October 30, 2003
According to independent, non-partisan analyses, the Lieberman-McCain bill, which would require mandatory reductions of carbon dioxide, would eliminate jobs, dramatically increase electricity prices, and, as several Senators noted, impose significant burdens on the poor, the elderly, and minorities, all the while doing nothing for the environment.
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, who managed the opposition on the floor, and whose committee has jurisdiction over S. 139, released the following statement:
“A majority of the Senate today told the American people that mandatory carbon dioxide reductions are unacceptable, and rightly so: the science underlying this bill has been repudiated, the economic costs are far too high, and the environmental benefits are nonexistent.
“Facing significant opposition to the original bill, the sponsors of S. 139 diluted it as much as possible to get more votes, but a majority of the Senate still said no. As the bill’s sponsors have said repeatedly, they will resurrect this bill on the Senate floor, and even go beyond it, all the way to Kyoto. That confirms what I’ve argued all along: that this so-called ‘modest first step’ is cover for more drastic and more dangerous restrictions on energy use in the future. No doubt proponents of energy suppression measures will be back, but so will defenders of energy use and the jobs, economic benefits, and quality of life that it creates for this country.”