Additionally, thus far, the federal government has yet to engage in any exploratory or 'innovative' technology research on climate change. Under the current funding structure, only near- and mid-term technology research programs receive R&D dollars. Climate solutions that lie outside of existing technology, such as geo-engineering and artificial photosynthesis, remain unaddressed.

Although CCTP is capable of commenting on technology-focused projects conducted across 13 federal agencies under the program, in its current state, CCTP simply does not have the authority to allocate funds for climate technology projects, begging the questions: (1) How well are we coordinating climate change technology research? and (2) Because of the present configuration of federal climate-change technology research, is it necessary to create a central, authorized body to command exploratory research - an ARPA for climate change?

The Defense Advanced Projects Agency (DARPA) was created to turn innovative technology into military capabilities. The agency is highly regarded for its work on the Internet, high-speed microelectronics, stealth and satellite technologies, unmanned vehicles and new materials, all of

which produced not only military advancement but commercial benefits as

well.

Unlike the CCTP, DARPA can segregate itself somewhat from its governing body (the Pentagon) and remain a small and flexible agency capable of quickly exploiting emerging technologies and adapting to immediate military circumstances. Conversely, CCTP remains under the strict direction of the Cabinet-level Committee on Climate Change Science and Technology Integration (CCSTI), reducing the likelihood it will support novel concepts in climate technology research. Given its strict structure and limited authority, would the CCTP be the appropriate body to potentially manage a free-thinking and innovative exploratory technology agency?

To date, the under-funded and administratively barren Climate Change Technology Program has yet to sufficiently coordinate and influence the technology research initiatives conducted by the multiple federal

agencies under its charge, let alone manage potential new exploratory

technology research programs, such as a Climate Change Advanced

Research Projects Agency, or CCARPA.

Is it time to say "CCARPA Diem", and seize the opportunity to take technology research to the next level by bringing CCTP to the forefront of

the U.S. climate change agenda? Or, will the full initiation of CCTP prove sufficient to guide climate change technology research into the future? These are the questions we hope to begin resolving in today.

The Committee has invited several highly qualified individuals to address these uncertainties. We will be hearing from Stephen Eule (YouLee), Director of CCTP, on the status of climate change technology in the United States and on his role in overseeing climate change technology, and potential budgetary or organizational obstacles to the full implementation of a centralized climate technology program. We also will hear from GAO on the ambiguity of the appropriations to agencies with regard to climate change and the need for more clear disclosure of the nature of climate change research and development funding.

Also, we will explore the merits and challenges of creating a federal

climate change exploratory technology program and will hear from experts on DARPA about the applicability of instituting a CCARPA for exploratory

technology research and development.

Global climate change is one of the most serious environmental

concerns of the 21st Century. This Committee is taking an important step by

discussing how the federal government can better arm itself with technology

to address this worldwide problem. I would like to thank all of our witnesses for their invaluable insights into this issue.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. I would now like to recognize our distinguished ranking member, Mr. Waxman, for his opening statement. Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Today's hearing will begin to examine what policies Congress should consider for addressing the major threat of global warming. We will hear from some of the Nation's leading experts on global warming and technology. They will present their views of how we move forward to take carbon out of the world's economy.

I believe almost all of us agree that global warming is occurring and action must be taken to avoid potentially catastrophic impacts to our country and the world. Our position reflects the scientific consensus which only a small cadre of oil-industry-funded propagandists are still denying. But, despite this committee's interest, it would be a serious mistake for anyone watching this hearing to conclude that either the administration or the Republican leadership in Congress is willing to tackle the problem. That is why I would like to take a moment to review the past 6 years.

President Bush and Vice President Cheney came into office determined to radically change the Nation's energy policy, and that is what they did. They crafted their policy with oil companies like Exxon and Mobil and refused to meet with consumer or environmental groups. Their plan bestowed countless favors on oil, coal, and other polluting industries and it abandoned the President's pledge to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, under the plan they developed, we have wasted precious years and exacerbated global warming.

During the last 6 years there have been many constructive ideas put forward. For example, in July 2002 the Pugh Center on Global Climate Change released a report on designing a climate friendly energy policy. In July 2003, the Energy Future Coalition released an energy plan to fight global warming and address the political and economic security threat posed by our dependence on oil. In January 2004, the Apollo Alliance, a coalition of labor unions, environmental groups, and other public interest groups proposed an energy policy to modernize America's energy infrastructure and fight global warming. In April 2005, the Natural Resources Defense Council released a paper proposing an energy policy that would enhance our national security and reduce air and water pollution while curbing global warming and creating jobs. But these ideas to move us forward fell on deaf ears. The Republican Congress was simply uninterested in learning about the problem, let alone addressing it.

In December 2004, the bipartisan National Commission on Energy Policy released a plan to address the Nation's long-term energy challenges, including oil dependence and global warming. The commission was composed of Republicans and Democrats, industry and environmentalists, and they had figured out a way to come together, yet the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee would not even hold a hearing on the plan.

Recently the administration has begun to change its rhetoric on global warming. Unfortunately, it is only the rhetoric that is changing. They are sticking with their policy of denying the urgency of