[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 106 (Friday, July 31, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9524-S9526]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
GLOBAL WARMING ESTIMATES
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I would like to take a couple of minutes to
talk about global warming and about where we are in the process of
getting information from the administration about the Kyoto Treaty.
Last year, when we were doing appropriations, the Senate unanimously
adopted an amendment to the Foreign Operations spending bill. That
amendment directed the White House to describe exactly the amounts and
locations of all its planned expenditures for domestic and
international climate change activities for 1997, 1998, and thereafter.
The President signed that bill.
What I hoped to get was a list, by agency, with their expected costs
and objectives. I thought the Office of Management and Budget would be
able to easily locate the pots of money involved in something as
critical to the administration as global warming. But the President's
response was a 2-page letter describing the Climate Change Technology
Initiative and the Global Change Research Program. I have gotten more
information out of any issue of the newspaper. No numbers were included
in the global change research section. No numbers were included showing
the money the Department of State has spent negotiating climate change
or supporting the U.N.'s scientific bodies. No numbers were included
telling us how much ``indirect programs'' would cost.
The administration's letter was an unacceptable response to our
request, and it took a year to get it.
I ask unanimous consent to have that letter printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
The White House,
March 10, 1998.
To the Congress of the United States:
In accordance with section 580 of the Foreign Operations,
Export Financing, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act,
1998, I herewith provide an account of all Federal agency
climate change programs and activities.
These activities include both domestic and international
programs and activities directly related to climate change.
William J. Clinton.
In response to Section 580 of Public Law 105-118, ``Foreign
Operations, Export Financing, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act of FY 1998,'' the following is a summary
of Federal agency programs most directly related to global
climate change.
domestic programs
The Climate Change Technology Initiative is a five-year
research and technology program to reduce the Nation's
emissions of greenhouse gases. Led by the Energy Department
(DOE) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the
initiative also includes activities of the National Institute
of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the Departments of
Agriculture (USDA) and Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
The initiative includes a combined $2.7 billion increase over
five years for these agencies for research and development on
energy efficiency, renewable energy, and carbon-reduction
technologies. The initiative also includes $3.6 billion in
tax incentives over five years to stimulate the adoption of
more efficient technologies in buildings, industrial
processes, vehicles, and power generation.
The Global Change Research Program, led by the National
Science Foundation and the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, builds understanding of climate change and
variability, atmospheric chemistry, and ecosystems. The
scientific results from the program help in the development
of climate change policies, and the development of new
observing systems will enable better monitoring of future
climate changes and their impacts. For example, the Tropical
Rainfall Measuring Mission satellite launched during 1997
will provide previously unavailable, detailed, and accurate
rainfall measurements, filling a significant gap in our
understanding of the Earth system. In 1998 and 1999, the
program will launch more satellites and increase its focus on
investigating regional climate changes and assessing the
vulnerability of the U.S. to climate variability and change.
A more complete description of these programs can be found
in Chapter 6 (``Promoting Research'') of the President's FY
1999 Budget.
international programs
Last June, the President announced a $1 billion, five-year
commitment to address climate change in developing countries.
This
[[Page S9525]]
initiative includes at least $750 million ($150 million per
year) for the U.S. Agency for International Development
(USAID) to support climate change-related activities in
developing countries, particularly programs in energy
efficiency, forestry, and agriculture. USAID will also use up
to $250 million of its new credit authority to provide
partial loan guarantees for projects in developing countries
that address climate change.
The Global Environment Facility (GEF) is the world's
leading institution for protecting the global environment and
avoiding economic disruption from climate change, extinction
of valuable species, and collapse of the oceans' fish
population. The $300 million proposed for 1999 includes $193
million for U.S. contributions previously due and $107
million for the initial contribution to the GEF's second
four-year replenishment (1999 to 2002). Approximately 38
percent of the total U.S. annual contribution to the GEF
supports climate change-related projects in developing
countries.
The State Department supports the work of the UN framework
Convention on Climate Change Secretariat and the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)--the single,
most authoritative, international scientific and technical
assessment body with respect to climate change. Many nations
rely on the IPCC for information and assessment advice on
climate change.
indirectly related programs
Several Federal agencies conduct programs that are
indirectly related to global climate change. For example, the
Department of Defense conducts research to improve energy
efficiency of military aircraft as a means of improving
defense capability. The Department of Transportation conducts
research that can lead to improved vehicular traffic flow and
reduced fuel consumption. By promoting energy efficiency,
these programs can also help reduce the Nation's emissions of
greenhouse gases. Nevertheless, since the primary focus of
these programs is not on climate change, the Administration
does not consider them to be ``climate change programs and
activities,'' as stipulated in Section 580 of the Foreign
Operations bill.
Mr. ENZI. Since that time, other Members of Congress have been trying
diligently to track down these budget numbers. I have tried to get
questions answered. I have followed up on administration statements. It
has not been easy. The House Government Reform Committee has been
forced to issue three subpoenas and has threatened a fourth. In
response to those, the administration has made some documents
available, but some are still waiting for White House Counsel approval.
I, too, have encountered obstacles in trying to see those cost
numbers. Earlier this year, Janet Yellen, Chairman of the Council of
Economic Advisers, testified twice in the House that Kyoto would cost
American families only $90 per year--only $90 per year. Estimates from
independent economic consulting firms, however, show vastly different
numbers. These estimates put costs as high as $2,100 per household per
year. Most people that I know think that $90 a year would be a lot of
additional tax; $2,100 would be unconscionable. That is a $2,000
difference per year on what it will cost to solve the problem the
administration says we have.
The obvious question is, Why are they so far apart? Why are the White
House numbers so low? The Department of Energy places the cost of
reducing 1 ton of carbon emissions at $130 to $150, to cut to 1990
levels. The White House uses $171 per ton, to go 7 percent below 1990.
If you add it up, the cost is over $100 billion per year, not adjusted
for inflation. Factor in inflation and divide by households. The fact
is, that $90 per family is not realistic.
When Ms. Yellen was asked how they came up with the $90, her answer
was that the assumptions and models were a national security secret.
I asked for a copy of those documents. I was told that they were a
national security secret. I pointed out that when you get elected to
this body, you get a top secret clearance. You are supposed to be able
to view all documents necessary to your work. I offered that, if they
were so busy that they couldn't deliver those numbers to the Capitol,
that I would be happy to go down to the White House and look at those
numbers. After some weeks, they did say they might send a few numbers
up.
I asked the Counsel of Economic Advisers nominee, Rebecca Blank, if
she could get me a copy. I held up the nomination until they could
produce them. I got a series of runs and explanations, but certain
critical parts were missing. In fact, what I got is a table of contents
with formulas, and no explanation.
I was also curious to know what part of these documents had been so
secret. They were delivered by an intern from the White House to my
office, not given to me personally, not stamped ``confidential.'' There
was no stamp on them whatsoever to designate how important these were
to national security. So I had to suspect that I had not gotten the
documents that we had been talking about.
I asked about it. I got an interesting response. I would like to
share part of that with my colleagues.
The White House Counsel's Office is concerned that public
disclosure of these materials would set an unfortunate
precedent that could chill the free flow of internal
discussions essential to effective decision making. Counsel
believes that such disclosure is not necessary for purposes
of Congressional oversight.
In other words, we don't deserve the information. We should not be a
part of that. We don't need to know. And letting us know would damage
the Executive's ability to make decisions.
We are the policy body of the United States. Only with FDR did the
President start traveling all over the country, and all over the world,
trying to set legislation. That has gone on, on an ever-increasing
basis, since that time. It is our job to pass the laws. The laws set
the policy. The White House is the management branch of this
Government. And they say that our information would interfere in their
decisionmaking, it would have a chilling effect.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the letter from the Executive
Office of the President be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Executive Office of the President, Council of Economic
Advisers,
Washington, DC, July 29, 1998.
Hon. Michael B. Enzi,
U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC
Dear Senator Enzi: I understand that you would like me to
elaborate on the views I expressed during my testimony before
Congress regarding public disclosure of the documents that
were relied on in preparation of my testimony on the economic
implications of the Kyoto Protocol. It is also my
understanding that you are specifically interested in the
reasons why public disclosure of these documents would not be
useful to U.S. interests in ongoing international
negotiations.
The economic materials relied on in the preparation of my
testimony reflect internal deliberations of the Executive
Branch, and in particular, of the President's economic
advisers. Nonetheless, we provided these documents to you and
several House Committees, expressly on the basis that they
not be made public. We did so in an effort to accommodate the
legitimate oversight needs of Congress while preserving the
President's interest in the confidentiality of Executive
Branch deliberations. The White House Counsel's Office is
concerned that public disclosure of these materials would set
an unfortunate precedent that could chill the free flow of
internal discussions essential to effective Executive
decision making. Counsel believes that such disclosure is not
necessary for purposes of Congressional oversight.
In addition, disclosure of some of these documents would
not be helpful to the position of the United States in
ongoing international negotiations. The documents reveal
Administration assessments of the costs of options that are
the topic of ongoing negotiations in international fora. We
prefer that other countries participating in those
negotiations not have access to such materials.
I appreciate your consideration of our views on this
matter. Please let me know if you have any other questions or
need additional information.
Sincerely,
Janet L. Yellen.
Mr. ENZI. I do disagree with that. I think the public does have a
right to know. What is the point in hiding the information? What is the
White House afraid that people might find out? I have a hunch it is all
about jobs. The study conducted by DRI-McGraw-Hill estimated Kyoto
could cost us 1.5 million jobs. Charles River Associates puts that
figure as high as 3.1 million jobs by 2010.
Even the Argonne National Laboratory pointed to job losses in a study
on the impact of higher energy prices on energy-intensive industries.
Argonne concluded that 200,000 American chemical workers could lose
their jobs. All of the American aluminum plants could close, putting
another 20,000 workers out of work. Cement companies would move another
6,000 jobs overseas. And nearly 100,000 United States steelworkers
would be out of work.
Americans have a right to know what is going on. They have a right to
know if it is going to cost them their job.
[[Page S9526]]
Mr. President, I ask for a few additional minutes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, even if the Office of White House Counsel
doesn't think so, they should have a chance to see who is playing with
their livelihoods.
In spite of the White House position, the Secretary of Interior had
the nerve to call energy companies ``un-American in their attempts to
mislead the American public.'' Remember, they are the only ones
disclosing figures. They are the only ones from whom you can get the
model, all of the math, and an explanation. They are the ones sharing
data.
The Secretary of Interior had the nerve to call them ``un-American in
their attempts to mislead the American people.'' He further asserted
that they were engaged in ``a conspiracy to distort the facts.'' They
are the only ones sharing facts.
I will repeat that. They were called ``un-American in their attempts
to mislead the American people.'' There are a lot of people working in
coal and oil fields in my State, over 20,000 of them. Mr. President,
20,000 people is 6 percent of all the people working in Wyoming. More
important, it is over 10 percent of the private sector employees.
These are the people who work for energy companies. These are the
people Mr. Babbitt claims are ``un-American.'' I think they are worried
about their jobs. They are worried about laying off their employees.
They are worried about their own families and all the other families
who survive in our towns because of energy production. As an industry,
these people are worried about a treaty that can force them to lay off
over a million Americans. It could force industry to lay off half of
their employees in Wyoming.
On the other hand, the Executive Office of the President finds that,
``public disclosure would set an unfortunate precedent'' and that it
``is not necessary for purposes of Congressional oversight.'' I ask
just who is misleading the American people?
There is something else I want to bring to the attention of this
body. In spite of the fact that the President has firmly stated that
this treaty will not be implemented before ratification, right now the
Environmental Protection Agency has undertaken an effort to manipulate
the Clean Air Act to enact it. I think we deserve to know what other
branches of Government are currently working behind the scenes, behind
our back, to make changes through Executive orders or rules and
regulations that put a treaty into place that this body would not
ratify. If it were brought here today, it would not be ratified. It
violates everything in the resolution that we adopted, sending signals
to the people who went to Kyoto to negotiate on behalf of the United
States.
There has been no public input. I think the administration does not
want public input on climate change. I know they don't want to look at
the science, but I think they also don't want public input. If they
wanted input, this letter from the Executive Office wouldn't say what
it does. If the White House wanted the public to know all the details
about the treaty, they would send it to the Senate and America, and
they would let us debate it. They would tell the American people what
they are planning to do.
My only experience in the executive branch was as mayor of a boom
town. But I can tell you, when I was trying to pass the smallest bond
issue or when I was working on negotiations on industrial siting,
figuring out what the companies that were coming to our counties would
have to do to participate in the growth of our town so we could have
orderly growth, if I would not have shared on a regular basis more
information, more detail, more explanation for those little things than
what the President is doing with us on this big thing, I would not have
been able to do any of them, and I should not have been able to do any
of them.
It is the duty of the executive branch to inform the people who make
the decisions legislatively, to provide them with all of the
information that can possibly be provided and not just to send out a
group of numbers with no explanation, a bunch of abbreviations with no
explanation. We don't need a table of contents. We don't need a bunch
of math. We need answers. We need to know the formulas, and we need to
be able to have people who understand those numbers take a look at
them.
This is not national security. This is a need for the American public
to know, and the American public in this case probably ought to start
with the U.S. Senate. We do have the kind of authority that we should
be able to get the numbers, and if the President wants cooperation from
us, he will provide those numbers. We can take them the way he wants.
We can take them in secret, but I hope they will share them with us and
with the American public.
____________________