[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 13605-13612]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




              CALCULATING YOUR SHARE OF ``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.

                              {time}  2100

  Mr. AKIN. Good evening, Mr. Speaker. It's a pleasure to join you and 
to take a look at a very interesting topic today. The whole idea of, 
it's kind of a combination of thoughts, first of all, the idea of 
global warming, and then how that relates to this cap-and-tax bill that 
we've been hearing more about, and exactly what's behind all of this 
discussion, because what we have here is something that is, if you want 
to talk about change, there's a whole lot of change here.
  This is a very, very significant proposal that's being made in terms 
of the size of the tax that's involved, and the proposal that we're 
actually going to change the climate of the world by some of these 
different things that are going to be done by the government, a very 
interesting thought.
  And so I thought, when we talk about global warming, there's a little 
bit of the story that I think has been forgotten. Some of it, not 
surprisingly, is the history of what's going on. I'd like to go back 
just a little bit in what's been going on.
  Let's go back to the year 1920, when newspapers in the 1920s were 
filled with scientists' warnings of a fast approaching glacial age. The 
Earth was going to get cold. And so you had to really be stocking up on 
extra coal and overcoats and things in the 1920s.
  In the 1930s it seems that the scientists changed their opinion, and 
they reversed themselves, that there was going to be serious global 
warming in the 1930s.
  By 1972, Time magazine was citing numerous scientific reports of 
imminent runaway glaciation. So it's going to get cold again.
  In 1975, Newsweek reported that the scientific evidence of an ``Ice 
Age'' called to stockpile food. And we also were even engaged in 
discussions about melting some of the Arctic ice cap or something 
because of this Ice Age that was readily, eminently approaching.
  By 1976 the U.S. government said the Earth is heading into some sort 
of mini ice age. And now we have back again, global warming. In fact, 
global warming is even getting a little bit out of fashion now, and 
people want to talk about climate change. It's a little safer to talk 
about climate change because you're not predicting whether it's going 
to get colder or warmer. But anyway, we've had some considerable 
amounts of disagreement, depending on what year you're on. So we go 
back and forth. It's either going to be the sky is going to fall 
because it's going to freeze, or the sky is falling because it's going 
to get warmer.
  So we have today this whole subject of global warming. That's what 
the most common term that you hear nowadays is global warming. And I 
think the facts of the matter are that there has been a considerable 
amount of disagreement, depending on which decade you're living in.
  I'm joined this evening by some very good friends, some respected 
colleagues, a medical doctor, as a matter of fact, and another 
gentleman from Pennsylvania, a very big coal and energy producing 
state. We're going to be chatting with them in just a minute.
  But I thought it would be appropriate just to kind of lay down, first 
of all, historically some of the differences of opinion, depending on 
which decade you live in.
  The general theory today, the way it works is the idea that mankind 
is creating CO2. We do that when we breathe, so there's not 
much scientific argument about that. There are other ways that 
CO2 is produced as well. Whenever we make a campfire we 
produce a certain amount of CO2 as we burn some combustible 
with the oxygen in the air.
  And the theory is that this CO2, because we're burning so 
much in the way of hydrocarbons, now is actually affecting the 
environment. And so we're going to take a look at that.
  And the question is whether or not, really, this CO2 is 
affecting the environment. I think most scientists agree that when we 
create or when we produce CO2 it has some impact on the 
environment. The question is how much. And then it's also a big 
question as to whether or not there's anything we could really do about 
that in a practical sense, or are there any sort of cost-effective 
solutions. And of course there is a solution that's on the table that's 
being proposed. It's a cap-and-tax bill that's being proposed by the 
Democrats. And it follows the pattern of most Democrat bills, and that 
is, I've got a great big whopping tax increase, and it has a whole lot 
of government regulations.
  If we go back in history a little bit, history is an amusing thing to 
take a look at. One of the things that history tells us is how 
effective the U.S. government is in solving these kinds of problems.
  We created a thing called the U.S. Department of Energy. Maybe a lot 
of people know we have a U.S. Department of Energy, but they may not 
recall why it was that the Department of Energy was created. Well, the 
fact of the matter is the Department of Energy was created so that we 
would not be dependent on foreign energy. And so, for years we've added 
more and more employees to the U.S. Department of Energy so that we 
won't be dependent on foreign energy, and each year we become more 
dependent on foreign energy. So it's amusing to postulate that we're 
going to solve this problem using a lot of taxation and a government 
solution.
  I think the Republicans--I'm a Republican, my colleagues that are 
joining me tonight are Republicans--I think that we prefer a more free 
enterprise kind of solution, and we want to take a look at the premises 
behind what we're talking about.
  I'm joined by my good friend, G.T. Thompson. He's from Pennsylvania. 
I'd like to recognize Congressman Thompson, who is already making 
himself a name here as being a very feet-on-the-ground, commonsense 
kind of guy, has an intuitive sense for free enterprise, and also 
potential dangers that come from this idea of we can solve all the 
problems with a great big whopping tax increase and government 
regulations.
  Please, I yield time.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Well, I thank the gentleman from 
Missouri. Your overview of this, your reference to real science is 
refreshing. In the debate and most of the debate of the majority party 
here, it's not so much based on real science as political science or 
even, to some degree, science fiction. And so, to look at why this--and 
I looked at every piece of legislation in terms of cost benefits. And 
when we look at the benefits of this, I think human activity, it's 
acknowledged, does contribute towards carbon dioxide emissions. But 
it's less than 4 percent. To put that into perspective, forest fires, 
wildfires contribute 10 percent of CO2 emissions. And so not 
even with the debate of, you know, are we warming the Earth or not 
warming the Earth, there's a lot of smart folks out there that are 
publishing research or earning their dissertations based on debating 
that science. But what the experts agree upon, the researchers agree 
is, human activity is less than 4 percent contributes towards 
CO2 emissions.
  You know, in terms of the cap-and-trade, cap-and-tax that we're 
discussing----
  Mr. AKIN. Could I interrupt you just a minute because I thought you 
were

[[Page 13606]]

on a rather important topic, because the whole crux of the idea for 
this huge tax proposal and all kinds of sweeping changes and government 
power and influence and regulation is based on the fact that 
CO2 is such a bad thing, and it's based on the assumption 
that the CO2 that we're releasing by burning fossil fuels is 
creating some kind of a problem. I mean, that's the whole linchpin that 
this debate is going around.
  And yet you have, here's kind of an interesting quote here. And I 
think I'd like to get into this just a little bit. Here's a former U.S. 
Senator and he says, we've got to ride the global warming issue. Even 
if the theory of global warming is wrong, we'll be doing the right 
thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.
  So, in other words, there's a solution that they have in mind, 
whether global warming is going on or not. And the thing that's been 
embarrassing, you've noticed we don't hear as much global warming. We 
hear climate change, and the reason is because the planet has not 
really been warming the last number of years as all of these economic 
models were saying that it was going to. And that doesn't necessarily 
mean the CO2 that we've generated hasn't created some 
warming. It just seems that the world climate is more connected to 
sunspot activity than these other things.
  But here you're just talking about the effect of CO2, and 
I thought this was interesting. This is how much does the human 
activity affect greenhouse gases? The block in light blue here 
represents all the greenhouse gases, which comprise only 2 percent of 
the total atmosphere. So this is all the greenhouse gases.
  And that yellow block over there on the end is the CO2. 
And the little tiny red block inside the yellow block is the part that 
our human activity is creating. And so the question is, in terms of 
leverage, does this little red dot over here have that much impact on 
the climate?
  And this is, I don't think anybody disputes the percentages of these 
gases and the mixture. So the question then is, is this stuff that 
we're doing really that important?
  And you just said the forest fires, which were created by poor 
environmental policy by the way, a lot of them, because we're not 
allowed to clean that brush out, the underbrush, and then it burns 
everything and burns Bambi and snowy owls and everything else because 
we didn't want to clear the brush out, and that's generating, what is 
that, 2\1/2\ times more than all of the coal and oil and things we 
burn.
  I didn't mean to interrupt you, but I think it's important for us to 
stick on what science, what really does science say. And this is not an 
easy thing for any scientist to figure out, is it, because what's 
happening is there's all sorts of things that play together, and so, 
the CO2 we generate could be warming the planet some, but it 
could be also that we're in a time where the planet is growing colder. 
So all of that, we don't really understand that totally, do we?
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. I think the gentleman points out an 
important point. These are all based on models and strictly 
speculation.
  Mr. AKIN. Some of the models said that we're going to have surf at 
the front steps of the Capitol pretty soon. I was really looking 
forward to that.
  Go ahead. I yield.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Well, and the purpose overall of this 
is to really eliminate all energy other than green energy. And today, I 
mean, the energy sources that are only seen as viable by the majority 
party under cap-and-tax are, frankly, solar and wind. And today, that 
represents less than 1 percent of meeting our energy needs in this 
country.
  So say we work real hard and we give it that Manhattan Project, and 
we absolutely double that, the energy capacity of solar and wind, well, 
that's 2 percent. We still have a huge gap that this country has that 
we need to be able to fuel our vehicles, heat our homes.
  And I'm from a very rural district. The folks in my area, we have 
some pretty harsh, frigid winters, and we need to heat our homes. We 
commute in my home for work, for groceries. You know, frankly, a lot of 
folks in my area commute just to pick up their mail. And the cost of 
cap-and-tax, I believe, is projected, well, with, just on gasoline 
alone to increase by over 70 percent.
  Mr. AKIN. I appreciate your bringing that up, and I'd like to get 
into that just a little bit more as we move on this evening into that 
area, about the Democrat proposal, what it does to people's costs, 
average costs.
  But we're also joined by a good friend of mine, Dr. Fleming. And 
people that have a technical or scientific background are a little rare 
in the Chambers here. So to have actually a guy who's passed high 
school science is tremendously helpful. And Dr. Fleming is from 
Louisiana.
  I'm a misfit in politics. I'm an engineer by training. I don't know 
how they ever--there's few of us in here that are engineers.
  But Dr. Fleming, I would be encouraged if you'd join us too in our 
discussion.
  Mr. FLEMING. Well, thank you. And I want to thank my friend, of 
course, from Missouri for having this hour discussion, very important 
discussion, coming right at the heels of our classmates from the other 
side of the aisle speaking on the same subject, but with a different 
opinion.
  I also thank my fellow Republican classmate, Mr. Thompson from 
Pennsylvania as well for his discussion.
  Well, let me just point out that, you know, you don't have to be 
detailed in the science to understand one empirical fact, and that is, 
this globe has warmed and cooled several times in its life before there 
was the first emission of fossil fuels.
  So, that being said, we already have proof positive that the Earth 
can warm under its own circumstances and its own environment and its 
own test tube, if you will. And you just mentioned sunspots and other 
activities. There are many things that go into the global warming 
effect and global cooling effect.
  And as you say, now that we're not able to accurately actually 
predict that the globe is warming, now the whole issue is changing to 
climate change, so that whatever happens different than what it is at 
this moment can somehow be blamed.

                              {time}  2115

  Mr. AKIN. Just reclaiming my time, somehow or another, this whole 
thing strikes me, if it weren't so serious, as being a comedy. You 
know, we just went from winter to spring in Missouri. When we go from 
winter to spring, that's a good climate change. I don't want to stop 
that climate change, you know. Who in the world would want to put 
politicians in charge of the weather anyway? What a dumb idea. Anyhow, 
we need to be a little bit serious because this is a tremendous tax 
that we're talking about, a tremendous removal of freedom away from 
Americans, and it is a tremendous investment in more and more big 
government solutions. That is extremely scary in spite of the fact that 
the science seems to be a little bit amazing. We'll get into that, too.
  I was just recalling that my friend from Pennsylvania was here with 
the guy from Spain, I think it was, 2 weeks ago. They were talking 
about how Spain has driven this cap-and-tax, and they were talking 
about what has happened, and we're going to get into it. So it isn't 
something we're going to speculate about. It has been tried. We can 
say: here is what happened in Spain. Do we really want to reproduce 
this or not?
  I didn't mean to interrupt you, Doctor. Please continue.
  Mr. FLEMING. Thank you. To sort of gear down to the real topic 
tonight, I heard talk from the other side of the aisle this evening 
about terms such as ``investment,'' which really, to me, is a code for 
tax, and also ``jobs'' or ``green jobs.''
  Mr. AKIN. You have to translate. ``Investment'' means we're going to 
tax you.
  Mr. FLEMING. Exactly. Exactly.
  Mr. AKIN. Thank you, Doctor.
  Mr. FLEMING. Also, it was very interesting that the discussion hinged

[[Page 13607]]

somewhat on the fact that this investment creates more jobs and that it 
creates revenue down the line. If you listen closely to the discussion, 
what you hear is really good old-fashioned subsidies. That is, whenever 
the government is subsidizing forms of energy that are not cost-
effective at this point and whenever the technologies are not there, 
what we really get is a pass-through of taxpayer dollars that goes into 
what I would call artificial, or papier mache jobs, so-called ``green 
jobs.'' We'll learn from the Spanish experiment that has been going on 
now for 10 years that, for 2.2 jobs that are lost, there is only one 
so-called ``green job'' gained. That job 90 percent of the time is in 
implementation and construction. It is not a continuous job.
  Mr. AKIN. Reclaiming my time, as for the green jobs that are being 
talked about, we're going to create all of these green jobs in Spain. 
They call them ``subprime jobs,'' you see. This is the same old warmed 
over Keynesian economics that we've been hearing since the days of FDR. 
That is, if the government taxes everybody a whole lot and takes the 
money and pays people to do stuff, then we've somehow created jobs.
  The trouble is, when you tax them, you have prevented other jobs from 
being created. So, in effect, what you've done is, yes, you've created 
jobs, but you've lost 2.2 jobs. So what sort of math is that? That's 
not a very good mathematical formula. So there's this talk about green 
jobs. In Spain, they call them ``subprime jobs,'' and they've now got, 
I think, 17.5 percent unemployment as a result of this nifty project 
that they're doing to get rid of CO2. The trouble is, even 
measured on the face of it, they're making more CO2 than 
they did before, so it isn't working.
  Anyway, proceed, Doctor.
  Mr. FLEMING. Well, just to extend that a little further, where are 
these jobs going?
  It turns out that some of the Spanish jobs have come to America 
because we understand that the net effect of tax, or cap-and-trade, or 
cap-and-tax as we call it, is that there is a higher cost to produce 
goods for manufacturing. So as a result, for someone who owns a factory 
or a company that perhaps owns a factory, he has to find the most cost-
effective location for that factory. Otherwise, he can't compete in the 
worldwide economy. We know today that this is, indeed, a worldwide 
economy. We can't get away from that fact.
  Just today, a Chinese company bought Hummer--a portion of General 
Motors. So we know that to be true. Well, we actually have received a 
dividend from Spain going down this road. We've actually had companies 
coming to the U.S., and we've actually gained jobs as a result of 
Spain's having gone down this cap-and-trade boondoggle.
  Mr. AKIN. If I could just interrupt and go over to my good friend 
from Pennsylvania, to Congressman Thompson, let's flesh out this idea.
  If you do this solution that the Democrats are proposing, which is a 
cap-and-tax or a cap-and-trade or whatever you want to call it, how 
does that end up with our losing jobs? Let's go through that very 
specifically so that people can understand it, because that's what 
we're talking about. That's what happened in Spain. Let's go through 
that model and identify where those jobs went.
  The brag that the Democrats were saying an hour ago was that they're 
going to create jobs and that everything is going to be better. Yet the 
very thing they're proposing in Spain has gotten them to 17.5 percent 
unemployment. Let's go through how that happens.
  Can you please help us with that, Congressman Thompson?
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Sure. I think the important baseline on 
that 17.5 percent unemployment today in the country of Spain is the 
fact that, when cap-and-trade was instituted, it was 7 percent. 
Unemployment was 7 percent.
  Mr. AKIN. So they've driven it up 10 percent.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Over 10 percentage points is the 
outcome. Those really are the only two major outcomes that I see of 
cap-and-trade--higher unemployment and higher energy costs.
  In terms of the job losses, that's what this bill is all about. This 
is a jobs bill. They're correct on that part; but, unfortunately, it's 
a job loss bill. You know, they talk about all of the green jobs that 
were created in Spain as a part of cap-and-trade and the proposal of 
cap-and-trade here to create jobs. Well, in Spain, for every 10 green 
jobs that were created, mostly related to solar or to wind, only one 
was sustainable within that economy by the industry that paid for that 
job and for its implementation. As my colleague from Louisiana talked 
about, nine out of those 10 jobs are still around today because the 
country of Spain doesn't want to see unemployment driven higher.
  So how do they hang onto those nine out of 10 jobs? It's a subsidy 
bubble. There are tens of billions of dollars annually that the country 
of Spain has to infuse into the alternative energy industry so that it 
doesn't drive their unemployment up over 20 percentage points. You 
think about what this does to cost. There is no industry that will go 
untouched. Any industry that uses energy--and that's all of them--is 
going to see significant energy increases and costs. Today, especially 
in these economic times and even in the best of times, to be 
competitive globally and to have our costs be put up by--I don't know--
say 30 percent or more, that totally makes us uncompetitive within the 
world.
  Mr. AKIN. Reclaiming my time, let's go through this. So in other 
words, let's say we did what the Democrats want to do: let's do this 
great big tax increase. This is a very big tax increase. So what we're 
going to do is essentially tax energy. Now, as to energy issues within 
companies, some companies are using more than others, particularly 
aluminum manufacturing, steel manufacturing, your basic, hard 
manufacturing jobs. These then support lots of other burger flipping 
types of jobs that are very heavily energy intensive, but also food is 
very energy intensive. So now what's going to happen?
  You're going to tax energy. When you tax it, it means the prices go 
up. The energy-producing company doesn't just pay the tax. It pays the 
tax, and it passes it on to the consumer. So the person who flips the 
light switch on or the person who lights up his pilot light to run his 
stove or his heater for natural gas or the people who fire up their 
diesel engines or their gasoline engines are paying more money. 
Therefore, those businesses are less competitive. In being less 
competitive, there are more foreign people who can compete and who can 
send products into this country. We can't compete against them because 
our prices go up. So, effectively, we send jobs overseas that way. 
We're less competitive. So the jobs go away.
  The government taxes everybody in the private sector. The money comes 
out of the private sector. They use it to hire somebody. This then 
displaces a couple of jobs, and here we go around in this circle. This 
is basically what Morgenthau tried, the Secretary of the Treasury under 
FDR. He said that we're going to raise the taxes a whole lot, that 
we're going to spend a whole lot of money to ``stimulate the economy'' 
and that it will drive unemployment down.
  Then he came here to this Chamber 9 years later, before the Ways and 
Means Committee, and his quote was: ``We've tried it and it doesn't 
work.'' Those were exactly his words: ``It doesn't work.'' So he said 
that now we've got high unemployment and a whole lot of taxes and a big 
debt to boot.
  So this is the same old tried-and-true Democrat scheme of raising 
taxes and of creating and trusting the government, of trusting that the 
government is going to run it better than would free enterprise. Yet 
we've got this Department of Energy out there that was founded to get 
us off our dependence on foreign energy; and ever since it has been 
founded, it has gotten worse.
  I yield to my good friend from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Well, thank you, sir.
  You mentioned natural gas. We could talk all evening on different 
types of manufacturing that utilize natural gas,

[[Page 13608]]

not just as a process for heating and for energy but also as an 
ingredient. Natural gas is a key component in almost any type of 
manufacturing. I want to just focus briefly on two.
  You know, some of the folks who help feed us are our family farms 
throughout the Nation; and I don't care what they're raising or what 
they're growing, many of those family farms use processes that use 
natural gas, specifically with fertilizer for growing crops--for 
growing our food. It feeds this Nation. When we see under the cap-and-
trade of natural gas, it's clean. It's a very clean fossil fuel, but 
it's a fossil fuel that's going to be punished and penalized under cap-
and-trade. We're going to raise the cost of food for America because of 
cap-and-trade and feel the impact of taxing the use of natural gas on 
our farmers.
  Mr. AKIN. Just reclaiming my time, you know, I've got a chart I'd 
like to talk to you about because we figured out what the size of this 
tax is. You take the average per family, and we're going to go in a 
minute and take a look at what it is going to cost the average family 
every year for the next 8 years for this $1.2 trillion tax increase.
  We've been joined by another doctor, a medical doctor but also a guy 
who graduated from high school science as well, from Georgia, my good 
friend, Congressman Gingrey.
  It's just great to have you in our discussion this evening. Please 
jump in. I yield.
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Missouri for yielding time to me and for bringing to this body this 
important hour.
  I was watching our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, the 
Democrat majority. I think they were mostly freshmen who had the 
previous hour, and they were praising, of course, the American Clean 
Energy Act and Security Act of 2009, and they were talking about all of 
the great and wonderful things that it does.
  Certainly, there are some good things in the bill. I'm not going to 
stand here, Mr. Speaker, and completely criticize every aspect of it. 
Our freshmen colleagues--our Democrat colleagues--spoke very 
eloquently, but they never talked about the whole picture. I don't know 
where they were. They obviously were not Members of this body in the 
110th Congress when we Republicans stayed here a year ago in August 
rather than going home for our vacations, or for our August recess, or 
for our codels. The Speaker and others rushed out of here to head out 
to foreign places, leaving Americans high and dry with $4 a gallon 
regular gasoline at the time. That's when the real commitment came on 
our side of the aisle to say it's unconscionable to leave this body and 
to do nothing for the American people and to say, oh, well, we'll take 
care of it in 5 weeks when we get back in early September. That's 
exactly what the Democrat majority did a little less than a year ago.
  When I heard my freshmen colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
talking about how wonderful this new cap-and-trade energy bill is, I 
think one of them even described it as the foundation for new 
prosperity from sea to shining sea. Well, let me just tell you, Mr. 
Speaker: the folks in the 11th District of Georgia, in northwest 
Georgia--in fact, in the entire State of Georgia, in fact in the entire 
Southeast--don't think this is a foundation for new prosperity from sea 
to shining sea. It might be wonderful for northern New Mexico. It might 
be good for upstate New York. It may be good for some parts of 
Virginia. It may even be good, I guess--although I can't imagine how--
in some parts of Michigan, which are the areas that these freshmen 
represent on the Democratic side of the aisle.
  I want to tell you that it is not good in the Southeast. I think my 
colleagues have already pointed out that what the Democratic majority 
has done with this American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 has 
crammed down the throats of the American people not a comprehensive, 
all-of-the-above approach. It is not going to be a foundation for new 
prosperity from sea to shining sea because what it does is raise energy 
prices for every American family by an average of $3,000 a year.
  Mr. AKIN. I can't help but jump in here.
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I would be glad to yield back to the 
gentleman who controls the time. I thank him for allowing me to be part 
of the discussion.
  Mr. AKIN. It's a treat to have you. I think you brought up a couple 
of very, very significant things.
  First of all, we stood in this Chamber just a couple of months ago 
and heard the President say that anybody making less than $250,000 
doesn't need to worry about any tax increases. Yet, this tax increase 
that is being proposed happens to anybody who flips a light switch. 
That means you could make a lot less than $250,000 a year and get hit 
with a tax.
  This cap-and-tax--these circles here--represent different, expensive 
things that America has bought.

                              {time}  2130

  This is the war in Iraq and this is the Korean war, and you have got 
the gulf war over here. Over in the far right you've got Hurricane 
Katrina, different things like this. This is World War II, this big 
blue one. This is this tax: $1.9 trillion worth of tax. That's what's 
being proposed here. And we're just told if you're making $250,000 or 
less, you won't get any tax, and yet this taxes you when you turn the 
lights on, when you turn the thermostat up, when you start your car. 
That's what this tax is about right here. And when you eat food, that's 
what this tax is about.
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. If the gentleman will yield for an additional 
few seconds.
  Exactly. You break down this cost right at $3,000 a year for a family 
of four, it breaks down, as the gentleman has pointed out, Mr. Speaker, 
a 90 percent increase in the cost of electricity, 74 percent increase 
in the cost of gasoline, 55 percent increase in the cost of natural 
gas.
  Now, when I was home during this Memorial Day remembrance and 
district work period, I went to visit one of the plants in my 
district--again, northwest Georgia, the 11th--Dow Chemical, and what 
they do is make all kinds of products out of polyurethane, and the 
dashboard in your automobile is an example. And the cost, their 
feedstock is natural gas. And what we're doing is putting additional 
costs on all of these manufacturers, everybody that produces 
electricity, and it was a cost that was never there before. And 
somebody has to pay for that cost. And who is that somebody? The 
American public.
  I yield back to the gentleman.
  Mr. AKIN. We've also been joined by my very good friend, Congressman 
Bishop, who talked before on this subject, very knowledgeable.
  And I would yield time to Congressman Bishop. Please jump in.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I, unfortunately, don't have the wonderful accent 
that my good friend from Georgia has, but I will try and slur some 
words together to see if I can emulate that in some small way.
  The problem that I think all of us here in Congress are facing, as 
well as the people out there are facing, is that the government has 
promised they're going to do something. Not market forces. The 
government is going to do something. And this cap-and-tax policy is an 
effort of the government to try to ratchet down carbon emissions into 
the atmosphere by changing the way industry works in an effort to have 
them changing the way they produce things. That change passes on to the 
consumer. Everything we use, as the gentleman said, has some kind of 
carbon footprint. The essence is that not only industries but 
individuals will change their lifestyles.
  I don't care how you went to spin it. It is still a tax on people--we 
are looking at estimates around $400 billion--a tax on people that 
doesn't go to changing the amount of energy we have or changing the way 
we live our lives to better the people's lives. It's an amount of money 
that goes simply to the government. It is a windfall to the government.
  Mr. AKIN. Reclaiming my time.
  They're talking about using that for socialized medicine or 
something,

[[Page 13609]]

right? It has nothing to do with CO2 at all.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. That is exactly the point there. If people are 
going to actually put out that kind of money, they should know what 
they're going to get and they should know what the goal of all of this 
is.
  The goal has been stated that we'll have an 80 percent reduction by 
2050. Sounds wonderful. In my particular State of Utah, we have a 
carbon footprint of roughly 66 million tons of CO2 per year 
and a population of 2.6 million. If you simply do the math, 80 percent 
by 2050 means we will be producing in 2050 2.2 tons of CO2. 
Sounds like a lot. Except the last time in the history of the State of 
Utah we had a carbon output that was that low, I'm sorry, Brigham Young 
wasn't there. If you tried to do something for this Nation, the 
Pilgrims hadn't landed before you do that. So the question is how do we 
actually do that? How do we reconcile a lifestyle with these elements, 
especially when there are 6.2 billion on the Earth, 2 billion who have 
never switched on a light?
  Mr. AKIN. Reclaiming my time.
  Those numbers are incredible.
  What you're saying is we want to maintain--maybe we don't want to 
maintain our current standard of living but we want to go back to a 
pre-Pilgrim America in terms of CO2 output?
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. It's the only way it works as long as you can 
keep the other 2 billion people in the world who don't have electricity 
today from ever getting electricity.
  We can keep our lights, our flat-screen TVs, our computers, our cell 
phones, everything that uses electricity now, our low-cost food without 
bugs because fertilizer is fossil fuels. We can keep the clothes and 
the plastics. You go into an emergency room, everything except steel is 
part of fossil fuels. Composites made for airplanes now that make them 
lighter weight and more efficient is all gas. You fly here back and 
forth on gas.
  The problem we have with this entire concept is basically we're 
saying we're going to get rid of fossil fuels at the same time we live 
with fossil fuels, and that is simply nothing short of schizophrenia on 
our part.
  Here's a problem. I had a great friend that gave a speech at one 
point. And one of the things we need to be looking at is the fact that 
all of these, what we classify as alternative fuel sources, really are 
supplemental fuel sources. If you add everything we do from solar and 
wind power together, it's one-sixth of 1 percent of our energy 
consumption. You try to make one of those pie charts with that and it's 
a thin line. You can't get anything more than that. That's the best a 
PowerPoint--which also uses electricity--would ever produce. And we get 
that with 20 years or 30 years of the government having spent $20 
billion to try to increase wind and solar power.
  President Obama said we want to double that figure. Actually, in the 
last 3 years of the Bush administration, we doubled that figure. 
Admittedly, it's a higher base now. It would be harder to do at the 
next doubling. But if you double it, you go from one-sixth to one-third 
of 1 percent. And that's on the assumption that no economy grows 
anywhere else. Everything remains flat.
  Mr. AKIN. Now, just reclaiming my time.
  Now, my understanding was what we heard from the guy from Spain, he 
said that they had been able to get a lot of windmills and solar panels 
out there and that it was a significant part of what they generated. 
But he said here was the problem: When the weather didn't cooperate, 
they had to tell the big industries, You can't make any aluminum today 
because we don't have any electricity because the wind isn't blowing or 
the sun isn't shining. And they told the steel manufacturers, You can't 
make any steel. And so these companies are moving guess where? To 
America. They're moving out of Spain because of the fact that the 
energy is no longer reliable.
  To make things worse--what they described to me was really chilling, 
and I need to jump over to my good friend from Louisiana who is also 
here on this, but this is what really stuck in my mind. He said what 
they did was they took a whole bunch of bureaucrats and they guaranteed 
them that they could sell energy to the government at a certain high 
price so those people would invest in solar panels and windmills. They 
guaranteed the price, and now they've got this thing created and it's a 
political monster because you have all of these people with windmills 
and solar panels and they don't want to politically change it because 
that's where their revenue is coming from. So they've created this 
thing that's driving over 17 percent unemployment and all kinds of 
people are in on the government take and they don't want to change it.
  My good friend from Louisiana, Congressman Scalise, please jump into 
the conversation.
  Mr. SCALISE. I thank my friend for talking about this issue.
  This cap-and-trade energy tax, this proposal that this administration 
and this leadership in Congress has brought forward--you're talking 
about the Spain study, and Spain is an interesting study because there 
are other countries that have gone down this road. So there are some 
good models to look at and see what is cap-and-trade, what has this 
national energy tax done to other countries, and you go to Europe and 
see the devastation to their economies.
  And you look at Spain. They just did a study on the Spain experiment 
in cap-and-trade, and they came back with some numbers that showed, for 
every green job they created, they lost 2.2 regular jobs. And what's 
even more than that is that 9 out of 10 of those new jobs they created 
were temporary jobs.
  So, in essence, for every one permanent new job they created with 
cap-and-trade energy tax, they lost 20 regular permanent jobs in their 
regular economy.
  So if you look at what's happening here in the United States with 
this proposal, this cap-and-trade energy tax, it literally would run--
estimates by the National Association of Manufacturers say that it 
would run 3 to 4 million jobs, American jobs, run them overseas to 
countries like China, India, and Brazil that are not going to comply 
with this.
  So the real irony is for those people who really do believe that we 
need to reduce carbon emissions--ultimately we all recognize that 
carbon emissions have the same effect if they're emitted in the United 
States or in China. And so the real irony is, if you want to reduce 
carbon emissions, if you support cap-and-trade, you're going to have an 
increase in worldwide carbon emissions because the jobs that are done 
here in the United States, for example, that produce steel, to produce 
steel in the United States, and that same steel is going to be produced 
in China, for example. The same steel produced in China will emit four 
times the amount of carbon that the steel in the United States would 
emit because we already have tougher environmental regulations in 
place.
  So for the people that are trying to use cap-and-trade, this energy 
tax to reduce carbon emissions, you'll actually have an increase in 
carbon emissions because the jobs that are in America right now that 
will go overseas, that we will lose in our economy, the 3 to 4 million 
jobs we will lose in tough economic times while American consumers 
actually end up paying over $2,000 or $3,000 a year in their 
electricity bill, those jobs go to China.
  Mr. AKIN. What you're saying is, in simple terms, this cap-and-tax 
not only won't work; it's going to make a bad situation worse. It's not 
only going to create unemployment, but it's going to create more 
CO2.
  The amusing thing is there is a chart here that--I just discovered 
this. If we were to double our nuclear power production--we're 
currently producing about 20 percent of our electric power through 
nuclear, 25 percent, somewhere in that range. If we were to double it, 
it would have the same effect as taking almost every passenger car off 
the road in terms of getting rid of CO2. And yet the funny 
thing is, do you know what happened in Spain, what they did with 
nuclear? They shut their nuclear stuff down, which is absolutely 
insane, because nuclear is the one kind of energy

[[Page 13610]]

that doesn't make any CO2 at all and yet they shut it down. 
So this whole thing about CO2 being such a big problem, it 
seems like we're talking out of both sides of our mouth.
  I promised my good friend from Utah I would let him have the last 
word before he had to scoot out of here.
  Okay. We'll go back over to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. SCALISE. Ultimately, we need a national energy policy. We don't 
have that in our country. So you've got very clear differences. The 
approach that we here that have been talking tonight support is a 
comprehensive national energy policy that understands that we've got 
our own national resources like oil, natural gas. We can develop clean 
coal technology. We can promote more nuclear, and we can use that to 
fund more solar and wind and other alternative sources of energy, but 
using our natural resources in America, not shipping jobs overseas like 
the cap-and-trade energy tax proposal by our colleagues on the 
Democratic side.
  Mr. AKIN. Now you're getting me excited. You're talking about freedom 
instead of a whole bunch of government taxes and bureaucracy. What 
you're talking about allows Americans, empowering Americans to use the 
resources that we have, the technology, the innovation, and to develop 
energy from all different kinds of ways within our country and let that 
energy compete in a free market sense and let people buy the energy 
they want to buy.
  Mr. SCALISE. And reduce our dependence on Middle Eastern oil while 
creating good jobs here in America, as opposed to their plan which 
taxes people on their energy bills and runs jobs to countries like 
China and India that will emit more carbon for doing the exact same 
thing we do here.
  So I yield back.
  Mr. AKIN. I really appreciate your emphasis on free enterprise, free 
solutions, and not government bureaucracies. But it still just dazzles 
me that the Spanish were able to sell this thing politically that 
they're worried about CO2 and they shut down the nuclear, 
where we say here we just double our amount of nuclear and we get rid 
of all emissions of almost every passenger car on our highways. That's 
incredible.
  Congressman Bishop.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I am glad you feel excited right now, because one 
of the things that we are talking about in Congress is alternatives and 
other ideas. And as we have gone through this, we have shown that the 
cap-and-trade policy is nothing more then a tax. There are lots of 
negatives that go around with it. It's idealism, because the 
alternatives we have are not able to replace fossil fuels yet unless we 
want to totally change our lives. And there are easier ways than 
government mandates to get it done: allowing the markets to work--which 
I hate to say, especially from a ``just say no'' party, but if you 
include the no cost stimulus bill that many of us here have sponsored, 
H.R. 2300, which is from the Republican Study Committee in the Western 
Caucus--I think all of us here sponsored--those are viable options that 
make life better by having a reliable and sufficient energy to drive 
down the costs to help us find a bridge to come up with supplemental, 
not alternative, but supplemental energy and to do it in an orderly and 
efficient manner where people get to choose.
  The government doesn't pick the winners. People get to pick the 
winners. There aren't those options out there. And what you got excited 
about is exactly what many of us here are trying to do. It is another 
voice. It is another option. Let the American people know it is out 
there and available.
  Mr. AKIN. I appreciate that great plug for freedom. I think there is 
something--there are a few statistics that all of our guests here 
tonight know these things.

                              {time}  2145

  But an awful lot of people don't know about it, and here's something 
that I thought was just amazing. If I were to say to you that this 
place where we work here, the U.S. Congress, is polarized between 
Republicans and Democrats on the abortion issue, you'd go, yawn, well 
of course they're polarized.
  But what I don't think a lot of people know is that this Chamber is 
more polarized on the energy issue than we are on the abortion issue. 
We went back and took a look at about 8 years of voting between the two 
parties on developing American energy. And you know what we found? It's 
no surprise to you gentlemen. Ninety percent of the time where there is 
some proposal to help the development of American energy, Republicans 
voted for it, and even in the most mundane or the most easy to get 
along with politically, 86 to 88 percent of the Democrats voted ``no.'' 
There is a huge party-line difference on the development of American 
energy.
  And I just think a lot of people aren't aware of that, but people say 
there's no difference between the parties. Boy, there sure is on this 
issue, isn't there?
  And my good friend Dr. Fleming, I would appreciate you again joining 
us in the discussion here.
  Mr. FLEMING. Well, I thank the gentleman. I think that really the 
extension of what you just said is what is the real agenda behind this, 
and I think that we've recognized in the last few years that the 
American taxpayer has had enough. They don't want to pay any more 
taxes. Americans feel like they pay enough on the city level, county 
level, State and Federal level, and I think that our more liberal 
friends, our tax friendly friends, have realized this, and now they're 
coming up with schemes to disguise taxes.
  And I think Congressman Dingell said it better than anybody in this 
Chamber--and of course, he's a Democrat--that this is a tax, a very big 
tax, and I think that really strikes to the heart of what the purpose 
of this is. Someone a moment ago made reference to the fact that we're 
going to need at least $1.2 trillion if we go forward with a single-
payer, comprehensive health care system, Medicare for all, if you will. 
And I think that those who support that are scrambling around to find a 
tax that can be defined as something not a tax, and I think they've got 
this cap-and-tax program squarely in their sights.
  Mr. AKIN. Just reclaiming for a moment here, just to support what 
you're saying, this is kind of interesting. This is a Gallup poll about 
how do different people that are concerned with the environment, how do 
they rank global warming as compared to other kinds of environmental 
issues.
  And this is March 2008 and March 2009. You can see both of these 
charts. It hasn't changed that much over a year, but the thing that was 
the most important to people in terms of environmental was the 
pollution of drinking water. That was their number one thing, and then 
they wanted water pollution, was also eighty-something percent, very 
important to people in terms of environmental concerns. All the way 
down, all the way over here to the smaller side, global warming is the 
last one, and yet that's all we've been doing for a month is global 
warming, and it suggests that maybe global warming isn't the real 
issue. Maybe that's just the horse that's supposed to pull a big fat 
tax increase. That's what we're starting to see here, and I yield to my 
friend from Georgia.
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me, 
Mr. Speaker, because this is a great segue into what I think is the 
bottom line here.
  When Madam Speaker became the Speaker in January of 2007, it was 
clear that her signature issue was this issue of global warming, and 
shortly after that Al Gore got a Nobel Prize. He shared it with an 
intergovernmental climate control panel of the United Nations, and of 
course, he came before the Science Committee and Energy and Commerce 
Committee. This was their signature issue. This was the most important 
thing, and here we are in 2009 in the deepest of recessions, the worst 
recession that we've experienced since the Great Depression--
  Mr. AKIN. Since Jimmy Carter.
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. If the gentleman will allow me, just on that 
same theme that you were just mentioning, this is not the number one 
concern of the American people today. The number one concern of the 
American people today is their jobs and their families and the cost of 
all these

[[Page 13611]]

things, not just the cost of electricity, but everything that they have 
to purchase and concern over what's going to happen to Social Security 
and Medicare. And here we are going crazy about this cap-and-trade when 
we're taping our hands behind our back, penalizing the American people 
and losing jobs by the hundreds of thousands. It is pure idiocy, 
especially in an economic time of crisis like we're in.
  Mr. AKIN. I would just like to discuss this a little bit with my good 
friend from Pennsylvania, Congressman Thompson. You know, I'm from 
Missouri, and I've been a legislator now a number of years. One of the 
things that is amusing is that the legislature passes some bill to do 
something, and the exact opposite thing happens of what they meant to 
have happen.
  I'm just picturing some of my friends here tonight from Georgia and 
from Pennsylvania and Louisiana. I'm thinking about Missouri. And you 
put a big old tax on natural gas and electricity, and you know what the 
good old boy is going to do? They're going to break out that steel 
chainsaw. They're going to go to the wood lot. They're going to be 
cutting firewood, and they're going to be heating with wood and 
generating twice the CO2 that would have happened if this 
silly bill hadn't been passed.
  And the funny thing is it must be happening that way in Spain because 
their CO2 has gone up in spite of the fact they got all this 
unemployment and taxes and this huge government bureaucracy they've 
created.
  I just wanted to allow my friend from Pennsylvania, if you wanted to 
jump in on that subject.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Absolutely. I appreciate that.
  I mean, this is a tax that hits everybody and everything, every 
business, every industry, every family, and it's a tax on everyone. And 
I tell you, the folks, I tell you what makes it an immoral tax is the 
fact that it taxes those folks who are just now maybe getting by 
paycheck to paycheck, those people that work hard every day and do 
their best and they're just making it. You know, what they bring in 
income, they're putting out on bills. And in Pennsylvania because our 
electricity, 60 percent of it comes from coal, we have about 35, 38 
percent that comes from nuclear and nuclear's taxed. Even though 
there's no CO2 emissions, under cap-and-trade, nuclear is 
going to be taxed the same way.
  Mr. AKIN. Just stop for a minute. That just absolutely dumbfounds me. 
The whole point of this deal is not to make any CO2 
supposedly, so we are going to tax the nuclear power plant that doesn't 
make any CO2. What's the logic of that?
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. One of my opening comments was the fact 
that it is refreshing to be here debating real science versus political 
science or science fiction. And here's the thing: The alternatives are 
out there. Republicans have been working hard. We've got an energy 
solutions group. We've been putting that out there. During the district 
days, we were in Pittsburgh and Indiana and out in the West Coast, and 
we were talking about a better solution for America. We've been hitting 
on parts of it tonight.
  I view that that solution would provide us an energy margin. You 
know, what is it, 9 months ago where gas was pushing $4 or $5 a gallon? 
And gas prices are going up now again, and yet we're furthering our 
dependence on foreign oil. The President has shut off the tax 
deductions for domestic drilling and shut down areas in this country 
for domestic drilling, including through the Forest Service, an area in 
my district, Allegheny National Forest, really slowed down to a 
screeching halt new drilling.
  And we could have an energy margin with the proposals put forward by 
the Republican Party that will allow us to have the domestic energy 
resources so that in the future when there's a hurricane, or where a 
foreign country that we have been dependent on for our energy resources 
decides to shut down that flow or some other catastrophic attack, we 
actually have an energy margin where our energy prices remain stable. 
And that's good for America. That's the type of energy policy Americans 
expect.
  I'm actually blessed here standing between two physicians. I'd like 
to take the opportunity to call on their expertise--I worked in health 
care myself in rehab for about 28 years, but not as a physician--to get 
their diagnostic opinion on this. This is all in the name of green, 
greening America, specifically solar and hydro, but in terms of the 
economy, the other green that comes to mind is gangrene. And I just 
would defer that, though, to my colleagues who are physicians to have a 
better feel for that.
  Mr. AKIN. Well, now you're really hurting me when you start to get 
into that, but you know, that idea is that what you're doing is you're 
doing something that makes the economy sicker. That doesn't seem to be 
the thing that we want to do.
  You know, the thing that strikes me, too, who is going to be paying 
this big tax? It's going to be the guy that is using electricity, the 
guy that's using natural gas, the guy that's buying food. Who is that? 
Is that rich people? No. That's, as you say, those are average 
Americans just trying to get along, barely got their lips above water, 
economy's in trouble, they're wondering whether they're going to have a 
job, they may have a kid home because the kid lost a job.
  What are we talking about? We're talking about with this cap-and-tax, 
this proposal that's been proposed by the Democrats, what we're talking 
about here is every year you're going to have to come up with the 
amount of money you spend on for the average family on meat, poultry, 
fish, eggs, dairy, produce, juices and vegetables, that is how much 
extra it's going to cost you. Or you want to put it in something else, 
consider furniture, appliances, carpet, and other furnishings. That's 
how much. All of these different categories here are smaller than what 
this tax is going to cost the average family.
  This isn't something that the President says, hey, $250,000, don't 
worry, we're not going to tax you. This is taxing all of these 
families, and that's why we get excited about it, and it doesn't need 
to be done. The fact of the matter is that we can have that energy 
independence just by using basic freedom.
  I'm going to go to my friend from Louisiana. Congressman Scalise, if 
you could join us.
  Mr. SCALISE. Again, what we're talking about here is this is a 
proposal that just passed out of committee 2 weeks ago, a very 
detrimental proposal to our Nation's economy, a proposal that threatens 
our energy security at a time when we've got proposals and solutions 
that we've presented that actually would allow America to have energy 
independence. So it is a true debate between the two parties where we 
have very different views.
  Their proposal is this cap-and-trade energy tax which, literally, to 
that senior citizen who is on a fixed income--the President's own 
budget director, President Obama's own budget director, said this 
proposal, cap-and-trade energy tax, would add another $1,300 per year 
to that fixed income senior citizen's electricity bill. Now, I don't 
know how they're going to go explain that to people, that this is what 
they're trying to do to them as we're talking about a summer coming up 
where people want to run their air-conditioning to stay cool. They're 
going to just tell those people to turn the air-conditioning off.
  When people start wondering why we're not developing our own natural 
resources, in my State of Louisiana and in Dr. Fleming's own district, 
my colleague from Louisiana, the largest natural gas find in the 
history of our country was found just 3 years ago in Haynesville, 
enough natural gas to supply all of our country's natural gas needs for 
10 years.
  And then in my colleague from Pennsylvania, Congressman Thompson's 
district, another find, the Marselles find, which could be even bigger. 
They're just discovering how big that find is, could be even bigger 
than the Haynesville find.

[[Page 13612]]

  We've got kinds of natural resources: oil, natural gas, clean coal, 
not to mention the nuclear capability that Europe and other countries 
have gone to in large proportions, that we are denying by policy, and 
they're saying don't use our own natural resources, which then 
increases dependence on Middle Eastern oil. We're trying to put up a 
proposal here to say let's use our own natural resources, not send jobs 
to China and India like cap-and-trade, not raise people's electricity 
bills. We've got the ability to create our own energy independence and 
secure our future while creating good jobs, and that's the true 
difference right now between their cap-and-trade energy tax and our 
American Energy Solutions Act, which is a very different approach to a 
comprehensive energy national policy.
  Mr. AKIN. Just reclaiming my time, I think you're being reasonable. 
You're talking about there's a contrast, two different approaches to 
solving where we're going with energy. And one of them is we're going 
to use the instrument of a great big tax increase and a lot of 
government regulations, and the other one is free enterprise.
  What you're talking about is the fact that you're exploring. You're 
talking about finding more natural gas. I don't know if people are 
aware of it, but by things that have been passed on this congressional 
floor, eighty-some percent of our continental shelves are off limits 
for any exploration. What's the logic of that? I remember thinking the 
reason that the liberals didn't like nuclear was because of the waste, 
and yet we had a 100 percent vote in the Science Committee not to 
recycle nuclear waste.
  I appreciate your joining us tonight. I think these are things that 
are of importance to Americans.
  Thank you all. And thank you, Mr. Speaker.

                          ____________________