[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 11870-11871]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              CLEAN ENERGY

  Mr. BOND. Madam President, today Members of the Senate will go to the 
White House to meet with President Obama on energy legislation. There 
is general agreement among Republicans that we need to do more to 
promote clean energy and reduce our dependence on foreign energy 
sources. We also need real reform of our oilspill protection laws and 
agencies.
  However, today I talk about where we disagree, and that is on the 
Democratic proposal to impose a national energy tax related to carbon 
emissions.
  The President will try to convince Senators and the public to impose 
a national energy tax. Of course, he will use fancy terms such as 
``pricing carbon.'' But if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, 
then it is a duck, and this duck is an energy tax.
  One form the Democratic national energy tax will take is a tax on 
gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel. Senator Hutchison and I just released a 
new report documenting the size of the gas tax in the Kerry-Lieberman 
cap-and-trade bill. My colleagues can find it on our office Web sites.
  The Kerry-Lieberman cap-and-trade bill includes a $3.4 trillion gas 
tax--with a ``t.'' That is an average of $90 billion a year.
  The number is so large because Americans consume a lot of fuel--over 
200 billion gallons a year. Putting a price on the carbon in this fuel, 
as Democrats and President Obama want to do, will impose a massive new 
tax increase on the American people. You don't have to take my word for 
it. Anyone can add up the cost of this new gas tax. We used all 
publicly available government information, such as the fuel

[[Page 11871]]

consumption data from the U.S. Energy Information Agency and carbon 
pricing estimates from the Environmental Protection Agency. The rest is 
just simple addition and multiplication--multiplication and 
multiplication and multiplication--combining how much fuel we will use 
with the carbon tax rate they propose.
  The $3.4 trillion figure is based on EPA's estimates of future carbon 
prices. By law, as proposed by Kerry-Lieberman, the gas tax could be as 
high as $7.6 trillion if carbon prices hit the price ceilings in this 
bill.
  Kerry-Lieberman's $3.4 trillion total gas tax will include a $1.9 
trillion gasoline tax on families, workers, and small businesses, a 
$1.1 trillion diesel tax on farmers, truckers, and businesses, and a 
$425 billion jet fuel tax on airline passengers.
  Of course, politicians do not want to admit they support a new 
multitrillion-dollar gas tax. They use code words such as ``pricing 
carbon'' or ``requiring the purchase of allowances.''
  They also try to take advantage of the current disasters, such as the 
gulf oilspill, to impose a new gasoline tax. I say we should be 
punishing BP, not the American people, with a new gas tax. A gas tax 
will not stop the oil from leaking, it will not clean up the oil that 
has been spilled, and it will not do anything to restore the 
environment in the coastal areas where that oil will hit.
  To quote an MIT economist highlighted this week:

       People are kidding themselves to believe that penalizing 
     carbon will significantly shrink oil imports or the need for 
     offshore drilling.

  EPA's recent analysis of Kerry-Lieberman confirms this, showing that 
U.S. fuel consumption would decrease by only \1/2\ percent by 2050.
  All we do with a new gas tax is take trillions of dollars from 
American families and workers with no real impact on our oil 
dependency. In fact, the thing that has slowed gasoline consumption in 
the United States has been the recession. When people are out of work 
and businesses are not selling and work is not being done, then 
consumption goes down. Is that how we want to reduce dependence on 
foreign oil and reduce pollution? I say not.
  Sponsors say a portion of these funds is going to the highway trust 
fund. However, this bill sends less than 2 percent of its value to the 
trust fund, or only a few billion dollars per year by my calculations. 
Even that will end in 2040.
  Sponsors also point to their refund program where they claim they 
will give back two-thirds of the carbon tax revenues the government 
will take in. How many trust the Federal Government to return tax 
revenue to us once they get their tax-and-spend fingers on it? They 
have schemes that will send that money to politically favored groups. 
That is what has happened in the past, and that is what will happen in 
the future.
  While they give back two-thirds of the revenues, the government still 
keeps one-third of the tax. One-third of a $3.4 trillion gas tax means 
American families and workers, even if they got it back on a fair pro 
rata basis--which nobody believes they will--Americans will still face 
$1.1 trillion in net new taxes from the gas tax.
  You know something funny must be going on when big oil actually 
supports this bill. You heard me right; big oil supports this bill. BP, 
Shell, and ConocoPhillips actually helped draft Kerry-Lieberman. Do my 
colleagues know why they did that? They are not worried about a tax on 
gasoline because they know every single penny will be shifted to the 
consumers with their profit margins added. It may not be a bad deal for 
the gas and oil companies, but it is a bad deal for all of us as 
consumers.
  Big oil knows they can pass most of the new tax on to consumers, so 
they are not worried about it. But Senator Hutchison and I remain 
deeply worried about families, farmers, truckers, small businesses, and 
fliers who will pay this $3.4 trillion gas tax.
  There is a better way. We can come together on new incentives for 
hybrid and electric cars, nuclear power, advanced fuels such as 
cellulosic ethanol and biomass, and even higher fuel efficiency 
standards for vehicles. But what we should not do is punish American 
families, farmers, workers, and businesses with a $3.4 trillion gas 
tax.
  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. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of New Mexico). Without objection, 
it is so ordered.

                          ____________________