speaker, the ranking member of the committee, the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], has contributed immensely to the amended legislation. Unfortunately, the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], is at the White House and is unable to be here with us to urge adoption of this measure.
House Concurrent Resolution 151, as amended in committee with the leadership of the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], recognizes that our forests have an important role to play in removing carbon dioxide, a major greenhouse gas, from the atmosphere. In our view, however, the amended resolution clearly does not endorse the original premise that it is desirable to increase old growth harvests of U.S. national forests in order to reduce global warming. That would be a horribly misguided message to send to the rest of the world, especially as we seek to encourage conservation of forest resources in other countries.
Instead, we believe that the old growth forest reserves of the United States should be protected. The temperate rain forests in the Pacific Northwest are among the most effective carbon sinks in the world. If the old growth is harvested it takes many decades to recover the vast amount of carbon released in the process.
We do recognize that carbon dioxide reduction can and should be improved by planting and growing more forest cover in the United States, especially on marginal crop and pasture lands. That is why the amended resolution applies not only to national forests, but to all U.S. forests including private lands.
Finally, Madam Speaker, we want to be very clear that forest-based carbon sequestration, while important, does not replace the need to reduce fossil fuel emissions.
Just yesterday, the Department of Energy reported U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases, which contribute to global warming, significantly increased in 1996. Contrary to our 1992 treaty obligations, such emissions have increased by 7.4 percent since 1990. This should give the administration a sense of urgency as they prepare to engage in global warming talks with the rest of the world in Kyoto, Japan, this December.
Madam Speaker, I would urge our colleagues to adopt House Concurrent Resolution 151, a worthy measure that symbolizes America's commitment to address the growing crisis of global climate warming.
H. Con. Res. 157
Whereas the world's leading climate experts who comprise the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (hereafter in this preamble referred to as the ``IPCC'') have reported that
``the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate'';
Whereas the IPCC has concluded that the effects of global climatic disruption due to increased greenhouse gas emissions could result in (1) a global temperature increase of 1.8 to 6.3 degrees Fahrenheit by the year 2100; (2) a rise in sea level of 6 inches to 3 feet by the year 2100; (3) extreme weather events due to a more vigorous hydrological cycle, such as increased flooding in some areas and more severe droughts in others; (4) saltwater intrusion into freshwater supplies; and (5) the spread of infectious diseases, including malaria and dengue fever;
Whereas the IPCC estimates that today's carbon emissions will remain in our atmosphere for a century or more;
Whereas more than 2,600 scientists recently signed the Scientists' Statement on Global Climatic Disruption calling on the United States, and the world leader in greenhouse gas emissions, to provide leadership this December in Kyoto, Japan, where an international protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, to which the United States is party, is scheduled to be signed;
Whereas relations between the United States and Pacific island nations historically have been marked by a spirit of mutual understanding and cooperation on a wide range of issues;
Whereas Pacific island nations and the United States share a commitment to world peace, and the Pacific islands have traditionally been supportive of major United States initiatives, including United States positions at the United Nations;
Whereas at the Seventh Economic Summit of Smaller Island States (SIS), held September 17, 1997, in the Cook Islands, a statement was issued to reaffirm, recognize, and endorse the Second Assessment Report of the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of 1996;
Whereas the United States is a Forum Dialogue Partner in the South Pacific Forum and is a participant or contributor to other regional organizations, including the South Pacific Regional Environment Programme, the South Pacific Commission, the Forum Fisheries Agency, the El Nino research in conjunction with the United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the South Pacific Geoscience Commission (SOPAC), the Joint Commercial Commission (JCC), the U.S. Studies Country Program (USSCP), in connection with the Integrated Coastal Zone Management
(ICZM) Program, the International Coral Reef Initiative
(ICRI), the South Pacific Nuclear-Free Zone (SPNFZ) Treaty, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), the World Bank, and the Asian Development Bank;
Whereas the bonds of cooperation are established between the United States and Pacific island nations either through independent territorial, commonwealth, or free association relationships;
Whereas certain Pacific island nations, in alliance with the United States, have historically provided for an important U.S. regional strategic presence and have continued to provide such vital assistance in recent years;
Whereas the world is becoming more politically and socially volatile, with growing security threats in proximity to the Pacific region and in other potentially hostile global theaters;
Whereas Pacific island nations, with many inhabited atolls, lie only a few feet above sea level and are faced with the constant threat of flooding and the possible loss of their nations due to a rise in sea level induced by global warming;
Whereas Pacific island nations such as Nauru, Tuvalu, Kiribati, Niue, Tonga, the Cooks Islands, the Marshall Islands, and the Federated States of Micronesia are already experiencing the effects of an accelerated sea level rise, such as salinization of soil and water, erosion, and rising tides;
Whereas the National Academy of Sciences has determined that the efficiency of nearly every United States energy use can be improved and that the United States could reduce its greenhouse gas emissions significantly at low cost or potential savings; and
Whereas research and development into advanced energy saving technologies would position the United States as the leading exporter of these technologies, reduce the dependency of the United States on foreign oil, and help balance the trade deficit: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that--
(1) the United States, with its advanced technologies and comprehensive studies on global climate conditions, should be committed to the proposition that global warming is a very serious international issue, and the United States take appropriate measures to consult closely with the nations of the world to address this serious problem; and
(2) the leaders and peoples of Pacific island nations should be commended for their efforts to enhance the consciousness and sensitivity of the world community by raising the issue of global warming and greenhouse gas emissions.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentlewoman from Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth], subcommittee chairman.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Alaska for yielding me the time. This is a very interesting subject. I listened with great intrigue to the gentleman from American Samoa [Mr. Faleomavaega]. I can identify with his remarks and appreciate them.
Today, as the administration considers its position on global warming, though, the House will send a message to the White House that regardless of whether you believe that human-induced global climate change is occurring are not, our forests should play an integral part in reducing greenhouse gases.
At the 11th World Forestry Congress taking place in Antalya, Turkey, many professional forest managers in other countries have criticized the Clinton administration for its lack of management of our national forests. This is very interesting to me, Madam Speaker, because they feel that we have great resources here in America and we are not using them. Instead, we are demanding that the wood that we export now from other countries be harvested in other countries putting an undue pressure on those countries to produce the wood.
By not applying good silviculture treatments to our forests, we are creating burdens for the rest of the world. The ramification is decertification and destruction of tropical forests because of the pressures of the world demand as well as increases in world levels of greenhouse gases that are leading to some of the problems we are talking about today.
Science has proven to us that carbon dioxide, the leading greenhouse gas, can be taken out of the atmosphere by allowing a young vibrant forest to absorb carbon through photosynthesis and storing it as wood. In 1 year, an acre of healthy forest can absorb approximately 3 tons of carbon dioxide by sequestering 1 ton of carbon in woody tissue and converting 2 tons into oxygen for our use. Tree planting, forest management and increasing forest productivity research can positively reduce greenhouse gas buildup.
Carbon dioxide can also be kept out of the atmosphere by harvesting the forest before it begins to decompose on the forest floor or burn, thus storing the carbon dioxide in wood products that are environmentally friendly as well as providing an environmental and economic benefit to society.
In December of this year, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which may commit the United States to mandatory greenhouse gas reductions, is expected to meet in Kyoto, Japan. The ramifications of this treaty could be enormous for the American people, for our environment, for our economy and our way of life.
The key issue, Madam Speaker, is whether the Clinton-Gore administration will commit the United States to mandatory reductions of carbon dioxide. Mandatory reductions will cost taxpayers billions of dollars and will cost many Americans their jobs and that is very sad, Madam Speaker. This is based on the fact that we do not know how much greenhouse gas emissions, especially carbon dioxide, from the burning of fossil fuels contributes to the rise in temperatures.
There are alternatives to mandatory reductions of carbon emissions. To suggest that the United States now take radical steps to curb greenhouse gases such as imposing heavy taxes on carbon dioxide emissions, such as 50 cents per gallon of gasoline, to all of the people who drive cars, is a horrible burden for the United States of America. Rather than head down this road void of scientific information that will lead to devastating economic, environmental consequences, we should begin to manage our public forests through sound silviculture methods. This means using the controls on greenhouse gases that mother nature gives to us rather than controls that Government mandates us to follow.
We must send a message that the Federal Government itself should take the lead by reducing the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, but not by mandating unrealistic, costly, ambient air quality standards, but by doing that which comes natural. That is, that we as good stewards of this Earth should help manage our forests to reestablish themselves as healthy forests.
By managing our national forests to minimize additions of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, we will improve our air quality, the health of our Nation's forests, and set an example for other nations as the world prepares for the negotiations in Kyoto, Japan.
{time} 1400
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Certainly I would commend and thank the gentlewoman from Idaho for her eloquent statement and her thoughts and reasoning, which are well taken.
With regard to the Global Climate Treaty to be negotiated in Kyoto, I do not think there is any question that the Administration is very mindful of the concerns of both private industry as well as the many hundreds of thousands of American workers. The impacts upon the U.S. business community and labor force from the Kyoto conference will be significant but positive. Aside from all of that, I think the jury is still out. We will see tomorrow what the Administration's decisions will be as far as greenhouse gas emissions and the United States' role, which I am sure will be very critical, in the upcoming conference this December in Kyoto.
Madam Speaker, I have no additional requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen], the chairman of the subcommittee.
Mr. HANSEN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
This week in Bonn, Germany, representatives from around the world will meet on the issues of greenhouse gases. They will be negotiating how quickly the industrial nations must rein in the emissions of carbon dioxide and other so-called greenhouse gases. These talks are in preparation for later negotiations in December in Kyoto, Japan.
Global warming has been an issue of great debate and discussion in Congress. Nearly all of the discussion on global warming surrounds the mandatory reduction of carbon dioxide through costly government controls. The Clinton administration's own studies show that this effort would result in substantial increases in energy prices and damage to the economy.
Quoting from ``Economic Effects on Global Climate Change Policies'' published by the administration's own Interagency Analytical Team, the higher energy costs would produce GDP losses between 0.2 and 1.0 percent of GDP. For an economy which grew 5.1 percent last year, 1.0 percent would financially hurt every single American.
There is no doubt that everyone agrees that we need to keep our planet clean. To this end, we are here today to put the House on record as supporting proper management of our Nation's forests to maximize reductions of greenhouse gases. Science has conclusively proven that carbon dioxide can be reduced in the atmosphere by allowing a young vibrant forest to absorb carbon through photosynthesis and store it in wood.
Proper management of our forests is important to the environment as well as our economy. There is no doubt that how we are currently managing our Federal forests is neither good for the economy nor is it good for the environment. This resolution puts us on record as supporting good forest management. The forests can and should be managed to help reduce greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to restate what has been said very eloquently by the gentlewoman from Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth], the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen], and my good friend, the gentleman from American Samoa [Mr. Faleomavaega]. We cannot have it both ways. We must have sound forest management and we must have young trees growing today.
I remember when there was the old saying ``plant a tree today for tomorrow,'' and we have forgotten that. Many people now want the old trees, the constant dying old trees, which contribute very little to mankind. They will either burn or they will die from beetle kill and they will stand and they do nothing to clean the air.
All this concurrent resolution says is we say it is time for us to have sound management, scientific management of our new forests; to plant those trees, to harvest the older trees and have these forests clean up our air.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution. Over the last several months the Committee on Agriculture has held a series of hearings on the management of our Nation's forest resources. The scientists who have appeared before the committee have taught us a great deal about the environmental benefits of proactive forest management. This resolution on the minimization of greenhouse gases addresses one of the foremost of these benefits.
Those who truly care for the environment should be quick to realize that wood is our most environmentally friendly building material. Processing construction grade wood releases a tiny fraction of the carbon dioxide produced by steel, concrete, brick, and other non-
renewable construction materials that are processed using fossil fuels.
Wood also stores vast amounts of carbon for long periods of time. Wood extracted from the forest for construction purposes continues to store carbon. Furthermore, the resulting regeneration of trees in the forest sequesters carbon from the atmosphere. In other words, when we use wood for homes, furniture and pulp and paper products, we both minimize carbon releases into the atmosphere and provide an efficient means of removing carbon from the atmosphere. This is a win-win proposition for both the environment and our economy.
In contrast, failing to actively manage our forests to both provide useful wood products to society and to maximize the ability of our forests to store carbon can have devastating results. In 1996, six million acres of national forest burned in one of the worst fire seasons of the century. This tragedy came on the heels of the 1994 fire season during which over 4 million acres of national forest burned.
These fires, because of their size and intensity, released staggering amounts of particulate matter into the air. One study indicates that the fires of 1994 alone emitted as much as a ton of particulate matter into the atmosphere for each acre of forest burned and over 400 million tons of carbon in the aggregate.
Proactive forest management, that focuses on reducing fuel loading and tree density in overstocked timber stands, can significantly reduce carbon emissions caused by wildfire. It can also improve the ability of the forest to store carbon by replacing denser stands of sick, fire prone small diameter trees with more vigorous, fire resistant stands where tree growth and health are both maximized.
Scientifically managing our forests to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide levels is a policy that America should enthusiastically embrace, particularly in preparation of the upcoming conference in Kyoto. Yet, surprisingly, the administration does not yet appear to have included a forest management component to its official policy position.
This resolution fills that void. It frames a policy that will enable the United States to lead the world in pursuit of scientific, proactive forest management practices that will both clean our air and improve our quality of life. I urge my colleagues to support the resolution.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] that the House suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution, House Concurrent Resolution 151, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the rules were suspended and the concurrent resolution, as amended, was agreed to.
The title was amended so as to read:
Concurrent resolution expressing the sense of the Congress that the United States should manage its forests to maximize the reduction of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere among many other objectives, and that the United States should serve as an example and as a world leader in managing its forests in a manner that substantially reduces the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
