GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE THURSDAY, MAY 20, 1999 U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY RESEARCH, DE- Washington, DC. The subcommittees met jointly, pursuant to notice, at 2:49 p.m., in room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Don Nickles presiding. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DON NICKLES, U.S. SENATOR FROM OKLAHOMA Senator NICKLES. Good afternoon. I want to thank everybody for their participation in today's hearing. I am very pleased to be chairing this along with my colleague and friend Congressman McIntosh. It is a very rare thing that we do in the House and the Senate, to have a joint hearing, but the importance of this I think certainly justifies it. This hearing is on the Clinton administration's fiscal year 2000 budget for climate change and the administration's compliance with some very important language that arose out of several appropriation bills last year. I think the very fact that we have convened this joint hearing tells you about the level of significance with which both the House and the Senate hold this issue. On the specific issue of ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, the Senate has an especially strong position, with 95 Members in the 105th Congress voting to support the Byrd-Hagel resolution that says the Senate will not ratify the protocol unless: one, it does no serious harm to our economy; and, two, it includes developing countries. So far neither criteria has been met to our satisfaction. Since the treaty is not ratified, both houses of Congress are very interested in any money that the administration requests and spends relative to climate change activities, which brings us to the subject of today's hearing. For fiscal year 1999 the Clinton administration announced a 5-year global climate change initiative and requested approximately $6.3 billion for the first year of the initiative. Fiscal year 2000 is the second year of that initiative and the budget request is over $4 billion. Congress does not yet know what the total request might be for the full 5-year plan. At this rate, it could well be over $20 billion, for a treaty that is not yet ratified. Is the administration trying to implement the Kyoto Protocol through the so-called backdoor measures? The Knollenberg amendment included in the fiscal year 1999 VA-HUD appropriation bill was written to prevent that and we have several witnesses today, including the Congressman himself, to tell us what the intent behind that amendment was and whether the administration is complying. Another issue is not just what the administration is spending, but why they are spending it. What is the American taxpayer getting for their money? Has the administration adequately justified each line item in the budget? Again, our witnesses today will help us elaborate on that in detail. Since we have many witnesses and Members today, I will try and keep my statement short. I just would like to say that it is a pleasure for me to co-chair this with my friend and colleague Congressman McIntosh. I will call upon him for his opening statement, as well as my friends and colleagues Senator Akaka and Senator Thomas-Senator Craig as well. After that we will alternate on a first come, first served basis. In addition, I will ask all of our witnesses to try and keep their statements to 5 minutes so we can expedite the hearing. I call on my colleague Congressman McIntosh. [A prepared statement of Senator Graham follows:] PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. BOB GRAHAM, U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA Thank you, Mr. Chairman for holding a hearing on this very important topic. Many of the steps in the Administration's April 20 submittal to Congress address national priorities. Energy efficiency addresses energy security, local air quality, and energy savings. If energy efficiency can also have a positive impact on greenhouse gas emissions, that is simply icing on the cake. These programs have a positive impact on the environment and a positive impact on the economy, independent of climate change. The scientific evidence on climate change continues to mount with the passage of time. In the absence of a climate change policy, sea level in Florida is projected to increase by 18 to 20 inches by 2100, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. I would like to call your attention to this chart, which was taken from Columbia University lecture material on the decline in Arctic Sea ice. The prediction for 2100 equates most closely with the image on the upper left of the chart. Some scenarios project a sea level rise of 18 to 20 feet over hundreds of years, which equates most closely with the image in the lower right. My state may drown by inaction. Much debate has occurred over the Kyoto agreement, which, of course, has not been ratified by the Senate. I fear that this debate may cause us to ignore what I consider to be a more pressing issue-developing an effective strategy for addressing climate change. That begs two questions: do we have a strategic vision of how we are going to respond to climate change? And, within that strategic vision, what steps are needed to realize our destination? The first step is to look at the climate change issue from all sides. In order to minimize the effect on our economy, we should look at all possible ways of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. For example, I have long believed that we have been short sighted in our use of nuclear power. The Energy Information Administration has stated, based on their analysis, that the utilization of nuclear power could play a very important role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Yet, of the $4.4 billion requested in the President's budget, only one-half of one-percent of that is for nuclear power research initiatives. Another important part of any strategy for addressing climate change is international applications. I am very interested in advancing international cooperation and will be interested in discussing that subject in our evaluation of the President's budget. I hope today's hearing will help us make progress on this first step toward developing a strategic plan. Thank you. STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID M. MCINTOSH, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM INDIANA Representative MCINTOSH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and it is in fact an honor to be here with you today. As you mentioned in your remarks, it is unusual for us, but I hope we can set a precedent where we do more of this in the House and Senate, because this is indeed a critically important issue facing our country. The purpose of today's joint hearing is to examine the Clinton administration's compliance with recent statutory requirements governing climate change policy. We will endeavor to find the answers to two questions: First, is the Clinton administration heeding the statutory prohibition against implementing the Kyoto Protocol before it is ratified by the Senate; and second, are the Clinton administration's climate change policies, specifically the proposed spending increases in the climate change technology initiative, a prudent and effective use of taxpayer dollars? Last fall the Congress, by a large bipartisan majority, passed a statutory provision prohibiting the Environmental Protection Agency and other agencies from issuing or proposing regulations for the purpose of implementing or in preparation for implementing the Kyoto Protocol. I am delighted that our first witness today is the author of that provision, my colleague Joe Knollenberg of Michigan. Congress would not have taken this action if we had not thought it necessary to preserve the Senate's constitutional role in treatymaking. Let me review some recent history to show why that is important. In July 1997, the Senate passed Resolution 98, popularly known as the Byrd-Hagel resolution, by a vote of 95 to 0. That resolution advised the administration not to approve any global warming treaty that exempts developing countries, including major U.S. trade competitors like Mexico, China, South Korea, from those legally binding commitments. But at Kyoto the administration did just that. Vice President Gore signed the Kyoto Protocol and is working to commit the United States to the policies that are in that treaty. After negotiating that the administration requested a $6.3 billion increase in the climate change technology initiative. Many of us viewed that as an attempt to buy off support for the Kyoto Treaty. Another problem that we had beyond the funding request was that in some of its policies, the administration clearly was driven by a desire to increase the cost of fossil-based fuels. One such policy was a 5.5 percent renewable energy mandate in the administration's electricity restructuring proposal. Documents obtained through my subcommittees revealed that it was definitely part of a plan to try to implement the Kyoto Protocol without seeking Senate ratification. Another troubling item was the EPA General Counsel's memorandum last spring that tried to argue that carbon dioxide can be regulated under the Clean Air Act as a poïiutant. Now, the common sense answer to that is that each of us suddenly becomes a polluter since we are emitting carbon dioxide as we sit here and breathe. But certainly the most telling sign that the administration is moving forward without Senate approval was that in November 1998 the administration actually signed the Kyoto Protocol, and this was without one key developing country agreeing to participate in a meaningful way in the treaty. Last fall Congress passed a bill that requires the administration to tell us what results we can expect from the climate change funding that was granted in that appropriations bill. We asked the President for a discussion on how success will be measured-at a minimum an estimate of the tons of CO2 emissions reduced. Unfortunately, this information has not been included for most of the 44 appropriations accounts scattered across 14 agencies. I appreciate Senator Nickles working with us today on this hearing to make sure that we can conduct oversight into whether the administration is in fact meeting the statutory requirements for performance reviews. Many of the administration's so-called performance measures claim to "assist, demonstrate, develop, document, examine, help to focus, initiative cooperative agreements, provide experience, train, test," et cetera, rather than quantify the benefits that could be expected to come from the government climate change programs. This year the administration is requesting $4.5 billion, including $1 billion of new spending in the year 2000 alone. As Senator Nickles pointed out, that adds up to about $20 billion over a 5-year budget period. It is, I think, unconscionable for the administration not to give to Congress measures we could use to judge program success or failure if we actually grant that funding by the agencies. So let me close by saying again, I appreciate the opportunity to join you today. I look forward to hearing from all of the witnesses on these critical questions. Climate change policy is something that affects all Americans. It affects the future of our competitive position here in America. It affects jobs. I am told the AFL-CIO estimates that Kyoto would cost us a million jobs in America. So it is critical that we have these oversight hearings to examine the administration's compliance with congressional requirements as they implement these policies. Thank you, Senator Nickles. [The prepared statement of Representative McIntosh follows:] PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID M. MCINTOSH, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM INDIANA The purpose of today's hearing is to examine the Clinton Administration's compliance with recent statutory requirements governing climate change policy. We will endeavor to find answers to two main questions. First, is the Clinton Administration heeding the statutory prohibition against implementing the non-ratified Kyoto Protocol? Second, are the Clinton Administration's climate change policies, specifically the spending increases requested for the Climate Change Technology Initiative, or CCTI, a prudent and effective use of taxpayer dollars? Last Fall, the Congress, by large bipartisan majorities, passed a statutory provision prohibiting the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from issuing or proposing regulations for the purpose of implementing, or in preparation for implementing, the Kyoto Protocol. I am delighted that our first witness today is the author of that provision, Rep. Joe Knollenberg of Michigan. Congress would not have taken this extraordinary step-enacting a statute to safeguard the Senate's constitutional role |