What is the big achievement of this Congress? Stopping 40,000 barrels of oil a day from going into the strategic petroleum reserve? We could have had a million barrels a day right now from Alaska if President Bill Clinton had signed our legislation to open ANWR.

And what about the need for clean nuclear energy? Thanks to the Majority Leader and environmental groups, we have spent decades working on Yucca Mountain and still don’t have the waste reserve we need for a strong nuclear energy industry.

The last thing America needs today is another energy mistake. The reason this climate change legislation is on the floor today is simple: fear. The Democrats in Congress want you to be afraid. They want you to be afraid that man-made emissions will cause massive hurricanes, raise sea levels, prolong droughts, and kill off endangered species.

I am not standing here telling you we should not protect the environment or that man-made carbon emissions have not increased.

I am telling you that carbon emissions are a function of economic growth and technology. It means jobs, cars, and energy. And when I look at these emissions, I don’t know what role they play in overall climate change relative to other natural effects like solar radiation.

For a minute, let's say the carbon issue needs immediate action. What would we get from passing this legislation? If all the world’s industrial nations were to comply fully with similarly ambitious goals, the world’s climate would be 0.07 degrees Celsius cooler. Less than one tenth of one degree in 20 years.

Such a small change occurs naturally all the time, from sun spots, to forest fires, to volcanic activity – nature does much more on its own day to day.

So what is the point of the climate change bill? The Democrats in Congress want you to pay more for energy so you drive less, buy smaller cars, and use less electricity. They are telling Americans that they know better and want the government to manage their money for the good of the environment.

This bill would raise $5.6 Trillion for the government over the next 40 years. Let me say that again, $5.6 Trillion. This money doesn’t magically appear in the government coffers, it comes out of your pockets. The supporters of this bill will try to tell you it comes from oil companies, utilities, or any number of other people.

But they are just straw men; that is not how our economy works. American consumers are going to get stuck with the bill. It means natural gas prices doubling. It means gasoline prices 30 to 40 percent higher than they would have been.

It means electricity costs between 40 and 120 percent more.

In my home state of Kentucky, the average family will spend $324 more on electricity every year, $133 more on natural gas, and $397 more for their gasoline.

So I want everyone in America to take a minute and look at your bills last month. Could you afford to double your natural gas bill, add a dollar for every gallon of gas you bought, and add $50 to the average electric bill? Many of us can’t.

Now think about paying that money every month, every year, for the next forty years. That is your share of the $5.6 Trillion dollars Uncle Sam will take because of this legislation.

And what will happen to all the money you send to Washington?

Under this bill, the government would give away $566 billion to state governments, spend $237 billion to help wildlife adapt to global warming, and give away $342 billion to foreign countries.

Let me make this clear: Democrats and environmentists are trying to scare Americans into adopting legislation that will take money out of their pockets to pay for new government programs that could decrease global temperatures by 0.07 degrees. 

And these changes are only estimates that are not backed by conclusive evidence. Respected scientists disagree about the true effect increased emissions will have in coming decades. Just twenty years ago some of these same scientists came to Capitol Hill warning of a new ice age.

And if this tax and spend plan based on incomplete science does not sound bad enough, it only gets worse.

Based on several studies, nearly 4 million Americans will lose their jobs because of this legislation. A cap and trade program would force many industries, like steel, automobiles, aluminum, cement, and others to take their jobs to other countries where energy costs are lower and environmental regulations are looser.

Let’s look at the Airlines as an example of what could happen to American jobs because of this bill. Based on current projections, the Airline industry expects to pay $62 billion for jet fuel in 2008. That is $20 billion more than they paid last year or about a fifty percent increase – an increase that is less than what this cap and trade bill would do to prices.

In response to this price shift, eight airlines have gone out of business in the past six months and another is operating in bankruptcy. It has left consumers paying more for fares and more fees, even to check their first bag.

Commercial air service to more than 30 communities has been eliminated and the industry has lost more than 9,000 jobs.

To make it worse, the democrats in congress have stopped efforts to address this crisis in the airline industry. I have proposed incentives for coal-to-Jet Fuel facilities that would produce clean burner aviation fuel with carbon capture technology at less than half the current cost of oil. If we had invested in alternative jet fuel technology, maybe we could have saved the thousands of jobs that are now in jeopardy.

Think about what you would feel if you were laid off because of high oil prices. Or if you had to choose between the grocery store and filling your truck with gas. Now imagine your congressional representatives deliberately voted to make things worse.

And it is not just about American jobs and dollars and cents.

America could bring its greenhouse gas emissions to zero, and it would not reverse the growth in worldwide emissions thanks to rapid expansion in China, India, and other developing nations.

Without a firm international agreement, this bill will not have any effect on our climate.

In 2004 alone, china’s emissions increased 18 percent. And in 2006, they became the single largest emitter of carbon gases in the world. The supporters of this bill say, well china is a developing nation of one billion people and needs to grow. I say they need to be more efficient just like us.

What has America done in the last 10 years – We have kept carbon emissions to one percent growth annually. Since 1990, carbon emissions per unit of G.D.P. has decreased by 28 percent.

We are doing our part already with technology and energy efficiency. The problem is with China, India, and other developing nations.

And look at the European experience with a cap and trade program. They have been unable to reign in the bureaucracy and emissions targets are not even close to actual performance. This will be a complicated program that creates winners and losers almost randomly as it allocates credits and emissions requirements.

Washington D.C. does not need another massive bureaucracy that will be a boon for lobbyists.

I am not going to stand here and simply complain. I believe there is something we can do. Today is the right time to address the energy and environment issues of the 21^st century. America is addicted to oil and relying on older, dirtier technologies and we need an aggressive clean energy plan.

I strongly believe that America should use every resource it has to produce energy. Our dependence on Middle Eastern oil is worse than simply paying too much at the pump.

It is a threat to national security. We will send more than $500 billion to the Middle East this year for oil. Every gallon of fuel we make here in America from biomass, domestic oil and gas, and coal is a gallon of fuel we don't have to buy from the Middle East. It’s just that simple.

We need a Manhattan Project for energy in America. The greatest minds we have should be working on ways to produce alternative fuel, capture and use carbon emissions, produce clean electricity, and improve oil and gas production.

We should agree to take politics out of clean energy and ensure that government programs are technology and feedstock neutral. Too often I see tax incentives and programs that pick and choose what technology or process America should use.

To support all these alternative technologies, we need to change the way government spends money. I think we should pick performance-based goals – like zero emission alternatives to oil – and let the marketplace decide the most efficient way to achieve it.

If you can produce an environmentally sound transportation fuel, we should not care whether it comes from coal or switch grass. If you can produce a megawatt of clean energy, we should not care if it comes from waste heat on a paper mill or from underground geothermal. By opening up our options, we will get more for the government dollar and America will see results faster.

Congress should help America do everything it can to replace foreign oil and reduce and reuse carbon emissions. If my colleagues are serious about addressing global warming, this is the place to start. Helping our economy deal with carbon now, before we consider a cap and trade bill, should be a goal we all agree on.

The answer to America’s energy problems is more domestic production and clean technologies. We have the resources and know-how to make clean energy, but for the last few decades our government regulations have held us back. The last thing America needs is to give even more control to the federal government through a dangerous and misguided cap and trade program.