[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 76 (Friday, June 16, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5291-S5296]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     CONSEQUENCES OF CLIMATE CHANGE

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to alert my 
colleagues of the growing concern that we all have relative to climate 
change and the developing technology associated with that change.
  This week the U.S. Global Change Research Program issued a revealing 
and rather startling new report on the consequences of climate change. 
This report affects a number of things. But the most significant 
portion of the report is the estimated effects of climate change on 
various regions of the country and various sectors of our economy. It 
is very important--agriculture, water resources, and so forth.
  At the heart of this report are some ``potential scenarios'' of 
climate change over the next 100 years predicted by two climate models: 
Computers models that were state of the art 3 years ago when the report 
began. These ``scenarios'' of climate change were then used to drive 
other models for vegetation, river flow, and agriculture. Each of these 
models had its own set of assumptions and limitations. The end result 
was a 600-page report that paints a rather grim picture of 21st century 
climate predictions.

[[Page S5292]]

  Some in the environmental community in favor of the Kyoto Protocol 
are now using this report and shouting from the rooftops. They think 
this study means we should go forward with drastic measures to limit 
greenhouse gases.
  But I want to caution my colleagues to look beyond the rhetoric and 
to look to the science that underlies this assessment. What they are 
going to find is rather startling. The realization factually is that we 
are only just now beginning to conduct the kind of scientific research 
that will allow us to determine impacts of climate change.
  My point is obvious. These models were based on technology 3 years 
ago. Technologies change. Interpretations change. But the basis for the 
evaluation and generalization is based on old information.
  For example, a reasonable test of a climate model is whether or not 
it actually and accurately stimulates today's climate. The fact is that 
it doesn't. We found from the National Assessment's own science web 
site a comparison of rainfall predicted by two climate models that 
measure actual rainfall. The area reflects twice what the model 
predicts. More than twice as much rainfall is actually observed as 
opposed to what the model suggests.
  The emotional concern is coming from the model. Where you actually 
get 10 inches of rain, the model predicts that you actually get 20 
inches, or more. Similarly, in the areas where the model predicts less 
than half as much rainfall as is actually observed, you actually get 10 
inches of rain. The model predicts that you would get 5, or less.
  So the model is absolutely under question and under scrutiny and 
doesn't represent reality.
  The amount of rain or snow falling within a river basin determines 
the river flow. We all know that determines the amount of water for 
irrigation of crops, the health of fish species, the generation of 
hydroelectric power, and the water available for human use.
  Depending on what the climate models say, you can imagine some very 
different impacts because the models are off by 50 or 100 percent in 
either direction. You can see it is going to change. The estimate of 
impacts from climate change on these sensitive areas could also change.
  Even with all of this, the assessment has been a very useful exercise 
because it shows the difficulty of estimating regional impacts of 
climate change. It highlights the need for additional scientific 
research; namely, improved climate models; and it reminds us of the 
potential risk of climate change.

  For just a moment I want to shift the talk about how our energy 
policy will determine future emissions of greenhouse gases. As you 
might imagine, further emissions will be extremely sensitive in the 
energy choices we make. We now have an excellent opportunity to address 
our environmental concerns at the same time that we address our growing 
dependence on foreign oil.
  Yesterday, we conducted a hearing on the Republican energy strategy 
in S. 2557, the National Energy Security Act of 2000. It includes a 
balanced portfolio of energy options that, amazingly enough, would 
produce fewer greenhouse gases than the current administration plan. 
Let me repeat that. This legislation contains a methodology to generate 
fewer greenhouse gases than the administration's current energy plan. 
That is not surprising because the administration's plan would increase 
our dependence on foreign oil to nearly 66 percent by the year 2020.
  We would advocate increased use of natural gas for a wide range of 
energy needs. We also provide tax incentives for renewables, such as 
wind and biomass, and make the relicensing process for nuclear and 
hydro power plants much easier. But to achieve these goals, we will 
need some changes in the existing energy policies.
  We need incentives to increase domestic production of oil and gas, 
particularly on Federal lands where this administration has simply 
refused to allow oil and gas exploration. About 64 percent of the 
overthrust belt has been determined to be over limits.
  In my State of Alaska, where you are very likely to have a large 
discovery in a small sliver of the Arctic, about 1.5 million acres out 
of 19 million acres has been put off limits.
  We need incentives and R&D funds to develop and promote clean fossil 
fuel technology.
  We need to use more natural gas for end-use appliances and 
distributed generation of electricity through fuel cells and 
microturbines in homes and businesses.
  We need to eliminate barriers to our best sources of nonemitting 
power generation; namely, nuclear and hydro.
  And we need to encourage and support renewable energy technologies.
  Based on some simple calculations by my Energy and Natural Resource 
Committee staff, we estimate that such a balanced energy plan could 
reduce our emissions by 11 percent, compared to the administration's 
plan, by the year 2020. We could do this without economic cost and 
without sacrificing our quality of life or our competitive situation 
with little economic pain.
  Our staff is working to refine these calculations further. But the 
details really do not matter much. Simply put, if we use more nuclear, 
more hydro, and more natural gas, we emit fewer greenhouse gases and we 
reduce our dependence on foreign oil in the year 2020 from 68 percent, 
as projected under the administration's plan, to less than 50 percent 
under the Republican plan. Clearly, that is a step in the right 
direction.
  With further R&D funding for climate-friendly energy technology, such 
as that proposed in our climate change bill, S. 882, we can do better. 
A balanced energy portfolio simply makes good sense for our economy, 
for our environment, and for our national security. We have proposed 
legislation that will take us there.
  Let me close by noting that it seems ironic this administration has 
wasted no opportunity to talk about the dire predictions of climate 
change. Yet the Republican energy plan offers a cleaner, more secure 
energy future.

  The risk of human-induced climate change is a risk we should 
responsibly address. We should address it based on sound science, and 
not emotion, as is often the case around here. A balanced, technology-
driven energy strategy offers the means to do so.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Craig). The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, on June 12, the administration's National 
Assessment Coordinating Office, established under the authority of the 
Office of the President, released the first National Assessment on 
Climate Change. This report entitled ``Climate Change Impacts on the 
United States,'' is a political document. It is not a mainstream 
science document. It has not been peer-reviewed.
  The National Assessment attempts to predict in detail climate changes 
region-by-region within the United States over 100 years. Yes, region 
by region for 100 years. The charade of this effort is criticized by 
the Environmental Protection Agency's web page. This morning I checked 
the EPA's web page for its comments on computer climate model. It 
states:

       Virtually all published estimates of how climate could 
     change in the United States are the result of computer 
     models. . . . These complicated models . . . are still not 
     accurate enough to provide reliable forecasts on how the 
     climate may change; and the several models often yield 
     contradictory results . . . Scientists are unable to say 
     whether particular regions will receive more or less 
     rainfall; and for many regions they are unable to even state 
     whether a wetter or drier climate is more likely.

  This is from this morning's web page.
  The National Assessment does not highlight the large amount of 
uncertainty in long-term climate forecasting. It was released in draft 
form even though two of the five sectoral studies are incomplete and 
still out in draft form for comment. The regional studies--which the 
EPA itself has warned are impossible to honestly conclude--are also 
incomplete. One might suspect that the priority was placed on releasing 
the report for a political time-table rather than for a scientific 
time-table.
  It uses two foreign computer models: The Canadian Centre model and 
Britain's ``Hadley Centre'' model. These are considered among the most 
extreme of all climate models available.
  As mentioned in an opinion piece Wednesday, June 14 in the New York 
Times entitled ``Warming Earth, Heated Rhetoric'' by Gregg Easterbrook, 
senior editor of The New Republic:


[[Page S5293]]


       One [model] predicts a catastrophic drought that kills off 
     all trees in the American Southeast; the other forecasts 
     increased rainfall and forest expansion in the Southeast.

  One of the country's most respected climate scientists, Dr. John 
Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville has also been 
critical. Dr. Christy is the country's premier specialist on satellite 
measurements of atmospheric temperatures.
  In a June 9 Associated Press story, Dr. Christy commented on a pre-
release version of the National Assessment he had obtained. He stated,

       I read the Executive Summary and the following sections 
     through page 9--``Looking at America's Climate.'' I stopped 
     at that point thinking, ``This must be some kind of joke.'' 
     It seemed to me that this document was written by a committee 
     of Greenpeace, Ted Turner, Al Gore and Stephen King.
       I saw no attempt at scientific objectivity. This document 
     is an evangelistic statement about a coming apocalypse, not a 
     scientific statement about the evolution of a complicated 
     system with significant uncertainties. As it is, the document 
     will be easily dismissed by anyone with access to information 
     about the uncertainties of the issue.

  The National Assessment declares that there is a direct connection 
between increased global temperatures and increases in man-made 
greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. While there are many 
disagreements in the scientific community, there is a consensus that it 
is impossible to make that connection.
  Has the world been warming? Yes, the world has been warming for 
11,000 years, since the end of the last major ice age. In the last 100 
years, global temperatures have increased by about one degree.
  Is this warming due to man-made greenhouse gas emissions? Let me 
quote from Dr. Marsh, a researcher at the Argonne National Laboratory, 
New York Times, Sept. 8, 1999:

       Carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse gas that contributes 
     only about 3% of the greenhouse effect, and man-made sources 
     represent some 3% to 4% of carbon dioxide emissions, the rest 
     being from natural sources.
       The major greenhouse gas is water vapor. . . . if all the 
     carbon dioxide in the atmosphere were to vanish magically, it 
     would lead to a one degree centigrade decrease in global 
     temperatures.

  These are the comments of a researcher at a U.S. Government national 
laboratory.
  Even the possible current moderate warming is not well understood. 
Ground temperatures have risen slightly in the past two decades. But 
more accurate--and truly global--satellite temperature measurements 
have shown no warming in the 20 years those measurements have been 
available. In fact, they have shown a slight cooling.
  Is there fluctuation in the climate? Of course. Ice cores sampling 
has shown wide fluctuations in the global climate long before the 
emergency of man, much less the industrial age. Are current 
fluctuations man made? The simple answer is that we do not know.
  What do we know and what do we need to do to do more? We need more 
scientific research, honest scientific research. We need more 
technological development. We need to involve both the private and 
public sectors in working on this issue.
  Senator Murkowski, Senator Craig, Senator Byrd, and I have all 
introduced legislation that would do exactly that. But most of all, we 
need to restore a bipartisan, commonsense, science-based, market-driven 
approach to this important issue. We do not need more precooked 
political nonsense, political tracts, masquerading as unbiased science.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, earlier this week the Administration 
released, with much media fanfare, a draft document known as the 
climate change ``National Assessment'' that purports to assess ``the 
potential consequences of climate variability and change'' in the 
United States. I have received several media requests for comments on 
this document.
  The document is of considerable length, Mr. President--approximately 
600 pages. Frankly, because of its length and the short time I've had 
to review it, I have been able to give it only a quick review.
  My preliminary conclusion is that the National Assessment could 
provide a useful contribution to the climate change debate if it 
stimulates more serious national interest in advancing climate science.
  What is clear to me, even after only a quick read, is that the 
National Assessment was produced in a style and method that is somewhat 
akin to writing good science fiction. The authors begin with a few 
baseline assumption, then apply a vivid imagination to extrapolate 
outcomes based on those assumptions.
  The literary application of science concepts makes the story 
intriguing to read, especially for readers with a scientific bent.
  But the National Assessment is not the only current document that 
talks about climate change science. The ``Pathways Report'' published 
last Fall by the National Research Council of the National Academy of 
Sciences, is also a stimulating read. But it takes an entirely 
different approach.
  One way you can tell that the National Assessment and Pathways Report 
are different in style is from the selection of punctuation. The 
National Assessment uses lots of exclamation points. Perhaps, that is 
one of the reasons why this document has gotten pretty good media 
attention already. The Pathways Report uses mostly question marks.
  The National Assessment takes a single, linear approach to the 
climate change question. It simply extrapolates continued worldwide 
growth in carbon dioxide emissions throughout the 21st century, and 
assumes that growth will correlate to steadily rising temperatures 
around the world. The implications of those increases in temperature 
and carbon dioxide concentrations supply the creative images that the 
National Assessment's authors offer up.
  The Pathways Report is dry by comparison. It is short on creative 
literature and long on technical issue framing--not particularly 
suitable for catchy media headlines, which may explain why many 
newspapers showed little interest in its existence or import.
  But its critical and thorough scientific analysis of the current 
states of our climate change knowledge is what makes the Pathways 
Report so important to policy makers.
  Now, if you are like me and you find out that America's National 
Research Council has just published the most comprehensive report in 
history on the state of climate science--you don't want to read all 550 
pages! You want to cut to the chase and read the report's bottom line 
conclusion! And the last thing you want is a report that provides more 
questions than answers.
  But the Pathways Report authors are brutally honest. To best explain 
the current state of climate science they had no choice but to lay out 
a whole series of potentially show-stopping questions. Now, none of 
these questions asks ``Is global warming for real?'' No, in fact, once 
you begin to ponder the Pathway questions you realize that the climate 
change issue cannot be resolved with any simple thumbs up or thumbs 
down.
  Here are some of the scientific questions that the Pathways Report 
focuses on:
  How much do we know about the earth's capacity to assimilate natural 
and man-made greenhouse gas emissions? Do we need to learn more? What, 
in particular, do we know about the oceans' capacity to absorb carbon 
dioxide? How much of this absorption occurs naturally? What can be done 
to increase ocean assimilation of carbon dioxide?
  And these are just the opening round of questions.
  What is the effect of the oceans on our climate? What is the state of 
our understanding of ocean cycles and of other changes in ocean 
temperature and salinity, and of how those changes, in turn, affect 
climate? How do we evaluate the natural variability of the climate, 
including such phenomena as El Nino and the North Atlantic oscillation? 
Can we improve our understanding here?
  Mr. President, let me stop for a moment and reflect on a recent trip 
I made to Woods Hole, Massachusetts with the Senator from New 
Hampshire, Bob Smith, and our colleague from Rhode Island, Lincoln 
Chafee. We spent a day at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute 
exploring these questions with over 30 scientists. It was a real eye-
opening experience.
  Dr. Berrrien Moore, who coordinated the publication of the Pathways 
Report, helped lead a discussion on where

[[Page S5294]]

science and public policy intersect. Dr. Bob Weller and Dr. Ray Schmitt 
along with several other prominent ocean scientists of the Woods Hole 
Oceanographic Institute, gave us progress reports and fascinating 
explanations of their work and its relevance to climate science.
  For example, Mr. President, did you realize that for each one degree 
change in the temperature of just the top three meters of ocean water, 
there is a corresponding one degree change in the temperature of the 
atmosphere above the surface of that water all the way to outer space? 
Did you know, Mr. President, that 80 percent or more of our climate 
variation is influenced by the oceans?
  Two themes came through clearly in those discussions, Mr. President:
  There are significant gaps in scientific understanding of the way 
oceans and the atmosphere interact to affect climate; and
  Scientists need more data, especially from the oceans to better 
understand and predict possible changes.
  Mr. President, it was humbling to get a glimpse of how much we don't 
know.
  Now let me continue with the rest of the questions the Pathways 
Report urges us to consider.
  How accurately can we predict climate trends whose recurrences are 
measured in years? In decades? In centuries? In millennia? Are we 
capable of plotting the effects, and counter effects, of these 
complexly interwoven trends on each other? Do we even have the 
capability to observe these trends and counter-trends accurately? Do we 
have the computational ability to integrate all these trends and 
counter trends into one big equation?
  How much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere emanates from the oceans? 
Does this amount vary from place to place and time to time? Does such 
variation matter?
  Those are just some of the questions that we policymakers cannot 
answer ourselves. But we need answers--and to get them, we will have to 
support the scientists on a more serious level than we have to date.
  But there are more questions, Mr. President. These next ones we 
should be thinking about ourselves and discussing with scientists and 
with all of our concerned constituents.
  Should U.S. policymaking on climate change rely primarily upon 
climate modeling performed by others outside the U.S.? Or should the 
U.S. have the capability to marshal data and scientific conclusions 
independent of foreign countries who may or may not share our domestic 
policy concerns?
  Again, Mr. President, let me pause for a moment and refer to the 
recent National Research Council's Climate Research Committee's report 
entitled ``Capacity of U.S. Climate Modeling to Support Climate Change 
Assessment Activities.''
  First, let me thank Dr. Maurice Blackmon from the National Center for 
Atmospheric Research, for his patience with me and my staff. He has 
helped us have a balanced appreciation for these issues. That report 
provides valuable guidance on this subject. On page 5 of that report, 
the NRC's Climate Research Committee states:

       Although collaboration and free and open information and 
     data exchange with foreign modeling centers are critical, it 
     is inappropriate for the United States to rely heavily upon 
     foreign centers to provide high-end modeling capabilities. 
     There are a number of reasons for this including the 
     following:

                           *   *   *   *   *

       2. Decisions that might substantially affect the U.S. 
     economy might be made based upon . . . simulations . . . 
     produced by countries with different priorities than those of 
     the United States.

  Mr. President, the National Assessment depended on the use of foreign 
computer models only. The authors of that document are completely up-
front about that fact, and I commend them for their honesty. However, 
for the reasons contained in the NRC's modeling report, I am 
uncomfortable relying on the conclusions in the National Assessment.
  The pace of science is dynamic and unpredictable. For example, just 
last month Science magazine reported on some intriguing experiments 
undertaken in the Indian Ocean. Those experiments raised the prospect 
that certain assumptions about aerosols incorporated in the Canadian 
and British climate models that underlie the National Assessment were 
fundamentally flawed. This means that the warming predictions from even 
these models are probably way too high.
  Dr. Neal Lane, a White House spokesman, acknowledged this at Senator 
McCain's hearing on May 17 and feels it may be several years before 
this can be resolved. Unfortunately, the National Assessment's vivid 
scenarios were sent to the printer before this new discovery became 
public.
  This seems to give us as policymakers only two choices: Either 
disregard the National Assessment and all the hard work that went into 
it, or re-do it with the assumptions corrected, this time using U.S. 
models.
  Mr. President, when we make tough, historic policy decisions around 
here on everything from multilateral defense strategies, to global 
trade, to international farm output, we use our own intelligence and 
analysis, we don't simply rely on the technical work of other countries 
which may not see the world through the American prism.
  With continued regard to America's climate modeling capability, Mr. 
President, I must ask--What are our national objectives? Do we have a 
national strategy in place to achieve those objectives? Is the strategy 
integrated and coordinated across all relevant agenices? Are NASA and 
DOE and NOAA and the National Center for Atmospheric Research, all 
building the same model using a common blueprint?
  Do we have adequate computational resources to fully exploit our 
evolving modeling capability? Do we have enough human talent dedicated 
to these tasks?
  What is our confidence level in the integrity of all observational 
data used to validate climate models? Are our measurements ``close 
enough for government work''?
  How can we be sure that the scientists are even measuring the right 
climate variables? Are there any important climate variables that are 
inadequately measured, or not measured at all?
  Do we build climate observing requirements into existing, ongoing 
operational programs? At sea? In the atmosphere? In space? Should we do 
more? How many ships at sea are measuring water temperature and 
salinity? How many weather balloons and satellites are measuring and 
transmitting data?
  Oceanographers I've visited tell me that they don't know the 
temperature or salinity of the ocean in most spots around the world 
today, much less ten or a hundred or a thousand years ago.
  Do we need a discretely funded activity for the development and 
implementation of climate-specific observational programs? Where are we 
on the technology to monitor relevant national and global data? Is it 
developed? Is it fully deployed? Will other countries fully support 
this?
  Have we assessed the capability and potential of U.S. and North 
American carbon sequestration, includng carbon sequestration through 
crops, forests, soils, oceans, and wetlands?
  How do we ensure that the science that informs U.S. policy making is 
objective and complete? Do scientists have unfettered access to each 
other's completed work, especially when that work is funded by the 
government? Is the process of peer review adequate to assure all 
viewpoints are examined?
  Regardless of politics, we in Congress share one tough job with our 
friends at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. Science must drive 
policy and not vice versa. I don't know how else to make sure that 
happens other than to guarantee that the science gets put out on the 
table and is subject to public discussion and public scrutiny.
  The American people have never been afraid of the truth. We'll deal 
with that. What we can't hack is being kept in the dark or being lied 
to by our own government.
  The National Research Council's Pathways and Climate Modeling Reports 
raise some profoundly important questions. Our best policy decisions 
could turn on the answers to any of them. We owe to our constituents 
and to future generations to seek answers and not hide from whatever 
turns up.
  The United States with its abundant resources, technological 
superiority, and economic power is in a unique position to provide 
leadership in scientific research that can lead to a more complete 
understanding of the natural and human influences currently at work in 
our oceans and atmosphere.

[[Page S5295]]

  What is needed, Mr. President, is a national commitment embodied in a 
government framework that provides a ``blue print'' for responsible 
action based on consensus. Chairman Murkowski and I have been working 
on that legislative ``blue print.''
  Taken together, our bills provide that ``blue print'' for consensus. 
While S. 882, Chairman Murkowski's bill, appropriately focuses on our 
nation's enormous technological abilities, S. 1776, the bill I 
introduced last October constructs a complementary framework that 
ensures:
  A critical analysis, evaluation, and integration of all scientific, 
technological, and economic facts;
  A ``blue print'' for coordinated action that is both practical and 
conscientious so that the government will not neglect an issue or back 
us into less than optimum policy choices;
  The advancement of climate science by integrating and focusing it on 
core questions;
  Immediate actions that reduce greenhouse gas emissions in ways we 
will appreciate;
  The encouragement of technology development;
  No unnecessary burdens on citizens that can be caused by the 
government prematurely picking winners and losers; and
  Process for consensus for future government actions.
  Without consensus, Mr. President, our nation will languish in 
political stalemate, causing us to fall behind other nations in key 
technological areas.
  Some insist that we sharply reduce our reliance on carbon as an 
energy source. Again, cost impact estimates vary widely--from little 
economic impact to belief that such action will mortally wound our 
economy. Yet, there has been no serious effort to systematically and 
critically analyze this issue by our government.
  The National Assessment does not provide it. S. 1776 does.
  Another area of concern expressed in National Research Council 
Reports, and mentioned prominently in recent NAS testimony before the 
Senate's Energy and Natural Resources Committee, is the lack of 
governmental structure with the primary mission of coordinating climate 
programs.
  S. 1776 directly addresses this concern by providing a structure for 
coordination of all government action on climate change.
  This is merely one approach to this very complicated problem. We in 
Congress need feedback from experienced leaders in science, economics, 
and government to help us design the optimum structure for coordinating 
climate change policy.
  It has been ten years, Mr. President, since Congress enacted the 
Global Change Research Act of 1990. We have learned much since then. 
Much of the sensation generated by the National Assessment, stems from 
the vivid worst case scenarios described in that document.
  Let's not be provoked into rash action by these scenarios. Even the 
co-chairman of the National Assessment, cautions that:

       We're not making a specific prediction about what the 
     future will be like. It would be farcical to try to do that.

  Indeed, the National Research Council recently testified before the 
Senate that the ``jury is still out'' on whether Human influence is 
even a significant factor in climate change.
  Instead, let's roll up our sleeves and pursue the more methodical 
approach:
  Answer the core science questions;
  Pursue the economic analyses;
  Take immediate, risk-free actions that reduce greenhouse gas 
emissions.
  The NRC, based on its study of the successes and failures of the U.S. 
Global Climate Research Program established by the 1990 act, has 
provided Congress with excellent recommendations and pathways for 
future action. It would be irresponsible to ignore them.
  Moreover, it has also been almost 8 years since the Senate ratified 
the Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1992. We cannot, nor 
should we, roll back our ratification of the Framework Convention. 
Instead, we should ensure that the United States is thoroughly and 
conscientiously responding to the Framework Convention commitments. Our 
``blue print'' does precisely that.
  For example, the Framework Convention says take flexible action now. 
So does S. 1776. The Framework Convention says explore and integrate 
the science. So does S. 1776. The Framework Convention says climate 
change measures must be cost-effective. Every measure in S. 1776 stands 
on its own two feet.
  The Framework Convention says steps to mitigate climate change are 
effective if based on relevant science, technology, and economics, and 
continually evaluated. S. 1776 spells out how U.S. policy will--by 
law--be based on a combination of science, technology, and economics . 
. . and the President must reevaluate each of these factors each year.
  Mr. President, our legislation provides a framework for national 
consensus. Stalemate on the climate change issue should no longer be 
tolerated. We have the vehicle to move forward. We should do so 
expeditiously, and with the constructive support of the administration.
  I anxiously await the response to my April 3rd letter to the Chairman 
of the White House Climate Change Task Force, where I described how we 
could get there. I ask unanimous consent that the April 3rd letter be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                    Washington, DC, April 3, 2000.
     Roger S. Ballentine,
     Chairman, White House Climate Change Task Force, The White 
         House, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Ballentine: Thank you for your recent letter 
     commenting on the two separate pieces of legislation that my 
     friend and colleague, Senator Murkowski and I have introduced 
     on the subject of climate change. Senator Murkowski and I 
     have been working together on this legislation for a year 
     now. We are both sponsors of both bills. I welcome the 
     opening you give us to work with the Administration as well.
       Your letter was particularly helpful for two reasons. 
     First, it helped me appreciate how much the Administration 
     agrees with us. Secondly, it gives me a chance to clarify how 
     portions of S. 1776 work to complement, not contradict (as 
     your letter implies), so much of what the Administration is 
     already doing.
       First, we agree (and see that we agree) on, in your words, 
     ``emphasis on promoting the research, development and 
     diffusion of technologies to reduce or sequester the 
     greenhouse gases. . . .'' Secondly, we both want to ``improve 
     voluntary reporting of greenhouse gas emissions.''
       Now let's turn to the many additional points on which we 
     agree, even though your letter reflects a few gaps in 
     appreciating that agreement. Along those lines, you urge that 
     it be made clear that our legislation is not ``intended as a 
     substitute for more comprehensive action.'' Thank you for the 
     opportunity to reassure the Administration that it is not. 
     Here is that reassurance in detail.
       To begin, you listed nine bulleted Administration 
     initiatives, repeating in each instance that our legislation 
     ``is no substitute for'' those Administrative initiatives. I 
     agree. Neither S. 1776 nor S. 1777 (my companion tax 
     incentive bill), is, nor is intended to be, a substitute for 
     any of the nine initiatives. If I had intended to substitute 
     my legislation for any of the nine, you would see provisions 
     in my legislation repealing or preempting those initiatives 
     that I meant to substitute with mine. You do not, because I 
     did not set out to do so. Let's take a closer look at each of 
     those nine bullets to help you appreciate how close we are:
     1. Ongoing federal efforts to accelerate the research, 
         development, and deployment of efficient technologies and 
         renewable energy--
       My bills only enhance those ongoing efforts. With regard to 
     federally funded R&D, we provide for some extra quality 
     assurance by calling for periodic independent critical 
     evaluations of ongoing projects so Congress and the Executive 
     Branch can be confident that deployment of finite R&D and 
     demonstration resources is current, optimum, and fully 
     accountable to the taxpayers.
     2. The President's proposed package of tax incentives--
       Nothing in my tax incentive bill, S. 1777, contradicts 
     anything in the President's package. My proposal to 
     permanently extend the R&D tax credit for projects addressing 
     climate change, and my provision providing a graduated scale 
     of tax credits for achieving increasingly challenging energy 
     efficiency benchmarks over a series of time periods would 
     complement the President's ideas in the short-term and long-
     term.
       Further, I call on Treasury and Energy to collaborate on a 
     set of meaningful tax incentives to directly spur voluntary 
     actions by ordinary citizens, and indirectly by entities that 
     are tax exempt such as municipal power agencies, 
     universities, and others.

[[Page S5296]]

     3. The President's proposal to spur development of bioenergy 
         and bioproducts that can benefit farmers and rural areas, 
         reduce reliance on foreign oil, cut air pollution, and 
         reduce greenhouse gas emissions--
       This program first surfaced, of course, in an article by 
     Senator Dick Lugar in Foreign Affairs magazine over a year 
     ago. It is embodied in his bill which recently passed the 
     Senate without dissent. Actually, in the early drafting 
     stages I contemplated adding the text of the Lugar 
     legislation to my bill, but did not do so out of deference to 
     Senator Lugar whose strategy was to move his bill separately. 
     Instead, in public speeches leading up to its approval by the 
     full Senate I helped promote his legislation as a stand-alone 
     proposition. Let's both hope that the House takes it up 
     quickly and sends it to the President for enactment!
     4. An initiative to encourage open competitive markets and 
         promote the export of American clean energy technologies 
         into the multi-billion dollar market of developing 
         transition countries around the world--
       Again, we are in harmony. My bill takes the 
     Administration's proposal a few steps further with an entire 
     title on technology transfer. Projects that replace older 
     machinery in other countries with more advanced energy-
     efficient technologies will qualify for a suite of export 
     incentives. These will undoubtedly be deployed in developing 
     countries because the bill is crafted in a way to target 
     these projects where local hosts do not have the economic 
     clout to finance them on their own.
     5. The ongoing Vision 21 Power Plant program to develop coal-
         fired power plants that would be about twice as efficient 
         as current plants--
       My approach to achieve this objective is by way of tax 
     incentive. S. 1777 spurs continuing efficiency breakthroughs 
     by offering incentives to reach increasingly challenging 
     efficiency benchmarks--achievable in the short-term, 
     improving in the long-term.
     6. Nuclear energy plant optimization--advanced technologies 
         that can help ensure the longer term reliability and 
         efficiency of existing nuclear power plants--
       While my bills do not specify nuclear power projects for 
     short- or long-term promotion, I am confident that nuclear 
     power will benefit from my legislation. First, the current 
     and future Presidents are called upon to recommend to 
     Congress legislation to respond to climate change. Any 
     comprehensive execution of this provision would have to 
     address the role of nuclear power. However, if a President 
     should overlook nuclear in the mandated report and 
     recommendation to Congress, I offer a back-up. My bill also 
     includes a statutory requirement for the General Accounting 
     Office to identify statutory or administrative barriers to 
     reducing greenhouse gas emissions. If any exist with regard 
     to nuclear power, I would expect GAO to find them and 
     highlight them, along with all others.
       I considered folding into S. 1776 the most important step 
     toward securing long-term reliability of nuclear power's 
     contribution, namely, nuclear waste legislation. I did not do 
     so because of the President's repeated vetoes. My goal from 
     the beginning remains unchanged: to find consensus, not 
     division, on climate change.
       On a separate complementary track, as a member of the 
     Senate Appropriations Committee I have strongly supported 
     DOE's Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization program and Nuclear 
     Energy Research Initiative.
     7. Law to give businesses protection against being penalized 
         down the road when they take real, tangible actions today 
         to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions--
       Unlike some other proposals, my legislation actually 
     accomplishes this in hard currency immediately when such 
     actions are taken. My tax incentives, all of which are 
     available for the year in which the qualifying investments 
     are made, are all predicated on reporting the reductions 
     achieved by those investments under Section 1605(b) of EPAct, 
     as amended by S. 1776.
     8. Help states and local communities undertake efforts to 
         encourage innovation and reduce greenhouse gases--
       With the same stated purpose, but in contrast to the Clean 
     Air Partnership Fund's top-down approach, S. 1776 explicitly 
     preserves state-initiated climate change responses by 
     protecting them from future federal preemption. It works 
     as follows. If a state has a program that has as one of 
     its effects the reduction (or sequestration) of greenhouse 
     gas emissions, it remains in effect despite future federal 
     enactments to the contrary. The only exception: when a 
     future Congress recites in future legislation the specific 
     section number in my bill as either (1) being repealed 
     outright, or (2) as not applying to the specific state 
     program. I have been assured that this provision passes 
     Constitutional muster. I am confident that future 
     Congresses will look long and hard before deliberately and 
     conspicuously tampering with states' rights and climate 
     change programs.
     9. Diplomatic effort to complete the unfinished business of 
         the Kyoto Protocol--
       While our perspectives on this bullet in your letter to me 
     do not match, my legislation is silent on the subject. Again, 
     this is because my primary objective was to explore policies 
     on which consensus with the President and others is possible. 
     Let's not let our differing perspectives get in the way of 
     policies we can and do agree on.
       However, as an aside, I do believe that both an 
     international and domestic consensus on Kyoto is achievable 
     and, in fact, emerging. As months and years pass since Vice 
     President Gore personally negotiated its terms and the 
     President signed it, several governments have distanced 
     themselves from--or, in Norway's case--impaled itself on 
     Kyoto. A sure way to resolve the issue once and for all here 
     in the United States is for the President to submit the 
     Treaty for Senate ratification. Sweeping in scope as my 
     legislation is, however, treaty ratification would not be 
     germane to my bill.
       Finally, in the same spirit of sharpening our mutual 
     understanding, let's focus on an area where you seem to see 
     even more agreement between us than I do. Interpreting our 
     legislation as reflecting ``a shift in the terms of the 
     debate from whether there is a problem to what actions we can 
     take to address it,'' you take it one step further by quoting 
     Texaco: ``protracted debate about the adequacy of the science 
     is something [we need] to move beyond.''
       On the question of the adequacy of the science, I side with 
     the National Research Council of the National Academy of 
     Sciences. In the March 30, 2000 hearing before the Senate 
     Energy Committee, Dr. Elbert W. (Joe) Friday, speaking for 
     the National Academy, stated plainly: ``the jury is still 
     out.'' What portion of the warming signal is attributable to 
     anthropogenic effects and what to natural variability he 
     declined to speculate on, except to explicitly refuse to say 
     that Mankind's contribution is primary. Nor did he, speaking 
     on behalf of the science community, indicate that any 
     proposed suite of climate change response policies would 
     appreciably alter global temperature trends. Instead, he 
     focused the Committee's attention on the milestone Pathways 
     Report published just last Fall by the National Academy of 
     Sciences.
       The fundamental gaps in climate science underscored in that 
     report are the foci of the science title of S. 1776. Having 
     worked closely with leading U.S. climate scientists on these 
     issues, I am now convinced that the United States (and, 
     therefore the world) has the potential capability to solve 
     these riddles. However, resources and hard work will be 
     required to do so. The science community has consensus: 
     climate science has a long way to go. Instead of pretending 
     that we have learned everything we need to learn as many 
     advocates on both sides of the climate change issue do for 
     quite different reasons, I advocate aggressive exploration 
     and resolution of these uncertainties.
       In the meantime, my bill does stand for the proposition 
     that we needn't wait for that resolution to take immediate, 
     no regrets, steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 
     Additionally (and perhaps, even more importantly), I set out 
     the elements to put into place an inter-branch process by 
     which all relevant information--science, economics, and 
     technology--can be marshaled to guide conscientious, 
     contemporary public policy in a fast-changing world.
       Should it turn out that sacrifice by American citizens--
     even the stark sacrifices such as those portended by Kyoto--
     are warranted, we must have confidence that all the 
     information is in, integrated, and understood, not only by 
     elected officials, but also by the people we are privileged 
     to serve.
       I look forward to getting together soon to explore ways for 
     real progress--consensus action--this year.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Larry E. Craig,
                                                     U.S. Senator.

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). Under the previous order, the 
Senator from Washington is recognized.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in 
morning business for 15 minutes, and that when Senator Kennedy speaks, 
that he also be given 15 minutes in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Absolutely.
  Mr. CRAIG. The Senator has been very patient. I appreciate that.

                          ____________________