from our course of action. everyone knows to take level of debate to a plane were the of the subject -- were the of the subject. the competitiveness and dynamism of our business and economy and the fiscal soundness of our budget. everything for me is about the children. the children and grandchildren are welcomed by having a fiscally-sound, healthy approach to this. but what you must have picked up was not about that. i but you would ask me, as you usually do -- i thought that you would ask me, as you usually do, what my favorite song was at the u2 concert. [laughter] we stayed up late last night
>> the following day, mitch mcconnell spoke about health care legislation and the september unemployment numbers. he also makes remarks about the senator from nevada. >> good morning, everyone. let me make a couple of observations to where we are on health care, and i will throw it open. the committee i am told wrapped it up last night. the bill will lay out there
until tuesday, and at that point, they will have a bill that will go over to a conference room in the majority leader's office for some kind of effort to merge the health committee bill and the finance committee bill. no matter what the merger does, what we know for sure about this proposal, the core of it, it will include $500 billion in medicare cuts over 10 years. hundreds of billions of dollars in tax increases on both individuals and businesses that we know for sure. that is the core of the proposal. i am completely confident that that will be a part of the final package that we end up deciding whether to go to on the floor.
these are the problems that the american people are responding to in august. the poll data is pretty constant, pretty steady. people did not think this is a good idea. this will be an important debate -- debate about the future of the country. >> what is your understanding about cbo scoring as the process goes forward? >> there are procedural problems as well. we sought a heavy-handed tactic when the insurance companies were told to shut up. we saw a reluctance in the committee to allow the bill to be on the internet for 72 hours.
that way, it could be read. this is a very important issue. we should not try to do it in the dark. the bill should be available to the american public and the members of the senate. it will be there for enough time for us to come to grips with it. we will be looking at how the majority decides to try to levant's its proposal. the american people are going to insist that it be done in a transparent, fair, and open way. >> if they don't agree to it formally, is there anything the gop will do and formally to make sure that it hangs up there long enough to be able to read it? >> they are unnecessarily creating a big issue for themselves. they have a bill that is in trouble. all of the queasiness is on the
democratic side, not the republican side. they want to add to it. these tactics are indefensible. the gag rule on american corporations, such as not making certain that we do not have adequate time -- not only us as senators, but the american public. i hope they will remove those obstacles and to make it a lot easier for them. it does not change the substance of the bill, but at least the american people would not have the impression that they are trying to sneak something by. >> can expect you will do something to give people time to read it? >> the n.y. times has uncovered what they say is evidence that one senator arranged for a lobbying job for a former aide before the cooling off period, and proceeded to help the
lobbyists get meetings with federal agencies. you think the ethics committee should investigate this? >> i really don't have any observations to make. >> he can still effectively serve in light of these allegations? nosh the senator continues to serve. he is a member of the finance committee. >> i am sure you have read this. there are some pretty damning suggestions of not only violating rules in the senate, but also criminal violations. as a republican leader, did you reach out and ask what is going on? >> today is not a day to make observations. it just appeared in the newspaper. >> you have not reached out to him yet? >> i do not have any observations to make about the incident. >> when asked why haven't been
[inaudible] republicans haven't said what amendments they want to offer. >> i don't know that the procedural argument is as important of the new -- as the news of today. unemployment is down 9.8%. if you recall, there is an effort to rush through 8 $1 trillion stimulus bill. we were told last month that the job loss was slowing. the johnson 63,000 jobs that we lost in september is about 62,000 more lost jobs than we had in august. job loss is picking up. the unemployment percentage is going up. i was really incredulous when the vice-president said, about the stimulus package, this is a
direct quote. in my wildest dreams, i never thought it would work this well. we have seen no evidence that the stimulus package is having an impact on the growing problem. i hope the economy is beginning to show some signs of recovery. the most americans, the way they judge the economy is, what is the unemployment rate? >> [inaudible] >> we will probably act on something like that. we discuss a lot of different things. i am confident that with unemployment like this, we will be dealing with an issue at some time in the near future. i will come to you next. >> you will wish you had taken that question instead. there are two members of your conference named in this matter.
observations aside, ongoing investigations aside, as the republican leader, how concerned are you about the image and the credibility of the republicans in the light of these senators? >> at the risk of being redundant, i don't have anything to add about the newspaper articles. >> on health care, why is that that with your criticism of the bills that are out there, the republicans have not produced a plan of your own? >> we do have a plan. if i were in the position to write the bill, i would start first with doing something about the serious problem of junk lawsuits against doctors and hospitals. i would move next to equalize the tax code. it is deductible on your corporate tax return. if you're an individual purchaser, it makes no sense
whatsoever to give this tax benefit to corporations to provide insurance. i would incentivize wellness programs. we're all familiar with the success that companies have had by targeting a busy, smoking, high cholesterol, lack of exercise, and improving behavior. their own choices are bending the cost curve. with regard to insurance, i do not see a good argument for not having the ability to purchase insurance across state lines. it thereby increases the competition. i do not know anybody in my conference that thinks we ought to do nothing. we think there are a number of problems relating to cost and access. those issues are obviously interconnected. when we get on the bill, it
could be ample opportunity to offer alternative approaches to what the majority is like. >> why not put those into a bill? >> we are not in the majority. we have a responsibility to go forward. we have the ability to amend. we will have plenty of amendments. >> there was a lot of misgivings. most of what the senator proposed seems to have prevailed. republicans gave it their best shot. why wouldn't that be -- [unintelligible] >> the democrats were given a big majority. they have a big majority in the house. they have 60 votes in the senate. they ought to be able to do
anything they want to. the question is, will they? are their own members comfortable enough with a proposal that takes $500 billion out of medicare and raises billions in dollars -- of dollars in taxes. are they comfortable with that? they should have the votes to pass it. let me show you how this issue is connected to the unemployment issue. if you're thinking about hiring, and you're looking at the cost of hiring an employee, and you look at this health-care bill, are you incentivized to expand unemployment or not? i think the answer is, you are not. there are many things we're doing that are impeding the economic recovery. employers have to look at all of these additional government actions. they have to reach some conclusion about whether we're
going to have the type of environment we need to have a robust economy. i think this proposal is going to have a dampening effect on what is already clearly a very, very difficult economic situation that seems, for the moment, to be getting worse. what is the unemployment rate? >> would you favor taxing employer provided health care benefits? tax the individuals? >> i do not think we ought to be raising taxes in a recession. i just said the kinds of things that i think ought to be done to improve what is already the finest health care in the world from a quality point of view. i am not looking to raise taxes on anyone. we want to try to target the cost of health insurance and to drive down the cost, reduce the
number of uninsured people. we all agree it would be great to reduce the number of uninsured. the things i have mentioned will target those problems. >> those benefits would create incentives for individual users. >> i do not think we ought to be raising taxes on anybody. our health care is already pretty expensive. some people think we're spending too much already. we want to try to reduce the cost of it if we can. we want to do it by things other than raising taxes. in many ways, is likely to do the opposite. >> i will take one more. >> this is the one-year anniversary of tarp. has it been successful? does the public view it that way? >> it succeeded in stabilizing the banking system.
i do not think that it was a permission slip for the government to go further and take over banks. when we voted for it, we thought it was going to be used to purchase mortgage-backed securities. it ended up being used to invest in banks. we were somewhat disquiet by the way in which the money was used. i do not think the government ought to be running banks. many of us who supported the measure this time last year felt it was a one-time -- as alan greenspan put it, once in a 100 year occurrence. it will not benefit from no action at all. the problem was, these mortgage- backed securities are toxic in effect. the government needed to try to get those off the balance sheets.
even though they took a different route, most people believe that it will stabilize the financial system. in my view, it did not justify all of the other government expansions that are going on for this year. i think there is a cautionary note as we move into financial regulation. we need to be careful. i will tell you one story that kind of illustrates the concern that i have. i had a meeting a few months ago, a number of us did, with the prime minister of australia. that is a link the administration. he mentioned the things he was concerned about. he was afraid we were becoming protectionist. there is ample evidence of that with trade promotion authority gone. trade deals have never been ratified. he was also concerned that we might overreact to the events from one year ago.
we might go too far in the financial reregulation effort. and squeeze too much risk and opportunity out of the system. and that they would go out and do the same thing. i think we need to be very careful as we go into this financial regulatory effort. we need to make sure that we don't end up incentivizing companies to get too big to fail. we had a bad experience with that already. based on the way the vote was sold to us last year, i voted for it. i would not give the credit for stabilizing the financial system. i do not think it is a justification for the government being involved in all of these areas. it is my hope that the government will get out of the banking business. i know that there are a number of banks who wanted to give the money back and actually
discouraged. the government ought to get out of the banking business. >> are you concerned that olympia snowe could help the democrats pass health care reform? >> the senator is a close friend who keeps in close contact with me about her activities. she has been an important player in the health-care debate. she is a valued member of our conference. i am sure she will play a major role in this effort. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009]
>> the senate returns to session on monday for morning business. at 4:00, it will consider the justice and science spending bill for fiscal year 2010. no roll call votes are expected on monday. they are expected to finish work on the spending bill, including 13 agreed upon amendments. see live coverage of the senate on c-span. the house on monday is expected to vote on a conference report full fiscal year 2010 agriculture spending. and make it to a conference report on home care security spending. they will gather in for legislative business on noncontroversial measures
including one for a flight 93 memorial. see live coverage of the house on c-span. this week, california senator barbara, she is co-author of new energy legislation. she talks about the role of the epa in dealing with climate change. >> i expect people to try to repeal -- repeal the clean air act and to repeal the endangered species act. they never liked them. this is just an excuse. i think the epa is doing what they have to do under the law. there is a danger to global warming. the bush administration said that. all of the scientists and the american academy sciences -- either we step up to the plate
or resolved in two ways. one is to let the epa do their work. i support that. i think is foolish not to do it our way, which gives us much more flexibility. the ability to really create jobs and do the kinds of things that we want to do. >> justice o'connor insisted that we have it every day. now, clarence, you should come to lunch. she was really sweet, but very persistent. i came to lunch and it was one of the best things i did. it is hard to be angry and bitter at someone and break bread. it is a fun lunch, very little work is done there.
it is just nine people, eight people, whoever shows up. >> hear about the history and tradition of the court. see inside this historic and beautiful building watch their featured a documentary, the supreme court. inside america's highest court. it starts sunday. join us at 8:00 p.m. for q&a. and now exxon mobil corp. ceo recs to listen on the energy policy. he spoke for about an hour.
>> we're going to start with our program now. if everyone could please take their seats. i said earlier we are very proud to have our next guest. rex is a native texan, if this generation texan educated at the university of texas, graduated in 1975, and had two choices in jobs. he took the lower paying job to go into a company called exxon. over 34 years he managed to work his way up to a senior position. he was actually elected the president of exxonmobil in 2004 at the age of 52. at the age of 54, in 2006, he became the chairman and c.e.o.. during that period of time, exxonmobil was having record profits and capitalization. each of the three years he has
been the ceo, they have had record profits. last year, the had profits of $45.2 billion. no country has ever had a bigger profit than that. at one point during his tenure, the capitalization of exxonmobil went to $500 billion, the highest of any company in the history of the world in market capitalization. the market has come down a little bit, but capitalization today of exxonmobil is $330 billion, by far the highest market capitalization of any company in the united states. microsoft is second. the highest market capitalization of any company in the world. it is an incredible feat that he has done. admittedly, the company was not exactly down in the dumps when he took over. he has done a number of things including increasing profitability, but he has done a number of things to engage
exxonmobil in the issues of today to put exxonmobil as a major participants in policy issues that perhaps previously had not been as involved with. in addition to his time as ceo, as i noted earlier he is now regarded as the sixth most influential businessmen in the united states between bill gates and warren buffett. he has been very actively involved in non-profit affairs. he is on the executive council of the boy scouts and he was a boy scout for many, many years. [applause] he will shortly become more involved there. he is involved with the united negro college fund. he is vice chairman of ford's theatre raising $50 million. i can assure you that he was very persuasive to have people give more money than they thought there were going to.
i urge you all to go to ford's theatre because a lot of it is the result of his persuasive skills. he now spends a good deal of time talking to people on capitol hill and others in the administration and has a lot of thoughts about what is going on in the policy debate today. let me introduce the ceo of exxonmobil, rex tillerson. [applause] >> thank you, david. it is my privilege to be here tonight to speak with all of you. i did a little bit of looking back on the history of the economic club of washington, which understand has been around for about 25 years. in checking around on the
history of your club and what its purpose is, i think it is apparent that it does play a valuable role in providing yet another different and unique forum to talk about the various issues in front of the nation today. i think it's founders understood that washington's business community, being a place -- needed a place to discuss policy matters of the day and understood that the decisions made in our nation's capital affect the long-term strength and viability of our economy. i think the economic club has risen to become a premier venue for discussing economic growth, job creation, and america's future. for this reason, i can think of no better place and no better time to speak. the american people are looking for answers to reenergize our economy.
congress and the administration are debating policy options on a range of fronts including approaches to reduce the risk of climate change. america's entrepreneurs and businesses are looking for sound, long-term energy and fiscal policies so they can invest in the future with renewed confidence. today, i want to talk about the role of america's industry in strength -- strengthening our economy, creating jobs, and generating value for the american people. it is a roulette is often overlooked, and in my view, terribly underestimated. during the course of my remarks this evening, i will discuss the importance of the energy industry to our economy from the growing demand for energy around the world, the most effective means to reduce emissions and other environmental impacts for energy use them as well as the need for putting in place public policies to spur an investment and investment -- investment and innovation.
we meet at a time of tremendous economic challenge not just in our nation but around the world. since december 2007 when our current recession began, nearly 7 million americans have lost their jobs, thousands of small businesses have closed their doors, many companies, large and small, have cut back on their investments in the future. some of america's largest corporations have had to contend with bankruptcy and seek government aid. in addition, our state, federal, and local governments and experienced tremendous fiscal pressures at -- as a tax revenues have fallen and deficits continue to soar. recently, financial markets appear to have stabilized. energy prices are down from recent highs and worldwide energy demand has also eased. the pace of job loss seems to have slowed.
yet, despite these positive developments companies, workers, and consumers remain uncertain about the future. to recover from the recession, business and government must work corporately to restore the confidence. we will need investments and innovation from industry and we will need sound and stable government policies to lay the groundwork for sustained growth in all sectors. for more than 150 years, the oil and natural gas industry has played an important role in america's economic growth. it continues to help of the u.s. economy by providing reliable energy, well paying jobs, tax revenues, technological innovation, and shareholder value. according to a recent study by price waterhouse cooper, the oil and natural gas committee can't -- contributes more than $1 trillion to the u.s. economy. this enormous contribution
comes in the form of jobs, labour income, and value added within our industry as well as other industries that provide goods and services to support our activities. to put our contributions another way, we're responsible for 7.5% of the country's total economic output. americans in this project america's energy industry does not to provide financial strength. it is also a major u.s. employer. the oil and natural gas industry supports more than 9 million jobs in the united states, or about 5% of total u.s. employment. the jobs put more than $550 billion of income into the economy in 2007 alone. of course, this contribution to american productivity and employment also strengthens our state, federal, and local governments. according to the u.s. energy
intermission agency, the major producing companies paid or incurred more than to record $42 billion of income tax expense from 2005 to 2007. last year, exxonmobil alone paid more than $14 billion in state, federal taxes. unfortunately, the oil and gas industry's enormous contributions are overlooked. despite the billions of dollars in investments that are created and the millions of jobs that are supported, discussions about the energy industry focus solely on energy prices or quarterly earnings announcements. this misplaced focus often drives public policy in the wrong direction. this earns consumers concuring adverse consequences for the entire economy. in recent years, this misplaced focus has led to higher taxes. congress has enacted tax laws
that are expected to cost the industry about $10 billion in additional taxes from what we would otherwise be expected to already paid. in addition, the current administration has proposed new taxes and fees for the oil and natural gas industry. taxes and fees that could potentially total more than $400 billion over the next 10 years. now, this probably sounds like some businessman engaging in complaining about taxes. my scrip says it is not. -- my script. [laughter] i am not going to read that part of the script, because i am completing a little bit. in fact, by the end of this speech you are going to hear me proposing a new tax. instead what i am pointing out is that care should be taken in
adopting tax policies that arbitrarily punish investors or workers singling out any one industry. such policies are usually counterproductive. they violate the principle of a fair and equal treatment which is one of the great strengths of the rule of law and free market. they place an undue burden on economic growth and they undermine job creation. punitive taxes on the energy industry will ultimately raise costs for consumers. this will put the highest burden on those who are least able to deal with higher energy costs, the poor in the low- income. finally, such punitive taxes will undercut america's future by him during the ability of the united states energy industry to invest in new energy supplies and conduct research and development necessary to develop new technologies.
like few other industries, oil and natural-gas production depends on substantial investment over a very long period of time. it takes years of planning and billions of dollars to complete in modern energy project. projects can last from 75 years or longer. to give you an example, from 1983-2007 exxonmobil made more than $355 billion in investments worldwide. those investments exceeded our total cumulative earnings across the same period. raising taxes and fees does not just in danger the investments but it also makes it hard for them to reinvest. nearly 55 million households had a mutual fund account.
45 million households have iras or some form of personal retirement accounts. millions of these households depend on the financial strength and performance of america's energy companies to protect their investment. these numbers show that the energy industry is a critical part for its fiscal health. this data does not do justice to the import rule that affordable, reliable energy plays in our economic growth. the fact is, affordable and reliable energy has a vast multiplier effect that helps every company and every consumer in the american economy. to understand the best policy course for harnessing not hindering the strength of the energy industry, it is important to understand the realities of governing the industry and the energy future we must face together.
first and foremost, there is the fundamental fact that global energy demand is set to grow and it is going to grow significantly. the international energy agency along with any other think-tank predicts, the world's total energy demand will be significantly higher about 35% higher over the next 25 years. such energy demand growth is actually good news. cutting edge of medical research, and other modern advances rely on the access to a roof -- affordable in a libel energy sources. for developing nations, energy offers something more fundamental.
it represents hope and opportunity. energy means expanded industry, increased trade, improved transportation, all of which create jobs that help people escape poverty. for rising nations, affordable reliable energy is also vital to building new homes, schools, hospitals, and sanitation systems that can improve and save lives. we wish such progress for all people. this brighter future represents a challenge, however. to meet this demand, we must operate at a size and scale and over a long time horizon it is simply too difficult to grasp. they currently use the equivalent of more than 230 million barrels of oil today to run farms and factories, heat and cool homes, and more.
exxonmobil is the world's largest publicly traded energy company and yet we account for a mere 2% of the world's total energy. it is an enormous global energy industry. it demands long term planning horizons. this is not mentioned in normal business cycles and certainly not normal election cycles, but it is measured across generations. the energy we use today is the product of investment decisions, technical work that were made many years ago. in addition, for most nations the energy that powers their economy requires a vast, complex infrastructure. new supplies of energy can come from hundreds even thousands of miles away often originated
thousands of feet below sea level. to conquer such challenges requires long-term planning and effective risk-management, especially as the world's energy resources are increasingly found in the difficult and hard to reach places. it requires an unprecedented level of new investments on the part of the world's energy sector. again, the international energy agency estimates that the energy industry will need to invest more than $25 trillion in the world's energy supply infrastructure by the year 2013 to meet the growing energy demand. these fundamental energy realities are important. for decades they have shaped how our industry manages risk, plans for the future, and invest in new technology. as demand grows around the world, these realities become increasingly important.
we will need to use them as the starting point as we work together to build sound and stable policy. in the decades to come, this will affect our economic growth, the environment, and our energy security. in short, our policy response will shape our future. the fact of enormous and growing demand for energy around the world means that the united states must pursue policies that allow us to develop energy from all available and commercially viable resources. we need to increase the use of alternative energy sources such as wind and solar power. we also need nuclear, a geothermal power. in fact, all the sources of help our economy as they become more efficient and more competitive with time. developing of our resources will also require us to find and produce more oil and natural gas. fossil fuels currently provide the vast majority of the world's
energy. due to their availability, there affordability, and their versatility they will continue to do so. oil and natural gas line are projected to supply nearly 60% of the world's energy needs through the year 2013. with this increase energy demand, we also foresee a second party challenge, reducing greenhouse gas emissions associated with energy use. globally, we expect globally related emissions to rise by an average of 1% per year through the year 2030. much of this growth will come from rapidly developing nations such as china and india. meeting the challenge of reversing this trend in greenhouse emissions will require every nation, industry, and consumer to help. our best hope for bringing change to the world's massive energy system is to harness the power of new technologies and
free markets. this will allow nations and peoples to work together and invest in integrated solutions. these solutions leverage technology to expand supplies, increase efficiency, and reduce emissions. time and time again, our industry has proven that innovation and cooperation unleashed human ingenuity and bring far-reaching technological of advances that can transform the economy, protect the environment, and increase energy security. let me provide just a couple of examples of how are investing in integrated solutions can help society to achieve our goals starting with recent advances in natural gas. . for years, we have non we have had tight gas or shared gas which are held in rock formations denser than concrete, but we did not have
the technology to extract this tight gas in a cost-effective way until now. after more than one decade of steady investment and research and development, exxonmobil and others have achieved breakthroughs with the invention of multi zone stimulation technology. this is a technology that allows us to stimulate, bust the concrete, and improve recovery from natural gas reservoirs. -- previously thought to be out of reach. here in just one part of colorado, it will allow my company to increase production by 300%. this will provide enough energy from this one area to he 50 million u.s. tons for 10 years. at the same time this technology helps reduce environmental impacts as we can now drive up to nine wells from a single point allowing us to reduce our footprint so we do not impact the surface acreage
as much. by making greater supplies of burning natural gas available to americans, this technology helps reduce greenhouse emissions in a meaningful way. our long term approach has also led us to invest in technologies that have promised to be truly transformative for the economy and the environment even though they may be decades away. in july, you may have seen our announcement that we forged an alliance with the leading biotechnology form, synthetic genomics inc. to produce energy from certain species of algae. this could be converted into the soil, gasoline, and other products. if this effort is successful, algae could play a role in expanding our transportation
fuel supplies and because algy lives by a starving carbon dioxide, this revolutionary technology could also help us reduce greenhouse gas emissions. in addition, on like first- generation biofuels, like those made from corn or sugar cane, algae production does not rely on fresh water or land. this next generation biofuel should have no adverse impact on the food supply. if the research and development milestones are met, we expect to spend more than $600 million on this product. that is just to prove the technology. if the technology is proven, then it will require billions of dollars more to expand. these are just two examples. over the last five years, we have invested more than $3.7 billion in research and development projects because we
now making a steady and disciplined investment in innovation can help us and our customers increase their own efficiency and reduce emissions. in our industry, we understand that requires long-term investments of time and money. this is why our nation needs energy policies that maximize the use of markets, minimize complexity, and give businesses the predictability needed to invest with confidence to develop the new technologies that are our best hope for a brighter future. climate change policy is one example where such an approach is needed. as congress debates legislation, we must remember the fundamental realities governing the energy system. the need for and pace of technological change and the role of stable policies to
encourage innovation, investment, and collaboration. when it comes to managing the risk of climate change, in my view, the most effective policy approaches must be guided by several key principles. first, a successful carbon reduction policy needs to establish a uniform and predictable cost 40 missions, used in all economic decisions. this will ensure the government is not put in a position of our return in picking winners and losers. second, the best way to ensure the carbon costs are minimized is to allow for markets to select the best methods to reduce emissions for new investments and technology. third, we should seek to minimize administrative complexity. our shared goal is to reduce emissions at the lowest cost society the cost to society. we must keep costs low some
market participants can invest in the technologies that actually reduce emissions and not become bogged down in bureaucratic demands or incur% -- bird in some regulations. fourth, we should seek to maximize cost transparency. by providing transparency, companies and consumers can assess for themselves cost within a context of the different policy options as well as then assess that cost against their own needs and available resources. this allows them to make the best decision possible -- possible for them. fifth, our national policy approach should encourage global participation. energy is critical to progress and economic opportunities in both developed and developing companies. thus, for long-term emission reductions to succeed come every nation must be involved. developing nations cannot be
expected to forgo advancement. any car reduction policy must take these realities into account and encourage every nation to participate in the most appropriate way to meet our shared goals for reducing emissions globally. of course, there will need to be periodic reviews and assessments to ensure that we can adapt to any changes in climate science that may emerge or to respond to any adverse impact that these policies might be having on economic reforms. how does the current proposal before congress to reduce emissions measure up against these principles for effective policy? willie cap and trade system accomplish our society's shared goals? unfortunately, experience indicates that a cap and trade system will result in volatile prices for emissions allowances. this volatility will carry a
heavy cost for both the economy and the environment. for businesses and industry comes -- industry, this will create economic inefficiencies and invites manipulation for allowances in the markets. for businesses and entrepreneurs, this lack of a predictable cost for emissions make it difficult to plan especially over the long term. as we discussed earlier, steady and a disciplined investment is needed to develop and deploy new technologies. we're not alone in this assessment. the congressional budget office study cap and trade and concluded, i quote,"molotov prices could have disruptive effects on markets for energy and energy goods and services to make investment planning difficult." cap and trade schemes free
market manipulation yet with the volatility inherent in a cap and trade system will add to consumer concerns about energy prices and the consumer's ability to manage energy related expenditures. these costs and consequences inherent to cap and trade schemes had led many policy experts and economists to prefer another course of action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. the other option is a revenue neutral carbon tax. i know that is hard for a politician to say. we have given them a new name read it they can call it a "refundable greenhouse emissions feet. "-- fee ." as a businessman, i have to take a deep breath every time i talk about this subject because it is very difficult for me to
speak favorably of a new tax. i hope you take this as an indication of how serious we think this issue is. a revenue neutral carbon tax has the advantage of being well focused for achieving our society's shared goals of reducing emissions over the long term. it can be made predictable, transparent, and comparatively simple to understand and implement. carbon taxes can create a clear and uniform cost for emissions and all economic decisions. this encourages every business, every industry, and every consumer to become more efficient and do their part to increase efficiency and reduce emissions from other choices they might make. because the carbon tax is directly applied to greenhouse gas emissions, there's no need for government to pick winners and losers in the industry.
for the allowance and allocation process as we have witnessed on the hill. by eliminating price volatility and a carbon tax provides predictability which allows entrepreneurs and businesses to plan over the long term to research emerging technologies to develop integrated solutions that will have the most positive impact. a carbon tax also voiced the cost and complexity of having to build a new market for emissions allowances or the necessity of adding a new layer of regulators administrators to police this market. a simple carbon tax can be more easily implemented. it can largely be built on the existing tax infrastructure. we pay a lot of taxes, excise taxes, other federal taxes today. just add this to the list. there is another advantage. a revenue neutral tax can
ensure that a governmental policy will specifically focus on reducing emissions, not on becoming a revenue stream for other purposes. in other words, the size of government need not increase due to the imposition of a carbon tax to solve the threat to society. are we turning the tax revenue back to the consumers, the reductions in others taxes, payroll taxes, or a simple dividend, we can reduce the burden on the economy and on our most vulnerable citizens. in this current economic downturn, the american families and businesses can hardly afford to pay a higher cost for energy, a direct and transparent plan is an imperative. finally, there is a potential advantage to the tax approach. a carbon tax may be a more viable framework for engaging participation from other nations. the tax-free work is easier to
implement and it does not have economic growth. in addition, it can be easily adapted to reflect the circumstances of each country. given the global nature of the greenhouse gas challenge and the fact that the economic growth and developing economies will account for a significant portion of greenhouse gas emissions, policy options must be flexible in order to encourage global engagement. some people have suggested that a revenue carbon tax has no chance of gaining support to become a lot. they say a carbon tax is too politically sensitive and that it is easier and more politically expedient to support a cap and trade approach. there was no they hurt somewhere in their pocketbook. -- they will just know they hurt somewhere. i disagree. i believe the american people want climate policy to be transparent, honest, and effective.
economists agree that achieving a given emissions target costs less under a tax or fee approach than under a cap and trade system. the system set -- is not entering the transaction costs so more of the cost goes directly to lowering emissions. i firmly believe it is not too late for congress to consider a carbon tax as a better policy approach for addressing the risk of climate change. indeed, there has never been a more opportune time for congress to pursue this course of action. during this time of economic challenge, we must remember that our nation's economic growth and success are both on the innovation, energy, and ingenuity of the american people. in the months ahead, our nation will make many important issues and about energy policy. the u.s. oil and gas industry, and exxonmobil, we are committed to working with government leaders to help reenergize