Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the ranking member of the Agriculture Committee, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas), control the first 15 minutes of debate on the minority side. Madam Speaker, I want to yield 3 minutes to…
Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the ranking member of the Agriculture Committee, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas), control the first 15 minutes of debate on the minority side.
Madam Speaker, I want to yield 3 minutes to the deputy ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Blunt of Missouri.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Representative from Washington State, Mr. Hastings.
Madam Speaker, I'd like to yield 2 minutes to a member of the committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers).
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a member of the committee, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
I'd like to yield 1 minute to a member of the committee, the gentleman from Nebraska, (Mr. Terry).
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished chairman of the Republic Policy Committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. McCotter).
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished gentleman on the committee, a member of the Energy Solutions Group and a tireless worker on behalf of energy solutions for America, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).
(Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California, Mr. ``Surf's Up'' Rohrabacher.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady on the committee from Nashville, Tennessee, Congresswoman Blackburn.
I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).
I want to yield 1 minute to the distinguished ranking member of the Financial Services Committee, our expert on derivatives, Mr. Spencer Bachus.
I want to yield 1 minute to ``Mr. Iowa Agriculture,'' Mr. Latham of Iowa.
Madam Speaker, I want to yield myself 30 seconds just briefly.
According to David Sokol, the CEO of MidAmerican Energy, which serves most of the utility customers in the State of Iowa, the bill before us will raise utility prices, for every residential customer in Iowa, $110 a month, or $1,320 a year. That is not a job creator in Iowa; that is a job killer in Iowa.
I now want to yield 1 minute to a distinguished member of the committee from the great Keystone State, Mr. Tim Murphy of Pennsylvania, 1 minute.
Madam Speaker, could I inquire as to when the majority is prepared to go to the Ways and Means Committee's time?
I have agreed to do that. But my question is, when is it the intention to allow the Ways and Means Committee to use their time? Is that in the next 15 minutes or is it around 3 o'clock? When is your inclination?
I just need a planning estimate to tell the Members on my side when we are going to go to the Ways and Means. I'm not being argumentative.
At this time, I want to yield to another distinguished member of the Energy and Commerce Committee from the Pelican State, Mr. Scalise, 1 minute.
I yield 1 minute to a distinguished senior member of the committee from the great State of Georgia, Mr. Deal.
I yield myself 15 seconds.
We have just experienced something somewhat revolutionary. We have a bill before us that has a placeholder in the bill. We are passing a bill with a placeholder to be determined later. I have never seen a final passage on a bill that had a placeholder in the bill.
With that, I yield to Mr. Pitts, a member of the committee from the State of Pennsylvania, for 1 minute.
I yield myself another 15 seconds.
I want to tell all of the Members, if you haven't made your deal yet, come on down to the floor. What we are seeing is unprecedented. We're making deals on the floor. I want to commend Mr. Waxman; at least he is now doing it in public. I mean, that is unprecedented, but at least it is transparent.
With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), the distinguished minority whip.
I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlelady from West Virginia, Congresswoman Capito.
I yield 1 minute to the member of the committee from the Golden State of California (Mr. Radanovich).
Will the gentleman from New York yield for a procedural inquiry?
I've got two nonmembers of the Ways and Means Committee that I would like to go out of order to get us in balance so Mr. Camp and you can balance each other.
I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lee), and I want to thank Mr. Rangel for his courtesy.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Congresswoman from Illinois, a member of the Science Committee, Congresswoman Biggert.
Can I inquire how much time we have on the last part of the debate?
Well, I want to compliment Chairman Waxman on apparently getting another vote--of Congressman Grayson--at the cost of 4,100 jobs in Congressman Grayson's district in the year 2012.
With that, I want to yield 1 minute to a distinguished member of the committee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield.)
I planted some trees on my grandfather's farm 30 years ago. I hope that that qualifies under that section of the bill.
I want to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished member of the committee, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).
I yield the gentleman 15 seconds.
MR. SHADEGG. Those costs get passed on to American consumers. Why should we double those costs? My colleagues on the other side want the revenue of the carbon credits that have to be purchased. That money ought to go into the capital cost of reducing carbon emissions, but that money won't do one bit for that cause.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this dangerous bill.
I yield myself 15 seconds to explain what they just said. What they just said was, Mr. Speaker, is that you have got something in the bill that we don't agree with, but we're going to let you put it in the bill with the understanding we will take it out later on in Agriculture and Financial Services. I commend the Agriculture chairman for his strong resistance to that part of the bill.
I want to yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the committee, the ranking member of the Oversight and Investigation Subcommittee, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).
Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the ranking member of the Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee, Mr. Upton of Michigan.
Could I inquire as to the time remaining on both sides, Madam Speaker?
I yield 1 minute to a member of the committee from Denton, Texas, or actually Flower Mound, Texas, Dr. Burgess.
I yield for a unanimous consent request to a member of the committee, Mr. Buyer of Indiana.
(Mr. BUYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the climate change committee and the former chairman of both the Judiciary and the Science Committees, Mr. Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin.
(Mr. SENSENBRENNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Madam Speaker, I'm going to ask a parliamentary inquiry.
Is there somewhere physically in the House of Representatives a copy of what we are voting on?
All right. Let me digest that, Madam Speaker.
In the meantime, I want to yield 1 minute to the distinguished Congressman from California (Mr. McClintock) 1 minute.
I have another parliamentary inquiry.
Is there a rule of the House that requires a copy of the pending legislation to be present in or near the body?
So there is no such rule?
I appreciate that honest answer.
I want to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).
I have one more parliamentary inquiry.
If a bill for which there is no copy were to actually pass this body, could the bill without a copy be sent to the Senate for its consideration, having no copy?
The official copy will be at the desk. Could I inquire as to when that copy will be at the desk? Is it necessary that the official copy be at the desk in order for final passage to occur?
Then where is it, Madam Speaker?
Is it now at the desk? Is it now--I appreciate the Congressman who brought it in. Oh, that is not it. That is not at the desk.
Well, while we research whether the official copy is at the desk, I'm going to yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Oklahoma, Congresswoman Fallin, for 1 minute.
Madam Speaker, I'm going to ask unanimous consent for a brief recess to find the official copy that includes everything passed at the Rules Committee last night, because I am told that what is at the desk is missing 300 pages. That cannot be the official copy.
Why don't you reserve the right to object?
I will be happy to yield to my friend from Massachusetts on his reservation.
Do Members have access to the Web site on the floor of the House?
In the Cloakroom, but not on the floor.
Reclaiming my time on the gentleman's reservation on my unanimous consent request, what is at the desk for any Member of this body who is engaged in the debate is not apparently the official copy. It is missing 300 pages. Now what is on the Web site is almost immaterial because it is unprecedented in this gentleman's history in the Congress to not have some, usually at least two copies that both sides can access during the debate on the floor.
I am just asking for a 15-minute recess to get an actual copy that we can access.
I yield to the gentleman on his reservation.
It is missing 300 pages.
I am going to ask a unanimous consent request to give me a minute to go down and look at that and see if it is actually 1,300 pages.
So the gentleman does object?
I am parliamentary inquiried out, Madam Speaker, so I am going to yield 1 minute to the chairman of the Republican Study Committee, Mr. Price from Georgia.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray).
Madam Speaker, I want to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin).
Madam Speaker, I have been so confused by all of the parliamentary inquiries, I have lost track of time. How much time remains?
I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Lubbock, Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).
Madam Speaker, I'm going to reserve my time because they have got more time than we've got.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to another great Californian, Mr. Royce.
Madam Speaker, I reserve at this point.
I yield 1 minute to Mr. Poe of Texas.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to Mr. Gohmert of Texas.
I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished Republican Conference chairman, Mr. Pence of Indiana.
(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Madam Speaker, I have one more parliamentary inquiry.
Under the rules that we operate on, the leadership on both sides, each is allowed 1 minute to speak at any time. Will that time come out of this debate, or does that time come out of the debate on the Forbes amendment?
I'm sorry?
Would Mr. Waxman yield for a question, then?
I'm trying to figure out if I need to reserve 1 minute for Mr. Boehner to speak now or if the Speaker and the majority leader are going to speak later and not in this part of the debate.
I would be happy to yield.
Then I will yield myself the balance of my time, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker, before I begin I want to compliment you on your speakership of this debate. As always, you've been gracious and temperate and fair, and we wish you the very best in your new position at the Department of State.
As the country western song goes, Madam Speaker, I've got a long way to go and a short time to get there. So I'm trying to get through in the next 5 minutes the major issues on the debate before us.
I want to first start with the so-called compromise the chairman of the Agriculture Committee and the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee have worked out. As we have seen during the debate by the number of colloquies, the compromise is a work in process. I've seen it amended and referred and rebutted several times on the majority side.
But if you will look to my far left on this chart, in the base text of the bill, there is a provision that gives the Administrator of the EPA the right at any time, at any time, to designate any man-made gas as a greenhouse gas subject to the regulations of this bill. As far as I can tell, that paragraph trumps everything that Chairman Peterson has attempted to negotiate with Chairman Waxman.
The second thing that I want to point out is the basic math of their allowance system simply doesn't work. The transportation sector today is responsible for 35 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, 35 percent. If you count the good work that Mr. Dingell did and the good work that Mr. Green did on the majority side in getting allowances for the transportation sector, they get a grand total of 4 percent, 4 percent. Well 4 from 35 is 31 percent. When you get down to 2050, you have to reduce CO2 emissions by 83 percent, which only leaves 17 percent of total emissions from the baseline year. You've got to cut the transportation sector in half. And if you assume that we're not going to develop some sort of a giant rubberband for general aviation, you can't put an electric battery or a nuclear reactor in an airplane. General aviation is going to have to use fossil fuel. You simply can't get to that 83 percent reduction from the 2005 baseline with the math in their bill. It is a physical impossibility.
The third point: The science is not there to back it up. There is an EPA report that has been suppressed, that was never made a part of the record, that we are trying to get as we speak that raises grave doubts about the endangerment finding. Now, if you don't have an endangerment finding, you don't need this bill. We don't need this bill. And for some reason, the EPA saw fit not to include that in making the decision. We have e-mails that show that the director of the subcabinet agency within the EPA said the decision has been made the report is not helpful. It's not only not helpful; it's harmful. So the science isn't there.
The next point: No matter how you cut it, costs are going up. Just basic math. Just basic math. In Iowa the CEO of the utility that provides most of the electricity for Iowa says in Iowa alone, costs are going to go up $110 a month per residential customer. That's $1,200 a year. Gasoline prices are going to go up somewhere between 40 to 70 cents a gallon. If you take a midpoint of, say, 50 cents a gallon and assume that the husband and wife work outside the home and they each drive a thousand miles a month, you're going to have a gasoline price increase per family in America of about $800. That is $2,000 a year per family in 2012. It's not a postage stamp.
Now, there are estimates as high as $6,000 a year, but as a baseline let's start with $2,000. That's in the first year and every year thereafter. If you look at this chart here on unemployment, if it goes below the bar, that's a negative: 2015, 2.3 million jobs; 2025, 2.7 million. Go on down the road. It averages over 2 million jobs every year.
Now, you talk about a green job revolution. In Spain they have been trying to do that, Madam Speaker. And in Spain for every green job they've created, they have lost two conventional jobs. And the green jobs they have created in Spain have cost about $1.2 million per job created in terms of government subsidies. That's not a revolution that I want to be part of, Madam Speaker.
I simply cannot express enough to get to 83 percent baseline reduction in CO2 by the year 2050, which doesn't change in this bill, you have to reduce the emissions in the United States to the level that we had in 1910. And if you want to look at it on a per capita basis, assuming the population is going to average about 1 percent growth a year, it takes us back to 1875.
This is a bad bill. It deserves to be defeated. Please vote ``no.''
This legislation threatens to lock the United States into an era of economic stagnation and global decline, thanks to a massive national energy tax that will kill American industry and send jobs overseas.
We are here today voting on one of the most significant pieces of energy legislation ever, and we have only had the final text for a matter of hours. Surely, a majority of the Members have not read any of the bill, and I doubt that one in a hundred have read the 400 new pages that were turned in to the Rules Committee in the dark hours of this morning. This is not the way this Congress should do business. It is not the way the American people expect us to do business. What happened to the promises of the President and the Speaker of transparency?
This bill will cause the average American's electricity bill to increase by 77 percent to 129 percent. Filling up the gas tank will cost anywhere from 60 percent to 144 percent more. That means, at today's prices, gasoline would be well over $4 per gallon. As we all vividly remember from last summer, $4 gas is painful and unsustainable.
The negative economic effects of this bill will hit some parts of the country worse than others. The Democrats cite a recent CBO study, which is now based on outdated text, which says that the negative economic impact will only be $175 per household. I dispute this analysis because it ignores the full negative consequences of this legislation, in that the study completely ignored the economic damage from restricting energy use. Well, gross costs will be closer to $900 per household. And if average gross costs will be $900, then I can only imagine how bad it will be in the Midwest and Southeast who are going to be much harder hit.
The cost of home heating oil and natural gas will nearly double. An independent analysis of the latest Waxman-Markey text explains that when all of the tax impacts have been added up, the lost GDP in 2035 works out to $6,790 per family-of-four and that is before they pay their $4,600 share of the carbon taxes. That puts the costs per family for the whole energy tax aggregated from 2012 to 2035 to $114,915. Do you think the above estimate will help the American economy? Of course not.
If Democrats manage to pass this fiasco, millions of lost American jobs will likely be sent overseas. Already the recession seems to deepen by the day. The national unemployment rate is 9.4 percent and President Obama has already declared that we are going to see it topping 10 percent. All this even though this House passed the President's Stimulus bill in January without even taking the time to read that bill either. Michigan has an unemployment rate of over 14 percent. South Carolina has an unemployment rate of over 12 percent. North Carolina and California have over 11 percent unemployment. Ohio and Indiana have over 10 percent unemployment. Using the latest numbers, in May of 2009, 14 states have double-digit unemployment, with another 5 states between 9 and 10 percent. We should pass legislation that seeks to decrease unemployment--let's not add fuel to the fire.
This bill would create a trillion dollar carbon derivatives market. We introduced an amendment to ban speculators from participating in
the market during mark-up because we don't think that our economy can withstand another AIG Credit Default Swap Crisis. And we certainly cannot afford another multi-billion dollar bail-out.
Because there is so little protection for industry jobs that rely heavily on affordable and dependable baseload power, I think we can expect to start buying more Mexican cement, Chinese fertilizer and Indian steel.
How can we cap global greenhouse emissions without the participation of China and India? Not only does China reject any mandatory caps on its emissions, but they demanded that we subsidize them in their quest for better technology. Well, I have good news for China--this bill has plenty of handouts for foreign polluters at the expense of American industry. So, congratulations.
This bill is reckless and does not have a safety valve or exit ramp, even though my colleagues and I introduced several safety valves during the mark-up. It seems to me that it would be a good idea to kill this bill if gas goes up to $5 or electricity bills double because of this legislation. But, obviously my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are willing to roll the dice with the American economy. We filed these amendments with the Rules Committee and were shut out completely. The Democrats are so unconfident in the costs and repercussions of their own bill that they cannot even risk an amendment that would sunset the policies when costs and unemployment resulting from this Act cripple the American economy.
This bill grants near-dictatorial powers to the head of the Environmental Protection Agency to sacrifice the American economy in the cause of suppressing greenhouse gases. If you think suppression is the wrong word, I want you to know that it was just yesterday we learned that the EPA administrator and the Obama Administration suppressed an inconvenient dissent offered by a career EPA official.
It seems clear that officials who already engage in political suppression of opposition opinion are hardly the people in whom we want to invest the future of the U.S. economy.
Let's investigate that scandal, but in the meantime, let's turn back this power grab today and go to work on an all-of-the-above energy solution that includes nuclear and offshore drilling.
Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Forbes amendment. This is not a comprehensive substitute, because the majority party, which controls the Rules Committee, ruled out of order and didn't make it in order on the floor either the Republican leadership comprehensive substitute or the Energy and Commerce Committee comprehensive substitute.
So they did rule in order Mr. Forbes' substitute. And I will guarantee you, this is better than the base bill.
It doesn't wreck the economy. It does include, and you can count on the ingenuity of the American people, through an incentives package, to unleash the productivity and innovativeness of our folks in the United States to find new solutions to our energy and environmental problems.
But it doesn't have this boondoggle cap-and-trade program that will wreck the economy, deindustrialize America, and make us a second-rate economic power. It is not a comprehensive substitute, but it is darn better than the base bill.
Vote for it.