Radanovich Soundly Rejects Democrats’ Job Killing Cap and Tax Scheme
“Socialism Cloaked in Environmental Do-Goodism”
Congressman George Radanovich (R-Mariposa) today released the following statement after voting against the Democrats' job killing Cap and Tax bill in the Energy and Commerce Committee. The bill passed the Committee with four Democrat members siding with Republicans in opposition:
“Today was a terrible day for businesses in America. The Democrats just passed a bill that will make every aspect of living and doing business in this country more expensive. The Central Valley is already suffering from runaway environmental regulations, and the Democrats' new Tax and Cap scheme will only make that suffering worse. Let me be clear, this bill is nothing more than socialism cloaked in environmental do-goodism.
“We in the Valley know the abuses of environmental alarmism with the Endangered Species Act and the Delta Smelt. This global warming scheme is environmental alarmism on steroids.
“This legislation operates under the false assumption that we can replace the vast majority of our energy supply, which is fossil fuel based, with only renewable sources such as wind and solar - without increasing the use of nuclear power.
"I believe we should increase the percentage of renewable sources within America’s energy portfolio, but the goals in this bill are unrealistic and unattainable. We cannot rely on intermittent sources of renewable energy to replace reliability of fossil fuel or nuclear energy production.
"This bill should encourage the construction of new large scale hydropower; streamline the process for new nuclear; allow unrestricted use of Federal lands for biomass; and include these in the definition of renewable or clean energy—solutions with the real chance to help our energy problems without crippling our economy in the process.
"Even President Obama has acknowledged that 'electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket' under a cap and trade plan.
“The last thing this country needs, especially during a recession, is a tax and cap system that will cost every American household $4,800 per year, destroy hundreds of thousands of American jobs and weaken our stance in the global economic community. Unfortunately, that is what the Energy and Commerce Democrats imposed on the American people.”
Lost Jobs, Soaring Energy Costs Can’t Deter Democrats From Advancing Radical Global Warming Plan
Dems Reject GOP Caps on Unemployment, Home Electric Bills & Gasoline Prices
House Democrats used political muscle and party loyalty on Thursday to ram through an anti-global warming bill that opponents caution could cost a family of four $2,937.38 a year.
The action came after a marathon committee session that spent 37 hours over four days methodically rejecting 56 separate Republican efforts to learn the full cost of the bill, to prevent scams in its trading system and even get the feds out of hot tubs. The massive, 946-page Waxman-Markey global warming bill was named for its authors, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., and U.S. Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass. It passed the Waxman committee on a vote of 33-25.
“We have legitimate and serious concerns about the redirection of our energy policy in America, which is the foundation and bedrock of our free market economy, the most productive and the largest in the world,” said U.S. Rep. Joe Barton of Texas, the committee’s ranking Republican. “A third of the world’s GDP is based on the United States economy and that economy for over 150 years has been based on a free market allocation of resources in the energy sector. This bill makes fundamental changes in that basic philosophy.”
Cost analyses of the bill vary because hard information on it had been scarce, but few disagreed that the legislation will cost working people billions of dollars through devices intended to force people to stop using energy by making it dramatically more expensive.
“One estimate puts its price per family of four at $29,373.85 over 10 years,” Barton said. “Another estimate is that it will raise electricity rates 90 percent after adjusting for inflation, and boost gasoline prices 74 percent and natural gas prices 55 percent.”
On a macro level, Barton predicted that “a cap-and-trade program will never be made to work in an economy as diverse and complex as the United States. It’s just not possible, and trying to make it work is going to cost money and jobs. How many U.S. industries do we want to bankrupt in one markup, just to achieve a temperature impact of less than one degree Fahrenheit in the next 100 years?”
The focus of much of the committee’s deliberations was on the legislation’s price tag, and Republican efforts to learn more were consistently met with shrugs from Democrats. Typical was this exchange when U.S. Rep. Mike Burgess, R-Texas, sought to discover from the committee’s Democratic staff how much a homeowner might pay for electricity because of the bill: Burgess – “Can you tell me what the direct effect on a ratepayer in Texas would be, with Texas as a non-regulated state?” Democratic staff counsel – “No, I can’t tell you what the direct effect on ratepayers in Texas would be.”
In another round of questions and answers, U.S. Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Florida, queried U.S. Rep. Bart Gordon, D-Tenn., about the bill’s proposal to spend “such sums” of taxpayers’ money “as may be necessary” to finance the exploration of currently unknown forms of energy: “How much money do you think this is going to take? Based upon your argument that the appropriators can appropriate more money if necessary, is there anybody in this room who knows how much we’re talking about here?”
Answered Gordon, “I don’t think anybody can answer that until you get further down the road.”
“Well, can you ballpark it?” Stearns persisted. “Are we talking about half a billion? I would think somebody in this room with this amendment could at least give us an idea of what we’re talking about.”
No, said Gordon, “There are going to be transformational types of energy that we can’t think of now.”
Determining who actually designed much of the legislation also intrigued the committee. On Wednesday, U.S. Rep. Lee Terry, R-Neb., asked U.S. Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y., “Mr. Weiner, how much of this bill was written by the National Resources Defense Council? And who was in the room?” In response, the famously loquacious Rep. Weiner stood uncharacteristically silent until Terry concluded that he would get no answer.
Republicans were, however, able to discern that a Democratic proposal to create an office of consumer protection at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission was aimed not to protect consumers, but power companies.
Democrats resisted dogged persistence by U.S. Rep. John Shadegg, R-Ariz., who asked them to name a single small business or home that would be able to use the new consumer protection office at FERC.
“Can you give me an example of a consumer – a small business or a residence – that would be able to take advantage of this language?” he asked the Democratic staff counsel.
“Certainly that would be up to this office to determine what they perceive to be the consumer in any particular proceeding, and to the extent that they identified that interest, represent it,” came the answer.
It fell to Rep. Barton to break the code. “FERC has jurisdiction over wholesale transactions in interstate commerce,” he explained. “You’re going to set up a consumer advocate’s office that would be a consumer advocate for large power companies and states that engage in wholesale electricity transactions across state lines.”
Among the Republican proposals ditched by the Democratic majority were these:
Clean Air Through Consumer Choice – Offered by Rep. Barton, the full Republican substitute bill “in any other Congress…would be considered very progressive and very moderate,” he said. “But because it still attempts to use the market system and the price mechanism to let people make free choices on which forms of energy to use and how to use them, it is not as directive and invasive by government as the pending legislation. It does not have a cap-and-trade program. We do accept that it would be better for the economy if we were less carbon-intensive, so instead of a cap-and-trade mechanism that’s very complicated, we take a page out of the current the law, the Clean Air Act, and set performance standards. We set a limit on the amount of CO2. This substitute is comprehensive. It would work. It would be good law.”
Capping Gasoline Prices at $5 a Gallon – A Terry amendment to suspend the legislation if it forces the price of gasoline above $5 per gallon. “If we can put a cap on carbon, we darn sure ought to be able to put a cap on gasoline price increases from this bill,” Barton argued during the debate. Democrats disagreed, and voted to let the price go up.
Short-Circuiting Spikes in Home Electricity Bills – Two proposals by U.S. Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., and a third from U.S. Rep. George Radanovich, R-Calif., to suspend the act if the price of electricity increases beyond certain levels. The first set a limit of 10 percent above 2009 electric rates. When that was defeated, Blunt offered a second cap at 20 percent, which also was turned down by Democrats. Markey explained that homeowner protection was superfluous because the bill contained “a carefully crafted compromise with the Edison Electric Institute,” the electric companies’ lobbying organization. “We’ve had this debate and this issue over and over again,” added Chairman Waxman. But it would come back one more time when Radanovich attempted to prevent electricity prices from doubling. In the end, all three insurance policies against electricity price spikes were turned down.
Telling Families How Much Extra They’ll Pay – An amendment from U.S. Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., to disclose the impact of Waxman-Markey on home utility bills so consumers could know how much more the act is costing them directly. The idea of letting consumers know the bill’s dollars-and-cents reduction of their bank accounts was roundly denounced by Chairman Waxman, who used his time to scold the Bush Administration over the cost of “torture,” “outing a CIA agent,” the Securities and Exchange Commission’s economic record and Federal Emergency Management Agency’s operations during Hurricane Katrina.
Capping Unemployment at 15 Percent – An amendment offered by U.S. Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., suspending the act to protect jobs if the unemployment rate reaches 15 percent because of the global warming bill. A second Upton proposal would shift global warming money to worker retraining if the bill propels the national jobless rate over 10 percent. Democrats overruled Republicans, however, on the Upton unemployment cap and the worker retraining amendment.
Blocking Job Losses to China & India – An amendment from U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., that would require China and India adopt a mandatory greenhouse gas reduction program “at least as stringent as that would be imposed under the act” to ensure that they cannot win a competitive advantage over the United States by failing attack global warming, too. At stake are millions of jobs that experts say will shift from America to India and China if they refuse to hobble their economies with cap-and-trade systems. Both nations say candidly that it would be foolish to choose poverty over prosperity. Democrats voted down the Rogers jobs amendment.
Keeping Bureaucrats Out of Hot Tubs – A trio of amendments by Radanovich to prevent the federal government from imposing its regulatory will on “portable electric spas, hot food cabinets and water dispensers.” The Democratic bill contains language – a matter initially denied by its authors – that directs federal authorities to regulate hot tubs. Republicans were cool to the idea, but hot-tub Democrats tested the water and decided it was fine.
Democrats also stuck together to block access to “off-ramps” that would have allowed autoworkers and agricultural workers to escape economic distress created directly by the global warming bill. “We can’t afford to stop this forward progress,” explained U.S. Rep. John Sarbanes, D-Md. Democrats further declined to develop emissions-free energy sources such as new hydroelectric power, and decided to permit the EPA to write the rules necessary to regulate water vapor as air pollution.
The cap and tax bill being pushed forth mercilessly by Congressional Democrats reeks of economic destruction. It is a national energy tax and a redistribution of wealth that will increase America’s unemployment rate and send American jobs — especially those in Michigan — overseas at an alarming rate.
Instead of using stalling tactics, my fellow Republicans and I have offered constructive amendments to protect working families and jobs. As we endure 14-hour days in committee marking up this nearly 1,000 page legislation, my fellow Republicans and I are standing strong against the bill with our amendments. Here is what we hope to accomplish:
If unemployment reaches 10% nationwide, this bill will go away.
If 10% of Americans can’t pay their gas and electric bills, this bill will go away.
If China and India don’t participate, this bill will go away.
If gas prices go back to $5/gallon, this bill will go away.
The Democrats are voting against every single one of our amendments but we will fight this bill to our very last breath. It is a dagger to our economy and I will not back down.
Fight the energy bill to save your family $3,100 a year. The stakes could not be higher. Let’s make this bill go away.
5:57 p.m.
Author of the Democrats' National Energy Tax Admits He Doesn't Know What Is In the Bill
Chairman Waxman: “Well, I certainly don’t claim to know everything that’s in this bill…I don’t know the details...”
As Democrats push forward with a $646 billion national energy tax, Henry Waxman, chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee and author of the Democrats’ national energy tax, has offered two startling revelations: 1. He doesn’t know what is in his bill, and 2. He relies on scientists at the United Nations to help write a bill that discriminates against domestic manufacturers and domestic energy producers:
Senior Republican Joe Barton (R-TX): “Before I asked the question of Counsel did you know that was in this bill?”
Chairman Waxman (D-CA): “Are you asking me?”
Rep. Barton: “Yes, sir.”
Chairman Waxman: “Well, I certainly don’t claim to know everything that’s in this bill. I know that we relied very heavily on the scientists of the IPCC [the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] and others and the consensus that they have that there is a problem of global warming, it’s having an impact, and we need to try to reduce it by the amounts that they think we need to achieve in order to avoid some of the consequences. That’s what I know, but I don’t know the details, I rely on the scientists.”
5:41 p.m.
The Heritage Foundation's Michael G. Franc wrote today in National Review about the ghastly consequences Americans will face in cap and tax is passed. He runs down a list of facts that Democrats seem to be leaving out. In "Cap and Trade vs. The American Dream," Franc makes a good point.
If the latest Waxman-Markey proposal is signed into law, its economic impact by 2035 will be as follows:
Direct energy costs will rise by more than $1,500 per year for the typical family of four. Pain at the electric meter will cause consumers to reduce electricity consumption by 26 percent. Even with this cutback, the electric bill for a family of four will be $754 higher in 2035 than it would have been in the absence of Waxman-Markey, and $12,200 higher in total from 2012 to 2035.
Higher gasoline prices will have forced households to cut consumption by 15 percent, but a family of four will still pay $596 more in 2035 and $7,500 more in total from 2012 to 2035.
In total, for the years 2012–2035, a family of four will see its direct energy costs rise by $22,800. These inflation-adjusted numbers do not include the indirect energy costs consumers will pay as producers raise prices to recapture their higher production costs. Also excluded are the higher costs of developing more energy-efficient cars and appliances, the disutility of driving smaller, less safe vehicles, and the discomfort of using less heating and cooling.
As the economy adjusts to shrinking GDP and rising energy prices, employment will take a big hit. On average, employment will be lower by 1,105,000 jobs per year. In some years, cap and trade will reduce employment by nearly 2.5 million jobs.
The negative economic impacts affect the public purse as well. Waxman-Markey will drive up the national debt 26 percent by 2035. This represents an additional $29,150 per person, or $116,600 for a family of four. These burdens come after adjusting for inflation and are in addition to the $450,000 of federal debt per family that would accrue over this period even without cap and trade.
And all this for a negligible environmental gain: “All of these costs,” the report concludes, “accrue in the first 25 years of a 90-year program that, as calculated by climatologists, will lower temperatures by only hundredths of a degree in 2050 and no more than two-tenths of a degree at the end of the century.”
On RedState today, Rep. Roy Blunt (MO) reminds readers of President Obama's promise that electricity rates will "necessarily skyrocket" if his plan of cap and tax is implemented.
He writes about his amendment to reverse the Waxman-Markey bill if electricity rates go up 10%. Here's an excerpt of the piece:
Throughout this debate, some Democrats have asserted that the cap and trade energy tax scheme will not make much of a difference on the average family’s utility bills. However, a study conducted for the Missouri Joint Municipal Electric Utility Commission estimates Missouri rates could increase as much as 40 percent by 2015 due to these policies.
That’s why I offered an amendment to reverse this bill once your electricity rates go up 10 percent. Democrats who support the energy tax balked. “That won’t happen,” they claimed. My amendment wasn’t needed, they argued. It seemed logical if they really believed that the costs of this tax will not be passed on to consumers then why not support my amendment as an emergency exit for American families.
I believe actions speak louder than words. It speaks volumes that the same officials who claim energy costs will not increase by more than 10 percent due to this tax refused to support my emergency exit amendment.
House Republican leaders met with reporters and bloggers today to discuss the Waxman-Markey cap and tax energy bill. Pictured here from left right are Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (WI), Rep. Dan Burton (IN), House Republican Chairman Mike Pence (IN), Rep. Dave Camp (MI) and Rep. Patrick Tiberi (OH):
Republicans Offer Broad Clean Energy Program Based on Clean Air Act; Dems Say No
U.S. Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, today made the following statement about his alternative to the Waxman-Markey global warming bill:
“This substitute in any other Congress would be considered very progressive and very moderate. But because it still attempts to use the market system and the price mechanism to let people make free choices on which forms of energy to use and how to use them, it is not as directive and invasive by government as the pending legislation. It does not have a cap and trade program. We do accept that it would be better for the economy if we were less carbon-intensive, so instead of a cap-and-trade mechanism that’s very complicated, we take a page out of the current the law, the Clean Air Act, and set performance standards. We set a limit on the amount of CO2. This substitute is comprehensive. It would work. It would be good law."
3:30 p.m.
Yesterday, during a blogger conference call, Rep. Fred Upton (MI), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, departed from his position in the mark up meeting to update bloggers on the cap and tax energy bill. Here are some of his remarks:
“This is a terrible bill….[it is] a gigantic tax on virtually every consumer around the country. The administration will be able to redistribute the wealth…In Michigan, our unemployment is virtually 13-14 percent, in some areas higher, some predict we’ll get to 20% before the summer is out. And what this bill will do is send those jobs overseas – the last thing that Michigan, the last thing our country can afford.
“Instead of trying stalling tactics….we’re offering very constructive amendments with offshoots…in other words, if unemployment reaches 10% nationally, this bill will go away. If folks are not able to pay their electric and gas bills, to such a degree 10% -- 8 million customers nationwide, this bill will go away. If China and India don’t participate…this bill will go away. So we have a whole slew of amendments like that putting the Democrats on record. What happens if gas prices go back to $5/gallon? This bill will go away. Of course none of our amendments have passed….the Democrats are voting against every single one of them.
“At the end of the day, I will predict that Waxman probably has the votes to probably pass this thing and then the battle goes to the House floor...We need to get all the Blue Dog Democrats to try and defeat this. This would just be a dagger to the nation’s economy. If this bill is adopted so we’re gonna fight it to our very last breath.
“We…may add a nuclear title in here which creates jobs and turns the switch back from red to green on nuclear construction. And I think we can pass it. I’m an optimists, I’m a Cubs fan, I come from West Michigan. We’ll see what happens at the end of the day. The cap and trade stuff just reeks.”
An amendment offered by Rep. John Shimkus, R-Ill., would suspend the cap-and-trade provisions of the bill if it is determined that these provisions have caused the closure of two coal mines. The coal mining industry is a fundamental building block for this Nation's energy supply, its energy security, its economy, and its future. This amendment would protect this keystone industry and the hundreds of thousands of Americans who depend on it for employment and prosperity. For the text of the amendment, click here.
Representative Vote Representative Vote Mr. Waxman NAY Mr. Barton YEA Mr. Dingell NAY Mr. Hall YEA Mr. Markey NAY Mr. Upton YEA Mr. Boucher NAY Mr. Stearns YEA Mr. Pallone NAY Mr. Deal Mr. Gordon NAY Mr. Whitfield YEA Mr. Rush NAY Mr. Shimkus YEA Ms. Eshoo NAY Mr. Shadegg YEA Mr. Stupak NAY Mr. Blunt YEA Mr. Engel Mr. Buyer YEA Mr. Green NAY Mr. Radanovich YEA Ms. DeGette NAY Mr. Pitts YEA Ms. Capps NAY Ms. Bono Mack Mr. Doyle NAY Mr. Walden YEA Ms. Harman NAY Mr. Terry YEA Ms. Schakowsky NAY Mr. Rogers YEA Mr. Gonzalez NAY Ms. Myrick YEA Mr. Inslee NAY Mr. Sullivan YEA Ms. Baldwin NAY Mr. Murphy (PA) YEA Mr. Ross NAY Mr. Burgess YEA Mr. Weiner NAY Ms. Blackburn YEA Mr. Matheson NAY Mr. Gingrey YEA Mr. Butterfield NAY Mr. Scalise YEA Mr. Melancon NAY Mr. Barrow NAY Mr. Hill NAY Ms. Matsui NAY Ms. Christensen NAY Ms. Castor NAY Mr. Sarbanes NAY Mr. Murphy (CT) NAY Mr. Space YEA Mr. McNerney NAY Ms. Sutton NAY Mr. Braley NAY Mr. Welch NAY
Doubled Electric Bills Not Pricey Enough To Spook Democrats
Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich.: ‘These are just message amendments’
Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas: ‘Yes, they send a message to the American people’
An amendment offered by Rep. George Radanovich, R-Calif., would suspend the cap-and-trade provisions of the act if it is determined that they have caused the average residential electricity bill to double with respect to 2009 residential electricity bills. This would provide a crucial release valve to the American people from higher energy prices. For the text of this amendment, click here.
Recorded Vote: 30 Nay, 19 Yea
Representative Vote Representative Vote Mr. Waxman NAY Mr. Barton YEA Mr. Dingell Mr. Hall YEA Mr. Markey NAY Mr. Upton YEA Mr. Boucher NAY Mr. Stearns YEA Mr. Pallone NAY Mr. Deal Mr. Gordon NAY Mr. Whitfield YEA Mr. Rush NAY Mr. Shimkus YEA Ms. Eshoo NAY Mr. Shadegg YEA Mr. Stupak NAY Mr. Blunt YEA Mr. Engel NAY Mr. Buyer YEA Mr. Green NAY Mr. Radanovich YEA Ms. DeGette NAY Mr. Pitts YEA Ms. Capps NAY Ms. Bono Mack YEA Mr. Doyle Mr. Walden YEA Ms. Harman NAY Mr. Terry YEA Ms. Schakowsky NAY Mr. Rogers YEA Mr. Gonzalez NAY Ms. Myrick Mr. Inslee NAY Mr. Sullivan Ms. Baldwin NAY Mr. Murphy (PA) Mr. Ross Mr. Burgess YEA Mr. Weiner NAY Ms. Blackburn YEA Mr. Matheson Mr. Gingrey YEA Mr. Butterfield NAY Mr. Scalise YEA Mr. Melancon Mr. Barrow NAY Mr. Hill Ms. Matsui NAY Ms. Christensen NAY Ms. Castor NAY Mr. Sarbanes NAY Mr. Murphy (CT) NAY Mr. Space NAY Mr. McNerney NAY Ms. Sutton NAY Mr. Braley NAY Mr. Welch NAY
1:18 p.m.
Former Texas Republican Congressman Bill Archer and former Texas Democratic Congressman Charles Stenholm wrote a joint piece today in Politico in opposition to the Waxman-Markey cap and tax energy bill. Check out this excerpt:
American families are now focused on keeping their jobs, recovering the remnants of their retirement plans and making it to their next paycheck. As such, the timing could not be worse for another bite at this bitter apple. Yet some of our former House colleagues are determined to do just that with legislation to impose a cap-and-trade system, which will be voted on in committee this week. While the end goals of the legislation may be well-intentioned, the economic consequences for consumers and workers will be hard to swallow any way they slice it.
Firms and industries that cut their emissions below preset levels ostensibly would be able to “trade” credits to firms or industries that cannot meet their targets. Those that cannot, including many energy-intensive industries, would be forced to purchase them. The cost of these permits would be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices. Others may simply forgo the option by shutting plants or moving production overseas.
As the clock ticks before the final vote, last-minute deals on free credits for carbon-intensive states are being offered in exchange for member votes — a sign that should worry the public. Rightly so, since the vast majority of man-made greenhouse-gas emissions come from the use of fossil fuels, which account for 85 percent of America’s energy generation. This includes the gas in our cars and the electricity that lights our homes, hospitals and schools.
Technology to curb emissions is far from proven but hopeful in many aspects. However, sacrificing economic activity through a de facto tax on energy use is simply not a viable option, especially in view of U.S. population growth estimates and the corresponding rise expected in energy demand. American Council for Capital Formation chief economist. Margo Thorning notes that each 1 percent increase in U.S. gross domestic product is accompanied by a 0.3 percent increase in energy use
Rep. John Shadegg (AZ), member of Energy and Commerce Committee, published a post on the Fox Forum today. Here is the first bit of that post:
"The House Energy and Commerce Committee, on which I sit, is in the middle of a marathon session to debate and amend the Democratic Party’s cap-and-trade proposal.
Cap-and-Trade, simply put, is an enormous tax on American energy designed to reduce the emission of carbon dioxide. If passed, it will cost American families an estimated $4,300 a year and destroy millions of jobs – many of which will be outsourced to countries without a national energy tax. It will raise electricity prices by 90%, gasoline prices by 74% and reduce the Gross Domestic Product by $9.6 trillion.
Yet, according to the Heritage foundation, this huge job-killing tax hike won’t even reduce global temperature by a degree in a century."
Democrats Block Offramp for Struggling Autoworkers
A set of en bloc amendments offered by Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., would suspend the cap-and-trade provisions of the act if these provisions cause job loss in the auto industry, the transportation equipment industry, and the auto parts industry. These industries are vital to the U.S. economy and millions of American households. These amendments would afford them a critical insurance policy against the potentially disastrous side effects of this act. For the text of these amendments, click here.
Recorded Vote: 32 Nay, 22 Yea
Representative Vote Representative Vote Mr. Waxman NAY Mr. Barton YEA Mr. Dingell NAY Mr. Hall YEA Mr. Markey NAY Mr. Upton YEA Mr. Boucher NAY Mr. Stearns YEA Mr. Pallone NAY Mr. Deal Mr. Gordon Mr. Whitfield YEA Mr. Rush NAY Mr. Shimkus YEA Ms. Eshoo NAY Mr. Shadegg YEA Mr. Stupak NAY Mr. Blunt YEA Mr. Engel Mr. Buyer YEA Mr. Green NAY Mr. Radanovich YEA Ms. DeGette NAY Mr. Pitts YEA Ms. Capps NAY Ms. Bono Mack YEA Mr. Doyle NAY Mr. Walden YEA Ms. Harman Mr. Terry YEA Ms. Schakowsky NAY Mr. Rogers YEA Mr. Gonzalez NAY Ms. Myrick YEA Mr. Inslee NAY Mr. Sullivan YEA Ms. Baldwin NAY Mr. Murphy (PA) YEA Mr. Ross NAY Mr. Burgess YEA Mr. Weiner NAY Ms. Blackburn YEA Mr. Matheson NAY Mr. Gingrey YEA Mr. Butterfield NAY Mr. Scalise YEA Mr. Melancon NAY Mr. Barrow NAY Mr. Hill NAY Ms. Matsui NAY Ms. Christensen NAY Ms. Castor NAY Mr. Sarbanes Mr. Murphy (CT) NAY Mr. Space NAY Mr. McNerney NAY Ms. Sutton NAY Mr. Braley NAY Mr. Welch NAY
Dems Turn Down Emissions-Free Energy, Including Hydro
An amendment by Greg Walden, R-Ore., would add language to the bill allowing nuclear energy, biomass, new hydroelectric power, as well as any other comparable low-emission source of energy to qualify for the same provisions provided under this act’s renewable energy standard. If America is to reduce CO2 emissions and increase energy independence, we should encourage all sources of clean, domestic energy. For the text of this amendment, click here.
Recorded Vote: 29 Nay, 26 Yea
Representative Vote Representative Vote Mr. Waxman NAY Mr. Barton YEA Mr. Dingell NAY Mr. Hall YEA Mr. Markey NAY Mr. Upton YEA Mr. Boucher NAY Mr. Stearns YEA Mr. Pallone NAY Mr. Deal YEA Mr. Gordon Mr. Whitfield YEA Mr. Rush NAY Mr. Shimkus YEA Ms. Eshoo NAY Mr. Shadegg YEA Mr. Stupak NAY Mr. Blunt YEA Mr. Engel Mr. Buyer YEA Mr. Green NAY Mr. Radanovich YEA Ms. DeGette NAY Mr. Pitts YEA Ms. Capps NAY Ms. Bono Mack YEA Mr. Doyle NAY Mr. Walden YEA Ms. Harman NAY Mr. Terry YEA Ms. Schakowsky NAY Mr. Rogers YEA Mr. Gonzalez NAY Ms. Myrick YEA Mr. Inslee NAY Mr. Sullivan Ms. Baldwin NAY Mr. Murphy (PA) YEA Mr. Ross YEA Mr. Burgess YEA Mr. Weiner NAY Ms. Blackburn YEA Mr. Matheson NAY Mr. Gingrey YEA Mr. Butterfield NAY Mr. Scalise YEA Mr. Melancon NAY Mr. Barrow YEA Mr. Hill YEA Ms. Matsui NAY Ms. Christensen NAY Ms. Castor NAY Mr. Sarbanes NAY Mr. Murphy (CT) NAY Mr. Space YEA Mr. McNerney NAY Ms. Sutton NAY Mr. Braley NAY Mr. Welch NAY
The Montanans I represent are willing to take reasonable steps to ensure that the world we leave for our children is clean and safe. I’ve also found that the people in our neck of the woods don’t like it when lawmakers play dishonest word games instead of shooting straight.
I’ve warned about the implications of cap and trade for the energy industry and America’s families. Any policy that boasts hundreds of billions in new federal revenue has to get that money from somewhere. Under the cap and trade plan, the average American family is looking at an annual increase in energy costs of $3,100. But for states like Montana, where more than 60% of our electricity comes from coal - it could be even more. That’s why the Montanans I’ve talked to are expressing more concerns about cap and trade every day.
The powerful special interests that support cap and trade were already worried when the public started asking questions. They outright panicked when the Chairman of the House Energy Committee John Dingell – a Democrat – warned that “no one in this country realizes that cap and trade is a tax, and it’s a great big one.” Calling cap and trade for what it was - a tax - wasn’t in their talking points.
After that, the spin-misters went nuts, firing off a flurry of damage control memos. But rather than fixing the flawed policy, they instead decided to change the name. “Cap and trade,” they suggested, should be renamed “cap and cash back” or “cap and invest.” Anything to hide the policy for what it really is – “cap and tax.” Americans, they hope, will be too naïve to recognize a ruse by another name.
Fortunately, most Americans are smart enough to see through the spin. They know bull when they hear it, and when it comes to cap and trade, the bull is being dumped by the truckload.
Watch the Congressman speak on the House Floor on this issue:
President Barack Obama and liberals in Congress support federal regulation of carbon dioxide (CO2). Proponents of CO2 regulation claim that taxing polluters is an effective way to reduce carbon emissions, but the staggering costs of a cap and trade program will stifle our domestic energy and manufacturing sectors and result in major rate increases for consumers. The cap and trade plan should really be called “the light switch tax,” because if this bill becomes law, you will pay a tax every time you flip your light switch.
Representatives Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Edward Markey (D-MA) recently introduced the American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) Act of 2009, which would create a cap and trade program requiring CO2 emissions to be reduced 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 83 percent below 2005 levels by 2050. The bill would set up a cap and trade system that sets a limit (or cap) on total CO2 emissions from fossil fuels and establish a yet to be defined carbon allowance on each utility or company. Details such as cap levels and which companies are subject to allowances are still being finalized by Democrats, but the outcome looks grim for consumers.
Since fossil fuels supply 85% of US energy demand, taxing one of the most vital and productive sectors of our economy will only prolong and deepen the current recession. The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis’ study of the Lieberman–Warner cap and trade bill (a bill rejected by the Senate last year) found that the legislation would result in total GDP losses of nearly $5 trillion and job losses of 400,000 - 800,000 per year. The ACES Act is more restrictive and would cause even greater economic damage. The cost to Texas ratepayers alone could reach $20 billion in added electricity costs, which is an increase of over $600 per year in utility bills, according to a study commissioned by the Electric Reliability Council of Texas.
The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reports that under a cap and trade program, companies would ultimately pass these costs along to their customers in the form of higher rates. CBO notes, “Regardless of how the allowances were distributed, most of the cost of meeting a cap on CO2 emissions would be borne by consumers who would face persistently higher prices for products such as electricity and gasoline.”
The reason for these dramatic cost increases is simple: The technology to comply with the steep renewable requirements in this bill does not exist today. The Waxman-Markey bill requires that 20 percent of electricity production comes from renewable sources (wind, solar, geothermal, etc.) by 2020. Today Americans get less than 10 percent of their electricity from renewable sources and the technological advancements, transmission capability, and commercial availability needed to meet these lofty standards are years, even decades away.
Economists estimate that consumer spending accounts for 70 percent of our economy. While our economy is struggling to recover from recession, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on American consumers, which is why I am a co-sponsor of the American Energy Innovation Act. This fiscally responsible approach encourages innovation by investing in renewable energy technology, promotes conservation by providing incentives for reducing energy demand, and increases production of American energy by utilizing available resources and streamlining burdensome regulations. These steps will make America energy self-sufficient and improve our environment in the process.
Will EPA or Congress Call the Shots on CO2? Democrats Vote to Trust Enviro-Bureaucrats
U.S. Rep. Joe Barton: ‘Do you want the EPA second-guessing you?’ Answer: Yes, thanks!
An amendment offered by Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., would establish that carbon dioxide, water vapor, and other greenhouse gases are not air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. This amendment will prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from imposing intrusive regulations into all aspects of American’s lives. For a copy of this amendment, click here.
Recorded Vote: 33 Nay, 23 Yea
Representative Vote Representative Vote Mr. Waxman NAY Mr. Barton YEA Mr. Dingell NAY Mr. Hall YEA Mr. Markey NAY Mr. Upton YEA Mr. Boucher NAY Mr. Stearns YEA Mr. Pallone NAY Mr. Deal YEA Mr. Gordon Mr. Whitfield YEA Mr. Rush NAY Mr. Shimkus YEA Ms. Eshoo NAY Mr. Shadegg YEA Mr. Stupak NAY Mr. Blunt YEA Mr. Engel NAY Mr. Buyer YEA Mr. Green NAY Mr. Radanovich YEA Ms. DeGette NAY Mr. Pitts YEA Ms. Capps NAY Ms. Bono Mack YEA Mr. Doyle NAY Mr. Walden YEA Ms. Harman NAY Mr. Terry YEA Ms. Schakowsky NAY Mr. Rogers YEA Mr. Gonzalez NAY Ms. Myrick Mr. Inslee NAY Mr. Sullivan YEA Ms. Baldwin NAY Mr. Murphy (PA) YEA Mr. Ross NAY Mr. Burgess YEA Mr. Weiner NAY Ms. Blackburn YEA Mr. Matheson NAY Mr. Gingrey YEA Mr. Butterfield NAY Mr. Scalise YEA Mr. Melancon NAY Mr. Barrow YEA Mr. Hill NAY Ms. Matsui NAY Ms. Christensen NAY Ms. Castor NAY Mr. Sarbanes NAY Mr. Murphy (CT) NAY Mr. Space NAY Mr. McNerney NAY Ms. Sutton NAY Mr. Braley Mr. Welch NAY
9:39 a.m.
From the House Republican Energy and Commerce Committee:
Carbon Credit Derivatives Aren’t: The New Credit Default Swaps. No, Really.
‘Lessons learned;’ Dems Say New See-No-Evil Policy Won’t Repeat Old Scams with New Recessions
An Amendment offered by U.S. Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Texas, would ban the trading of carbon credit based derivatives, protecting the American economy and its financial assets from exposure to a potentially volatile and obscure new market, as well as the accompanying systemic risk. For the text of this amendment, click here <http://Republicans.EnergyCommerce.house.gov/Media/file/Markups/Energy/ACES0509/BurgessCarbonDerivatives.pdf> .
“Tonight we had the opportunity to prevent the next Enron from happening,” Burgess said. “Unfortunately committee Democrats don’t believe in preventing the same type of damage inflicted on our housing and financial markets from also being inflicted on the newly created carbon credit market.”
Recorded Vote: 35 Nay, 22 Yea
Representative Vote Representative Vote Mr. Waxman NAY Mr. Barton YEA Mr. Dingell NAY Mr. Hall YEA Mr. Markey NAY Mr. Upton YEA Mr. Boucher NAY Mr. Stearns YEA Mr. Pallone NAY Mr. Deal YEA Mr. Gordon NAY Mr. Whitfield YEA Mr. Rush NAY Mr. Shimkus YEA Ms. Eshoo NAY Mr. Shadegg YEA Mr. Stupak NAY Mr. Blunt YEA Mr. Engel NAY Mr. Buyer YEA Mr. Green NAY Mr. Radanovich YEA Ms. DeGette NAY Mr. Pitts YEA Ms. Capps NAY Ms. Bono Mack YEA Mr. Doyle NAY Mr. Walden YEA Ms. Harman NAY Mr. Terry YEA Ms. Schakowsky NAY Mr. Rogers YEA Mr. Gonzalez NAY Ms. Myrick Mr. Inslee NAY Mr. Sullivan YEA Ms. Baldwin NAY Mr. Murphy (PA) YEA Mr. Ross NAY Mr. Burgess YEA Mr. Weiner NAY Ms. Blackburn YEA Mr. Matheson NAY Mr. Gingrey YEA Mr. Butterfield NAY Mr. Scalise YEA Mr. Melancon NAY Mr. Barrow NAY Mr. Hill NAY Ms. Matsui NAY Ms. Christensen NAY Ms. Castor NAY Mr. Sarbanes NAY Mr. Murphy (CT) NAY Mr. Space NAY Mr. McNerney NAY Ms. Sutton NAY Mr. Braley Mr. Welch NAY
The cap-and-trade global warming tax is designed to slam American companies for carbon emissions...but who pays for the increased cost of doing business? You, the American taxpayer, do. Therefore this is a tax you will pay, and you will pay it with electric bills that are, on average, more than 40% higher.
The Energy and Commerce Committee continues the mark-up process now. You can watch the process live on CSPAN.org.
Read more from Ellis and other conservative bloggers at Red County.com.
8:05 p.m.
Rep. John Shadegg (AZ), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, posted a blog on RedState.com today. In it, he writes of the Waxman-Markey bill's high cost and the Democrats' new amendment "to essentially require every new and existing home sold in America to be inspected and labeled as to its energy efficiency."
Here is an excerpt of the post:
For the past two days, the Energy and Commerce Committee has been marking up the Waxman-Markey “Cap-and-Trade” bill. It will impose a huge, new cost on all energy (estimated at $4,300 per family each year) and destroy millions of American jobs.
While the price of everything will go up, the effect on electricity prices will be particularly dramatic. Last night, Republicans put forward a straightforward amendment to require that utility bills indicate the increased cost of electricity that will result from this legislation. The Democrat majority on the Committee rejected this commonsense measure. That’s right: they actually voted against disclosing these costs to consumers on their utility bills!
U.S. Rep. Lee Terry, R-Neb.: Mr. Weiner, how much of this bill was written by the National Resources Defense Council?
U.S. Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y.: (silence)
Three amendments offered en bloc by Rep. George Radanovich R-Calif., would prevent the federal government from imposing regulations on portable electric spas, hot food cabinets and water dispensers. Restricting the production of these goods will damage more than just these industries. These regulations will hinder consumer choice, raise prices and expand federal government regulation into more aspects of daily life. For text of these amendment, click here.
Recorded Vote: 34 Nay, 22 Yea
Representative Vote Representative Vote
Mr. Waxman NAY Mr. Barton YEA Mr. Dingell NAY Mr. Hall YEA Mr. Markey NAY Mr. Upton YEA Mr. Boucher NAY Mr. Stearns YEA Mr. Pallone NAY Mr. Deal YEA Mr. Gordon Mr. Whitfield YEA Mr. Rush NAY Mr. Shimkus YEA Ms. Eshoo NAY Mr. Shadegg YEA Mr. Stupak NAY Mr. Blunt YEA Mr. Engel NAY Mr. Buyer YEA Mr. Green NAY Mr. Radanovich YEA Ms. DeGette NAY Mr. Pitts YEA Ms. Capps NAY Ms. Bono Mack YEA Mr. Doyle NAY Mr. Walden YEA Ms. Harman NAY Mr. Terry YEA Ms. Schakowsky NAY Mr. Rogers YEA Mr. Gonzalez NAY Ms. Myrick Mr. Inslee NAY Mr. Sullivan YEA Ms. Baldwin NAY Mr. Murphy (PA) YEA Mr. Ross NAY Mr. Burgess YEA Mr. Weiner NAY Ms. Blackburn YEA Mr. Matheson NAY Mr. Gingrey YEA Mr. Butterfield NAY Mr. Scalise YEA Mr. Melancon NAY Mr. Barrow NAY Mr. Hill NAY Ms. Matsui NAY Ms. Christensen NAY Ms. Castor NAY Mr. Sarbanes NAY Mr. Murphy (CT) NAY Mr. Space NAY Mr. McNerney NAY Ms. Sutton NAY Mr. Braley Mr. Welch NAY
U.S. Rep. Lee Terry, R-Neb.: Mr. Weiner, how much of this bill was written by the National Resources Defense Council? And who was in the room?
U.S. Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y.:
Rep. Terry: Seeing that you won’t answer, I’ll yield to Mr. Buyer.
5:11 p.m.
From the House Republican Energy and Commerce Committee:
Recession Not Doing the Job? Home Still WorthToo Much? Democrats Vote to Help
'And restoring value by rebuilding to government energy codes ‘may not even cost all that much’ – Chairman Waxman
An amendment offered by Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., would strike from the act section 204, which requires the EPA to create a tiered rating scheme to partition residential and commercial buildings into different categories based on their energy efficiency. Forcing all homes to conform to a set of arbitrary efficiency labels fails to reflect the unique nature of the housing market, and could raise volatility in an already unstable sector of this economy. This amendment will prevent these onerous regulations and protect Americans’ home equity. For the text of this amendment, click here.
Recorded Vote: 29 Nay, 27 Yea
Representative Vote Representative Vote Mr. Waxman NAY Mr. Barton YEA Mr. Dingell NAY Mr. Hall YEA Mr. Markey NAY Mr. Upton YEA Mr. Boucher NAY Mr. Stearns YEA Mr. Pallone NAY Mr. Deal YEA Mr. Gordon NAY Mr. Whitfield YEA Mr. Rush NAY Mr. Shimkus YEA Ms. Eshoo NAY Mr. Shadegg YEA Mr. Stupak NAY Mr. Blunt Mr. Engel NAY Mr. Buyer YEA Mr. Green NAY Mr. Radanovich YEA Ms. DeGette NAY Mr. Pitts YEA Ms. Capps NAY Ms. Bono Mack YEA Mr. Doyle NAY Mr. Walden YEA Ms. Harman NAY Mr. Terry YEA Ms. Schakowsky NAY Mr. Rogers YEA Mr. Gonzalez NAY Ms. Myrick YEA Mr. Inslee NAY Mr. Sullivan YEA Ms. Baldwin NAY Mr. Murphy (PA) YEA Mr. Ross YEA Mr. Burgess YEA Mr. Weiner NAY Ms. Blackburn YEA Mr. Matheson NAY Mr. Gingrey YEA Mr. Butterfield NAY Mr. Scalise YEA Mr. Melancon YEA Mr. Barrow YEA Mr. Hill NAY Ms. Matsui NAY Ms. Christensen NAY Ms. Castor NAY Mr. Sarbanes NAY Mr. Murphy (CT) NAY Mr. Space PASS Mr. McNerney YEA Ms. Sutton NAY Mr. Braley Mr. Welch
4:59 p.m.
From the office of Rep. Greg Walden:
Walden bid to strength biomass opportunities defeated by committee Democrats; Oregon job-killing language remains in controversial bill.
BIOMASS UPDATE: Rep. Walden introduced the first of 20 of his amendments to substantially improve the rushed bill yesterday to allow biomass from federal lands to count as a renewable fuel and receive the same incentives from the federal government as wind, solar, and other renewables. The bill as written excludes biomass from “mature” federal forest land, which includes most federal forests in Oregon.
Without Walden’s amendment, the bill would deal a devastating blow to the biomass industry in Oregon, which offers the potential for new jobs in the forest and the reduction of catastrophic wildfire and the subsequent release of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. The Walden amendment closely mirrors bipartisan legislation introduced by Walden and Democratic Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin on Feb. 25, 2009 (H.R. 1190).
Rep. Walden’s amendment was voted down 26-32, mostly along party lines.
Reason’s Ron Bailey says supporters of the Waxman-Markey energy bill need to “stop pretending cap and trade will cost nothing and create tons of jobs.”
In his piece today, “Cap and Trade Delusions,” Bailey gets straight to the point, writing, “mandates cost money.”
He echoes many of the concerns Republicans have spoken aloud during debates on the bill. Bailely writes:
"Once again, all other things being equal, higher costs mean that the energy industry will raise the prices of its goods and services. Which means that consumers will buy less, thus leaving the industry with less to spend on producing goods and services or to pay its workers. Will there be more people specifically employed making and installing higher-cost, government subsidized wind turbines, photovoltaic arrays, batteries for plug-in hybrid automobiles, and weatherized houses? Sure. But on net, there will fewer new jobs thanks to rising low-carbon energy costs."
Bailey doesn’t dismiss the possibility of man made climate change, but urges in support of the bill not to lie to themselves or to the public about the costs and benefits.
As with much of the Democrat legislation this year, the Waxman-Markey bill is packed with lobbyist friendly possibilities – namely, power companies.
Carney writes:
Considering the anti-business and pro-environment rhetoric of ruling Democrats, you might expect all businesses would have to pay for all emissions. But the rule of thumb in Washington—at least as true in Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi’s Washington as it was in George W. Bush and Tom DeLay’s Washington—is that no important bill passes unless a well-connected special interest benefits from it. Following the rule, climate change legislation is starting to look like the stimulus bill: a buffet of handouts.
He leaves skeptics with an warming:
Anyone believing these greenhouse gas restrictions are about stopping the oceans’ rise should watch closely the lobbying on this climate change bill, and you’ll see that it’s more about enriching the companies with the best political connections.
3:47 p.m.
From the House Republican Energy and Commerce Committee:
Future Home-Building in Trouble: Dems Keep Implausible Building Code Mandates
An amendment by Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La., would eliminate implausible new building code mandates for residential and commercial buildings that would violate the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. These new codes would also put up a roadblock to growth in the housing and construction industries at a time when America needs those very jobs. A vote for this amendment helps ensure that affordable quality housing is a part of this nation’s future. For the text of this amendment, click here.
Recorded Vote: 31 Nay, 20 Yea
Representative Vote Representative Vote Mr. Waxman NAY Mr. Barton YEA Mr. Dingell NAY Mr. Hall Mr. Markey NAY Mr. Upton YEA Mr. Boucher Mr. Stearns YEA Mr. Pallone NAY Mr. Deal YEA Mr. Gordon NAY Mr. Whitfield YEA Mr. Rush NAY Mr. Shimkus YEA Ms. Eshoo NAY Mr. Shadegg YEA Mr. Stupak NAY Mr. Blunt YEA Mr. Engel Mr. Buyer YEA Mr. Green NAY Mr. Radanovich YEA Ms. DeGette NAY Mr. Pitts YEA Ms. Capps NAY Ms. Bono Mack YEA Mr. Doyle NAY Mr. Walden YEA Ms. Harman NAY Mr. Terry YEA Ms. Schakowsky NAY Mr. Rogers YEA Mr. Gonzalez NAY Ms. Myrick YEA Mr. Inslee NAY Mr. Sullivan Ms. Baldwin NAY Mr. Murphy (PA) Mr. Ross NAY Mr. Burgess YEA Mr. Weiner NAY Ms. Blackburn YEA Mr. Matheson NAY Mr. Gingrey YEA Mr. Butterfield NAY Mr. Scalise YEA Mr. Melancon Mr. Barrow NAY Mr. Hill NAY Ms. Matsui NAY Ms. Christensen NAY Ms. Castor NAY Mr. Sarbanes NAY Mr. Murphy (CT) NAY Mr. Space NAY Mr. McNerney NAY Ms. Sutton NAY Mr. Braley Mr. Welch
2:10 p.m.
How fast to do Democrats want to cram the cap and tax bill through Congress? Fast enough for them to hire a speed reader to get the job done. The Wall Street Journal’s Ian Talley reports that a man was hired to help staffers get through the bill. According the article, the speed reader — who goes unnamed — said he can read a page every 34 seconds. At that rate, it would take about 9 hours to read through the entire 946-page bill.
Yesterday was the first day of the energy mark up and it lasted late into the night, with Republican amendments getting rejected over and over again. Though Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman wants to push the bill through by Memorial Day, many don’t think it is possible in that amount of time.
"He's dreaming. It ain't going to happen," said Texas Rep. Joe Barton, the panel's ranking Republican. He added that Republicans "have 400 amendments that we could offer, but there are at least 75-80 that we almost have to offer."
The Washington Examiner’s editorial on Monday wrote how of detrimental the cap and tax bill will be to the American economy.
The editorial reads: “These emissions must be reduced because they are allegedly causing the earth’s atmosphere to heat up, with all sorts of lethal consequences following, not excluding death, destruction and the Final Apocalypse of All Mankind.”
But guess what? The Examiner points out that the earth’s temperature has been decline for years and lots of scientists are skeptical about the “global warming crisis.”
Following the editorial’s analysis, the writers note the outcome of Waxman Markey by 2035:
§ Reduce aggregate gross domestic product (GDP) by $7.4 trillion, § Destroy 844,000 jobs on average, with peak years seeing unemployment rise by over 1,900,000 jobs, § Raise electricity rates 90 percent after adjusting for inflation, § Raise inflation-adjusted gasoline prices by 74 percent, § Raise residential natural gas prices by 55 percent, § Raise an average family's annual energy bill by $1,500, and § Increase inflation-adjusted federal debt by 29 percent, or $33,400 additional federal debt per person, again after adjusting for inflation.
An amendment offered by U.S. Rep. Cliff Stearns, Fla., would afford to existing nuclear power plants the same benefits provided to new nuclear power plants under this bill. Under the Waxman-Markey global warming bill, new nuclear plants would be given partial credit as renewable energy but current plants would not. Nuclear energy plants, whether they are already operating or constructed years from now, all provide the dual benefit of reducing national carbon emissions while promoting energy independence. This amendment recognizes that. For the text of this amendment, click here.
Recorded Vote: 30 Nay, 26 Yea
Representative Vote Representative Vote Mr. Waxman NAY Mr. Barton NAY Mr. Dingell NAY Mr. Hall YEA Mr. Markey NAY Mr. Upton YEA Mr. Boucher NAY Mr. Stearns YEA Mr. Pallone NAY Mr. Deal YEA Mr. Gordon NAY Mr. Whitfield YEA Mr. Rush Mr. Shimkus YEA Ms. Eshoo NAY Mr. Shadegg YEA Mr. Stupak NAY Mr. Blunt Mr. Engel NAY Mr. Buyer YEA Mr. Green NAY Mr. Radanovich YEA Ms. DeGette NAY Mr. Pitts YEA Ms. Capps NAY Ms. Bono Mack YEA Mr. Doyle NAY Mr. Walden YEA Ms. Harman NAY Mr. Terry YEA Ms. Schakowsky NAY Mr. Rogers YEA Mr. Gonzalez NAY Ms. Myrick YEA Mr. Inslee NAY Mr. Sullivan YEA Ms. Baldwin NAY Mr. Murphy (PA) YEA Mr. Ross YEA Mr. Burgess YEA Mr. Weiner NAY Ms. Blackburn YEA Mr. Matheson YEA Mr. Gingrey YEA Mr. Butterfield NAY Mr. Scalise YEA Mr. Melancon YEA Mr. Barrow YEA Mr. Hill YEA Ms. Matsui NAY Ms. Christensen NAY Ms. Castor NAY Mr. Sarbanes NAY Mr. Murphy (CT) NAY Mr. Space NAY Mr. McNerney NAY Ms. Sutton NAY Mr. Braley Mr. Welch NAY
1:04 p.m.
The Foundry’s Conn Carroll writes today of Congress’ last major passage of energy legislation in 2005. He notes a “minor provision” that is relevant today in the Waxman-Markey energy bill. Carroll writes:
"In order to win enough votes to pass cap and trade, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) has given the corporate members of the United States Climate Action Partnership (which includes both private and government-controlled firms like General Electric, Duke energy, Chrysler, and General Motors) a front-row seat in writing the legislation. The motives of these major corporations are simple: if they cooperate with big government in drafting the legislation, they can cut deals to protect their bottom line. If they don’t play ball, then big government will just tilt the regulatory scheme in their competitors favor."
Many reports, including this blog post, note the heavy influence of lobbyists as this bill moves forward. Carroll pegs a New York Times report that says the cap and trade bill is “perfectly designed for the buying and selling of political support.”
House Republican Chairman Mike Pence wrote a piece opposing the cap and trade energy bill for the Fort Wayne News-Sentinel. Here is an excerpt:
"As we approach the summer season, we are reminded of the high energy costs that we endured just a year ago. It was a difficult time for many, as travel plans were shelved and budgets had to be cut in the face of historic gas prices. Since that time, another crisis has gripped our country. Our economy is in a deep recession, and we have witnessed the unemployment rate in Indiana rise above an appalling 10 percent.
The working families, small businesses and family farms of Indiana are displaying tremendous grit and gumption as they strain to overcome these formidable challenges. Yet at a time when our economy is in such a critical condition, some in Washington have decided that now is an opportune moment to impose an energy plan that would drastically raise energy costs for every consumer and taxpayer. Many on Capitol Hill — myself included — disagree.
Under the guise of providing a solution to global warming, the so-called cap-and-trade bill would increase taxes on every Hoosier who uses any form of energy — from flipping a light switch to plugging in an appliance — and would have a devastating impact on an already ailing Indiana economy. According to the Energy Information Administration, Indiana would be one of the hardest-hit states in the nation because 94 percent of our energy comes from fossil fuels, coal in particular."
Congressman Michael C. Burgess, M.D. (R-Texas), a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, released the following statement yesterday, as the Committee began to mark up HR 2454, the Democrats’ cap and trade bill:
“This bill – in its current form, in its draft form, or in any form – may do more harm to our economy than any bill that will come before Congress this year, and perhaps any other bill in my lifetime. That is because the proposal to cap carbon and trade carbon credits hurts American economic growth without providing enough benefits for the expense.
“For one, this policy will increase overhead costs, which would be devastating for business. It will increase energy prices for every single American household by hundreds, maybe thousands, of dollars. In essence, it is an energy tax that will be imposed on every single American consumer. Give me one good reason why this is a good idea, given our current economic circumstances.
“I would be remiss if I did not mention the blatant disregard for regular procedure by the Majority. The behind-closed-door nature of this bill's negotiations, the last minute introduction, and the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute, unveiled just Monday morning, leads me to believe ‘thoughtful’ and ‘beneficial’ are two words that cannot be used to characterize this bill. If it were indeed thoughtful and beneficial, why hide it?
“Furthermore, based upon the short amount of time I've had to scrub this bill, I'm concerned that we may see negotiated protections for afflicted industries and a failure to adequately protect American consumers. That's the one group we should care to protect the most with federal legislation – the American people.
“Americans want to become more energy independent in order to improve national security. However, our national security is most threatened when we ignore the strength of our economy in exchange for non-measurable and non-attainable mandates like the ones proposed in the Democrats’ cap and trade legislation.
“As a nation, we are walking a very serious and fine economic line. We need thoughtful cost-benefit analysis on every bill before Congress, and that is clearly lacking in this legislation.”
12:08 p.m.
National Review’s Jim Manzi breaks down the Waxman-Markey Energy bill on the Corner today. He begins by wondering who those who support the bill haven’t yet produced a cost-benefit analysis to woo more supporters.
Manzi’s post includes a background analysis, cost-benefit analysis and potential objections to his analysis. He notes a more detailed piece on this issue will appear in the next issue of National Review but this quick version will be helpful for interested parties now.
Simply put: “The expected benefits of emissions mitigation do not cover its expected costs. This is the root reason that proposals to mitigate emissions have such a hard time justifying themselves economically.“
… why haven’t advocates and sponsors of the proposal done their own? Why are they urging Congress to make an incredible commitment of resources without even cursory analysis of the net economic consequences? The answer should be obvious: This is a terrible deal for American taxpayers.”
Land Line, a business magazine for professional truckers, published a piece yesterday about the energy bill. It seems the Democrats on the Energy and Commerce Committee have not considered the wide range of Americans their high priced bill will affect.
The article criticizes the major power grab the hill would lend to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and worries that high way users – like their readers – will be held responsible to pay for “green” initiatives like bike paths and mass transit programs.
“If highway users’ and truckers’ resources are being spent to promote bicycling, walking and public transportation, and those sectors aren’t paying into the system, we’re going to be hard-pressed to play in that sandbox,” said Mike Joyce, Director of Legislative Affairs for the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA).
“If we bury our heads in the sand and think that transit and bicycles are going to move people and goods around this country, we’re ignorant.”
OOIDA and a few other high way association groups drafted a letter to Chairman Henry Waxman, also sending a copy to Rep. James Oberstar (D-MI), who resides on the House Transportation an Infrastructure Committee.
Here’s an excerpt:
Because it would be easier for some companies to meet or beat their pollution limit, the cap-and-trade system would allow them to sell their extra permits or credits to companies that pollute more than their allotted amount.
The Waxman-Markey bill, as introduced, is also calling on the EPA to develop a new policy on heavy-duty truck emissions by the end of 2010. That means changes are coming, Joyce said.
“Sometimes new standards for heavy duty trucks can be good for our members who buy used equipment, but recently new standards and new engines tend to be more costly and less helpful as the industry is forced to comply,” Joyce said.
The National Center for Public Policy research is opposed to the Waxman-Markey cap and tax bill. Their latest press release claims that the bill is “economic suicide for taxpayers and businesses.”
Majority leaders of the Energy and Commerce Committee hope ot to pass the bill by Memorial Day. If this happens, American families will incur nearly $3,100 in taxes per year to pay for the costly legislation. Not only that, millions of jobs will be lost as a result of the bill.
In their release, the NCPP lists for reasons wby why they oppose the bill:
* The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis determined that Waxman-Markey would reduce aggregate GDP by $7.4 trillion, kill 844,00 jobs and raise the energy bill paid by a typical family by about $1,500 annually.
* A study by the National Association of Manufacturers projected that emissions caps, similar to those previously rejected by the U.S. Senate calling for a 63% cut in emissions by 2050, would reduce GDP by up to $269 billion and cost 850,000 jobs.
* A study conducted by researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology determined the restrictions could raise gasoline prices by 29%, electricity prices by 55% and natural gas prices by 15% by 2015.
They report a 2007 report by the Congressional Budget Office examining the costs of cutting carbon emissions just 15% noted that customers "would face persistently higher prices for products such as electricity and gasoline. Those price increases would be regressive in that poorer households would bear a larger burden relative to their income than wealthier households would."
They also warn that lobbyists are heavily invested in the bill, something that has not been highlighted effectively. The release points readers toward an exchange between Tom Borelli, Ph.D., director of the Free Enterprise Project with the NCPP and ConocoPhillips Chairman James Mulva. According to the release, Mulva said he wanted to be a part of the decision making process.
The mark up of the Waxman-Markey Energy bill has begun for the day. We will be posting shortly to update you with anaylsis, votes and statements. Stay tuned.
10:40 p.m.
From the House Republican Energy and Commerce Committee:
Democrats Reject Cap on Job Losses: 15% Unemployment Not Enough to Suspend Global Warming Bill
An amendment offered by Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., would require the EPA administrator every year to prepare and certify a report to Congress on the national unemployment rate for the past year. If the unemployment rate reaches 15 percent or higher as a result of the act, the act would be suspended to protect jobs. For the text of this amendment, click here. Recorded Vote: 34 Nay, 21 Yea
Representative Vote Representative Vote Mr. Waxman NAY Mr. Barton YEA Mr. Dingell NAY Mr. Hall YEA Mr. Markey NAY Mr. Upton YEA Mr. Boucher NAY Mr. Stearns Mr. Pallone NAY Mr. Deal YEA Mr. Gordon NAY Mr. Whitfield YEA Mr. Rush NAY Mr. Shimkus YEA Ms. Eshoo NAY Mr. Shadegg YEA Mr. Stupak NAY Mr. Blunt YEA Mr. Engel NAY Mr. Buyer YEA Mr. Green Mr. Radanovich Ms. DeGette NAY Mr. Pitts YEA Ms. Capps NAY Ms. Bono Mack YEA Mr. Doyle NAY Mr. Walden YEA Ms. Harman NAY Mr. Terry YEA Ms. Schakowsky NAY Mr. Rogers YEA Mr. Gonzalez NAY Ms. Myrick YEA Mr. Inslee NAY Mr. Sullivan YEA Ms. Baldwin NAY Mr. Murphy (PA) Mr. Ross NAY Mr. Burgess YEA Mr. Weiner NAY Ms. Blackburn YEA Mr. Matheson NAY Mr. Gingrey YEA Mr. Butterfield NAY Mr. Scalise YEA Mr. Melancon NAY Mr. Barrow YEA Mr. Hill NAY Ms. Matsui NAY Ms. Christensen NAY Ms. Castor NAY Mr. Sarbanes NAY Mr. Murphy (CT) NAY Mr. Space NAY Mr. McNerney NAY Ms. Sutton NAY Mr. Braley NAY Mr. Welch NAY
Congressman Fred Upton (R-MI), ranking Republican of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, today sought to cap U.S. unemployment at 15 percent with an amendment he offered to H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) of 2009. Upton’s amendment was defeated by a vote of 34 to 21 – the vote was along party lines with Republicans voting in support of Upton’s amendment and Democrats voting against it. The only exception was Rep. John Barrow (D-GA) who joined committee Republicans in support.
Upton said:
"We had a unique opportunity to cap our nation’s unemployment at 15%, a veritable ‘get out of jail free card’ should the widespread, dire predictions of job losses associated with cap-and-tax are indeed realized,” said Upton. “Despite widespread agreement that cap-and-tax is a job killer, we inexplicably continue to pursue legislation with our nation’s unemployment rate hovering just below 9 percent, Michigan’s at 12.6 percent and growing, predicted to hit as high as 20 percent – that’s potentially 1 in 5 out of a job in Michigan. When do we say enough is enough? This common sense amendment would have safeguarded America’s working families from economic disaster.”
A recent analysis released by the Heritage Foundation of the economic impact of the Waxman/Markey climate bill projects that by 2035 the bill would destroy 1,105,000 jobs per year on average, with peak years seeing unemployment rise by over 2,479,000 jobs.
Upton is not alone in his concerns. According to Upton’s former Energy and Committee colleague, Sherrod Brown, now a Democratic Senator from Ohio, “It really does say to manufacturing, ‘Go to China, where they have weaker environmental standards. And that’s a very bad message in bad economic times — in any economic times.” (The Hill, “Not all Senators warming to Obama cap-and-trade emissions proposal,” posted March 4, 2009, at thehill.com)
9:11 p.m.
Another vote from the Energy and Commerce Committee:
An amendment offered by Rep. Lee Terry (NE) would require annual EPA certification of the average retail price of gasoline. If the price exceeds $5 per gallon, as a result of the act, the act would cease to be effective. This would ensure consumers will not be subjected to exorbitant gasoline prices. Recorded Vote: 31 Nay, 24 Yea Representative Vote Representative Vote Mr. Waxman NAY Mr. Barton YEA Mr. Dingell NAY Mr. Hall YEA Mr. Markey NAY Mr. Upton YEA Mr. Boucher NAY Mr. Stearns YEA Mr. Pallone NAY Mr. Deal YEA Mr. Gordon NAY Mr. Whitfield YEA Mr. Rush NAY Mr. Shimkus YEA Ms. Eshoo NAY Mr. Shadegg YEA Mr. Stupak NAY Mr. Blunt Mr. Engel Mr. Buyer YEA Mr. Green NAY Mr. Radanovich Ms. DeGette NAY Mr. Pitts YEA Ms. Capps NAY Ms. Bono Mack YEA Mr. Doyle NAY Mr. Walden YEA Ms. Harman NAY Mr. Terry YEA Ms. Schakowsky NAY Mr. Rogers YEA Mr. Gonzalez NAY Ms. Myrick YEA Mr. Inslee NAY Mr. Sullivan Ms. Baldwin NAY Mr. Murphy (PA) YEA Mr. Ross YEA Mr. Burgess YEA Mr. Weiner NAY Ms. Blackburn YEA Mr. Matheson NAY Mr. Gingrey YEA Mr. Butterfield NAY Mr. Scalise YEA Mr. Melancon YEA Mr. Barrow YEA Mr. Hill NAY Ms. Matsui NAY Ms. Christensen NAY Ms. Castor NAY Mr. Sarbanes NAY Mr. Murphy (CT) NAY Mr. Space YEA Mr. McNerney NAY Ms. Sutton NAY Mr. Braley NAY Mr. Welch NAY
9:08 p.m.
The House Republican Energy and Commerce Committee has been documenting "Scenes from a Markup." In the latest installment, they feature this exchange:
Q. How Much Will This Bill Cost My People Back Home?
A. That's Between Them and the Electric Company.
Here's the exchange:
U.S. Rep. Mike Burgess (TX): Can you tell me what the direct effect on a ratepayer in Texas would be?
Democratic Staff Counsel: No, I can’t tell you what the direct effect on ratepayers in Texas would be. It would be up to the local distribution company…
From the House Republican Energy and Commerce Committee:
An amendment offered by Rep. Roy Blunt (MO)., would require the EPA, in consultation with the Department of Energy, to certify annually the average retail price of residential electricity. If the price increases more than 10 percent above 2009 rates, adjusted for inflation, the act would cease to be effective. This would ensure consumers will not be subjected to exorbitant electricity prices. For the text of this amendment, click here. Recorded Vote: 32 Nay, 23 Yea
Representative Vote Representative Vote Mr. Waxman NAY Mr. Barton YEA Mr. Dingell Mr. Hall YEA Mr. Markey NAY Mr. Upton YEA Mr. Boucher NAY Mr. Stearns YEA Mr. Pallone Mr. Deal YEA Mr. Gordon Mr. Whitfield YEA Mr. Rush NAY Mr. Shimkus YEA Ms. Eshoo NAY Mr. Shadegg YEA Mr. Stupak NAY Mr. Blunt YEA Mr. Engel NAY Mr. Buyer YEA Mr. Green NAY Mr. Radanovich YEA Ms. DeGette NAY Mr. Pitts YEA Ms. Capps NAY Ms. Bono Mack Mr. Doyle NAY Mr. Walden YEA Ms. Harman NAY Mr. Terry YEA Ms. Schakowsky NAY Mr. Rogers YEA Mr. Gonzalez NAY Ms. Myrick YEA Mr. Inslee NAY Mr. Sullivan YEA Ms. Baldwin NAY Mr. Murphy (PA) YEA Mr. Ross NAY Mr. Burgess YEA Mr. Weiner NAY Ms. Blackburn YEA Mr. Matheson NAY Mr. Gingrey YEA Mr. Butterfield NAY Mr. Scalise YEA Mr. Melancon NAY Mr. Barrow NAY Mr. Hill NAY Ms. Matsui NAY Ms. Christensen NAY Ms. Castor NAY Mr. Sarbanes NAY Mr. Murphy (CT) NAY Mr. Space YEA Mr. McNerney NAY Ms. Sutton NAY Mr. Braley NAY Mr. Welch NAY
8:00 p.m.
Rep. Joe Pitts (PA) released a statement on the bill as well. See his remarks here:
"Today begins the mark-up of perhaps the most important energy bill this committee has ever considered.
Mr. Chairman, like all of us, I believe we should work to decrease the amount of greenhouse gas emissions in our atmosphere, and we should be good stewards of this earth and its resources.
However, I do not believe this bill, the text of which we received Friday afternoon, will accomplish a dramatic decrease in greenhouse gas emissions. Yet, I believe it will have a crippling effect on our economy for years to come.
Before discussing the provisions in this bill, I would like to take a moment to talk about the legislative procedure regarding this bill.
While we’ve had some text of the discussion draft for over a month now, we did not see the actual text of this bill until Friday afternoon at 3pm—932 pages of text, I might add.
A mere three days later, we’re supposed to amend it. We have no score from CBO yet; the Congressional Research Service has not had time to analyze it; and I would venture to say that only a handful of Members and their staffs have actually read the bill in its entirety.
It is my understanding that Ranking Member Barton asked for additional hearings once we had the entire bill so that we can fully discuss and debate what is actually in this bill, and his request has been denied.
I do not believe this process has been transparent, “so that the American people can know exactly what decisions are being made, and how they're being made” as President Obama promised.
Regarding the provisions in this bill, it will still irreparably damage our economy, despite the new provisions that are supposed to protect the consumer.
No matter how it’s doctored or tailored, it is a tax. It’s a national energy tax that will hurt each and every household. It will destroy sectors of our economy and cause job losses at an unprecedented rate.
We should be protecting our environment through innovation, through encouragement, through entrepreneurship and cooperation. But this bill tries to cut carbon emissions through punishment, taxation, and the heavy hand of big government and litigation.
We should be creating jobs by encouraging entrepreneurship, competition, and new technologies. Instead, this bill is going to cost countless working men and women their jobs—and then try to take care of them by putting them on the public dole. That is wrong. The bill, as previously drafted, and analyzed a couple of weeks ago by the Public Utility Commission in Pennsylvania would cost 66,000 jobs in Pennsylvania alone by 2020.
I urge my colleagues to consider just how irresponsible it is to move legislation that will cost so many jobs, and do so much damage to our economy just as we are struggling to come out of one of the worst recessions in recent memory. The American people can see this. They’re going to notice, and they’re going to be angry.
In addition, if this bill passes, the federal government will massively assert its power over every aspect of our life. Section 212 of the second title even goes so far that it regulates hot food holding cabinets and drinking water dispensers. This bill is nothing more than a massive transfer of wealth and autonomy from consumers to government bureaucrats.
It punishes everyone in America who uses energy—that is, everyone in America. Instead, we should be crafting policies that create incentives to bring on-line new nuclear plants, hydrogen storage technology, more cost-effective wind and solar technology, smart-grid technology, and more efficient electricity transmission.
We don’t need to wash trillions of dollars of American taxpayers’ money through the federal bureaucracy in order to get to a clean energy economy. The alternative to a job-killing, big government cap and tax plan is to create incentives and let the market pick the winners."
7:30 p.m.
Rep. Greg Walden (OR) offered an amendment to placed the definition for “renewable biomass” but it was defeated today during the energy bill mark up. The amendment would have ensured that biomass from public and private lands would be treated equally. In a press release published by the House Republican Energy and Commerce Committee, Ranking Republican Member Joe Barton said, “woody biomass is woody biomass no matter where it comes from.”
The committee promoted the amendment as a “vote for forestry jobs and environmental health.”
Here’s the vote: Recorded Vote: 32 Nay, 26 Yea Representative Vote Representative Vote Mr. Waxman NAY Mr. Barton YEA Mr. Dingell NAY Mr. Hall YEA Mr. Markey NAY Mr. Upton YEA Mr. Boucher NAY Mr. Stearns YEA Mr. Pallone NAY Mr. Deal YEA Mr. Gordon NAY Mr. Whitfield Mr. Rush NAY Mr. Shimkus YEA Ms. Eshoo NAY Mr. Shadegg YEA Mr. Stupak NAY Mr. Blunt YEA Mr. Engel NAY Mr. Buyer YEA Mr. Green NAY Mr. Radanovich YEA Ms. DeGette NAY Mr. Pitts YEA Ms. Capps NAY Ms. Bono Mack YEA Mr. Doyle NAY Mr. Walden YEA Ms. Harman NAY Mr. Terry YEA Ms. Schakowsky NAY Mr. Rogers YEA Mr. Gonzalez NAY Ms. Myrick YEA Mr. Inslee NAY Mr. Sullivan YEA Ms. Baldwin NAY Mr. Murphy (PA) YEA Mr. Ross YEA Mr. Burgess YEA Mr. Weiner NAY Ms. Blackburn YEA Mr. Matheson NAY Mr. Gingrey YEA Mr. Butterfield NAY Mr. Scalise YEA Mr. Melancon YEA Mr. Barrow YEA Mr. Hill NAY Ms. Matsui NAY Ms. Christensen NAY Ms. Castor NAY Mr. Sarbanes NAY Mr. Murphy (CT) NAY Mr. Space YEA Mr. McNerney NAY Ms. Sutton NAY Mr. Braley NAY Mr. Welch NAY
7:20 p.m.
Rep. Lee Terry (NE) issued the following statement on the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s consideration to implement a new national energy tax:
“We all want to find cleaner sources of energy, but implementing a new and devastating tax and each and every American is the wrong approach. This bill also punishes businesses that don’t meet extreme and unreasonable CO2 emissions. The outcome of this bill is higher energy bills, job loss and increased inflation. We shouldn’t drive our economy off a cliff just to reduce one percent of CO2 emissions globally.”
6:24 p.m.
Jeff Schreiber at America’s Right.com has been keeping tabs on the energy bill as well. In his comprehensive blog post, Schreiber details the bill and warns against the left-wing lies that permeate support for cap and tax. Read about here:
Essentially, the lefties insist that the government will set the caps on pollution and, because of the increased price of doing business which will trickle down to consumers in the form of increased energy costs, eventually consumers will bring their consumption down enough so as to be consistent with the allotment set forth by the cap.
So, essentially, they set forth the desired emissions amount--in this case, consistent with America circa 1875--and then tax the bejeezus out of the American people and American business and industry in order to get there. And if consumption doesn't naturally decrease to those levels because of the increased costs (or if families and businesses everywhere don't go bankrupt in the process), what's next?
From what presidential candidate Barack Obama said at a campaign stop in Oregon a year ago this past Saturday, it's government control. After all, we all cannot drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times, and then just expect that other countries are going to be okay with it. Isn't that right, Mr. President?
Regardless, Barton insists that any such benefit to the environment would be negligible. According to scientists who support the legislation, Barton said today, the environmental benefit would be "less than one degree Fahrenheit" over the next century. "We know the cost is significant," he said, "We know the environmental benefit is basically nonexistent."
“This bill – in its current form, in its draft form, or in any form – may do more harm to our economy than any bill that will come before Congress this year, and perhaps any other bill in my lifetime. That is because the proposal to cap carbon and trade carbon credits hurts American economic growth without providing enough benefits for the expense. “For one, this policy will increase overhead costs, which would be devastating for business. It will increase energy prices for every single American household by hundreds, maybe thousands, of dollars. In essence, it is an energy tax that will be imposed on every single American consumer. Give me one good reason why this is a good idea, given our current economic circumstances.
“I would be remiss if I did not mention the blatant disregard for regular procedure by the Majority. The behind-closed-door nature of this bill's negotiations, the last minute introduction, and the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute, unveiled just Monday morning, leads me to believe ‘thoughtful’ and ‘beneficial’ are two words that cannot be used to characterize this bill. If it were indeed thoughtful and beneficial, why hide it?
“Furthermore, based upon the short amount of time I've had to scrub this bill, I'm concerned that we may see negotiated protections for afflicted industries and a failure to adequately protect American consumers. That's the one group we should care to protect the most with federal legislation – the American people.
“Americans want to become more energy independent in order to improve national security. However, our national security is most threatened when we ignore the strength of our economy in exchange for non-measurable and non-attainable mandates like the ones proposed in the Democrats’ cap and trade legislation.
“As a nation, we are walking a very serious and fine economic line. We need thoughtful cost-benefit analysis on every bill before Congress, and that is clearly lacking in this legislation.”
5:22 p.m.
The Washington Post today zeroed in on the specific effects this bill would have on Americans. Check it out:
The real hidden catch of the cap-and-trade system, though, is that it will require consumers to pay twice: first for emission allowances and then for the construction of new low- and zero-carbon power plants.
Congressional estimates of government revenue from the sale of cap-and-trade allowances range from hundreds of billions to trillions of dollars. Contrary to assurances from the bill's sponsors that utility customers wouldn't have to pay these costs for the first decade, some coal-dependent utilities would be forced to purchase more than half of their allowances when the program is scheduled to begin in 2012. Would these allowances reduce our greenhouse gas emissions? No; that would come when consumers footed a second bill -- for the cost of their utilities either to retrofit coal and gas plants to capture carbon -- something that cannot be done today on a commercial scale -- or to shut them down and build non-carbon-producing nuclear plants and wind farms instead.
In fact, to the extent that cap-and-trade auctions increase ratepayers' bills, they will impede utilities' ability to develop a less carbon-intensive infrastructure.
Rep. Greg Walden (OR) put out a press release yesterday declaring the Democrats’ cap and tax energy bill a national energy tax that is “bad for biomass, hydropower and consumers.” Walden’s Oregon district would be hurt by the legislation. In the statement he said:
“Within the first 30 pages of the bill it became clear that woody biomass from federal land gets shortchanged by some tricky wording that would effectively prevent brush and debris from most of our forests from counting as renewable energy. I’ll offer amendments tomorrow in committee to fix this flaw.
“In addition, the climate change legislation also says new hydropower counts as renewable as long as the addition of the turbines doesn’t change the water levels at any time or location behind a dam. One of the sustainable energy ideas is to use hydropower to balance the intermittent wind power output by storing water behind a dam when the wind blows and releasing it to make hydropower when it doesn’t. The language of this proposal would disqualify that water power as a renewable energy source. It makes no sense to me, and I’ll offer amendments to fix this problem.”
Walden said he was frustrated that there were not public hearings on the 946-page legislation. Other Republican members of the of the Energy and Commerce Committee have expressed similar frustration during the mark-up hearing today.
“If passed as is, it will dramatically increase energy costs to consumers and businesses and cost millions of jobs,” Walden said.
Rep. Michael Burgess (TX), also a Member of the Committee, has been vocal since the the cap and tax bill came to the floor.
“This bill – in its current form, in its draft form, or in any form – may do more harm to our economy than any bill that will come before Congress this year, and perhaps any other bill in my lifetime. That is because the proposal to cap carbon and trade carbon credits hurts American economic growth without providing enough benefits for the expense,” said Burgess in a statement released today.
5:01 p.m.
The Wall Street Journal blog has been keeping tabs on the cap and tax bill as well. WSJ’s Keith Johnson wrote about some Republican Committee Members yesterday. Here is an excerpt:
"Republicans stuck largely to a single script: The bill is too expensive and will wreck the economy.
Joe Barton figures the bill could cost as much every year as the entire electricity sector chalks up in sales. Fred Barton of Michigan said the bill’s emissions-reduction targets seek to recreate the economic conditions of America in 1910.
Ralph Hall of Texas threw a new figure into the how-much-will-it-cost debate, citing a Heritage Foundation figure of $24,000 per family through 2035. Roy Blunt of Missouri said choosing between the current bill and nothing “is a false choice.”
Steve Scalise of Louisiana was blunt: “The big winners are China and India, who are champing at the bit to take our jobs.” George Radanovich of California cut to the chase and called the bill “environmental socialism.”
During today’s mark-up of the Waxman-Markey Energy bill, Energy and Commerce Committee Democrats defeated a U.S. Jobs Amendment that would “would require annual certification by the administrator, in consultation with the Department of State and the United States Trade Representative that China and India have adopted a mandatory greenhouse gas reduction program at least as stringent as that would be imposed under the Act,” according the House Republican Energy and Commerce Committee.
Representative Vote Representative Vote Mr. Waxman NAY Mr. Barton YEA Mr. Dingell NAY Mr. Hall YEA Mr. Markey NAY Mr. Upton YEA Mr. Boucher NAY Mr. Stearns YEA Mr. Pallone NAY Mr. Deal YEA Mr. Gordon NAY Mr. Whitfield YEA Mr. Rush NAY Mr. Shimkus YEA Ms. Eshoo NAY Mr. Shadegg YEA Mr. Stupak NAY Mr. Blunt YEA Mr. Engel NAY Mr. Buyer YEA Mr. Green NAY Mr. Radanovich YEA Ms. DeGette NAY Mr. Pitts YEA Ms. Capps NAY Ms. Bono Mack YEA Mr. Doyle NAY Mr. Walden YEA Ms. Harman NAY Mr. Terry YEA Ms. Schakowsky NAY Mr. Rogers YEA Mr. Gonzalez NAY Ms. Myrick YEA Mr. Inslee NAY Mr. Sullivan YEA Ms. Baldwin NAY Mr. Murphy (PA) YEA Mr. Ross NAY Mr. Burgess YEA Mr. Weiner NAY Ms. Blackburn YEA Mr. Matheson NAY Mr. Gingrey YEA Mr. Butterfield NAY Mr. Scalise YEA Mr. Melancon NAY Mr. Barrow NAY Mr. Hill NAY Ms. Matsui NAY Ms. Christensen NAY Ms. Castor NAY Mr. Sarbanes NAY Mr. Murphy (CT) NAY Mr. Space NAY Mr. McNerney NAY Ms. Sutton NAY
Rep. Ed Whitfield (KY) submitted a statement regarding the energy bill mark-up this week. It reads:
“...While I appreciate that the proposal has been tempered somewhat by a scaling back of some of the provisions in this bill, particularly the Renewable Electricity Standard and the removal of the Low Carbon Fuels Standard, and while some in the electricity industry think that they can live with these requirements, I remain very concerned about the impact on consumers.
Perhaps it is the case that we need to cap and reduce our carbon emissions, but I do not see how we can do that on this timetable and with a technology that does not exist.
It appears that the target reduction in carbon emissions, as proposed in the cap and trade portion of the bill, will cause a dramatic switch to natural gas from coal. A number of us lived through a time when just that happened, and many will recall the natural gas shortages and the related impact on the economy. I don’t think we want to go through that again.
I remain concerned that this legislation will increase electricity rates and cause major job loss in my home state of Kentucky.
Of course, I am sure some will say that the creation of these new “green jobs” will offset those old coal jobs as some people call them, but I just want to once again point out the study conducted by Gabriel Alvarez that found through empirical data, not models, that for every 1 “green job” that is created 2.2 other jobs are lost.
I genuinely think that we need to increase energy efficiency to save consumers money and reduce carbon emissions. However, the cap and trade portion of this bill is still too much, too fast. This “too much too fast” approach will cause electricity utilities to switch to natural gas quickly and further inhibit the development of new technologies like Carbon Capture and Sequestration if utilities stop using coal at the outset of the program.
Another flaw to the bill in my opinion is that we are once again still discussing two mandates- Cap and Trade and the Renewable Electricity Standard. Why does the government need to pick winners and losers in the electricity sector by mandating the use of wind, solar, and biomass? If this mandate was truly focused on reducing carbon emissions, it seems it would mandate a certain amount of electricity be produced from sources with zero emissions, including nuclear and electricity with CCS, by a certain date.
I simply do not see how this bill does not still dramatically increase electricity rates and cause a major job loss throughout the nation. As I have previously stated, the consequences of this legislation may be dire in comparison to any benefits it may yield.”
3:24 p.m.
House Republican Leader John Boehner (OH) today issued the following statement on the House GOP Rural America Solutions Group’s effort to highlight the impact of the Democrats’ national energy tax on rural Americans:
“The Democrats’ national energy tax would have a particularly devastating impact on rural communities across the nation. Families, small businesses, and family farms are struggling during this recession, as their costs of living soar and their job security and savings plummet. I represent tens of thousands of rural Americans in my Ohio congressional district, and I know that saddling them with an additional $3,100 burden per family each year through a national energy tax will only make matters worse at a time when Americans are expecting far better solutions out of Washington.
“House Republicans know that we can create more jobs, reduce energy costs, and protect our environment at the same time. Led by Reps. Frank Lucas (R-OK), Doc Hastings (R-WA), and Sam Graves (R-MO), the Rural America Solutions Group is hard at work highlighting the consequences of the Democrats’ national energy tax and crafting better solutions to improve the quality of life of rural Americans.”
3:04 p.m.
The American Spectator’s James Antle recently interviewed Rep. Steve Scalise, a Member of the Energy and Commerce Committee. Most of the interview focused on the energy bill and how Republicans want to reform energy in the future. Here is an excerpt of the questioning:
The American Spectator: What will the consequences be of the cap-and-trade energy plan being pushed by President Obama and Congressional Democrats? Congressman Scalise: President Obama is proposing a "cap and trade" energy tax that will raise utility costs on every American family to generate $646 billion in new taxes, while shipping millions of American jobs to foreign countries. According to the National Association of Manufacturers, the President's bill will cost 3 – 4 million jobs that will be shipped to countries like China, India and Brazil.
According to Peter Orszag, the President's own budget director, the average American family would pay about $1300 more in utility costs per year for a 15% reduction in CO2 emissions, which is significantly less than the cap sought in President Obama's proposed budget. Orszag testified before Congress last year saying that price increases borne by consumers are essential to the success of their "cap and trade" energy tax.
Even President Obama has acknowledged that his "cap and trade" energy tax will lead to higher electricity prices when he said, "under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket."
As a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which has jurisdiction over national energy policy, I will continue fighting to oppose bad policies that threaten our economy. Rather than a "cap and trade" scheme that will raise taxes on American families and ship millions of jobs overseas, we need to pass a comprehensive national energy policy that will further develop the technologies for renewable sources of energy like wind and solar, encourage more conservation, while also expanding our own natural resources including oil, natural gas, clean coal, and nuclear power.
...TAS: What would a Republican energy and environmental agenda look like?
Congressman Scalise: I joined with more than 40 House Republicans to introduce The American Energy Innovation Act that represents a fiscally responsible approach to reducing our dependence on Middle Eastern oil, producing more renewable alternative sources of energy, and putting more Americans to work by:
Promoting greater conservation and efficiency by providing incentives for reducing energy demand and creating a cleaner, more sustainable environment.
Increasing the production of American energy by responsibly utilizing all available resources and technologies and streamlining burdensome regulations.
Encouraging innovation within the energy industry to create the renewable fuel options and energy careers of tomorrow.
Rep. Roy Blunt (MO) released highlights of his remarks regarding the Waxman-Markey Energy bill. Here are a few of the concerns Blunt has about this expensive and flawed legislation:
-- Because of the impact this bill has on electricity rates, it will make our country less competitive as a whole and Missouri less competitive in the country.
-- Companies have already said if this legislation becomes law, they will be forced to relocate outside the United States. The majority likes to talk about so-called “green jobs,” but the families at those companies are probably more concerned with the jobs this legislation threatens to destroy -- theirs.
-- I support the ultimate goal of protecting our environment, but we must look at the real ramifications this bill will have on our already struggling economy.
-- The legislation we’re debating today does nothing more than create a national energy tax that punishes families and small businesses for using electrici
2:39 p.m.
Human Events’ Reporter Connie Hair caught a great quote on the bill from Rep. James Sensenbrenner (WI), ranking Republican on the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. Sensenbrenner pointed out that the findings of the EPA analysis of Waxman-Markey were flawed.
Hair reported that a recently released report showed that Democrats on the Energy and Commerce Committee “provided the agency with data that wasn’t reflected in the bill’s language.” Sensenbrenner commented on this:
“EPA officials told Republican staff that the offset levels were one of the biggest drivers of its cost analysis. As the report shows, Democratic staff instructed the EPA to assume offset levels that were dramatically higher than what the draft actually allowed. Whether they misread their own bill or deliberately mislead the EPA, I’m not sure.”
Americans for Tax Reform, which has produced heavy analysis on the tax burden Americans will pay if this legislation passes, found it will cost more than $600 billion. The Human Events’ story included an exclusive quote from ATR President Grover Norquist:
"'Cap and trade' is a euphemism for 'massive tax hike." President Obama is once again making a mockery of his promise not to raise taxes on those making less than $250,000.”
2:32 p.m.
Rep. Jason Chaffetz (UT) opposes the Waxman-Markey cap and tax energy bill. In a blog on Red County.com, Chaffetz writes of the billions of dollars the national energy tax will cost American taxpayers. He writes:
“The President admits in his own budget document that the tax will be even higher in reality. This tax increase is a two-fer for liberals: government gets more of our money and utility companies get the blame when they pass the tax increase on to consumers.”
Chaffetz writes of a bill he’s sponsoring that will require utility companies to separately itemize their customer utility bills. He notes that these companies will pass 100% of their taxes on to customers so the cap and trade national energy tax will be evident the minute the customers receive their monthly utility bills.
“This is about transparency,” Chaffetz writes. “If cap-and-trade taxes are such a good idea, why not let taxpayers see how much it will really cost them?”
Chaffetz continues:
“The Left obviously does not want taxpayers to know the real cost of the tax-and-trade scheme, even though sound tax policy dictates that taxes should be visible to taxpayers and not buried in the cost of the items we purchase. Of course, when you are trying to raise taxes by $1.5 trillion over ten years, you want to hide as much of this tax increase as possible. That’s why Obama is raising a lot of other taxes on business that won’t be readily visible to taxpayers.”
Rep. Marsha Blackburn (TN), Member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, gave the following statement on the energy bill:
Mr. Chairman, the Republicans on this committee, and even some of the Democrats, are all for clean air, clean water and clean energy- we just don’t believe we have to tax the American people out of house and home to do it. This bill makes energy more expensive, but not more abundant. It does so by mandating investment in unproven, unreliable technology while ignoring the most reliable and proven renewable energy resources we have, nuclear and hydro-electric power.
This Cap and Tax approach has already been tried – and found wanting in Europe. The European Emissions Trading Scheme is frighteningly similar to the plan before us today. I have measured that European system first- hand and discovered a highly flawed, fraudulent system that did not reduce CO2 emissions, but actually increased them.
This bill will do the same. At best, it taxes Americans THOUSANDS of dollars each year, only to reduce global temperatures by a quarter of a degree over the next century- and that assumes that any carbon reductions we may experience are not overcome by output in places like India and China.
It is wealth transfer – plain and simple- for companies and brokers to game the market.
It picks winners and losers of American energy producers and consumers. Electricity rates, by some calculations, might only rise by 9% in the Chairman’s home state, but in Tennessee we could experience as much as a 42% increase. That is a formula for economic disaster even during flush times.
The first year alone it gives away 80 billion dollars of emission allowances, and nearly 1 trillion over the next ten years.
Will this giveaway go towards making American more energy independent or secure?
No, it will not.
Instead, it will set a government tax on energy use that will likely lead to shuttering power plants, making Americans poorer and more reliant on foreign energy sources.
It will have a negligible effect on environmental improvement but will impose a massive energy tax that will lead to huge job losses and large decreases in the nation’s GDP.
I urge my colleagues to learn from Europe's failure and oppose efforts to duplicate their system, and I yield the balance of my time.
2:02 p.m.
Though the Waxman-Markey energy bill has gone through a revision since it’s original introduction several weeks ago, the new draft still offers few details about the ultimate costs of this costly cap and tax legislation. In fact, Democrat proponent of the bill, Rep. Bart Gordon (TN), had no answer for Republican Rep. Cliff Stearns (FL) when he asked how much the bill might cost the American taxpayer. Read the following exchange from the mark-up hearing:
U.S. Rep. Bart Gordon, D-Tenn.: The appropriators sometimes appropriate more money than is authorized. So I don’t think we have to be that concerned about this as a check and balance.
U.S. Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Florida: Just as a question, how much money do you think this is going to take? Based upon your argument that the appropriators can appropriate more money if necessary, is there anybody in this room who knows how much we’re talking about here?
Gordon: I don’t think anybody can answer that until you get further down the road.
Stearns: Well, can you ballpark it? Are we talking about half a billion? I would think somebody in this room with this amendment could at least give us an idea of what we’re talking about.
Gordon: There are going to be transformational types of energy that we can’t think of now.
1:57 p.m.
More Emissions Restrictions From the White House Rep. Lee Terry (NE), Member on the Energy and Commerce Committee
Today President Obama announced new fuel economy standards for cars and trucks. This decision will give consumers more choices for fuel efficient cars and trucks, reduce our country’s reliance on foreign oil and will preserve U.S. manufacturing jobs. That is a good thing. There is no doubt we need a national standard. Congressman Baron Hill and I championed the first CAFÉ changes in 30 years that were included in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007—our standards would have increased fuel economy standards in cars and light trucks to 35 miles per gallon by 2020---a significant 40% increase.
President Obama now wants to move that requirement up to 2016 and that is commendable but I am a little bit concerned about one of the things that we negotiated in the CAFÉ standard two years ago was that it would stay with NHSTA at the Transportation Department instead of the EPA. Right now NHSTA regulates CAFÉ standards that include factors like size and vehicle safety to protect passengers. If the EPA becomes the sole regulator of vehicles, these aspects of assuring safe and reliable vehicles on our roadways might be compromised. NHSTA should continue to have a role in regulating CAFÉ standards.
During negotiations of the Energy Act of 2007, Congress recognized that there are engineering and retooling timelines for the automakers. This new aggressive deadline to meet the new CAFÉ standards four years early means it is going to be more costly for manufacturers and could be a an economic hardship in the short term. Two factors are really driving this decision, the need to have a single national standard and the White House has leverage because of the TARP funding to Detroit and the government’s financial interest in the automakers right now and they are using it.
1:32 p.m.
The mark-up of the Waxman-Markey energy bill continues today. Rep. Cliff Stearns (FL) made the following statement:
Since the release of the original discussion draft, 284 pages of additional bill text have been added in secret back room deals over the last several weeks without any input from the minority. In fact, the entire bill before us today is merely a placeholder to help hide the true cost of the majority’s 946-page cap and tax scheme that was unveiled less than an hour before the start of this markup.
With our nation struggling through the worst economic crisis in over 70 years, the majority should not risk further economic damage by quickly forcing through this committee a hastily crafted and incomplete carbon emissions mitigation scheme that essentially amounts to a $1,500 energy tax on every family in America.
The intellectual architects of the cap and trade tax plan acknowledge higher energy prices would result from an emissions cap, especially if we do it alone. This will force manufacturers and small businesses to absorb the cost of higher energy prices, which they will do by raising prices, cutting costs by laying off employees or being forced to close. And that is precisely why various members of the majority have been working feverishly behind closed doors to secure hundreds of billions of dollars in free allocations for industries within their states. We should all be concerned by a legislative process that essentially uses the allocations provisions in this legislation to reward member and industries for their support.
Renewable energy programs should be based on customer demand, regional differences, and appropriate incentives, not on unrealistic federal mandates that selectively penalize electricity consumers in certain regions of the country.
Any meaningful effort to achieve long-term, sustainable reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions will depend on the development and deployment of new energy technologies, including advanced clean coal technologies and carbon capture and sequestration. The rapid development, demonstration and widespread deployment of such technologies are of paramount importance in any reasoned and effective effort to address climate change concerns.
The expansion of nuclear power production in the United States must also be part of any realistic legislative package to address carbon dioxide reductions. It is simply not realistic to believe that alternative energy sources alone can sufficiently expand their energy contribution in the near-term to substitute for the projected energy demand growth that is likely to occur over the next several decades.
The massive new regulatory burdens proposed by the Democrats will inevitably undercut the growth and innovation we desperately need to build lasting and effective solutions. Fostering technology and scientific research across all sectors of the economy, not capping the economy and trading U.S. jobs, will guard our security and increase our energy independence.
Direct energy costs will rise by more than $1,500 per year for the typical family of four. Pain at the electric meter will cause consumers to reduce electricity consumption by 26 percent. Even with this cutback, the electric bill for a family of four will be $754 higher in 2035 than it would have been in the absence of Waxman-Markey, and $12,200 higher in total from 2012 to 2035.