[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 73 (Wednesday, May 13, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H5555-H5562]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             CAP-AND-TRADE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 2009, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join you this evening here 
in the Chamber and talk for a while about what I think a very 
interesting subject to many, many Americans. If they're not interested 
in it now, they will be rapidly as this issue develops here in 
Washington, D.C.
  What we're talking about is, most specifically, the background on a 
thing that's called cap-and-trade or cap-and-tax. And ``cap-and-tax'' 
is probably a better name for it because what we're talking about is a 
very, very large tax increase that is to be justified because of the 
great danger, the imminent peril that is created by global warming--
although that has now been called sometimes ``climate change,'' or 
global warming, or other various names. And soon the Legislature is 
going to actually be doing the debating and the voting on this very, 
very large tax increase.
  Now, the President promised people that there would be no one making 
$250,000 or less who is going to get any tax increases. But, 
unfortunately, this tax increase hits all Americans; even the average 
household will be paying thousands of dollars more.
  The President promised that nobody making $250,000 or less was going 
to get any tax increases. Well, we have seen that is not true, and 
particularly with this cap-and-tax situation, the tax on all kinds of 
people in the country. In fact, every time you turn a light switch on, 
you would be paying a tax. So I don't think we can take the President 
seriously on that promise.
  Now, the justification for this very large tax increase is the 
popular subject of global warming, or climate change, or whatever. And 
that is the general idea that mankind is making CO2--that's 
the product of burning something. When you burn something, the oxygen 
in the atmosphere combines with the fuel and it makes CO2. 
It's the bubbles in soda pop. So we drink CO2, as a matter 
of fact. And in a sense, the soda pop manufacturer is sequestering the 
CO2 in bottles of soda pop and you are letting it loose when 
you open the can. Anyway, the theory is that CO2 is the 
culprit, and therefore we have to reduce the amount of CO2. 
And so this tax is being justified to reduce CO2 so the 
planet won't burn up. That's the fast version of it.
  So what I thought I would do this evening is to give just a little 
bit of a historic perspective because sometimes when you go into one of 
these debates, it's interesting to take a look and see, you know, are 
we the first people that have ever been talking about this, or is there 
a historic perspective of some kind on it? And I found that the 
historic perspective here is somewhat amusing and kind of interesting. 
So I'm going to take you back to the year 1920. At that time, in 1920, 
the newspapers were filled with scientific warnings of a fast-
approaching glacial age. So in 1920, the scientists were saying that 
the planet was going to get really cold, there was going to be glaciers 
running around all over, so we need to be prepared for very wintry 
weather because there are glaciers that are going to blow around. So 
that is 1920.
  1930s; the predominant scientists at the time reversed themselves to 
the fact that in the near future there is going to be what they called 
``serious global warming.'' So from the twenties to the thirties, the 
scientists changed. In 1972, Time magazine cited numerous scientific 
reports of imminent ``run-away glacial activities.'' So now we've gone 
from global warming to glacial activities again in 1972.
  In 1975, Newsweek says, Scientific evidence of a great ice age, and 
we were being called to stockpile food, that maybe what we should be 
considering doing was melting the ice packs, the icecaps at the North 
and South Poles to try to stop this tremendous ice age that was coming 
in 1972 and 1975. But in 1976, the U.S. Government says the Earth is 
headed into some sort of mini-ice age.

                              {time}  1830

  So this was continued through the seventies, and now we've gone back 
to global warming.
  So over a period of the last hundred years or so, the major 
scientists--at least the ones that were talking out on this subject--
have reversed themselves three times. I think it gives us some cause to 
be a little cautious before we jump into a massive tax increase to deal 
with a problem that has been coming around for the last 100 years, 
either getting too hot or too cold.
  Now there were statements made today that say that there is complete 
agreement that we have global warming and all of the major scientists 
all agree and the time for debate is over. Particularly, I'm quoting, 
in 1992, going back to '92, Al Gore made this statement, quote, Only an 
insignificant fraction of scientists deny the global warming crisis. 
The time for debate is over.
  Let's do this quote again. 1992, Al Gore says, ``Only an 
insignificant fraction of scientists deny the global warming crisis. 
The time for debate is over.'' Yet in that same year a Gallup poll said 
that 53 percent of scientists involved--these are the scientists that 
are involved in the climate change debates and questions--only 53 
percent of them didn't agree that there was going to be global warming, 
30 percent weren't sure, and only 17 percent believed that global 
warming had begun in the year 1992.
  Moving closer to our own time period, just last year you have in The 
Wall Street Journal a report by an MIT professor, Richard Lindzen, 
says--this is his quote, There is no consensus on global warming.
  Now when he made that statement, boy, did he get beat up. All the 
media and all kinds of people were all over him saying, that was a 
reckless thing to say that there's no consensus on the subject, which 
led him, after he'd taken a tremendous amount of political flak, to say 
that it seems that global warming is more of a political issue than it 
is a scientific or technical one. And that was the professor from MIT's 
opinion in that regard.
  So that's just to try to give us a little bit of an introduction to 
obviously what is a controversial question. Even if global warming were 
widely believed to be true by scientists, then there are a whole series 
of other questions that have to be asked. Can we do anything about it? 
Should we pass a huge and massive tax increase? Is that necessary? So 
that's what we're going to talk about.
  We're joined, as usual, by some really capable people that have taken 
some time to look into this issue, and I am absolutely delighted to 
introduce one of those to you now, and that is Congressman Latta from 
Ohio.
  Mr. LATTA. Congressman, thank you very much for hosting this 
extremely important Special Order tonight on cap-and-tax. It's an issue 
that I think every American had better learn about quickly.
  I did a teletown hall last night, and we discussed it quite a bit 
because in my area we're hurting. Just to kind of give you a little bit 
of background on my area, according to the National Manufacturers 
Association, I represent the largest manufacturing district in the 
State of Ohio. Last summer I represented the ninth largest in Congress, 
but because of what's happened with the economy and jobs, I now 
represent the 13th largest manufacturing district in Congress.

[[Page H5556]]

  One of the things that we hear about, as you were talking about, is 
what we are going to be doing about cap-and-tax in this country. It is 
something I think the American people need to know, if it is something 
we need to have. In my opinion, it will be something that will destroy 
jobs across this country.
  You know, the Chinese were asked not too long ago, and it was 
reported in one of the Washington papers, what about cap-and-trade? 
What were they going to do about it? And they said, Well, you don't 
understand the situation. We only produce it. You, the United States, 
consume it. And if you hadn't consumed it, we wouldn't have produce it. 
So, therefore, you pay the tax.
  I think there is a real quick answer where they are going to be 
coming from on this. If the United States wants to go it alone on this 
and say that we're going to put these standards down on the American 
people, on American manufacturing, we're in trouble.
  What we have to do is cast our eyes across that pond and see what 
they did in Europe. They have what they called leakage. That leakage 
occurred once they started putting in their cap-and-trade policies, the 
next thing you knew was these companies started filtering out, leaking 
out, and then they started coming into the United States.
  If we do this, we're going to have companies say, we can't afford it. 
We'll just move over. Because most of these are multinational. They'll 
move over into the Pacific rim, and we'll have more job losses.
  Mr. AKIN. So just see if I can understand because you are giving us a 
lot of information. It is very good stuff but at a pretty rapid pace.
  So what you're saying is that this big tax that's being proposed is 
going to have an impact. You started by saying that you come from a 
district in the State of Ohio, and that that was a very big 
manufacturing district. So this is of particular interest to you.
  So the connection is that somehow this tax and all is going to really 
affect those manufacturing jobs. That's your point, is that not so?
  Mr. LATTA. Absolutely.
  Mr. AKIN. And the reason of course is why? Let's flesh this out. I 
think it's fairly obvious, but I will yield.
  Mr. LATTA. Well, what you have to do is look at this. What is this 
thing? We're talking about carbon, carbon credits.
  To put this all into perspective, Ohio is a heavy user of coal when 
we turn our lights on. So if what they are saying is that we're really 
going to hit coal, Ohio and Indiana are going to be in deep trouble 
right off the bat. Indiana is even, we might say, in worse shape than 
we are. In Ohio about 87 percent of our usage to turn on our lights 
every day and run our factories is coal generated.
  Mr. AKIN. Let me reclaim my time. What we have here in the State of 
Ohio and many other heavy manufacturing States, which is the backbone 
of a major part of industry in America, you have, first of all, heavy 
industry or manufacturing, and that has the unique characteristic that 
it uses a lot of electricity, some more so than others. And you also 
have the unique characteristic that you're burning a lot of coal, and 
therefore, you will have to pay a whole lot of taxes on the energy 
that's generated off of the coal.
  So you put those two things together, it says, now those businesses 
are no longer competitive because they're getting taxed more and more 
and more on the profits that they're making, which has the effect of 
making those companies have an economic reason to move somewhere else. 
And that's what you're concerned with, is that correct?
  I yield.
  Mr. LATTA. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Again, you are 
absolutely correct.
  What will happen is this: I represent an area that manufactures. We 
have General Motors. We have Chrysler. We make washing machines. We 
make furniture. We make all kinds of things in my district. Brass 
fittings. But when you implement this tax, this cost is going to be 
passed on from the utility companies to the manufacturers. And the next 
thing that will happen is, these companies are going to have a very 
hard time competing within a global economy.

  I was in one of my district counties several weeks ago and went into 
one of the plants. They showed me two things. They said, this is the 
brass fitting that we make. This is the brass fitting that they make in 
China. You know, for like 45 cents they can do it over there, and it 
may cost us $3 or $4 to make the same type of product here.
  The whole idea of putting cap-and-trade and raising this tax and 
passing it on to the manufacturers, we're not going to have any jobs 
left, not only in the 5th Congressional District but across the Midwest 
because with our heavy coal usage and with the number of manufacturing 
jobs.
  The Heritage Foundation recently put out a study. What they did was, 
they looked at all 435 congressional districts. And what they said was, 
okay, we're going to look at the number of manufacturing jobs you have, 
and now we're going to also look at how much power usage is from coal, 
et cetera, going right down to natural gas through nuclear.
  I have what you might consider the third worst district in the United 
States, according to the Heritage Foundation, when it comes to cap-and-
trade because of the cost it will be to do business in my district.
  I have companies in my district, because they use so much energy, a 
slight blip will make them have to think, is it even worth 
manufacturing in this country anymore?
  We're in a tough recession right now. But one of the things that we 
have to look at right now is going back to the late seventies, early 
eighties into that recession. But the United States, people said, you 
know what, we're going to get out of that thing because we knew that 
those factories were going to start back up. But today we don't know 
that because when I go through these factories, and they take me in and 
say, you know, we only have a third of our factory running, or I hear 
today that one large company might have 50 percent of their workforce 
laid off, a huge company.
  Mr. AKIN. Reclaiming my time, let's take a look. I have got a chart 
here. It was prepared along the lines of what you're saying. And this 
is the annual increase of electric costs under the Obama cap-and-tax 
plan. So this is not specific to your congressional district, but it is 
specific to your State, Ohio.
  Mr. LATTA. Correct.
  Mr. AKIN. And it is specific to other States across the country. I 
don't know whether or not it's that clear because there's different 
shades of green here, but this is increase per capita.
  These are the States that are the darkest green, and it's an increase 
of over $1,500. That is a whale of a lot of money for somebody to be 
picking up in an increase in electric costs. Where is that coming out? 
Well, it's coming in these States here and also, as you mentioned, 
Indiana, next door to you, and over this way. You can see some of the 
States, and you've got the ones that are over $1,000 per capita.
  So this is a very big tax increase, and you can see a whole portion 
of the Midwest is in that category. We've got quite a lot of them that 
are over $50.
  Now people may say, oh, my goodness. Now Congressman Akin, you are a 
Republican, and you're just trying to scare people about the talk 
about, this is going to be a big tax increase. But here you have the 
words of our President at a meeting of the editorial board at the San 
Francisco Chronicle. This is January 2008. He is very direct in what he 
is saying, Under my plan of a cap-and-trade or a cap-and-tax system, 
electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.
  That's just what you're saying, gentleman. It's going to skyrocket in 
Ohio, but it's going to skyrocket in a lot of other States too. That 
will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.
  Now a guy from MIT took a look at what they thought that would be per 
household, and they were looking at $3,000. There is a lot of 
speculation as to how much it would be. But $3,000 for every household 
in America, that is really an incredible number and especially when the 
President has said, I'm not going to raise taxes on people over 
$250,000. And now we're talking about, you flip the light switch, and 
you are already getting taxed at an increasing rate. What that does, of 
course, is makes us uncompetitive.
  Now there's two ways to deal with jobs that are fleeing overseas. One 
of

[[Page H5557]]

them is to tax all the imports coming in, which is a very blunt 
instrument. It makes the cost to everybody in America go up, and we 
reward people that are inefficient producers. The other thing is to 
create a set of laws in our country that allow us to compete 
competitively with other countries. This is the exact opposite because 
when you tax electricity and energy production, that's a major part of 
all of manufacturing, and now we can't compete. So just to your point, 
we're basically taking those jobs right out of the country at a time 
where we're concerned about unemployment.
  I'm just thankful for your joining us. We're joined also by another 
good friend of ours, a gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), highly 
respected, and he also agreed to talk a little bit about where we are 
in this entire situation.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I appreciate that kind introduction. I don't know 
about the highly respected part, but I will take it for now.
  I appreciate what the two gentlemen have been talking about in this 
particular cap-and-tax plan that is out there. I think it's important 
to realize that this is not the only issue, the only plan on the table.
  The Republican Study Committee in conjunction with the Western Caucus 
have both come together and have introduced H.R. 2300 last week, which 
is the American Energy Innovation Act. The goal is to present another 
idea, another alternative to what is on the table right now coming from 
this particular administration.
  You see, what we really have are two distinct visions of the future. 
One vision, which is the cap-and-tax policy, is the one that deals with 
creating everything done by increasing taxes on all. Our vision is not 
to increase taxes.
  The administration wants us to have everyone pay disproportionately, 
as you have shown on that other map. Different areas of this country 
will pay higher.
  What we realized is that energy and equal access to energy has been 
the great equalizer in allowing people to escape from poverty in this 
country. We need to incentivize and create more energy and solve our 
problems, not less.
  The other side does not have a path to an alternative energy source. 
We do have a path to energy independence and a recognition of other 
alternative sources.
  Mr. AKIN. Congressman Bishop, if I could jump in here.
  What you are saying is tremendously important. First of all, you are 
saying, we don't have to go this route on this great big huge tax. And 
what's more you are saying, instead of just taxing people as an excuse 
for not developing responsible American energy, you are saying, we 
ought to be developing American energy, getting off of our dependence 
on foreign energy, and that we should be using a plan that advances a 
whole broad spectrum of different solutions and let the marketplace 
start solving this problem instead of just depending on taxing 
everybody unequally but with a tremendous tax.
  The thing that's unique to me, and sad, someone explained to me the 
other day that we created a Department of Energy years ago. And do you 
know why it was created and what its mission was? The interesting thing 
is it was created so that we could become not so dependent on foreign 
energy.

                              {time}  1845

  Now they have increased many, many, many times the number of 
employees in the Department of Energy, and their whole mission was so 
that we would not be dependent on foreign energy. And look where we are 
today. It's gotten worse and worse and worse. So you kind of ask 
yourself maybe Ronald Reagan was right when he said we ought to get rid 
of them because we are more dependent on foreign energy.
  Please proceed, though, Congressman Bishop.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I appreciate the insight and that perfect analogy 
of what we are talking about here.
  The problem the government has when it becomes involved in mandates 
is we pick winners and losers in the system. What we're trying to do 
with this act is give another alternative, another vision that empowers 
people to solve these particular problems.
  I would like to, if I could only, just spend 1 minute on only one 
aspect, one part. I mean, this is a 200-plus-page bill with lots of 
ideas. Just one that deals with technology innovation because we all 
know technology is going to be one of the keys of creating this 
innovation in the future, and both the public and the private sector 
have a role to play. But the government, when it gets involved with 
mandates and massive programs, picks winners and losers. There's a 
role, but that's not going to be the key role. The real way of solving 
our problem is to tap the greatest potential this country has, which is 
the American people, and to do it in an innovative way.
  Since 1790, this country has granted 6 million patents. We've got 
everything from 1784 with bifocals, 1805 with refrigerators. And 1867 
is still the best year because we did the typewriter, the motorcycle, 
and barbed wire and toilet paper all in the same year, all of them 
important.
  Mr. AKIN. Sears and Roebuck was delighted with that, I'm sure.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. In 1896 was the zipper; Scotch tape goes back to 
1930; 1945 was microwave ovens; 1960 was the laser; 1982 was the 
artificial heart. These were not done by government mandates. These 
were done by Americans responding to the challenges of the day. This 
country that is smart enough to come up with bifocals and blue jeans 
and crayons in 1903, along with airlines and lasers and computers, can 
come up with a source of better and alternative energy for our future.
  Mr. AKIN. Just reclaiming my time, as you take a look at the 
technology even now that's out there, maybe I suffer as one of the few 
people here in Congress trained as an engineer, but you start looking 
at what the possibilities are here. And one of the things that is 
particularly interesting, and I wonder because I take a look at what 
Europe is doing and it raises this question and we ought to talk about 
this a little bit too, and that is, is there a genuine interest in 
reducing CO2 or is this just a big excuse to levy a big tax 
on people? Because you go over to Spain and they have a very aggressive 
antiglobal warming policy there and they closed their nuclear reactors. 
Now, that makes you kind of wonder because that's one source of energy 
that we have in America that we have developed that doesn't make any 
CO2 and it makes very, very clean energy.
  But just taking a look at what you're saying, take the innovation, 
first of all, the nuclear power plant. And some people may be fanatics. 
I like going over to Home Depot or Lowe's or something and looking at 
their tool section, and they've got all these nifty new tools that run 
on batteries, and these batteries are getting better and better. 
They're getting smaller and they're getting much more powerful. So if 
you put together an improvement in battery technology with nuclear 
energy and use the nuclear energy to charge up people's batteries in 
their cars and all, we're talking about a completely different way. And 
that's just one possibility.
  But I wanted to get back to my good friend from Utah. You said you 
wanted to develop one specific area. Please jump right into that.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I need to piggyback on what you just said. Last 
week Dr. Calzada from King Juan Carlos University in Spain was here 
telling us the specific problems that Spain is having with their 
approach of government mandates. So for every new green job created, 
many of them are administrative.
  Mr. AKIN. They call it subprime; is that right?
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. You've got it right there. They lost 2.2. They're 
having a difficult time with their economy simply because they decided 
to do the top-down approach to it.
  Now, what America has always been able to do is have Americans come 
up with these creative ideas if there is an incentive to do it, which 
is one of the things in the American Energy Innovation Act that I want 
to emphasize right now, which is the incentive with prizes. That is 
something that we have always used in the history of this world.
  When Britain was trying to control the seas, they didn't know how to 
map them; so they offered a prize of 20,000 pounds to somebody who 
could solve the problem. A clock-maker in London got it by coming up 
with latitude and longitude elements we use today. Napoleon wanted a 
way to feed his troops, a

[[Page H5558]]

12,000 franc prize, and they came up with vacuum packing technology we 
still use today. When Lindbergh flew across the ocean, it was to claim 
a prize. The British Spitfire, which won the Battle of Britain, was the 
result of a technological development price. NASA has used prizes. We 
use this all the time.
  This is the time for us not simply to say come to us and the 
government will solve all your problems and we will fund all the 
research and we will decide what's good and we will decide who wins and 
who loses. Simply put the money out there, and the first person that 
can actually produce what we want, privately produce it, privately make 
sure that it's sustainable, give them a decent prize. That has driven 
America. That has driven the world in the past. It can happen today.
  Mr. AKIN. Just reclaiming my time, you're getting me excited. What 
you're talking about is a word that my constituents love. It's called 
``freedom.'' The idea of freedom, the idea of challenging people's 
innovation and saying, okay, the first one to do this, this, or this, 
we're going to give you a prize. I didn't have all of those great 
examples that you gave us, but people the world over love a chance to 
win a prize. Plus it gives people a chance to start thinking: I bet you 
I can win that thing. I've got an idea of how to do that. What a great 
illustration of a freedom-based solution as opposed to a totalitarian 
top-down, government-knows-all-the-answers kind of thing and we are 
going to solve every problem in the world with more taxes and more 
spending. I like the freedom approach. I think that's a great idea.
  I want to take my hat off for this American Energy Innovation Act 
that you're talking about. Sometimes people say that the Republicans 
don't have solutions. Our solution is called freedom. It's called 
innovation. It's called imagination. It's called turning the smarts of 
the American people loose on a problem and see what kind of wonderful 
things can happen.
  I'm going to yield to the gentleman from Utah again.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. We have got several other guests down here; and 
before I turn it over to them, let me just give a conclusion to this 
concept because the cap-and-tax plan is a government mandate that's 
telling people what they will do, how they will live. What we're 
talking about is empowering people.

  Now, I hate to say this because it's somewhat harmful, but one of the 
problems I have with our session of Congress is there basically are two 
approaches we have to everything: we have an administration that truly 
believes government is the solution to our problems and wants to harken 
back to the progressive era, the New Deal era, the Great Society era, 
and build upon that. The other side of Congress thinks that empowering 
people is the solution. So I don't want to sound cynical, but to be 
very honest, it doesn't really matter what the issue is; we're always 
talking about the same thing.
  So the Democrat solution to energy is to dictate and regulate, to 
have bigger government and have higher taxes. And I apologize, but for 
the Republican side, pick your topic. Today it's energy. Our solution 
is choices and options, empowering people, and reducing taxes.
  Now, what I have been talking about with the prize concept is to 
simply empower people to come up with solutions that dictate their own 
lives and their own futures, as opposed to simply having bigger 
government telling people what they will do, when they will do it, and 
charging them $600 billion for the opportunity of being told what to 
do.
  Mr. AKIN. Reclaiming my time, that sort of gets your dander up a 
little bit to be told you're going to get charged $600 billion and 
that's going to be the tax because you don't know how to solve this 
problem and the government can do it for you.
  The funny thing is we've passed a lot of laws and they have these 
unintended consequences. And I can tell you right now what's going to 
happen. You tax the good old boys from Missouri, you tax them on their 
electricity and on their natural gas or their propane that they're 
heating their gas with in order to try to get CO2 down, and 
you know what's going to happen? They're going to get those steel 
chainsaws out and they're going to be chopping firewood and they're 
going to be heating with firewood. That's what is going to happen. And 
it's going to have the effect of creating more CO2 than if 
you just left the thing alone and not taxed them at $3,000 per 
household a year.
  We are joined by other Members of Congress. I did want to be able to 
get back, though, to Congressman Latta from Ohio so you have a 
rejoinder in this, and then we have got another fantastic Member 
joining us tonight as well.
  Mr. LATTA. Thank you very much for yielding.
  Just to follow up on your conversation right there, we do have such 
great resources in this country. We have almost 25 percent of the 
world's coal. We ought to be using it. And it's that clean coal 
technology. We ought to have those contests out there. There are people 
in my district right now that are working on clean coal, but they are 
always being beaten down because they hear things coming out of 
Washington saying absolutely not, we're not going to have clean coal 
because we'll tax you out of existence. So who wants to use it?
  So, you know, when you look at what we have in our country, we have 
all these resources. We have oil. We have natural gas. We have the 
coal. We should be developing nuclear. We haven't had a new nuclear 
power plant sited since 1977, and our competitors in the world like the 
Chinese are looking at 35 to 40 in the next 25 to 30 years. That's not 
sustainable.
  Mr. AKIN. Reclaiming my time, hit those numbers again because you're 
not saying it that clearly. I didn't quite catch it. When was the last 
time we sited a new nuclear power plant?
  Mr. LATTA. In 1977.
  Mr. AKIN. And that makes how much CO2?
  Mr. LATTA. Zero.
  Mr. AKIN. None. So we're all worried about CO2, and yet we 
have not sited another nuclear plant since 1977. That seems like such 
an odd thing.
  I recall when we had the Speaker come into the Science Committee, I 
think at the beginning of this year or the end of last year, and she 
was talking about wanting to deal with the global warming thing and all 
because Al Gore was coming in also and there was going to be this great 
big pow-wow on the subject. And I asked her, If we're very worried 
about CO2 and nuclear power plants don't generate any 
CO2 and we have hundreds of them floating around in ships in 
the Navy and they have never been a problem technically to us, what's 
your thought on that, because it sounded to me like you were becoming a 
little more open minded?
  Oh, yes, we're becoming more open minded.
  And yet legislatively you get no credit at all for generating energy 
that makes no CO2. Now, what's the logic of this? Please 
help me because I don't get it.
  I yield.
  Mr. LATTA. I'm still looking for the logic because, you know, we have 
all these resources. We have all this technology, but we're not using 
it. And we are all for, I think, on our side of the aisle what we call 
the ``all-of-the-above'' policy, all these things I just rattled off 
for using. In my district they manufacture solar panels. I'm going to 
have two companies by the end of the year manufacturing solar panels. 
We have the ability for wind, and we have everything from ethanol to 
biodiesel and we're looking at hydrogen down the road. But we need to 
be doing all of the above.
  Right now I am getting calls from my constituents and they're saying, 
Bob, how come the gas prices are going up 30 cents in 1 week?
  And I said, Well, gasoline is over $60 a barrel again.
  And people are going to start watching it go up and up and up. And 
the same thing that's going to come is how are we going to pay for 
this, this, or this, and we're going to have to say we're not going to 
buy this.
  Mr. AKIN. Reclaiming my time, that gets right back to your point. We 
are basically shipping jobs overseas when we do it because we can't be 
competitive that way.
  We have got another fantastic Congressman who has come to the floor, 
Michele Bachmann from Minnesota. And she is just such a sweet, 
wonderful lady, but she also is extremely articulate.

[[Page H5559]]

  It's a treat to have you, Congresswoman Bachmann. I yield.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. I thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin) for 
yielding.
  I also am delighted to be a part of this discussion on solutions. As 
Mr. Bishop rightly stated, there are two approaches that we are taking 
to America's energy solutions, and as Mr. Latta stated, we are a Nation 
that is filled with resources. And I am called to mind by one of our 
founders, you may say, of our Nation, one of the greatest orators of 
his time and really all of American history, Daniel Webster. Daniel 
Webster made a statement, and I paraphrase: Should we not recall the 
resources that we have been given in this land that are extraordinary, 
unparalleled across the world, and shouldn't we call forth those 
resources that we've been given to generate something wonderful in our 
time?
  I had the privilege of serving in the Minnesota State Senate. We had 
that quote stenciled around our beautiful rotunda, the Minnesota State 
Senate chamber. And as Mr. Latta stated, we have 25 percent of the 
world's coal. We have unlimited resources as far as nuclear power 
generation goes, as far as hydropower, solar, wind, but yet also 
natural gas, oil. All of the known reserves that we have, the United 
States manages to use those resources more efficiently, more cleanly 
than perhaps any other nation on the planet. Rather than this being one 
of the most expensive sources of manufacturing in the United States, 
energy could be one of the cheapest sources of manufacturing 
components. And yet the United States could be one of the leading 
exporters of this wonderful resource, energy. So shouldn't it be, as 
Daniel Webster said, that we should call forth these resources that 
have been given to us with the greatest benefit that we have, American 
ingenuity?

                              {time}  1900

  Use those resources to the benefit, not just of America, but of 
mankind.
  And so I would agree with my colleague, Mr. Bishop. There are two 
ways to approach this solution, and I think that the solution that you 
gentlemen are speaking of this evening is the one that the American 
people are raising their hand to tonight saying, yes, don't tax me. In 
fact, bring resources into the Treasury and make my life better by 
being forward-looking, not backward-looking, and calling for these 
resources for the benefit of the American people.
  Mr. AKIN. That is really a vision. You know, what I am hearing, if I 
am trying to put a little title on that, I think I am hearing let 
freedom ring. Let Americans use their ingenuity. Let us use the 
resources that God gave us. Let's see what we can do.
  Let's be an exporter of energy. Let's take what the Lord has given us 
and really start to define clearly what the problems are and take a 
look at what the alternatives are. Let the innovative juices of the 
American system go to work on this thing.
  I mean, that's even assuming you have got a big problem with 
CO2. Even if you assume that, there are a lot of ways to 
deal with this.
  But to try to come up with--look at this. This is the cost of World 
War II here, 3.6 trillion. This cap-and-trade tax, 1.9 trillion. This 
is more. This is what we are talking about in the next couple of weeks. 
We are talking about a tax that's going to cost a little bit more than 
the Vietnam War, the space race, the New Deal and Hurricane Katrina 
combined.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. Let alone millions of American jobs.
  Mr. AKIN. And that's not even counting all the jobs we are going to 
be shipping. And we could just basically let Mother Freedom ring the 
bell. Let's just go ahead and use these resources and figure out ways 
to solve these problems, because we could do it. That's what we believe 
in. We believe in freedom.
  I would like to go back to my good friend from Utah, Congressman 
Bishop.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I hate to add another wrinkle to this, because 
there is another problem. We have 6.5 billion people on the Earth 
today. Two billion people do not have electricity today. They have 
never flipped a light switch, and they want the same standard of living 
that we have. We are going to need more energy in the future, if only 
to be fair to the rest of the world, than what we are talking about 
today.
  In 1977, we tried a national energy plan. It was passed, it was 
implemented, and the result of that was the government told you how 
high to put your thermostat, how fast to drive your car, and which day 
you could actually fill up. Except I think we talked about the one 
family Newt Gingrich found out about that had two different license 
plates, one ending in odd and one in even so they could get gas 
whenever they wanted to.
  Mr. AKIN. That is American ingenuity, I suppose.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I should have given him a prize for that.
  But we cannot go back to this place, this effort in which the 
government tells you how to live your life. We need to empower 
Americans to solve our problems, and we have the capacity to do that.
  The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta) was talking about all sorts of 
different types of programs.
  I just came back from a meeting in California where they have closed 
a lumber mill down there. We talk about lumber mills, but one of the 
processes you have of trying to thin the forest, to save the forest 
from burning, is to take all what they call the slash, the extra stuff 
off the land or the byproduct from the lumber mill, and turning that 
into a biomass energy source.
  They are already funding 30 percent of their energy source from that 
particular area. Unfortunately, the mills closed down because we have 
this idea that we can't use our forests for anything other than to look 
at and watch them burn in California.
  This is the part we are talking about. This is the brilliance America 
has to solving these problems. This is the kind of alternative. And one 
of the things that's sad is there is no source of energy that doesn't 
have somebody opposed to it. People are opposed to wind power because 
of the massive footprint it will take to build those generators. People 
are opposed to solar power because of the massive amount of land it 
will take to build those. People are opposed to nuclear because they 
are afraid of the term. People are opposed to biomass because they 
don't think it is right to clean out the forests, so they would rather 
see it burn.
  All of these things have to be there. It has to be part of the 
proposal. We have to unlock the potential of Americans. That's our 
future. That's what we are talking about. That's not cap-and-tax.
  Mr. AKIN. Yes, I just don't think that taxation is a solution to 
every problem.
  I think one of the things that has been held up as a shining example 
for us to follow is the nation of Spain. And we heard about that last 
week from a very interesting brief we got.
  And if you could just share with us a little bit about how that 
system would work. Because when you hear how the system that is very 
similar to what's being proposed here works in Spain, you are going to 
go, Oh, my goodness, I am not so sure we really want to be like Spain 
and doing all of this stuff.
  Why don't you just share a little bit of that with us, Congressman.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Well, I am doing this from the top of my head, so 
you can help in here when I forget about what Dr. Calzada actually told 
us. But in Spain they basically have the government saying this is way 
we will move forward in the future. This is the energy we will use, 
even though the wind power and the solar power is not enough to meet 
the needs of Spain.
  So they are having what we call brownouts and what they call 
blackouts. They are having business move away from Spain because they 
don't have a reliable source of energy, which is why they are actually 
losing two jobs for every one they gain in coming up with the 
government-picked winners and losers.
  And, unfortunately in Spain, it's the entire country that becomes the 
loser. Not only do they not have enough energy to meet the needs of the 
people, they don't have enough jobs to meet the needs of the people, 
and they have found a negative loss in their energy output and a 
negative loss in their economic output.
  And it's not them alone. There are other countries in the EU that 
decided to sign on to the Kyoto agreement, but they were wise enough to 
pick a very

[[Page H5560]]

bad base year. So it didn't matter what they did, they were going to 
come under the standards of the Kyoto agreement.
  Now they are facing the problem that they are going to the EU asking 
for exemptions for certain of their industries because they can't even 
meet those same base standards, which always happens when the 
government says, We know what's best for you; we are going to tell you 
what to do.
  Mr. AKIN. I recall some of the presentation. What really concerned me 
was the first thing was they have got 17.5 percent unemployment. Now 
that would get the attention of Americans anywhere, 17.5 percent 
unemployment.
  Now, how did that come about? Well, here is how it came about. They 
decided they wanted to go with the green energy plan, so what they did 
is they closed their nuclear facilities. Now, that says to me, I am 
skeptical.
  I think this was more of a political deal than a technical deal, 
because nuclear makes zero CO2. And yet they closed them and 
what did they replace them with? Windmills and solar panels. Well, 
that's nifty when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing.
  But what happens when it doesn't? Well, they say to industry, Sorry, 
no electricity today. Now, my family, years and a number generations 
ago, started a steel mill, and the steel mills nowadays have these 
electrodes the size of telephone poles, three of them. They lower them 
into an electric furnace and lightning and thunder comes out of that 
furnace, and it melts the steel scrap in there.
  That takes a lot of electricity. People that want to make aluminum 
take aluminum oxide out of the ground, that's aluminum and oxygen 
combined quite tightly together, and they have to separate those two 
molecules to get the aluminum. That takes a lot of electricity.
  So what happens to steel? What happens to aluminum manufacturing in 
Spain? It's gone.
  You can't have a whole bunch of people coming to work today and say, 
Sorry, the wind is not blowing hard enough, not going to make any 
aluminum today. And those companies go overseas, and so they lose all 
their jobs over there.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. I had also heard the gentleman speak last week who 
wrote the report on Spain, and this is the country that the President 
holds up as being the country we should emulate. And as the gentleman 
from Missouri rightly stated, 17.5 percent rate of unemployment; the 
largest, highest unemployment rate of all the developing countries in 
the world, on their way to 20 percent unemployment.
  And as the gentleman from Utah stated, there is 2.2 percent job loss 
for every job created. But the critical fact is that every job created, 
every green job, costs the country of Spain $770,000 per job, and these 
are not sustainable jobs. They are primarily installing and building 
windmills and solar panels.
  Once the installation is complete, the job goes away. That's a very 
expensive investment for Spain. They are only going in the direction of 
further increased unemployment, not in the direction of decreased 
unemployment.
  Mr. AKIN. You know what scared me the most about his presentation, 
what he basically said is that the government has come up with such a 
clever, integrated kind of system in the legislation they passed. What 
happens is they, first of all, through various means--he claimed that 
even the Mafia, he thought, could be involved in it--they give licenses 
to people to generate electricity.
  And so if you happen to get one of these licenses, this is a license 
to make some money, because you put enough solar panels and windmills 
up, and the State guarantees you a certain rate per kilowatt hour. So 
there are all these people in line wanting to get licenses to generate 
green energy.
  So that's how they start. And everybody that has one of those 
licenses, let me tell you, politically, they are bought into this 
system. They are not going to let this system change for love nor money 
because they are making a ton of money on these licenses that they got 
from the government.
  The only trouble is, the government is paying so much for that energy 
that the society can't sustain it. It's chasing all the jobs overseas. 
But then they go through this fast now you see it, now you don't 
economics, and sort of write it off this way, send it another way, and 
eventually run it into future debt.
  So they are increasing their national debt. Their jobs are going down 
like mad. Their economy is in--but they have created a system 
politically that so many people are part of it that they can't let go 
of it. They can't get out of it.
  That's really frightening. It's not something you can just turn off 
and say, Oh, we made a mistake. They can't go back because everybody 
now is part of this deal.
  Mr. LATTA. I tell you, the discussion that we are having right now 
boils down to one thing, that this cap-and-tax is going to cost this 
country jobs.
  And I am sure everyone in this body speaks at their local schools 
every month. I am going to be speaking at graduation this weekend at 
one of my colleges. What do you tell these students that are 
graduating? They have this great opportunity, that you are going to 
have the same chance that we had, that your grandparents had? Or are we 
going to tell them, You know what? It's going to be tough out there. 
Maybe you won't find a job.
  You know, when you hear more and more that parents are worried that 
when their kids graduate from college, what do they do? They move home. 
There is no place for them to go. There are no jobs.
  One of the things that I think we have to remember in this whole 
debate, this is all about jobs, jobs, jobs. And one of the things that 
people kind of also have to remember is that government does not create 
a single job. This government consumes wealth. The only avenue that we 
have out there to produce wealth in this country is through business.
  And if businesses aren't able to operate, if they can't turn the 
lights on because it's too expensive, and day in and day out I am 
hearing from my constituents, I hearing from companies across the State 
of Ohio, they are saying, if this goes in, we don't know how we are 
going to literally keep the lights on.
  Mr. AKIN. Yes, we do have this. This is an estimate of job losses, if 
we go with this tax. And is this the kind of thing we should be doing 
in these economic times? Are we supposed to be losing jobs? I don't 
think this is a logical thing to do at all.
  And the thing that's so tragic about this whole thing is we have the 
resources. We have the technology. We have the innovation. If we want 
to define the problem precisely, we put those incentives out there in 
the form of prizes and different things.
  I tell you, get out of the way. Because when you give Americans a 
bunch of prizes and free enterprise and freedom, they are going to go 
for it and we are going to generate a tremendous part of energy.
  Now, here is part of problem we are dealing with here, and maybe this 
comes from my engineering background. But there are a whole series of 
questions that really need to be asked before we go any farther with 
this massive tax increase that's being proposed.
  And I think the first thing is there is a question between technical 
people and scientists, first of all, on the amount of CO2 
that we are really generating, that human beings are generating. That's 
not absolutely agreed to among scientists at all.
  The fact is that human beings add something to the CO2 in 
the atmosphere, but how much that is is kind of an unknown thing. We 
know it is going up, but we don't know how much mankind is adding to 
that, which then raises the next question, and that is, first of all, 
what are the effects that if we have the CO2, what is that 
going to do to the climate? Because, if you recall, it used to be we 
talked about global warming. The only thing is now you don't hear 
people, the liberals aren't talking about global warming anymore. They 
are talking about global change. Why not? Well, because it's not 
warming.
  They have these models, these computer models saying the Earth is 
really going to be warm. Now, if you take a couple of years ago, there 
was a statement, let's see if I can find it here. They said something 
to the effect that the waves are going to be breaking at the steps of 
the Capitol.
  That's what we were told. I mean, I was here in Congress. This is 
recently.

[[Page H5561]]

And they said, Hey, the water, the ice is melting so fast that we are 
going to have the waves breaking at the steps of the Capitol.
  Well, now subsequently it seems, I have the exact quote here, just a 
few years ago scientists predicted that the seas would rise from 20 to 
40 feet because of global warming with waves crashing against the steps 
of the U.S. Capitol, that would launch boats from the bottom of the 
Capitol steps. That's what people are saying.

                              {time}  1915

  So the question is, first of all: How much CO2 are we 
contributing? Second of all, what will be the effect of that 
CO2. Then, the next question is: What is our ability to do 
anything about it, even if we wanted to? How effective could a solution 
be?
  In my opinion, which is what you see in Spain, is this tax that's 
being proposed--this massive tax increase for our constituents, is this 
really about a concern for CO2, or is really the global 
warming just basically a stalking horse to give politicians another 
great big tax increase, increase the power of the Federal Government, 
and take away that precious freedom that our dear friend from Minnesota 
is just talking about?
  I'd like to go back to my friend from Utah, please.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. If I could add just another element to this as 
well, because what we're talking about when we talk about cap-and-tax 
on certain elements and certain industries is, once again, the 
government picking winners and losers. And we're trying to sell it--or 
somebody is trying to sell it to the American people on the idea that 
this is going to move us into a new generation of ``green'' energy.
  What we need to realize is back in the seventies--and I'm going to 
quote a few lines, if I could, from Keith Rattie's address he gave to 
Utah Valley University. He happens to be the chairman of Questar 
Corporation.
  He said, ``Back in the seventies, we were told that wind and solar 
power are alternatives to fossil fuels. In reality, the honest 
description is they're supplements to fossil fuels. Taken together, 
wind and solar power accounts for one-sixth of 1 percent of Americans' 
energy use,'' which means when he asked Power Point to do a pie chart 
for him, they couldn't come up with a wedge that small. It was a thin 
line.
  After 30 years, we have pumped $20 billion into subsidies for wind 
and solar power--and we have a thin line. The Obama administration is 
hoping to double that, which is a great goal. I think that's perfectly 
advisable. We should try and double wind and solar energy.
  You should know that the last 3 years of the Bush administration, we 
doubled the amount of wind and solar energy we produce. But what comes 
in that----
  Mr. AKIN. Reclaiming, we didn't do a tax increase, did we?
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. No.
  Mr. AKIN. It was because it seemed to make sense--and Americans did 
it.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Which is why we're coming back here, because all 
we're doing if we double is making a thicker thin line--going from one-
sixth to one-third of 1 percent, which is why this cap-and-tax approach 
is so insidious because, once again, there are winners and losers in 
industry; also, winners and losers in the American people.
  Mr. Latta's constituents in Ohio are going to be hit very, very hard. 
If you lived on the West Coast, which is more hydropower than coal-
fired power, you don't have that much, do you? It also makes a 
difference in the economic level of individuals.
  If you're rich, this cap-and-tax policy is going to be an annoyance. 
If you're poor, as I have said on this floor before, if you're poor, 
this approach makes the difference on whether you can have a luxury 
like tuna casserole at night. It's going to hit the poor people harder.
  In different areas of the country it's going to hit them harder. And 
that's why it is such an unfair and such a dangerous proposal, 
especially when you have been talking about other countries which have 
gone down that path--and it has not worked.
  Mr. AKIN. Reclaiming my time, it seems to me that if you're a 
businessman, the way businessmen think--because I used to be in the 
business world--you give me the rules and we will play the game. If I 
have got a chemical cracking facility in America and we're taking oil 
and we're breaking it into different products and things, and I'm going 
to get a great big tax, one of the things I might consider doing is 
just moving that overseas. Because if I move that overseas, the jobs go 
away here. Then I can sell the same products back into this country at 
a much lower cost, and anybody left in this country is going to be at a 
tremendous competitive disadvantage.
  So you're creating an incentive for companies to close American 
businesses and move them overseas by what we're doing. Somehow or 
another do we want the government making policies which manipulate the 
things that businesses do--not based on what is good for our citizens, 
but based on some silly set of laws that somebody came up with down 
here in Washington, D.C.; certainly not something I would vote for.
  I would like to recognize the gentlelady from Minnesota.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. Well, American manufacturing has been at a competitive 
disadvantage for years. I'm a former Federal tax litigation attorney. 
America has the second-highest corporate tax rate in the world, at 34 
percent.
  Now the Federal Government is proposing to tie a cement block onto 
American manufacturing that would be extremely difficult to overcome. 
One thing that we need to consider are the corruption influences that 
come from manufacturers all trying to fight over scraps, you might say, 
of permits.
  Originally, the President said there would be no permits that would 
be auctioned off to any industry. Now what we're seeing here in the 
House is that certain industries, certain fossil fuel-based industries 
are saying, We can't survive unless we have some kind of a free pass.
  And so now we're hearing of backroom deals that are happening, where 
different industries are given free passes. All of this adds up to the 
American people smelling something is rotten in this deal of the cap-
and-tax system,
  Mr. AKIN. Reclaiming my time, do you know what it sounds like to me? 
This is just another color version of another bailout deal.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. Sure it is.
  Mr. AKIN. We're going to say, Oh my business can't live with this 
cap-and-tax. So I need a bailout. And so now we're going to get in the 
business of trading off bailouts. I wonder who's going to get the deal.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. The problem is the American taxpayer, just as the 
banking system, the financial system, and now with energy, government 
is creating a problem where we don't have a problem. Government is 
creating a false economy where they don't have to do this. This is all 
to benefit governments coffers--not to benefit the American people, not 
to lower their energy tax bill, not to create more jobs when, just as 
Mr. Bishop said, we could take a completely different route.
  My State of Minnesota, Mr. Latta's State of Ohio will be hit 
especially hard with this cap-and-tax system. Why burden those who are 
least able to afford it--senior citizens, people who, in Minnesota, you 
don't have a choice. You have to turn on the furnace come October.
  This will be devastating to our economy, and we could have a 
completely different answer that would bring more money, bring more 
jobs by opening up all of America's energy resources.
  I would yield back.
  Mr. AKIN. The thing that's amusing on this entire situation, every 
time we seem to tamper with these things, we create these laws which do 
the opposite of what we're really trying to do. I think that the thing 
that we need to be having an awful lot more faith in in this Capitol is 
the idea of freedom and the imagination, the innovation that's 
available in America through the natural resources we're blessed with.
  All of these things come together to provide us with solutions where 
there's choices and options and free enterprise is working. And what is 
a good solution today is going to be replaced by something better 
tomorrow. It's even going to be better the day after tomorrow.
  I am so thankful for our guests here. We have just got a couple more 
minutes. I will go back to the gentleman from Ohio, if you would like 
to make a quick closing statement, and then we're going to call it an 
evening.

[[Page H5562]]

  Mr. LATTA. I thank the gentleman. I will be brief. Time is short for 
this country. We have folks out there that need jobs--and they need 
them today. We have been in a tough recession.
  Back in 1982, when we were coming out of that recession folks were 
confident that those factories were going to open back up; that those 
doors would be open and those jobs would be there. Today, a lot of 
those jobs are gone. We're in a tough economic environment. We're in a 
tough global environment--the competition is tough.
  If we want to make sure that we can compete in this country and we 
can make sure that we have those jobs in this country to compete 
against the rest of the world, we have to make sure that we have the 
costs down. If we go through this cap-and-tax, it's going to be a bad 
day for America.
  I just want to thank the gentleman for hosting this tonight. We're 
going to be talking about this not only here in Congress, but across 
our districts in the coming days.
  Mr. AKIN. Reclaiming my time, I am just so delighted with our guests 
here on the floor. You know, the common sense in me can't resist 
showing this little chart. How much does a human activity affect 
greenhouse gases? Well, if this block represents greenhouse gases right 
here, then CO2 is those yellow boxes. That's the amount of 
greenhouse gas that's heating the world by CO2. The rest of 
this is other things that are heating the world. Then, this is the 
amount that's caused by people. So this seems to be an awful big tax 
for such a little tiny box.
  I want to once again thank my good friends, Congresswoman Bachmann 
from Minnesota and Congressman Latta from Ohio and Congressman Bishop 
from Utah for joining us. I hope that this has been as informative and 
interesting for everybody else as much as it was for me.

                          ____________________