[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 95 (Tuesday, June 23, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H7119-H7120]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              THE TRIPLE PLAY ALTERNATIVE TO CAP-AND-TRADE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Inglis) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. INGLIS. Last night in Spartanburg, South Carolina, we had a town 
meeting; and folks were joining in this debate we will be having here 
this week in Washington about climate legislation. There were folks who 
spoke passionately about the need to take action, and I'm in agreement 
with them. There is a need to take action and to discharge a 
stewardship obligation. Then there were others who really didn't buy 
the science of climate change. And so there was a good discussion, a 
good debate. There's going to be a debate here on this House floor, 
perhaps by the end of the week.
  Madam Speaker, what I'd like to say tonight is that there is a need 
to act. There is a need to act in a way that wins a triple play for 
this century in America. If we play this right, it really is an 
opportunity to do three things simultaneously. One, improve the 
national security of the United States; two, create jobs; and three, 
clean up the air.
  So let's hear about the triple play. It starts by stopping the 
current cap-and-trade proposal. The problem with cap-and-trade is: It's 
a massive tax increase in the midst of a recession; it's a Wall Street 
trading scheme that would make traders on Wall Street blush; and it 
punishes American manufacturing because the tax--the cap-and-trade, 
which is essentially a tax--is applied only to domestically produced 
goods and not to imported goods. So if that's the case, if it's really 
not going to accomplish what we want to accomplish, what would be 
better? I think it's important that those of us who are opposed to cap-
and-trade come with something better. The ``better'' that I would 
propose is this: It's a revenue-neutral tax swap. Basically what we 
would do is we would reduce FICA taxes. That's the payroll taxes on 
your paycheck. You reduce those; and in an equal amount, you impose a 
tax on carbon dioxide. There's no additional take to the government, so 
it's revenue-neutral. You apply this transparent tax--it is admittedly 
a tax--to imported goods as well as domestically produced goods. The 
result is, there is one less reason to export productive capacity from 
the United States; and we achieve this triple play. We can 
simultaneously create

[[Page H7120]]

jobs by propelling these new technologies with the alternative energies 
and fuels of the future. We can improve the national security of the 
United States by breaking the addiction to oil. That will only come 
when the economics work out for the competing technologies. Currently 
the incumbent technology--gasoline, in the case of transportation 
fuel--has these negative externalities that aren't recognized. If they 
were recognized, if they were attached to the price of that product, 
the national security risks we are running, the environmental problems 
that it causes, the small particulates--even if you don't buy the 
climate change argument, the small particulates are quantifiable and 
real--if you attach all those negative externalities to that product, 
suddenly the marketplace could deliver competing technologies; and the 
fuels of the future could take off and could lead us to these jobs of 
the future and to clean up the air.
  Madam Speaker, this is a fabulous opportunity. It starts with 
stopping the current cap-and-trade proposal. And then we come together, 
Republicans and Democrats, to find a better solution. I think we can 
find it in a revenue-neutral tax swap that makes free enterprise able 
to lead us into the fuels of the future.

                          ____________________