|
Opening Statement of Congressman Rick Boucher
Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee Hearing
Climate Change: Competitiveness Concerns and Prospects
for Engaging Developing Countries
March 5, 2008
The subcommittee will come to order.
In
preparation for the drafting in the coming months of a mandatory control
program for greenhouse gases, Chairman Dingell and I have been posting on the
Committee's website a series of position papers addressing in detail the
essential elements of a cap and trade control program.
Our purpose
in exploring these issues in depth is to stimulate discussion and responses
from interested parties as a key step in a consensus building process. Our goal
is to develop legislation which enjoys bi-partisan support, industry support
and support from environmental advocates.
The only
legislation which can pass the Congress and be signed into law will be a
measure that enjoys such a broad consensus.
And in
determining to construct a consensus supported measure, we are following this
committee's time honored and successful tradition of drafting and passing clean
air legislation. The three major clean air enactments passed in 1970, 1977 and
1990, originated in this committee, were bipartisan, supported by industry and
environmental advocates and passed both Houses of Congress with large,
bi-partisan majorities. Two of those measures were signed by Republican
presidents and the other by a Democratic president.
In view of
the reality that an economy wide cap and trade program will be far more complex
than any of the three preceding clean air enactments and have more significant
implications for the economy, there is an even greater need to take our time,
build consensus and ensure that our measure will not cause economic disruption.
That said,
it is our goal to move a cap and trade measure through the subcommittee and
full committee this year in time for the bill to pass the House, be conferenced
with the Senate and be presented to the President before the end of this
congressional session.
The discussions which our position
papers are stimulating will help to build that essential consensus.
Before we
turn our attention to bill drafting, we will release additional position
papers, and the subcommittee will conduct additional hearings focusing on the
alternatives before us for addressing key elements of our cap and trade
program.
This
morning's hearing focuses on the competitiveness of American industry following
the adoption of a U.S.
greenhouse gas control program. It explores ways that our legislation imposing
controls can ensure maximum participation from developing countries in a global
effort to address climate change.
In my view
the inclusion of a provision in our legislation which ensures developing
country participation is essential. We are all mindful of the 98 to 0 advisory
vote of the U.S. Senate announcing opposition to the Kyoto Treaty largely due
to the lack of any imposition of responsibility in that document on developing
countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The legislation we put forward
will safeguard the competitiveness of American industry exposed to trade by
ensuring a level playing field for our industry with industry in developing
countries.
Three
leading proposals have been made to achieve these goals, each of which was
examined in our position paper, and I want to thank AEP and the IBEW, the steel
industry, Environmental Defense and others for their thoughtful suggestions.
As we
examine these alternative approaches in today's hearing, we hope to focus on
these core questions:
Which
proposal is more likely to lead developing country emission reductions?
Which is
more likely to level the playing field and neutralize any competitive advantage
the legislation might unintentionally create for industry in developing
countries?
And which is
more likely to withstand scrutiny under trade treaties to which the U.S. is a
party?
I want to
thank our witnesses.
|