[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 159 (Friday, October 19, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13138-S13139]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE LEGISLATION

  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, yesterday, Senator Lieberman and 
Senator Warner released language for a legislative approach to address 
global climate change. The committee also has announced a subcommittee 
hearing on this legislation for October 24. I understand that the 
subcommittee intends to mark up this legislation on October 31 and move 
it to the full committee soon thereafter.
  I acknowledge the commitment Mr. Lieberman and Mr. Warner, both of 
whom I hold in the highest regard, have shown to this issue. However, I 
am concerned about the aggressive committee agenda for the 
consideration and markup of this legislation. I would hope that the 
legislation would proceed under regular order--which for complex 
environmental legislation establishing new emission control regimes 
typically includes multiple hearings on the legislative language and 
ample time for Members to review legislative language.
  For example, when the committee was considering multipollutant 
emission reduction legislation under the Clear Skies Act, the committee 
held three legislative hearings over a period of 2 months before 
proceeding to a markup. That process allowed the committee to hear from 
the Environmental Protection Agency, State and local officials, union 
representatives, public interest groups, various trade associations, 
and representatives from financial institutions. This approach provided 
Members with the input and time necessary for meaningful participation 
in the committee markup process.
  The Subcommittee on Environmental Protection followed a similar 
process during consideration of the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air 
Act. From September 1989 to the final markup in December 1989, the 
subcommittee held three legislative hearings, which provided Members 
with the valuable opportunity to question a wide variety of witnesses 
on the implications of specific provisions in the legislation.
  I also note that, on environmental legislation of significant 
importance, the committee has a history of expending the time and 
consideration necessary to achieve broad, bipartisan support before 
reporting legislation out of committee. In the past, this has ensured 
that, when moving from full committee to the Senate floor, the 
legislation has matured sufficiently for consideration by the full 
Senate body. I believe this front-end work on consensus is even more 
important given the current demands on floor time and the underlying 
legislative atmosphere in general.
  But this process is also important because we cannot afford to get 
this wrong. I believe that rushing legislation through committee will 
not affect a reasonable solution to the problem. We must find a way to 
harmonize policies that address our Nation's energy, economic, and 
environmental needs. And the only way we can do this is by taking a 
detailed look at what has been proposed.
  Unfortunately, what we have had in this Nation for many years is a 
``tail wagging the dog environmental policy'' that is hurting our 
Nation's international competitiveness. Here is an example that we are 
all familiar with: Coal-fired power plants have become increasingly 
clean, yet they face a daunting number of new air quality requirements. 
These requirements are duplicative, inefficient, and create 
considerable uncertainty for an industry that is providing the nation 
with one of its most critical resources: safe, economic, and reliable 
power generation.
  These policies have resulted in a sharp increase in the use of 
natural gas for electric power generation--accounting for almost 94 
percent of the increase in domestic demand for natural gas since 1992. 
The demand for natural gas is sending ripple effects throughout the 
economy because of its use as both a fuel and a feedstock for the 
production of everything from fertilizer to plastics to heating homes. 
This has contributed to loss of over 200,000 manufacturing jobs in Ohio 
alone. And these sharp price increases continue to impair the 
competitive position of U.S. manufacturing companies in domestic and 
world markets.
  That our Nation's environmental policies have this type of effect on 
our economy is not a new revelation. But one thing has become clear--
there is a faction of groups that have made it their priority to kill 
coal. Those that support this objective have illustrated to me that 
this dialogue is being driven by ideological extremes. This is 
unfortunate and does nothing to foster an environment where rational 
policy choices may be made about the serious issue we face.
  I recognize that we need to address climate change. But any 
reasonable climate change policy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 
would also: Promote economic stability--reductions should not cause 
fuel switching, sharp electricity rate increases or economic 
dislocation; promote technology development--legislation must provide 
incentives to advance the pace of technology; provide for reductions 
from developing countries--we cannot send jobs overseas to countries 
that don't share our environmental objectives.
  These goals are to keep the Nation's economy, and that of Ohio, on a 
sure footing while decreasing emissions. Coal is the Nation's most 
abundant, cheap and accessible energy resource. Its strategic value 
from a national security and economic perspective should not be 
underestimated. It is simply nonsensical to put a policy in place that 
would jeopardize this resource. Climate change requires a long term 
solution whose strategy is fully capable of accommodating the time 
necessary to get the technology in place that will ensure coal's 
continued viability.
  An analysis released this summer of the Lieberman-McCain climate 
change bill--a predecessor to this legislation--which capped greenhouse 
gas emissions at 60 percent below 1990 emissions levels by 2050--is 
illustrative of my concerns. It concluded: Reductions in real GDP over 
the lifetime of the bill could be in the order of several trillion 
dollars. The analysis predicted that in 2050 average household annual 
consumption would be about $1,900 lower; gasoline prices would increase 
approximately $0.70 per gallon; and electricity prices are projected to 
be about 25 percent higher. But EPA points out that the impacts may be 
underestimated. This is because the analysis assumes: One, that carbon 
capture and storage technologies are widely available at a reasonable 
cost; and two, a 150-percent increase in nuclear power generation will 
occur. These assumptions are absurd.
  Needless to say, this legislation would cause drastic reductions in 
the use of coal. Some activists would applaud this, but it could result 
in the elimination of over 50,000 coal industry jobs. Not exactly a 
recipe for economic recovery.
  If enacting these restrictions would save the world from 
environmental collapse, as many would have us believe, it might be 
worth the economic pain. But the proposals, as demonstrated in a more 
recent EPA analysis requested by Senators Bingaman and Specter, will 
have little or no effect on global temperatures. In fact, this study 
concluded that even the most stringent of the policy proposals under 
consideration would have a net effect on global atmospheric 
concentrations of CO2 of a mere 25 parts per million.
  The point of all this is that we need to take the time to fully 
understand the costs and benefits of the policies that are being 
advanced to address the problem of climate change. Yes this is a 
problem that we need to address, but

[[Page S13139]]

recklessly moving forward may result in disastrous economic 
repercussions, with little or no benefit to the environment.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oklahoma is 
recognized.

                          ____________________