Statement of Rep. John F. Tierney (D-MA)

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, Natural Resources and Regulatory Affairs June 24, 1998 Hearing on Global Warming, Part IV

Mr. Chairman, these hearings on global warming are certainly within the purview of this Subcommittee and we are obliged to participate--although I would respectfully suggest a different focus, as will be discussed further on in these remarks.

I was not pleased, however, to learn that you are asking Chairman Burton to subpoena global warming documents from the Administration. In last week's hearing, we learned that your numerous and broad requests to more than 20 agencies--along with the numerous requests made by other committees--have gotten caught in the bottleneck of the Administration's review process because so many requests were made at the same time.

Nevertheless, most of the agencies have given you interrogatory responses and documents while the rest of the information is making its way through the review process.

The agencies' spirit of cooperation stands in contrast to the behavior exhibited by a previous Administration.

Even when you were the Council on Competitiveness' Executive Director, the Council refused to provide Congress with basic information about its activities. I assume, then, that you have some appreciation for the effort involved in responding. Yet, you are now trying to use extreme tactics--like subpoena power--to get similar information.

Mr. Chairman, the real issue here is that--at some appropriate time-we should be investigating the Administration's position on the Kyoto Protocol. However, today--at this point in time--the Protocol is not the immediate concern. The terms of the Protocol are still under negotiation, and we have not yet signed it. The real issue is the climate change budget.

President Clinton has requested a $6.3 billion increase in funding for the Climate Change Technology Initiative over the next 5 years. $2.7 billion would fund increased research, development and deployment of energy efficiency, renewable energy and carbon-reduction technologies. The other $3.6 billion would cover the new tax

incentive for consumers and industries to purchase energy efficient equipment, homes, buildings and materials.

Just yesterday, the New England delegation was visited by prominent business association representatives and notable individuals who, by their accomplishments, lay claim to some expertise in economic matters. Without exception, they were acknowledging and encouraging the delegation's commitment to a federal role in basic research. They had impressive statistics and studies showing its value as an engine of our economy--a boom to small business growth and jobs. Environmental advancements are a part of that picture.

In 1990, the Wall Street Journal estimated that the U.S. wasted $300 billion in energy every year--more than the entire military budget. Last year, the Department of Energy estimated that we can save up to $88 billion a year through energy efficiency. American companies can save an estimated 11 to 37 percent of their annual energy costs by 2015 though energy efficiency.

Mr. Chairman, if we are to support small businesses, we should support a budget that makes an investment in energy efficiency and clean technologies.

Programs at the Department of Energy help small businesses get their clean technology innovations on the market, help them choose plant and office designs that maximize energy efficiency and develop energy-saving technology that lowers their electric bills.

The return on these programs is huge. For example, the Department of Energy has played a role in developing 5 technologies that have saved consumers $900 for every taxpayer dollar invested in those programs.

It makes little sense to attack these programs because they also happen to reduce greenhouse gases. However, Mr. Chairman, that seems to be exactly what you are doing. You recommended to the Budget Committee that the Department of Energy's climate change funding be reduced and you are a co-sponsor of Rep. Knollenberg's bill, H.R. 3807, the American Economy Protection Act, which would prohibit federal funding for programs that are, quote, “designed to implement, or in contemplation of implementing, the Kyoto Protocol" until it is ratified.