Climate Change

Floor Speech

CLIMATE CHANGE -- (Senate - June 03, 2008)

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I heard the distinguished majority leader criticize the Republicans for wanting to have a debate on this piece of legislation. Frankly, I think we would be remiss in our duties if we didn't discuss this important piece of legislation, as complex and difficult a topic as it is and, frankly, ask questions that I know our constituents would ask of us were we to vote for or against this particular legislation.

I, for one, make no apologies for doing what I consider to be my duty, and I think all of us would do well to ask questions about this legislation, which proposes a $6.7 trillion pricetag--that is trillion; not billion, not million but trillion, $6.7 trillion.

We talk about what Congress has been doing. Let me mention what Congress has not been doing and what the Senate has not been doing.

It has been 109 days since the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was not reauthorized, which has hampered our ability to listen in on terrorist-to-terrorist communications.

We have spent 560 days since American businesses and farmers have been disadvantaged by not taking up the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. For my State alone, it is roughly $2.3 billion a year. But my producers, farmers, and manufacturers are disadvantaged by tariffs on those goods when they are imported into Colombia, even though Colombian goods bear zero tariffs coming into the United States. We ought to fix that.

So it has been 560 days since that condition has existed. It has been 705 days since some judicial nominees have been waiting for a vote. It has been 771 days since Speaker Pelosi went campaigning before the 2006 election and said, if elected, the Democrats would deliver a commonsense solution to the price of gasoline and the pain consumers were feeling at the pump. That was 771 days ago. Yet there has been no proposal by our friends in the majority to actually come up with a commonsense solution to help ease the pain at the pump. Instead, we have a bill which--while I don't question the motivation for the bill since we are all concerned about the environment, I do think it is important that we ask questions about a bill that carries such a high pricetag and which will have the impact of actually increasing the cost of energy--gasoline and electricity--rather than reducing it.

I must say that last week, like all the rest of my colleagues, I went back home and had a chance to visit with a number of my constituents. Of course, high gasoline prices was the No. 1 issue on their minds. Even though my State is doing relatively well compared to the rest of the country, with about a 4.1-percent unemployment rate, we have seen some softening in the housing market, but generally speaking, my State is prospering. We are grateful for that. But even people who have jobs and feel as though they are doing pretty well otherwise are still feeling their paychecks shrink as a result of rising energy costs.

I am wondering why we are now on a piece of legislation that, rather than reducing the cost of their gasoline or electricity, will actually increase it. Right now, the average price of a gallon of gasoline across the country is right at $4 per gallon.

As I talked to my constituents last week around the State, they asked me: What is Congress going to do to finally take action to lower those prices?

Well, unfortunately, I had to tell them we only got 42 votes on a provision on a bill--the Domenici amendment--which would actually have increased our use of American energy and reduced our dependency on imported oil from some of our enemies, such as Hugo Chavez from Venezuela and Ahmed Amadi Nejad from Iran, which are part of OPEC.

By our inaction in Congress, we are driving up that cost because, since 1982, we have been putting vast American reserves of energy out of bounds through a moratorium that was enacted on the Outer Continental Shelf, through our unwillingness to explore and develop oil shale in the West and our unwillingness to allow the State of Alaska to develop its own energy reserves in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. So it is easy for me to understand, seeing that disconnect between what my constituents are concerned about--high prices of energy, including gasoline--having to come back and debate a bill that will drive up those costs even further--it is easy to see why more and more people believe Congress is totally disconnected from reality. Congress appears to have very little relevance to the issue that concerns the American people the most, and that is the family budget.

I want to be clear about one matter though. The debate about our environment is one well worth having. Of course, we can all do better and should do better in being good stewards of the environment, conserving energy and reducing waste. Reducing dependency on foreign oil and bringing down prices at the pump are needed too. My fear is that this important issue is rapidly becoming just another tired political game.

Taking care of the environment is not a Republican versus Democrat issue. It should not be about partisan politics. Haven't we learned by now that the American people are fed up with the games in Washington and want real solutions?

Well, yesterday, the majority leader and the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Boxer, were criticizing the fact that we wanted to use some of the time today to ask questions about this important legislation so that we could educate ourselves and our constituents about what is in this very complex piece of legislation. But I do have some questions I hope will be answered in this week's debate.

First of all, how much will this bill cost? I have read estimates that this bill's pricetag is somewhere in the $6.7 trillion range. I fear that if that is correct, this is simply too costly of a burden to put on the American people. This is especially true when I believe more cost-effective solutions are available. I think we should balk at any piece of legislation that carries a pricetag of $6.7 trillion. Perhaps I have not been in Congress long enough to be jaded by such talk, and I hope I never am, but I still have trouble grasping the enormity of a number like $1 trillion. Now we are talking about $6.7 trillion. People in Congress tend to toss those numbers around like it is pocket change. But this is real money coming out of the budgets of real people--the American people.

I would like to know why $6.7 trillion, and what is that money going to be spent for?

Why do we have to opt for a cost in that range when there are more cost-effective solutions available, such as tax credits for developing renewable energy, clean energy, like solar energy and wind energy? Why aren't we doing more to develop our nuclear energy capacity to create electricity, which is carbon free? Why aren't we doing that instead of spending $6.7 trillion?

I want to know what the impact of this legislation would be on our economy and on the family budget. Already we have seen--as a result of the inaction of Congress over this last 771 days, since our Democratic colleagues said they had a commonsense plan to reduce the price of gasoline at the pump--the average American family lose $1,400 in increased gasoline costs as a result of the rise in gasoline prices over that same period of time.

Now, some estimates are that Texas families--my constituents--would pay an additional $8,000 if we pass this piece of legislation. That includes, some estimates say, a 145-percent increase in electricity costs and a 147-percent increase in gasoline costs. That is at least $5.30 a gallon at a time when gasoline is $3.98 a gallon.

Is it really true the proponents of this legislation want to raise that to $5.30 a gallon? It seems to me we are going in the wrong direction, not the right direction.

At the same time, it is estimated this legislation, if passed, would actually cause more than 300,000 Texans to lose their jobs. Overall, estimates indicate this bill could cost the economy in my State--one of the States that is actually doing very well from an economic point of view--more than $50 billion in additional costs.

Mr. President, we cannot afford another wet blanket on our economy caused by higher taxes and more expenses coming out of the family budget and more pressure on our job creators that provide people an opportunity to put food on the table.

Another question I have is, if the United States of America decides to impose this costly burden on ourselves, will China and India likewise impose the same burden on their energy industry? Of course, booming industrial giants such as China and India both have 1 billion-plus people. We know we are increasingly in a global competition and not only with India and China but the entire planet.

Why in the world would we impose a costly piece of legislation in the amount of $6.7 trillion on the American people and raise electricity costs and gasoline costs and depress the gross domestic product of this country, putting people out of work, if our major global competitors are going to get off scot-free and not likewise constrain their economy by imposing these sorts of burdens on themselves?

Finally, Mr. President, I would like to know on what basis do the proponents of the legislation believe this bill will have its intended effect? If human beings contribute to climate change, which I will not debate--I assume we do in some way or another--why have these targets been proposed? What is the science to justify those? What if those targets are reached, albeit at a cost of $6.7 trillion, with rising gas and electricity costs and a depression effect on our gross domestic product? How do we know, and where is the science that says, this bill will actually have its intended effect, particularly if China and India, our global competitors, don't participate?

The Wall Street Journal has dubbed this legislation ``the most extensive Government reorganization of the American economy since the 1930s.'' It seems to me this is something we should debate and examine and we should ask questions about so that we will know what the effect of this bill will be if it is passed.

We have already seen that Congress is not exactly omniscient when it comes to the energy area, where we have subsidized corn-based ethanol as an alternative to renewable sources of energy.

The fact is, we found there are unintended consequences when we use food for fuel.

How do we know this particular bill, the Boxer climate tax bill, will not have unintended consequences? I fear it may not have the intended effect of reducing carbon emissions, and it may have some of the unintended and disastrous side effects I have already outlined.

If we are certain this is the right approach to protecting the environment, where is the evidence? Yesterday, the distinguished chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and today the majority leader, complained about the fact that we want to use some time today to ask these questions and get answers. We should not be asked nor should the American people be asked to accept this on faith: Don't worry, trust us. It reminds me of the most fearsome words in the English language: We are from the Government, and we are here to help. If that is true, the American people ought to see the evidence that will justify this huge expenditure of their money, the huge increase in prices of energy, and the depressing effect on the economy, why that is necessary, and whether it will actually work as intended. Where is the evidence?

Senator Boxer, the distinguished chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, said the rising cost would not be a problem because of tax offsets she has included in this bill. She assured us this bill contained almost $1 trillion of tax relief, so that if we do see some of the increases in energy costs in the early years--electricity, for example--we can offset that. It almost boggles the imagination that the primary author of this legislation, Senator Boxer, would essentially concede that there will be rising energy costs as a result of this legislation and say we ought to spend $1 trillion more of the taxpayers' money to provide offsets for relief. This huge, complex bill deserves all the scrutiny we can give it.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Source