Congress has not only refused to acknowledge that there is, in fact, such a thing as "global warming" but actively opposed attempts to remedy the situation. A steadily growing body of evidence suggests this attitude will be costly for all of us. PNS commentator Susan C. Strong is co-founder of the "Who's Counting" project and a writer whose work has appeared in papers across the United States.

As 1998 turns into 1999, it's time for the American people to turn up the heat on congress about climate change -- and keep it on.

Since the initial Climate Change Treaty conference in Kyoto a year and a half ago, congress has been a stumbling block in the attempt to fight against global warming, both internationally and at home.

Scientists at the Buenos Aires treaty negotiations last month reported that our changing climate will keep on creating more and more costly killer storms, fires, floods and droughts. The devastation and human suffering caused by Hurricane Mitch in Central America is only the latest and most shocking event in a year already marked by unprecedented temperature extremes, fires and floods in the U.S. But what has congress done so far to promote a sane climate change policy?

• In June 1997, congress refused to support the climate treaty negotiating process. Indeed, the Senate refused to ratify the treaty before negotiations were even finished.

• In late 1997 a blue ribbon panel of U.S. energy experts, including environmentalists and far-sighted oil industry representatives, called for a dramatic increase in public spending to foster increased efficiency in use of fuel and to develop new sources of power.

• A Clinton administration proposal to spend $6.3 billion on energy saving measures (partly in response to the panel's recommendations) was rejected by Congress

• In July of 1998, Congress actually approved a spending bill that restricted funding for the fight against global warming and other government programs. In one particularly offensive section, the bill barred the EPA from spending any money for actions in line with the still un-ratified Kyoto treaty. The EPA was even prohibited from encouraging industry to increase U.S. energy efficiency, cut energy costs, and reduce carbon emissions.

These maneuvers, and others like them, were slipped onto other essential pieces of budget legislation as "riders," out of the range of public scrutiny and debate.

In an issue that featured this year's disastrous weather, LIFE Magazine, not known for radicalism, bluntly warned the public to start taking global warming seriously, and urged such steps as planting trees, driving less, and wrapping water heaters.

These suggestions point in the right direction, but we need an all-out effort by every sector of our society. That would include everything from stricter rules on miles per gallon requirements to fast, effective short-term business incentives for creating climate-friendly products and services.

Such changes will also foster new industries. In short, making the shifts required to deal with global warming would be a win-win solution for us.

As the United States is responsible for the majority of world emissions, congress must recognize that climate change is a genuine and pressing national security issue -- exactly like a full-scale military emergency --and it's time to defend ourselves. Nor curing our emissions is just plain negligence.