add to del.icio.us			digg this		print		email

Floor Statement: Sens. Cornyn, Sessions & Inhofe Discuss The Boxer Climate Tax Bill

Sens. Cornyn, Sessions & Inhofe Discuss The Boxer Climate Tax Bill - Thursday, June 05, 2008 View video | Can't view the video?

Senator Cornyn: I thank the chair. Mr. President, I join my colleagues in invoking the memory of Craig Thomas. On our side of the aisle, there was nobody more dependable, more loyal, more than a team player. And whenever there was an important issue, particularly one concerning Wyoming, concerning energy, he'd be down here talking about it. And he would be enlightening the debate. We miss him. I can't help but think that he would be down here on this particular piece of legislation, as Senator Enzi has alluded, talking about what is obviously a game of gotcha.

This is a bill -- actually we're on the third version of the bill, I believe. The fourth version of the bill. I stand corrected by Senator Inhofe. The last one I saw went from 342 pages to 491 pages. That was the one that was read yesterday. And I dare say that not many, if any, United States Senators are going to be called upon to vote on that legislation have had a chance to read it yet in detail. So I don't think it was a wasted exercise to have The Clerk read the bill yesterday to give people a chance to understand what's in it. When you look at a piece of legislation that comes with a $6.7 trillion price tag and one that will raise and not lower the price of gasoline and electricity, will depress the American economy and literally put people out of work, I think we need to know what's in it. We need to debate it. We need to offer amendments to hopefully improve it. There's not one among us who does not care about the environment. I don't know any person of goodwill alive who doesn't care about the quality of the air we breathe and the cleanliness of the water that we drink. So I think those who suggest that questions about this huge bill, this huge tax increase, this huge increase in the cost of energy, suggesting that you don't care about the environment if you're asking questions and want to offer amendments to improve it is just demonstrably false.

Senator Sessions: Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Senator Cornyn: I will.

Senator Sessions: Mr. President, Senator Cornyn is just a fabulous, important Senator. He knows what's been happening here on all important issues, and he knows the importance of certain actions on the floor. Senator Reid last night, as I understand, filled the amendment tree and as I understand it, that impacts directly the ability of persons on this side to freely offer amendments. Is that correct, Senator Cornyn?

Senator Cornyn: Mr. President, I would say to the distinguished Senator from Alabama, he's exactly right. I mean, to come out here on the floor as the assistant Majority Leader has done this morning and say, oh, we're interested in full debate and amendment, and we regret the delay that occurred yesterday from the reading of the bill. But yet at the same time to say that no member of the United States Senate can offer an amendment because of the actions of the Majority Leader, unless the Majority Leader gives the green light, is at odds with that claim. It is not a demonstration, from my perspective, of a desire to have an open debate and an amendment process.

Senator Sessions: So that act was a knowing and deliberate leadership act by the Majority Leader that fundamentally says unless he approves an amendment, whether it's offered by those who favor the legislation or oppose it, is a significant event that constricts free amendments on this bill. Is that not correct?

Senator Cornyn: Mr. President, I would say to the Senator from Alabama, again he's correct. I think what it demonstrates is that the professed desire to actually do something about this important issue is in fact nothing more than a political gain. Because I predict what will happen is that because he is blocking any amendments and an open debate about the bill, we will have a vote on the cloture petition. It will fail. And then the Majority Leader will attempt to pull this bill from the floor in consideration. I hope that members of the Senate will prevent that from happening by denying cloture on any future motions to proceed to other legislation. I think it's prely important that we have the kind of debate that this bill of this import and this size deserves.

If I can just refer my colleagues to this chart which is, I believe, produced by the US Chamber of Commerce. You know, Senator Dorgan, the Senator from North Dakota, the other day said of this bill that 'Hillarycare' pales in terms of its complexity. I remember the huge bureaucracy that would have been created proposed by Senator Clinton when she was First Lady of the United States. I think it was back in 1993. But this chart produced by the US Chamber of Commerce, all the regulations and mandates of the Boxer Climate Tax indicates the complexity of what has been proposed here and why, I guess, it shouldn't be surprising that the price tag comes at $6.7 trillion, and where the Federal government, through a growth in the bureaucracy and intrusion in the freedom and lives of the American people and small and large businesses alike, will be the ones that will choose the winners and losers in this system. Who gets the goodies and who does not. Who gets permission to operate their power plant, who does not. And that's why the price of gasoline, that's why the price of electricity is expected to go through the roof as a result of this bill.

I agree with the Senator from Tennessee, Senator Corker, who called this the mother of all earmarks. There's been a lot of discussion about earmarks here and lack of transparency in the way Congress spends money. Well, this bill, if it's passed and signed by the President of the United States, would empower the United States Congress to dole out earmarks with a complete lack of transparency in a way that would allow massive government intrusion in the free market system. That's why the "Wall Street Journal" dubbed this bill, "the biggest government reorganization of the economy since the 1930's."

The National Association of Manufacturers has estimated this economic impact in my state, the state of Texas we are fortunate now, while some parts of the country are suffering through headwinds when it comes to the economy, that we're doing pretty well, relatively speaking. Unemployment's at 4.1%. A lot of new jobs have been created. A lot of opportunity. We've seen a lot of growth in the population because people are moving where the jobs and the opportunity are. But under the Boxer Climate Tax Bill that we have before us on the floor of the United States Senate, it's estimated that 334,000 of my constituents would lose their jobs.

Why would they lose their job? Well, because this bill would be like a wet blanket on the economy, raising electricity prices, raising gas prices on everything from agriculture to small businesses. It's estimated cost the average Texas household $8,000 in additional cost. That's on top of the $1,400 that most Texas households are currently having to pay because of increased gas prices due to the obstruction of Congress in failing to allow development of American natural resources, an American solution to our energy crisis. It would be a $52 billion loss to the Texas economy. As you see here, it's estimated that electricity prices would go up 145% and gasoline prices 147%.

I'm really sorry that the assistant Majority Leader refused to allow us to offer an amendment designed to lower gas prices, because I can't think of any more urgent, any more targeted relief that we could offer the American people today than to provide some relief for the pain at the pump. And I think that should be our highest priority as we go about the process of developing a clean energy future for this country, as we transition out of an oil-based economy into one for renewable forms of energy, increase nuclear capacity and one that will improve the climate...

Senator Inhofe: Will the Senator yield for a real quick question?

Senator Cornyn: I will.

Senator Inhofe: I think it should be made very clear today as we go into debate, we look back at the clean air amendments of 1990's. There were something like 180 amendments considered at that time. We had it on the floor for five weeks. This goes much further than those amendments did, and yet they're cutting us off. Let's make it very clear, the Republicans on this side of the aisle want to debate this bill, want to vote, recorded votes on amendments, and want to vote on the bill itself.

Senator Cornyn: Mr. President, the senior Senator from Oklahoma is absolutely correct. That's why I believe 74 Senators voted for the motion to proceed so that we could get on the bill, so that we could offer amendments. And we have a list of amendments we'd like to offer. We'd like to have debate on those amendments, because we think the impact of this proposal would be dramatic on the American people and on the economy, and would, in all likelihood, not accomplish the goal that Senator Boxer professes to want to accomplish.

If in fact we impose this draconian bureaucracy and this huge expense on the American people, our competitors in China and India, they're not going to do it. And so we're going to put people out of work in Texas, while people in China and India are going to continue to do what they're doing now and enjoy the prosperity caused by their access to the energy which they need to grow their economy. And this bill would do nothing to impose the same restrictions on them, the same high prices on them that Congress proposes to impose on the American people, including my constituents.

So rather than increasing gas prices by 147%, I would hope that our friends on the other side of the aisle would reconsider, and let's take up that most urgent issue in the minds of most of our constituents. How do we bring down the price of gas at the pump? I would suggest that the first thing we ought to do is take advantage of the natural resources that God's given this great country of ours, which Congress has put out of bound because of moratorium on that development going back to, I believe, 1982.