[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 6]
[House]
[Page 7624]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                             CAP-AND-TRADE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Schauer). Under a previous order of the 
House, the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Thank you.
  I rise today to talk about the President's program for cap-and-trade. 
I'd like to take just a few minutes to explain it a little bit and talk 
to people about what this is really going to mean to them.
  I represent the State of West Virginia. But here in the United 
States, coal is our most abundant resource. We have recoverable 
reserves that are sufficient for at least 250 years. Coal currently 
fuels 50 percent of all the electricity generated in this country.
  In my home State of West Virginia, 98 percent of our electricity 
comes from coal. Our State has abundant resources. We give, and we turn 
on the lights in America.
  There's been a lot of discussion surrounding the future of coal in 
this global warming debate. The first thing we need to remember is that 
anything we do, whether or not it's climate change, is inextricably 
linked with energy policies that are going to cascade across the 
environmental, economic, and social issues of the day.
  So cap-and-trade. It sounds nice. Cap emissions and then trade away. 
What does that really mean?
  It means, basically, a tax increase on carbon dioxide emissions that 
will lead to a reduction in energy use. That sounds good. But it will 
also lead to an enormous erosion of America's family budget. This will 
tax every single American and tax those who are in most difficulty and 
who have most difficulty making ends meet.
  The administration's budget calls for a 100 percent auction of 
allowances under a cap-and-trade system to reduce greenhouse gas 
emissions. Sounds good, doesn't it?
  The President's ``cap-and-tax'' proposal will impose mandates and 
further regulations on manufacturing and will dramatically increase the 
cost of energy and electricity. This proposal will create a great 
transfer of wealth between coal-dependent States like West Virginia and 
those that rely on alternative resources, with no change in the 
ultimate environmental outcome of the cap-and-trade policy and a huge 
estimated GDP loss.
  I think there's one thing we know here in this time and right now is 
that a solid economy is the best way to innovate and create and solve 
problems that we need help with.
  So you say, Where does the money come from? If you're going to trade 
and buy, where does the money come from? That money will come from the 
individual consumer because the manufacturers, the electricity 
producer, all the folks who are going to be trading allowances are 
going to have to find that money somewhere, and it's going to be tacked 
on as a form of an energy tax to every single American.
  Under the Lieberman-Warner legislation of last year, the EPA 
estimated a rise in electricity costs between 44 and 79 percent. In 
West Virginia, the price of our electricity would go up between 103 and 
135 percent. That is going to hurt folks on fixed incomes, our elderly, 
and it's going to hurt the poor the most, who cannot afford the huge 
chunk out of our budgets that energy takes right now.
  The revenue returned to consumers from the President's budget, he 
says he's going to give money back to folks to help them meet this high 
cost. But that is not even close to covering the increase in household 
electricity costs.
  When the President was a candidate, this is what he said, ``What I've 
said that if we would put a cap-and-trade system in place that is 
more--that is as aggressive if not more aggressive than anyone else's 
out there, so if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they 
can, it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be 
charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted.''
  Remember, the State of West Virginia, 98 percent of our electricity 
is generated by coal.
  Manufacturing output will fall considerably if the President's plan 
goes through. The whole idea is to tax the consumer, to bring down 
emissions, and no consideration has been made as to what this is going 
to do to the rank-and-file everyday citizen.
  What is the job loss? In West Virginia, under Lieberman-Warner--and I 
realize that's not the President's bill. The President's bill is even 
broader reaching than this one. The estimation of the job loss is 
between 7,000 and 10,000 jobs between now and the year 2020.
  Addressing climate change concerns is a global challenge requiring 
global solutions. We need common sense. We need to slow down here 
because unilateral action by this Congress and by the United States 
will have no impact, or very little impact on global emissions but will 
also have a great impact on our economy and on our citizens.
  We need to innovate and use technology. We could use the development 
of advanced clean coal technologies; most importantly, CCS, or carbon 
capture and storage technologies.
  We need technology to push as hard and fast as we can. I urge 
caution. We need to slow down. For the sake of my constituents and 
those in States like mine, we should not forget this as our debate 
moves forward.

                          ____________________