I have proposed a cap-and-trade system on powerplants to deal with climate change. All I am saying is it would be better to keep it simple, to take the money collected and send it straight back home rather than bringing it up here and putting it in a slush fund. If "slush fund" is offensive to the Senator from California, I am sorry, but that is what large funds tend to be here. It is mandatory spending that is earmarked for the next 42 years. So removing that slush fund would be an improvement on their bill. Take that out. Send the money back to the people. Return it to the individuals who paid it. That is all I am suggesting. No one ought to be offended by that. If we need to invest dollars in solar research, for example, I sponsored the amendment for the solar energy tax credit that is in the law now. Let's do that separately and with a clear appropriation, rather than a 42-year mandatory spending program that is drawn from $800 billion.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing a cap-and-trade system and funding allocation for climate change initiatives.
Share
More from Douglas Alexander
This trade milestone between the US and UK shows the bonds the countries have and the benefits from working closely in partnership.
We understand Americans are hurting, that our economy is in a slump. But we also understand that if we do not deal with the national debt, we will be doing the worst thing that we could ever do to the working men and women of America: that…
This multi-million-pound investment will strengthen UK energy and naval operations’ resilience at a time when the security challenges we face have never been greater.
This acquisition supports the long-term transformation of HM Naval Base Clyde and supports the kind of high-skilled jobs and economic opportunity that our communities deserve.





