Congressional Budget for the United States Government for Fiscal Year 2010--Continued

Floor Speech

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET FOR THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010--Continued -- (Senate - March 31, 2009)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, we are going to have a vote in just a few minutes on an amendment I offered yesterday, and now there is a side-by-side offered by the Senator from California which tries to modify my amendment in a way that gives folks who want to be able to vote for something, something to vote for when, in fact, my amendment is the one that is very simple and straightforward. That is, if we have a reserve fund created for climate change, the revenues coming into that fund obviously are going to be significant: $646 billion, if the President's budget is accurate, and much more than that by many other analyses that have been done. It simply says that cannot be used to increase electricity rates or gasoline taxes on the American consumer.

So what I would hope that my colleagues will bear in mind when we vote is that any cap-and-trade system that is put in place is going to have a significant increase in energy costs in this country. You can call it what you want--a lightbulb tax, a national energy tax--but it is pretty clear that is going to be the case. The President, a year ago, even made the same argument: ``Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.'' That is a direct quote.

All of the studies that have been done have suggested that this could cost anywhere from, as CBO said, $50 billion a year to $300 billion a year; MIT said $366 billion a year. An enormous amount of money is going to come into the Federal Treasury by any form of cap-and-trade bill that is passed here in the Congress. It just depends on how rigid or how restrictive the caps are as to what that cost is going to be, and there are several other bills that are out there.

What I wish to point out, however, is that the Senator from California--her bill, S. 309 from the last session of Congress, actually designates seven different funds that the revenue would go into. What her amendment would say is that a lot of these revenues would go back in the form of some assistance to consumers in this country, but, in fact, if you look at her legislation, there are seven different funds that it goes into. Essentially, what her bill would do is take all of these revenues that are going to come into the Federal Treasury and distribute them through Government agencies to all of these different areas, including the climate change worker training fund; the adaptation fund, whatever that is; the climate change and national security fund; the Bureau of Land Management emergency firefighting fund; the Forest Service emergency firefighting fund; and the Climate Security Act management fund. Those are six of the funds that are listed in her bill as uses of revenues that would be derived from a cap-and-trade and national energy tax that would be imposed upon the American consumers. Again, I point out that MIT, in their analysis of her bill, said it would cost the average household in this country an additional $3,128 annually in energy costs.

The President himself has said: ``Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.'' Nobody disputes the fact that rates are going to go up. What we are saying is that shouldn't happen; we can't do that, particularly now at a time when the American economy is struggling and most Americans are having to tighten their belts already. To impose a huge national energy sales tax on American consumers would be very ill-timed.

Frankly, I don't believe for a minute that any of the revenues that come in as a result of the imposition of that national energy tax are going to be used to refund the American consumers. There is a $400 and $800 tax credit the President has put in place, but that is a fraction--a fraction--of the amount of the revenue that is going to come in.

So I hope my colleagues will support my amendment and vote against the side-by-side that is being offered by my colleague from California. I don't think there is any question but this is going to raise taxes, energy taxes in the form of a national sales tax on energy for consumers in this country. My amendment would make it very clear that cannot be the case.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

AMENDMENT NO. 749

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate, equally divided, on the Boxer amendment.

The Senator from South Dakota is recognized.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I say to my friend from California that when gas prices were going up last summer, many of us were trying to put together a plan that would increase production in this country. We had a simple strategy: find more and use less.

Many of us were working constructively to try to come up with an energy solution that would increase domestic supply so we can drive down the cost of energy. I was engaged in that with a number of colleagues from the other side of the aisle.

But that has nothing to do with this debate. This deals strictly with a cap-and-trade proposal--a national energy tax proposal that is being contemplated in this budget. My amendment also was straightforward and simple. It says any reserve funds created as a result of this budget that would call for climate change legislation cannot raise electricity rates or gasoline prices for American consumers. That is a tax on American consumers when they need it the least.

I hope my colleagues will support my amendment and reject the Boxer amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

AMENDMENT NO. 731

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 731 offered by the Senator from South Dakota, Mr. Thune.

The Senator from South Dakota is recognized.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, if you honestly believe the trillions of dollars that are going to come in from a cap-and-trade proposal--what is essentially a national energy sales tax--that those revenues are going to be distributed
back to the American people, then voting for the Boxer amendment was the correct vote.

If you believe, as I do, that the trillions of dollars that come in through a cap-and-trade proposal are, in fact, not going to be rebated to the American people, that they are going to fund programs in Washington, DC, then you should vote for my amendment because my amendment prevents any program that is created--a cap-and-trade program--from increasing electricity rates or gasoline prices for American consumers.

This is a national energy tax on the American people, on American consumers. If you want to vote against that, then voting for my amendment is the correct vote.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source