AMERICAN CLEAN ENERGY AND SECURITY ACT OF 2009 -- (House of Representatives - June 26, 2009)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. LINDER. I thank the chairman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I will submit a statement for the Record, but I'm not going to read that statement. I want to respond to the gentleman from Connecticut, who said we need some honesty in this discussion, and the gentleman from Illinois this morning on the rule. The gentleman from Illinois said on the rule that there are zero peer-reviewed articles by scientists who disagree with the notion that humans are causing global warming.
That will come as a surprise to Professor Morner from the University of Stockholm, who has written 520 himself on sea levels. He's the world's foremost expert on sea levels. Or Richard Lindzen from MIT, the Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology at MIT, who has written many peer-reviewed articles. He is a denier. Professor Willie Soon from MIT, one of the world's foremost scientists on precipitation. John Christy and Roy Spencer from Huntsville, Alabama. Fred Singer, who was responsible for leading the charge to get all of our weather satellites in the air from Northern Virginia.
And the five authors of the first IPCC report who wrote in their scientific reports that there is no evidence that humans are causing any of this. And those five sentences were removed by a bureaucrat who replaced them with one sentence that said, It's clear that humans are the cause. In a court action under oath, that bureaucrat was asked why he removed those sentences and replaced them, and he said because of intense pressure from the top of the United States Government.
There are 32,000 scientists, 9,000 Ph.D.s and 23,000 masters in science who signed a petition against this silliness that we're discussing, and they want to join the deniers Galileo and Einstein. Einstein questioned Newton's 200 years of settled science, and he was sent a letter by 100 of the most important scientists in the world who challenged him on his questioning of that settled science, and he showed the letter to his friend, and he said, You would think one of them might have produced a fact.
That's all we ask from you is a fact. Not a computer model but a fact.
* [Begin Insert]
``Energy Stamps'' in Democrat Bill Is the Biggest Welfare Program Ever--16 Times Bigger than the Current Welfare Program
Mr. Chairman, some Members deny this bill is a massive tax hike. To them, I can only say you're not paying attention. Everything takes energy. If you raise the price of energy, as this bill does, you raise the price of everything. CBO admits it, again and again.
The authors know very well their bill is a massive tax hike. That's why, as this chart shows, they create the largest welfare program in U.S. history, to relieve some. This legislation would pay checks--call them energy stamps--to 16 times as many people as are on welfare now.
Here's what it says on page 1010:
``The Secretary shall ..... administer ..... the `Energy Refund Program' ..... under which eligible low-income households are provided cash payments to reimburse the households for the estimated loss in their purchasing power resulting from (this bill) ..... each eligible low-income household ..... shall be entitled to receive monthly cash payments ..... if ..... the gross income of the household does not exceed ..... 150 percent of the poverty line .....''
65 million Americans fall below 150 percent of poverty. Every one would receive a monthly energy stamp check, on top of any welfare or other benefits they collect now.
Amazingly, this number is down from prior versions because Democrats, predictably, removed any vestige of middle class tax relief.
So the other 235 million Americans would get nothing but a new National Energy Tax.
Every family of four earning over $33,000 ``loses''--getting no energy stamps but all the energy tax hikes.
So much for the President's pledge to cut taxes for 95 percent of Americans. And so much for the Speaker's pledge this won't raise costs for American families.
In his 1935 State of the Union Address, Franklin Roosevelt said ``continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit.''
On that President Roosevelt was right, as surely as this legislation is wrong.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT