me that the United States, with its active press, is the only country that really does enforce its commitments anyway. Other countries lightly make these commitments and their press does not, in effect, require them to enforce it. Those statements which are made in the United States do tend to be enforced because the press will constantly recall them to mind. So, here we have made a commitment and no one else has made theirs. I just wonder whether that is the right way to do it.

Fourth, through some 37 pages of testimony, 26 pages by the Secretary and 11 pages by the Assistant Administrator of EPÅ, not once did the word "nuclear" appear. We have carbon sinks. We have photovoltaic cells. We have energy efficiency. We have green strategies. We have all the rest, but not once did the word "nuclear" appear. You would have thought that one of the most obvious strategies for dealing with greenhouse gases would have been mentioned and discarded or mentioned and accepted or a strategy discussed or criticized or praised, but not to mention that is simply breathtaking in its omission.

You have China, from which I recently returned, to deal with energy, that is going to be installing 13,000 to 15,000 megawatts of electricity each year. The Pacific Rim is going to be the problem for greenhouse gases. That is 1.2 billion people with an economy growing at double digits, an electricity deficit in Guangdong Province of over 30 percent. They have these rolling blackouts. They are so hungry for electricity, it is amazing. Not mentioned. Are they supposed to do this with photovoltaic cells? Should that not be sort of discussed? Believe me, they are going to get nuclear energy over there whether we want it or not.

Of course, we can continue our policy of saying we cannot sell you American-made turbines. We would rather you buy those elsewhere. Turbines. We are not talking about nuclear plants. Turbines. You cannot buy them from America because there is this thought that they might use those turbines-I do not know-to make a nuclear weapon, as if they did not have them. They can buy their nuclear plants from France using older Westinghouse technology, Framatone, but you cannot buy them from America.

Now, this is really breathtaking that you could have this kind of policy and not discuss that, which makes me think you do not take global warming seriously. We take it seriously on this committee, but how you cannot discuss the most obvious strategy and at least talk about it and reject it, but no. It makes it look-and your critics say that this is not a global warming strategy, this is a green policy strategy to pursue an agenda that you want to enact.

Now, we feel seriously about that agenda too. Look at the National Energy Policy Act. We had more in there about energy efficiency and conservation and alternative energy than any bill ever considered in either House of the Congress and certainly any bill ever enacted into law. So, we feel seriously about that agenda, but we also feel that this is serious policy. This is not some political strategy out there designed to achieve anything. We are trying to reduce greenhouse emissions.

The President stressed his intent to make all U.S. plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions cost-effective without more

bureaucracy or regulation or unnecessary cost. Madam Secretary, how is this criteria being met?

Secretary O'LEARY. Well, Mr. Chairman, I am not in a position to tell you yet how the criteria are being met because we are simply now in the process of beginning to analyze the many proposals that came before us-of course, with some degree of forthcoming, some of these we thought of on our own as well.

I want to address some of the Chairman's earlier statements because I could not simply let them be made without retort. The CHAIRMAN. Please.

Secretary O'LEARY. I know that you look forward to some counter.

One, I can understand how one would most always want to understand what the policies were before the goal had been set, but the Chairman forgets, I suspect, or maybe he does not forget, that in point of fact the goal had been set internationally in Rio last summer. This Nation under another administration chose simply not to embrace or to step away from that goal. It is our view and continues to be our view that an inappropriate policy call was made then, and we have corrected it now. I am not apologetic about that. I think that we needed as a Nation who now consumes the most energy and who, therefore, emits the most pollution, to step in front and take a formal leadership role.

Now, having said that, I want to make it clear that our need is to truly take each one of these proposals through a very fine economic analysis, and no work that I would ever recommend or suggest to the President, who is my principal, nor to you on this committee,...would come forward without that analysis. So, I want to assure you personally that we intend for that analysis to take place, and it has been one of the driving factors as we go forward. I need now to step up to your issue with respect to the absence of mention of the use of nuclear power in mitigating greenhouse gases and tell you that you are quite correct. There simply should have been a statement examining that option and accepting it or rejecting it, and I will see that that takes place your comment is very well made.

With respect to the question now asked, which I have quite frankly forgotten, Mr. Chairman, if you would repeat it again, I would answer it.

or

The CHAIRMAN. The President stressed an intent to make plans cost-effective without more bureaucracy or regulation unnecessary cost.

Secretary O'LEARY. This I am anxious to discuss as well.

It has certainly been our sense since we started to grapple with the issue of implementing a plan that we did not need more bureaucracy, we did not need plans that would force on the American economy unnecessary cost. We have looked in establishing our criteria at any number of ways to avoid that. Some of us, while we are still saying everything is still on the table, are clear that we do not want to set up the kind of bureaucracy that existed in the mid to late 1930's of people simply processing paper to implement programs which, in point of fact do not happen in the Federal Government, but get done in the real world where business

conducts its activities. That is No. 1, having the clear sense of history and that those are errors.

No. 2, recognizing that much of the work the Department of Energy has to do, especially under the tenets of the Energy Policy Act passed in the fall, really has to do with enabling others, State regulators or businesses generally, to get on with the work of reducing energy consumption and also reducing emissions. It is that style which has great appeal to me.

I want to move to talk about voluntary efforts. Since the conference was held in early June, we have heard from any numbers of business people, other stakeholders who are interested in implementing voluntary programs to reduce greenhouse emissions. It strikes me that that is a very sensible approach. It tracks on authorities already existing at the State level at any rate, and it does not make much sense to me to strongly consider programs that would add a layer of bureaucracy and get no more than would be delivered normally. That is one way.

I would have to mention sinks or using forestation as a way to mitigate against greenhouse gases. That certainly is another strong program element that is being examined and makes great sense to

me.

Now, walking into the thicket, I would also have to raise joint implementation. In so doing, I want to say that I am not expressing support for joint implementation before determining how joint implementation ought to be implemented, because I think that these are things to be left for further examination. But it is clear to me after understanding where the opportunities and the danger for emissions growth exist, that the idea of transferring American technology to other countries who can use it has some appeal, and that idea has some appeal to me with respect to examining how now we log the credit for the plant built outside of the United States. I want to make it clear that my personal view is that joint implementation ought to be examined, but under no circumstance should that examination lead people to conclude that this Secretary of Energy is desirous of having credits for joint implementation credited to U.S. logs before the year 2000. The CHAIRMAN. Why is that?

Secretary O'LEARY. Simply because I believe we have made a commitment as an administration to achieve the goal using U.S. activity, and I am not certain at this point that I would like to commit beyond that. But I have said and our administration has said all plans are on the table, and I think those are details to be yet developed.

The CHAIRMAN. You have stressed tech transfer, but the administration did not request any money for tech transfer in the provisions of the Energy Policy Act in its budget request, that is, coal, energy efficiency, renewables.

Secretary O'LEARY. I am well aware of that fact, Mr. Chairman, and as you are well aware, we have been managing to do a great deal of technology transfer in existing budget authorities and appropriations often through reprogramming and sometimes very carefully reading existing authorization language. An example would be the trade mission we have just completed. My sense is,

as we go forward with planning for the 1995 budget, that these are issues that I will address and correct.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Wallop.

Senator WALLOP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me share your frustration with regard to the nuclear option that was not mentioned.

This thing has an air of social acceptability rather than policy from the beginning, Madam Secretary.

For example, the administration signed the Biodiversity Treaty, though it was pointed out to it that there had been no hearings and there was no understanding, and they could give no answers, about the, transfer technology requirements on the United States. Some of us in the Finance Committee were pretty alarmed that there just was not any desire at all to examine what that did to the U.S. competitiveness, to the U.S. ability to deal in terms of foreign aid or any other policy, but they just did it.

Now, the specific targets and timetables of which the President spoke in his Earth Day speech were more stringent than that required by the Framework Convention on Climate Change because it not only establishes a goal for the year 2000, but after the year 2000. The targets and timetables were not linked in Rio and the 1990 goal was the President's and represents a big leap from the U.S. commitment in Rio.

What is the rationale for the administration's commitment to a goal and timetable for greenhouse gas reductions when it was not envisioned when the Framework Convention was ratified by the Congress? We were told certain things. We ratified it on a certain basis. The administration, without consulting Congress or anything else, just walked away from that.

Secretary O'LEARY. Well, it is difficult for me to speak, Senator Wallop, with respect to engagement and discussions and testimony that took place in the prior administration, but I can clearly focus on intention as we went forward.

Senator WALLOP. Well, did the administration intend not to consult the Congress on the conditions of ratification?

Secretary O'LEARY. Mr. Wallop, that is never our intention and it certainly is never my personal intention. If, in point of fact-and I certainly do not doubt you-we ignored the opportunity to discuss with members of this committee informally or formally our plans, then I can personally commit that this will never happen again. It is not my style. But I would go forward now and attempt to address your concerns.

I just last month attended the International Energy Agency meeting in Paris, and I will tell you that my sense is we are still attempting to once again take once again take a leadership role in that organization with respect to issues involving the environment and energy efficiency. So, I believe that that was one of the triggers. Well, I am clear that that was one of the triggers that moved us in this direction.

Secondly-and I understand the thrust that you were making, which is to lead one to conclude that things that the public wants and desires are not necessarily good policy because somehow that is a social or political agenda. It was clear to me all during the time when we were in the midst of the very high feelings around

73-210-93 · 2

the election of this President of the United States, my President, that these issues were at the forefront in the minds of our citizens, and that had certainly been my clear experience as I was living in Minnesota and traveled to other States where I have roots. So, I believe that the policy that we announced or the strategy or the goals that we announced are clearly in tune with the American public.

I also clearly understand that we have the wherewithal as an administration to be certain that the elements of the plan we come forward with are cost-effective and make the best sense not simply to a citizenry, but make good sense in terms of the economy of the United States and how we continue to drive it in a very responsible way. I am quite comfortable with where we have come out.

Senator WALLOP. I will examine the cost-effectiveness criteria in a minute, but what does the administration envision by its commitment to continuation of the trend of reduced emissions after the year 2000?

Secretary O'LEARY. What my administration, our administration, means by that commitment is one cannot look at the projections for growth and energy consumption into the 21st century without understanding the very alarming trend with respect to pollution and not to set for ourselves a principle that says we will continue to try to reduce those emissions or even to hold them stable in my view would be

Senator WALLOP. There is a big question there. Are you talking about continuing to reduce them below 1990 levels or are you talking about sustaining them at 1990 levels?

Secretary O'LEARY. Well, I am not certain yet how we want to come out on that issue because we need to examine the question of cost, but clearly the cap has to be held. There are those of us who would like to see reductions further, but let me commit personally to, at a minimum, holding the cap. But as you see the growth that will occur in the universe, we simply cannot leave those issues unaddressed.

Senator WALLOP. You are then, despite a great deal of scientific skepticism, taking for granted that global warming is taking place? Secretary O'LEARY. Having recently taken over responsibility for a very broad array of scientists who do lots of work and rarely agree with one another, I want to now again use this as an opportunity to make it clear that from my personal point of view and from the administration's point of view, there is enough evidence on the record to alarm and to cause us to take and to continue to take the kind of action that has been taken, that was taken last year when the National Energy Policy Act was passed, and that we continue to take.

Now, the marvelous thing about this plan in implementing it and beginning to discuss it early on, is that it allows us, as diverse as we want it to be, to continue to address, one, how much mitigation is taking place and, also, have an opportunity to review and come to a decision on new facts, both scientific and economic, that are recognized as we go forward. I think that that is a very sound policy.