[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 14714-14715]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                             CLIMATE CHANGE

  Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, the House of Representatives is 
prepared to pass the President's energy

[[Page 14715]]

tax. It is also known as the American Clean Energy and Security Act. 
The act, therefore, is known as ACES--American Clean Energy and 
Security Act. ACES is the right thing to call this particular bill 
because it gambles--it gambles--with the future of the American people. 
In blackjack, the dealer might have an ace that is showing, but one 
card in the dealer's hand is always hidden. In this case, the hidden 
card is the card that shows the real cost of this bill to the American 
taxpayer. What the taxpayer doesn't know is that the game is rigged. 
The taxpayer is going to lose. No matter how many times the majority 
adds to this hand another giveaway to special interests, another tax 
break to offset the monumental cost of this bill, the end will be just 
the same: The taxpayer goes bust and Washington will win the game.
  ACES is the product of a supermajority that the Democrats have in the 
House of Representatives. Given the rules and given the procedures of 
the House, reasonable amendments are going to be defeated or even 
blocked from ever being considered. The final product will not be a 
real starting point to begin this debate on climate change.
  ACES is going to have a devastating effect on our economy, and we 
will see there will be no environmental benefit from doing this bill--
none. That is not just my belief or my assessment alone, it is also the 
belief of others.
  Martin Feldstein, noted Harvard economist, in a recent Washington 
Post article stated:

       ACES will have a trivially small effect on global warming 
     while imposing substantial costs on all American households.

  Let me repeat that: a trivially small effect, while imposing 
substantial costs. How big are the costs? Well, he cites the 
Congressional Budget Office, which estimated that the resulting 
increases in consumer prices needed to achieve just a 15-percent 
reduction in carbon dioxide--slightly less than the target of this 
bill--would raise the cost of living $1,600 a year, every year, for 
every family in America. That is a $1,600 tax on every American family 
every year.
  The Heritage Foundation predicts that the ACES approach could cost 
the economy $9.6 trillion and more than 1 million lost jobs into the 
future. And these are just the raw numbers. The real potential for 
economic pain goes much further.
  David Sokol, chairman of MidAmerican Energy, points out that ACES--
this bill--could be a bonanza. And for whom will it be a bonanza? For 
more Wall Street corruption and more Wall Street greed because ACES is 
going to deal in investment banks, it is going to deal in hedge funds 
and other speculators who want to speculate in the cap-and-trade 
market. David Sokol points out:

       If you liked what credit default swaps did to our economy, 
     you're going to love cap and trade.

  Coincidently, the House bill actually allows for credit default 
swaps.
  He is not alone in his assessment. British scientist James Lovelock, 
who is a noted chemist and environmentalist, stated in January that:

       Carbon trading, with its huge government subsidies, is just 
     what the finance industry wanted. It'll make a lot of money 
     for a lot of people and postpone the moment of reckoning.

  So he is saying it will make a lot of money for a lot of people in 
the financial industry.
  Carbon markets can also cause huge fluctuations. We can look to 
Europe as an example and what we saw happen there. In February of this 
year, the Financial Times wrote an article entitled ``Fall in 
CO2 Price a Risk to Green Investment.'' It seems that the 
price of carbon in the European Union had fallen so low that it no 
longer provided an incentive to lower the use of carbon.
  So those are things happening not just for this country but around 
the world.
  Another problem is the huge economic gamble ACES makes by bypassing 
cheaper, low-carbon fuels by heavily relying on unreliable expensive 
energy. This ACES legislation mandates that by 2020 the electric 
utilities meet 20 percent of their electricity demand through renewable 
energy sources and energy efficiency. This is the wrong approach. We 
need an all-of-the-above energy strategy to address our Nation's energy 
needs. We need to make America's energy as clean as we can, as fast as 
we can, without raising energy prices for American families. That is 
how you create and that is how you then sustain economic development. 
So I would say, let's develop all of our energy sources--wind, solar, 
geothermal, hydro, clean coal, nuclear, natural gas--all of the energy 
sources. Our Nation is so blessed with abundant energy resources. They 
are right here for us to use in a clean and environmentally friendly 
way. Coal is cheap and abundant in America. It is what is keeping our 
energy affordable today. Uranium is abundant in America too. Let's 
develop this proven zero-carbon resource. And, yes, let's develop all 
of the renewable energies--the wind, the solar, the hydropower. We need 
it all.
  Lisa Jackson, Director of the Environmental Protection Agency, 
recently took a trip to Wyoming, and this is what she said while she 
was in my home State of Wyoming:

       As a home of wind, coal, and natural gas, Wyoming is at the 
     heart of America's energy future.

  That is because Wyoming has it all. It has the coal, it has the wind, 
it has the natural resources of natural gas and oil and uranium for 
nuclear power. It has it all, and we need it all.
  The bottom line is that the Democrats' cap-and-tax bill costs jobs 
and it raises energy prices. I don't understand why we can't make 
America's energy as clean as we can, as fast as we can, without raising 
energy prices on American families. The administration wants to take a 
different approach. Why are the American people being given this 
stacked deck, where all of the options hurt the economy, raise energy 
prices, and cost jobs? The President says we need green jobs. I agree. 
We also need red, white, and blue jobs--American energy, American 
energy sources.
  The reality is, this partisan energy tax bill passing in the House is 
a bad bet for all of us. We shouldn't double down with any more 
taxpayer money to bail out the climate through an energy tax.
  Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, I understand we are in morning 
business, and I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized for about 12 
minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________