Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chair, this amendment is fairly simple. While the underlying bill, though, I think very wrongly prevents the EPA from going forward on regulating greenhouse gases, my amendment affirms that state-run greenhouse gas programs will not be affected by the underlying legislation.

My amendment simply clarifies that language, by keeping in practice the longstanding tradition whereby the EPA will be able to continue providing technical assistance for States like mine who have taken action on their own to combat climate change. I think this is a good and perfecting amendment. Unfortunately, it doesn't do enough to allow me to support this legislation.

I can't support this legislation, because, as many have said before, it is simply an affront, an attack on science, on 99 percent of peer reviewed articles which have supported the idea that the United States needs to do something as 5 percent of the world's population and 25 percent of the world's pollution. We have 230,000 deaths that have been prevented by the Clean Air Act, and the economic benefits outweigh the costs of it by a 3-to-1 margin.

But even if you set aside the scientific debate, there are dozens of other reasons why we should be supportive of the United States and the EPA taking a strong role on the issue of regulating greenhouse gases. It is an affront to the millions of unemployed workers in this country who are asking for leadership from this Congress on developing a new economy in the area of clean energy, to allow the EPA the ability to join other nations around the world in putting a downward pressure on carbon emissions so that we can have an upward pressure on the number of new clean energy jobs that this country can create. But even if you set aside that argument, even if you set aside the science, set aside the jobs argument, from a national security perspective, we need to go forward with these EPA regulations, or, in the absence, we need to be passing legislation here in the United States Congress.

We continue to send abroad American dollars to petro-dictators who use it to funnel money to the very people that are seeking to attack this nation. From a national security standpoint, we need to be moving forward with a greenhouse gas strategy.

I am proposing this amendment, though, because for all of the naysayers, for all of the people who talk about doomsday and Armageddon if these EPA regulations are to go into effect, I'd like them to come to Connecticut, I'd like them to come to the 10 States that are part of the RGGI carbon emissions regime in which we have seen what smart regulation of carbon can do. We have set an aggressive standard in our RGGI system whereby we are seeking a 10 percent reduction in carbon, and we're doing it through the dreaded cap-and-trade regime that many on the other side have talked about for years.

What have we seen in Connecticut? The jury is in, the results are in, and we have in the 10 RGGI States saved enough energy to equal the cumulative input of 442,000 homes. We've saved an immense amount of energy. Now by doing that, what's happened to cost? Well, guess what? Cost has plummeted. We have saved $744 million for consumers in Connecticut. Why? We've decreased demand for energy, and so we have decreased cost. We have saved energy and we have decreased cost through a system of carbon control not dissimilar to ones we've talked about in this Congress and not dissimilar to what we are looking at at the EPA today. I propose this amendment as a way of simply allowing States to move forward with what I think have been very beneficial carbon reduction regimes in the absence of Federal control.

I think it's a sad day that we're here talking about this today. It used to be that Republicans and Democrats could at the very least agree on clean air. We could at the very least agree on the fact that pollution was an issue which we should address. And the fact that that is now a subject of disagreement, I think, is a grave statement on how far the Republican Party has come over the last decade.

I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. I yield myself the balance of my time.

I would inquire of the gentleman as to how he thinks this amendment guts the underlying legislation. All this amendment does is simply allow for the EPA to continue working with States on their own systems. I think the hyperbole has gotten a little out of control from the Republican side. This is simply seeking to assist States in the work that they are continuing to do today. It does absolutely nothing to gut the underlying legislation, and it just adds clarifying language to allow States to move forward with their own systems of controlling greenhouse gases.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source