From a procedural point of view, the issue of climate change is squarely within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. In the event the United States were to bind itself to a regulatory regime on greenhouse gas emissions, this Committee – not the Committee on International Relations – would be the proper forum for consideration of the necessary authorizing legislation. For that reason alone, I object to the inclusion of section 730 in the Foreign Relations Authorization Act.

I recognize that section 730 is similar to an amendment offered by Rep. Waxman to the energy bill earlier this year. I opposed that amendment, and I oppose this provision, on substantive grounds. While climate change is an issue of intense concern to many within industry, environmental groups, and the international community, it also remains an issue on which Congress has not reached a consensus. As Members know, the Kyoto Protocol is not an agreement around which Members can rally, primarily because it does not require meaningful participation by developing countries in an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and because it would harm our economy.

And section 730 is a blank check – an ambiguous one at that. What are "significant and meaningful reductions"? What does "developing country participation" mean? The devil is in answers to these and other questions, and it ill-serves this Committee or this House to mask the hard choices by a "feel-good" sense of the Congress.

Moreover, section 730 calls on the U.S. to create "international and domestic mechanisms," among which appear the rudiments of a compliance system to implement emissions reductions. To me, this is putting the cart before the horse, because the U.S. Senate has not ratified the Kyoto Protocol. It may be that a treaty acceptable to the U.S. will be agreed to and ratified in the future, and if so these "mechanisms" may be desirable elements of a domestic compliance regime. In my view, however, it would be unwise for us at this time to bind ourselves to a protocol that the Senate has not and is not likely to approve.

In sum, I am opposed to the language in section 730 for both jurisdictional and substantive reasons. I urge my colleagues to support its deletion.