Climate Security

Floor Speech

CLIMATE SECURITY -- (Senate - June 04, 2008)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I first wish to raise the concern I have that this extraordinarily complex piece of legislation, I have been advised that this 342-page bill we have on our desks that we all assumed was the working document to which we have been drafting amendments, is actually not going
to be the document we are going to be working from as early as this afternoon. I have been informed--and I ask colleagues whether this is, in fact, the case--that there is actually another bill, not 342 pages long but 491 pages long, that will be laid down this afternoon by Senator Boxer.

It is very difficult for any of us to be prepared when the target continues to move. To those who are concerned, as the Senator from California and the majority leader have been about the speed with which we address this bit of legislation, this does nothing but slow us down and make our job harder. I hope that is not the case, but that is what I am reliably informed.

To me, it is counterintuitive to say the least that we would undertake to pass legislation with a pricetag of $6.7 trillion that will actually raise gas prices by 147 percent when families in my State and across the country are already paying an extra $1,400 a year for gas prices as a result of congressional inaction. Actually, I guess it is wrong to say congressional inaction because Congress has actually acted to impose a barrier to developing America's natural resources right here at home to the tune of roughly 3 million barrels of oil a day which, if it was made available and Congress would simply get out of the way, that would be additional supply which would bring down the price of oil which would give us some temporary relief as we transition to a clean energy future for our country and for the world.

By that I mean by developing things such as greater use of nuclear power, using good old-fashioned American ingenuity, research and development to develop clean coal technology and the like.

In the near term, I think we all have to acknowledge the obvious fact that oil is going to continue to be part of our future, but hopefully it will be a bridge to a future of clean energy independence, but not unless Congress acts. Congress is the problem.

I suggest when we look around for the causes of our current energy crisis that Congress simply look in the mirror because we are the problem. It is unfortunate that when the Senate had an opportunity recently to vote on the American Energy Production Act that only 42 Senators voted for it. That was when gas was about $3.73 a gallon. Today the average price of a gallon of gas is $3.98 a gallon.

I asked the question then, and I will ask it again today: Is the Senate going to reject an opportunity to develop America's natural resources and bring down the price of gasoline at the pump when gasoline is at $3.98 a gallon? How about when it is at $5 a gallon or $6 a gallon? Where is the tipping point at which Congress is finally going to wake up and realize it is the reason Americans are paying too much at the pump?

Instead of dealing with that urgent need that affects every man, woman, and child in this country, this Congress has decided to head down another path, and that path is bigger Government, more taxes, higher energy costs for electricity and gasoline, and with the uncertainty that any of this will actually have an impact on climate, especially given the fact that countries such as China and India, of a billion people each, are not going to agree to impose this on themselves. So America is going to do this, presumably, while our major global competitors are not, and we are going to suffer not only those higher prices but job losses, reduction in our gross domestic product, and a competitive disadvantage with the rest of the world. Why would we do that to ourselves?

At the same time, we see this Rube Goldberg bureaucracy that would be created. Yesterday, Senator Dorgan said this bureaucracy would make HillaryCare pale in comparison with its complexity as reflected on this chart. This is the kind of huge expansion in Government power over our lives and over the economy that is unprecedented in our country, and I suggest is the wrong solution, is the wrong answer to what confronts us today.

In my State in Texas, it has been estimated under that Boxer climate tax legislation that as many as 334,000 jobs would be lost as a result of the increased costs and taxes associated with this bill, with a $52.2 billion loss to the Texas economy, and an $8,000 additional surcharge on each Texas household. That is over and above the $1,400 that each Texas family is already paying because of congressional inaction on oil and gas prices. Electricity costs, 145 percent higher; gasoline, 147 percent higher.

I don't know why, at a time when the American people and the American economy are already struggling with a soft economy in many parts of the country, why we would do this to ourselves. It simply does not make any sense to me.

I would like to have an explanation from our colleagues who are advocating this particular legislation how they can possibly justify this bill. What could be the possible rationale for legislation that would do this to my State and have this sort of Draconian impact on the economy of our country?

I have heard some talk that said that gas prices have increased during the time President Bush has been in office. This is what has happened since our friends on the other side of the aisle have controlled both the House of Representatives and the Senate. We see there is a huge spike in gas prices during a Democratic-controlled Congress. But this should not be a partisan issue. This is a matter of the welfare of the American family and of the American economy. Why in the world would we not want to work together to try to develop the natural resources that God has given us to create that additional 3-million-barrel supply of oil so we can reduce our dependence on imported oil from foreign sources?

The alternative proposed by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle is, OK, we are going to impose higher taxes on the oil industry which, of course, would be passed along to consumers and raise the price of gasoline even more or they say we are going to have another investigation into price gouging when the Federal Trade Commission has investigated time and time again and found no evidence to justify a charge of price gouging when it comes to gasoline prices or they say we are going to sue OPEC, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, which has to be the most boneheaded suggestion I have heard because, of course, what in the world would you ask the judge to order if you were successful in suing OPEC? I presume to open the spigot even wider so we would be more dependent on foreign oil and not less.

It is time for a real solution. This bill is not it. I call on my colleagues to do what we can to open America's natural resources to development and bring down the price of gasoline at the pump.

I yield the floor.

Source