June 26, 2009
Dear Robert:

Thank you for contacting me regarding H.R. 2454, the so-called American Clean Energy and Security Act.  I appreciate hearing from you and having the opportunity to respond.

I share the concern of many Idahoans for our environment and recognize that we must do what we can to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) where possible.  However, I have major concerns with H.R. 2454, which promises large tax increases, higher energy costs, and major job loses, all without any real improvements in climate conditions over the next 100 years.  This legislation is not a serious attempt to combat GHG emissions but is instead a political ploy that will be paid for by American families and do nothing to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.  As a result, I voted against it when it was considered on the floor of the House of Representatives.  The bill passed by a vote of 219-212 on June 26, 2009.

Instead of a carefully thought-out proposal to increase our energy independence and reduce GHG emissions in an effective and reasonable way, H.R. 2454 reads like an extremist wish-list of environmental mandates that are not coordinated and, in many ways, actually work against each other.  For example, the bill establishes a Renewable Energy Standard (RES) that mandates energy efficiency standards and requires energy companies to produce a certain percentage of energy and electricity from renewable sources, but it limits the definition of “renewable sources” for the RES to exclude hydropower and nuclear energy.  The fact that Democrats would not even allow a vote on nuclear energy proves that this bill is not really about combating climate change—it is about establishing an energy economy that punishes activities and industries they don’t like.

In addition, there is widespread concern that unless growing economies like China and India participate in a cap and trade system to limit GHG emissions similar to the one created by the bill, U.S. industries will be unable to compete on the world stage and American jobs will be forced overseas.  The bill depends on technologies, like carbon capture and sequestration, that are still largely unavailable and untested.  It would heavily subsidize purchase of electric or plug-in hybrid vehicles, while electricity prices would skyrocket under the mandates put into place by the bill.

This is likely the most consequential issue Congress will consider this year, yet the Democrats allowed only one amendment and three hours of debate on a bill that we saw for the first time only a few days before it was considered on the House floor.  They rushed an enormous bill to the floor without any real idea of what impact it will have on our economy, competitiveness, and way of life.  This is a classic example of Congress rushing to fix a problem it doesn’t fully understand and implement a solution it hasn’t fully considered.

Instead of creating a host of government mandates and forcing consumers to foot the bill for this legislation, I support using technology, incentives, and innovation to move our economy to a sustainable, independent energy source.  I believe that to do so we must look at all the options, including renewable energy, nuclear energy, and domestic oil production.  This is why I am a cosponsor of H.R. 2828, the American Energy Innovation Act, comprehensive energy legislation that represents a fiscally responsible approach to reducing our dependence on foreign energy, providing a cleaner environment, and putting Americans to work.  By encouraging innovation, promoting conservation and efficiency without government mandates, and increasing production of American energy through nuclear energy production, this legislation is a real solution to the challenges facing our nation.

These are real problems, and they must be addressed in a common sense, thoughtful way.  I look forward to the debate Congress will continue to have on this issue, and I appreciate your comments about this legislation.

Once again, thank you for taking the time to contact me about this issue.  As your representative in Congress, it is important to me to know your thoughts and opinions about issues affecting our nation today.  I also encourage you to visit my website, www.house.gov/simpson, to sign up for my e-newsletter and to read more about my views on a variety of issues.

Sincerely,

Mike Simpson

Member of Congress

I know this is a little thing compared to what we have in the white house but it is so close to home. I invited Senator Crapo to watch the movie on this site at http://www.bobpearcy.com/?p=166 about the difference in the two and why our founding fathers chose it to be a republic.

As a side note, tomorrow they are supposed to vote on the “carbon tax” which will probably break us if the rest of the shenanigans don’t do it. If you have not called you congressman please do so early on Friday June 26, 2009.
Bob Pearcy