[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 15769-15770]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        DIFFERENCES BETWEEN DEMOCRAT AND REPUBLICAN ENERGY PLANS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Olson) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. OLSON. Madam Speaker, I rise today to discuss the differences 
between the Democrat and Republican energy plans.
  As we move into summer, energy prices are creeping up, as they do 
each year, placing higher costs on those in our country who can least 
afford them. We need an energy plan that ensures a reliable, safe and 
affordable energy supply.
  Democratic leaders in Washington have proposed a plan that would 
replace our present energy supply with unreliable and costly energy 
alternatives. The cornerstone of this plan would reduce carbon 
emissions through an aggressive cap-and-trade program. This program 
would set nationwide limits on greenhouse gas emissions and create a 
market-based trading program for companies to meet the cap. The goal of 
this plan is to force reductions in carbon emissions through government 
rationing of carbon credits for energy producers.
  The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office analysis of this plan 
concluded that the potential job loss in my home State of Texas alone 
by the year 2020 could go as high as 311,600. Let me say that again. 
Over 300,000 jobs lost in my State by 2020, resulting in a staggering 
loss in personal income of up to $22.8 billion. That cost is simply too 
high. It is not cap-and-trade; it is cap-and-tax.
  My Republican colleagues and I believe we can still achieve an energy 
plan that keeps costs affordable, lowers emissions and grows energy 
jobs right here in America.

                              {time}  1615

  I'm opposed to a plan that dramatically little increases the cost of 
energy for American consumers. That is why my Republican colleagues and 
I have crafted a comprehensive energy bill that not only increases 
energy production here in America, but ensures that all forms of energy 
have the ability to compete to provide clean, reliable, and affordable 
energy for all Americans.
  The American Energy Act is a blueprint of solutions for American 
energy problems. We must create an environment where all producers have 
the opportunity to compete to provide safe, reliable energy, instead of 
the current stranglehold of bureaucratic red tape and regulatory 
obstacles producers face.
  We have an important opportunity to reduce carbon emissions sought by 
Democrats through increased use of nuclear energy. The American Energy 
Act would allow nuclear energy to compete with other energy sources 
based on its merits, such as being affordable, domestic, and, most 
importantly, emissions-free.
  The U.S. Department of Energy is now in the process of awarding 
financing for four American power companies to build new nuclear power 
reactors to allow more nuclear power to come online between 2015 and 
2020. And we can bring more energy onto the grid if we streamline the 
application process, as the American Energy Act does.
  The goal of this plan is not to promote one form of energy over the 
other, but to allow the market system to determine which producers can 
achieve the goal of providing a safe and reliable energy supply to meet 
our Nation's needs.
  Americans need safe, reliable and affordable energy, not government-
mandated emission programs that increase consumer costs and kill 
American jobs. We need a plan that promotes all forms of energy to meet 
that goal.
  Madam Speaker, the Republican energy plan is a commonsense approach 
to increasing domestic energy sources, creating American energy jobs, 
and promoting a clean environment without dipping in the pockets of 
American families.

[[Page 15770]]



                          ____________________