[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.

                          ____________________