The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“DIFFERENCES BETWEEN DEMOCRAT AND REPUBLICAN ENERGY PLANS” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Energy was published in the House of Representatives section on pages H7074-H7075 on June 19, 2009.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN DEMOCRAT AND REPUBLICAN ENERGY PLANS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Olson) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. OLSON. Madam Speaker, I rise today to discuss the differences between the Democrat and Republican energy plans.
As we move into summer, energy prices are creeping up, as they do each year, placing higher costs on those in our country who can least afford them. We need an energy plan that ensures a reliable, safe and affordable energy supply.
Democratic leaders in Washington have proposed a plan that would replace our present energy supply with unreliable and costly energy alternatives. The cornerstone of this plan would reduce carbon emissions through an aggressive cap-and-trade program. This program would set nationwide limits on greenhouse gas emissions and create a market-based trading program for companies to meet the cap. The goal of this plan is to force reductions in carbon emissions through government rationing of carbon credits for energy producers.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office analysis of this plan concluded that the potential job loss in my home State of Texas alone by the year 2020 could go as high as 311,600. Let me say that again. Over 300,000 jobs lost in my State by 2020, resulting in a staggering loss in personal income of up to $22.8 billion. That cost is simply too high. It is not cap-and-trade; it is cap-and-tax.
My Republican colleagues and I believe we can still achieve an energy plan that keeps costs affordable, lowers emissions and grows energy jobs right here in America.
{time} 1615
I'm opposed to a plan that dramatically little increases the cost of energy for American consumers. That is why my Republican colleagues and I have crafted a comprehensive energy bill that not only increases energy production here in America, but ensures that all forms of energy have the ability to compete to provide clean, reliable, and affordable energy for all Americans.
The American Energy Act is a blueprint of solutions for American energy problems. We must create an environment where all producers have the opportunity to compete to provide safe, reliable energy, instead of the current stranglehold of bureaucratic red tape and regulatory obstacles producers face.
We have an important opportunity to reduce carbon emissions sought by Democrats through increased use of nuclear energy. The American Energy Act would allow nuclear energy to compete with other energy sources based on its merits, such as being affordable, domestic, and, most importantly, emissions-free.
The U.S. Department of Energy is now in the process of awarding financing for four American power companies to build new nuclear power reactors to allow more nuclear power to come online between 2015 and 2020. And we can bring more energy onto the grid if we streamline the application process, as the American Energy Act does.
The goal of this plan is not to promote one form of energy over the other, but to allow the market system to determine which producers can achieve the goal of providing a safe and reliable energy supply to meet our Nation's needs.
Americans need safe, reliable and affordable energy, not government-
mandated emission programs that increase consumer costs and kill American jobs. We need a plan that promotes all forms of energy to meet that goal.
Madam Speaker, the Republican energy plan is a commonsense approach to increasing domestic energy sources, creating American energy jobs, and promoting a clean environment without dipping in the pockets of American families.
____________________
