UNITED STATES SENATOR · NEBRASKA
CHUCK HAGEL
P R E S S    R E L E A S E

Senator Hagel’s Opening Statement from today’s
Foreign Relations Committee Hearing on the Nomination of
Frank E. Loy to be Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs

I would like to welcome our witness here today. Mr. Frank Loy has been nominated by the President to be Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs. If confirmed, Mr. Loy would be only the second person to hold this position, which was created by the Clinton Administration in 1994. The first Under Secretary for Global Affairs was former Senator Tim Wirth, who left the position last fall to administer a new foundation established by Ted Turner.

Mr. Frank Loy has a distinguished record in government and the private sector. The first person who spoke to me about you, Mr. Loy, was Under Secretary Stu Eizenstat, for whom I have great respect. Although we have occasional differences on policy matters -- particularly the Clinton-Gore Administration’s global climate policies -- Secretary Eizenstat is one of the Administration’s most dedicated, effective, and respected senior officials. So, Mr. Loy, you certainly come well recommended.

If confirmed, you would be the State Department’s senior officer giving policy direction and coordination in the following areas:

— democracy promotion
— environmental issues
— human rights
— international crime
— international labor issues
— international refugee and migration issues
— international narcotics
— oceans policy
— population control programs
— and science.

As you know, we have had great difficulty in scheduling your nomination hearing. I am sure that you are aware of my frustrations in obtaining the kind of information necessary to conduct a constructive confirmation hearing in the area of climate change policy. It is my understanding that after the Buenos Aires conference next month, you will be assuming responsibility for this policy area.

Last year the Senate went on record 95-0 in support of S.Res. 98 the Byrd-Hagel Resolution, which called on the President not to sign any treaty or agreement in Kyoto if it:

1. did not place the same legally binding restrictions on all nations, including developing countries that might be placed on developed nations, or
2. seriously harmed the U.S. economy.

Ever since our February 11 hearing with Secretary Eizenstat, this committee has been trying to obtain an understanding of how the Administration believed that the Kyoto Protocol could be brought into compliance with these two requirements. Since February 11, the Administration has consistently avoided clear, direct answers in these two areas.

Only last month did the Administration finally admit to this committee in writing that it had no clear plan obtaining developing country obligations under the treaty. In fact, the Administration admitted that it lacked a list of what it considers "key developing countries" and had no clear definition of what would constitute "meaningful participation" by developing countries.

In short, when the President spoke last October that his negotiators would insist on the "meamngful participation of key developing countries" there was no clear policy undergirding that rhetoric. And that gap still exists today.

The Administration also admitted last month that it was equally lacking in its own evaluations of the economic impact of this treaty. While criticizing serious economic analyses, that have been made by respected econometric modeling firms, the Administration apparently negotiated the Kyoto Protocol without any detailed economic analysis or model of its own on the impact of the Kyoto Protocol on the U.S. economy.

During our February 11 hearing, Secretary Eizenstat stated, "we had with us a representative, John Gruber, from the Treasury Department, who had his handy computer who at every turn, every time we made any significant proposal or we received one, factored the costs in. ….we did not sneeze without getting an economic analysis of it." The only possible interpretation of this statement was that the Administration was using some economic model or analysis in Kyoto to assess the economic impact of every significant aspect of the Protocol. Unfortunately, last month the Administration wrote to me stating that this was not in fact the case.

Mr. Loy, we will get into these issues in greater detail in the question and answer period. I look forward to get your assessment of the Administration’s climate change policy. With the Buenos Aires conference coming next month, I am particularly interested in learning how much progress, if any, has been made in imposing legally-binding commitments on developing countries. Of course, if confirmed you would be responsible for a range of other important issues as well, and I look forward to your comments on these areas as well.

I realize that you are not yet on the job, so you may have to take some questions back to the State Department for answers. I am sure that the Department will be able to quickly provide answers for the record.

Again, welcome.