Rep. Ed Whitfield (KY) had strong words regarding the cap and tax legislation being debated in the Energy and Commerce Committee this week. As President Obama travels the country, touting the bill as a job creator, Whitfield and other skeptical Republicans are calling him out. Obama says the legislation will create jobs but he doesn’t mention it will kill more jobs than it creates.
In a special order today, Whitfield declared that “Green jobs can’t come at the expense of existing jobs,” which is what is expected to happen.
“All of us – Democrats, Republicans and Independents - are committed to protecting our planet for the well being of future generations,” said Whitfield. “However, I think we would also agree that the state of the economy and the staggering job losses sweeping the nation are also of serious concern. As we move forward implementing legislation that will have a significant impact on how our nation produces electricity and fuel, we need to be mindful of the effects these changes will have on our economy.”
5:21 p.m.
The last panel of the day, covering, “Low Carbon Electricity, Carbon Capture and Storage, Renewables and Grid Modernization,” decided to have another go around of questions after Chairman of the Energy and Environment Subcommittee and Select Committee on Global Warming Edward J. Markey said the good-natured group had put him in a good mood.
Rep. Michael Burgess (TX) was a major participant in questioning this panel and conveyed many of the thoughts he wrote about in a blog post for The Hill’s Congress Blog: Cap and tax will increase the daily overhead costs for businesses, increase the costs of running our families to school and to work, and it will destroy jobs and businesses unless they are explicitly protected in the language. Energy Secretary Steven Chu even stated that he believes the policy would “disadvantage” the American economy.
Fortunately, this draft legislation is only a draft. We still have time to make significant changes to this bill to make it better, and I intend to do that in subcommittee and committee.
I, too, believe it is important to safeguard our planet and preserve it for future generations, but the proposed cap and tax is radical and the timing is dangerously wrong. It is a broad-sweeping policy change that will do more harm than good. I would argue that, in its current form, this proposal may do more harm to our economy than any bill that is likely to come before Congress for the rest of this year, or perhaps during my natural lifetime.
Another member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Rep. John Shadegg (AZ) spoke out strongly against the legislation, calling it a “tax on life.” Here’s what Shadegg had to say: “Cap-and-trade will spike the cost of everything from flipping on the television to purchasing popcorn to using the microwave. Any product that required energy to make or that requires energy to use suddenly becomes more expensive. It is a tax on living.
“The ‘Life Tax’ works by requiring companies that produce carbon – say a coal plant – to pay a fee if it produces more than a certain amount of energy. That fee, in turn, increases the cost of energy to every business and citizen in the country. A recent estimate has placed the cost to the average American household at $3,900.
“By increasing the price of energy – and reducing energy production – this legislation will also kill millions of American jobs. Yet the same people who back cap-and-trade also block nuclear energy – which would create American jobs while doing the same work to reduce carbon emissions.
“This isn’t about helping the environment. This is about bloating the federal government through a cradle-to-grave tax on the American people.”
4:22 p.m.
Rep. John Sullivan (OK) participated in the energy debates this week, calling the discussion draft of the “American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009” (ACES) “incomplete.”
“By holding marathon legislative hearings on a discussion draft lacking key carbon cost provisions, I do not believe we can have an honest discussion on the scope and cost of this legislation without these critical issues being addressed before conducting a hearing on the bill, “ said Sullivan.
Sullivan continued, saying the legislation was a “backdoor attempt to enact a national energy tax” that will hurt the economy and do little to help the environment. He specifically noted the harm for Oklahoma’s oil and gas producers and refiners.
“Like most Americans, I support an ‘all of the above’ energy plan that will promote the use of alternative fuels, encourage conservation and increase environmentally-safe production of American energy,” he said. “I urge the committee to recognize that families and small businesses in Oklahoma and all across the United States already struggling during this recession, and increasing their energy costs will only make matters worse. “
4:01 p.m.
Cap and Tax is nothing new. Former President Bill Clinton also called for a massive energy tax during his first budget in office. However, that fuel tax – nicknamed the “BTU” tax – was nothing compared to what President Obama hopes to implement. Obama’s cap and tax plan is 16 times larger than Clinton’s “BTU” tax program. But they still have a lot in common – including the fact that families and consumers get the short end of the stick. Both also sought to raise revenue and discourage energy use.
While the Clinton BTU tax would have generated $71.5 billion in revenues over five years, Obama’s cap ant ax plan will generate $1.2 trillion in revenues in the same amount of time. The Clinton energy tax narrowly passed the House and did not pass in the Senate for good reason. If Obama’s plan passes, studies show American families could incur up to $3,128 in energy costs per year.
Obama often refers to the “change” Americans voted for. So far, his policies are more of the same.
3:39 p.m.
In the second to last panel today, the Energy debaters tackled the topic of “Ensuring U.S. Competitiveness and International Participation,” one of the main concerns of those opposed to the legislation.
Since the hearings began yesterday, many Republicans have expressed concern over America’s ability to maintain a competitive international economy, specifically with India and China. Many doubt that those countries will adopt a similar cap and tax system just because America does.
Bill supporters and researchers have argued that we are “ahead of the game” by taking this leap but many are skeptical, including Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), who told the panel she’d “like to hear from you on some questions after you’ve all had an opportunity to read the bill.”
Members of most of the panels thus far have admitted to not reading the entire bill yet.
“I’m curious what your opinion is on how EPA should go about handling agricultural offsets they’ll be bale to put in place and if you think the imposition of cap and trade will diminish the competiveness of the American agricultural community?...Will it drive up the cost of our domestic food supply?” Blackburn asked the panel.
One panelist admitted that “the price of fossil fuels will certainly increase” but said the situation could be remedied by efficiency improvement.
“The question is how quickly can we improve efficiency so that an increase in energy prices doesn’t turn into an increase in overall energy costs. We can have higher energy prices and not higher energy costs. It’s about efficiency,” he said.
3:09 p.m.
U.S. Congressman Mike Pence, Chairman of the House Republican Conference, made the following statement on the House floor today in response to the Democrats’ ‘cap and tax’ legislation:
“Mr. Speaker, this week House Democrats began hearings on so-called ‘cap and trade’ legislation. It is their legislative response to concerns over global climate change. Even former Vice President Al Gore will testify tomorrow here on Capitol Hill. But as many around this country and in this body are realizing, there are a lot of inconvenient truths about the cap and trade bill. The Democrat plan actually caps growth and trades jobs. The truth is, this cap and trade legislation is essentially an economic declaration of war on the Midwest by liberals in Washington, D.C., and it must be opposed.
“Under the Democratic plan, estimates suggest the average American household could face more than $3,000 a year in higher energy costs and people in the Midwest, like us in Indiana, will bear the largest burden. Even the President, as a candidate, said that ‘under my plan of cap and trade, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.’
“And we can only estimate these numbers, Mr. Speaker, because the Democrat plan includes no numbers. Truth is, the American people deserve to know what all this is going to cost them. Democrats in Congress need to come clean about the cost of their cap and trade bill and when they do, this Congress and the American people will reject it.”
12:31 p.m.
In the last segment of this morning’s first panel, House Republicans did a great job asking the right questions. The simple questions were often the most powerful.
Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR) asked each of the panelists if they had read the bill “in it’s entirety.” Only one of seven panelists had done so. Following that, Walden was able to get each panelist to admit the cap and tax legislation would definitely raise the price of natural gas.
Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL) took the floor again today as well, emphasizing the lack of specific numbers in the bill. He pointed out that “no one is willing to go on record saying, no, we wouldn’t rather have a full, transparent process.”
“Shouldn’t we have time…for a proper economic analysis of the impacts – good or bad?” Shimkus asked. “The marker’s really down for these numbers to be laid out in time for us to have a credible debate.”
Following Shimkus, Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ) asked panelists if the legislation would increase energy costs in the United States. Again, they agreed that it would. They gave wobbly answers when he asked if the bill actually aimed to discourage the consumption of energy.
Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA) also expressed concern with the lack of number details included in the bill.
“One of the big frustrations with this bill….the main details of this bill… are ”to be supplied,’” he said, flipping to a page in the bill where cost estimates were blank. “We’re talking about what many people have described as one of the most important changes in energy policy our country has probably seen and the bulk of the details don’t even exist….”
11:21 a.m.
Stearns corners Chu
In a humorous moment from yesterday’s hearing, Secretary of Energy Stephen Chu was confronted by Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL) about a statement he made arguing America should strive to boost gasoline levels to the $8/gallon levels of Europe at the time.
Chu responded that increasing gas prices now would be “unwise” and admitted that his assertion that Americans should have to pay European prices was “silly” when pressed by Stearns.
Barton: Clean Air Act did not include C02 for a reason.
In this morning’s hearing, Republican Energy and Commerce Chairman Rep. Joe Barton (TX) noted that when Congress passed the Clean Air Act in the 90s, they “explicitly” didn’t include C02.
“It was not serendipitous that we didn’t include C02,” Barton said. “The Republican alternative is going to have a provision from Congresswoman Blackburn (R-TN) that explicitly states that.”
He then asked the panelists, “How will raising the price of any commodity …be absorbed without being passed on to anyone in the economy?”
One panelist answered that “part of it will be born by consumers, part of it by producers.” In other words, the answer to Barton’s question is this: It cannot be absorbed without passing it on to anyone in the economy.
Panelists not aware of important study
Another highlight from yesterday’s meeting was when Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-KY) asked this:
"I wanted to ask you all, you Mr. Chu particularly and Ms. Jackson, if you had read Gabriel Alvarez’ study – he’s at King Juan Carlos’s University in Madrid? And he used empirical data based on the government subsidizing renewable energy in Spain. And he came up with the conclusion exactly how much every job cost. And I know that President Obama in this renewable energy package is modeling using Spain as a model, one of the models. But for every job created in the renewable energy sector, so-called green job, that they lost 2.2 jobs. And this is a 50-page empirical study that he conducted. And I was just, have either one of you seen his study?"
The panelists were unfamiliar with the study.
10:08 a.m.
Energy hearings move on to Day Two this morning with a panel titled “Allocation Policies to Assist and Benefit Consumers.” The panel includes the heads of electricity organizations and associations.
Republican members of the Energy and Commerce Committee will continue to make statements and question members of the panel today. Panel members are there in support of the “American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009" (ACES), which aims to implement expensive “cap and tax” legislation.
Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI) spoke yesterday, saying that “we need to reduce emissions…but we must do it in a commonsense way that takes into account the economic and global realities of this issue.”
Upton criticized the European Union’s (EU) cap and tax model, which he called a “failure” and offered as an example of what America may incur under the same system.
“Cap and tax will essentially kick working families when they’re down. And we thought the American public was angry over a dollar or two increase in gas prices last summer – just wait until they get their hands on their utility bills under cap and tax,” he said. “We shouldn’t be tying our hand behind our back. We can reduce emissions and create jobs through other policies. Now is not the time for a costly cap and tax system.”
Upton and other members of the committee are expected to speak again today. Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL) was one of the most powerful voices yesterday, demanding that panelists answer his questions with yes or no answers. Many were unable to do so.
10:00 a.m.
The hearings for today have begun. We will have updates for you shortly.
12:30 a.m.
Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX) on EPA regulations of light bulbs last year:
