2 Partly in response to meetings in early 1995 with Vice President Gore, our industry will undertake a comprehensive review of the Administration's climate- and weather-related initiatives, and will evaluate their importance to insurers and policy-holders. The industry will assist the Administration as it investigates the implications of climate scenarios for the vulnerability of property to damage and loss. Insurers will explore synergies between the promotion of alternative energy sources and technologies, improvements in construction design and techniques, and other initiatives which slow global climate change and limit catastrophic losses from extreme weather. CRITICAL NEED FOR RESEARCH FUNDING Better building codes and improved understanding of risk exposure for insurers alone are not enough to meet the current threat to our country and our economy. A better understanding of weather patterns, natural climate variability, and fundamental shifts in climate -- along with greater understanding of the potential impacts on society -- are essential if we are to respond to threatening conditions in a cost-effective way. The research needed to build understanding in these areas constitutes the heart of the US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP). This federally-funded effort ultimately can help encourage better contingency planning, save billions of dollars in property losses and most importantly, save lives. A program the scope and breadth of the USGCRP requires federal resources. This widely acclaimed enterprise successfully embraces a broad range of scientific disciplines, manages a large technological infrastructure from earth-observing satellites to oceanographic vessels -- and is inherently international. The USGCRP widely disseminates information critical to both scientific endeavor and practical decision-making. Nevertheless, the USGCRP offers a tempting target to budget cutters. It is critically important that the USGCRP continues to receive adequate federal funding. Excessive cuts could contribute to higher costs not just for disaster victims, insurers and policy-holders, but for the federal government itself. In short, continued research is a wise insurance policy. APPENDIX II-RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ROBERT S. WALKER, Pennsylvania, CHAIRMAN F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., Wisconsin SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania DANA ROHRABACHER, California STEVEN H. SCHIFF, New Mexico JOE BARTON, Texas KEN CALVERT, California BILL BAKER, California ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan ZACH WAMP, Tennessee DAVE WELDON, Florida LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina MATT SALMON, Arizona THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota ANDREA H. SEASTRAND, California TODD TIAHRT, Kansas STEVE LARGENT, Oklahoma BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming DAVID D. CLEMENT Chief of Staff and Chief Counsel BARRY C. BERINGER General Counsel ROBERT E. PALMER Democratic Staff Director U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SUITE 2320 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING (202) 225-6371 Internet: SCIENCE@HR.HOUSE.GOV October 19, 1995 The Honorable Warren M. Christopher Secretary U.S. Department of State 2201 C Street, NW Washington, DC 20520 The Honorable Hazel R. O'Leary Secretary U.S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20585 The Honorable Dr. D. James Baker Administrator National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere U.S. Department of Commerce 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20230 Dear Secretaries Christopher and O'Leary and Dr. Baker: GEORGE E. BROWN, JR., California RDM⚫ JAMES A. TRAFICANT, JR., Ohio JAMES A. HAYES, Louisiana JOHN S. TANNER, Tenness00 PETE GEREN, Texas TIM ROEMER, Indiana ROBERT E. (BUD) CRAMER, JR., Alabama JAMES A. BARCIA, Michigan PAUL MCHALE, Pennsylvanis JANE HARMAN, California EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas DAVID MINGE, Minnesota JOHN W.OLVER, Massachusetts SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas I understand that the Second Assessment Report (SAR) of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is scheduled to be approved in a plenary session in Rome in December. I also understand that the Ad Hoc Group on the Berlin Mandate (AGBM) established by the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change met last August in Geneva. At that time, AGBM decided to consider at its third session in March 1996 aspects of the SAR that are relevant to its negotiation of various proposals for new commitments after the year 2000 for Annex I Parties to the Convention, which includes the United States (US). The AGBM will also consider any related conclusions or advice of the Convention's Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) Secretaries Christopher and O'Leary and Dr. Baker October 19, 1995 Page two A number of individuals and groups have raised concerns about several procedural and policy aspects relating to the IPCC, IPPC SAR, COP, AGBM and SBSTA. Consequently, I would appreciate your response to the attached questions they have about these matters. I request your responses to these questions by November 20, 1995. To the extent necessary, please consult with the Office of the US Global Change Research Program, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Environmental Protection Agency, and any other agency that can be helpful. Should you have any questions regarding this request please contact Dr. Harlan Watson (202-225-9816) or Mr. Larry Hart (202-225-7281) of the Subcommittee staff. Thank you for your immediate attention to this request. ATTACHMENT-QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY REPRESENTATIVE DANA ROHRABACHER October 19, 1995 Please explain the applicable procedures for preparation, review, approval, and publication of the SAR's final drafts to be considered at the December meeting of the IPCC Plenary in Rome and include the timetable actually provided by the IPCC for governments and others to review and comment on the SARS and the related synthesis report. This should include a discussion of the roll and selection of lead authors and of the preparation of summaries of each assessment. Did the US and the IPCC fully comply with all applicable procedures? b. C. Is the timetable adequate? 2. 3. 4. I understand that the IPCC also proposed to adopt a lengthy synthesis report on "Knowledge Relevant to the Interpretation of Article 2 of the Convention" and an 8page Summary for Policymakers of that report. This proposal was apparently made without any adherence to the applicable IPCC procedures. I also understand that the IPCC recently abandoned the longer document. It has been reported to me, however, that some want to incorporate one or more sections of the abandoned report in the Summary for Policymakers, which has been retitled. a. b. C. Please explain the origin and basis of both reports and why it is appropriate at this late date to try to incorporate portions of the abandoned synthesis report in the retitled Summary. Did any person or persons in your agencies participate in, or approve of, the original decision, later abandoned, that the IPCC merely should "accept" the longer Synthesis Report, rather than requiring its line-by-line approval by governments in December? Please identify those persons and explain why the US apparently supported that process. It is my understanding that the draft reports of the three IPCC Working Groups for the A draft of the so-called "Synthesis Report" forming part of the SAR found its way to the media via the Internet even though clearly marked "For Internal Use Only. Do not Cite/Distribute." The September 10, 1995 edition of the New York Times cited the draft document. The September 22, 1995 edition of Science reports that the "source of the leak" was the US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) which posted the draft on the World Wide Web, "to make the synthesis, which had been transmitted to the US government for comment, more accessible to US scientists who would help supply that critique." The article explains that a New York Times reporter, while apparently "surfing" the Internet, read the report and "considered its appearance on the Web to be tantamount to publication." The Science article cites the Executive Director ATTACHMENT-Questions Submitted by Representative Dana Rohrabacher Page 2 5. of the USGCRP and an IPCC official employed by the US in Washington for this An article in the October 16, 1995 edition of the Wall Street Journal suggests that the a. b. C. d. e. f. Please identify the portion of the draft Synthesis Report that was carried on the Why did the US ignore the explicit statement "Do not Distribute" on the draft document and place the document on the Internet? Please identify the US scientists whose comments were being sought through the Internet. Please provide a copy of the invitation for scientist's comments that was carried on the Internet and the US comments submitted to the IPCC on that document. To what extent has the US previously solicited comments on draft IPCC documents from scientists through the Internet or other methods? Why were the other methods not used in this case? In an August 28, 1995 statement on the future of the IPCC, the US delegation at Geneva said that the IPCC will need to be "restructured to serve the needs of the COP and SBSTA" and suggested that the IPCC modify its "expert and government review mechanisms" so it can respond to the needs of the AGBM "in a timely fashion." The US added: "We envisage that the AGBM and the COP will need the IPCC to provide reports within a 6-12 month timeframe. We believe that the AGBM and the COP need the type of credible assessments for which the IPCC is so well known. These special reports will need to be focused on the needs of the COP and must be delivered on time-we believe the IPCC can deliver." The AGBM currently is scheduled to complete its work as early as March 1997. It has scheduled, as of now, a total of five, one-week meetings spread out between October 1995 and March 1997 for this purpose. a. Please explain how and to what extent the IPCC needs to be restructured and its review mechanisms modified to meet AGBM needs from March 1996 to |