Yesterday, President Bush addressed the nation in a Rose Garden ceremony on the issue of global warming and our environment. There are many issues of importance on the table as the President meets with European leaders, and when the President returns from his trip I plan to address those issues, as well. I believe that is the most appropriate way to proceed while the President is abroad. However, since the President addressed the nation yesterday on the issue of global warming, I see it as appropriate to respond to that statement today.

Regrettably, President Bush offered our nation and allies no specific policies as to how he plans to protect the global environment. In short, the President has called for more study and for funding of what amount to Clinton-era programs at lower levels than in the past. More study is good. In any system as complex as the global climate system there are uncertainties and we must continue our research. Indeed, we may find – as the National Academy of Sciences warned last week – that the danger is even greater than we now understand it to be.

However, Mr. President, it's not that simple. First, we cannot study our way out of this problem. And second, while the President claims to be merely studying the issue, he is, in fact, taking precipitous and dangerous actions that will have enormous implications for America's ability to resolve the environmental challenge of climate change.

Almost to underscore this point, the National Academy of Sciences – at the request of White House – issued a report last week assessing our understanding of climate change. In addition to reaffirming the scientific consensus that climate change is underway and getting worse, the NAS made an extraordinarily relevant observation. It said that, "National policy decisions made now and in the longer-term future will influence the extent of any damage suffered by vulnerable human populations and ecosystems later in this century."

Indeed, since the earliest days of his administration, the President has made a series of policy decisions that will profoundly impact our ability to protect the global environment – all while purporting to be studying the issue.

While the Administration claims to be only studying the issue, the President repeatedly questioned the underlying science of climate change and attempted to reignite the debate over whether the threat is real. He did this despite the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – a scientific panel founded at the behest of his own father, despite earlier assessments by the National Academy of Sciences and some of the top government and university researchers in this nation, and despite personal statements of concerns from researchers from around the nation.

This is an important point, Mr. President. The President seems intent on grasping any uncertainty in the science as reason for inaction – that is a dangerous posture. We may never know the exact the rate of change, the specific impacts and the precise human contribution until it is too late. The change we are causing in the atmosphere – raising atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations to levels unseen in over 400,000 years -- is totally unprecedented. Those who demand that we wait for absolute certainty – starting with the President -- should explain how they will reverse the damage we have caused – how our environment can be made whole again once we have polluted atmosphere in such a substantial and fundamental way.

While the Administration claims to be only studying the issue, the President reversed a campaign pledge and announced his new-found opposition to capping carbon pollution from power plants -- the source of a third of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. The idea of a four-pollutant power plant bill is bipartisan, has industry support and remains one of our most promising proposals to move ahead on climate change – and it was rejected out of hand by the President only weeks after entering office.

While the Administration claims to be only studying the issue, the President declared the Kyoto Protocol on climate change to be "dead" and still calls the agreement "fatally flawed." Whatever one thinks of the substance of the Kyoto Protocol, it is self-evident that the President's outright rejection of the Protocol so quickly – with little explanation, little international consultation and apparently little considered analysis – was a mistake. The Protocol is flawed – but it is also the product of 160 nations and a decade of work – and it is – with sound negotiating and hard work – fixable.

While the Administration claims to be only studying the issue, the President proposed a budget to the nation that slashed federal support for clean energy technologies – a vital component of any plan to mitigate climate change. The President's budget cuts funding in almost every efficiency program at the Department of Energy, including cuts to appliance, building, industry and transportation. It cuts support renewable energy from wind, solar, geothermal and biomass by about half.

While the Administration claims to be only studying the issue, the President issued an energy plan that – by his Administration's own acknowledgment – does not consider the threat of global climate change. It resurrects an energy policy better suited for the year 1970 than the year 2000. It does more to set limits on America's ability to innovate than it does to inspire the technological advances that can help our economy and our environment. By one estimate, it will increase our greenhouse gas pollution by as much as 35 percent.

Mr. President, I would like to read again the crucial observation made by the National Academy of Sciences. The committee wrote, "National policy decisions made now and in the longer-term future will influence the extent of any damage suffered by vulnerable human populations and ecosystems later in this century."

With all due respect, Mr. President, this idea that the White House is studying the issue of climate change before acting is a charade: President Bush is acting on the issue of climate change. He is acting aggressively, forcefully and dangerously. I urge him stop, to take the time to understand the issue and what's at stake for our economy, our environment and the nation – and I urge him to change course.

Mr. President, I don't claim to have all the answers to the challenge of global warming. There are complex environmental, economic, scientific and diplomatic challenges. However, I do know that we need American leadership and that we can and should act now – and we can do it in ways that will protect our environment and grow our economy.

We can meet this challenge. While many remain recalcitrant and insist we cannot have a strong economy and a healthy environment, some businesses are already cutting emissions and proving them wrong. BP will reduce its emission to10 percent below its 1990 levels by 2010. Polaroid will cut its emissions to 20 percent below 1994 levels by 2005. Johnson & Johnson will reduce its emissions to 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2010. IBM will cut emissions by 4 percent each year till 2004 based on 1994 emissions. Shell International, DuPont and others made similar commitments. Predictions of economic calamity from entrenched polluters are not credible when leading companies are doing exactly what they say cannot be done. I firmly believe that with innovation and entrepreneurship America can find a global solution -- and some the steps that we should take are already clear.

One place to start is with our allies in Europe. America should chart a new and responsible course by setting out a framework that can guide the nation -- and I say this not only to the President but my colleagues, as well. We should assure the world that policy will be based on science and that we understands that the threat of global climate change is real. We should lead by cutting emissions at home. We should commit to crafting an international agreement based on mandatory emission caps and to bringing to the table all stakeholders to find the least intrusive, least expensive and most effective solutions. Finally, under the leadership of President Bush, we must fix and finalize the Kyoto Protocol.

Suggesting that we finalize the Kyoto Protocol will likely strike some as heresy, but it shouldn't. I believe that a fair assessment of the situation demands it. It is in America's national interest to craft a successful agreement. Despite political claims that the Kyoto Protocol sets unfair and impossible goals, it does not. The fact is that significant sections of the Protocol are incomplete, so much so that even the pollution targets themselves are essentially unsettled until we determine the accounting of carbon sinks. While the Protocol is an extraordinary achievement in that it sets essential mandatory caps on pollution, the room for compromise is substantial. The President would be wise to finish the job on Kyoto and do what his predecessor failed to do. It would be an act of true leadership.

At home, we must cut our pollution. Despite being home to less than 5 percent of the world's population, the United States is responsible for roughly a quarter of its greenhouse gas emissions -- and our pollution continues to rise. We have wasted the past decade in political impasse, failing to seize opportunities to increase efficiency and reduce pollution from automobiles, appliances, electric utilities, housing, commercial buildings, industry or transportation. Nor have we provided sufficient economic incentives for the development and proliferation of solar, wind, biomass, hydrogen and other clean energy technologies. American negotiators will carry this regressive record to the international talks like unwanted baggage. It heightens distrust, gives opening to our sharpest critics and undermines the credibility essential for success. It is why the world turns a skeptical eye on United States proposals for emissions trading and the use of sequestration technologies. It is why our claims that China – with is high national emissions but very, very low per capita emissions and recently declining emissions – ring so hollow.

But aiding the international search for a solution is not the primary reason for Congress to act to reduce pollution. Efforts to cut pollution will have wide-ranging domestic benefits, including reducing local air and water pollution, preventing respiratory and other illness, saving consumers money, lessening our dependence on imported oil, lessening pressure to exploit our natural lands, creating markets for farmers, growing jobs and exports in the energy sector, enhancing our overall economic strength, and strengthening our national security.

We should begin with steps that benefit the environment and the economy and are technologically achievable today. We can and should increase the efficiency of automobiles, homes, buildings, appliances and manufacturing.

The efficiency of the average American passenger vehicle has been declining since 1987 and is now at its lowest since 1980. That is unacceptable. Our cars and trucks should be increasingly more efficient – not less efficient. Despite doubling auto efficiency since 1975, we're now backsliding. It is time to update national standards for vehicle efficiency. It's time to get more efficient gasoline, diesel, natural gas, hybrid and fuel cell vehicles off the drawing board and onto America's highways. We can do it. We are doing it. Hybrids, once consider exotic, are on the market today getting 50 miles to gallon.

We can improve the efficiency of resident and commercial buildings. I am a cosponsor of the Energy Efficient Buildings Incentives Act. It is a bipartisan proposal to provide tax incentives for efficiency improvements in new and existing buildings. Once implemented it would cut carbon emissions by over 50 million metric tons per year by 2010 – and provide a direct economic savings will exceed $40 billion.

We can strengthen efficiency standards for clothes washers, refrigerators, heat pumps, air conditioners and other appliances. Standards issued in 1997 and earlier this year by the Department of Energy must be fully and effectively implemented. The net energy savings to nation will be $27 billion by 2030. The environmental benefits include a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions equal to taking more than 14 million cars off the road.

We must push the deployment of domestic, reliable and renewable energy from wind, solar, biomass and geothermal by creating markets and providing financial incentives. Today, California gets 12 percent of its energy from renewable energy while the rest of country get less than 2 percent of its electricity from renewable energy. We need to do a better job. Our nation has great potential for wind power -- not only in states like North Dakota, South Dakota or Iowa – but also in coastal states like Massachusetts. Planning is underway for an offshore wind farm off the coast of Massachusetts that will generating as much as 400 megawatts of power – enough to power 400,000 homes. We've only begun to tap the potential of geothermal in Western states and biomass, which can produce energy from farm crops, forest products and waste. But to seize this potential we must create the markets and financial incentives that will draw investment, invention and entrepreneurship. Unfortunately, America is falling behind. One of the challenges in wind development is long delays in purchasing equipment from European suppliers who have the best technologies but also long delays because of rapidly growing demand. I believe American companies should be the technological leaders supplying American projects – instead it's European firms. We must create the market and the incentives for these technologies and let America's entrepreneurs meet the demand.

Finally, we must look to the long term. If we are ever to convince the developing world that there is a better way, we must create that better way. To do so, we must invest in solving this problem with the same urgency that we have invested in space exploration, military technology and other national priorities. For too long our investments have been scatter shot and poorly coordinated -- and lacked the intensity we need. We need a single effort, with strong leadership, that investigates how we meet this challenge and sets a path for a sustainable future.

If we do this Mr. President, if we act early and invest in the future, I am confident our investment will be rewarded. It will bolster our economy, make us more energy independent, protect the public health and strengthen our national security. Unlike today, America will be the leader in clean energy technologies and we will export them to the world. As America has throughout our history, we will lead in finding a global solution -- and we will protect the global environment for generations to come.