[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 179 (Thursday, December 10, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8607-S8609]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. SANDERS (for himself, Mr. Markey, and Mr. Merkley):
  S. 2391. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 
permanently extend certain energy tax provisions; to the Committee on 
Finance.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, one of the great moral issues of our time 
is the global crisis of climate change. Let me be very clear about 
climate change. Climate change is not a Democratic issue or a 
progressive issue. It is not a Republican issue or a conservative 
issue. What it is, is an issue that has everything to do with physics. 
It is an issue of physics. What we know beyond a shadow of a doubt is 
that the debate is over, and that is that the vast majority of the 
scientists who have studied the issues are quite clear. What they tell 
us over and over again is that climate change is real, climate change 
is caused by human activity, and climate change is already causing 
devastating problems throughout our country and, in fact, throughout 
the world.
  What the scientists also tell us is that we have a relatively short 
window of opportunity to bring about the fundamental changes we need in 
our global energy system to transform our energy system from fossil 
fuel to energy efficiency and sustainable energy. We have a limited 
window of opportunity. What the scientists are telling us very clearly 
is if we do not seize that opportunity, if we do not lead the world--
working with China, Russia, India and other countries--in transforming 
the global energy system, the planet we leave to our children and our 
grandchildren will be significantly less habitable than the planet we 
enjoy.
  My nightmare is that 20, 30, 40 years from now our kids and our 
grandchildren will look Members of the Senate and the House in the eye, 
and they will say: The scientists told you what would happen and you 
did nothing. Why did you not react? How hard was it to stand up to the 
fossil fuel industry and transform our energy system away from coal and 
oil into energy efficiency and wind, solar, geothermal, and other 
sustainable energies?
  Pope Francis recently made what I thought to be a very profound 
statement. He said that our planet is on a suicidal direction--a 
suicidal direction--in terms of climate change. What a frightening and 
horrible thought. How irresponsible can we be to ignore what the entire 
scientific community is saying?
  I know there are many of my colleagues who refuse to acknowledge the 
reality. As perhaps the most progressive Member of the U.S. Senate let 
me simply say this: I have differences with my Republican colleagues on 
virtually every issue. That goes without saying, but there is something 
very different about this issue. I have been in hearings with my 
Republican colleagues where I heard doctors and scientists talk about 
cancer, about Alzheimer's, about diabetes, about all kinds of 
illnesses, and I may disagree with my Republican colleagues about how 
we go forward, how much we should fund NIH, but I have never heard my 
Republican colleagues attack doctors or researchers or scientists for 
their views on cancer research or Alzheimer's research. As I do, they 
respect that research. But somehow or another, when it comes to the 
issue of climate change, at best what we are seeing Republicans do--
many Republicans, most Republicans--is ignore the issue or claim they 
are not scientists or, at worst, attack those scientists who are doing 
the research.
  Why is that? Why is it that my Republican colleagues accept the 
research

[[Page S8608]]

on cancer, on Alzheimer's, on all kinds of illnesses, and they respect 
scientists who are working in all kinds of areas. But somehow or 
another when it comes to the issue of climate change, my Republican 
friends are in denial? What I will say is that this has nothing to do 
with science, and it has sadly and tragically everything to do with our 
corrupt campaign finance laws, which allow large corporations and 
billionaires to contribute as much money as they want into the 
political process. In my view, the reality is that any Republican--and 
I happen to believe that many Republicans understand the truth about 
climate change. But I also believe that any Republican who stood up and 
said ``You know what, I just talked to some scientists'' or ``I just 
read some of the literature, and this climate change is real, it is 
dangerous, and we have to do something about it''--I believe that on 
that day when that Republican stands up, the money will stop flowing 
from the fossil fuel industry, from the Koch brothers, and there will 
be a strong likelihood that Republican would be primaried in the next 
election.
  According to the Center for Responsive Politics, at the national 
level where companies have to report what they spend on lobbying and 
campaign contributions, the oil companies, coal companies, and electric 
utilities have spent a staggering $2.2 billion in Federal lobbying 
since 2009 and another $330 million in Federal campaign contributions. 
That is just at the Federal level--over $2.5 billion in lobbying and 
campaign contributions in just 6 years. Even in Washington, DC, that is 
a lot of money, and that is just the money that we know about.
  That is not all of it. That is not the end of it. As a result of the 
disastrous Citizens United Supreme Court decision, which allowed 
corporations and billionaires to spend unlimited sums of money, we know 
that the Koch brothers, who make most of their money in the fossil fuel 
industry, and a handful of their friends will be spending some $900 
million--$900 million--from one family and a few of their friends in 
the 2016 election cycle. Clearly, one of the reasons they are investing 
so much in this election cycle is that they intend to continue doing 
everything they can to make sure Congress does not go forward to 
protect our kids and our grandchildren against the ravages of climate 
change.
  According to an 8-month investigation by journalists at Inside 
Climate News, Exxon--now ExxonMobil--may have conducted extensive 
research on climate change as early as 1977, leading top Exxon 
scientists to conclude both that climate change is real and that it was 
caused, in part, by the carbon pollution resulting from the use of 
Exxon's petroleum-based products. In addition, the purported internal 
business memoranda accompanying the reporting asserted that Exxon's 
climate science program was launched in response to a perceived 
existential threat to its business model. In other words, the 
scientists at ExxonMobil, who are scientists, discovered the truth, and 
upon hearing the truth, ExxonMobil poured millions of dollars into 
organizations whose main function was to deny the reality of climate 
change.
  The efforts to transform our energy system are taking place not only 
here in Washington, the Nation's Capital, but at the State and local 
level as well. In States such as Arizona and Florida, roadblocks are 
being put up to stop people from gaining access to renewable energy 
sources such as wind and especially rooftop solar. In States such as 
Arizona and Florida and many of our Southern States with huge solar 
exposure, there is huge potential for solar. Yet we are now seeing 
politicians, at the behest of the fossil fuel industry, put up 
roadblock after roadblock to make it harder for people to move to solar 
or wind.
  I have heard a lot of the arguments from the fossil fuel industry as 
to why we should not transform our energy system, and many of those 
arguments are repeated here on the floor by some of my colleagues. But 
the truth is that it turns out that transforming our energy system away 
from fossil fuel and into energy efficiency and sustainable energy will 
create a significant number of new and decent-paying jobs, and it will 
lower energy bills in communities all across this country.
  My own State of Vermont participates in a regional greenhouse gas 
initiative cap-and-trade program for the power sector. Since 2009, the 
program has created over 14,000 net jobs, and carbon pollution levels 
dropped by 15 percent at the same time consumers, businesses, and other 
energy users saw their electricity and heating bills go down by $459 
million. The majority of those savings came from energy efficiency. All 
the while, jobs were created, not exported, and we relied on clean 
domestic energy instead of oil from the Middle East.
  Energy efficiency clearly makes an enormous amount of sense. It is 
clearly the low-hanging fruit as we transform our energy system.
  I have been in homes in Vermont that have been effectively 
weatherized, and they are seeing heating bills drop by 50 percent. 
People in those homes are living in more comfort, and jobs are being 
created by those people who install the insulation and other energy-
efficient tools, not to mention all of the folks who are manufacturing 
the insulation, windows, and efficient roofing.
  According to the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, 
energy efficiency provides a larger return on investment than any 
individual energy source because for every $1 invested in energy 
efficiency, we see $4 in total benefits for all consumers. For every $1 
billion invested in efficiency upgrades, we see a creation of 19,000 
direct and indirect jobs.
  These numbers are great and speak for themselves, but acting on 
climate change is also a moral obligation. While we will all suffer--
all over our country and all over the world--the impacts of climate 
change, the sad truth is that climate impacts fall especially hard upon 
the most vulnerable people in our society. Minority and low-income 
communities in the United States are disproportionately impacted by the 
causes of climate change. According to a 2012 study by the National 
Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the NAACP, the 
nearly 6 million people in the United States who live within 3 miles of 
a coal-burning powerplant have an average per capita annual income of 
just over $18,000 a year. Among the people who live within 3 miles of a 
coal powerplant, 39 percent are people of color, while people of color 
compromise only 36 percent of the total population of the United 
States.
  The bottom line is that when we talk about climate change and its 
impact upon our planet and all the people, we should bear in mind that 
this is happening not only in the United States but all over the world. 
The people who will suffer the most are low-income people and people 
living in poverty.
  I am introducing legislation called the American Clean Energy 
Investment Act of 2015. This legislation is built upon the fact that 
the prices for wind and solar power have plummeted over the last 
decade, cutting carbon pollution and creating tens of thousands of new 
jobs in the process. Meanwhile, the fossil fuel industry benefits from 
permanent subsidies worth tens of billions of dollars each year. 
Incentives for renewable energy and energy efficiency are temporary and 
are too often allowed to elapse entirely.
  My legislation permanently extends and makes refundable some of our 
most important renewable energy tax credits for energy efficiency and 
sustainable energy, including sources such as solar, wind, and 
geothermal. Permanently extending these incentives will drive over $500 
billion in clean energy investments between now and 2030 and are an 
integral part of putting us on a pathway to more than doubling the size 
of our clean energy workforce to 10 million American workers. The costs 
for these incentives are completely offset by repealing the special 
interest corporate welfare in the Tax Code for the fossil fuel 
industries.
  If we are going to be serious about dealing with the threat of 
climate change, we need to end the polluter welfare that subsidizes 
increased pollution from fossil fuels and instead invest those 
resources in clean energy solutions that reduce pollution. Doing this 
will save lives, protect our economy, and reduce the threats from 
climate change at the same time we are creating millions of good-paying 
jobs here in the United States.
  Our legislation is supported by the Solar Energy Industries 
Association,

[[Page S8609]]

the American Wind Energy Association, 350.org, and cosponsored by 
Senators Merkley and Markey.
  We have a national responsibility to protect the livelihoods of the 
working families and communities who help power and build this country. 
We must act now to reenergize our manufacturing base, bolster our clean 
energy economy, and protect the livelihoods of energy workers and the 
communities they support.
  As a result of these concerns, this bill provides up to 3 years of 
unemployment insurance, health care, and pensions for workers who lose 
their jobs due to our transition to a clean energy economy. In other 
words, we understand--as was very much the case with our moving away 
from tobacco farming in this country--that the people who do the work 
in coal, oil, and other fossil fuels are not to blame for the fact that 
the product they produce is causing so many problems in our country. 
Our job is to protect and transition them to other decent-paying jobs, 
and the government has a responsibility to help with that transition.
  Based on what the scientists are telling us, we need to make very 
significant cuts in carbon pollution emissions and we need to do it as 
soon as possible. It is absolutely vital that we do what many 
economists tell us we must do, and that is to put a price on carbon. It 
is the simplest and most direct way to make the kinds of cuts in carbon 
pollution that we have to make if we are going to successfully 
transition from fossil fuel to energy efficiency and sustainable 
energy. That is why within the Climate Protection and Justice Act that 
I am introducing, there will be a tax on carbon. Directly pricing 
carbon is a key part of the solution of transforming our energy system. 
Many experts support a fee on carbon pollution emissions, including 
liberal, moderates, and even prominent conservatives such as George 
Shultz, Nobel laureate economist Gary Becker, Mitt Romney's former 
adviser Gregory Mankiw, former Reagan adviser Art Laffer, former 
Republican Bob Inglis, and many others. The idea of a price on carbon 
is not just a progressive concept, it is one that is being supported by 
economists throughout the political spectrum.
  The Nation's leading corporations, including the Nation's five 
biggest oil giants, are already planning their future budgets with the 
assumptions that there will be a cost applied to carbon emissions. In 
other words, some of the very companies that have strongly opposed 
action to address climate change are recognizing the reality in front 
of them, and that is that the United States is going to--hopefully 
sooner rather than later--address the crisis of climate change and that 
there will be a tax on carbon. This tax works by setting enforceable 
pollution-reduction targets for each decade, including a 40-percent 
reduction below 1990 levels by 2030 and a more than 80-percent 
reduction level by 2050.
  This legislation sets a price on carbon pollution for fossil fuel 
producers or importers. Proceeds from the carbon pollution fee are 
returned to the bottom 80 percent of households making less than 
$100,000 a year to offset them for any increase they might experience 
in increased energy costs as a result of this transition. For an 
average family of four, this will amount to a rebate of roughly $900 in 
2017 and will grow to an annual rebate of $1,900 in 2030. It would only 
apply upstream, meaning at the oil refinery, coal mine, natural gas 
processing plant, or point of importation. It would apply to fewer than 
3,000 of the largest fossil fuel polluters in this country.

  EPA's existing authority to regulate carbon pollution, sources from 
powerplants, vehicles, and other sources is reaffirmed, and if the 
United States is not on track to meet its emissions reduction targets, 
the EPA shall issue new regulations to ensure that it does.
  Importantly, based on lessons learned from the cap-and-trade law in 
California, a Federal interagency council will oversee the creation and 
distribution of a climate justice resiliency fund block grant program 
to States, territories, tribes, municipalities, counties, localities, 
and nonprofit community organizations. The council will provide $20 
billion annually for these grants in communities that are vulnerable to 
the impacts of climate change for important programs they are running.
  This legislation strengthens our manufacturing sector through a 
border tariff adjustment mechanism which shields energy-intensive, 
trade-exposed industries such as steel, aluminum, glass, pulp and 
paper, from unfair international trade policies. The monies raised by 
the green tariff are used to help improve industrial energy efficiency.
  Farmers receive dedicated funding through the USDA's Rural Energy for 
America Program to improve on farm energy efficiency and to adopt 
onsite renewable energy. The bill includes incentives for farmers to 
adopt no-till practices and creates an incentive program to encourage 
the adoption of sustainable fertilizer application practices.
  Finally, the bill includes Federal electricity market reforms that 
reduce pollution, increase efficiency, and reduce costs by ensuring 
equitable grid access for demand response programs.
  At the end of the day, the Congress of the United States is going to 
have to make some very important and fundamental decisions, and the 
most important is whether we believe in science. We can have many 
disagreements on many issues, but we should not have a disagreement 
about whether we base public policy on science rather than campaign 
contributions. That really is the issue we are dealing with right now.
  We are in a critical moment in world history. Our planet is becoming 
warmer, sea levels are rising, and communities all over the world that 
are on seacoasts are being threatened. The ocean is being acidified to 
an unprecedented level, which has huge impacts in so many areas, 
including the ability of people to fish and gain nutrients from the 
ocean.
  We are looking at unprecedented levels of heat waves in India, 
Pakistan, and Europe that have killed thousands of people. We are 
looking at forest fires on the west coast of that country that are 
unprecedented in terms of their duration and their ferocity.
  So we have to make a decision about whether we stand with our 
children and our grandchildren or whether we stand with campaign 
contributors from the fossil fuel industry.
  Climate change is real. Climate change is caused by human activity. 
Climate change is already causing devastating damage on this planet. 
Our job is now to stand with our children, to stand with our 
grandchildren, and to make certain that they have a planet that is 
healthy and that is habitable. That is what the legislation I am 
introducing will do.
                                 ______