W. Akin

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Thank you, Doctor.

Mr. AKIN. You have to translate. ``Investment'' means we're going to tax you.

Mr. AKIN. Just reclaiming my time, somehow or another, this whole thing strikes me, if it weren't so serious, as being a comedy. You know, we just went from winter to spring in Missouri. When we go from winter to spring, that's a good climate change. I don't want to stop that climate change, you know. Who in the world would want to put politicians in charge of the weather anyway? What a dumb idea. Anyhow, we need to be a little bit serious because this is a tremendous tax that we're talking about, a tremendous removal of freedom away from Americans, and it is a tremendous investment in more and more big government solutions. That is extremely scary in spite of the fact that the science seems to be a little bit amazing. We'll get into that, too. I was just recalling that my friend from Pennsylvania was here with the guy from Spain, I think it was, 2 weeks ago. They were talking about how Spain has driven this cap-and-tax, and they were talking about what has happened, and we're going to get into it. So it isn't something we're going to speculate about. It has been tried. We can say: here is what happened in Spain. Do we really want to reproduce this or not? I didn't mean to interrupt you, Doctor. Please continue.

Mr. AKIN. I appreciate your bringing that up, and I'd like to get into that just a little bit more as we move on this evening into that area, about the Democrat proposal, what it does to people's costs, average costs. But we're also joined by a good friend of mine, Dr. Fleming. And people that have a technical or scientific background are a little rare in the Chambers here. So to have actually a guy who's passed high school science is tremendously helpful. And Dr. Fleming is from Louisiana. I'm a misfit in politics. I'm an engineer by training. I don't know how they ever--there's few of us in here that are engineers. But Dr. Fleming, I would be encouraged if you'd join us too in our discussion.

Mr. AKIN. Some of the models said that we're going to have surf at the front steps of the Capitol pretty soon. I was really looking forward to that. Go ahead. I yield.

Mr. AKIN. I really appreciate your emphasis on free enterprise, free solutions, and not government bureaucracies. But it still just dazzles me that the Spanish were able to sell this thing politically that they're worried about CO2 and they shut down the nuclear, where we say here we just double our amount of nuclear and we get rid of all emissions of almost every passenger car on our highways. That's incredible. Congressman Bishop.

Mr. AKIN. Could I interrupt you just a minute because I thought you were on a rather important topic, because the whole crux of the idea for this huge tax proposal and all kinds of sweeping changes and government power and influence and regulation is based on the fact that CO2 is such a bad thing, and it's based on the assumption that the CO2 that we're releasing by burning fossil fuels is creating some kind of a problem. I mean, that's the whole linchpin that this debate is going around. And yet you have, here's kind of an interesting quote here. And I think I'd like to get into this just a little bit. Here's a former U.S. Senator and he says, we've got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we'll be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy. So, in other words, there's a solution that they have in mind, whether global warming is going on or not. And the thing that's been embarrassing, you've noticed we don't hear as much global warming. We hear climate change, and the reason is because the planet has not really been warming the last number of years as all of these economic models were saying that it was going to. And that doesn't necessarily mean the CO2 that we've generated hasn't created some warming. It just seems that the world climate is more connected to sunspot activity than these other things. But here you're just talking about the effect of CO2, and I thought this was interesting. This is how much does the human activity affect greenhouse gases? The block in light blue here represents all the greenhouse gases, which comprise only 2 percent of the total atmosphere. So this is all the greenhouse gases. And that yellow block over there on the end is the CO2. And the little tiny red block inside the yellow block is the part that our human activity is creating. And so the question is, in terms of leverage, does this little red dot over here have that much impact on the climate? And this is, I don't think anybody disputes the percentages of these gases and the mixture. So the question then is, is this stuff that we're doing really that important? And you just said the forest fires, which were created by poor environmental policy by the way, a lot of them, because we're not allowed to clean that brush out, the underbrush, and then it burns everything and burns Bambi and snowy owls and everything else because we didn't want to clear the brush out, and that's generating, what is that, 2\1/2\ times more than all of the coal and oil and things we burn. I didn't mean to interrupt you, but I think it's important for us to stick on what science, what really does science say. And this is not an easy thing for any scientist to figure out, is it, because what's happening is there's all sorts of things that play together, and so, the CO2 we generate could be warming the planet some, but it could be also that we're in a time where the planet is growing colder. So all of that, we don't really understand that totally, do we?

Mr. AKIN. Good evening, Mr. Speaker. It's a pleasure to join you and to take a look at a very interesting topic today. The whole idea of, it's kind of a combination of thoughts, first of all, the idea of global warming, and then how that relates to this cap-and-tax bill that we've been hearing more about, and exactly what's behind all of this discussion, because what we have here is something that is, if you want to talk about change, there's a whole lot of change here. This is a very, very significant proposal that's being made in terms of the size of the tax that's involved, and the proposal that we're actually going to change the climate of the world by some of these different things that are going to be done by the government, a very interesting thought. And so I thought, when we talk about global warming, there's a little bit of the story that I think has been forgotten. Some of it, not surprisingly, is the history of what's going on. I'd like to go back just a little bit in what's been going on. Let's go back to the year 1920, when newspapers in the 1920s were filled with scientists' warnings of a fast approaching glacial age. The Earth was going to get cold. And so you had to really be stocking up on extra coal and overcoats and things in the 1920s. In the 1930s it seems that the scientists changed their opinion, and they reversed themselves, that there was going to be serious global warming in the 1930s. By 1972, Time magazine was citing numerous scientific reports of imminent runaway glaciation. So it's going to get cold again. In 1975, Newsweek reported that the scientific evidence of an ``Ice Age'' called to stockpile food. And we also were even engaged in discussions about melting some of the Arctic ice cap or something because of this Ice Age that was readily, eminently approaching. By 1976 the U.S. government said the Earth is heading into some sort of mini ice age. And now we have back again, global warming. In fact, global warming is even getting a little bit out of fashion now, and people want to talk about climate change. It's a little safer to talk about climate change because you're not predicting whether it's going to get colder or warmer. But anyway, we've had some considerable amounts of disagreement, depending on what year you're on. So we go back and forth. It's either going to be the sky is going to fall because it's going to freeze, or the sky is falling because it's going to get warmer. So we have today this whole subject of global warming. That's what the most common term that you hear nowadays is global warming. And I think the facts of the matter are that there has been a considerable amount of disagreement, depending on which decade you're living in. I'm joined this evening by some very good friends, some respected colleagues, a medical doctor, as a matter of fact, and another gentleman from Pennsylvania, a very big coal and energy producing state. We're going to be chatting with them in just a minute. But I thought it would be appropriate just to kind of lay down, first of all, historically some of the differences of opinion, depending on which decade you live in. The general theory today, the way it works is the idea that mankind is creating CO2. We do that when we breathe, so there's not much scientific argument about that. There are other ways that CO2 is produced as well. Whenever we make a campfire we produce a certain amount of CO2 as we burn some combustible with the oxygen in the air. And the theory is that this CO2, because we're burning so much in the way of hydrocarbons, now is actually affecting the environment. And so we're going to take a look at that. And the question is whether or not, really, this CO2 is affecting the environment. I think most scientists agree that when we create or when we produce CO2 it has some impact on the environment. The question is how much. And then it's also a big question as to whether or not there's anything we could really do about that in a practical sense, or are there any sort of cost-effective solutions. And of course there is a solution that's on the table that's being proposed. It's a cap-and-tax bill that's being proposed by the Democrats. And it follows the pattern of most Democrat bills, and that is, I've got a great big whopping tax increase, and it has a whole lot of government regulations. If we go back in history a little bit, history is an amusing thing to take a look at. One of the things that history tells us is how effective the U.S. government is in solving these kinds of problems. We created a thing called the U.S. Department of Energy. Maybe a lot of people know we have a U.S. Department of Energy, but they may not recall why it was that the Department of Energy was created. Well, the fact of the matter is the Department of Energy was created so that we would not be dependent on foreign energy. And so, for years we've added more and more employees to the U.S. Department of Energy so that we won't be dependent on foreign energy, and each year we become more dependent on foreign energy. So it's amusing to postulate that we're going to solve this problem using a lot of taxation and a government solution. I think the Republicans--I'm a Republican, my colleagues that are joining me tonight are Republicans--I think that we prefer a more free enterprise kind of solution, and we want to take a look at the premises behind what we're talking about. I'm joined by my good friend, G.T. Thompson. He's from Pennsylvania. I'd like to recognize Congressman Thompson, who is already making himself a name here as being a very feet-on-the-ground, commonsense kind of guy, has an intuitive sense for free enterprise, and also potential dangers that come from this idea of we can solve all the problems with a great big whopping tax increase and government regulations. Please, I yield time.

Mr. AKIN. We've also been joined by my very good friend, Congressman Bishop, who talked before on this subject, very knowledgeable. And I would yield time to Congressman Bishop. Please jump in.

Mr. AKIN. Just reclaiming my time, you know, I've got a chart I'd like to talk to you about because we figured out what the size of this tax is. You take the average per family, and we're going to go in a minute and take a look at what it is going to cost the average family every year for the next 8 years for this $1.2 trillion tax increase. We've been joined by another doctor, a medical doctor but also a guy who graduated from high school science as well, from Georgia, my good friend, Congressman Gingrey. It's just great to have you in our discussion this evening. Please jump in. I yield.

Mr. AKIN. Reclaiming my time, let's go through this. So in other words, let's say we did what the Democrats want to do: let's do this great big tax increase. This is a very big tax increase. So what we're going to do is essentially tax energy. Now, as to energy issues within companies, some companies are using more than others, particularly aluminum manufacturing, steel manufacturing, your basic, hard manufacturing jobs. These then support lots of other burger flipping types of jobs that are very heavily energy intensive, but also food is very energy intensive. So now what's going to happen? You're going to tax energy. When you tax it, it means the prices go up. The energy-producing company doesn't just pay the tax. It pays the tax, and it passes it on to the consumer. So the person who flips the light switch on or the person who lights up his pilot light to run his stove or his heater for natural gas or the people who fire up their diesel engines or their gasoline engines are paying more money. Therefore, those businesses are less competitive. In being less competitive, there are more foreign people who can compete and who can send products into this country. We can't compete against them because our prices go up. So, effectively, we send jobs overseas that way. We're less competitive. So the jobs go away. The government taxes everybody in the private sector. The money comes out of the private sector. They use it to hire somebody. This then displaces a couple of jobs, and here we go around in this circle. This is basically what Morgenthau tried, the Secretary of the Treasury under FDR. He said that we're going to raise the taxes a whole lot, that we're going to spend a whole lot of money to ``stimulate the economy'' and that it will drive unemployment down. Then he came here to this Chamber 9 years later, before the Ways and Means Committee, and his quote was: ``We've tried it and it doesn't work.'' Those were exactly his words: ``It doesn't work.'' So he said that now we've got high unemployment and a whole lot of taxes and a big debt to boot. So this is the same old tried-and-true Democrat scheme of raising taxes and of creating and trusting the government, of trusting that the government is going to run it better than would free enterprise. Yet we've got this Department of Energy out there that was founded to get us off our dependence on foreign energy; and ever since it has been founded, it has gotten worse. I yield to my good friend from Pennsylvania.

Mr. AKIN. So they've driven it up 10 percent.

Mr. AKIN. Since Jimmy Carter.

Mr. AKIN. I would just like to discuss this a little bit with my good friend from Pennsylvania, Congressman Thompson. You know, I'm from Missouri, and I've been a legislator now a number of years. One of the things that is amusing is that the legislature passes some bill to do something, and the exact opposite thing happens of what they meant to have happen. I'm just picturing some of my friends here tonight from Georgia and from Pennsylvania and Louisiana. I'm thinking about Missouri. And you put a big old tax on natural gas and electricity, and you know what the good old boy is going to do? They're going to break out that steel chainsaw. They're going to go to the wood lot. They're going to be cutting firewood, and they're going to be heating with wood and generating twice the CO2 that would have happened if this silly bill hadn't been passed. And the funny thing is it must be happening that way in Spain because their CO2 has gone up in spite of the fact they got all this unemployment and taxes and this huge government bureaucracy they've created. I just wanted to allow my friend from Pennsylvania, if you wanted to jump in on that subject.

Mr. AKIN. Just stop for a minute. That just absolutely dumbfounds me. The whole point of this deal is not to make any CO2 supposedly, so we are going to tax the nuclear power plant that doesn't make any CO2. What's the logic of that?

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Are you going to collect that in bags, gentlemen?

Mr. AKIN. Dr. Broun, I appreciate your firmness and your just basically calling this what it is. An hour ago, we heard the Democrats talking about the fact that, oh, they're really into technology and innovation and all of this kind of stuff. This thing has nothing to do with technology or innovation. This is just a plain, old tax increase. It's a plain, old tax increase, but it's a big, whopping tax increase, is what we're dealing with here, and the justification is kind of amusing. I'd like to take just a minute, and then I'm going to recognize my good friend, Congresswoman Lummis from Wyoming. Having an engineering background, I kind of get interest out of it. How much human activity does it take to affect greenhouse gases? This block here of all of these boxes represents all of the greenhouse gases which comprise only 2 percent of the atmosphere. So these are all of the things that cause global warming. Most of this is water vapor. By the way, it's not CO2, okay? Now then, this yellow stuff over here is the part of the greenhouse gases that is CO2. Those are the yellow boxes. The little red box there is the CO2 that is caused by human activity, and that little red box right there is the excuse for this whopping, big tax. Now, somehow or other, the logic of this just seems like a very, very thinly veiled excuse for a great big tax.

Mr. AKIN. What has happened since we've created it, Congressman?

Mr. AKIN. We are less that way.

Mr. AKIN. What has happened to the number of employees in the Department of Energy?

Mr. AKIN. In fact, you could almost say it's of inverse proportion. The more people they've hired and the bigger it has gotten, the more dependent we have become on foreign energy. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I want to thank Congresswoman Lummis, and I also want to get back to Judge Carter here. I want to give you a chance to take a look at some of these things. We've got, I think, only just about another 5 minutes or so.

Mr. AKIN. I think that was pretty straightforward. If they don't do the job, fire them.

Mr. AKIN. Now, Ronald Reagan wanted to close the department down.

Mr. AKIN. I'm going to reluctantly recognize the gentleman from Utah. He's been bringing a lot of bad news tonight, but still I guess we better know what the truth is.