Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I join in welcoming our witnesses and thank them for the time they will spend with us today.

Regardless of what we think the causes of global warming may be, we need to consider how any man-made contributions to that trend might best be addressed.

Some argue that it is time for the US to agree to cut its emissions under an international agreement.

Some would support a central planning approach, involving orders to industries to make specific, quantifiable cuts in emissions, perhaps regardless of the impacts on the economy.

Others would support the use of some sort of market mechanism in that central planning system – to place a cost on the emissions of such gases, that would provide an incentive to industries to cut them.

Still others, would place an outright tax on those emissions, to ensure that the cost involved, provides a direct incentive to cut them, and then leave it to industry, to make the cuts in emissions necessary.

Other proposals point to what proponents see as current and likely future failings, in the present international efforts to cut emissions, which the US is not yet a part of.

Still others believe, that the rapid development of new technologies, is the best way to go, and warn that an international approach, has to take into account the behavior and interests of individual countries.

Essentially, they argue, governments will not fulfill commitments that tend to hurt their economies and reduce job opportunities.
 
Controls – or “caps” – on each country’s emissions of gases that may cause warming of the climate, appear to be the approach that many in the environmental community favor.

Some experts reviewing that approach, raise concerns about merely ordering cuts in emissions, without consideration of the economic impact they might have, including on job creation.

For example: it appears that the extent to which the states of the European Union have been able to “cap” their emissions so far, has been determined by their ability to tap into the unused emissions quotas, that the states of the former Soviet Union have available – available only because those states’ emissions fell significantly in the years following the break-up of the Soviet Union and the economic decline that followed.

We are already seeing some instances in which factories in Europe that are trying to cut their emissions, are in jeopardy of going out of business, or cutting their work force, or its hours on the job.

Other experts have been focusing on new technologies as the  “silver bullet” solution to global warming.

We should be encouraging further research and development into relevant technologies, whether they relate to wind, solar, nuclear or fossil fuel power generation.

With regard to new technologies, I am interested in hearing the view of our panelists concerning the most recent research into “carbon capture” technology, and whether it as promising as it sounds.
 
Finally, it is doubtful that we can achieve anything in this endeavor, if we do not have the cooperation of countries that have fast-growing economies, such as China and India.

These are rapidly becoming the leading sources of emissions of so-called “greenhouse gases.”

And here I would like to raise the view that many have – a general caution about where international agreements can lead us.

As I have noted, some have raised the need to turn to the creation of international agreements for a solution.

However, as we have seen across a number of sectors, including, most recently, on issues relating to proliferation and to human rights, seeking consensus through such international agreements, can often translate into a “race to the bottom” or “lowest common denominator” outcomes.

Such agreements, will also always raise concerns about possible surrendering of U.S. sovereignty, to international mechanisms that can easily be manipulated to serve an anti-U.S. and anti-developed world agenda.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, you have proposed legislation on the issue of climate change, the text of which we received only late last Friday.

Today’s hearing is the only hearing this Committee has held on the issue.

We understand from your staff that you wish to mark-up that legislation in the Committee next week.

I have asked for additional Full Committee and Subcommittee hearings to be held on the subject matter, before scheduling the legislation for mark-up, in order to afford Members an opportunity for careful review.

Some of the items you propose in this bill are:

• A statement of congressional policy that the United States will work on emissions cuts for itself and other countries under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Control -- the convention to which the Kyoto Protocol is now attached;
  
• The creation of a State Department Office on Global Climate Change;
  
• The authorization of $1 billion over five years for assistance through AID to promote clean and efficient energy technologies in other countries; and
  
• The creation of an “International Clean Energy Foundation” that will be supported with $100 million in US Government funds over five years.

We ask our distinguished panelists to address some of these proposals and, again, hope that we will have further opportunities for review, before we enter into the consideration of this or other related bills.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.