[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 19]
[Senate]
[Page 26774]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



 THE CLIMATE CHANGE ENERGY POLICY RESPONSE ACT AND THE CLIMATE CHANGE 
                         TAX AMENDMENTS OF 1999

  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, the Climate Change Energy Policy Response 
Act would bring the debate on global warming and climate change out of 
the arena of mass speculation and back to the refuge of sound, 
practical science. This legislation I am cosponsoring with my colleague 
from Idaho, Senator Larry Craig, would not only move our Nation toward 
a healthier environment by requiring Federal agencies to establish 
clear goals for addressing climate change concerns, but it also seeks 
to protect rural economies that are currently threatened by policies 
based on scare tactics developed by professional global warming special 
interest activists and the politicians that cater to their agenda.
  One thing that should be pointed out is that for many of the people 
who attend global warming conferences and who circulate global warming 
propaganda, global warming is an occupation. This is how they make 
their living. I make my living by ensuring the people of Wyoming and 
the United States get a fair deal. Committing our Nation's valuable 
resources and our children's futures to policies that unduly burden our 
communities is, to me, not only unfair, it's unconscionable.
  This bill would direct the Secretary of Energy to coordinate and 
establish Federal policy for activities involving climate change. It 
would require increased peer review of the science used to create that 
policy and it establishes important objectives for the science such as 
understanding the Earth's capacity to assimilate natural and manmade 
greenhouse gas emissions and to evaluate natural phenomena such as El 
Nino.
  I also am cosponsoring companion legislation that would put the power 
of addressing global warming issues into the hands of those most 
affected by climate change initiatives. It does this by amending the 
Internal Revenue Service Code to provide incentives for voluntary 
reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and for the development of global 
climate science and technology. This would permanently extend a tax 
credit for research and development involving climate change. It also 
would apply tax credits for greenhouse gas emission reduction 
facilities. This rewards industry for investing in cleaner technology 
without punishing it for thinking beyond short-term profits.
  Our entrepreneurs, small businesses and the employers and employees 
of large companies have the ability to protect and preserve the 
environment without sacrificing the global economy. The goals of 
environmental health and economic stability are not mutually exclusive. 
For example, voluntary, incentive-based programs, in combination with 
private efforts, have been largely responsible for the success of 
wetlands restoration. We made developing and preserving wetlands an 
asset instead of a burden and as a result we have more wetlands now 
than before we enacted the incentive-based programs. Resorting to 
Federal regulations, on the other hand, has produced hostility and 
confusion on the part of private citizens. Why? Federal regulations are 
typically cost prohibitive and are promulgated with a single-minded 
purpose that sacrifices America's ability to respond to future 
challenges via proactive incentives.
  It is my hope that proponents of government-knows-best policy and 
special interest mandates will set aside their rhetoric and walk with 
us on the practical path of real, reasonable environmental progress.

                          ____________________