[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 97 (Thursday, June 25, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7041-S7044]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                          National Energy Tax

  I wish to talk about one other issue since tomorrow the House is 
scheduled to vote on what is known as the Waxman-Markey bill, which is 
the Democrat's answer to the worst recession in decades, a national 
energy tax, a tax designed to impose economic pain through higher 
energy prices and lost jobs or as a recent Washington Post editorial 
put it:

       The bill contains regulations on everything from light bulb 
     standards to the specs on hot tubs and it will reshape 
     America's economy in dozens of ways that many don't realize.

  In other words, this would be, if it were to pass, the largest tax 
increase in the history of America. I know a little bit about this 
issue because I started working on this issue back in the late nineties 
when they were trying to get the United States to ratify the Kyoto 
treaty. The Kyoto treaty is very similar to the proposals we have had 
since that time. We know what that would have cost at that time. 
Somewhere between $300 billion and $330 billion a year as a permanent 
tax increase.
  There have been proposals on the floor of the Senate in 2003, 2005, 
2007, 2008, and now this time. We in the Senate have more experience in 
dealing with this issue than the House does because this is the first 
time they have ever had it up for consideration.

  Over the past several weeks, Speaker Pelosi has been facing an 
insurrection within her own ranks. We have been reading about the 
Democrats who are pulling out saying: We don't want to be part of the 
largest tax increase in the history of America. More and more people 
are jumping in and saying we cannot have it. As of yesterday, the 
American Farm Bureau came in opposing, the strongest opposition to this 
legislation.
  Let me say, if the Democrats are having trouble passing this bill in 
the House, where the majority can pass just about any bill it wants, 
then there is no hope for a cap-and-trade bill to come out of the 
Senate. I think we know that. We watched it.
  Right now, by my count, the most votes that could ever come for this 
largest tax increase in the history of America would be 34 votes--34 
votes. They are not even close.
  I say that because there are a lot of people wringing their hands: 
She wouldn't bring this bill up in the House on Friday unless she had 
the votes. Maybe she will have the votes. There has been a lot of 
trading, a lot of people getting mad. Nonetheless, she may have bought 
off enough votes to make it a reality.
  The fact is the Waxman-Markey bill is just the latest incarnation of 
very costly cap-and-trade legislation that will have a very devastating 
impact on the economy, cost American jobs by pushing them overseas, and 
drastically increasing the size and scope of the Federal Government.
  In the Senate, we have successfully defeated cap-and-trade 
legislation in the years I mentioned. Four different times it has been 
on the floor. I remember in 2005, I was the lead opposition to it. 
Republicans were in the majority at that time. It had 5 days on the 
Senate floor, 10 hours a day, 50 hours. It was the McCain-Lieberman 
bill at

[[Page S7042]]

that time. It was defeated then and by larger margins ever since then.
  Just a year later, with the economy in a deep recession, it is hard 
to believe that many more Senators would dare vote in favor of 
legislation that would not only increase the price of gas at the pump 
but cost millions of American jobs, create a huge new bureaucracy, and 
raise taxes by record numbers. It is not going to happen.
  I appreciate that my Democratic colleagues desperately want to pass 
this bill. They argue that cap and trade is necessary to rid the world 
of global warming and to demonstrate America's leadership in this noble 
cause. But their strategy is all economic pain and no climate gain. 
This is a global issue that demands a global solution. Yet cap-and-
trade advocates argue that aggressive unilateral--unilateral, that is 
just America; in other words, we pass the tax just on Americans--
aggressive unilateral action is necessary to persuade developing 
countries--now we are talking about China, India, Mexico, and some 
other countries--to enact mandatory emission reductions. In other 
words, we provide the leadership and they will follow. But recent 
actions by the Obama administration and by China and other developing 
countries continue to prove just the opposite. They continue to confirm 
what I have been saying and arguing for the past decade, that even if 
we do act, the rest of the world will not.
  If you still believe--and there are fewer people every day who 
believe that science is settled--that manmade gases, anthropogenic 
gases, CO2, methane are causing global warming--there are a 
few people left who believe that. If you are one of those who still 
believes that, stop and think: Why would we want to do something 
unilaterally in America? It doesn't make sense. The logic is not 
difficult to understand.
  Carbon caps, according to reams of independent analyses, will 
severely damage America's global competitiveness, principally by 
raising the cost of doing business here relative to other countries 
such as China, where they have no mandatory carbon caps. So the jobs 
and businesses would move overseas, most likely to China.
  This so-called leakage effect would tip the global economic balance 
in favor of China. A lot of them are saying China is going to follow 
our lead, they are going to do it. Look at this chart. This person is 
the negotiator for the administration. His statement is: We don't 
expect China to take a national cap-and-trade system. This is the guy 
who is supposed to be in charge of seeing to it that they do. This is 
Todd Stern. He is admitting it.
  I wish those people who come to the floor and say: Oh, no, we know 
that if America leads the way, China is going to follow us--they are 
sitting back there just rejoicing, hoping we will go ahead and have a 
huge cap-and-trade tax to drive our manufacturing jobs to places such 
as China where they don't have any real controls on emissions, and the 
result would be an increase in CO2. In other words, if we 
pass this huge tax in this country, it is going to have the resulting 
effect of increasing the amount of CO2 that is in the 
atmosphere.

  By itself, China has a vested interest in swearing off of carbon 
restrictions in order to keep its economy growing and lifting its 
people from poverty. Add unilateral Federal U.S. action into the mix, 
and we give China an even stronger reason to oppose mandatory 
reductions for its economy. And China understands this all too well. I 
believe they will actively and unfailingly pursue their economic self-
interest, which entails America acting alone to address global warming.
  Consider that in other realms, whether on intellectual property 
rights or human rights. The Chinese have conspicuously failed to follow 
America's example. We have tried to get them to do it, and they haven't 
done it. All the human rights efforts we have gone through to try to 
get political prisoners released and all these other things we have 
said to them to do it--we have threatened, we have asked, we have 
begged--and they do not do it. So why would they do this? So for China, 
climate change will be no exception.
  My colleagues in the Senate are rightly focused on the economic 
effects this bill will have on their States and their constituents. But 
with China and other developing countries staunchly opposed to 
accepting any binding emissions requirements, we should be asking a 
more fundamental question: What exactly are we doing this for? If the 
goal of cap and trade is to reduce global temperatures by reducing 
global greenhouse gas concentrations, and if China and other leading 
carbon emitters continue to emit at will, then how can this supposed 
problem be solved?
  Well, if I accept the alarmist science that anthropogenic gases are 
causing a catastrophe, then reducing global greenhouse gas 
concentrations is a solution. But the unilateral Federal solution, 
again, that America must first act to persuade China and others to 
follow--please follow us, please pass a tax in your own country, and 
then they are going to be following our example--there is no evidence 
that has ever happened before or that it would happen again. The only 
thing America gets by acting alone is a raw deal and a planet that is 
no better off.
  Now, my Democratic colleagues want to sweep this reality under the 
rug. They argue that cap and trade--and I hope everyone understands 
what cap and trade is. I have often said, and other people have said--
including some of the advocates of this--that they would prefer to have 
a carbon tax over cap and trade. Well, if you are going to have one or 
the other, I would too. But the only reason they use cap and trade is 
to hide the fact that this is a tax--a very large tax increase. So they 
argue that cap and trade will not only be at least to pull China along, 
but also it will solve our economic woes, create millions of new green 
jobs, and promote energy security.
  Of course, these are laudable goals, and Republicans have a simple 
answer to this: Let's provide the incentives rather than the taxes and 
mandates to produce clean, affordable, and reliable sources of energy.
  I am for all of the above. I want to have renewables, I want nuclear, 
I want wind, I want solar, I want clean coal, and natural gas. We need 
it all. Cut the redtape and encourage private investment. Let all 
technologies compete in the marketplace. However, that is not what the 
Democrats are proposing in the Waxman-Markey bill.
  I am talking on the Senate floor about a House bill, and I am doing 
that because it is scheduled to pass tomorrow and then there will be an 
effort over here. We have had experience with this legislation. As I 
have said before, it is not going to pass here, but it is a very 
significant thing. Anytime one House is proposing to pass the largest 
tax increase in history, we have to be concerned.
  This bill does the exact opposite. It closes access to affordable 
sources of energy by trying to price certain kinds of energy out of the 
market. It picks winners and losers that leave places such as the 
Midwest and the South paying higher energy prices to subsidize areas in 
the rest of the country. We have a chart that shows how much this would 
raise in the way of taxes in Middle America as opposed to the east 
coast and the west coast, and it creates more bureaucracy that will 
only increase the costs that consumers bear and add more layers of 
regulation to small business.
  We have to ask: Why, then, do my colleagues believe creating a 
national energy tax is necessary? It is all rooted in fabricated global 
warming science. In fact, just last week, the administration produced 
yet another alarmist report on global warming--which, of course, is 
nothing new--that takes the worst possible predictions of the United 
Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Fourth Assessment 
Report--is what it is called.
  By the way, these assessment reports are not reports by scientists. 
They are reports by political people, policy people. I have to also 
say--and I have said this on the floor of the Senate many times 
before--a lot of the things that come out and that are not in the best 
interests of the United States come from the United Nations. That is 
where this whole thing started, back in the middle 1990s.
  It was the IPCC of the United Nations where it all started. So it is 
no surprise that such a report was released just in time for the House 
vote on Waxman-Markey. However, what is becoming clear is that despite 
millions of dollars spent on advertising, the American public has 
clearly rejected

[[Page S7043]]

the so-called ``consensus'' on global warming. There was a time when 
this wasn't true. I can remember back between the years of 1998 and 
2005, when I would be standing on the Senate floor and talking about 
the science that rejects this notion. Since that time, hundreds and 
hundreds of scientists who were on the other side of the issue have 
come over to the skeptic side, saying: Wait a minute, this isn't really 
true.
  I can name names: Claude Allegre was perhaps considered by some 
people to be the top scientist in all of France. He used to be on Al 
Gore's side of this issue back in the late 1990s. Clearly, he is now 
saying: Wait a minute, we have reevaluated, and the science just isn't 
there. David Bellamy, one of the top scientists in the U.K., the same 
thing is true there. He was on the other side and came over. Nieve 
Sharif from Israel, same thing. So there is no consensus on the fact 
that they think anthropogenic gases are causing global warming.
  Of course, the other thing is, we don't have global warming right 
now. We are in our fourth year of a cooling spell. But that is beside 
the point. I am not here to address the science today but on the 
argument advanced by my colleagues, which is that U.S. unilateral 
action on global warming will compel other nations to follow our lead, 
as I have documented in speeches before since 1998.
  By the way, if anyone wants--any of my colleagues--to look up those 
speeches, they can be found at inhofe.senate.gov. If you have insomnia 
some night, it might be a good idea to read them. They are all about 2 
hours long. But I think many would find it very troubling indeed, that 
even if they believe the flawed IPCC or United Nations science, that 
science dictates that any unilateral action by the United States will 
be completely ineffective. The EPA even confirmed it last year during 
the debate on the Lieberman-Warner bill, and the same would hold true 
for this year's bill.
  Put simply, any isolated U.S. attempt to avert global warming is a 
futile effort without meaningful, robust international cooperation. No 
one disputes this fact. The American people need to know what they will 
be getting with their money: all cost and no benefit. This chart shows 
that U.S. action without international action will have no effect on 
world CO2. This is assuming there is no change in the 
manufacturing base, which we know there would be.
  This brings us to a key question as to whether a new robust 
international agreement can ever be achieved. In addition to the 
domestic process ongoing in Congress, the United States is currently 
involved in negotiations for a new international climate change 
agreement to replace the flawed Kyoto treaty. This process is scheduled 
to culminate in Copenhagen this December. This will be the big bash put 
on by the United Nations to encourage countries to buy into their 
program.
  The prospects of such an endeavor are bleak at best. Following the 
conclusion of the climate meeting in Bonn recently, the U.N.'s top 
climate official--Yvo de Boer--said it would be physically impossible--
now this is the chief advocate of all this--to have a detailed 
agreement by December in Copenhagen. This is ironic to say the least, 
considering that President Obama was supposed to bring all the parties 
together to transcend their differences and to produce a treaty that 
would save the world from global warming. But the reality of the cost 
of carbon reductions has intervened, and now a deal appears--as it 
always has to me and others--far from achievable.
  We must not forget where the Senate stands on global warming. As 
Senators may recall, in 1997, the Senate voted favorably, 95 to 0--95 
to 0 doesn't happen often in this Chamber--on the Byrd-Hagel 
resolution. That stated simply that if you go to Kyoto and you bring 
back a treaty, we will not ratify that treaty if it, No. 1, would 
mandate greenhouse gas reductions from the United States without also 
requiring new specific commitments from developing countries--China--
over the same compliance period; or, No. 2, result in serious economic 
harm to the United States.
  Well, obviously, we have talked about the serious harm to the United 
States and the fact there is no intention at all of having China have 
to be a part of this new treaty now, what, 15 years later they are 
going to be talking about. So I think the Byrd-Hagel resolution will 
still stand strong support in the Senate; therefore, any treaty the 
Obama administration submits must meet the resolution's criteria or it 
will be easily defeated.
  Remember that criteria: If they submit something in which the United 
States is going to have to do something that the rest of the world--or 
the developing world--doesn't have to do, then it is not going to pass; 
and, secondly, if it inflicts economic harm on this country.
  Proponents of securing an international treaty are slowly 
acknowledging that the gulf is widening between what the United States 
and other industrialized nations are willing to do and what developing 
countries such as China want them to do. I suggest the gulf has always 
been wide but will continue to widen. Recent actions by the United 
States and China continue to confirm my belief.
  Take China's initial reaction to the Waxman-Markey bill. The bill, 
hailed on Capitol Hill as a historic breakthrough, went over with a 
thud last week during the international negotiations. Get this: Waxman-
Markey, which will be economically ruinous for the United States, was 
criticized by China for being too weak.
  Another troubling aspect coming out of those meetings was the U.S. 
Government's official submission. Many in the Senate may be surprised 
to learn that this administration's position is to let China off the 
hook. You might wonder, why would China look at this thing that would 
destroy us economically and say they do not think it is strong enough; 
that they want it stronger? Because the stronger it is, the more 
manufacturing jobs will leave the United States to go to China. They 
have to go someplace where they are producing energy. Nowhere in the 
submission to the conference do we require China to submit to any 
binding emission reduction requirements before 2020. In fact, before 
2020, the submission only asks for ``nationally appropriate'' 
mitigation actions, followed by a ``low carbon strategy for long-term 
net emissions reductions by 2050.''
  I would submit this proposal is typical of the United States to say: 
Well, we have to do some face-saving, so at least let's put them in an 
awkward position of having to ``try'' to do something. It doesn't say 
they ``have'' to do anything; they have to try. So China can sit back 
and say: We are trying. Meanwhile, they enjoy all the jobs that are 
coming from the United States to China.
  So what, then, is the Chinese Government's idea of a fair and 
balanced global treaty? Well, the Chinese believe the United States and 
other Western nations should, at a minimum, reduce their greenhouse gas 
emissions by 40 percent below the 1990 levels by 2020. For comparison's 
sake, Waxman-Markey, which could become the official U.S. negotiating 
position, calls for a 17-percent reduction--not 40 percent--below the 
2005 levels by 2020.
  Despite the positive spin the administration is putting on actions by 
the Chinese Government to reduce energy intensely or pass a renewable 
energy standard, while laudable, the official position of the Chinese 
in their submission to the United States remains as such, which I will 
read.

       The right to development is a basic human right that is 
     undeprivable. Economic and social development and poverty 
     eradication are the first and overriding priorities of the 
     developing nations.

  So China is talking about themselves and India and other developing 
nations.

       The right to development of developing countries shall be 
     adequately and effectively respected and ensured in the 
     process of global common efforts in fighting against climate 
     change.

  That is their written statement, and that speaks for itself.
  Finally, and the most telling of all, the Chinese and other 
developing countries collectively argue that the price for reducing 
their emissions is a massive 1 percent of GDP from the United States 
and other developed countries. What does that tell us? That tells us 
they are not willing to pay anything.
  So let me get this straight. China opposes any binding emission 
reduction targets on itself; China wants the United States to accept 
draconian emission reduction targets that will continue to cripple the 
U.S. economy;

[[Page S7044]]

and on top of that, China wants the United States to subsidize its 
economy with billions of dollars in foreign aid. In the final analysis, 
one must give China credit for seeking its economic self-interest. I 
sure hope the Obama administration will do the same for America.
  Despite this reality, some here in the Senate will continue to tout 
the fact that China's new self-imposed emissions intensity reductions, 
which do not pose any type of binding reductions requirements, will 
somehow miraculously appear--will somehow suffice for binding 
requirements. I believe, however, that position will fail to satisfy 
the American people as acceptable justifications for passage of a bill 
that will result in higher United States energy taxes and no change in 
the climate.
  I do not blame them. If I were in China, I would be trying to do the 
same thing. I would be over there saying we want the United States to 
increase their energy taxes, we want a cap-and-trade bill, an 
aggressive one that is going to impose a tax--now it is expected to 
be--MIT had figures far above the $350 billion a year.
  That is not a one-shot deal. I stood here on the Senate floor 
objecting last October when we were voting on a $700 billion bailout. I 
can't believe some of our Republicans, along with virtually most of the 
Democrats, voted for this. I talked about how much $700 billion is. If 
you do your math and take all the families who file tax returns, it 
comes out $5,000 a family.
  At least that is a one-shot deal. What we are talking about here is a 
tax of somewhere around $350 billion every year on the American people 
and the bottom line is, China wants no restrictions for theirs. They 
want the highest reductions for the United States and they want foreign 
aid on top of that.
  I want to mention one other thing that just came up in today's 
Chicago Tribune. I read this because the Chicago Tribune has 
editorialized in favor of the notion that anthropogenic gases are 
responsible for global warming. I will read this:

       Democratic leaders need to slow down. This proposed 
     legislation would affect every American individual and 
     company for generations. There's a huge amount of money at 
     stake: $845 billion for the federal government in the first 
     10 years. Untold thousands of jobs created--or lost. This 
     requires careful study, not a Springfield-style here's-the-
     bill-let's-vote rush job.

  Then:

       The bill's sponsors are still trying to resolve questions 
     over whether and how to impose sanctions on countries that do 
     not limit emissions. That's crucial.

  That is exactly what we have been saying. Even the Chicago Tribune 
agrees with that.

       That's crucial. Those foreign countries would enjoy a cost 
     advantage in manufacturing if their industries were free to 
     pollute, while American industries picked up the tab for 
     controlling emissions. The Democrats need to delay the vote. 
     Otherwise, the House Members should vote no.

  That came out today in the Chicago Tribune. Even the Chicago Tribune 
says there should not be a vote, but there is going to be a vote. I 
can't imagine that Speaker Pelosi would bring this up for a vote unless 
she had the votes.
  What is the motivation for this, knowing full well it will not pass 
the Senate? I mentioned Copenhagen a moment ago--the big meeting of the 
United Nations, all these people saying America should pass these tax 
increases. They have to take something up there that will make it look 
as though America is going to be taking some kind of leadership role. 
They are not going to do it. If they take the bill passed out of the 
House, I expect one will be passed out of the Senate committee--because 
that committee will pass about anything--they will take that to 
Copenhagen. Everyone will rejoice up there and come back only to find 
out we are not going to join in.
  I am sure there is going to be some type of a treaty that is given to 
the Senate to ratify. We will all have to remember what happened in 
1997. We voted 95 to 0 against ratifying any treaty that is either 
harmful to us economically or is not going to impose the same hardship 
and taxes on developing countries such as China as it does on the 
United States.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of Colorado). The clerk will call 
the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________