[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 9377-9378]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                             ENERGY POLICY

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, several years ago when the majority party, 
the Democratic Party, controlled 60 seats in the Senate and had 
literally the numbers to do whatever it wanted to do, the majority 
leader tried to push through a new massive energy tax bill known as 
cap-and-trade. Not only did it fail to pass, the majority leader never 
even brought it up for a vote, primarily because members of his own 
party recognized there would be huge costs associated with this new 
energy tax, and that the benefits, indeed, on balance did not outweigh 
the costs or, perhaps most charitably stated, were neutral. There were 
hardly any real benefits to speak of on the plus side, but there were 
plenty of negatives, including lost jobs, lost wages, higher utility 
bills, and a less competitive U.S. economy.
  Now the Obama administration, we learn, is in the process of enacting 
a backdoor energy tax, not through the votes of Members of Congress--
the only people who could be held accountable for how we vote--but 
rather through the regulatory process through the Environmental 
Protection Agency.
  Much like the cap-and-trade bill that collapsed in 2010, the EPA 
regulation that was announced earlier today would impose major new 
costs on America's economy while doing virtually nothing to improve the 
environment. I will explain my reason for saying that in a moment.
  I will talk about the economic costs in a second, but first I want to 
emphasize that over the coming decades America's contribution to the 
growth of worldwide carbon dioxide emissions will be virtually 
nonexistent.
  Consider these numbers from the Energy Information Agency: Between 
2005 and 2012, America's energy-related carbon dioxide emissions 
actually declined by more than 10 percent. Between 2005 and 2012, our 
carbon dioxide emissions did not go up but they declined by more than 
10 percent. By contrast, over the same period of time China's energy-
related carbon dioxide emissions grew by nearly 64 percent.
  So ours went down 10 percent and China's went up by 64 percent. As a 
result, China is now producing far more carbon dioxide emissions than 
the United States.
  Looking ahead, the Energy Information Agency has projected that 
developing countries--countries that don't have a developed economy 
like the United States but do want our standard of living and a better 
life for their people--will be responsible for 94 percent of the growth 
in global carbon dioxide emissions between 2010 and 2040, with China 
alone accounting for 49 percent of that increase. As for the United 
States, during that same period of time carbon dioxide emissions will 
barely increase at all.
  I mentioned these figures because some of my friends across the aisle 
have repeatedly declared that President Obama's backdoor energy tax 
will help us ``fight climate change.'' Given the numbers I just listed, 
it should be clear to us that any rule such as what the EPA is 
proposing would do little to affect global emissions unless developing 
countries such as China and India do exactly the same--assuming that is 
something we would want to make as a priority, and assuming the 
benefits outweigh the costs.
  The fact is that China has no interest in sacrificing economic growth 
for speculative long-term climate benefits, nor do India or other 
developing nations. We have to remember that these countries alone 
still have hundreds of millions of people living in abject poverty. 
They want a better and growing economy, so why in the world would they 
impose these restrictions on themselves? It is not going to happen, and 
that is what they told us.
  In short, President Obama's EPA rule would place America's economy--
an economy that shrunk by 1 percent last quarter--at a competitive 
disadvantage without having any substantial effect on global climate 
change or on CO2 emissions overall. In other words, it would 
be all pain and no gain. As I mentioned, the pain would be very real. 
It would come in the form of lost jobs due to a slowing economy, lost 
wages, and higher electricity prices.
  In my State, the month of August gets to be pretty hot, and our grid 
operates at maximum capacity. Due to a variety of EPA regulations, the 
price of those higher electricity prices is borne by the people who are 
least able to absorb those costs--particularly people on a fixed 
income, including the elderly. Also, the job loss would be concentrated 
on blue-collar workers in the

[[Page 9378]]

fossil fuel industries--most notably the coal industry. These workers 
have already been hurt by EPA regulations, but these new proposed 
regulations would make that pain even worse. The higher electricity 
costs and higher utility rates would affect all of us, but the heaviest 
burden would fall on people who are at a low or fixed income; in other 
words, the people who are least able to pay more for their utility 
bills.
  If a regulation can't pass the basic cost-benefit test, then in my 
view it has little business being enacted--and it should certainly not 
be enacted by nameless, faceless bureaucrats who are unaccountable to 
the American people or for the consequences of what they are passing. 
That is especially true when our economy is suffering through the 
weakest economic recovery and the longest period of high unemployment 
since the Great Depression. Why--if this makes sense at any time--would 
we want to do it now?
  Median household income has also declined by nearly $2,300 since the 
recession formally ended. We have had a period of anemic economic 
growth in this country, a high unemployment rate, the slowest economic 
recovery since the Great Depression, and the highest percentage of 
people who dropped out of the workforce because they are discouraged 
about the prospect of finding jobs at any time since Jimmy Carter was 
President.
  In the meantime, if you are buying your health insurance in the 
ObamaCare exchanges and your health insurance premiums have gone up--we 
know the cost of fuel and gasoline has gone up, and the cost of food 
has gone up. The middle class will be disproportionately burdened by 
this EPA regulation in a way that does not, on net, change the global 
environment, and would kill jobs and hurt families in return for 
negligible, or even nonexistent, benefits.
  Once again, we see that the President has decided to place ideology--
his wish of how the world ought to look--ahead of the numbers. He is 
famous for saying, let's do the arithmetic.
  Let's do the arithmetic. The arithmetic does not make the case that 
these regulations should be passed; indeed, it defeats the argument 
that they should.
  Sadly, rather than engage in the normal legislative process that 
would allow my colleague, the Presiding Officer from Maine, who may 
have a different view from mine, and others to debate and vote on these 
issues and make policy so we can be held accountable for what we do, 
the President has decided to skirt the legislative process and instead 
rely on unaccountable bureaucrats to enact measures that would never 
pass through Congress. Yet the idea of this President is: I have a 
phone and a pen, and I can go it alone. He can do it by himself.
  Well, he can't. Our Constitution does not allow that. Sooner or later 
the American people are going to hold folks accountable for enabling 
this sort of unilateral activity. In my view this is an unforced error 
that will damage our economy, hurt our workers, and raise the cost of 
living for middle-class families and those on a fixed income.
  I find it astonishing that this misguided regulation is being 
considered now when our economy is growing so slowly and so many people 
are out of work or have left the workforce, and the median household 
income is down, yet costs for health care, food, gasoline, and other 
commodities are going up.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. JOHANNS. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________