The IPCC scientists said that, while on the one hand, the magnitude of the observed warming is roughly consistent with some of the model projections, it is also consistent with historical fluctuations prior to the industrial age caused by natural causes. The IPCC scientists said that it was not possible at this time to determine whether human causes or natural causes were clearly the cause of the observed warming over the last 100 years.

I think we can provide the text of the relevant part of the policymakers' summary of the IPCC report to clarify that for you.

Senator BAUCUS. Is it true that other countries want specific deadlines, certain dates, and certain limitations of greenhouse gas emissions.

Mr. REINSTEIN. Yes, they do. Some other countries do, yes; some don't.

Senator BAUCUs. Specific dates and amounts are certainly included in the CFC Montreal Protocol. That seems to have some effect. Don't you need dates to accomplish something? I am not getting into the question of what developing countries have to do. I agree that's a major problem, but why not data and dates for everyone? Mr. REINSTEIN. The effect of a particular global date affects different countries differently. The economic consequences of those proposed dates-

Senator BAUCUS. You can have different dates for different data for different countries.

Mr. REINSTEIN. Mr. Chairman, I think when you look at this problem, you see that it is not only an environmental problem. It is also a major economic issue.

Senator BAUCUS. As with CFCs.

Mr. REINSTEIN. The economic consequences-well, as with CFCs, yes. I was involved very much in the CFC work in 1987 and since then.

However, there are some differences here, particularly in the energy sector. The situation in the United States with respect to energy policy is somewhat different from the situation in Europe. We are a very large economy and our population density is quite different here than in Western Europe. The public transportation options in Montana, I think you will agree, are rather different from The Netherlands. These things affect our ability to respond in the same way as some of the European countries.

Senator BAUCUS. Does the Administration believe, Mr. Reinstein, that global warming can be addressed by United States actions which only include tree planting, CFC phase-outs, Clean Air Act amendments and several pilot energy efficiency demonstration programs, without addressing CO2?

Mr. REINSTEIN. Mr. Chairman, this question about whether the United States is proposing to do anything about CO2-and I'll put aside the Clean Air Act amendments which are already on the books, and those commitments that have already been made and will affect CO2 emissions-but in the National Energy Strategy, there are a number of proposals that would result in limiting CO2 emissions.

I have here a five-page summary of comparison between proposals in the National Academy of Sciences study for actions in the energy sector and National Energy Strategy proposals related to

the NAS proposals. In fact, there are a number of things that have been proposed by the Administration that will result in CO2 emissions reductions. In fact, we are out there proposing to do things. Senator BAUCUs. My time is up. I'll get back a little later.

Senator Simpson has walked in and would like to make a statement.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ALAN K. SIMPSON, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING

Senator SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman and Senator Lieberman, I promise to be just three minutes or four.

Senator LIEBERMAN. Go for five.

Senator SIMPSON. No, I'm not going to take five. You are all very generous, but I'm not going to do it.

Obviously, this is a continuing and tough issue. There is always speculation. The new one is that this summer's hot weather, which has been absolutely extraordinary in the last few days, was all due to this singular cause.

There is no proof to support that hypothesis. Climatologists agree that reading too much significance into any particular year's temperature is just absolutely silly.

I know where I'm headed with this one. I've had my head mashed on this, but it is fun to try to portray the Administration as a bunch of stumbling boobs who don't care about global warming or the environment or anything else—very simplistic hurrah in my mind.

It is difficult to prove a trend in climate change using temperature records. I've been interested in watching the Washington Post reporting in these last months. If there is a warming trend, it has not shown up in records of the average annual temperature in the U.S. since 1895. In fact, the one study conducted by the Agriculture Department that involved 1,000 official weather stations showed that the Nation had cooled by one-third of one degree Fahrenheit since 1920.

The scientific proof for global climate change is just not available, but the speculation is extraordinary and prolific. It is very fashionable now for environmental groups and some in the media to oversimplify in extraordinary ways or to exaggerate anecdotal evidence concerning possible climate change.

It is obviously a vastly complex system, the earth's climate. It is not fully understood. Those who suggest we take action before the evidence is in, I think, are shortsighted or have their own agenda, open or hidden.

I believe we should foster accelerated research on this issue and then take action as it is warranted. But we should not just proceed willy-nilly with requirements to control carbon dioxide emissions after we just passed-and it wouldn't have been done without the gentleman who chairs this subcommittee-a comprehensive Clean Air Bill that is going to cost industry and consumers in the country a lot of money. At least that's what they said. Some of that was, I think, hysterically portrayed, but it's going to cost bucks.

A recent study concluded by scientists at the University of Illinois at Urbana, indicates that any measures to deal with any possi

ble global warming could be postponed for up to a decade without having an effect on the things that we are speaking of. We do have time to study the problem sensibly, rationally, without emotion, fear, hype, hurrah, and all the stuff that drives everything around here, and then get serious and take action.

I find it extraordinarily ironic that countries such as Germany demand that the U.S. make firm commitments to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and adopt specific targets and timetables for doing so. Germany may be a country with a different agenda. It is, I think, easy for the Germans to comply with specific timetables since they are going to be able to retire many of the old polluting facilities in East Germany with little or no cost to their government or consumers.

I will be visiting with my lovely friend, Urgas Rufus, the Ambassador on that issue, and I'm sure that, in his very forthcoming and professional way, we can discuss that. So, I do say, Mr. Chairman, that I think the Administration is taking the correct approachand has been harshly criticized for it, as if they were doing nothing or enjoyed polluting the earth. That is absurd. Some of the harsh criticism I have heard leveled against the Administration, I just think is unwarranted.

If we're going to talk about global warming, let's talk about the role of the Third World. We have discussed that briefly here this morning. Tropical deforestation, slash and burn farming techniques-go look at Thailand and see what's happening there. Those are just as significant as activities in the industrialized world.

Again, if we are going to talk about the industrialized world. taking action, we should talk about the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, and China making the same commitments as the Western countries. It is very interesting to me that some of the people who would have cut China off through the MFN are the very people who are most concerned about global warming. How do you do it? How do you get these things done when you just cut the cords with one-fifth of the world's population? How absurd. How dizzy.

So, that's our problem. I don't think it makes sense to commit the U.S. to a strategy that is not necessary but makes good PR, or at least something that looks like we're dealing with a bunch of neanderthals, or to penalize U.S. competitiveness when we already have a significant trade deficit-and, indeed, economics does enter the fray.

I just hope that during this, what was originally quite a hot summer but has now turned quite cool for some strange perilous reason that I am unable to determine but I'll think about, when it all comes to global climate change, cooler heads will prevail rather than just the same old heat.

Thank you.

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you very much, Senator, for those thoughtful comments.

Senator Lieberman.

Senator LIEBERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Reinstein, let me begin with a couple of baseline questions. The first really goes to the question of who is responsible for the formation of global climate change policy in the Administration? I

gather that the Secretary of State has recused himself from these questions because of his oil and gas holdings. I understand that.

I have read of an interagency task force headed by the Justice Department. Needless to say, there are always suggestions that everybody's favorite Darth Vader, Governor Sununu, is lurking actively in these policy judgments. Who is in charge here?

Mr. REINSTEIN. The interagency process at my level is chaired by the State Department under the auspices of the Policy Coordinating Committee on Oceans, Environment, and Science of the National Security Council.

Senator LIEBERMAN. Who is represented on that?

Mr. REINSTEIN. That interagency group-

Senator LIEBERMAN. Is it a large group?

Mr. REINSTEIN. It's 50 or 60 representing close to 20 agencies, I would say.

Ms. JACOBSON. Is that the central policy-making body?

Mr. REINSTEIN. That is the central working-level group. That group reports to a group chaired by the President's Science Advisor, Dr. Bromley. Again, that group includes a large number of agencies at the Assistant Secretary and Deputy Secretary level.

That group in turn reports to the Domestic Policy Council of the Cabinet, so there is a direct interagency line to the Cabinet and, through the Cabinet, to the President.

Senator LIEBERMAN. OK. As always, the President is ultimately the decision-maker and responsible.

Mr. REINSTEIN. That's correct.

Senator LIEBERMAN. What is Governor Sununu's role?

Mr. REINSTEIN. The Governor is the President's Chief of Staff and he oversees the day to day operations of the White House. That includes Cabinet affairs and the work of the DPC.

Senator LIEBERMAN. Has he been actively involved in these global change issues?

Mr. REINSTEIN. He has been following the progress of the negotiations, yes.

Senator LIEBERMAN. I take it that our policy is consistent with his attitude on this issue?

Mr. REINSTEIN. I haven't heard that it is not, and I think I probably would, so I take it that it is.

Senator LIEBERMAN. Let me clearly understand, if I can, what you said before to try to summarize the current state of Administration thinking on this and where there is a problem, now that we understand who is in charge.

I believe I understood you to say that there has been global warming, but it is not clear yet whether that is the result of natural or manmade phenomena. Is that correct?

Mr. REINSTEIN. That is my understanding of what the scientists have concluded in the IPCC, yes.

Senator LIEBERMAN. Let me just cite from our own Office of Technology. It says the atmospheric concentration of CO2 has increased 25 percent during the last century, currently increasing about 0.5 percent every year. Can that possibly all be from natural phenomena? Why would natural phenomena have changed so dramatically in the last century?

Mr. REINSTEIN. The buildup of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere is clearly attributable to the consumption of fossil fuels and to such other things as deforestation. I think that some of the confusion arises because the overall greenhouse effect, that is to say the natural greenhouse effect, is a much larger phenomenon than the human contribution to CO2 even. In fact, the largest single greenhouse gas is water vapor.

The problem is that the natural phenomena, which are very large and very powerful, tend to be orders of magnitude larger than some of the human factors. The natural phenomena are very complex.

Senator LIEBERMAN. But is there any reason to believe that the natural phenomena would have changed so dramatically in the last century?

Mr. REINSTEIN. Are you speaking of the CO2 concentrations? Not of the climate itself, but of the composition of the atmosphere? Senator LIEBERMAN. Yes.

Mr. REINSTEIN. The buildup in CO2 in the atmosphere is attributable to human activities.

Senator LIEBERMAN. Right.

Mr. REINSTEIN. I think scientists agree on that.

Senator LIEBERMAN. And in that sense, the Administration agrees on that?

Mr. REINSTEIN. Yes, we do.

Senator LIEBERMAN. So then-I'm coming to the end of my time-but why not more aggressively pursue, if I can put it this way, an anti-CO2 policy or a CO2 reduction policy?

Mr. REINSTEIN. Senator, I think we are engaged in a policy that will limit over the longer term emissions of CO2, so I would say that we are engaged in such a policy.

Senator LIEBERMAN. So we agree-I am just trying to clarify so that I understand-the Administration accepts that fossil fuel consumption is a critical part of the problem and that we ought to reduce these CO2 emissions, but has in that sense a longer term approach to doing than what others have called for. Is that correct? Mr. REINSTEIN. I would say it is certainly a longer term, and indeed, it is essential that you look not only at what we have today but at the technology development aspect which is going to be critical to the long-term response. We are also doing so in an integrated way. That is to say that this problem cannot be divorced from other environmental problems, from questions like energy security, industrial competitiveness, trade, and so forth. What we are trying to do is look at in the broader context as it affects the entire economy over the longer term.

Senator LIEBERMAN. Thank you. My time is up on this round.
Senator BAUCUS. Thank you, Senator.

Obviously, there is a dynamic here between environmental damage and economics. No one disputes that. But let's put the economics aside for just a second.

What models and/or empirical data did you at the State Department use in determining the U.S. position, apart from international, the IPCC? The United States of America-we've got the EPA and lots of different agencies here, as well as some private contractors.