[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 12]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 16189-16190]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




               IN OPPOSITION TO CAP-ON-A-TAX LEGISLATION

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. TODD TIAHRT

                               of kansas

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, June 24, 2009

  Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, I heard of a climatologist who went to 
apply for a job recently. During his interview, he was asked, ``What do 
you predict will happen with the earth's climate next year?'' He 
immediately replied, ``Whatever you want me to predict.''
  Unfortunately, this joke seems to hit a little too close to home, 
when we are considering global warming legislation. Rather than 
responding to serious questions with serious answers, Congress is 
replying with what we think people want to hear. Rather than 
considering all angles before offering a solution, Congress is rushing 
through legislation in hopes to score points with voters back home. And 
instead of basing a bill on sound scientific data, we will be 
considering legislation that is devoid of input from this side of the 
aisle.
  I rise today to express my strong opposition to Waxman-Markey ``cap 
and tax'' bill. I believe there are three interrelated problems with 
this misguided legislation. I am concerned with the process by which we 
have arrived at the point we are today. I am concerned with the 
political showmanship that has gone on as the bill was written. And I 
am concerned with the policy itself, which bears the tragic scars of 
both the process and the politics.
  Madam Speaker, from the beginning of the 111th Congress to the 
present, the cap-and-tax bill has been subjected to unfortunate abuses 
of the legislative process. In April, the Energy and Commerce Committee 
held four days of hearings, with the intention of, according to the 
Committee's website, ``examine the views of the Administration and a 
broad range of stakeholders,'' on a discussion draft of Chairman 
Waxman's bill. However, these hearings reflected only the Chairman's 
perspective. Only four of the twenty-one witnesses called before the 
Committee expressed any opposition to cap-and-tax, despite a petition 
signed by more than thirty thousand meteorologists, climatologists, and 
other scientists stating their skepticism about the evidence of man-
made greenhouse gases being responsible for increases in the earth's 
temperature. Contrary to claims made by the Committee, and witnesses at 
the hearing, there is no ``overwhelming consensus'' in favor of the 
hypothesis of human-caused global warming.
  The bill was drafted without input from our side of the aisle. At no 
point was any Republican consulted regarding the contents of the bill. 
In the rush to get the legislation passed through Committee, it seems 
no one had time to read the entire bill, or figure out what it means. 
Committee members repeatedly asked questions regarding the potential 
cost of particular provisions or amendments, but received no answers.
  All of this raises the question, ``why''? Why was the bill rushed 
through the Committee, with hardly enough time to read it, let alone 
determine the impact that it would have on American taxpayers, farms, 
and businesses? The only answer I can come up with is the desire on the 
part of some in this body to score points with their voters back home.
  What I see happening here is similar to what happened at the end of 
World War II. When American soldiers first reached Nazi extermination 
camps, they found men, women and children that were gaunt, emaciated, 
and starving. A few soldiers offered children chocolate bars, not 
realizing that the very thing they thought would be helpful actually 
ended up killing the children, because their digestive systems were 
unable to handle the chocolate. The same sort of thing is happening 
here. In order to look like a hero to one part of their constituency, 
this cap and tax bill is being pushed through Congress, and forced on 
the American people, much to their detriment.
  Which brings me to the third problem with Chairman Waxman's cap and 
tax bill--its just bad policy. Earlier this week, Investor's Business 
Daily had a front page article about the failures of Europe's program, 
called the Emissions Trading Scheme, or ETS. The article cites numerous 
studies finding that the ETS has significantly increased energy prices, 
``with `uncertain' effects on greenhouse gas emissions.'' That hardly 
sounds like a model of success that we should be emulating here in the 
United States.
  Proponents of the cap and tax bill claim that they have learned from 
Europe's mistakes, but I disagree, Madam Speaker. The article 
identifies the giving away of the program's carbon allowances as the 
largest reason for the program's failure. This bill follows that same 
model, giving away roughly 85 percent of the emissions allowances.
  The entire idea of a cap and trade program fails in practice. We are 
told, ``The cost of polluting will be paid by the polluters.'' And 
believe me, the authors of this bill expect them to pay a hefty price. 
In fact, President Obama's budget assumes that even with the sale of 
only 15 percent of the total emissions permits, the federal government 
will still take in more than $650 billion. As the cap gets lower, and 
there are fewer permits available, the cost for ``polluters'' is going 
to grow ever higher. But that is exactly what the authors want. 
President Obama recently stated that the only way for a cap-and-trade 
system to work is for energy prices to ``skyrocket.''
  There is nothing in the bill to keep the ``polluters'' from passing 
those skyrocketing costs on to the consumers. In fact, they will be 
forced to so. Any business that cannot pass the costs on to consumers 
runs the risk of being driven out of business. In the end, it will be 
the American taxpayer that foots the bill for this program, in the form 
of higher prices at the pump, higher home energy bills, and lost 
economic growth. But don't just take my word for it. Even the director 
of the Congressional Budget Office has said that, ``under a cap-and-
trade program, consumers would ultimately bear most of the costs of 
emission reductions.''
  One analysis of this bill found that if the standards within the bill 
are met, by 2035 Americans will see gas prices rise 74 percent, 
electricity prices increase by 90 percent, and a loss of at least 
850,000 jobs every year. The average American household will see its 
annual energy bill go up by nearly $1,500. For my home state of Kansas 
in particular, we are going to have to purchase an estimated $206.8 
million worth of carbon credits. That is $206 million more that Kansans 
are going to have to pay in energy costs every year. My district will 
be particularly hard-hit, as estimates show my district standing to 
lose nearly half a billion dollars of production in 2012, and more than 
5,000 non-agriculture jobs. It's this kind of economic pain that 
advocates are counting on to force a reduction in carbon emissions.
  The European system proves this idea doesn't work. With no signs of a 
reduction in carbon emissions, Europeans have seen their household 
energy costs rise by 16 percent, and the industrial energy costs 
increase by 32 percent.
  Spain is an especially poignant example of the failure of the 
European system. They committed to reaching the benchmarks set out by 
the Kyoto Protocol, with renewable energy standards, so-called green-
collar jobs, and a commitment to reduce their carbon emission levels. 
But the high cost of energy in Spain has destroyed their economy, which 
is currently facing a 17.5 percent unemployment rate. Proponents of 
this bill say that we will be creating new, green jobs. But most of 
these jobs are temporary construction jobs that go away once 
facilities, like wind farms for example, are built. In Spain, for every 
4 jobs that were created, 9 were lost due to the higher cost of doing 
business under the Emissions Scheme. We should avoid going down this 
same path.
  There is huge potential for exploitation of the system, on multiple 
levels. Especially with permits being given out, rather than auctioned, 
government officials are in a prime position to divert additional 
credits towards industries or companies of their choice. There is also 
the possibility that utilities here in the United States could follow 
the lead of one European company that immediately raised their rate by 
70 percent, explaining to customers that the rate hike was necessary to 
cover the costs of cap-and-trade. But this utility company was given 
more credits than it needed, and sold them on the open market.
  Tack on a renewables standard to this bill, and we have the perfect 
recipe for failure. No place that has implemented a renewable standard 
has ever been able to meet the required levels. And there is little to 
indicate that a federal standard would be any different. As a 2008 
article in the Energy Law Journal stated, ``The DOE has little, if any, 
experience in administering a program on the scale of a national RPS, 
and has shown no indication that enforcement of a major program is 
within the agency's capabilities...[this is] an area in which the DOE 
has already failed to show effective leadership.''
  So what we have here is a bill that has been rammed through with no 
minority input, to create a system that is ripe for abuse, costs the 
American taxpayer thousands of dollars, cripples our businesses, and in 
the end, has no measureable result. This is a bill I cannot support, 
and urge my colleagues to reject as well. Instead, I would encourage my 
colleagues to join me in supporting the American

[[Page 16190]]

Energy Act, a comprehensive energy bill that increases access to 
domestic energy sources, encourages conservation, and promotes the 
increased use of renewable sources of energy.
  Across this country, we are, once again, seeing gas prices rise. 
Since the beginning of the year, gas prices are up 60 cents, and crude 
oil has raised more than $20 a barrel, with no end in sight. Just last 
week, Russian oil executives predicted that crude prices could reach 
$250 per barrel.
  It is possible for us to relieve some of this pressure by tapping 
into our own vast resources. The Department of Energy estimates that 
nearly 20 billion barrels of recoverable oil lie offshore beneath 
restricted waters, the equivalent to nearly 30 years worth of current 
imports from Saudi Arabia. Substantial offshore natural gas reserves 
are also restricted. Even though longstanding restrictions on offshore 
energy production were lifted last year, the process of leasing these 
areas falls under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior.
  Unfortunately, new Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar refuses to 
allow additional drilling permits, dredging up every excuse not to 
produce energy in these areas. The Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge, 
reported to hold more than 10 billion barrels of oil continues to 
remain off-limits. He has also sought to block progress on oil shale, a 
promising source of oil trapped in rock under parts of Colorado, Utah, 
and Wyoming. The Department of the Interior has even cancelled some 
existing oil and gas leases.
  Often, environmental concerns are cited as the reason for opposing 
additional drilling. However, technological advances have greatly 
increased the safety of drilling. During hurricanes Rita and Katrina, 
less than one cup of oil was spilled in the Gulf of Mexico, despite 
damage to more than 120 drilling platforms. There is absolutely no 
reason why permits for additional drilling should be denied. 
Furthermore, revenue generated by these oil leases will be invested in 
the development of cleaner, alternative sources of energy. The end 
result is a reduced dependency on foreign oil, lower levels of 
pollution, and new jobs for Americans, all without crippling our 
economy.
  Lastly, Madam Speaker, the American Energy Act includes one key 
source that could provide clean energy without emissions--nuclear 
power. The Department of Energy has stated that the best way for energy 
companies to reduce their carbon emissions is to increase their use of 
nuclear energy. Despite encouragement from DoE, and the fact that that 
it has been proven safe by countries like France, where more than 80 
percent of their electricity is generated by nuclear power, the Waxman-
Markey bill does nothing to encourage nuclear power.
  Instead, this administration has begun to walk away from the hundreds 
of millions of dollars spent on the nuclear storage facility at Yucca 
Mountain, Nevada. The American Energy Act would provide the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission authority to complete its review of the Yucca 
Mountain facility, repeal the limitations on Yucca's Mountain's storage 
capacity, and establishes a method for recycling spent nuclear fuel in 
the U.S. Furthermore, it would reduce the bureaucratic hoops and length 
of time required to receive a permit for the construction of new 
nuclear plants.
  In conclusion, let me again encourage my colleagues to join me in 
rejecting the Waxman-Markey cap-and-tax bill that would cripple our 
economy, without addressing their environmental concerns. Instead, lets 
support the American Energy Act, which provides real solutions for our 
energy problems in an economically, and environmentally sound manner.

                          ____________________