Senator WALLOP. Is it the position of the administration that other countries have the right to acquire U.S. technology? That is what is the requirement.

Secretary O'LEARY. Mr. Wallop, your question is a little broad, and I recognize that I could walk into a thicket.

Senator WALLOP. No, but it is not broad. It is not intended to be broad. It is, in fact, going to the requirements of the Biodiversity Treaty that the President signed. It requires that technology transfer. It gives other countries the right to American technology.

Secretary O'LEARY. Well, what I am trying to respond to and give you a chance to complete your question is I am trying to respond to the fact that it is clear to me, both by treaty and convention, there are limitations on technology transfer for national security reasons and any other numbers of reasons. I did not want to respond to your question so broadly as to appear to have rewritten policy or law, and that is what I was attempting to do.

Senator WALLOP. Well, there is a problem with that too, frankly. If the only way we can prevent the transfer is by declaring it to be a matter of national security, that means that American technology cannot go into the marketplace either.

Secretary O'LEARY. But, Mr. Wallop, you well understand that our desire with respect to energy technology, to alternative energy technology, to energy efficiency technology, to any technology that might reduce pollution is to move it out of the United States and into countries where it can be used. At the same time I am going to pull down the umbrella that says where there is existing statute and regulation that permits that transfer, I have no choice other than to recognize that.

Senator WALLOP. But ought not those entities, whose technology it is, benefit from them?

Secretary O'LEARY. Those entities being?

Senator WALLOP. Well, the companies who invented them, who developed the technology.

Secretary O'LEARY. I understand your point, Mr. Wallop, and would suggest to you that I am not the administration's official to enter into this verbal combat with you.

Senator WALLOP. Fair enough.

Secretary O'LEARY. You can take me close to the thicket. Senator WALLOP. I am not trying to do verbal combat. I am really trying to find out

Secretary O'LEARY. Yes, I understand.

Senator WALLOP. I asked these questions in the Finance Committee. There were no answers available.

Mr. SUSSMAN. Senator Wallop, if I can just interject for a second. My understanding is that there is not a technology transfer obligation in the climate change treaty. If I am wrong about that, I stand to be corrected.

Senator WALLOP. The Biodiversity Treaty.

Mr. SUSSMAN. The Biodiversity Treaty.

Senator WALLOP. There is a requirement.

Mr. SUSSMAN. Okay. I am not personally familiar with the Biodiversity Treaty, but I would say that from the standpoint of climate change, it is not my understanding that we have an

obligation to transfer energy efficiency or other types of technologies to foreign governments.

I certainly concur with Secretary O'Leary that if we have developed energy efficiency technology which could be useful around the world, that it is desirable to promote the export of that technology and to open markets to American entrepreneurs.

Senator WALLOP. I would agree with that, but that is not what is required under that treaty. Go back and read it. One of the alarming things is that nobody seems to understand what is in it. It came as a surprise in the Finance Committee. It clearly comes as a surprise here. It would seem as though it is important now to get the administration perhaps to read it and understand the obligations that they have committed us to as a Nation.

Mr. Chairman, I have just a couple more quick questions.

What is the difference, Madam Secretary, between the 1993 greenhouse gas mitigation plan and the National Action Plan that is required by the convention?

Secretary O'LEARY. Well, we are not yet certain what is the difference simply because we have not completed the plan that we will design. My sense is that the plan required under the convention must address very broad principles which we have attempted to adopt as we have outlined the principles for the plan we are going forward with. But I am not in a position today to tell you. I cannot imagine what Mr. Wallop is looking for. If you refine the question, perhaps I could respond.

Senator WALLOP. Yes. I will tell you what because I am still alarmed by some of the answers you gave the Chairman. When the Senate ratified the Framework Convention, it understood that measures available to the United States included the 1990 Clean Air Act, the 1992 Energy Policy Act, the 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation Act, but you have said that the administration will defer implementation of related issues contained in the Energy Policy Act and others until fiscal year 1995 or later and you also stated to the Chairman that you did not want these to count.

Secretary O'LEARY. No, no. I did not. If I stated that, I was very sloppy.

Senator WALLOP. What was it that you said?

Secretary O'LEARY. I was very sloppy. No. I stated to the Chairman and the entire committee that those elements, those programs that give us energy efficiency coming from the National Energy Policy Act provide the very foundation upon which this plan must be built. I have also indicated both in my formal testimony and certainly attempted to do here in my informal testimony that this is a stretch and we, of course, need the groundwork that has been established by the Energy Policy Act. The pieces that now must follow, some of which we had counted on and continue to count on, in the energy tax portion of the tax legislation that will be coming out of conference and then voted by this Congress, are also necessary to help us reach this goal. Then we have additional plan elements and programs which must be outlined and designed to help us reach a goal which I consider to be quite stretching, Mr. Wallop.

Senator WALLOP. I am frankly alarmed again by where I see us being taken. The act clearly envisions that we get credit for

technologies transferred and other kinds of things. You say you do not want those to count until after

Secretary O'LEARY. No, I did not say-after.

Senator WALLOP. Until after 2000.

Secretary O'LEARY. And I also told you that was my personal opinion, the committee, the very highly organized group that_is reviewing all these plans. As yet having come to no conclusion. So, stick me with that. Do not stick anybody else.

Senator WALLOP. Okay. Well, the problem with that frankly is that it was envisioned that we get credit for these things, and at the same time you see a number of European countries and Australia saying that they have no intention of committing their countries to 1990 emissions levels given their current economic circumstances.

Secretary O'LEARY. I think some of those discussions will be more further refined at the convention and at the committee meeting in Geneva. I had many opportunities for bilateral discussions with our European Community partners when I was in Paris. It is clear to me that without respect to what the formal pronouncements are-and there have been quite a few statements concerning elements that might be used in a mitigation plan-that there is not only a desire to go forward, but a very aggressive desire to go forward in areas such as the voluntary measures, which we have seen implemented in other nations and now slipping very close to the edge certainly in joint implementation. So, these are issues that will be discussed and we will come to some conclusions at least with respect to how we go forward in the next series of meetings.

I do not believe that the United States is out of line. I think that our plans of the moment are well thought out. It distresses me that I have alarmed you or that we have alarmed you, and I will seek both here today and in our meetings to comment to the maximum extent possible.

Senator WALLOP. Let me just give you one last thing. You can see a chart here. You can clearly see the white line.

[The chart follows:]

Secretary O'LEARY. I do, sir.

Senator WALLOP. This is the CO2 releases avoided in France, thanks to their nuclear program beginning in 1980. You see in 1988, 1989, 1987, 250 million tons, 270 million tons, 260 million tons. Now, that is precisely why I think the Chairman and I are concerned that nuclear was not even considered in this package.

Secretary O'LEARY. I have indicated not that it was not considered, but it was left out of our discussion and testimony and I will correct that. I will correct it for the record.

[The information follows:]

Nuclear power provides more than one-fifth of present U.S. electricity and, in its operations, does not generate any greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, expanding the use of nuclear power in steam generation would be an option to reduce greenhouse gases. For example, in the near term, increased efficiency at some existing facilities may offer cost-effective potential. Beyond that, however, U.S. experience suggests that a number of issues would need to be resolved before new nuclear units could contribute significantly to the year 2000 greenhouse gas reduction commitment. These issues include difficulties involving public acceptance for siting new nuclear power facilities, long construction lead time, concerns for safety and other environmental considerations, such as nuclear waste disposal, and utility reluctance to order new nuclear powerplants. That said, a long-term greenhouse strategy forces us to address these issues creatively and cost-effectively if we are to meet the post-2000 challenge of maintaining levels of reduced emissions. Our ability to resolve these issues will determine the level to which nuclear power would be a viable candidate to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the U.S. electric power sector in the post-2000 time frame.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Wellstone.

Senator WELLSTONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I first of all apologize. I have very little time left. Maybe we could have a time limit or something so we could get a chance to ask our questions. I have to leave to go to another committee in about 3 or 4 minutes. So, I think I will try to just respond to some of what I have heard said which just probably shows that there are several different views on the committee.

First of all, I do not understand for the life of me this juxtaposition of "social acceptability" versus policy. It strikes me that in a democracy you have regular people, which I do not use in a pejorative sense, who have their values and their concerns and they express those values and concerns to those of us who are supposed to represent them. The values and concerns on energy policy held in town meetings all around this country, there are people who are concerned about the ways in which we produce and consume energy in the environment, and if they are not, their children are. Young people especially are concerned about the environment. For you to put an emphasis on an interagency cooperation trying to have a goal of reduction of greenhouse gases consistent with Earth Summit in Rio, with a focus on renewables, and energy policy and all of the rest is I think not only socially acceptable in the sense that you are living up to essentially what people are asking you to do, which is the way a representative democracy is supposed to work, but I also want to make a second point which I think is very sound policy.

We have had, at least in some of the discussion, that somehow there is something about the direction you are heading in which flies in the face of economic feasibility. I have to just tell you on the basis of a good many books and articles I have seen, a very