In The News
Senator Craig's Floor Statement on the Lieberman-Warner Climate Bill
Wednesday June 4, 2008
Statement of Senator Specter on America's Climate Security Act, S. 3036
Wednesday June 4, 2008
Watch: Inhofe Talks About the Devastating Impacts of the Climate Tax Bill on American Families and Workers with Glenn Beck
Tuesday June 3, 2008
Posted by Matt Dempsey matthew_dempsey@epw.senate.gov (8:29pm ET)
Senator Inhofe Makes His Case to the American People
Reaches Out to New Media - Hits The Air Waves, TV, Blogs
Over the course of the debate over the Climate Tax Bill, we will be posting as many interviews as possible on this blog post. Please check back often for updates.
On Tuesday, June 3, Senator Inhofe was a guest on the Glenn Beck Show.
Democrats Call Largest Tax Increase -- A ‘Big Tax Cut!’
Tuesday June 3, 2008
Inhofe: "We Don't Need a Climate Tax on the Poor" - Wall Street Journal
Tuesday June 3, 2008
In Case You Missed It...
The Wall Street Journal
We Don't Need a Climate Tax on the Poor
June 3, 2008
With average gas prices across the country approaching $4 a gallon, it may be hard to believe, but the U.S. Senate is considering legislation this week that will further drive up the cost at the pump.
The Senate is debating a global warming bill that will create the largest expansion of the federal government since FDR's New Deal, complete with a brand new, unelected bureaucracy. The Lieberman-Warner bill (America's Climate Security Act) represents the largest tax increase in U.S. history and the biggest pork bill ever contemplated with trillions of dollars in giveaways. Well-heeled lobbyists are already plotting how to divide up the federal largesse. The handouts offered by the sponsors of this bill come straight from the pockets of families and workers in the form of lost jobs, higher gas, power and heating bills, and more expensive consumer goods.
![[We Don't Need a Climate Tax on the Poor]](https://www.webharvest.gov/congress114th/20161109182149im_/http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-BO006_oj_inh_20080602174925.jpg) |
| Corbis |
Various analyses show that Lieberman-Warner would result in higher prices at the gas pump, between 41 cents and $1 per gallon by 2030. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says Lieberman-Warner would effectively raise taxes on Americans by more than $1 trillion over the next 10 years. The federal Energy Information Administration says the bill would result in a 9.5% drop in manufacturing output and higher energy costs.
Carbon caps will have an especially harmful impact on low-income Americans and those with fixed incomes. A recent CBO report found: "Most of the cost of meeting a cap on CO2 emissions would be borne by consumers, who would face persistently higher prices for products such as electricity and gasoline. Those price increases would be regressive in that poorer households would bear a larger burden relative to their income than wealthier households."
The poor already face energy costs as a much higher percentage of their income than wealthier Americans. While most Americans spend about 4% of their monthly budget on heating their homes or other energy needs, the poorest fifth of Americans spend 19%. A 2006 survey of Colorado homeless families with children found that high energy bills were cited as one of the two main reasons they became homeless.
Lieberman-Warner will also hinder U.S. competitiveness, transferring American jobs overseas to places where environmental regulations are much more lenient. Instead of working to eliminate trade barriers on clean energy and lower emitting technologies, the bill imposes a "green," tariff-style tax on imported goods. This could provoke international retaliatory actions by our trade partners, threatening our own export markets and further driving up the costs of consumer goods.
My colleague, Sen. George Voinovich (R., Ohio), warned last week that Lieberman-Warner "could result in the most massive bureaucratic intrusion into the lives of Americans since the creation of the Internal Revenue Service." Mandating burdensome new layers of federal bureaucracy is not the solution to America's energy challenges.
This bill is ultimately about certainty. We are certain of the huge negative impact on the economy as detailed by numerous government and private analyses. We are certain of the massive expansion of the federal bureaucracy.
And we are certain the bill will not have a detectable impact on the climate. According to the Environmental Protection Agency's own analysis, by 2050 Lieberman-Warner would only lower global CO2 concentrations by less than 1.4% without additional international action. In fact, this bill, often touted as an "insurance policy" against global warming, is instead all economic pain for no climate gain.
Why are many in Washington proposing a bill that will do so much economic harm? The answer is simple. The American people are being asked to pay significantly more for energy merely so some lawmakers in Washington can say they did something about global warming.
I have been battling global warming alarmism since 2003, when I became chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee. It has been a lonely battle at times, but it now appears that many of my colleagues are waking up to the reality of cap-and-trade legislation.
The better way forward is an energy policy that emphasizes technology and includes developing nations such as China and India. Tomorrow's energy mix must include more natural gas, wind and geothermal, but it must also include oil, coal and nuclear power, which is the world's largest source of emission-free energy. Developing and expanding domestic energy sources will translate into energy security and ensure stable supplies and well-paying jobs for Americans.
Let me end with a challenge to my colleagues. Will you dare stand on the Senate floor in these uncertain economic times and vote in favor of significantly increasing the price of gas at the pump, losing millions of American jobs, creating a huge new bureaucracy and raising taxes by record amounts? The American people deserve and expect a full debate on this legislation.
Mr. Inhofe, a Republican senator from Oklahoma, is ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee.
Read More About the Impacts of Lieberman-Warner: www.epw.senate.gov/lieberman-warnerbillexposed
Floor Remarks of Senator Bob Corker on the Climate Security Act, S 3036
Tuesday June 3, 2008
Posted By Marc Morano – 6:43 PM ET – Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.Gov
Floor Remarks of U.S. Senator Bob Corker
Climate Security Act, S. 3036
June 3, 2008
-As Transcribed-
Click Here for Senator Corker's Press Release
Mr. President, I rise to speak about the Lieberman-Warner climate act.
I want to say that I'm very excited to be here on the floor today, and I have tremendous respect for the sponsors of this bill and all those who have been involved for some time.
And I think everybody knows by this point, while there are numbers of arguments regarding the bill that's on the floor, I choose not to debate the science. I accept the fact that we as a country and we as a world need to address this issue.
I came here to the Senate to really focus on the big issues that our country has to deal with, and I saw this as one of those issues. And for that reason, a year ago I accompanied Senator Bingaman to Brussels, to Paris, and London. I sat down with carbon traders, with European Commission members. I met with cement manufacturers, utility providers and all those involved in this debate in Europe.
I also was fortunate enough to accompany the chairman, Senator Boxer, to Greenland to see the poster child of what this debate in some ways is about.
And ever since that time, I have been fixated on the goal of figuring out a way that we as a country can put in place policies that allow our GDP to grow so we can continue to ensure a better standard of living for those coming after us, having energy security as a country, and making sure that we have climate security all at the same time. That has been my goal. I've seen actually this debate that's taking place this summer right now as a tremendous opportunity for us to come together as a country and to focus on those things.
Some of the things that I saw in Europe were unintended consequences, things like fuel switching that took place. When people move from coal to natural gas and all of a sudden found themselves very dependent on an unfriendly government, Russia, to supply natural gas, and using that political clout over some of those countries that were so dependent.
And so I really have worked with Senator Warner and with others to try to craft legislation that I think works for our country. I see this as a tremendous opportunity. I really do.
A lot of people think that this is not a good time to be talking about climate change legislation. They say that because we have $4 gasoline at the pumps, this is a terrible time to be talking about legislation of this nature. I actually think this is a perfect time to be talking about it. I think there's a passion in our country exhibited by the chairman to address the issue of climate change. I think there are many people in our country that feel that same way. And I think that Americans throughout our country, seeing prices at the pump, feel very vulnerable as it relates to their own energy security and realize that we as a country need to have a comprehensive energy policy that we do not have today. And, so I see this tremendous opportunity for these two groups that have been at odds for so many years, actually generations, to actually come together and to do something that is good for our country, both from the standpoint of the environment, but also making sure that our country is energy secure.
I'm going to say something I know may not be that well received. But I think this bill, unfortunately – and with all the respect that I have for the sponsors – I think this bill, unfortunately, squanders that opportunity. The reason I say this bill squanders that opportunity is instead of addressing those two things I just mentioned in a pure fashion, instead we have resorted to the old-time politics of making sure we support various interest groups around our country and spread trillions of dollars around the country to try to win support for this bill, and I think that is a shame.
I plan to offer some amendments that I'll discuss at the right time, but let me make sure the American people understand what happens with cap-and-trade legislation. The fact is that what this bill contemplates is capping the amount of carbon emissions that our country emits and then reducing that cap over time from the year 2012 to 2050, and establishing a price for that carbon by creating an auction.
It's much like if Senator Domenici, and I, and Senator Warner decided we were going to create a company. So what we did was we allocated ourselves shares of that company. And then in order to make that company grow, we sold public shares out in the marketplace. Those public shares would generate income into our company and allow us to grow if that's what we wanted to do, but the day that we went public it would enrich us. Those allocations of shares that we allocated to ourselves would enrich us immediately because they become marketable securities.
Obviously, what this bill does is, number one, it takes in trillions of dollars into the Treasury beginning in the year 2012 through an auction process. In other words we sell carbon allowances on the public market. The very day that occurs the allowances – that are talked about as if they mean nothing – become marketable securities and they enrich all of those entities that receive those allocations. That's where I think this bill really misses the mark. The auction proceeds that come in in this bill – which by the way, let's be fair and I’m not I will not use words that are demagogic –but when we pass cap-and-trade legislation, we all understand it increases the costs of energy that is generated through fossil fuels. That's a fact. That's petroleum, that's diesel, that's coal, that's ethanol, all of those things that when they are consumed emit carbon, cost more on day one. So the American public is going to be paying for that. Everything that Americans buy, if this bill passes, that has something to do with energy will increase. When they go to the gasoline pump it will cost more. When they pay their utility bills at the end of the month it will cost more. When they buy food and clothing it will cost more.
What this bill unfortunately does is take in trillions of dollars –by the way, the EPA has modeled this based on a price of $22 per ton for carbon in the beginning. I want people to understand that in essence, today in London, carbon is selling for $41 a ton – but based on the modeling that is in place, this bill over the life of the bill, transfers wealth of $6.7 trillion by the modeling I just mentioned. If it were based on the prices of carbon today in London it might be as much as $13 trillion. Now we all know if this bill passes every American will pay more for energy and I understand that. By the way, I want everybody in this body to know that I am open to discussing cap-and-trade legislation that takes our country in the right direction.
What I am so opposed to and I am so saddened by the fact that this bill takes trillions into our Treasury and then – in much of it pre-prescribed, nondiscretionary spending – spends that money out from the year 2012 through the year 2050. We talk about earmarks in this body. This is, in fact, the mother of all earmarks, or to be neutral, the mother and father of all earmarks. This, in essence, creates an entitlement program from the year 2012 through the year 2050. I don't understand if proponents want to affect our climate why they don't take those trillions in and then immediately redistribute all of those dollars back to the American citizens. The reason is, and I'm sad to say this, the reason is this bill attempts to win support of the American people and interest groups throughout our country by the same old thing that's gotten our country in trouble today. That is, spreading this money around to various interest groups throughout our country and then pre-prescribing the spending in a way that I don't know of any bill that has done this since Medicare or Social Security. I don't know of a bill that has done this to this extent in modern times.
Let me just mention another piece that really goes unnoticed: the allocation process. This bill allocates out, to entities all across this country, carbon allowances. Those are marketable securities. It's the same as owning a share in IBM, and it’s a tremendous transference of wealth, and 27 % of the allocations in this bill go to entities that have nothing to do with emitting carbon. I have no idea why we would do that in legislation of this nature. I think it's reprehensible.
One of the reasons we see so many people walking the halls of our Senate offices in tailored suits carrying nice briefcases, is people that are in the know – and I know the senator mentioned – some of the companies realize this is a tremendous transference of wealth. And if they sit at the table and they have something to do with how these allowances are allocated, that might be better for them even than operating their companies well because we are creating a situation that transfers trillions of dollars of wealth.
I'm going to be offering some amendments, and I am disturbed that some of the sponsors have indicated that these are poison pill amendments. I have focused solely on the policies of this bill. I have never used demagogic language to describe this bill – never. I've never tried to debate the science. I'm trying to focus on the policies of this legislation.
The reason we have cap-and-trade legislation being discussed is the fact that we want to limit the amount of carbon emissions that come out of our country. So one of the other pieces of this bill that to me is just truly, truly offensive is this bill allows for something called international offsets which – and I'll be going into this in detail later on when I offer amendments – is something that encourages companies in our country to go through a loophole so that they don't have to pay the full price of carbon and can actually spend billions of dollars in countries like China where we already have tremendous, tremendous trade deficits. I absolutely have no understanding of why we would permit that kind of thing in a bill like this that is being designed to limit carbon emissions in our country. These international offsets have been documented to be fraudulent. We've had tremendous problems in working through the United Nations who administers the programs. I have no idea why international offsets, which have been so fraudulent and have nothing whatsoever to do with lowering emissions in our country, would be part of this bill.
So let me just say in general, I realize we're not going to pass a bill this year in all likelihood. I think that, in many ways, is regretful. I think we as a country right now today when the American people are feeling very vulnerable and right now we have many senators in this chamber that have such a passion as it relates to climate security, I think it's regretful that we cannot come together and as a part of this legislation add many of the components, for instance, that Pete Domenici from New Mexico has led us on, and really create a bill that doesn't just address climate, that also addresses our country's energy security. The American people are looking to us right now to act like adults. I have to tell you that for some period of time we have not owned up to our country's major problems. We have not done that. We have a tremendous opportunity in this body this week and next week to really address our country's environmental issues simultaneously with energy security. I think that's what the American people are looking to us to do.
I regret the fact that this bill, instead of being about climate security, instead of being about something that really drives our country toward using technologies that would cause our country to be energy secure, I regret the fact that this bill instead has ended up being about money. It has ended up setting up a command-and-control economy. Look at these various wedges on this pie chart. I could show many, many more. It is an amazing thing that from the year 2012 through the year 2050 over $1 trillion of this money is pre-prescribed. It's an amazing thing to me, that as it relates to technology, there is a five-person board that has been set up to decide where trillions of dollars will be spent.
I can't imagine this body approving legislation of this type. What I hope will occur is that the American people will become aware of what this debate is about. I hope that all of us will have a constructive debate in this body. And my goal and my hope is that we as a body will come together around climate change in an appropriate way and energy security in such a way so that the generations coming after us will have a better quality of life."
###
Floor Statement of U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa on S.3036, the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Bill
Tuesday June 3, 2008
Statement of Senator Enzi on the Lieberman Warner Bill
Tuesday June 3, 2008
Boxer Climate Tax - ‘Cap-and-Destroy’ - ‘Unprecedented Control’ By Gov’t – Round Up
Tuesday June 3, 2008
Excerpt: Yesterday the U.S. Senate began what it insists on calling "debate" (more like serial dopey speeches designed for home consumption) on the worst piece of legislation introduced into that body in the new century. Perhaps worse than anything in the last century as well. There's nothing good to be said about the disingenuously named Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2008. A better name would be the Let's Destroy the Economy by Turning it Over to Left-Geek Bureaucrats in 2008 Act. The heart of Lieberman-Warner is a cap and trade system that would turn decisions on how much and what kind of energy to use in the private sector over to government. This is the approach, you'll recall, that worked so well in the Soviet Union that that dismal country's first five-year plan lasted 74 years before the whole sorry business caved-in on its own command and control butt. If adopted, this would be the most fundamental change in the nature of this country in the country's history. […] THE REASON A CAP and trade system is such a horrible idea, other than the fact that it would turn America's dynamic and complex economy over to the kind of folks who directed the Katrina relief effort, is that it sets very low levels of use of fossil fuels, the only relatively inexpensive, reliable, and available energy we have in large amounts. The boutique sources of energy like wind, solar, and biomass, the ones that excite environmentalists, just aren't available in more than trifling amounts. And aren't likely to be for years. Restricting the use of fossil fuels for energy would drive the price of everything -- not just gasoline or power to light homes, everything -- up dramatically. We've already seen increases in the price of food thanks to our insane policy of trying to grow our fuel through ethanol and other bio-fuels. If we're daft enough to cap our use of fossil fuels, as environmentalists and their political enablers want us to, we'll first see increased prices, then severe shortages, and finally unavailability of everything else as well. Choking off the use of carbon-based fuels could and would make an utter dog's breakfast of the American economy, which has been the most powerful engine of wealth the world has ever seen. […] WE'VE REACHED the "Do something even if it's wrong" phase. The Senate is seriously considering (seriously as these things are measured in Washington) creating a Department of Not Using Energy and saddling a dynamic and remarkably clean economy with it.
