Making Supplemental Appropriations For The Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2009 - Conference Report

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, last week, there was a disturbing occurrence on the other side of the Capitol that I believe needs to be brought to the attention of my colleagues in the Senate.

On Tuesday, June 9, the Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment of the House Energy and Commerce Committee held a hearing on allowance allocations policies in the Waxman-Markey climate change bill. One of the witnesses who volunteered to testify before the subcommittee was David Sokol, chairman of MidAmerican Energy Holdings Company, based in my State of Iowa, in the capital city of Des Moines.

We are all very well aware there are very divergent opinions on the so-called cap-and-trade program advocated by Chairman Waxman and Subcommittee Chairman Markey. Hearing witnesses are typically invited to share different positions and offer different perspectives on prospective policies. That was the case with the MidAmerican CEO. His company supports the cap on emission reductions in the bill but strongly opposes the trading component.

In Mr. Sokol's testimony, he made clear his position that the trading mechanism in the Waxman-Markey bill will impose huge costs on customers. The costs will come in two ways: First, to pay for emission allowances, which will not reduce greenhouse gas emissions; and then for the construction of new, low, and zero carbon powerplants that will actually reduce emissions. So in those two ways, customers pay. He indicated MidAmerican's customers would see an increase in electricity rates of somewhere between 12 percent at the low end and 28 percent at the high end under the climate bill now before the other body.

It appears that Chairman Markey did not appreciate the criticism leveled at his bill by Mr. Sokol. During the hearing, a letter was sent by Chairman Markey's office to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission requesting information about MidAmerican's investment and other activities since the 2005 repeal of the Public Utility Holding Company Act--the short term around here, or acronym, is PUHCA.

The six-page letter also requested a reply from FERC within 2 days, ``in order to better inform the Subcommittee's deliberations on this matter.''

However, the 2005 repeal of PUHCA has absolutely nothing to do with Chairman Markey's climate change bill. It appears it is more than a coincidence that Chairman Markey was firing off a six-page letter concerning MidAmerican while the CEO was making critical comments on his bill before his committee. This appears to be a blatant use of power to intimidate a witness whose opinions differ from the chairman.

It has recently been reported that Chairman Markey was unaware that the letter was being sent at the time, and I would accept his position on that. Once the letter was brought to his attention, Chairman Markey realized how inappropriate it was and subsequently sent another letter to FERC clarifying his inquiry. This seems to indicate that there are unnamed committee staff who are trying to intimidate and prevent detractors from speaking against their climate bill. These types of strong-arm tactics should not be tolerated.

What lengths are proponents willing to go to if they are willing to intimidate people who disagree with them? Are they so unsure of their own position that they have resorted to apparent retribution to silence their critics? Quite frankly, those in the Senate should be skeptical of legislation that is advanced with such zeal that witnesses are being threatened with intimidation if they oppose it, whether that is by staff writing a letter or any other way.

Policymaking is a very complicated process. It is one that depends on the honest and forthright input of outside experts and stakeholders to give information; obviously, not to twist arms. After this incident, it seems the process going on in the House of Representatives is not open and fair to those who are critical of the Waxman-Markey bill. We owe it to the American public to restore this process to a more dignified level and assure all witnesses before Congress that they will be treated fairly and with respect, regardless of whether they agree or disagree with the chairman and/or staff.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source