[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 10190-10196]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       CAP-AND-TRADE LEGISLATION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 2009, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor tonight with an issue of 
enormous importance before the American people on my mind. And I'll be 
joined in just a few moments by distinguished colleagues from around 
the country who share my profound concern about legislation that has 
come to be known as cap-and-trade legislation. It is an effort that is 
under way here on Capitol Hill and from the Obama administration that 
could well result in an increase in energy cost for the average 
American household of more than $3,000 per year.

                              {time}  2045

  Now we want to talk about the facts and the data here because, even 
in newspapers and in wire services tonight, that number, which is the 
calculation of a study done by MIT, is the subject of some dispute and 
of some debate. I want to concede the point that the impact on the 
average American household, if the President and the majority's cap-
and-trade bill were to become law, could actually be much higher than 
that. In fact, it would be President Obama, himself, as a candidate in 
January 2008, who spoke these words in a meeting with the editorial 
board of the San Francisco Chronicle, and I would say to any of our 
citizens who are looking in and who are Internet savvy: Don't take my 
word for it. Go to youtube.com and type in the President's name and the 
San Francisco Chronicle, and you can watch him say it for yourself.
  I give the President, whose office and his person I respect, credit 
for candor. In January of 2008, he referred to this plan upon which he 
was campaigning and a plan upon which Democrats have now offered 
legislation, hearings for which begin this week.
  The President said, ``Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, 
electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.'' Adding, ``That would 
cost money, and they will pass that money on to consumers.''
  Let me say again: While a careful calculation of a study done, I 
believe, in 2007 by a distinguished university, MIT, estimates that the 
average American household would experience increased energy costs of 
some $3,128 per year, then candidate and now-President of the United 
States of America, Barack Obama, said that, if his cap-and-trade system 
passed into law, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.
  Now, the last time I checked, which was just late last week, most of 
this country was going through one of the worst recessions we've 
experienced in decades. I say with a heavy heart that the people of 
Indiana recently learned that the unemployment rate in my fair State is 
now at 10 percent. The American people are hurting, struggling under 
the weight of the listing economic fortunes of this Nation. Let me say 
that the last thing, I believe, the American people want this Congress 
to do is to pass energy legislation in the name of dealing with climate 
change that could result in, to borrow the President's phrase, a 
skyrocketing of electricity rates on working families, small business 
owners and family farms.
  As I prepare to begin to recognize some of my colleagues, many of 
whom have gotten to know more about this topic than I will have a 
chance to learn, I also want to make one more point about this: This 
legislation, known as the American Clean Energy and Security Act, 
offered on March 31, 2009, by House Energy and Commerce Chairman Waxman 
of California and by the Energy and Environment Subcommittee Chairman 
Markey, could not only result in this massive energy tax increase, but 
I want to say, if this legislation were to pass into law, it would be 
tantamount to a declaration of economic war on the Midwest by the 
liberal majority of this Congress.
  Now, people who have known me over the last 8 years in this Congress 
know that I like to turn a phrase, but I don't like to be an alarmist, 
and so, for me to come to the floor of this Congress and say that I 
believe if the President's cap-and-trade bill were to become law it 
would, in effect, be a declaration of economic war by liberals in 
Washington, D.C. on the Midwest, allow me to defend that point.
  According to a recent study done by the Heritage Foundation, what 
they call their Manufacturing Vulnerability Index, a picture is worth 
1,000 words. This map demonstrates the vulnerability being the highest 
among the dark red-colored States and the beige States being the least 
impacted by the cap-and-trade legislation. It tells the tale. I can't 
do better than this. So, when I say that to pass the cap-and-trade 
legislation could result in a massive national energy tax and would 
fall foursquare on States that are most dependent on coal-burning power 
plants for the electricity that we use in our homes and in our small 
businesses and on our farms, the map tells the tale.
  The least affected areas are on the coast--on the west coast and in 
the Northeast--in places like New Jersey, Massachusetts, New York, 
Maine, and New Hampshire. A wider diversity of electricity sources of 
energy would be the least impacted. Likewise, California, Arizona, 
Oregon, and Washington State would be among the least impacted, but for 
the Midwest and my State, which according to this study is virtually 
ground zero of the impact of cap-and-trade's economic burden, the 
coloration of this map tells the tale. States along the Ohio River 
Valley, States across--let me say with pride--the heartland of this 
country, States that depend the most on coal-burning power plants will 
bear the greatest burden and households and small businesses and family 
farms in that region, a region, which if I can say on a very personal 
level, is already struggling in these difficult times.
  As I mentioned, there is 10 percent unemployment in the State of 
Indiana, and for my Michigan neighbors who are looking in tonight, 
forgive me for not knowing the number, but I do know it's worse, and to 
think that this Congress, even as we speak, would be contemplating a 
cap-and-trade piece of legislation that may result in a massive 
national energy tax increase, falling most harshly on the Midwest, is 
unconscionable.
  Now let me say one last item before I yield to a freshman. I'm going 
to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, and we'll hear from 
Utah and from the gentlelady who just spoke.

[[Page 10191]]

Let me say, Mr. Speaker, you've heard that I've qualified my estimates 
here, because the truth is that the American Clean Energy and Security 
legislation, offered by the distinguished gentleman from California and 
by the gentleman from Massachusetts, actually includes no specific 
numbers on how CO2 emission allowances would be allocated to 
energy producers. In other words, we don't know whether they'll be 
free, whether they'll be auctioned--the so-called cap-and-trade scheme. 
We don't know what price. Therefore, the bill that is going to be the 
subject of hearings on Capitol Hill this week provides so little 
information that the Congressional Budget Office confirmed again today 
that they cannot score the cap-and-trade bill.
  Now, as I told members of the media today, we had a little budget 
debate a few weeks ago, and I remember the Republicans came out with a 
budget alternative, you might remember, Mr. Speaker, and a few days 
before that, we thought it would be helpful to put out an outline of 
that budget alternative. Yet it's a live-and-learn deal around here, 
and what I learned was that the media really doesn't appreciate it when 
Republicans come forward without all the numbers in the proposal. I've 
internalized that lesson, and I'm applying it to the Waxman-Markey 
bill.
  The truth of the matter is that a nonbinding budget resolution is one 
thing, but legislation that could literally change the economic 
fortunes of the heartland of America for generations is another.
  The American people, Mr. Speaker, are entitled to know what all of 
this is going to cost, and we don't know today because the bill that 
will be the subject of hearings, that will be the subject of 
subcommittee markups just in a matter of days, I'm told, and that may 
well be on the floor here before we get to Memorial Day weekend has no 
numbers, no numbers for us to estimate the impact on the average 
American family, on the average small business owner and family farmer, 
and that is just not acceptable. So Republicans are left to use 
estimates like the study from MIT.
  We took MIT's estimate of a key cap-and-trade bill from the 110th 
Congress, cosponsored then by Senator Obama, because the targets of 
that Senate bill tracked the emission targets outlined in the 
President's budget. We took MIT's own number, $366 billion, divided 
that by the number of U.S. households. We assumed about 300 million 
people and an average household size of 2.56 people, all right? If we 
use that formula, you get roughly $3,000 per household. Using current 
census figures, you get $3,128 per household using MIT's own numbers.
  Why are we using that? Why are we doing this calculation? Because we 
don't have any numbers in the bill.
  The American people have a right to know. They have a right to know 
that the price tag is on the plans of this administration and of this 
majority to raise a massive national energy tax in the name of climate 
change. We urge them with all deliberate speed to cease and desist any 
further progress on cap-and-trade legislation until they put the 
numbers in the bill--leave aside Republicans in the Congress--and until 
they give the American people the opportunity to count the cost. You 
know, the old book tells you: Before you build a tower, before you go 
to war, you count the cost. The American people deserve the right to 
count the cost on the cap-and-tax legislation that is going to begin to 
be considered this week. They deserve nothing less.
  So, with that, I'd like to yield to a new Member of Congress from 
Texas. The distinguished gentleman (Mr. Olson) is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. OLSON. Yes, sir. Well, thank you very much, my friend and 
colleague from Indiana, the chairman of our conference. I appreciate 
those eloquent remarks. I'm just going to echo them in a, probably, 
less eloquent way, but you are right on the money, my friend.
  Last week, like my colleagues from Indiana, Utah and Minnesota, I was 
privileged to attend TEA parties across my district and to listen to my 
constituents express their outrage at the out-of-control spending 
that's going on here in Washington, D.C. While Washington goes on a 
spending spree, the American people are struggling to pay their 
mortgages on time, are concerned about keeping their jobs or about 
finding new jobs and are worried that their paychecks won't cover their 
bills.
  Instead of trying to ease the economic burden on our families, 
congressional Democrats have decided to move forward with what I'll 
call a cap-and-tax plan--energy legislation that would place burdensome 
new taxes on American industries in the name of a shortsighted, 
politically correct and unscientifically proven environmental agenda. 
Even as families struggle to make ends meet, these new taxes could 
increase the cost of living of every single American, as my colleague 
said, by $3,100 per year for a family of four and could pull $860 
billion out of family budgets to put in the Federal budget. I can't 
imagine a worse idea, and I can't imagine a worse time to do it. In 
these trying economic times, we should be doing everything we can to 
keep jobs in America and to encourage reinvestment in our own 
resources.
  The Democrats' plan will increase the cost of doing business in the 
United States. It will put U.S. manufacturers at a competitive 
disadvantage, and it will likely force millions of U.S. manufacturing 
jobs overseas. The Democrats' bill even acknowledges the potential 
problem because they include rebates for specific sectors, industrial 
sectors, that would be harmed by the energy tax imposed by the bill. 
These specific industries are not named in the bill. Rather, the 
administration would get to pick and choose which industries would be 
eligible for the rebates--who wins, who loses.
  As my colleague from Indiana eloquently said, the least the sponsor 
of this legislation could do is allow an honest debate over the course 
of the measure. Unfortunately, because of the lack of details in the 
draft legislation, the Congressional Budget Office is still not able to 
provide a cost estimate.

                              {time}  2100

  The bill does not identify how the tax would be levied or where the 
proceeds would be spent. How can we expect to debate a bill that will 
deeply alter our Nation's energy production and affect every American 
without the most important details? Specifically, how will the Federal 
Government collect the more than $640 billion of taxes estimated to be 
imposed by this bill? And where will that money go once it is in the 
hands of the Federal Government?
  Any plans to implement a cap-and-tax program cannot be considered in 
a vacuum. We must engage in a broader, more comprehensive energy 
discussion. But I look forward to working with my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle to create an all-of-the-above energy solution that 
increases domestic energy production, supports renewable fuel 
innovation and encourages cleaner fuel technologies.
  I thank my colleague for yielding.
  Mr. PENCE. I thank the gentleman for his remarks and congratulate him 
on arriving on Capitol Hill and in such a short period of time 
commanding the respect of colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Pete 
Olson, we thank you.
  Mr. Speaker, before I recognize the gentlelady from Minnesota, let me 
amplify a point that Mr. Olson made about the impact on this economy 
and jobs.
  According to the National Association of Manufacturers, passing the 
cap-and-tax regime the likes of which Democrats are considering would 
result in the destruction of at least 3 to 4 million American jobs. 
According to the nonpartisan association, the National Association of 
Manufacturers, which really--as the gentlelady arrives at the podium--
and I will recognize Michele Bachmann from Minnesota--but this really 
begs the question, and I think this was a little bit of a question that 
was asked at some of the so-called TEA parties last Wednesday, people 
wonder if anybody in Washington here gets it anymore. I mean, during 
difficult times, every American family, every small business, every 
family farmer is out there finding ways to put off to tomorrow what 
they don't have to spend today. They are making sacrifices, they are 
making hard choices,

[[Page 10192]]

they are looking for a little in-town income to supplement--looking for 
extra means to make it through.
  What they are not doing is increasing spending in their family 
budgets and small business budgets, and they are certainly not 
increasing their costs. But that's what Washington, DC, is doing.
  We've been on a spending spree over the first 3 months of this year: 
stimulus and omnibus and massive budget. And now the American people--
as we dust off from being home with our families over the Passover and 
Easter holidays--and Congress is prepared to begin to have hearings on 
what could well be the largest tax increases in American history, a 
national energy tax that could raise the cost of living on every 
American household by more than $3,128 a year, which I hasten to add, 
as I recognize the gentlelady for 5 minutes until she asks me for more, 
I hasten to add that the President of the United States, that as a 
candidate in January of 2008, ``Under my plans,'' speaking of the 
President's plan of a cap-and-trade system, ``electricity rates would 
necessarily skyrocket.'' And that is precisely the massive tax, 
national tax increase that we are here to oppose today.
  I am very pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentlelady from 
Minnesota, Michele Bachmann.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. I thank so much my colleague, Mr. Pence from Indiana, 
for yielding to me for 5 minutes.
  And I want to recognize and honor our colleague, Mr. Pete Olson. He's 
a wonderful freshman, and he's focused exactly on where we should be 
focusing, and that's on solutions.
  We have a great solution to America's current energy crisis, and we 
do have one. And the great news is that the answer is here in our 
backyard. We have more coal in the United States than any other country 
in the world. We have abundant sources of natural gas. We have abundant 
sources of hydropower. We have abundant sources of wind, of solar. We 
have oil reserves. We have so much here in our backyard.
  Instead of talking about a negative, draining our economy with the 
new cap-and-tax proposals, we could be here on this floor this evening 
talking about how we can create millions of new American jobs, high-
paying jobs; be the lead exporter in the world of energy. That is the 
American story, and that's part of America's greatness. Unfortunately, 
the Obama administration, Mr. Speaker, as well as the Democrat majority 
that runs this body, is proposing a quite different solution. It's the 
new cap-and-tax proposal.
  But people talk about cap-and-tax and they aren't sure exactly what 
we're talking about. Let's get back to step one: What is the problem? 
Why did we have to have this tax in the first place?
  It's about carbon dioxide. Well, what is carbon dioxide?
  Let us just go to a fundamental question. Carbon dioxide, Mr. 
Speaker, is a natural byproduct of nature. Carbon dioxide is natural. 
It occurs in Earth. It is a part of the regular life cycle of Earth. In 
fact, life on planet Earth can't even exist without carbon dioxide. So 
necessary is it to human life, to animal life, to plant life, to the 
oceans, to the vegetation that's on the Earth, to the fowls that fly in 
the air, we need to have carbon dioxide as a part of the fundamental 
life cycle of Earth.
  As a matter of fact, carbon dioxide is portrayed as harmful, but 
there isn't even one study that can be produced that shows that carbon 
dioxide is a harmful gas. There isn't one such study because carbon 
dioxide is not a harmful gas. It is a harmless gas. Carbon dioxide is 
natural. It is not harmful. It is a part of Earth's life cycle. And yet 
we're being told that we have to reduce this natural substance and 
reduce the American standard of living to create an arbitrary reduction 
in something that is naturally occurring in the Earth.
  We're told the crux of this problem is human activity. It's human 
actions that are creating more carbon dioxide. Is that true or false? 
Well, carbon dioxide is a natural part of the Earth's atmosphere. But 
carbon dioxide is perhaps 3 percent of the total atmosphere that's in 
the Earth. So if you take a pie chart and all of Earth's atmosphere, 
carbon dioxide is perhaps 3 percent of that total.
  What part of human activity creates carbon dioxide? If carbon dioxide 
is a negligible gas and it's only 3 percent of Earth's atmosphere, what 
part is human activity? Human activity contributes perhaps 3 percent of 
the 3 percent. In other words, human activity is maybe 3 percent 
contributing to the 3 percent of carbon dioxide that's in Earth's 
atmosphere. It's so negligible; it's a fraction of a fraction of a 
percent. It can hardly be quantified.
  But let's go ahead and give those who believe in the global warming 
theory, let's give them their due. And let's say that former Vice 
President Al Gore is completely right in all of his premises. Let's 
give him his every premise that he believes on carbon dioxide and that 
emissions are rising here on planet Earth. Let's give him every 
premise.
  And as we give him every premise, let's also give former Vice 
President Gore every solution that he believes the United States should 
embrace to address global warming: that we need to reduce our standard 
of living, tax our people, hike up the taxes. Let's say we put into 
place every solution that Vice President Gore has put forth for our 
country.
  Even if we give Vice President Gore his premise, even if we give him 
his solution, what will be the result? Under his own figures, under Al 
Gore's own figures, we would reduce the amount of carbon emissions in 
Earth's atmosphere by the year 2095--the end of this century--we would 
reduce them by less than seven-hundredths of 1 percent. In other words, 
the temperature of Earth would drop less than seven-hundredths of 1 
percent by the year 2095, and we would be essentially bankrupting our 
economy to do that. Certainly we would be dramatically lowering the 
American standard of living.
  What will this mean? As my colleague, Mike Pence, has said, the 
American people will be paying not once for their electric bill; they 
will be paying twice. The American people will be paying double. They 
will be paying double for their electric bill; they will be paying 
increased prices at the gas pump, increased prices at the grocery 
store. They will be paying increased prices when they go to Target or 
Kohl's to buy clothing or goods for their family or to Wal-Mart. When 
they go to buy furniture, the prices will be included. Why? Because 
energy touches every part of American life. There is no part of 
American life or life anywhere on the planet that energy doesn't touch. 
What will that mean?
  That will mean dramatic job losses. As a matter of fact, a study in 
Spain was concluded and it talked about new green jobs that were 
created. For every green job that was created in Spain, 2.2 jobs were 
lost in Spain. Is that what we want in the United States, create green 
jobs only to see a dramatic reduction in American jobs? As my 
colleague, Mr. Pence, said, the American heartland--I represent the 
great State of Minnesota--we can't afford that. And the chart that 
Congressman Pence pointed to stated in the Heritage Study that 
Minnesota would lead the Nation in job losses if this new cap-and-tax 
situation was put into place, is that what America wants? I don't think 
so.
  When you look at the fact that carbon dioxide is a natural Earth 
substance, part of Earth's life cycle, that human activity only 
contributes 3 percent of 3 percent, so negligible that even if we give 
the global warming enthusiasts every premise and put into place every 
prescription, that even so, by the year 2095, we will only reduce 
carbon dioxide emissions less than seven-hundredths of a percent. And 
we are willing to export American jobs to do that and do that in spite 
of knowing that China and India have already declared, We're not in. 
We're not in. So you might as well call President Obama's and the 
Democrats' cap-and-tax plan the ``India and China job stimulus plan'' 
because that's exactly what this will mean for the American economy.
  We can do so much better.
  As our colleague, Pete Olson, said, we can, instead, embrace American 
energy solutions and create more natural gas, more oil, more coal, 
cleaner ways of heating and electrifying our Nation.

[[Page 10193]]

That's not the way President Obama wants to go. President Obama said 
you can build a new coal plant but we will bankrupt you. As my 
colleague, Mike Pence, said, your electricity prices will skyrocket. It 
doesn't have to be that way.
  I am so excited about solutions that we can have in our country, and 
that would be to make life better for the average American by reducing 
America's energy cost. This is reality. This is the good news. It's 
available to you, and the Republicans have a plan to do just that.
  I yield back to my colleague from Indiana to tell more of the 
positive solution and the concerns that we have about this new cap-and-
tax. As we go forward in the next weeks, we want to let the American 
people know, Mr. Speaker, that there are solutions to this problem, 
that we don't have to reduce America's standard of living.
  With that, I would yield back to my colleague and thank him with much 
appreciation for hosting this remarkable hour this evening.
  Mr. PENCE. I thank the gentlelady. And before she departs the floor--
reclaiming my time--I would call the attention, Mr. Speaker, to you and 
anyone who might be looking in, to a map that reflects recent research 
done by the highly respected Heritage Foundation. They call this the 
manufacturing vulnerability index, which really calculates what the 
gentlelady said about her home State of Minnesota, my home State of 
Indiana, represent those kind of heartland States that will be 
undeniably most impacted by a cap-and-tax system.
  I would yield to the gentlelady for a quick response. We're 
struggling in Indiana. Our economy, Mr. Speaker, has a 10 percent 
unemployment rate. The idea of Congress actually making a priority 
today--in the name of climate change--to pass legislation without 
numbers in it. Again, I want to emphasize we don't have numbers in this 
bill, but the estimates are based on independent studies that it will 
cost millions of jobs, the estimates are that it will burden families.
  I would just ask the gentlelady, are the good people of Minnesota in 
a better position than the people of Indiana to absorb a national 
energy tax of some $3,128 per household?
  I would yield.

                              {time}  2115

  Mrs. BACHMANN. Absolutely not. As a matter of fact, in Minnesota, we 
have had, historically, a very low level of unemployment. However, now, 
with the economy in the condition it is in, Minnesota is very unusual; 
we are upwards of 8 percent unemployment. In my largest city, we are 
looking at approximately 10 percent unemployment. In one of my great 
rural counties, we are also at about 10 percent level of unemployment. 
In Minnesota, that is absolutely unheard of.
  And I would also refer to the map that the gentleman from Indiana is 
holding. This is a wealth redistribution scheme--some people would call 
that socialism. This is a wealth redistribution scheme. The reason why 
I say that is because the individuals in the United States that live in 
the heartland will be paying the tax, much of which will be 
redistributed to States on the coast, which will be paying negligible 
tax. And so all of that money will be taken out of the area in the 
United States that is very hard hit by this economy and transferred to 
Washington, D.C. and redistributed to other States.
  This is adding insult to injury to an already painful process that a 
lot of people are going through. And that is why no one can understand 
this right now. I think no more clear statement needs to be said than 
that which our President stated perhaps about 4 or 5 weeks ago when he 
stated, he will have--this is a nonnegotiable. He wants this cap-and-
tax. This is President Obama's highest priority. He wants this passed. 
But he also said that our economy couldn't take the imposition of this 
tax right now; it couldn't take it because our economy is vulnerable. 
So he is saying that he wants to delay imposition of this tax until 
2012.
  What does that tell the American people? The American people are 
smarter than that. They recognize this is a tremendous burden on their 
pocketbook and a job killer and, therefore, it should be a deal killer 
here in the Congress. And I know for you this is, for me this is. We 
have got to get to a better solution. Thank God we have one.
  Mr. PENCE. I thank the gentlelady. And I will let her get on to her 
evening. But I did hear news reports of the administration's suggestion 
that they might consider phasing in the cap-and-tax. It kind of reminds 
me of that story of how you boil a frog, whether you turn the heat up 
slowly and bring it to a boil or whether you drop it into scalding 
water, it seems to me you've still got a dead frog at the end of that 
story.
  The truth of the matter is that there are better solutions, solutions 
where we don't end up transferring enormous amounts of wealth from the 
heartland of the country, from the manufacturing bedrock of this 
Nation, if I can say with some regional pride. There are better 
solutions where we can deal with CO2 emissions, with new 
technologies. We can develop a broad, comprehensive energy strategy. 
And as I thank the gentlelady, Mr. Speaker, and wish her a restful 
evening, I am prepared to recognize the distinguished gentleman from 
Utah (Mr. Bishop).
  Let me just assure, it has been mentioned by several of my 
colleagues, I was actually asked by the Republican leader of the 
Congress to lead a Republican Energy Solutions Working Group. We have 
brought together not only the distinguished ranking member of the 
Energy and Commerce Committee, Joe Barton, but also I've got the 
capable assistance of co-chairmen in the likes of Congressman John 
Shimkus, Congressman Fred Upton, men who have the experience and the 
background that helped us develop the American Energy Act as a 
Republican alternative in the last Congress and are in the process of 
building a comprehensive Republican energy alternative as we speak.
  There are better solutions. There are better options. We can achieve 
cleaner air without raising taxes on every American household in the 
form of a national energy tax, a cost of living tax, according to 
estimates, of more than $3,128 per year.
  Before I yield to the gentleman, let me say this point again because 
it is--you can probably tell I am a pretty patient man, Mr. Speaker, 
but when it comes down to denying the American people the information 
that they need to make informed choices, I am an impatient man. The 
truth is--and anyone looking on deserves to know--that this week this 
Congress will begin to debate what could well result in a massive 
change in our energy generation system in this country, the so-called 
cap-and-trade system, which would fall foursquare on coal-burning power 
plants in this country, would fall foursquare on the region of the 
country that I call home in Indiana and the industrial Midwest that 
relies so heavily on coal-burning power plants. And this massive 
multigenerational impact on our economy, on our way of life, all in the 
name of climate change, and we have no numbers.
  Mr. Speaker, it is not acceptable. It is not acceptable that the 
American Clean Energy and Security legislation that will be the subject 
of hearings beginning this week has been brought to the floor so bereft 
of detail that the Congressional Budget Office cannot tell the Members 
of this Congress or the people of the United States of America how much 
this is all going to cost. That is not acceptable. I urge my 
colleagues, burn the midnight oil, put the numbers in, or pull these 
hearings, pull this legislation until you can produce a bill that my 
colleagues--like the gentleman sitting across the aisle tonight, 
colleagues that I respect, colleagues with whom I differ vehemently on 
issues, but whose integrity I respect--that our colleagues can come 
together and have an honest debate about what this will really cost the 
American people.
  Let's debate climate change. Let's debate the science. Let's debate 
the solutions for achieving carbon dioxide reductions and particulates. 
But let's also debate the cost. Let's allow the

[[Page 10194]]

American people to count the cost before this Congress considers a 
massive national energy tax that could change our economy forever and 
essentially amounts to an economic declaration of war on the Midwest by 
liberals here in Washington, D.C.
  With that, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the 
former Speaker of the Utah State House, a distinguished member of the 
Republican minority, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), an expert on 
issues of energy and an eloquent spokesman about positive solutions.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I appreciate the kind words from the gentleman 
from Indiana. And I understand not only the passion, but the desire to 
be able to have some kind of strong, stable numbers that you can grasp 
to try and discuss the debate. No one really knows what it is going to 
do when you are trying to go into the darkness of a room that doesn't 
have the lights turned on--maybe because there is too much of an energy 
tax--but doesn't have the lights turned on to tell us what those 
numbers actually are.
  We have heard a great deal about the cap-and-tax proposal. I would 
like to take the debate maybe one step backwards slightly and just talk 
about a few basic principles if I could. For we have been engaged in 
this Congress in something I find very unique, something we haven't had 
in the last 15 or 16 years in either the Bush or Clinton 
administrations. We are truly involved in a philosophical, fundamental 
debate in this Congress. There are those in this Congress and in the 
administration who truly believe that the best solutions to our 
problems lie in increasing the role of government. And there are others 
who truly believe that the best way of finding those solutions are in 
empowering individuals. And on every issue we have had to date in this 
Congress, that is truly the crux of the debate. I mean, we may be 
talking about energy today, or we may be talking about health care 
tomorrow, or we may be talking about bank bailouts, housing, the budget 
yesterday. But in each of these issues, that was the same debate; is 
the better solution empowering individuals or growing the size of 
government? And in each of those debate areas, in all sincerity, the 
Democrats basically gave us three options. And it doesn't matter which 
issue you want to use, you can just put it in there and it is basically 
the same concept, that in each of these issues they decided, first of 
all, that it will be the government that will dictate and regulate.
  In this cap-and-tax or cap-and-trade policy, if it goes through, 
every person will use the kind of energy and the style of energy as has 
been dictated by Washington. And in so doing, it would create bigger 
government, when the EPA will already say without additional 
legislation they have the power to control the air that we breathe just 
as they have said they have the power to control the water so they can 
illustrate or demand that an irrigation ditch be classified as part of 
the navigable water system of the United States. That is essentially 
big government.
  The third element is that it will involve higher taxes. By the 
President's own budget numbers, this program is identified in his 
budget as adopting $600-plus billion of new revenue coming from this 
cap-and-tax. And it is revenue that is not going to the production of 
alternative energy; it is revenue that would go into the paying for the 
increase of government that we have done in other bills that we have 
debated already. And any time that we actually talk about higher taxes, 
they become winners and losers, as the gentleman from Indiana showed 
you on his map.
  If you go to the west coast, the Speaker's district, for example, 
with a great deal of hydrogen power, there is less of an impact than if 
you go to the heartland of this country, into the Midwest, where almost 
all their energy comes from coal-fired sources. There are winners and 
losers in this type of approach. And even the President's budget 
director simply said that this program will impose costs on the 
economy, and we need to know what those costs are in very, very 
specific numbers.
  You know, last week we had the TEA tax protests that were going on. 
And as an old history teacher, I'm sorry, I had to think about this, 
history does repeat itself. Back in 1773, the British East India 
Company was in financial trouble, and so the Parliament decided the 
British East India Company was too big to fail and, therefore, they 
entered into a bailout agreement. And in this bailout agreement, they 
imposed a one-size-fits-all mandate on the colonies that the only tea 
they could drink would be imposed and come from the British East India 
Company, and the only tax they would pay had to go back to one specific 
source. It is amazing sometimes that we actually do repeat what has 
happened in history.
  Now, I said this is a basic debate and the Democrats have three 
positions. Well, so do the Republicans, and a vast contrast to them, 
whatever the issue you want to put in there. But the first one goes 
back to the idea that the fundamental difference in the solutions that 
Republicans have proffered--whether they were actually heard on the 
floor or not, but have proffered--the first one is to go back to the 
concept that we believe there should be choice and options for 
Americans. The Founding Fathers in 1773, when they were dumping tea in 
the harbor, were not just upset about a tax--which, actually, 
technically, had been lowered--they were upset about the fact that they 
were eliminated the choice to drink whatever tea they wanted to; that 
if they wanted to pay for a more expensive Dutch brand, they could not 
have that option.
  You know, when I was growing up and I wanted a particular song in the 
age of plastic records, you had to buy the whole album to get the song. 
Now, I don't know how iPods work, but my kids tell me that it's cool 
enough right now that you can actually download the particular song you 
want. You look around in the world we have today, and everybody, in 
almost every aspect of their lives, is able to select and make choices 
and options except when you deal with the Federal Government. And maybe 
it is time the government needs to realize that, rather than giving a 
one dictate, one solution and regulate it, you allow people the choice 
to have options, and in so doing, you empower people with those 
choices.
  We have already had different concepts placed on the table that are 
out there for debate. The No-Cost Stimulus Act is one that I sponsored 
with Senator Vitter that deals with developing energy sources across 
the board. The Western Caucus will join with the Republican Study 
Committee in coming up with an option. There will be more options that 
will empower Americans to be able to make choices by using all of the 
above, not taking some energy sources off the table, not trying to use 
a tax that will pick winners and losers, but simply trying to give 
those. And those will be alternatives that we will be throwing out.
  There are some people that say my party is the party of ``no.'' I 
have to admit, with some of the bills we have had on the floor, it is 
very easy to vote that way. But if you were to ask me if the bailout 
bills excessively entangled business and government, I would say yes. 
If you asked me if the stimulus bill stimulated the growth of 
government more than jobs, I would say yes. If the GIVE Act actually 
paid people to volunteer and allowed groups like ACORN to get Federal 
funding? Yes. If the omnibus land bill made a difference in making it 
more difficult for the Park Service to fulfill their mission, I would 
say yes. If the AIG bonus tax was an unconstitutional tax that was a 
regressive cumulative tax to try and get even with somebody, I would 
say yes. But if Homeland Security, when they implied that veterans may 
be part of a right-wing group that needs to be watched carefully, and 
you asked me if that was outrageous, I would say yes. If you asked if 
the budget spends too much, taxes too much, and borrows too much, I 
would say yes. In all due respect to my colleague from Indiana, I think 
we are the party of ``yes''; it is just the media is not asking the 
right questions.
  And if you were to ask whether empowerment of people and giving them

[[Page 10195]]

options and choices is the right thing to do, emphatically yes. Because 
when we try to lower taxes, we take the winners and losers off the 
table and realize that far too often when we raise taxes, it is people 
who are on the margins are the ones who are most likely to be harmed.

                              {time}  2130

  If you were rich, a cap-and-trade policy, or a cap-and-tax policy, 
will be merely an annoyance, just as the $4-a-gallon gasoline was last 
fall. It kind of takes you back to the medieval time period where the 
aristocracy knew that there were sins out there but they could simply 
go down and buy an indulgence and thereby simply continue on with the 
same lifestyle without any kind of inhibitions or disruptions 
whatsoever because they simply bought their way out of it. Poor people 
could never do that. People on the poverty level today where 50 percent 
of their income goes to energy, when they hear us talk about energy 
processes or energy policies, for them that debate is how they heat 
their homes and how they cook their food and whether they'll be able to 
afford a luxury like tuna casserole this evening.
  Affordable, comprehensive, and available energy has been the great 
equalizer in the history of this country, allowing people to escape 
poverty and move forward. When we talk about programs that are either 
going to take money away from those people and then maybe even return 
it, that is a ridiculous concept. If we talk about programs that are 
going to increase the prices for those on the margins to survive and to 
live, that's the same thing as a direct tax on those individuals. For, 
indeed, if we get to the point in those different parts of this country 
where you go into a room and you have to flip on the light switch, and 
if you're rich, it's okay, you can handle it; but if you're poor, you 
have to determine where flipping on that light switch today makes a 
difference on whether you can afford Hamburger Helper tonight, we have 
reached the point where we are no longer taking care of the needs of 
our people, and we are putting a great slice of the American population 
at extreme risk.
  That is a dangerous situation in which to move, and it should be done 
carefully and it should be done realistically with, as the gentleman 
from Indiana has said, the numbers and the debate all on the table. 
That's the future, and that is the fundamental debate that we will be 
having on this issue and with every other issue, transportation, 
housing, budget, that we will come up with. That's all there.
  With that, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. PENCE. I thank the gentleman for his extraordinary remarks and 
eloquence. And let me thank my colleagues who have joined me and let me 
thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the courtesy of recognizing us for this 
debate. It will be the first of many, many hours on this floor, in 
committees, on the airwaves, and on the stump that House Republicans 
and, I expect, more than a few Democrats are going to be taking a case 
against this extraordinary national energy tax increase to the American 
people.
  I am very provoked by the larger themes that Congressman Bishop 
brought forward tonight because, as I have been tapped to lead the 
House Republican Energy Solutions Working Group. Republicans will be 
coming up with an alternative energy strategy that will be built on 
precisely those ideals, on choices and options, on empowering 
individuals and small businesses, and on not only not raising taxes, as 
the President's cap-and-trade plan intends to do, a strategy of tax 
increases and fees on utility companies that will be passed along to 
the consuming public, most especially those of us who live in the 
Midwest; Republicans will be bringing forward ideas to actually use the 
Tax Code to give incentives for energy-producing companies to develop 
the new technologies that will result in cleaner air and a safer 
environment.
  But let me recap, if I can. Anyone looking in tonight, Mr. Speaker, 
has a right to know this week, in the midst of these challenging 
economic times, this Congress is going to begin hearings and in a 
matter of a few days is going to begin the process of legislating, 
marking up, and ultimately bringing to the floor within this month 
legislation that could result in an increase in the cost of living, 
energy cost of living, of some $3,128 per year for every working 
family, small business, and family farm in America. And as the Heritage 
Foundation's recent Manufacturing Vulnerability Index showed, the 
President's cap-and-tax proposal will fall most squarely on the 
heartland of America, where my heart is, in the State of Indiana, and 
other great States of the industrial Midwest. Why? Is there an 
intention to go after a part of the country? Of course not. It's that 
we out in the Midwest along the Ohio River Valley, there where I went 
to college, we rely on coal-burning power plants for an inordinate 
amount of our electrical energy, in our businesses, in our farms, and 
in our homes. So the President's plan to cap and tax utility companies 
that burn coal principally will fall foursquare on the Midwest. In 
fact, the President admitted this point, and I give him high marks for 
candor and clarity.
  In January, 2008, the President said: ``Under my plan of cap-and-
trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. That will 
cost money. They,'' referring to utility companies, he said, ``will 
pass that money on to consumers.'' Give the President of the United 
States credit for candor.
  And, you know, as I always tell folks back home, don't take a 
politician's word for it. Go to youtube.com and type in the President's 
name respectfully and type in ``San Francisco Chronicle,'' and you can 
watch him say it for himself, as more than 200,000 Americans already 
have.
  The last complaint I have is just that it's about the numbers. I 
spoke to a number of colleagues in the media today and pointed out to 
them that the Waxman-Markey bill that will begin hearings today 
includes no specifics whatsoever on how CO2 emission 
allowances will be allocated to energy producers. In other words, we 
don't know if they'll be free or if they'll be auctioned or at what 
price. This legislation they are about to have hearings on is bereft of 
numbers. That the Congressional Budget Office can't even tell us what 
it's going to cost. Namely, the American people are expecting this 
Chamber to take up legislation that could transform the economy of this 
Nation forever, transform the economy of the Midwest forever, and we 
are not being given the numbers necessary to count the cost and make an 
informed judgment. And that is simply not acceptable.
  I close with some words that I first noticed about a year ago. They 
are the only words chiseled on the wall other than ``In God We Trust,'' 
which I also believe. But Daniel Webster has got some words up there 
that without my reading glasses on, I can't get all of them, but they 
are actually words about the environment, and they are words about 
natural resources. Isn't it interesting that in the last century as 
they put together this room, they put words up on the wall that talked 
about natural resources and energy. It's pretty interesting. Daniel 
Webster, at some point in his storied career, said, ``Let us develop 
the resources of this great Nation and call forth its power, and in so 
doing, let us do something worthy to be remembered.''
  I really believe that the foundation of American greatness is our 
faith in God, our freedom, and our vast natural resources. The 
combination and our fealty to those three things, our belief that 
America wasn't just an accident with somebody sailing on the way to 
India, that Providence had His hand on this miracle, our belief in 
freedom and free institutions and private property, economic and 
political freedom, combined with this extraordinary continent of 
natural resources, has allowed us to build the freest and most 
prosperous Nation in the history of the world. We can confront every 
challenge facing us in the 21st century if we build on that foundation 
of a belief in freedom and embrace those natural resources and renewing 
our faith in Him

[[Page 10196]]

who set this miracle on these shores. But it all begins with knowing 
what we're doing.
  So let's get the details out. The American people deserve to know 
what's in the cap-and-tax bill before the hearings start tomorrow, and 
we will keep coming to this floor until we get the numbers for every 
single one of those Americans that will be affected.

                          ____________________