[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 107 (Thursday, June 22, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Page S3715]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                               Carbon Tax

  Mr. President, let me just mention one more thing because I think I 
do have a little bit more time. Earlier this year, several major oil 
and gas companies announced their support for a carbon tax plan. This 
is kind of interesting because we have been fighting this battle for a 
long period of time. You have to keep in mind there are some very large 
corporations that would inure to benefit from a carbon tax.
  The plan they are backing is one put forth by the Climate Leadership 
Council. This group's plan is labeled as a conservative climate 
solution that would tax greenhouse gas emissions and return money to 
the taxpayers as a climate dividend.
  It ain't going to happen, folks. You pass a tax, and it is going to 
cost everyone--at least everyone who uses energy. I don't know of 
anyone right now in America who doesn't. The heart of the plan is to 
make energy from fossil fuels more expensive.
  One of the things I do every week, I go back to my State of Oklahoma 
where there are logical people. I talk to them about things you don't 
hear in Washington; things, for example, back there in the Obama 
administration. It was in Chaddick, OK. A farmer came up to me and 
said: Explain this to me, Senator. If right now we have a President who 
is trying to do away with fossil fuels--that is coal, oil and gas--and 
he also wants to do away with nuclear, and while we are dependent--in 
order to run this machine called America, for 89 percent of the energy 
we use, we are dependent upon fossil fuels and nuclear, and if he is 
successful, how do you run the machine called America? The answer is, 
you can't. This fight has been going on for a long period of time. If 
you drive a car, you use electricity, or heat your home, you will see 
higher prices at the pump or if you pass one of these carbon taxes. 
While these are the obvious increases, higher energy costs would be 
felt across the economy as it becomes more expensive for all industries 
to operate and transport their wares, raising food prices and the price 
of consumer goods. In return for paying these higher prices, you get a 
check or what someone would call free money, but this money isn't 
really free. The higher costs of energy, food, and goods are paid by 
the consumer. That is by everyone in America, no exceptions, and then 
returned to the consumer. Why can't they just avoid the transition and 
just keep their money in the first place? Well, they can. That is the 
answer.
  Furthermore, if every American gets the same amount of money as this 
money calls for, is that really equitable? A family who lives in a 
small apartment, who walks or takes the subway to work or to school and 
doesn't own a car in New York City would get the same amount of money 
as the independent long-haul trucker or a farmer in rural Oklahoma who 
spends a lot of time in his truck and running his tractor and using 
more energy to run his farm and his home. As unreasonable as it sounds, 
this is a reality. There are those out there.
  The conservative climate solution sounds more like a redistribution 
from our rural citizens to more urban populations. Usually, we are 
talking about taxing the rich to pay to the poor. This is something 
new.
  Furthermore, I always find it interesting that the Warren Buffetts of 
the world want more taxes. They feel comfortable enough in their wealth 
to ask for more of their money to be taken, knowing that raising taxes 
is a nonstarter for many of us in Congress. As I pointed out to him, 
and will point out to the companies that have joined the Climate 
Leadership Council, you are free to write your check, if you want to do 
it anyway. If you are so wrapped up in this idea, then you need either 
to go--or if, for some other reason, you want to pay money to the 
Treasury, they are open for business and would be glad to take your 
money. If you feel that strongly, why wait for legislation that would 
be a nonstarter? If you are a citizen and want to pay for your carbon 
footprint, the Treasury would be very glad to accept that.
  Let's face it. I am not going to support a new tax--what could very 
well end up a tax, maybe even the largest tax we would have in this 
country that does not accomplish anything.
  Let's keep in mind, if there is somebody out there who it inures to 
their corporate benefit, or otherwise, to increase their taxes, let 
them go ahead and send their check to the Treasury. They will be glad 
to get it.