Consumers First Energy Act of 2008 - Motion to Proceed - Continued

Floor Speech

CONSUMERS FIRST ENERGY ACT OF 2008--MOTION TO PROCEED--Continued -- (Senate - June 05, 2008)

Mr. CORKER. Madam President, thank you very much for the opportunity to rise and speak about the Climate Security Act. I think all of us realize what is getting ready to happen. Unfortunately, in the morning, there will be a cloture vote and obviously the bill will not have the votes for cloture and it will fail. Hopefully, we will return to a debate on the bill. I think the likelihood of that is very low.

I wish to say that as one Senator who has spent a tremendous amount of time on this issue, I am extremely disappointed in the process we have followed as it relates to this most important piece of legislation. Yesterday at about 11:15, a 492-page amendment was placed on the desk--492 pages. It is 150 pages longer than the original bill. Yet tomorrow we have a cloture vote. I would say that almost no Senator in this building has had the chance to fully read this bill as it now is. So again, the cloture vote will fail tomorrow at about 9 o'clock.

I got up this morning and I turned on the coffee pot early. I read the paper. I rode the elevator down and ran on the Mall and came back, got dressed, got in my car and came to work here, and I realized that every single process I had gone through this morning in some form or fashion would be affected by this bill if it were to pass. This is one of the most important pieces of legislation we have ever debated in this Senate Chamber. The fact that we have allowed such little time for debate, to me, is a tremendous disappointment.

I know many proponents of this bill will say that those who vote against cloture tomorrow will vote against cloture because they do not care about climate change; they do not care about climate security. I can tell my colleagues that in my case, nothing could be further from the truth. Over a year ago, I spent time with Jeff Bingaman in Brussels, Paris, and London, meeting with carbon traders, meeting with members of the European Commission, meeting with utilities, meeting with cement manufacturers, meeting with everybody who had a stake in what occurred in Europe when they put this process in place.

This last July, with a group of Senators led by Senator Boxer from California, I went to Greenland and saw firsthand the poster child, if you will, of what we have all been talking about. I met with Danish scientists. I met with scientists from our country. I have read tremendously about this issue throughout the years. Every time I have read a book or a magazine that was a proponent, I read one that was an opponent, if you will.

I have gotten both sides of this issue. Our staff has spent inordinate amounts of time on this. We have offered amendments. I have actually sent a letter to every single Senator in this Chamber with detailed amendments and the background and the reason we were offering them. I have never on this Senate floor used any degree of demagoguery to talk about this issue. I have only spoken about the facts of the policies we are debating.

The reason this bill is going to fail tomorrow is not because of the process. This bill is going to fail because it has serious flaws. Again, the process we went through to get to this point is one that is so inappropriate. Typically, when you have a portion of a bill, for instance, that relates to money, it goes to the Finance Committee. Typically, when you have a portion that relates to energy, it goes to the Energy Committee. That didn't happen. Most people on the EPW Committee itself candidly--as a matter of fact, almost every Member didn't even see this massive bill until it came to the floor yesterday. However, that is not even the reason it is going to fail. That is reason enough, but this bill has serious flaws. We have tried to point that out from day one. We have been totally transparent in the process. We have met with environmental groups that have been so involved in pushing this legislation; we met with their boards and pointed out along the way the three serious flaws we have seen in the bill. Other Senators have wonderful contributions to make to the bill, including Senators Domenici, Inhofe, Bingaman, and others; they have tremendous contributions to make.

Let me mention the three flaws we have talked about before. No. 1, the proponents of the bill, whom I respect tremendously--and I believe their hearts are in the right place--I thank them and their staffs for the work they have done on this bill because I know they spent a lot of time. Unfortunately, the politics of climate change itself and of solving the environmental problem was not good enough. Instead, the proponents had to take trillions of dollars in the Treasury and then pre-prescribe through the year 2047--and then 3 years after in a different way--how the money was going to be spent. We haven't had a bill such as this since Medicare or Social Security. I don't think we have done something this pervasive that affects everybody in America on a daily basis. Instead of just focusing on the policy and letting the policy of cap and trade work as a potential market system, this bill had to be turned into a huge spending bill on the backs of the American people, driving up energy prices, driving up food prices, driving up clothing prices. Instead of returning that money to the American people, the proponents decided to spend every penny--almost--of the money taken in.

The second thing is, marketable securities, as everybody knows, are created the day this auction process begins. Those marketable securities are called carbon allowances. They are transferred to people in this bill. It is a transference of wealth. It would be like if I had 10 shares of IBM stock and my good friend, Jeff Sessions, was over here, and I said, Jeff, I am going to give you these 10 shares of IBM stock; they are worth money and are marketable. He can sell them that day. The policy of focusing on climate wasn't enough. This bill had to take the extra step of not just spending trillions of dollars but also giving trillions of dollars away to people--by the way, this is the best part----

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2 minutes remaining.

Mr. CORKER. That has nothing whatsoever to do with emitting carbon. I have no idea why that is done.

Thirdly--and maybe most offensive--this bill sets in place something called international offsets. Others have talked about the burden on U.S. companies competing here if this bill is passed. This bill doesn't just create those burdens, which I acknowledge; it also pays them by allowing them to invest more inexpensively in other countries. I find that reprehensible, and I cannot imagine why any process such as that would be part of this bill.

Most importantly, though these three flaws exist, no doubt, this bill doesn't include an energy title to cause our country to be energy secure. I think we have missed a tremendous opportunity at a time when people have a passion about dealing with the climate in our country. Americans are feeling vulnerable, as they should, as it relates to energy. I think we have missed a tremendous opportunity to bring those two groups together and solve, once and for all, the problems that exist in our country in a meaningful way.

I came to the Senate to work on the big issues of our country. I am very disappointed that we will leave tomorrow having accomplished nothing, having accomplished nothing as it relates to climate, nothing as it relates to energy security, and nothing to ensure that generations who come after us will have a better way of living.

With that, I will close by saying I hope in the very near future we will put aside our differences, and I hope this cloture vote tomorrow will not lock people into places they don't want to be, to show romance, if you will, as it relates to the issue.

I hope that over the course of the next few months, we will be able to come together and do something that is appropriate for the American people.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source