[Senate Report 107-99]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calendar No. 226
107th Congress Report
SENATE
1st Session 107-99
_______________________________________________________________________
CLIMATE CHANGE STRATEGY AND
TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION ACT OF 2001
__________
R E P O R T
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
TO ACCOMPANY
S. 1008
TO AMEND THE ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 1992 TO DEVELOP THE UNITED STATES
CLIMATE CHANGE RESPONSE STRATEGY WITH THE GOAL OF STABILIZATION OF
GREENHOUSE GAS CONCENTRATIONS IN THE ATMOSPHERE AT A LEVEL THAT WOULD
PREVENT DANGEROUS ANTHROPOGENIC INTERFERENCE WITH THE CLIMATE SYSTEM,
WHILE MINIMIZING ADVERSE SHORT-TERM AND LONG-TERM ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL
IMPACTS, ALIGNING THE STRATEGY WITH UNITED STATES ENERGY POLICY, AND
PROMOTING A SOUND NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY, TO ESTABLISH A
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM THAT FOCUSES ON BOLD TECHNOLOGICAL
BREAKTHROUGHS THAT MAKE SIGNIFICANT PROGRESS TOWARD THE GOAL OF
STABILIZATION OF GREENHOUSE GAS CONCENTRATIONS, TO ESTABLISH THE
NATIONAL OFFICE OF CLIMATE CHANGE RESPONSE WITHIN THE EXECUTIVE
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
November 15, 2001.--Ordered to be printed
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
99-010 WASHINGTON : 2001
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman
CARL LEVIN, Michigan FRED THOMPSON, Tennessee
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii TED STEVENS, Alaska
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine
ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
MAX CLELAND, Georgia PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
JEAN CARNAHAN, Missouri ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
MARK DAYTON, Minnesota JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
Joyce A. Rechtschaffen, Staff Director and Counsel
Holly A. Idelson, Counsel
Timothy H. Profeta, Legislative Counsel to Senator Lieberman
Hannah S. Sistare, Minority Staff Director and Counsel
William M. Outhier, Investigating Counsel to the Minority
Elizabeth A. Vandersari, Minority Counsel
Darla D. Cassell, Chief Clerk
C O N T E N T S
Page
I. Purpose and Summary..............................................1
II. Background.......................................................4
III. Discussion of Legislation........................................8
IV. Legislative History.............................................17
V. Section by Section..............................................18
VI. Evaluation of Regulatory Impact.................................23
VII. CBO Cost Estimate...............................................23
VIII.Additional Views................................................25
IX. Changes to Existing Law.........................................34
Calendar No. 226
107th Congress Report
SENATE
1st Session 107-99
======================================================================
CLIMATE CHANGE STRATEGY AND TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION ACT OF 2001
_______
November 15, 2001.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Lieberman, from the Committee on Governmental Affairs, submitted
the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany S. 1008]
The Committee on Governmental Affairs, to whom was referred
the bill (S. 1008) to amend the Energy Policy Act of 1992 to
develop the United States Climate Change Response Strategy with
the goal of stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in
the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous
anthropogenic interference with the climate system, while
minimizing adverse short-term and long-term economic and social
impacts, aligning the Strategy with United States energy
policy, and promoting a sound national environmental policy to
establish a research and development program that focuses on
bold technological breakthroughs that make significant progress
toward the goal of stabilization of greenhouse gas
concentrations, to establish the National Office of Climate
Change Response within the Executive Office of the President,
and for other purposes, having considered the same, report
favorably thereon with amendments and recommend that the bill
do pass.
I. Purpose and Summary
S. 1008, The Climate Change Strategy and Technology
Innovation Act of 2001, is a bipartisan bill to forge a
national response to the problem of global climate change. The
bill would create a White House Office on climate change,
charged with constructing a national strategy to stabilize the
concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. It would
also provide a new focus for, and authorize funding to promote,
breakthrough technologies to address climate change. As stated
by the bill's chief sponsor Senator Byrd, ``the legislation
would establish a regime of responsibility and accountability
in the Federal sector for the development of a national climate
change response strategy.'' \1\ Senator Stevens, the lead
cosponsor, added that ``we need better research capabilities to
understand global climate change, better planning capabilities
to react to climate change impact, and better energy technology
infrastructure to keep pace with America's growing energy
needs. Senator Byrd's bill will create a process for the United
States to seriously and responsibly address the climate change
issues.'' \2\ At the Committee's July 18 hearing on the
legislation, Senator Lieberman stated that the bill would
``create a focused, comprehensive effort within the executive
branch that will provide the leadership and creative work that
the problem of global warming requires.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Remarks of Sen. Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia, Congressional
Record, June 8, 2001, at S 6002.
\2\ Remarks of Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska, Congressional Record,
June 8, 2001, at S 6003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Climate change is one of the most complex and daunting
challenges our nation has faced. While debate continues about
the precise causes and scope of climate change, there is
increasing evidence that the Earth's climate is warming and
that human activity is responsible for most of the changes. The
consequences, particularly if climate change is left unchecked,
could be devastating. Already, scientists have reported a
warming of the earth's temperature, thinning of sea ice,
shrinking glaciers and other evidence of climatic change due to
warming. Scientists predict that further warming could produce
rising oceans, more violent weather patterns, loss of forests
and other adverse effects.
To halt this trend, the United States and other nations
must act decisively to curb emissions of the greenhouse gases
that are linked to global warming within the last century. Most
greenhouse gas emissions have extremely long life spans in the
atmosphere, ranging from decades to thousands of years. Thus,
gases emitted today are added to what was emitted during the
20th century. This geometric growth in atmospheric
concentrations of greenhouse gases means that once the global
atmosphere hits dangerous levels of greenhouse gases, it will
be nearly impossible to reverse course. The United States must
now begin to develop and implement cost-effective solutions in
order to begin the process of addressing global climate change.
The weight of scientific evidence suggests that it will be
impossible to reverse course in a cost-effective manner two or
three decades from today.
S. 1008 does not attempt to dictate a predetermined policy
on climate change. Instead, the bill sets out a process by
which the Administration must articulate a national strategy on
climate change and seeks to ensure that the varied, ongoing
efforts of the federal government are coordinated to best
effect.
S. 1008 would create a new National Office of Climate
Change Response (hereinafter ``White House Office'') in the
White House. The director would be appointed by the President
with advice and consent by the Senate. Within one year of the
bill's enactment, the White House Office would have to produce
a national strategy to address the problem of climate change.
The strategy must accomplish four key tasks: (1) examine a
range of emission mitigation targets and implementation dates
that would ultimately stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations
in the atmosphere in an economically and environmentally sound
manner; (2) address the need for substantially greater private
and public investment in innovative, next-generation
technologies; (3) expand research into climate adaptation; and
(4) expand research so as to resolve the remaining scientific
and economic uncertainties regarding climate change.
S. 1008 builds on the work of the 1992 United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change, which established the
goal of stabilizing the concentration of greenhouse gases in
the atmosphere ``at a level that would prevent dangerous
anthropogenic interference with the climate system.'' The
United States has already committed to this goal and S. 1008
accepts it as the focus of a national strategy on climate
change. However, the legislation does not dictateprecisely what
this level is nor prescribe any specific steps that must be taken to
achieve stabilization; it only anticipates that the strategy will
achieve its objective in an economically and environmentally sound
manner. The strategy, and progress toward meeting its goals, would be
monitored by an independent review board of experts.
Another critical portion of the bill would boost
dramatically the government's efforts to promote breakthrough
technologies that can help reduce or contain greenhouse gas
emissions over the long term. The Department of Energy
(``DOE'') currently has four line offices for energy research
and development: fossil fuels, efficiency and renewables,
nuclear energy and basic science. S. 1008 would add a fifth:
the Office of Climate Change Technology (``OCCT''). This office
would be charged with focusing on innovative technologies that
will be needed in future decades, yet that cut across the
jurisdictions of the existing research offices. The bill
authorizes $4 billion over 10 years for this office, which is
designed to supplement, rather than supplant, the existing
research and development efforts within DOE and other agencies.
As Senator Stevens stated at the July 18 hearing, ``By making
necessary research and development efforts now, I think we can
inspire a generation of technologies that will enhance
America's chance to be the leader in dealing with global
climate change.''
Within the OCCT would be a Center for Strategic Climate
Change Response. This Center would provide technical support to
the newly created White House Office and is authorized at $75
million annually. More broadly, it is intended to serve as an
innovative think tank on climate change issues, with an
interdisciplinary and multi-agency focus.
Finally, Senator Byrd remarked when introducing S.1008,
``[t]his legislation is intended to supplement, rather than
replace, other complementary proposals to deal with climate
change in the near term on both a national and international
level.'' \3\ The Committee recognizes that Congress is
currently considering a wide range of additional measures to
counter climate change. New initiatives on climate change need
not wait for formulation of the national strategy contemplated
by S.1008, but should ultimately fit within its framework as
components of the overall strategy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Statement of Sen. Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia,
Congressional Record, June 8, 2001, at S 6001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Background
the problem of global warming
Global warming is one of the most complex and comprehensive
environmental, economic, scientific, and technical challenges
facing the world today. The warming of the global climate
within the last century is most likely caused by a number of
anthropogenic factors, the precise interplay of which is not
yet fully understood.
Despite the continued existence of uncertainties, however,
a scientific consensus is coalescing regarding the existence of
human-caused climate change. In particular, there is growing
agreement within the scientific community that concentrations
of greenhouse gases are increasing in the atmosphere, primarily
due to human activities, resulting in rising surface air
temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures.\4\ Modelling
and scientific reasoning also suggest that the changing climate
will result in a number of additional negative effects on the
planet, including rising sea levels, decreased precipitation in
semi-arid regions and increased global frequency of extreme
weather events.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Committee of the Science of Climate Change, Division on
Earth and Life Studies, National Research Council, Climate Change
Science; An Analysis of Some Key Questions, (2001) (Hereinafter ``NAS
Report'') at 2 (``Human activities are responsible for the increase [in
carbon dioxide concentrations].'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A number of scientific studies and reports have been
released recently that describe the state of the scientific
understanding of climate change. In testimony before the
Committee, Thomas Karl, Director of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration's National Climatic Data Center,
discussed the science of climate change (hereinafter ``Karl
testimony'').\5\ He based his information on two assessments,
one carried out internationally, and one nationally. The
Committee takes particular note of these two reports: (1) the
2001 Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (``IPCC''); \6\ and (2) ``Climate Change
Science; An Analysis of Some Key Questions,'' a National
Academy of Sciences (``NAS'') review of the topic, released in
2001 on the heels of the IPCC report and conducted at the
request of the White House.\7\ Mr. Karl served as a
coordinating lead author and panel member on the IPCC and NAS
studies, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Eileen Claussen, President of The Pew Center on Global Climate
Change, testifying before the Committee, stated: ``As we have recently
learned from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),
confirmed recently by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), the
scientific consensus is very strong that greenhouse gases are
accumulating in the Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities,
causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to
rise.'' Claussen written testimony at 1.
\6\ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2001,
The Scientific Basis, (2001). (Hereinafter ``IPCC Report'').
\7\ Although actually conducted by the National Research Council,
which is affiliated with the National Academy of Sciences, this study
is known as the National Academy of Sciences or NAS report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The IPCC Report
The growing scientific consensus on climate change was
recently enunciated in the ThirdAssessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC was jointly
established by the World Meteorological Organization and the United
Nations Environment Programme in 1988 to (1) ``assess available
scientific and socio-economic information on climate change and its
impacts and on the options for mitigating climate change and adapting
to it'' and (2) ``provide, on request, scientific/technical/socio-
economic advice to the Conference of Parties to the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change.'' \8\ Its Third Assessment
Report on the scientific basis of climate change was the product of 122
expert scientists serving as lead authors, with assistance from 515
contributing authors. The draft report was submitted to 420 expert
reviewers for comment.\9\ James Hansen, Head of the NASA Goddard
Institute for Space Studies, testified before the Committee: ``The IPCC
reports produced by hundreds of outstanding scientists, provide an
invaluable assessment of the status of scientific understanding of
climate change.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ IPCC Report at ii.
\9\ IPCC Report at iii.
\10\ Hansen written testimony at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using observational data from around the world, the IPCC
determined that the information illustrated a ``collective
picture of a warming world.'' \11\ Specifically, the IPCC based
its conclusion on the following data:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, ``Technical Summary
of the Working Group I Report,'' contained in Climate Change 2001, The
Scientific Basis, at 34 (2001). (Hereinafter ``IPCC Technical
Summary''); See Karl written testimony at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increases of 0.7 to 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit in land
and sea surface temperatures over the past century.
Weather balloon measurements showing that lower-
tropospheric temperatures have been increasing since 1958.
Decreases in the continental diurnal temperature
range that coincide with increases in cloud amount,
precipitation, and increases in total water vapor.
Decreases in mountain glaciers and ice masses
nearly worldwide that are consistent with surface temperature
increases.
Decreases in snow cover and shortened seasons of
lake and river ice that relate well to increases in Northern
Hemisphere surface temperatures.
The systematic decrease of spring and summer sea-
ice extent and thickness in the Arctic that is consistent with
increases in temperature over most of the adjacent land and
ocean.
Increases in ocean heat and sea level.
Increases in total tropospheric water vapor in the
last 25 years.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ IPCC Technical Summary at 34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Having evidence of a picture of a warming world, the IPCC
also identified its likely cause, finding that ``[t]here is new
and stronger evidence that most of the warming over the last 50
years is attributable to human activities.'' \13\ A range of
human-caused forcing agents were identified, as indicated in
Figure 9 from the IPCC's technical summary, reproduced here:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, ``Summary for
Policy Makers,'' contained in IPCC Report at 10; See Karl written
testimony at 4.
In particular, the report identified human-released
greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous
oxide, and halocarbons as responsible for a majority of the
problem; the report noted that the effects of these gases were
understood with a high level of scientific understanding.\14\
The IPCC also identified other possible forcing agents, such as
aerosols like black carbon or soot (a warming agent) and
sulphate aerosols (a cooling agent). The IPCC summary chart
reproduced here characterized the level of scientific
understanding regarding these other agents as ``low'' or ``very
low.'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ IPCC Technical Summary at 37 (Figure 9).
\15\ IPCC Technical Summary at 37 (Figure 9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The IPCC found that the levels of the chief greenhouse
gases have significantly increased due to human activities. As
Table 1 from the IPCC's technical summary indicates, the level
of carbon dioxide has risen about 30 percent from preindustrial
levels, the level of methane has risen about 150 percent, the
level of nitrous oxide has risen about 16 percent, and the
levels of some halocarbons have risen from zero to significant
amounts.
Table 1 also indicates the long period of time many
greenhouse gases remain in the atmosphere, a factor the IPCC
believed to be ``highly policy relevant.'' \16\ The IPCC stated
that ``emissions of a greenhouse gas that has a long
atmospheric residence time is a quasi-irreversible commitment
to sustained radiative forcing over decades, centuries, or
millennia, before natural processes can remove the quantities
emitted.'' \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ IPCC Technical Summary at 38.
\17\ IPCC Technical Summary at 38; See Karl written testimony at 4-
5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, the IPCC found that the Earth's climate would
continue to warm. Based on the analysis of 35 alternative
scenarios for the future, the IPCC determined that global
average temperature is projected to rise between 1.4 and 5.8
degrees Celsius by 2100, with greater warming in particular
areas, such as the northern regions of North America and
northern andcentral Asia.\18\ Mr. Karl testified that
regardless of uncertainties, ``such a projected rate of warming would
be much larger than the observed 20th century changes and would very
likely be without precedent during the last 10,000 years.'' \19\ Among
other effects, such warming would likely make precipitation more
variable, increase the incidence of extreme weather events, possibly
weaken ocean circulation, increase sea level by 4 to 35 feet, and
decrease levels of snow cover and sea ice in the Northern
Hemisphere.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ IPCC Technical Summary at 67-69.
\19\ Karl written testimony at 4.
\20\ IPCC Technical Summary at 71-75; See Karl written testimony at
4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The National Academy of Sciences (``NAS'') Report
Following the initial release of the IPCC's findings, the
White House requested an independent review of the science of
climate change from the NAS. In particular, Administration
officials requested the NAS' assistance in ``identifying the
areas in the science of climate where there are the greatest
certainties and uncertainties'' and the NAS' views on ``whether
there are any substantive differences between the IPCC reports
and the IPCC summaries.'' \21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ NAS Report, App. B. In subsequent discussions, White House
officials identified the following series of specific questions, all of
which were addressed in the NAS report:
--What is the range of natural variability in climate?
--Are concentrations of greenhouse gases and other emissions that
contribute to climate change increasing at an accelerating rate, and
are different greenhouse gases and other emissions increasing at
different rates?
--How long does it take to reduce the buildup of greenhouse gases
and other emissions that contribute to climate change?
--What other emissions are contributing factors to climate change
(e.g., aerosols, CO, black carbon soot), and what is their relative
contribution to climate change?
--Do different greenhouse gases and other emissions have different
draw down periods?
--Are greenhouse gases causing climate change?
--Is climate change occurring? If so, how?
--Is human activity the cause of increased concentrations of
greenhouse gases and other emissions that contribute to climate change?
--How much of the expected climate change is the consequence of
climate feedback processes (e.g., water vapor, clouds, snow packs)?
--By how much will temperatures change over the next 100 years and
where?
--What will be the consequences (e.g., extreme weather, health
effects) of increases of various magnitudes?
--Has science determined whether there is a ``safe'' level of
concentration of greenhouse gases?
--What are the substantive differences between the IPCC Reports and
the Summaries?
--What are the specific areas of science that need to be studied
further, in order of priority, to advance our understanding of climate
change?
NAS Report at vii.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The resulting NAS report largely confirmed the findings of
the IPCC. In particular, the NAS stated ``[t]he IPCC's
conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50
years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse
gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of
the scientific community on this issue.'' \22\ Moreover, the
NAS observed that, ``[d]espite the uncertainties, there is
general agreement that the observed warming is real and
particularly strong in the past 20 years.'' \23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ NAS Report at 3.
\23\ NAS Report at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NAS also identified carbon dioxide, methane, ozone,
nitrous oxide, and chlorofluorocarbons as the ``most
important'' greenhouse gases.\24\ In particular, the NAS stated
that carbon dioxide was ``probably the most important climate
forcing agent today,'' with an effect approximately equal to
all other greenhouse gases.\25\ The NAS also observed that
methane carried an effect at least one-third--and possibly one-
half--as large as the effect of carbon dioxide.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ NAS Report at 2.
\25\ NAS Report at 12-13.
\26\ See NAS Report at 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NAS also expressed concern that sulphate aerosols,
which appear to perform a cooling function by scattering solar
radiation back to space, would decrease in the future due to
clean air regulation and thereby exacerbate the warming
trend.\27\ The NAS expressed hope that any warming effect
caused by a decrease in sulphates might be at least partially
offset by simultaneous reductions in black carbon aerosols (a
possible warming agent).\28\ The NAS stated, however, that the
``relative importance'' of black carbon aerosols is ``difficult
to quantify at this point'' due to uncertainty.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ See NAS Report at 13.
\28\ See NAS Report at 13-14.
\29\ NAS Report at 2-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regard to the White House's questions regarding the
quality of the IPCC summaries, the NAS found that ``the full
IPCC Working Group I . . . report is an admirable summary of
research activities in climate science, and the full report is
adequately summarized in the Technical Summary.'' \30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ NAS Report at 4-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Discussion of Legislation
Given the importance and complexity of global climate
change, the federal government needs an aggressive and
comprehensive strategy to address the problem. S.1008 would
provide that central direction by creating an office on climate
change in the White House which would be charged with crafting
a national strategy on climate change. The bill would also
provide the structure and funding for a dramatic new focus on
breakthrough energy technologies to combat global warming.
white house office
Climate change is not a new issue for the federal
government. Programs to combat climate change can be found in
nearly every Cabinet-level department or agency in the
Executive Branch. According to a recent report to Congress from
the White House, the Executive Branch spent about $3.5 billion
on climate programs in Fiscal Year 2000 and was estimated to
spend about $3.9 billion in Fiscal Year 2001.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ See Federal Climate Change Expenditures Report To Congress,
June 2001 (transmitted to Congress from the White House on June 29,
2001 in accordance with section 566(b) of the Foreign Operations,
Export, Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act of 2001, PL
106-429), Table 1, p. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even so, the federal government lacks a central office to
coordinate these disparate and varied efforts and provide an
overarching agenda for the government as a whole. Instead,
various agencies have defined their own missions with respect
to climate change. Energy production is the largest source of
greenhouse gas emissions, and the DOE conducts the lion's share
of federal research on technologies that can reduce such
emissions. These efforts include ongoing research and
development of renewable energy, conservation, nuclear energy
and cleaner-burning technologies for fossil fuels. The DOE,
however, is hardly the only player in the climate change field.
For instance, DOE is working jointly with the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Transportation, the
Department of Commerce and the National Science Foundation to
develop vehicles that will emit fewer greenhouse gases, such as
hybrid and fuel cell vehicles (the Partnership for a New
Generation of Vehicles). The Department of Agriculture has
research programs to promote converting biomass to energy. EPA,
working collaboratively with the Department of Agriculture, has
programs to research and promote carbon sequestration (efforts
to store carbon in the soil or vegetation to prevent its
release into the atmosphere). Ten different agencies, including
the National Aeronautics and Space Agency, are involved with
the U.S. Global Change Research Program, which seeks to provide
a sound scientific understanding of the human and natural
forces that influence our climate system.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ ``U.S. Government Agencies Participating in the USGCRP,''
found at http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/usagency.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While each agency has valuable expertise to bring to bear
on the climate change issue, this decentralized approach also
has drawbacks. There is no overarching framework to ensure that
various federal agencies are complementing each other's efforts
on climate change, and that critical tasks are not falling
between the cracks, ignored by all agencies. As Eileen
Claussen, President of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change,
testified at the Committee's July 18 hearing on S.1008:
This is a monster of an issue and everyone has a
legitimate reason to be involved across the government
for variety of different reasons. If you do not have a
way to focus the effort and coordinate the effort, you
just have everybody doing their own thing based on
their own set of objectives and the culture of their
own agency. You do not have a coherent policy, and it
is extremely hard to do, but I think you have to center
it in the White House and you have to put some real
effort into making it work.
Currently, there is no specific White House office to
address climate change. Rather, policy components of climate
change are addressed to some extent by the existing White House
Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) and the Council of Economic
Advisors (CEA).\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ In April 1997, President Clinton administratively created a
White House task force on climate change, but the task force was
disbanded at the conclusion of the Clinton administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
S. 1008 would address this problem by creating a new
National Office of Climate Change Response in the White House.
The director would be appointed by the President with advice
and consent by the Senate. The office would prepare a national
climate change response strategy (discussed below), to be
reviewed annually and thoroughly updated every two years. The
bill would also establish an interagency task force on climate
change response, to be chaired by the director of the White
House climate change office. The bill authorizes $5 million
annually for ten years for this office.
The White House Office is similar in concept and structure
to the Office of National Drug Control Policy.\34\ Just as the
drug ``czar'' has brought a new visibility to the drug issue
generally and the specific policy approach of successive
administrations, the director of the climate change office
should provide a symbolic and substantive focal point for each
administration's efforts on climate. The director will give the
administration an identifiable point person on this critical
issue, one with international visibility that will signal the
depth of this country's commitment to tackling climate change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ The drug control office was created in 1988 and is responsible
for establishing policies, objectives and priorities for the national
drug control program, and for writing an annual drug control strategy
to be submitted to Congress. This White House office provides a
central, coordinating presence for the federal government's many
efforts involving drug control--efforts spread across dozens of federal
offices, such as the Federal Bureau of Intelligence, the Drug
Enforcement Agency, the Immigration and Naturalization Service,
Customs, and the Coast Guard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By creating a new office, S. 1008 also ensures that efforts
on climate change receive consistent and high-level attention,
and are not subsumed by, or redirected to, other existing White
House offices. Without a single-minded focus on the topic, the
risk exists that climatechange may not receive the attention or
resources it needs at already-existing offices, such as CEQ or OSTP.
Furthermore, a separate White House office is essential because no
existing office has expertise in the many disciplines that are involved
in as multifaceted an issue as climate change.
The White House Office should draw heavily upon the
assembled expertise of existing federal programs, represented
by the interagency task force mandated by S.1008. This task
force would, at a minimum, include representatives from the
following departments or agencies: State, Energy, Commerce,
Treasury, Transportation, Agriculture, Environmental Protection
Agency, Agency for International Development, U.S. Trade
Representative, National Security Advisor, National Economic
Council, Council on Environmental Quality, Office of Science
and Technology Policy, and the Chairperson of the Subcommittee
on Global Change Research. The interagency task force should be
a meaningful forum for member agencies to contribute to the
preparation of the national climate change response strategy
and associated reports.
national strategy
S. 1008 also provides the White House Office with the key
mission of preparing a national strategy on climate change with
certain substantive elements. As Dale Heydlauff, Senior Vice
President for Environmental Affairs of American Electric Power
Co., testified at the July 18 hearing, ``an administrative
structure without a strategy is nothing more than a suite of
offices in search of a mission.''
Within one year of the bill's enactment, the White House
Office must produce a national strategy that will achieve the
``stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the
atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous
anthropogenic interference with the climate system, as
contemplated by the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change, done at New York on May 9, 1992.''
Specifically, the strategy must include four key elements
identified in S. 1008: (1) an examination of a range of
emission mitigation targets and implementation dates that would
ultimately stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the
atmosphere in an economically and environmentally sound manner;
(2) substantially greater private and public investment in bold
technologies; (3) expanded research into climate adaptation;
and (4) expanded research to resolve remaining scientific and
economic uncertainties regarding climate change.
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(commonly known as the ``Rio Agreement'') was signed on behalf
of the United States during the administration of former
President George H. W. Bush on June 12, 1992, and ratified by
the United States Senate on October 15, 1992. The ultimate
objective of the Rio Agreement, as noted above, is the
``stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the
atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous
anthropogenic interference with the climate system.'' The Rio
Agreement also stated in part that ``the Parties to the
Convention are to implement policies with the aim of returning
* * * to their 1990 levels anthropogenic emissions of carbon
dioxide and other greenhouse gases.'' The Rio Agreement
specifies that designated ``level should be achieved within a
time-frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to
climate change, to ensure that food production is not
threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a
sustainable manner.'' \35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Article
2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By incorporating this language from the Rio Agreement as
the overall objective of the national strategy, S. 1008 ensures
that the United States will live up to the commitment it made
when it ratified the Rio Agreement nearly a decade ago. S.
1008, however, does not predetermine what level of atmospheric
concentration is necessary to prevent dangerous anthropogenic
interference with the climate system. Rather, it leaves the
determination of the preferred level to the White House Office.
In fact, the Committee anticipates that the White House Office
may initially wish to look at a range of stabilization levels.
As soon as possible, however, the White House Office should
identify a single stabilization level that will prevent
dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.
The White House Office should report to Congress on how the
level represents a specific concentration of greenhouse gases
that can be maintained safely over prolonged periods (on the
scale of many centuries) without resulting in changes to the
climate system that have dangerous or adverse consequences for
human health and welfare, for the stability and productivity of
agriculture, forestry, and other human systems that interact
with the climate, or for the integrity of ecological systems.
The identification of a stabilization level also should take
into account the finding by the United States Global Climate
Research Program, an interagency climate research team, that
``climate change will likely magnify the cumulative impacts of
other stresses, such as air and water pollution and habitat
destruction due to human development patterns.'' \36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ U.S. Global Climate Change Research Program, Climate Change
Impacts on the United States 9 (2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee intends that the stabilization level will
account for the combined effect of all greenhouse gases
referred to in the proposed Section 1621(6) of the Energy
Policy Act (EPACT) and will be expressed in terms of a number
of parts per million of carbon dioxide equivalent. The level
identified by the Director should reflect consideration of the
long atmospheric lifetime of most greenhouse gases and the
difficulty of returning to a given carbon dioxide equivalent
concentration once such concentration has been exceeded. The
level should further reflect consideration of the lag between
the time when such level is reached and the time when
associated effects (e.g., global average temperature increase;
sea level rise; and impacts on public health, ecosystems,
wildlife, fisheries, water supplies, and agriculture) are fully
manifested. In planning a course of action on greenhouse gases,
the strategy should take into account not only an ultimate
concentration level that is safe, but also what interim levels
reflect a safe rate of change for ecosystems. Finally, the
Director should establish a process by which the stabilization
goal can be updated, either upward or downward, to reflect
progress in our scientific understanding of climate change.
Once the White House Office has identified a stabilization
level that will prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference
with the climate system, it must consider a range of interim
targets and timetables for reductions of emissions that would
result in that overall stabilization level. The White House
Office should prioritize the development of mitigation targets
for the greenhouse gases that were identified by the IPCC and
NAS as key warming agents and which have long, irreversible
residence times in the atmosphere.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ See IPCC Technical Summary at 36-43; NAS report at 2, 12-14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the same time, the strategy should also specify how the
government should resolve the remaining uncertainties regarding
climate change. In particular, the Committee believes that
research should focus on issues such as those identified by the
NAS in the following excerpt from its report:
Predictions of global climate change will require
major advances in understanding and modeling of (1) the
factors that determine atmospheric concentrations of
greenhouse gases and aerosols and (2) the so-called
``feedbacks'' that determine the sensitivity of the
climate system to a prescribed increase in greenhouse
gases. Specifically, this will involve reducing
uncertainty regarding: (a) future usage of fossil
fuels, (b) future emissions of methane, (c) the
fraction of the future fossil fuel carbon that will
remain in the atmosphere and provide radiative forcing
versus exchange with the oceans or net exchange with
the land biosphere, (d) the feedbacks in the climate
system that determine both the magnitude of the change
and the rate of energy uptake by the oceans, which
together determine the magnitude and time history of
the temperature increases for a given radiative
forcing, (e) the details of the regional and local
climate change consequent to an overall level of global
climate change, (f) the nature and causes of the
natural variability of climate and its interactions
with forced changes, and (g) the direct and indirect
effects of the changing distributions of aerosol.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ NAS Report at 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In developing the national strategy, the White House Office
should also consider the impacts that may occur or may have
already occurred in certain sectors and regions of the United
States due to climate change. This is an issue that is often
overshadowed when considering climate change but is of vital
concern to affected areas. Therefore, it is critical to pursue
climate adaptation research as well as economically and
environmentally sound options to assist specific regions or
sectors that are vulnerable to, or may have been particularly
affected by, climate change.
The Committee intends that the White House Office, when
developing the strategy, draw upon the analytical capabilities
of federal and state agencies with relevant expertise. S. 1008
would create the Center for Climate Change Response within DOE
to be one source of analytical support. The White House Office
shall also draw upon the resources of other agencies. For
example, the Committee expects that the White House Office
would make use of the Environmental Protection Agency's
analytical expertise in: monitoring U.S. greenhouse gas
emissions; implementing voluntary, regulatory, and market based
programs including emissions trading; evaluating climate change
science; and assessing the environmental and economic impacts
of strategies to mitigate environmental threats. Additionally,
the Committee urges the White House Office to incorporate the
Department of Transportation's expertise in assessing the
potential for emission reductions from the transportation
sector; the Department of Agriculture's analytical expertise in
assessing the potential for carbon sequestration by the
agricultural and forestry sectors; and the expertise of the
interagency United States Global Climate Research Program on
climate science.
Independent Review Board
S. 1008 would create an independent review board of 11
scientific and technical experts to oversee the work of the
executive branch in developing and implementing the climate
change strategy. Board members would be nominated by the NAS,
and appointed by the President with advice and consent by the
Senate. The review board would be charged with providing
Congress and the public with independent and accurate annual
reports of the work of the executive branch on climate change.
The structure of the proposed board would resemble that of the
U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, which Congress
created in 1987 to review federal scientific and technical work
regarding the disposal of spent nuclear fuel from the nation's
commercial reactors. The proposed review board is authorized to
receive $3 million annually.
The Committee intends that the independent review board
help to ensure that the strategy produced by the White House
Office has scientific credibility. The Committee anticipates
the review board should consist of neutral experts with no role
in the political structure of the Executive Branch. This
approach should help ensure that the United States' national
strategy on climate change retains continuity and credibility
irrespective of any periodic political shifts in power.
In establishing the review board, the Committee expects
that the NAS will secure experts with a broad array of
expertise, given the vast interdisciplinary nature of the
climate question. In particular, the NAS should, at a minimum,
seek experts to cover the relevant ``fields of knowledge,'' as
defined in S. 1008.
Creation of Office of Climate Change Technology
There is widespread agreement that new technologies are
essential if this country is to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions. At the July 18 hearing on S.1008, witnesses voiced
strong support for devoting additional money and attention
toward the research and development of breakthrough
technologies to curb emissions. As James E. Edmonds of Battelle
Memorial Institute testified, technology is the key to
controlling the cost of efforts to stabilize atmospheric
concentrations of greenhouse gases: ``Stabilizing the
concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will
require a credible commitment to limit cumulative global
emissions of CO2. Such a limit is unlikely to be
achieved without cost, but that cost will, in large measure,
beshaped by the character of the technology options available to limit
cumulative global emissions of CO2.'' \39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ Edmonds written testimony at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the findings of the Global Energy Strategy
Program, an international public-private study group,
technological breakthroughs can reduce the annual cost of
stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations by at least one to
two percent of global world product.\40\ Professor John Holdren
of Harvard University agreed with the importance of new
technologies in his July 18 written testimony, which called for
transformative changes in energy systems--``changes that can
only be achieved in a timely way and at tolerable cost through
a substantial acceleration of the pace of energy-technology
innovation.'' \41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ Global Energy Technology Strategy; Addressing Climate Change
at 54 (2001) (Hereinafter ``Global Energy Technology Strategy'').
\41\ Holdren written testimony at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technology can both reduce the amount of energy needed to
produce something of economic value, and lower the amount of
greenhouse gases emitted for each unit of energy produced. The
country needs both types of technological innovations if it is
to confront the problem of climate change. In fact, the IPCC
assumes there will be some technological improvements merely to
maintain the current pace of growth in greenhouse gas
concentrations rather than face a dramatic escalation.\42\ In
order to actually stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations,
dramatic technological breakthroughs are needed. In seeking
these breakthroughs, this legislation does not seek to preclude
the use of fossil fuels as an energy source. Rather, the focus
is to channel resources into developing the next generation of
technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, thereby
augmenting our existing energy infrastructure and ensuring our
energy diversity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ Global Energy Technology Strategy at 29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The development of breakthrough technologies also holds the
promise of significant market opportunities for U.S.
industries. Energy consumption is projected to soar, primarily
in developing countries, in the coming decades.\43\ In the next
decade, many countries will restructure their energy systems
and ``lock in'' certain policies and technologies. If those
systems do not incorporate new efficiencies, it will be nearly
impossible to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations as
contemplated by the Rio Agreement. Helping to supply new energy
technologies, therefore, is critical toward achieving the goals
of the Rio Agreement. Moreover, by working to develop energy
efficient technologies, U.S. industries will share in the
market opportunities that follow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ Global Energy Technology Strategy at 21-27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet, U.S. investment in research and development of
advanced energy technologies--both public and private--has been
declining rather than increasing.\44\ Even more worrisome, this
trend is apparently echoed around the globe. Neither the United
States nor its allies are conducting this critical investment.
This raises the very real fear that the breakthrough
technologies that the U.S. and other countries will need to
stabilize greenhouse gas emissions will not be developed in the
timeframe necessary to address this urgent problem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ Global Energy Technology Strategy at 49, indicating that U.S.
government spending on energy research and development dropped 23
percent from 1985-1998 and that private sector investment in energy
research and development dropped 67 percent in real terms over this
period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dale Heydlauff, Senior Vice-President for Environmental
Affairs at American Electric Power, testified at the July 18
hearing that private industry cannot and will not provide the
funding needed for these breakthrough technologies because the
commercial returns are too far distant: ``One simply cannot
afford to spend limited capital to achieve emissions reductions
from existing technology and simultaneously develop the bold,
breakthrough technologies needed to stabilize atmospheric
concentrations of greenhouse gases.'' The investment
calculations of private industry also do not capture all the
public benefits of such technologies, including reduced
pollution and decreased reliance on foreign oil. Heydlauff
acknowledged that private industry must also do more, however,
and said collaborative, cost-shared research initiatives should
be developed as some of the technologies move closer to
commercialization.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ See Heydlauff written testimony at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Though many agencies are involved in research concerning
climate change and greenhouse gases, most of the advanced
technology development in this area is taking place at DOE. DOE
currently has four line offices for research and development:
fossil fuels, efficiency and renewables, nuclear energy and
basic science. S. 1008 would add a fifth: the Office of Climate
Change Technology (``OCCT'').
All of the existing line offices conduct research that may
be relevant to climate change. However, the work of each is
subject to certain structural constraints; specifically, they
tend to focus on one fuel source (e.g. fossil fuels, or wind
energy) and often are tilted toward near-term, incremental
improvements. The bill does not seek to supplant such work, but
rather to supplement it with an intensive new effort on
breakthrough, perhaps interdisciplinary, technologies that may
not be viable for many years. While it is impossible to know
exactly what these breakthrough technologies will look like,
concepts do exist that merit exploration. One such innovation
would be a so-called ``photocatalytic'' system that could
extract the hydrogen atoms from tap water for use in a backyard
fuel cell to provide electricity for a home. Such a system
would generate no carbon dioxide. Another example would be a
facility that could convert biomass to energy, and capture and
sequester the resulting carbon dioxide emissions. Such a
facility would actually consume carbon dioxide, since biomass
absorbs carbon dioxide as it grows. To some extent, the work of
the new office will consist of building partnerships between
existing DOE programs on basic science and those on applied
technologies.
The new office would be ``fuel neutral,'' without an
institutional bias toward any one energy source. The Committee
intends the office to focus on the most promising technologies,
and foster collaborative research among existing offices in DOE
and elsewhere. It should conduct use-directed basic research
that bridges the widely acknowledged ``valley of death''
betweentraditional basic science and applied programs that
could otherwise hinder the development of greenhouse gas management
technologies.
The bill authorizes $4 billion over 10 years for this
office to pursue breakthrough technologies to reduce or capture
greenhouse gas emissions. This is a significant infusion of new
resources, roughly doubling the current effort on advanced
energy technologies. Even so, the spending authorized by the
bill falls short of some recommendations. As Professor Holdren
indicated in his written testimony to the Committee, the
President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology
(PCAST) urged even larger increases in energy R&D. As early as
1997, PCAST was urging an increase of $1 billion per year in
the Department of Energy's budget for research and development
of applied energy technologies.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology,
Federal Energy Research and Development for the Challenges of the 21st
Century (1997), found at http://www.ostp.gov/energy/index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
S. 1008 establishes a Center for Strategic Climate Change
Response (the ``Center'') within the new OCCT. The Center would
function as a climate change ``think tank'' to promote the
development of advanced climate change technologies and key
climate change programs across the federal government.\47\ The
Committee intends that the Center will provide technical
support to the White House Office in preparing the national
climate change response strategy. As such, it should maintain
core analytical abilities, track progress toward the ultimate
goal of stabilizing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations,
and advance the tools and science for understanding climate
change. The Center's activities should include integrated,
inter-disciplinary research on climate change issues; a wide
engagement with national and international stakeholders; and
education and information-sharing throughout the public and
private sectors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ The Center would bear some similarity to the newly created
Tyndall Centre in the United Kingdom. The UK Government created the
Tyndall Centre to integrate scientific, social and technological
research to develop a response to global climate change. In spring of
2000, a consortium of universities, led by the University of East
Anglia, won the competition to operate the new climate center.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The overall goal of the Center is integration of a wide
range of innovative scientific and technological research,
including economic and social research that enables exploration
and development of sustainable responses to the challenge of
climate change. Its research should address both climate change
mitigation and adaptation policy objectives with a particular
emphasis on integrated assessments. Both domestic and
international concerns should also be addressed. The Center
should play a key role in analyzing and investigating the
potential of flexible, market-based mechanisms to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions and aid in the transfer of clean
energy technologies.
Although the Center would be under the organizational
auspices of the OCCT, it should be considered a multi-agency
resource whose responsibilities are not limited to the work of
the DOE, or even to the OCCT. The Center would involve other
federal and state agencies, academic institutions, industrial
partners and the DOE National Laboratory capabilities in order
to bring a focus to climate change solutions. If needed, the
Center may establish project offices strategically positioned
in various parts of the country.
IV. Legislative History
S. 1008, ``The Climate Change Strategy and Technology
Innovation Act of 2001,'' was introduced by Sen. Robert C. Byrd
of West Virginia and Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska on June 8, 2001
and referred to the Governmental Affairs Committee.
On July 18, 2001, the committee held a hearing on S. 1008.
Eight witnesses appeared: the bill's chief sponsor, Senator
Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia; two leading climate
scientists, Thomas Karl, Director of the National Climatic Data
Center, and Dr. James E. Hansen, head of NASA's Goddard
Institute for Space Studies; Eileen Claussen, President of the
Pew Center on Global Climate Change; Dr. James E. Edmonds,
Senior Staff Scientist, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory,
Battelle Memorial Institute; Dale E. Heydlauff, Senior Vice-
President-Environmental Affairs for American Electric Power
Company; Jonathan Lash, President of the World Resources
Institute; and Margo Thorning, Senior Vice President and Chief
Economist for the American Council for Capital Formation. In
addition, the Committee received written testimony from Prof.
John Holdren, director of a program on science, technology and
public policy at Harvard University's Kennedy School of
Government, and David Hawkins, Director of the Climate Center
of the Natural Resources Defense Council.
The testimony was strongly supportive of the legislation.
For example, Mr. Heydlauff of American Electric Power--one of
the largest greenhouse gas emitters in the United States--
testified that S. 1008 ``represents one of the single most
important legislative initiatives yet introduced in the
Congress to deal with climate change.'' \48\ Mr. Hawkins also
supported the bill, stating that it ``would take a significant
positive step by creating a framework for the United States to
develop a comprehensive program to combat global warming over
the medium and long term.'' \49\ Ms. Claussen opined that S.
1008 ``if enacted quickly and implemented in a serious manner,
will provide an excellent foundation for climate change policy
in this country.'' \50\ Finally, Ms. Thorning, whose testimony
was critical of many other efforts to address climate change,
stated that ``progress on technology proposals such as those in
S. 1008 * * * is vitally important.'' \51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ Heydlauff written testimony at 6.
\49\ Hawkins written testimony at 2.
\50\ Claussen written testimony at 4.
\51\ Thorning written testimony at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee met on August 2, 2001, to consider S. 1008.
Two amendments were adopted by voice vote.
One amendment, offered by Senator Thompson, altered the
definition of ``greenhouse gas'' in the bill to include
aerosols that influence climate. Although aerosols are actually
fine particles rather than ``gases,'' they were included in the
definition of greenhouse gas to indicate that these particles
can properly be considered in assessing climate change and
designing a national climate change response strategy under the
bill.
Aerosols may play a role in climate change and
unquestionably pose other risks to human health. Senator
Thompson stated at the August 2 business meeting that certain
traditional pollutants that are aerosols--and specifically
black soot--are not only contributing to global warming, but
are also killing hundreds of thousands of children every year
in developing countries. He noted that the Committee heard
testimony about this problem from Dr. Hansen, a leading climate
change scientist, who discussed studies not only about the
climate-forcing effect of black soot, but about its serious
mortality impact in the developing world. According to a study
cited by Dr. Hansen, approximately 270,000 children die in
India each year before reaching age five from particulate air
pollution, including black soot. Dr. Hansen testified that
pollution levels in China are comparably bad.\52\ Senator
Thompson noted that we have the technology to do something
about black soot emissions right now.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ See Hansen written testimony at 4-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A second amendment, offered by Senator Lieberman, renamed a
proposed new research and development office within the
Department of Energy. The office had originally been titled the
``Office of Carbon Management,'' but was renamed the ``Office
of Climate Change Technology'' to reflect that its mission
would encompass research and development of technologies to
reduce emissions of all greenhouse gases, not only carbon
dioxide.
On that same date, the Committee ordered the bill reported
by voice vote, with no members present dissenting. Senators
present were Levin, Akaka, Torricelli, Carper, Dayton,
Thompson, Stevens, Collins, Cochran, and Lieberman.
V. Section by Section Summary
Section 1. Short title
This Act may be cited as the ``Climate Change Strategy and
Technology Innovation Act of 2001.''
Sections 2. and 3. Findings and purposes
These sections detail the findings and purposes of the Act.
Congress finds that there is mounting evidence that an increase
of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations are contributing
to global climate change, and that these emissions continue to
increase despite the Rio Agreement--ratified by the U.S.
Senate--which set a goal of stabilizing greenhouse gas
concentrations at levels that will prevent dangerous human
interference with climate. Congress further finds that the
United States must define a new paradigm for addressing the
risks posed by climate change. This paradigm recognizes four
key elements: (1) emissions mitigation measures; (2) technology
innovation; (3) climate adaptation research; and (4) expanded
efforts to resolve the remaining scientific and economic
uncertainty on climate change. Congress finds that such a
paradigm would be scientifically supportable and economically
responsible; would incorporate other critical energy,
environmental, and other policy goals; and is fundamentally
required if the U.S. is to meet the extraordinary challenge
posed by climate change.
Some additional findings are as follows:
With respect to technology innovation, energy research and
development--by both the public and private sectors--has
declined precipitously and has not been focused in a
comprehensive strategy to combat climate change. The Act seeks
to reverse this trend and, more specifically, to focus new
funding on the development of bold, breakthrough technologies
with the potential to combat climate change.
Additionally, the international nature of climate change is
integral to all four elements of the new strategy. This will
require joint research programs and response strategies,
assistance to developing countries and countries in transition
to develop technical and other capacities to respond to climate
change, and efforts to increase public awareness of the issue.
The overarching purpose of the legislation, described in
Section 3, is the development of a ``national focal point for
climate change'' through the establishment of the offices and
procedures described in the legislation.
Section 4. United States climate change response strategy and
technology innovation
This Act amends the Energy Policy Act (EPACT) of 1992 and
creates Subtitle B, Title 16.
Section 1621. Definitions
This section defines some of the terms used in the act,
including the following key definitions:
``Climate-friendly technology''--This phrase is defined to
mean ``any energy supply or end-use technology that, over the
lifetime of the technology and compared to similar technology
in commercial use * * * results in reduced emissions of
greenhouse gases; may substantially lower emissions of other
pollutants; and may generate substantially smaller or less
hazardous quantities of solid or liquid waste.'' As reflected
by the wording, a technology must result in lower greenhouse
gas emissions to be considered ``climate-friendly technology''
under this bill. Additionally, it may lower emissions of other
pollutants or generate smaller or less hazardous waste.
``Greenhouse gas''--The bill defines greenhouse gas first
as an ``anthropogenic gaseous constituent of the atmosphere
(including, but not limited to, carbon dioxide, methane,
nitrous oxide, chlorofluorocarbons, hydrofluorocarbons,
perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride, and tropospheric ozone)
that absorbs and re-emits infrared radiation and influences
climate.'' The gases listed are simply known examples of
greenhouse gases and the list does not exclude any other gas
that meets the definition.
Secondly, the definition includes ``an anthropogenic
aerosol (including, but not limited to, black soot) that
absorbs solar radiation and influences climate.'' Although not
actually ``gases,'' aerosols were included in the definition of
greenhouse gas to indicate that these particles should properly
be considered in assessing climate change and designing a
national climate change response strategy under the bill. To
the extent that S. 1008 sets a goal of ``stabilizing''
greenhouse gas concentrations, the Committee does not intend to
endorse a goal of stabilizing aerosols that cause adverse
environmental and health effects. Instead, the Committee
anticipates that the government will work to reduce or
eliminate concentrations of such aerosols, rather than
stabilizing them.
``Stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations'' means
the stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the
atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous
anthropogenic interference with the climate system, as
specified in the Rio Agreement. The Rio Agreement was signed by
then-President Bush and ratified by the Senate. The bill does
not specify what this level is, but the Committee intends that
the national response strategy determine what this level should
be and that such a determination be continually reevaluated and
adapted in the course of new scientific knowledge.
``Qualified individual''--This definition specifies the
types of persons who should be eligible for nomination and
appointment to the independent technical review board. The
description is meant to ensure that the board includes
representatives with a broad array of analytical abilities and
perspectives, and the Committee expects the National Academy of
Sciences will consult with relevant technical associations or
other groups to assemble a panel with the necessary breadth and
depth and interdisciplinary capabilities.
Section 1622. United States climate change response
strategy
This section initiates the development of a United States
Climate Change Response Strategy that encompasses the four key
elements--(1) emissions mitigation measures; (2) technology
innovation; (3) climate adaptation research; and (4) expanded
efforts to resolve the remaining scientific and economic
uncertainty. The strategy should consider the totality of all
public and private actions which bear upon the ultimate
objective of stabilization of greenhouse gases. It should rely
on objective, quantitative analysis considering energy,
environmental, economic, and social factors in the creation of
the strategy, with an appropriate consideration for
uncertainties. Specifically, the strategy must be developed on
the basis of a broad range of emission reduction targets and
implementation dates, including those contemplated by the
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, that
culminate in the stabilization of greenhouse gas
concentrations.
Sections 1622(b)-(d) describe the reporting requirements of
the act. The strategy is to be completed and submitted to the
President and Congress within twelve months of the enactment of
this Act. It must be updated every two years thereafter, and
the President would make annual progress reports to Congress.
Section 1622(f) would require the directors of the DOE's
major national laboratories to certify each year whether the
federal government's energy technology research and development
programs were on track to meet the directives of the national
strategy and the long-term goal of stabilization of greenhouse
gas concentrations in the atmosphere. If the directors provide
a negative report, they would be required to submit reasons for
that determination and a prescribed course of action to correct
the deficiencies.
Section 1623. National Office of Climate Change Response
This section establishes a National Office of Climate
Change Response (``White House Office'') within the Executive
Office of the President. The Director shall be appointed by the
President with the advice and consent of the Senate. The
Director shall be responsible for establishing policies,
objectives, and priorities for a strategy to be submitted to
the Congress and for ensuring that the strategy is sharply
focused on the ultimate goal of stabilizing atmospheric
greenhouse gas concentrations while giving full consideration
to the short- and long-term economic and social consequences.
The section authorizes $5 million in new funding for each of
the fiscal years 2002-2011 for the White House Office.
Section 1624. Technology Innovation Program through the
Office of Climate Change Technology and the Center
for Strategic Climate Change Response
Directly supporting the second element of the strategy,
``technology innovation,'' this section establishes an Office
of Climate Change Technology (``OCCT'') within the DOE to
manage a breakthrough technology research and development
program. The DOE Office Director shall be appointed by the
Secretary of Energy and shall report directly to the Under
Secretary or a higher level official. The DOE Office Director
shall place a special focus on climate-related technology
research and development that--(1) makes bold, breakthrough
advances on technologies critical to the long-term
stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations, which are not
significantly addressed by other federal programs at this time;
(2) forges fundamentally new research and development
partnerships among various DOE programs, particularly between
basic science and energy technology programs, which have
significant potential to impact our ability to stabilize
concentrations at a reduced cost; (3) encourages international
research and development partnerships that are in the United
States' interests and make progress on stabilizing
concentrations, and (4) makes available, through monitoring,
experimentation, and analysis, data and information deemed
essential to proving the technical and economic viability of
technologies central to addressing climate change.
To help fulfill these functions, the DOE Office Director
shall establish a Center for Strategic Climate Change Response
(the ``Center''). This Center shall maintain core analytical
competencies that are necessary to support design of the
strategy and track progress toward the ultimate goal of
stabilizing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. The
Center shall advance the tools and science for understanding
these implications and shall be considered a multi-agency
resource.
The DOE Office Director shall advise the Secretary
regarding necessary changes in organization, management,
budgeting, and personnel allocation in the DOE programs
involved inclimate response activities, if their policies and
discretionary programs are not well-aligned, or contributing
effectively to, the long-term goal of stabilizing atmospheric
greenhouse gas concentrations. The section requires DOE to submit to
Congress a ten-year program plan for the activities of the OCCT and
authorizes $4 billion in total funds for the period covering fiscal
years 2002 through 2011 for ``breakthrough'' science and technology
development. For the Center, this Act authorizes $75 million in annual
appropriations for fiscal years 2002 through 2011.
Section 1625. Additional offices and activities
This section establishes such additional offices and
activities as are necessary to carry out the goals of the
strategy. The Committee recognizes that many agencies have
ongoing programs to assess or combat global climate change.
This legislation is not intended to disrupt such activities;
rather, the intent is to provide better coordination of
existing activities on climate change and the means to
recognize and fill any gaps in the current effort. This section
recognizes that, in addition to the structural changes
authorized at the DOE, the preparation or implementation of a
national climate change response strategy may require the
creation of new programs or offices in other agencies. At the
same time, the Committee does not intend to sanction or
encourage the creation of unnecessarily large or duplicative
programs in other agencies.
Section 1626. United States Climate Change Response
Strategy Review Board
This section establishes an independent, nonpartisan United
States Climate Change Response Strategy Review Board comprised
of 11 individuals representing a diverse set of scientific and
technological disciplines. The NAS and technical societies
representing the relevant disciplines shall provide a list of
22 candidate members of the Review Board to the President
within 60 days of enactment of this Act. The President shall
appoint 11 of these individuals to the Review Board with the
advice and consent of the Senate. The Review Board is expected
to play a prominent, nonpartisan, and independent role in
reviewing the work of the National Office of Climate Change
Response, the United States Climate Change Response Strategy,
and the work of federal agencies in meeting commitments under
the strategy. This Act authorizes $3 million in new funding for
each of the fiscal years 2002-2011 for the Review Board.
As described in Section 3 (``Purposes'') of the Act, the
review board is charged with reviewing the strategy and
annually assessing progress toward the goal of stabilization of
greenhouse gas concentrations. The Board's duties also include
assessing the performance of each federal agency that has
responsibilities under the strategy, as well as the adequacy of
these agencies' budgets to fulfill their responsibilities. The
Committee notes that this is not meant to encourage or endorse
a significant realignment of resources among agencies on the
issue of climate change response, but rather to determine
whether each agency is being properly funded to fulfill its
agreed upon mission.
Section 1627. Authorization of appropriations
As detailed above, this Act authorizes a total of
$4,830,000,000 to remain available until September 30, 2011,
which shall be considered in addition to existing energy
research and development and scientific authorizations.
VI. Evaluation of Regulatory Impact
Paragraph 11(b)(1) of the Standing Rules of the Senate
requires that each report accompanying a bill evaluate ``the
regulatory impact which would be incurred in carrying out this
bill.''
The enactment of this legislation will not have significant
regulatory impact.
VII. CBO Cost Estimate
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, August 22, 2001.
Hon. Joseph I. Lieberman,
Chairman, Committee on Governmental Affairs,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 1008, the Climate
Change Strategy and Technology Innovation Act of 2001.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Lisa Cash
Driskill.
Sincerely,
Dan L. Crippen, Director.
Enclosure.
S. 1008--Climate Change Strategy and Technology Innovation Act of 2001
Summary: S. 1008 would authorize the appropriation of $483
million a year over the 2002-2011 period for research,
development, and other activities related to climate change.
Specifically, it would establish two new offices within the
Department of Energy to conduct research and development on
climate change technology. It also would establish an office
within the Executive Office of the President that would work
with an interagency task force to create a strategy for the
United States to manage climate change issues. Last, the bill
would establish a review board to monitor the progress of the
United States in meeting the goals of the strategy. Assuming
appropriation of the authorized amounts, CBO estimates that
implementing the bill would cost about $2 billion over the
2002-2006 period.
According to the Office of Management and Budget, in fiscal
year 2001, more than $1.7 billion was appropriated for the
United States Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), a multi-
agency program that manages research and other activities
related to climate change. Amounts authorized to be
appropriated under S. 1008 would be in addition to any
appropriations for the USGCRP.
The bill would not affect direct spending or receipts;
therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply. It
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as
defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and would
not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal governments.
Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated
budgetary impact of S. 1008 is shown in the following table.
The costs of this legislation fall within budget function 270
(energy).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in million of dollars--
-------------------------------------------------
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
Authorization Level........................................... 483 483 483 483 483
Estimated Outlays............................................. 196 388 483 483 483
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that S.
1008 will be enacted near the beginning of fiscal year 2002.
Outlays are estimated using historical spending rates for
similar programs.
S. 1008 would establish an Office of Climate Change
Technology and a Center for Strategic Climate Change Response
within the Department of Energy. The bill would authorize an
annual appropriation of $475 million over the 2002-2011 period
for the two offices to carry out several responsibilities,
including tracking climate change around the world, and
managing a new research and development program focused on
creating new technology to mitigate climate change. CBO
estimates that implementing these programs would cost almost $2
billion over the 2002-2006 period, and about $4 billion over
the 2002-2011 period.
S. 1008 also would establish and authorize appropriations
for other offices related to climate change. Specifically, the
bill would:
Create a National Office of Climate Change
Response within the Executive Office of the President and
authorize the appropriation of $5 million a year over the 2002-
2011 period;
Create a Climate Change Response Strategy Review
Board and authorize the appropriation of $3 million a year over
the 2002-2011 period; and
Establish an interagency task force to assist the
National Office in developing the United States Climate Change
Response Strategy.
CBO estimates that implementing these other programs would
cost $38 million over the 2002-2006 period and $78 million over
the 2002-2011 period.
Pay-as-you-go considerations: None.
Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: S. 1008
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as
defined in UMRA and would not affect the budgets of State,
local, or tribal governments.
Estimate prepared by: Federal costs: Lisa Cash Driskill;
impact on State, local, and tribal governments: Elyse Goldman;
impact on the private sector: Lauren Marks.
Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
VIII. Additional Views
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF RANKING MEMBER FRED THOMPSON
While the Climate Change Strategy and Technology Innovation
Act, S. 1008, passed the Committee with a bipartisan voice
vote, I believe it important to express additional views not
reflected in the main body of the Committee Report.
Despite the United States' investment in climate change
science over the past decade, numerous gaps remain in our
understanding of climate change. The National Academy of
Sciences identified in its report, Climate Change Science: An
Analysis of Some Key Questions (June 2001), critical
uncertainties about the science of climate change including the
following:
Conflict between global atmospheric and ``surface''
temperature measurements;
How much carbon is sequestered by oceans and land
biosphere and how much remains in the atmosphere;
The feedbacks in the climate system that determine
the magnitude and rate of temperature increases;
The direct and indirect effects of aerosols;
The details and impacts of regional climate change
resulting from global climate change;
The nature and causes of the natural variability of
climate and its interactions with forced changes; and
The emissions and usage of fossil fuels and the
future emissions of methane.
Although there are many scientific uncertainties about
climate change, I want to reiterate my belief that we need to
responsibly study, understand and manage, if necessary, its
risk. S. 1008 offers an opportunity for progress on this issue
by promoting the development of technologies to reduce the risk
of climate change. Like many of my colleagues, I support a
technology-driven strategy. In my view, S. 1008 is an admirable
first step in addressing this complex issue and I appreciate
and commend Senators Byrd and Stevens for their efforts in this
regard. I do believe that several changes in the legislation
could help it accomplish the authors' goals.
At the outset, I believe the bill would have benefitted
from more attention by the Committee. S. 1008 authorizes $4.8
billion in appropriations and makes permanent structural
changes to the Executive Branch. Yet we only had one hearing,
and it focused more on the general issue of global warming than
the details of the bill. Details matter. Some problems with the
bill were easily curable. For example, the new Department of
Energy office that the bill would establish originally was
called the ``Office of Carbon Management.'' But there are many
other contributors to climate change beyond CO2. The
name of the Office needed to be changed to reflect this
reality, and I appreciated that Senator Lieberman offered an
amendment at the markup to do so. But that is merely a drafting
issue. I am concerned that there are more fundamental problems
with the bill.
First, S. 1008 calls for the development of a national
strategy that has as its aim the ``stabilization of
concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere,'' but
does not include any programs that would provide for emissions
reductions by nations other than the United States. It is a
simple scientific fact that cuts in U.S. emissions alone will
not lead to stabilization of global atmospheric concentrations
of greenhouse gases so long as the developing nations of the
world continue to increase their emissions as they grow their
economies in the coming decades. In this respect, S. 1008 is
similar to the flawed Kyoto Protocol, which does not contain
any commitment on the part of developing countries to reduce
emissions. An emerging national strategy to address climate
change must contain a component that addresses the transfer of
advanced energy technologies to developing countries such as
the international technology transfer program proposed by
Senators Murkowski, Craig, Hagel, and Domenici in S. 1294, the
Climate Change Risk Management Act of 2001.
Second, S. 1008 adds new layers to an already overlayered
and duplicative government bureaucracy. The Executive Office of
the President currently has ample authority to coordinate
Federal agency activities. I believe it is sufficient to
specifically charge the President with the responsibility of
developing and periodically revising a national strategy to
address climate change as a roadmap to guide Federal agency
activities. This is the approach followed in S. 1294, and it
may be worth considering as an alternative to the overlayering
produced by this bill.
In addition, S. 1008 would authorize a new $75 million
Center for Strategic Climate Change Response within the
Department of Energy which, in my opinion, simply duplicates
existing analytical activities already carried out in the
Department of Energy and its national laboratories, or in the
private sector with the support of the Department.
Also, an independent Climate Change Response Strategy
Review Board would be created to oversee the activities of the
Executive Office of the President and Federal agencies with
respect to climate change and the national strategy. The
functions intended to be carried out by this Board could be
effectively carried out by the National Academies, who already
have the necessary expertise in science, engineering, and
medicine to carry out an effective review of any climate change
strategy.
Third, the legislation originally focused solely on
reductions of gaseous agents such as carbon dioxide. However,
the Committee was informed that certain traditional pollutants
that are aerosols--and specifically black soot--are not only
contributing to global warming, but also are killing hundreds
of thousands of children every year in developing countries. At
our hearing on S. 1008, we heard testimony about this problem
from Dr. Jim Hansen, Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for
Space Studies and renowned expert on climate change. Dr. Hansen
called to our attention studies indicating that in India, about
270,000 children die each year from black soot before they
reach the age of five. China has comparable mortality rates.
The transfer of more efficient technologies could reduce both
local and regional air pollution, and mitigate the effects of
climate change caused by the release of aerosols from
incomplete combustion.
I appreciate that the Committee accepted by voice vote my
amendment to include black soot within the scope of the bill.
The magnitude of this problem is staggering and I think we
would have been seriously remiss if we had failed to do
something about a pollutant that not only is a climate warming
agent in the developing world but also is literally killing
hundreds of thousands of children every year. On top of this,
we don't have to wait 20 years for additional research since we
have the technology to do something about this right now. Dr.
Hansen wrote a strong letter in support of my amendment, a copy
of which follows.
In summary, while I support the intent of S. 1008 to
promote a long-term, technology-driven approach to addressing
climate change, there are several shortcomings in the
legislation as approved by the Committee. I look forward to
working with my colleagues in the Senate, particularly the
authors of S. 1008, Senators Byrd and Stevens, and the authors
of S. 1294, Senators Murkowski, Craig, Hagel and Domenici, to
enact a truly comprehensive national climate change strategy
that tackles this important problem facing the Nation and the
world.
Fred Thompson.
------
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center,
Goddard Institute for Space Studies,
New York, NY, August 1, 2001.
Hon. Fred Thompson,
Ranking Member, Committee on Governmental Affairs, Dirksen Senate
Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Thompson: I strongly concur with proposed
changes to S. 1008, the ``Climate Change Strategy and
Technology Innovation Act'', that Paul Noe of your staff
discussed with me today, specifically expanding the scope of
the bill to include other anthropogenic climate forcing agents.
As I testified before your committee on July 18, black soot is
an important source of global warming, causing a forcing one-
third to one-half as large as that of carbon dioxide. Moreover,
the atmospheric residence time of black soot is small, so,
unlike carbon dioxide, if the sources of black soot are reduced
the amount in the air will fall quickly. In that sense, black
soot is similar to tropospheric ozone, another true pollutant
that causes a climate forcing one-third to one-half as large as
carbon dioxide. Unfortunately, neither black soot nor
tropospheric ozone are included in the Kyoto Protocol.
The global health effects of black soot and tropospheric
ozone are truly staggering and warrant attention comparable to
that being accorded to carbon dioxide and other climate forcing
agents. The particulates (aerosols or fine particles in the
air) are especially troublesome. Black soot (arising from
burning of diesel, coal and biomass, and, in developing
countries, from household burning of field residue, cow dung
and wood) is particularly at fault, as the particles act like
tiny sponges that absorb toxic organic bits. When breathed in,
these tiny particles penetrate human tissue deeply, some of the
smallest entering the blood stream, causing respiratory and
cardiac problems. This pollution is particularly deadly in the
developing world. A recent paper in the Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences estimated that 270,000 children in
India under the age of five die each year of acute respiratory
infections caused by this air pollution. The numbers in China
are comparable. Globally, the number of premature deaths per
year from black soot is approximately one million.
I emphasize that the prospects for pay-off in incorporating
these pollutants in the bill are quite large, because the
technologies for reducing the pollutants already exist and
still further improvements should be encouraged. Further, there
is the potential for a large near-term double pay-off, because
reducing these constituents both would (1) reduce climate
forcing, and (2) improve public health and save countless
lives.
If I can clarify any of these topics, I would be glad to
provide further information.
Sincerely,
James E. Hansen, Director.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATOR VOINOVICH
I was pleased to support and cosponsor S. 1008 as reported
by the Committee. I believe it is important to encourage
further research on climate change and to support the
development of new breakthrough technologies for greenhouse gas
concentrations. However, during the markup of the legislation
by the full Committee I raised several issues with the
legislation which I believe need to be addressed before any
further consideration by the Senate. In addition, I believe
that the report filed by the majority for this bill, S. 1008,
overstates what is known regarding the state of the science of
climate change and downplays the considerable uncertainties.
It is precisely the fact that we know so little about what
might cause climate change and what the potential effects might
be that convinced me to cosponsor this bill, along with the
addition of a key amendment by the ranking member Senator
Thompson concerning ``black soot carbon''. Black soot carbon is
the only greenhouse gas which actually causes deaths, killing
270,000 children in India alone each year. One of the many
failures of the Kyoto Treaty is the fact that it ignores the
black soot carbon issue. In addition, I am concerned that the
Majority's Report gives too much credence to some predictions
of hypothetical catastrophic effects of climate change by
taking these predictions as fact and ignoring the tremendous
uncertainties.
I have several concerns with the bill itself which need to
be addressed before I can support additional action on the
legislation. The bill authorizes almost $5 billion dollars in
new spending and I am not convinced that these funds will be
well coordinated with the current research programs. Before
Congress authorizes new funding, improvements in the
coordination process needs to be addressed. The bill also
creates a new Office in the White House and I am afraid that we
are just creating a new bureaucracy. Finally, the bill has no
meaningful mechanism to transfer technology to developing
nations. This is vital if we are to be successful in addressing
the most dangerous greenhouse gases such as black soot carbon.
I believe the fundamental goals of the legislation of promoting
scientific research and new technologies could be hampered by
the bureaucratic processes established by the Bill.
Regarding the state of the science, the Majority has
ignored many of the key uncertainties regarding climate change.
On May 2nd of this year, I chaired a Senate Environment and
Public Works Committee hearing on the Science of Climate
Change. One of the witnesses at the hearing, Dr. Richard S.
Lindzen of MIT and a co-author of the IPPC Report, spoke to the
issue of the current uncertainties saying, ``the whole issue of
consensus and skeptics is a bit of a red herring. If, as the
news media regularly report, global warming is the increase in
temperature caused by man's emissions of CO2 that
will give rise to rising sea levels, floods, droughts, weather
extremes of all sorts, plagues, species elimination, and so on,
then it is safe to say that global warming consists in so many
aspects, that widespread agreement on all of them would be
suspect ab initio. If it truly existed, it would be evidence of
a thoroughly debased field. In truth, neither the full text of
the IPCC documents nor even the summaries claim any such
agreement. Those who insist that the science is settled should
be required to state exactly what science they feel is settled.
In all likelihood, it will turn out to be something trivial and
without policy implications except to those who bizarrely
subscribe to the so-called precautionary principle.''
Dr. Lindzen also commented in his testimony on the
conflicting findings of the climate models commenting, ``Our
own research suggests the presence of a major negative feedback
involving clouds and water vapor, where models have completely
failed to simulate observations (to the point of getting the
sign wrong for crucial dependences). If we are right, then
models are greatly exaggerating sensitivity to increasing
CO2. Even if we are not right (which is always
possible in science; for example, IPCC estimates of warming
trends for the past twenty years were almost immediately
acknowledged to be wrong--so too were claims for arctic ice
thinning), the failure of models to simulate observations makes
it even less likely that models are a reliable tool for
predicting climate.''
In concluding his statement before the Environment
Committee Dr. Lindzen summed up the need for more scientific
research. He said, ``The question of where do we go from here
is an obvious and important one. From my provincial
perspective, an important priority should be given to figuring
out how to support and encourage science (and basic science
underlying climate in particular) while removing incentives to
promote alarmism. The benefits of leaving future generations a
better understanding of nature would far outweigh the benefits
(if any) of ill thought out attempts to regulate nature in the
absence of such understanding. With respect to any policy, the
advice given in the 1992 report of the NRC, Policy Implications
of Greenhouse Warming, remains relevant: carry out only those
actions which can be justified independently of any putative
anthropogenic global warming.''
The state of the science, contrary to the Majority report,
is constantly changing, as evidenced by a report last month by
the International Association of Quarternary Research (INQUA).
They reported that the connection between heat and rising sea
levels is not as simple as the IPCC claims, and that the
connection between sea levels and temperature increase had not
yet been established. The INQUA stated that the average
temperature during the mid-1200s was one degree Celsius warmer
than present temperatures and the sea level had remained
unchanged.
Even the IPPC has acknowledged in the past the large
uncertainties involved in the measurement of climate data, the
report states that, ``In observed data, any signal of human
effects on climate must be distinguished from the background
noise of climate fluctuations that are entirely natural in
origin. . . . It is difficult to separate a signal from the
noise of natural variability in the observations. This is
because there are large uncertainties in the evolution and
magnitude of both human and natural forces, and in the
characteristics of natural internal variability, which
translate to uncertainties in relative magnitudes of signal and
noise'' (Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change,
Summary for Policymakers, Accepted by the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, at 41.).
Dr. Benjamin Santer with the Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory, who was a lead author of the Science Section of the
United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's
Second Assessment Report, published with ten co-authors an
article in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society
in December 1999 entitled, Detection and Attribution ofRecent
Climate Change: a Status Report. In it he concludes, ``Given the large
model uncertainties and limited data, a reliable weighting of the
different factors contributing to the observed climate change cannot
currently be given. . . . By most estimates the anthropogenic signal is
currently comparable in magnitude to the upper limits of the natural
climate noise. Such a low signal to noise ratio makes clear attribution
statements difficult at this time. . . . In short, the current state of
affairs is not satisfactory.'' This casts doubt into our ability to
make definitive statements regarding the scientific data.
Dr. James Hansen, Director of NASA's Goddard Institute who
rasied the issue of Black Soot Carbon before this Committee,
presented the following perspective to the National Academy of
Sciences in October of 1998, ``The forcings that drive long-
term climate change are not known with an accuracy sufficient
to define future climate change. . . . The summary implication
is a paradigm change for long-term climate projections:
uncertainties in climate forcings have supplanted global
climate sensitivity as the predominant issue.'' This statement
underscores the importance of more research to better
understand the uncertainties surrounding climate change.
I believe this is an important piece of legislation, given
some fundamental changes regarding the funding and the affect
on the bureaucracy. However, as I have stated above, I believe
the Majority Report downplays the vast uncertainties
surrounding the climate change issue. These issues need to be
more fully explored before we as a country commit to any type
of mandatory reduction of CO2. I am extremely
pleased that black carbon soot was included in this
legislation, because the control of this substance will have a
more definitive impact on public health than any other measure
included in this legislation. I look forward to working with my
colleagues on the Committee to address these concerns in the
coming days. I am committed to passing a bill that addresses
this important issue.
George V. Voinovich.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATOR BENNETT
While I have some reservations about S. 1008, I commend
Senator Byrd and Senator Stevens for bringing a thoughtful
piece of legislation before the committee to address climate
change.
The purpose of S. 1008 is to develop a climate change
strategy in the United States, including the examination of ``.
. . a range of emission targets and implementation dates that
would ultimately stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the
atmosphere in an economically and environmentally sound
manner.'' Environmental policy has been implemented in the past
with little consideration, or even understanding, of economic
impact. While S. 1008 makes a positive attempt to include some
economic considerations, the unanswered scientific questions on
the underlying issue of climate change continue to be of
concern.
As already noted, the global mean temperature has risen
0.7+F to 1.4+F in the 20th century. However, many scientists
point out that global warming is not a uniform occurrence. The
contiguous United States, which has the best temperature record
keeping in the world, has experienced a cooling of its mean
temperature at the same time as the global mean temperatures
increased. The tropics show no trend for higher temperatures.
Much of the increase in temperature has occurred at higher
latitudes, at night and during the winter. While Marrakech,
Morocco has had no increase in mean temperature, Novosibirsk,
Russia has had an increase in winter temperatures. Siberia's
average winter nighttime temperature has risen from -42+F to
-40+F. Is this a negative impact that needs to be changed?
Advocates of stabilization targets of greenhouse gases have
argued that rising concentrations of these gases will lead to a
wide range of dire consequences, i.e. rising sea levels, more
violent weather patterns, excessive rain, drought, and loss of
forests. However, while the global mean temperature has been
rising over the last hundred years, mankind had its most
prosperous century ever. Around the world, infant mortality
fell, life expectancy rose, and global economic production
exploded in the 20th century. The benefits cannot be ascribed
to rising global temperatures, but they do demonstrate that
catastrophic consequences do not necessarily follow.
While S. 1008 is not the Kyoto Protocol, it similarly seeks
to establish targets for stabilizing greenhouse gas emissions.
Thus, we can learn something by reviewing the Kyoto Protocol.
The Kyoto Protocol has been estimated to reduce the expected
global mean temperature in 2100 by 0.76+F. Dr. Bjorn Lomborg, a
statistician in Denmark, has demonstrated that without the
Kyoto Protocol or any mitigation of greenhouse gases, the
expected temperature in 2100 will be reached by the year 2094.
The Energy Information Agency (EIA) at the Department of
Energy attempted to quantify the economic cost of greenhouse
gas mitigation. EIA produced an estimate of the costs of the
Kyoto Protocol and asked six respected economic consulting
agencies to provide estimates of these costs.\1\ EIA estimates
that the cost of Kyoto in 2010 would be 4.2 percent of GDP,
which is a large enough reduction to put the United States
economy into a severe recession. The range of cost estimates
were from the high of 4.2 percent of GDP to a net gain under
the Kyoto treaty of 1.0 percent of GDP.\2\ Most of the cost
estimates were in the magnitude of 2.4 percent loss of GDP. If
the majority of these estimates are correct, we could be
devoting a substantial portion of our GDP to buy ourselves six
years of slightly lower temperatures. This is comparable to
paying a premium of $1,000 per year for a insurance policy that
will provide a $60 benefit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The six were WEFA, Charles River Associates, the Pacific
Northwest National Laboratory, MIT, the Electric Power Research
Institute (EPRI), and DRI.
\2\ EPRI was the only group to predict positive benefits from the
Kyoto protocol.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I recognize the complexity of the science cannot be
captured in five paragraphs, or in a simple insurance analogy.
However, I believe we must continue to wrestle with these
issues to get as clear a picture of the future as possible. It
will be an expensive mistake if we err too much on either side.
Again, I commend my colleagues for their attempt to insert
a more balanced approach into what has been a highly charged,
and emotional debate. This is a complex issue that needs the
added light of sound science. I look forward to working with my
colleagues to address this issue in a thoughtful, responsible
way.
Robert F. Bennett.
IX. Changes to Existing Law
In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by
S. 1008 as reported are shown as follows (existing law proposed
to be omitted is enclosed in brackets, new matter is printed in
italic, and existing law in which no change is proposed is
shown in roman):
UNITED STATES CODE
TITLE 42--THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 134--ENERGY POLICY
* * * * * * *
Subchapter VII--Global Climate Change
Sec. 13381. Report
Subtitle A--General Provisions
* * * * * * *
Subtitle B--United States Climate Change Strategy and Technology
Innovation
* * * * * * *
``SEC. 1621. DEFINITIONS.
``In this subtitle:
``(1) Center.--The term `Center' means the Center for
Strategic Climate Change Response established by
section 1624(e).
``(2) Climate-friendly technology.--The term
`climate-friendly technology' means any energy supply
or end-use technology that, over the life of the
technology and compared to similar technology in
commercial use as of the date of enactment of this
subtitle--
``(A) results in reduced emissions of
greenhouse gases;
``(B) may substantially lower emissions of
other pollutants; and
``(C) may generate substantially smaller or
less hazardous quantities of solid or liquid
waste.
``(3) Department.--The term `Department' means the
Department of Energy.
``(4) Department office.--The term `Department
Office' means the Office of Climate Change Technology
of the Department established by section 1624(a).
``(5) Federal agency.--The term `Federal agency' has
the meaning given the term `agency' in section 551 of
title 5, United States Code.
``(6) Greenhouse gas.--The term `greenhouse gas'
means--
``(A) an anthropogenic gaseous constituent of
the atmosphere (including, but not limited to,
carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide,
chlorofluorocarbons, hydrofluorocarbons,
perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride, and
tropospheric ozone) that absorbs and re-emits
infrared radiation and influences climate; and
``(B) an anthropogenic aerosol (including,
but not limited to, black soot) that absorbs
solar radiation and influences climate.
``(7) Interagency task force.--The term `Interagency
Task Force' means the United States Climate Change
Response Interagency Task Force established under
section 1623(d).
``(8) Key element.--The term `key element', with
respect to the Strategy, means--
``(A) definition of interim emission
mitigation targets coupled with specific
mitigation approaches that cumulatively result
in stabilization of greenhouse gas
concentrations;
``(B) a national commitment--
``(i) to double energy research and
development by the United States public
and private sectors; and
``(ii) in carrying out such research
and development, to provide a high
degree of emphasis on bold,
breakthrough technologies that will
make possible a profound transformation
of the energy, transportation, industrial,
agricultural, and building sectors of the
United States;
``(C) climate adaptation research that
focuses on response actions necessary to adapt
to climate change that may have occurred or may
occur under any future climate change scenario;
and
``(D) research that focuses on resolving the
remaining scientific, technical, and economic
uncertainties associated with climate change to
the extent that those uncertainties bear on
strategies to achieve the long-term goal of
stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations.
``(9) Qualified individual.--
``(A) In general.--The term `qualified
individual' means an individual who has
demonstrated expertise and leadership skills to
draw on other experts in diverse fields of
knowledge that are relevant to addressing the
climate change response challenge.
``(B) Fields of knowledge.--The fields of
knowledge referred to in subparagraph (A) are--
``(i) the science of primary and
secondary climate change impacts;
``(ii) energy and environmental
economics;
``(iii) technology transfer and
diffusion;
``(iv) the social dimensions of
climate change;
``(v) climate change adaptation
strategies;
``(vi) fossil, nuclear, and renewable
energy technology;
``(vii) energy efficiency and energy
conservation;
``(viii) energy systems integration;
``(ix) engineered and terrestrial
carbon sequestration;
``(x) transportation, industrial, and
building sector concerns;
``(xi) regulatory and market-based
mechanisms for addressing climate
change;
``(xii) risk and decision analysis;
``(xiii) strategic planning; and
``(xiv) the international
implications of climate change response
strategies.
``(10) Review board.--The term `Review Board' means
the United States Climate Change Response Strategy
Review Board established by section 1626.
``(11) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the
Secretary of Energy.
``(12) Stabilization of greenhouse gas
concentrations.--The term `stabilization of greenhouse
gas concentrations' means the stabilization of
greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a
level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic
interference with the climate system, as contemplated
by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change, done at New York on May 9, 1992.
``(13) Stragegy.--The term `Strategy' means the
United States Climate Change Response Strategy
developed under section 1622.
``(14) White house office.--The term `White House
Office' means the National Office of Climate Change
Response of the Executive Office of the President
established by section 1623(a).
``SEC. 1622. UNITED STATES CLIMATE CHANGE RESPONSE STRATEGY.
``(a) In General.--The Director of the White House Office
shall develop the United States Climate Change Response
Strategy, which shall--
``(1) have the long-term goal of stabilization of
greenhouse gas concentrations;
``(2) build on the 4 key elements;
``(3) be developed on the basis of an examination of
a broad range of emission reduction targets and
implementation dates (including those contemplated by
the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change, done at New York on May 9, 1992) that culminate
in the stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations;
``(4) incorporate mitigation approaches to reduce,
avoid, and sequester greenhouse gas emissions;
``(5) include an evaluation of whether and how each
emission reduction target and implementation date
achieves the emission reductions in an economically and
environmentally sound manner;
``(6) be consistent with the goals of energy,
transportation, industrial, agricultural, forestry,
environmental, and other relevant policies of the
United States;
``(7) have a scope that considers the totality of
United States public, private, and public-private
sector actions that bear on the long-term goal;
``(8) be based on an evaluation of a wide range of
approaches for achieving the long-term goal, including
evaluation of--
``(A) a variety of cost-effective Federal and
State policies, programs, standards, and
incentives;
``(B) policies that integrate and promote
innovative, market-based solutions in the
United States and in foreign countries; and
``(C) participation in other international
institutions, or in the support of
international activities, that are established
or conducted to facilitate stabilization of
greenhouse gas concentrations;
``(9) in the final recommendations of the Strategy,
emphasize response strategies that achieve the long-
term goal and provide specific recommendations
concerning--
``(A) measures determined to be appropriate
for short-term implementation, giving
preference to cost-effective and
technologically feasible measures that will--
``(i) produce measurable net
reductions in United States emissions
that lead toward achievement of the
long-term goal; and
``(ii) minimize any adverse short-
term and long-term economic and social
impacts on the United States;
``(B) the development of technologies that
have the potential for long-term
implementation--
``(i) giving preference to
technologies that have the potential to
reduce significantly the overall cost
of stabilization of greenhouse gas
concentrations; and
``(ii) considering a full range of
energy sources, energy conversion and
use technologies, and efficiency
options;
``(C) such changes in institutional and
technology systems as are necessary to adapt to
climate change in the short term and the long
term;
``(D) such review, modification, and
enhancement of the scientific, technical, and
economic research efforts of the United States,
and improvements to the data resulting from
research, as are appropriate to improve the
accuracy of predictions concerning climate
change and the economic and social costs and
opportunities relating to climate change; and
``(E) changes that should be made to project
and grant evaluation criteria under other
Federal research and development programs so
that those criteria do not inhibit development
of climate-friendly technologies;
``(10) be developed in a manner that provides for
meaningful participation by, and consultation among,
Federal, State, tribal, and local government agencies,
nongovernmental organizations, academia, scientific
bodies, industry, the public, and other interested
parties in accordance with subsections
(b)(4)(C)(iv)(II) and (d)(3)(B)(iii) of section 1623;
``(11) address how the United States should engage
State, tribal, and local governments in developing and
carrying out a response to climate change;
``(12) promote, to the maximum extent practicable,
public awareness, outreach, and information-sharing to
further the understanding of the full range of climate
change-related issues;
``(13) include recommendations for legislative and
administrative actions necessary to implement the
Strategy;
``(14) serve as a framework for climate change
response actions by all Federal agencies;
``(15) recommend which Federal agencies are, or
should be, responsible for the various aspects of
implementation of the Strategy and any budgetary
implications;
``(16) address how the United States should engage
foreign governments in developing an international
response to climate change; and
``(17) be subject to review by an independent review
board in accordance with section 1626.
``(b) Submission to Congress.--Not later than 1 year
after the date of enactment of this subtitle, the President
shall submit to Congress the Strategy.
``(c) Updating.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
submission of the Strategy to Congress under subsection (b),
and at the end of each 2-year period thereafter, the President
shall submit to Congress an updated version of the Strategy.
``(d) Progress Reports.--Not later than 1 year after the
date of submission of the Strategy to Congress under subsection
(b), and at the end of each 1-year period thereafter, the
President shall submit to Congress a report that--
``(1) describes the progress on implementation of the
Strategy; and
``(2) provides recommendations for improvement of the
Strategy and the implementation of the Strategy.
``(e) Alignment With Energy, Transportation, Industrial,
Agricultural, forestry, and Other Policies.--The President, the
Director of the White House Office, the Secretary, and the
other members of the Interagency Task Force shall work together
to align the actions carried out under the Strategy and actions
associated with the energy, transportation, industrial,
agricultural, forestry, and other relevant policies of the
United States so that the objectives of both the Strategy and
the policies are met without compromising the climate change-
related goals of the Strategy or the goals of the policies.
``(f) National Laboratory Certification.--
``(1) In general.--The directors of the major
national laboratories of the Department specified in
paragraph (3) shall annually meet with the President
and individually and simultaneously certify whether the
energy technology research and development programs of
the United States collectively are technically and
financially on a trajectory that is consistent with--
``(A) the directions and progress outlined in
the Strategy; and
``(B) the long-term goal of stabilization of
greenhouse gas concentrations.
``(2) Effect of negative certification.--If the
certification described in paragraph (1) is in the
negative, the directors shall submit to the President a
report that--
``(A) specifies the reasons why the
certification is in the negative; and
``(B) describes corrective actions that must
be taken so that the certification can be made
in the affirmative.
``(3) Directors of major national laboratories
affiliated with science and energy programs.--The
directors of the national laboratories that shall
participate in the certification under this subsection
are the director of each of--
``(A) the Argonne National Laboratory;
``(B) the Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory;
``(C) the National Energy Technology
Laboratory;
``(D) the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory;
``(E) the Oak Ridge National Laboratory; and
``(F) the Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory.
``(4) Coordination.--The director of the National
Energy Technology Laboratory shall serve as coordinator
of the group of the directors of the national
laboratories specified in paragraph (3).
``SEC. 1623. NATIONAL OFFICE OF CLIMATE CHANGE RESPONSE OF THE
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT.
``(a) Establishment.--
``(1) In general.--There is established, within the
Executive Office of the President, the National Office
of Climate Change Response.
``(2) Focus.--The White House Office shall have the
focus of achieving the long-term goal of stabilization
of greenhouse gas concentrations while minimizing
adverse short-term and long-term economic and social
impacts.
``(3) Duties.--Consistent with paragraph (2), the
White House Office shall--
``(A) establish policies, objectives, and
priorities for the Strategy;
``(B) in accordance with subsection (d),
establish the Interagency Task Force to serve
as the primary mechanism through which the
heads of Federal agencies shall assist the
Director of the White House Office in
developing and implementing the Strategy;
``(C) to the maximum extent practicable,
ensure that the Strategy is based on objective,
quantitative analysis, drawing on the
analytical capabilities of Federal and State
agencies, especially the Center;
``(D) advise the President concerning
necessary changes in organization, management,
budgeting, and personnel allocation of Federal
agencies involved in climate change response
activities; and
``(E) notify a Federal agency if the policies
and discretionary programs of the agency are
not well aligned with, or are not contributing
effectively to, the long-term goal of
stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations.
``(b) Director of the White House Office.--
``(1) In general.--The White House Office shall be
headed by a Director, who shall report directly to the
President.
``(2) Appointment.--The Director of the White House
Office shall be a qualified individual appointed by the
President, by and with the advice and consent of the
Senate.
``(3) Term; vacancies.--
``(A) ``Term.--The Director of the White
House Office shall be appointed for a term of 4
years.
``(B) Vacancies.--A vacancy in the position
of Director of the White House Office shall be
filled in the same manner as the original
appointment was made.
``(4) Duties of the director of the white house
office.--
``(A) Strategy.--In accordance with section
1622, the Director of the White House Office
shall coordinate the development and updating
of the Strategy.
``(B) Interagency task force.--The Director
of the White House Office shall serve as
Chairperson of the Interagency Task Force.
``(C) Advisory duties.--
`` (i) Climate, energy,
transportation, industrial,
agricultural, building, forestry, and
other programs.--The Director of the
White House Office, using an integrated
perspective considering the totality of
actions in the United States, shall
advise the President and the heads of
Federal agencies on--
``(I) the extent to which
United States energy,
transportation, industrial,
agricultural, forestry,
building, and other relevant
programs are capable of
producing progress on the long-
term goal of stabilization of
greenhouse gas concentrations;
and
``(II) the extent to which
proposed or newly created
energy, transportation,
industrial, agricultural,
forestry, building, and other
relevant programs positively or
negatively affect the ability
of the United States to achieve
the long-term goal of
stabilization of greenhouse gas
concentrations.
``(ii) Tax, trade, and foreign
policies.--The Director of the White
House Office, using an integrated
perspective considering the totality of
actions in the United States, shall
advise the President and the heads of
Federal agencies on--
``(I) the extent to which the
United States tax policy, trade
policy, and foreign policy are
capable of producing progress
on the long-term goal of
stabilization of greenhouse gas
concentrations; and
``(II) the extent to which
proposed or newly created tax
policy, trade policy, and
foreign policy positively or
negatively affect the ability
of the United States to achieve
the long-term goal of
stabilization of greenhouse gas
concentrations.
``(iii) International treaties.--The
Secretary of State, acting in
conjunction with the Interagency Task
Force and using the analytical tools
available to the White House Office,
shall provide to the Director of the
White House Office an opinion that--
``(I) specifies the economic
and environmental costs and
benefits of any proposed
international treaties or
components of treaties that
have an influence on greenhouse
gas management; and
``(II) assesses the extent to
which the treaties advance the
long-term goal of stabilization
of greenhouse gas
concentrations, while
minimizing adverse short-term
and long-term economic and
social impacts and considering
other impacts.
``(iv) Consultation.--
``(I) With members of
interagency task force.--To the
extent practicable and
appropriate, the Director of
the White House Office shall
consult with all members of the
Interagency Task Force and
other interested parties before
providing advice to the
President.
``(II) With other interested
parties.--The Director of the
White House Office shall
establish a process for
obtaining the meaningful
participation of Federal,
State, tribal, and local
government agencies,
nongovernmental organizations,
academia, scientific bodies,
industry, the public, and other
interested parties in the
formulation of advice to be
provided to the President.
``(D) Public education, awareness, outreach,
and information-sharing.--The Director of the
White House Office, to the maximum extent
practicable, shall promote public awareness,
outreach, and information-sharing to further
the understanding of the full range of climate
change-related issues.
``(5) Annual reports.--The Director of the White
House Office, in consultation with the Interagency Task
Force and other interested parties, shall prepare an
annual report for submission by the President to
Congress that--
``(A) assesses progress in implementation of
the Strategy;
``(B) assesses progress, in the United States
and in foreign countries, toward the long-term
goal of stabilization of greenhouse gas
concentrations;
``(C) assesses progress toward meeting
climate change-related international
obligations;
``(D) makes recommendations for actions by
the Federal Government designed to close any
gap between progress-to-date and the measures
that are necessary to achieve the long-term
goal of stabilization of greenhouse gas
concentrations; and
``(E) addresses the totality of actions in
the United States that relate to the 4 key
elements.
(6) Analysis.--During development of the Strategy,
preparation of the annual reports submitted under
paragraph (5), and provision of advice to the President
and the heads of Federal agencies, the Director of the
White House Office shall place significant emphasis on
the use of objective, quantitative analysis, taking
into consideration any uncertainties associated with
the analysis.
``(c) Staff.--
``(1) In general.--The Director of the White House
Office shall employ a professional staff of not more
than 25 individuals to carry out the duties of the
White House Office.
``(2) Intergovernmental personnel and fellowships.--
The Director of the White House Office may use the
authority provided by the Intergovernmental Personnel
Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4701 et seq.) and subchapter VI
of chapter 33 of title 5, United States Code, and
fellowships, to obtain staff from academia, scientific
bodies, private industry, nongovernmental
organizations, other Department programs, other Federal
agencies, and national laboratories, for appointments
of a limited term.
``(d) Interagency Task Force.--
``(1) In general.--The Director of the White House
Office shall establish the United States Climate Change
Response Interagency Task Force.
``(2) Composition.--The Interagency Task Force shall be
composed of--
``(A) the Director of the White House Office,
who shall serve as Chairperson;
``(B) the Secretary of State;
``(C) the Secretary;
``(D) the Secretary of Commerce;
``(E) the Secretary of the Treasury;
``(F) the Secretary of Transportation;
``(G) the Secretary of Agriculture;
``(H) the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency;
``(I) the Administrator of the Agency for
International Development;
``(J) the United States Trade Representative;
``(K) the National Security Advisor;
``(L) the Director of the National Economic
Council;
``(M) the Chairman of the Council on
Environmental Quality;
``(N) the Director of the Office of Science
and Technology Policy;
``(O) the Chairperson of the Subcommittee on
Global Change Research (which performs the
functions of the Committee on Earth and
Environmental Sciences established by section
102 of the Global Change Research Act of 1990
(15 U.S.C. 2932)); and
``(P) the heads of such other Federal
agencies as the Chairperson determines should
be members of the Interagency Task Force.
``(3) Strategy.--
``(A) In general.--The Interagency Task Force
shall serve as the primary forum through which
the Federal agencies represented on the
Interagency Task Force jointly--
``(i) assist the Director of the
White House Office in developing and
updating the Strategy; and
``(ii) assist the Director of the
White House Office in preparing annual
reports under subsection (b)(5).
``(B) Required elements.--In carrying out
subparagraph (A), the Interagency Task Force
shall--
``(i) take into account the long-term
goal and other requirements of the
Strategy specified in section 1622(a);
``(ii) give full consideration to the
facts and opinions presented by the
members of the Interagency Task Force;
``(iii) consult with State, tribal,
and local government agencies,
nongovernmental organizations,
academia, scientific bodies, industry,
the public, and other interested
parties; and
``(iv) build consensus around a
Strategy that is based on strong
scientific, technical, and economic
analyses.
``(4) Working groups.--The Chairperson of the
Interagency Task Force may establish such topical
working groups as are necessary to carry out the duties
of the Interagency Task Force.
``(e) Provision of Support Staff.--In accordance with
procedures established by the Chairperson of the Interagency
Task Force, the Federal agencies represented on the Interagency
Task Force shall provide staff from the agencies to support
information, data collection, and analyses required by the
Interagency Task Force.
``(f) Hearings.--On request of the Chairperson, the
Interagency Task Force may hold such hearings, meet and act at
such times and places, take such testimony, and receive such
evidence as the Interagency Task Force considers to be
appropriate.
``SEC. 1624. TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION PROGRAM IMPLEMENTED THROUGH THE
OFFICE OF CLIMATE CHANGE TECHNOLOGY OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AND THE CENTER FOR STRATEGIC
CLIMATE CHANGE RESPONSE.
``(a) Establishment of Office of Climate Change Technology
of the Department of Energy.--
``(1) In general.--There is established, within the
Department, the Office of Climate Change Technology.
``(2) Duties.--The Department Office shall--
``(A) manage an energy technology research
and development program that directly supports
the Strategy by--
``(i) focusing on high-risk, bold,
breakthrough technologies that--
``(I) are critical to the
long-term stabilization of
greenhouse gas concentrations;
``(II) are not significantly
addressed by other Federal
programs; and
``(III) move technology
substantially beyond the state
of usual innovation;
``(ii) forging fundamentally new
research and development partnerships
among various Departments, other
Federal, and State programs,
particularly between basic science and
energy technology programs, in cases in
which such partnerships have
significant potential to affect the
ability of the United States to achieve
stabilization of greenhouse gas
concentrations at the lowest possible
cost;
``(iii) forging international
research and development partnerships
that are in the interests of the United
States and make progress on
stabilization of greenhouse gas
concentrations;
``(iv) making available, through
monitoring, experimentation, and
analysis, data that are essential to
proving the technical and economic
viability of technology central to
addressing climate change; and
``(v) transitioning research and
development programs to other program
offices of the Department once such a
research and development program
crosses the threshold of high-risk
research and moves into the realm of
more conventional technology
development;
``(B) in accordance with subsection
(b)(5)(C), prepare a 10-year program plan for
the activities of the Department Office and
update the plan biennially;
``(C) prepare annual reports in accordance
with subsection (b)(6);
``(D) identify the total contribution of all
Department programs to climate change response;
``(E) provide substantial analytical support
to the White House Office, particularly support
in the development of the Strategy and
associated progress reporting; and
``(F) advise the Secretary on climate change-
related issues, including necessary changes in
Department organization, management, budgeting,
and personnel allocation in the programs
involved in climate change response-related
activities.
``(b) Director of the Department Office.--
``(1) In general.--The Department Office shall be
headed by a Director, who shall report directly to the
Secretary.
``(2) Appointment.--The Director of the Department
Office shall be an employee of the Federal Government
who is a qualified individual appointed by the
President.
``(3) Term.--The Director of the Department Office
shall be appointed for a term of 4 years.
``(4) Vacancies.--A vacancy in the position of the
Director of the Department Office shall be filled in
the same manner as the original appointment was made.
``(5) Duties of the director of the department
office.--
``(A) Strategy.--The Director of the
Department Office shall support development of
the Strategy through the provision of staff and
analytical support.
``(B) Interagency task force.--Through active
participation in the Interagency Task Force,
the Director of the Department Office shall--
``(i) based on the analytical
capabilities of the Department Office
and the Center, share analyses of
alternative climate change response
strategies with other members of the
Interagency Task Force to assist all
members in understanding--
``(I) the scale of the
climate change response
challenge; and
``(II) how the actions of the
Federal agencies of the members
positively or negatively
contribute to climate change
solutions; and
``(ii) determine how the energy
technology research and development
program described in subsection
(a)(2)(A) can be designed for maximum
impact on the long-term goal of
stabilization of greenhouse gas
concentrations.
``(C) 10-year program plan.--
``(i) In general.--Not later than 1
year after the date of enactment of
this subtitle, the Director of the
Department Office shall prepare a 10-
year program plan.
``(ii) Required elements.--The plan
shall--
``(I) consider all elements
of the Strategy that relate to
technology research and
development;
``(II) become an integral
component of the Strategy;
``(III) focus the activities
of the Department Office on
gaps identified by the
Strategy;
``(IV) emphasize the funding
of activities that meet the
goals described in clauses (i)
through (iv) of subsection
(a)(2)(A);
``(V) identify creative and
innovative approaches for
building partnerships and
managing research and
development that have the
potential to result in
significant advances of
technologies and other
innovative actions; and
``(VI) place a high level of
emphasis on bold, breakthrough
research and development
programs that can--
``(aa) be created
with the involvement of
1 or more Federal
research and
development programs;
and
``(bb) upon reaching
a sufficient level of
technological maturity,
be transitioned to
other program offices
of the Department
without loss of the
creative management
approaches and
partnerships of the
innovative research and
development programs.
``(iii) Submission of plan.--The
Secretary shall submit the 10-year
program plan to Congress and the
Director of the White House Office.
``(iv) Updating.--
``(I) In general.--The
Director of the Department
Office shall update the 10-year
program plan biennially.
``(II) Submission.--The
Secretary shall submit each
updated 10-year program plan to
Congress and the Director of
the White House Office.
``(D) Center.--
``(i) Operating model.--The Director
of the Department Office shall
establish an operating model for the
Center.
``(ii) Delegation of department
office functions.--The Director of the
Department Office may choose to
delegate selected program management
and research and development functions
of the Department Office to the Center.
``(iii) Focus.--
``(I) In general.--Funds for
the Center should be used to
build a Center with focused
capability that has a limited
number of focused offsite
locations.
``(II) Involvement of
organizations.--Notwithstanding
subclause (I), the Director of
the Department Office
may involve any number of
organizations in the operation
of the Center.
``(iv) Tools, data, and
capabilities.--The Director of the
Department Office shall foster the
development of tools, data, and
capabilities at the Center to ensure
that--
``(I) the United States has a
robust capability for
evaluating alternative climate
change response scenarios; and
``(II) the Center provides
long-term analytical continuity
during the terms of service of
successive Presidents.
``(E) Advisory duties.--The Director of the
Department Office shall advise the Secretary on
all aspects of climate change response.
``(6) Annual reports.--The Director of the Department
Office shall prepare an annual report for submission by
the Secretary to Congress and the White House Office
that--
``(A) assesses progress toward meeting the
goals of the energy technology research and
development program described in subsection
(a)(2)(A);
``(B) assesses the activities of the Center;
``(C) assesses the contributions of all
energy technology research and development
programs of the Department (including science
programs) to the long-term goal and other
requirements of the Strategy specified in
section 1622(a); and
``(D) makes recommendations for actions by
the Department and other Federal agencies to
address the components of technology
development that are necessary to support the
Strategy.
``(7) Analysis.--During development of the Strategy,
the 10-year program plan submitted under paragraph
(5)(C), annual reports submitted under paragraph (6),
and advice to the Secretary, the Director of the
Department Office shall place significant emphasis on
the use of objective, quantitative analysis, taking
into consideration any associated uncertainties.
``(c) Staff.--The Director of the Department Office shall
employ a professional staff of not more than 25 individuals to
carry out the duties of the Department Office.
``(d) Intergovernmental Personnel and Fellowships.--The
Department Office may use the authority provided by the
Intergovernmental Personnel Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4701 et
seq.) and subchapter VI of chapter 33 of title 5, United States
Code, and fellowships, to obtain staff from academia,
scientific bodies, private industry, nongovernmental
organizations, other Department programs, other Federal
agencies, and national laboratories, for appointments of a
limited term.
``(e) Center for Strategic Climate Change Response.--
``(1) In general.--
``(A) Establishment.--There is established
the Center for Strategic Climate Change
Response, which shall report to the Director of
the Department Office.
``(B) Locations.--The Center shall maintain 1
headquarters location and such additional
temporary or permanent locations as are
necessary to carry out the duties of the
Center.
``(C) Center director.--The Center shall be
headed by a Director, who shall be selected by
the Director of the Department Office.
``(2) Duties.--
``(A) In general.--
``(i) Goal.--The Center shall foster
the development and application of
advanced computational tools, data, and
capabilities that support integrated
assessment of alternative climate
change response scenarios and
implementation of the Strategy.
``(ii) Participation and support.--
The Center may include participation
of, and be supported by, each other
Federal agency that has a direct or
indirect role in the development,
commercialization, or transfer of
energy, transportation, industrial,
agricultural, forestry, or other
climate change-related technology.
``(B) Programs.--
``(i) In general.--The Center shall--
``(I) develop and maintain
core analytical competencies
and complex, integrated
computational modeling
capabilities that are necessary
to support the design and
implementation of the Strategy;
``(II) track United States
and international progress
toward the long-term goal of
stabilization of greenhouse gas
concentrations; and
``(III) in support of the Department
Office, support the management and
implementation of research and
development programs.
``(ii) International carbon dioxide
sequestration monitoring and data
program.--In consultation with Federal,
State, academic, scientific, private
sector, nongovernmental, tribal, and
international carbon capture and
sequestration technology programs, the
Center shall design and carry out an
international carbon dioxide
sequestration monitoring and data
program to collect, analyze, and make
available the technical and economic
data to ascertain--
``(I) whether engineered
sequestration and terrestrial
sequestration will be
acceptable technologies from
regulatory, economic, and
international perspectives;
``(II) whether carbon dioxide
sequestered in geological
formations or ocean systems is
stable and has inconsequential
leakage rates on a geologic
time-scale; and
``(III) the extent to which
forest, agricultural, and other
terrestrial systems are
suitable carbon sinks.
``(C) Areas of expertise.--
``(i) In general.--The Center shall
develop and maintain expertise in
integrated assessment, modeling, and
related capabilities necessary--
``(I) to understand the
relationship between natural,
agricultural, industrial,
energy, and economic systems;
``(II) to design effective
research and development
programs; and
``(III) to develop and
implement the Strategy.
``(ii) Technology transfer and
diffusion.--The expertise described in
clause (i) shall include knowledge of
technology transfer and technology
diffusion in United States markets and
foreign markets.
``(D) Dissemination of information.--The
Center shall ensure, to the maximum extent
practicable, that technical and scientific
knowledge relating to greenhouse gas emission
reduction, avoidance, and sequestration is
broadly disseminated through publications,
fellowships, and training programs.
``(E) Assessments.--In a manner consistent
with the Strategy, the Center shall conduct
assessments of deployment of climate-friendly
technology.
``(F) Use of private sector funding.--
``(i) In general.--The Center shall
create an operating model that allows
for collaboration, division of effort,
and cost sharing with industry on
individual climate change response
projects.
``(ii) Requirements.--Although cost
sharing in some cases may be
appropriate, the Center shall focus on
long-term high-risk research and
development and should not make
industrial partnerships or cost sharing
a requirement, if such a requirement
would bias the activities of the Center
toward incremental innovations.
``(iii) Reevaluation on transition.--
At such time as any bold, breakthrough
research and development program
reaches a sufficient level of
technological maturity such that the
program is transitioned to a program
office of the Department other than the
Department Office, the cost-sharing
requirements and criteria applicable to
the program should be reevaluated.
``(iv) Publication in federal
register.--Each cost-sharing agreement
entered into under this subparagraph
shall be published in the Federal
Register.
``(G) Intergovernmental personnel and
fellowships.--The Director of the Center may
use the authority provided by the
Intergovernmental Personnel Act of 1970 (42
U.S.C. 4701 et seq.) and subchapter VI of
chapter 33 of title 5, United States Code, and
fellowships, to obtain staff from academia,
scientific bodies, private industry,
nongovernmental organizations, other Department
programs, other Federal agencies, and national
laboratories, for appointments of a limited
term.
``SEC. 1625. ADDITIONAL OFFICES AND ACTIVITIES.
``The Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of
Transportation, the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency, and the heads of other Federal agencies may
establish such offices and carry out such activities, in
addition to those established or authorized by this subtitle,
as are necessary to carry out this subtitle.
``SEC. 1626. UNITED STATES CLIMATE CHANGE RESPONSE STRATEGY REVIEW
BOARD.
``(a) Establishment.--There is established as an
independent establishment within the executive branch the
United States Climate Change Response Strategy Review Board.
``(b) Membership.--
``(1) Composition.--The Review Board shall consist of
11 members who shall be appointed, not later than 90
days after the date of enactment of this subtitle, by
the President by and with the advice and consent of the
Senate, from among qualified individuals nominated by
the National Academy of Sciences in accordance with
paragraph (2).
``(2) Nominations.-- Not later than 60 days after the
date of enactment of this subtitle, after taking into
strong consideration the guidance and recommendations
of a broad range of scientific and technical societies
that have the capability of recommending qualified
individuals, the National Academy of Sciences shall
nominate for appointment to the Review Board not fewer
than 22 individuals who--
``(A) are--
``(i) qualified individuals; or
``(ii) experts in a field of
knowledge specified in section
1621(9)(B); and
``(B) as a group represent broad, balanced
expertise.
``(3) Prohibition on federal government employment.--
A member of the Review Board shall not be an employee
of the Federal Government.
``(4) Terms; Vacancies.--
``(A) Terms.--
``(i) In general.--Subject to clause
(ii), each member of the Review Board
shall be appointed for a term of 4
years.
``(ii) Initial Terms.--
``(I) Commencement date.--The
term of each member initially
appointed to the Review Board
shall commence 120 days after
the date of enactment of this
subtitle.
``(II) Termination date.--Of
the 11 members initially
appointed to the Review Board,
5 members shall be appointed
for a term of 2 years and 6
members shall be appointed for
a term of 4 years, to be
designated by the President at
the time of appointment.
``(B) Vacancies.--
``(i) In general.--A vacancy on the
Review Board shall be filled in the
manner described in this subparagraph.
``(ii) Nominations by the national
academy of sciences.--Not later than 60
days after the date on which a vacancy
commences, the National Academy of
Sciences shall--
``(I) after taking into
strong consideration the
guidance and recommendations of
a broad range of scientific and
technical societies that have
the capability of recommending
qualified individuals,
nominate, from among qualified
individuals, not fewer than 2
individuals to fill the
vacancy; and
``(II) submit the names of
the nominees to the President.
``(iii) Selection.--Not later than 30
days after the date on which the
nominations under clause (ii) are
submitted to the President, the
President shall select from among the
nominees an individual to fill the
vacancy.
``(iv) Senate confirmation.--An
individual appointed to fill a vacancy
on the Review Board shall be appointed
by and with the advice and consent of
the Senate.
``(5) Disclosure of potential conflicts of
interest.--
``(A) Employment of nominess.--If a nominee
to the Review Board is employed by an entity
that receives any funding from the Department
or any other Federal agency, the fact of the
employment shall be--
``(i) disclosed to the President by
the National Academy of Sciences at the
time of the nomination; and
``(ii) publicly disclosed by the
nominee as part of the Senate
confirmation process of the nominee.
``(B) Employment of members.--If, during the
period of service of a member on the Review
Board, the member is employed by an entity that
receives any funding from the Department or any
other Federal agency, the fact of the
employment shall be publicly disclosed by the
Chairperson of the Review Board on a semiannual
basis.
``(C) Financial benefit to members.--If,
during the period of service of a member on the
Review Board, the Review Board makes any
written recommendation that may financially
benefit a member or an entity that employs the
member, the fact of that financial benefit
shall be publicly disclosed by the Chairperson
of the Review Board at the time of the recommendation.
``(D) Applicability of ethics in government
act of 1978.--A member of the Review Board
shall be deemed to be an individual subject to
the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C.
App.).
``(6) Chairperson; vice chairperson.--The members of
the Review Board shall select a Chairperson and a Vice
Chairperson of the Review Board from among the members
of the Review Board.
``(c) Duties.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the
date of submission of the initial Strategy under
section 1622(b), each updated version of the Strategy
under section 1622(c), each progress report under
section 1622(d), and each national laboratory
certification under section 1622(f), the Review Board
shall submit to the President, Congress, and the heads
of Federal agencies as appropriate a report assessing
the adequacy of the Strategy, report, or certification.
``(2) Comments.--In reviewing the Strategy, or a
report or certification, under paragraph (1), the
Review Board shall consider and comment on--
``(A) the adequacy of effort and the
appropriateness of focus of the totality of all
public, private, and public-private sector
actions of the United States with respect to
the 4 key elements;
``(B) the extent to which actions of the
United States, with respect to climate change,
complement or leverage international research
and other efforts designed to manage global
emissions of greenhouse gases, to further the
long-term goal of stabilization of greenhouse
gas concentrations;
``(C) the funding implications of any
recommendations made by the Review Board; and
``(D)(i) the effectiveness with which each
Federal agency is carrying out the
responsibilities of the Federal agency with
respect to the short-term and long- term
greenhouse gas management goals; and
``(ii) the adequacy of the budget of each
such Federal agency to carry out those
responsibilities.
``(3) Additional recommendations.--
``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph
(B), the Review Board, at the request of the
President or Congress, may provide
recommendations on additional climate change-
related topics.
``(B) Secondary duty.--The provision of
recommendations under subparagraph (A) shall be
a secondary duty to the primary duty of the
Review Board of providing independent review of
the Strategy and the reports and certifications
under paragraphs (1) and (2).
``(d) Powers.--
``(1) Hearings.--
``(A) In general.--On request of the
Chairperson or a majority of the members of the
Review Board, the Review Board may hold such
hearings, meet and act at such times and
places, take such testimony, and receive such
evidence as the Review Board considers to be
appropriate.
``(B) Administration of oaths.--Any member of
the Review Board may administer an oath or
affirmation to any witness that appears before
the Review Board.
``(2) Production of documents.--
``(A) In general.--On request of the
Chairperson or a majority of the members of the
Review Board, and subject to applicable law,
the Secretary or head of a Federal agency
represented on the Interagency Task Force, or a
contractor of such an agency, shall provide the
Review Board with such records, files, papers,
data, and information as are necessary to
respond to any inquiry of the Review Board
under this subtitle.
``(B) Inclusion of work in progress.--Subject
to applicable law, information obtainable under
subparagraph (A)--
``(i) shall not be limited to final
work products; but
``(ii) shall include draft work
products and documentation of work in
progress.
``(3) Postal services.--The Review Board may use the
United States mails in the same manner and under the
same conditions as other agencies of the Federal
Government.
``(e) Compensation of Members.--A member of the Review
Board shall be compensated at a rate equal to the daily
equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay prescribed for level
IV of the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of title 5,
United States Code, for each day (including travel time) during
which the member is engaged in the performance of the duties of
the Review Board.
``(f) Travel Expenses.-- A member of the Review Board shall
be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of
subsistence, at rates authorized for an employee of an
agencyunder subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States Code,
while away from the home or regular place of business of the member in
the performance of the duties of the Review Board.
``(g) Staff.--
``(1) In general.--The Chairperson of the Review
Board may, without regard to the civil service laws
(including regulations), appoint and terminate an
executive director and such other additional personnel
as are necessary to enable the Review Board to perform
the duties of the Review Board.
``(2) Confirmation of executive director.--The
employment of an executive director shall be subject to
confirmation by the Review Board.
``(3) Compensation.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in
subparagraph (B), the Chairperson of the Review
Board may fix the compensation of the executive
director and other personnel without regard to
the provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter III
of chapter 53 of title 5, United States Code,
relating to classification of positions and
General Schedule pay rates.
``(B) Maximum rate of pay.--The rate of pay
for the executive director and other personnel
shall not exceed the rate payable for level V
of the Executive Schedule under section 5316 of
title 5, United States Code.
``(h) Procurement of Temporary and Intermittent Services.--
The Chairperson of the Review Board may procure temporary and
intermittent services in accordance with section 3109(b) of
title 5, United States Code, at rates for individuals that do
not exceed the daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay
prescribed for level V of the Executive Schedule under section
5316 of that title.
``SEC. 1627. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
``(a) White House Office.--
``(1) Use of available appropriations.--From funds
made available to Federal agencies for the fiscal year
in which this subtitle is enacted, the President shall
provide such sums as are necessary to carry out the
duties of the White House Office under this subtitle
until the date on which funds are made available under
paragraph (2).
``(2) Authorization of appropriations.--There is
authorized to be appropriated to the White House Office
to carry out the duties of the White House Office under
this subtitle $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2002
through 2011, to remain available through September 30,
2011.
``(b) Department Office.--
``(1) Use of available appropriations.--From funds
made available to Federal agencies for the fiscal year
in which this subtitle is enacted, the President shall
provide such sums as are necessary to carry out the
duties of the Department Office under this subtitle
until the date on which funds are made available under
paragraph (2).
``(2) Authorization of appropriations.--There is
authorized to be appropriated to the Department Office
to carry out the duties of the Department Office under
this subtitle $4,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal
years 2002 through 2011, to remain available through
September 30, 2011.
``(c) Center.--
``(1) Use of available appropriations.--From funds
made available to Federal agencies for the fiscal year
in which this subtitle is enacted, the President shall
provide such sums as are necessary to carry out the
duties of the Center under this subtitle until the date
on which funds are made available under paragraph (2).
``(2) Authorization of appropriations.--There is
authorized to be appropriated to the Center to carry
out the duties of the Center under this subtitle
$75,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2002 through 2011,
to remain available through September 30, 2011.
``(d) Review of Board.--
``(1) Use of available appropriations.--From funds
made available to Federal agencies for the fiscal year
in which this subtitle is enacted, the President shall
provide such sums as are necessary to carry out the
duties of the Review Board under this subtitle until
the date on which funds are made available under
paragraph (2).
``(2) Authorization of appropriations.--There is
authorized to be appropriated to the Review Board to
carry out the duties of the Review Board under this
subtitle $3,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2002
through 2011, to remain available until expended.
``(e) Additional Amounts.--Amounts authorized to be
appropriated under this section shall be in addition to--
``(1) amounts made available to carry out the United
States Global Change Research Program under the Global
Change Research Act of 1990 (15 U.S.C. 2921 et seq.);
and
``(2) amounts made available under other provisions
of law for energy research and development.'.
Sec. 13382. Least-cost energy strategy
* * * * * * *