Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today is the 32nd anniversary of Earth Day . I think it is fitting, then, to say a few words about the world's No. 1 environmental problem; and that is clearly global warming. It is also fitting because last week the east coast of our country experienced its first April heat wave in more than a quarter of a century. Even more disturbing, in February, an iceberg, the size of Rhode Island, collapsed from the Antarctic ice shelf.

The Earth's average temperature has risen 1.3 degrees in the last 100 years. Computer models predict an increase of 2 to 6 degrees over the next century.

The 10 hottest years on record have all occurred since 1986. What does that mean? Today the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide--that is our No. 1 greenhouse gas--is 30 percent higher than preindustrial levels. This may seem to be a small change, but just a few upticks in temperature can produce catastrophic conditions in weather. So the window of time to do something to curb global warming is closing fast.

One of my disappointments with the energy bill is the fact that there is no substantive action taken to reduce our Nation's profligate carbon dioxide pollution.

California is in a unique and precarious position. With a population of 34 million people today and an expected population of 50 million by 2020, the State is particularly vulnerable to global climate change. Global warming could make California's water even more scarce, create further flooding, destroy certain agricultural crops, and lead to more frequent and intense Sierra forest fires. Because global warming will likely increase sea levels and since most of the population lives just a stone's throw from the

coast, the result could be flooding for millions of Californians.

Actually, there has already been a significant rise in sea level along the U.S. coast of about a tenth of an inch per year, which translates into about 11 inches per century.

The global sea level is rising about three times faster over the past 100 years compared to the previous 3,000 years. The melting of polar ice and land-based glaciers is expected to contribute a projected one-half to 3-foot sea level rise for the 21st century. That is enormous. Just a 20-inch rise in sea level from climate change could inundate 3,200 to 7,300 square miles of dry land.

The Presiding Officer, coming from the State of Hawaii, knows how that could impact his State.

This could eliminate as much as 50 percent of North America's coastal wetlands. In northern California, increased winter flows into San Francisco Bay could increase the flooding risk and shift saltwater upstream from the bay. This is already happening. Saltwater levels are rising in the delta areas. This increased saltwater penetration into the delta, which is the source of two-thirds of the drinking water for the State, could affect water quality for millions of Californians.

The underlying cause of flooding is also very concerning. Mountain glaciers throughout the world seem to be receding. Glacier National Park may be glacier free by 2070, and the Sierra Nevada mountains may be glacier free soon after. The Greenland ice sheet has already lost roughly 40 percent of its thickness over the past four decades. And shrinking ice caps may very well alter ocean circulation and storm tracks.

Rising sea level is not our only concern. Precipitation, rain, has increased by 5 to 10 percent during the last century. Much of this was attributed to heavy and very heavy rainfall events which reaffirm the importance of developing ways of storing this water during wet periods and having it available during times of drought, because global warming means more turbulent weather patterns; it means more hurricanes, more tornadoes. When it rains, the drops of rain are bigger, the rainfall is more intense; ergo, the destruction is greater.

The report also pointed out that rising temperatures are likely to result in less snow and more rain, quicker melting of the existing snowpack, particularly at lower elevations, and a shift in runoff to earlier in the year.

While total runoff amounts haven't changed, the timing of that runoff is shifting to winter. In fact, the amount of runoff in the spring snowmelt period--that is, April through July--in northern California has actually dropped over the past century from 45 percent to 35 percent.

In normal winters, California's water gets stored in snowpacks until spring, and that is when the spring runoff fuels our reservoirs and is there for drinking as well as farming.

Drought conditions may worsen, thereby destroying water-dependent crops such as rice, cotton, and alfalfa. For many parts of the western United States, the shifting weather patterns brought on by global warming could mean a greater risk of damage, life-threatening floods. And, of course, southwestern States worry that a 10-percent drop in flows in the Colorado River could lead to a 30-percent drop in water storage behind the reservoirs along the Colorado, not to mention a 30-percent drop in hydroelectric generation on the Colorado itself. The stakes are very high.

Unfortunately, our country lags behind when it comes to providing the leadership necessary to stem this growing problem. Amazingly, some of us in Congress even question whether we have a problem in this regard. I believe if we don't act soon, our State, our Nation, and our planet will pay a heavy price.

What should we do? The first thing, and the largest way of reducing the No. 1 greenhouse gas, the No. 1 contributor to global warming, is to do something about carbon dioxide emissions in automobiles. That is fuel efficiency for automobiles.

We had this debate in the Senate earlier, and a bill presented by the Senator from Massachusetts to increase mileage standards to 35 miles per gallon went down to crashing defeat. There still is another item that I am giving serious consideration to presenting as an amendment, and that is closure of the SUV/light truck loopholes. If SUVs were simply required to meet the same fuel economy standards as automobiles, we would prevent the emission of more than 200 million tons of carbon dioxide each year. This is 3 percent of the country's entire CO2 emissions. This in itself would be the largest single step we could take at this time to reduce global warming.

The big three auto manufacturers continue to fight for the status quo. They oppose all increases in fuel efficiency. Last year, Senator Snowe and I and about 13 of our colleagues introduced the SUV/light truck loophole closing legislation. What we said we wanted to do was, over the next 10-year period, bring SUVs and light trucks to the same level as other passenger vehicles. A study has been done by the National Academy of Sciences. Senators Slade Gorton, Dick Bryan, and I began this effort

some 3 years ago. I believe the technology is available to make those changes. Instead, our automobile companies have chosen to make SUVs more like tanks than fuel-efficient vehicles.

Consequently, we continue to pump out large amounts of carbon dioxide. I believe increased fuel economy standards represent the logical first step in reducing mobile sources of carbon dioxide.

We also have to work to expand California's zero emission vehicle program and examine ways to promote cleaner and more efficient battery, electric, fuel cell, or hybrid vehicles. We should also look toward reducing urban sprawl and our dependence on gas-guzzling vehicles.

The second action we should take is to increase the use of renewable energy. Energy use by buildings and appliances accounts for a quarter of California's carbon dioxide emissions. We can solve this problem by providing necessary tax credits and other incentives for energy-efficient buildings and appliances.

By operating more efficiently, we not only reduce waste and pollution that contribute to global warming, we also save consumers and businesses money in the process.

Finally, I deeply believe that the President of the United States should submit the Kyoto Protocol on climate change to the Senate and that the Senate should take up the treaty and ratify it. This historic United Nations framework--established in 1997--aims to reduce greenhouse gases by setting emissions targets and timetables for industrialized nations.

To enter into force, the Kyoto Protocol must be ratified by at least 55 countries, accounting for at least 55 percent of the total 1990 carbon dioxide emissions of developed countries.

Even though we are only 4 percent of the world's population, we account for 20 percent of the world's energy use. No other country is nearly as profligate.

Opponents of the treaty say there is no reason for the United States to do anything to combat global warming unless developing countries, such as China and India, also participate. In my view, this is simply shortsighted. As the most economically advanced nation, what we do sets the standard for the rest of the world--like it or not. So if we want to reduce global warming, if we take this position, I believe other nations will follow.

President Clinton signed the treaty in 1998, but it was never submitted to the Senate, in part because the 67 votes needed to pass it were simply not there. If the United States will not ratify this treaty, at an absolute minimum, we need to come up with a way to substantially reduce our emissions on our own.

The bottom line is that this energy bill does not, in any way, shape, or form, actually reduce any of these emissions.

As the No. 1 contributor of greenhouse gases worldwide, I believe it is our responsibility to show leadership; and every day we wait, we lose an opportunity to reduce the threat of global warming. It is not too much to ask the world's economic and political superpower to provide the necessary leadership to address global warming and, one day , to celebrate an Earth Day in which the United States has truly taken the lead.

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.