John Shimkus

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania for joining us. I look forward to working with him as we move to defeat this, wherever we get a chance to. Now, just for my colleagues to know, I think there are about 10 minutes remaining. I would like to now give the time to Dr. Phil Gingrey, a colleague of mine from Georgia on the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. SHIMKUS. I thank my colleague. It is very important that we continue this discussion, this dialogue, and help inform the American public. The reality is the 686-page bill, so it is $1 billion a page, but the reality is that there are large portions that are to be written later. Part of our challenge to really debate this bill is to call my friends out and say, okay, you promised transparency. You promised openness and regular order. What are the scores so we can figure out the winners and losers? But it is crafted behind closed doors. In fact, I heard today that this bill will now bypass the subcommittee and hopefully go to the full committee, which is really a shame for individuals who have promised regular order to continue to disregard it. In fact, Chairman Waxman, Chairman Markey, and Chairman Emeritus Dingell all sent a letter making sure that this would not be done in reconciliation, and pushing for regular order. They sent a letter to President Obama. And it is now these very same people who sent a letter begging for regular order who are not going to allow regular order to occur on this bill. That is sad because it hurts our ability to educate our constituents, our voters, and let them make a decision. And they do that every 2 years. With that, I am pleased to be joined by a new Member from Pennsylvania, Mr. Glenn Thompson.

Mr. SHIMKUS. I appreciate the gentleman coming down, and I would like to now recognize the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, it is great to be down here, and I am going to turn immediately to my colleague, Dr. Paul Broun from Georgia, to talk on the cap-and-tax, global climate change, destruction of jobs in America, a bill that may be coming to the floor soon.

Mr. SHIMKUS. And here is the President's statement during the campaign: ``What I have said is that we would put a cap-and-trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else's out there. So if somebody wants to build a coal-fired power plant, they can. It is just that it will bankrupt them because they are going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that is being emitted.'' So the signals are ``no'' in a venue when the demand for electricity is going to go up by 30 percent. But we want to limit the ability to produce electricity which is why we fear the real price escalations. I just want to tie this in with the leadership of this House in Washington and down at the White House and through the Federal agencies. They are saying ``no'' to coal and ``no'' to nuclear when we have all these challenges that face us.

Mr. SHIMKUS. I thank my colleague for coming down and making the time. We have already had a colleague from Georgia and now from Tennessee. I'm now going to be followed by Dr. Fleming of Louisiana, a new Member, and I think this shows the diversity of representation in this country. I appreciate your coming down and you're free to open with your comments.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Pastor Willard V. Meyer of Zion Lutheran Church in Bethalto. Pastor Meyer is retiring after 40 years of ministry. Thirty years of his ministry has been served at Zion Lutheran Church. Pastor Meyer started his service at Zion Lutheran Chuch as the Youth Minister and later became the Senior Minister. Pastor Meyer, and his wife Stephanie, are well loved by their congregation and his service will be missed. As the chuch is celebrating their sesquicentennial this year, Pastor Meyer was quoted in The Telegraph saying,--``Although many, significant, and profound changes have taken place at Zion over these 150 years, what has been constant and unchanging are the proclamation of the good news of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ and the ministry of sharing that love of Christ throughout the community and the world.'' Pastor Meyer's remarks could have well been said about his own ministry, constantly proclaiming the good news of Jesus Christ. Pastor Meyer's words also bring to mind Colossians 3:23-24, ``And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men; Knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance: for ye serve the Lord Christ.'' For the last 40 years, this could be said of Pastor Meyer's ministry as well. I praise God for Pastor Meyers 40 years of service to Him. I extend my best wishes to Pastor Meyer for an enjoyable retirement celebration on April 19, 2009. May God richly bless him and his family in the years to come.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Speaker, today's Los Angeles Reuters article states, ``U.S. electricity prices are likely to rise 15 to 30 percent if a national cap on carbon dioxide emissions is instituted, according to a report by Moody's Investors Services.'' You've heard us talk a lot about a cap-and-tax. The burden of this carbon regime will be a tax on carbon use, pushing the cost on us, the middle class, the poor. And the debate here is we, on our side, we do not want to cap our economy and trade away our jobs. And that's what this regime will do. This was after the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. A mine in my district, Peabody No. 10 in Kincaid, Illinois, because of the Clean Air Amendments, well, it was actually 1,200 miners lost their jobs. This is what will happen if we pursue a cap-and-tax regime that caps our economy and trades away our jobs. We will fight this to the end.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. I thank my colleague from Tennessee for joining me. Many States have power companies. I am fortunate to have some that aren't for profit. They are rural electric coops, like the Illinois Municipal Electrical Association. So their ratepayers are their constituents, so the elected officials are running this electricity generating and operation and distribution system for the people who vote for them. They have made themselves pretty clear that this cap-and-tax regime will create a huge tax burden on the people who vote for them. I have some stats that were sent to me. The Illinois Municipal Electric Association revenue requirements, without allowances in 2015 are approximately $320 million, or $60 per megawatt. The cost with allowances at $20 per ton is $510 million. This is additional cost incurred to the utility that has not been planned for. When you have an additional cost and you are providing a service or a good, business, whether it is profitable, for profit or not for profit, will cost will pass that cost on to the consumer. That's where we make this claim that a cap-and-tax regime will raise taxes on the individual and it will cost jobs. One of my colleagues talked about this article in the paper today, ``China: Importers Need to Share Blame for Emissions,'' and it basically says that global warming would not require China to reduce emissions caused by goods manufactured there to meet demand elsewhere. The basic premise is that it is the people who are purchasing the goods who will pay for any burden increase. Another story, ``University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Study Could Realign Climate Change Theory,'' and I want to quote one paragraph. `` `In climate, when this happens, the climate state changes. You go from a cooling regime to a warming regime or a warming regime to a cooling regime. This way we were able to explain all of the fluctuations in the global temperature trend in the past century,' Tsonis said. `The research team that sound the warming trend of the past 30 years has stopped and in fact global temperatures have leveled off since 2001.' The most recent climate shift probably occurred at about the year 2000.'' That is why the climate-change activists and those who promote the carbon tax regime, that is why they are so befuddled and they want to move this quickly because what has happened to the temperatures over the last 7 years? Has it gone up? No, it hasn't. The average temperature has gone down, and since it has gone down, it has got them very frustrated on how they are going to sell this cap-and-tax regime to the public. Madam Speaker, I would like to submit for the Record these two articles for submission with this Special Order. Madam Speaker, in the fall of last year, we really made a concerted effort to talk about the energy needs of this country, and we brought to the floor the basic debate that we wanted a more-of-the-above strategy. We wanted to incentivize coal, we wanted to incentivize nuclear power, we wanted to incentivize wind and solar, renewables, and we wanted them to compete for the public's demand based upon cost so that you would create jobs. I brought this chart to the floor numerous times over the last Congress to point out the fallacy of not having an all-of-the-above strategy. And why I bring this up now is that this cap-and-tax regime will not help this all-of-the-above strategy, will not broaden the portfolio of fuels that we are able to use and compete for. It will restrict them to a point where we are going to price ourselves out of the ability to use fuels. This chart is pretty clear; it just shows jobs being created in a--I wish it was a coal mine that is about 3,000 feet under the ground in southern Illinois, but it is an open mine probably in the Wyoming basin in Montana or Wyoming. And you see people working, recovering the coal. Recoverable coal. Then you take that mine and you move it to a coal-to-liquid refinery. The jobs to build this refinery would be good-paying, building trade jobs. We have an expansion of an oil refinery in my district. Right now, in this economic decline, 1,000 jobs are being created to expand this refinery. That's the type of jobs you could have by building a coal-to-liquid refinery. Then, wherever this refinery is located, you then develop a pipeline. I saw a natural gas pipeline being laid from my district last fall. It takes a lot of skilled labor, a lot of time, and a lot of patience to move a pipeline. And that is good-paying American jobs. Then, in this case, the coal-to-liquid debate is a national security issue. We have in the United States an Air Force base where coal-to- liquid has been tested to be used in Air Force planes. This is what the Department of Defense wants for national security purposes to not be held captive to imported crude oil. This proposal, and proposals like this, are dead on arrival here in Washington. Why are they dead on arrival? They are dead on arrival because of this carbon tax provision, this carbon tax regime. Again, I want to be clear; if my colleagues on the other side want to be intellectually honest, let's just tax it, know how much we're going to receive, and watch the pure transparency of the money going from the payees to the government, who is going to pay up. It is not the best solution, but it is better than setting up a trading floor, like so many that have been demagogued on this floor, of the rich getting richer by working the trading floor markets--the Bear Stearns of the world, the Goldman Sachs of the world, the NYMEXs of the world. And hopefully this will not get passed and signed into law, but I know that if it will, my friends will be down here arguing and complaining about the people who are manipulating that market. And that manipulation is going to cause costs to increase. And there is going to be a lot of wealthy people making a lot of money on a carbon tax regime, and it is going to cost many thousands of people their jobs. In a slow economy, when you are trying to encourage job creation, job development, the best way to be competitive is to have low-cost energy. When only 1.6 percent of your electricity in this country is generated by renewables, you have to understand that you are not going to get to 90 percent of your electricity being generated by renewables. If we are good, we may get to 3.2. If we are extremely good, we may get to five. So that begs the question of where the other electricity is being generated. If we want low-cost power, it has to be with the use of recoverable coal in our Midwest States and our northwestern mountainous States that have, arguably--this country has, arguably, 240 years of recoverable coal. That is coal that we can recover and use for practice. Now, we have a lot more, but that is the amount that we know that we can recover and still make money on it because their coal seams are big enough, you can engineer it and the like. Madam Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity. I have been talking about energy for many years now on the floor. In the Energy and Commerce Committee, we have had numerous hearings on climate change and how to address this. You will hear the terminology of cap-and-trade. Remember that the trading floor, which people will buy credits, those purchases of credits will raise the costs of people who use energy--whether they are truck drivers, whether they are people who manufacture goods and services and use a lot of electricity, you name it, you buy it, there is going to be an added cost to that good or that service based upon climate change. That money will then go to the table to be split up by legislation that we pass here. I would just hope that, first of all, we don't do that; but if we do, that that money goes to mitigate the loss of jobs or the increased cost to the individual consumer, not to grow government, not to create new policies. That money has to go to transform this Nation. I fear it will not. I fear it will not do the job. My friend from Iowa is here. I only have a couple minutes. If he would like to join me, I would be happy to hear any comments he wants to add.

Mr. SHIMKUS. I thank my colleague. And I think even my colleagues on the other side will understand the kind of sincerity I bring to this debate. Because in 1992, I was at a rally to save these coal miner jobs. It was at the Christian County Fairgrounds. This mine was closed because of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. They shipped in western coal to meet the standards, and 1,200 miners lost their job. There was a rally that brought in a lot of politicians who said they were there to fight to save these jobs. One of them whom was there voted for the Clean Air Act that destroyed these jobs. I think that's a little hypocritical. If you pass legislation that is going to destroy these jobs, don't come crying and saying, shame on that company for closing that mine down. My job, through this whole cap-and-tax debate, is to make sure that, when all is said and done, this body, my constituents, will know that I did everything possible to save the remaining coal mining jobs in southern Illinois and I did everything possible to make sure that coal- fired electricity generation is still part of our portfolio because it is a low-cost fuel, and it will help us in our competitive nature in this country. And so I want to walk away from this debate--hopefully I'll win, but I want to walk away from this debate saying, it is for these folks that I came down to fight. I know my colleagues on the other side, those who even disagree with the basic premise I think will appreciate the emotion and the fervor that I am going to bring to this. [From the Indianapolis Star, Mar. 16, 2009] China: Importers Need To Share Blame for Emissions (By Dina Cappiello) Washington (AP).-- Countries buying Chinese goods should be held responsible for the heat-trapping gases released during manufacturing in China, one of its top officials said Monday. The argument could place an even greater burden on the U.S. for reducing pollution blamed for global warming. Li Gao, China's chief climate negotiator, said that any fair international agreement to curb the gases blamed for global warming would not require China to reduce emissions caused by goods manufactured there to meet demand elsewhere. China has surpassed the U.S. as the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases. But 15 to 25 percent of its emissions are generated by manufacturing goods for export, Li said. ``As one of the developing countries, we are at the low end of the production line for the global economy. We produce products and these products are consumed by other countries. . . . This share of emissions should be taken by the consumers, but not the producers,'' Li said during a briefing at the Capitol's visitor center. Li directs the climate changes department at the National Development and Reform Commission and was in Washington, along with negotiators from other countries, to meet with Obama administration officials. President Barack Obama has indicated a willingness to enter into a global agreement to reduce greenhouse gases. But China's stance could be one of the stumbling blocks facing the U.S., China's largest trading partner, when negotiations to broker a new international treaty begin in Copenhagen in December. Li said China was not alone in thinking that emissions generated by the production of exports should be dealt with by importing countries. Li also criticized proposals by the U.S. to place carbon tariffs on goods imported from countries that do not limit the gases blamed for global warming. Lawmakers on Capitol Hill are considering it as they draft legislation to control global warming pollution to ensure that U.S. goods can compete with cheaper imports from countries without regulation. ``If developed countries set a barrier in the name of climate change for trade, I think it is a disaster,'' Li said. Neither China nor the U.S. ratified the last agreement, the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012. China has long insisted that developed nations bear the main responsibility for cutting emissions. As president, George W. Bush refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol because he said developing nations like India and China should not be exempt. Negotiators from other governments at the Monday briefing, including the European Union and Japan, said that they would not support China's proposal to unload a portion of its greenhouse gas emissions on importers. ``I think the issue here is we take full responsibility and we . . . regulate all the emissions that come from our territory,'' said Artur Runge-Metzger, who heads the climate change strategy and international negotiations unit at the European Commission. Runge-Metzger said that if China's approach were adopted, it would require allowing other countries to have jurisdiction and legislative powers to control emissions outside their borders. Li was joined by Vice Chairman Xie Zhenhua of the National Development and Reform Commission in his visit to Washington. Xie met with U.S. climate envoy Todd Stern at the State Department on Monday. The talks in Copenhagen were among the topics discussed, said State Department spokesman Robert Wood. ``There's a willingness, particularly on the Chinese side, to really engage on the subject of climate change, and we welcome that,'' Wood said.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Before I read it again, the fact that in the renewable fuels debate, there is a debate upon calculation of the use of land which the EPA is going into. So if you are using bio-diesel, soy- diesel, they want to say if you produce soybeans, that encourages the Brazilians to go into the rainforest and so we want to mitigate that loss of the ability to sequester carbon in the rain forest, so we are going to say no to renewable fuels. But here is from the inaugural address. ``We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories.'' Now I am a big renewable fuels guy. I like ethanol and I like bio-diesel. I think the thing that really stood out for me is ``run our factories.'' The stats I use are this. I just ask for one steel mill. I take a steel mill that uses 545 million kilowatts a year. It would require roughly 138 wind turbines on roughly 12,443 acres of land for that total output. However, during peak load at the steel mill, it requires 100,000 kilowatts. For that you would need roughly 825 turbines on 33,000 acres of land to account for peak load. Now that is just one steel plant that may be close to me. Now add to that the second steel mill and add to that the refinery. What we are trying to do in this process is help educate the people. Right now 1.6 percent of our electricity is generated by renewables. So let's double it. That's a good goal. So 3.2 percent of the energy would then be by renewables. You are still going to have 50 percent coal, 20 percent nuclear, 20 percent hydro. It is still going to be part of the electricity generation mix, and a critical part if we want low-cost energy.

Mr. SHIMKUS. I thank my colleague. I think the answer is they have got such a large majority on their side of the aisle that this is the time to pass it. It is a religion now. It doesn't have to be based on facts or the time that is at hand. We can impose an additional burden on business and manufacturing and electricity generation. We can impose an additional burden on the household, but that doesn't matter. But it is going to matter because even in the analysis of the Warner-Lieberman bill, we are talking about thousands of jobs. And that, by the Henry Waxman model, that is a moderate bill. An analysis was done on that bill, and it was summarily dismissed on the floor of the Senate. Why? Because it was a job killer, a job destroyer. So on this side we are rushing, like we are rushing all legislation, to move a cap-and-tax bill by Memorial Day which will be even more egregious than the Warner-Lieberman bill which projected thousands of jobs lost. It is a religion that has to have service now versus the needs of our citizens. You know, here is the tax increase. Here is the mine that was shut down. Here are the coal miners that lost their jobs. You were at the hearing. We had the Ohio Coal Association testify. When I talked about the environmental impact and the loss of these jobs, do you remember how many jobs Ohio lost? They lost 36,000 coal miner jobs in the State of Ohio. That is why some of my colleagues on the other side in the other body voted no. Fossil fuel, here are some basic facts. When we came on the floor during the energy debate, we said all of the above. In our Commerce hearing, there was a proposal given to one of the panelists, if we allowed the company to shut down the coal-fired power plant and they built a nuclear power plant, would they get some of these credits because they are going from emitting some to emitting none. The answer was no. We were looking around asking, Isn't that why you are proposing this? Don't you understand that we still need electricity, a 30 percent increase in the next 20 years. I have a teenage son. I have told the story numerous times. At home I go down to the basement, he is watching cable TV, he has his iPod in and he is surfing on the wireless Internet; three times the amount of electricity. That is what America is today. The demand is going up and we are going to stop the production of electricity, and then people talk about renewables. Let me quote the President, and I use this one quite a bit. This is from his inaugural address. ``We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories.'' No, we won't. There is no possible way.

Mr. SHIMKUS. I wonder if my colleague would stay for a minute and just go into a little dialogue as to in an economic decline, where we are fighting for every job, why would we put an additional burden on our manufacturing sector and the average American citizen in the aspect of raising taxes? Why? It just doesn't seem sensible when you need to get the jobs to get the economy moving again. What do you think is going on?

Mr. SHIMKUS. I appreciate that comment. That is really the irony of this whole debate. If all this money was going to go to mitigate carbon emissions or to help us adjust to this change, you may get some people, even though I still don't agree with it, who would say, okay, we know where it is going. But the fact that this money is going to go to grow government just shows you the problem they have with the real debate of what the real reason is that this cap-and-tax regime is being initiated. I'm happy to be joined by my colleague from Tennessee, Congresswoman Blackburn. Thanks for coming down.

Mr. SHIMKUS. The cap-and-tax regime, the cap-and-trade regime is predicated on the fact they are going to trade these carbon credits on a trading floor. So we are going to allow folks like Goldman Sachs and Bear Stearns--my colleague from Ohio just left the floor talking about the demise of the economy based upon shady actions. My colleagues on the other side who are on the floor are always throwing bombs at the New York Mercantile Exchange and these traders, the people who trade these instruments on the floor. This is a way for rich people to get richer, when you have a trading floor for carbon. If my colleagues on the other side were intellectually honest, and I don't think they are being intellectually honest, they would say, let's outright cap, let's tax carbon emissions. Let's put a monetary amount on the carbon emission, and let's make it transparent so the public understands how much they are going to pay to try to mitigate carbon use. But they can't go that route because they can't be intellectually honest in this debate because they know the public will not accept the increase in energy cost and the job losses that are going to incur. So what do they do? They package this cap-and-trade trading floor scheme. And the same people they vilify, the Wall Street traders, are the people they are holding up saying, oh, no, but this system is going to work fine. So, this carbon tax, I pulled this out, this is the President's ``making work pay tax credit.'' I think we are being generous saying it is $800. I think it is about $700. The impact of a cap-and-tax provision as proposed in the budget is $1,600 per individual. So the net loss to the individual, the household and the family is $800. We are in the hole. We are not making money on this deal. We are behind. Who is going to determine where this money goes to? The story I like to tell is that it is like the bank robbers. They rob the bank. They go to the hideout. And they put the loot on the table. And where do the real fights begin? The fights begin as to how they are trying to split the proceeds. What is going on here in Washington now is my friends on the other side are trying to buy off votes to pass this regime promising this largess, which is a tax increase paid for by us, saying, ``don't worry, you will get your share.'' It is just like the bank robbers. And that is why I'm so angry about it. I yield to my colleague from Minnesota.

Mr. SHIMKUS. I think there is a group that will have jobs in this regime, and it is the Wall Street traders.

Mr. SHIMKUS. I come to the floor tonight--and I will be joined by a couple of my colleagues--to talk about the President's budget and the issue of the carbon tax proposed therein. Part of the President's budget submission is $686 billion raised by a carbon tax. This poses a serious number of questions, and I will highlight the history and then talk about how that addresses a concern from, really, a large part of this country, especially the Midwest. When the 1990 Clean Air Act passed and was signed into law, a mining operation in my congressional district, Peabody Mine #10, which is located right here, a big facility, very efficient, and the great thing about this facility was that right across the street and down the road was a coal-fired generating plant. So you have what you hear a lot of people talk about today, a mine mouth operation, where you have the coal located underground and you have the power plant on the surface. So you save in the aspect of transportation either by rail or by truck. What happened under the Clean Air Amendments of 1990 is what will happen as we move to a carbon-constrained regime when we monetize carbon, is that in this process there will be winners and losers. So I am coming to the floor tonight to talk about who these people are and why are they in this debate. One of the most clearly identified losers in a cap-and-tax regime are the miners. Now, we hear a lot about green jobs, but I can guarantee you that the green jobs created will in no way match the loss of the fossil fuel industry in this country. And when I say fossil fuel, I talk about all the fossil fuel regimes, from coal to crude oil to natural gas. And we could go, as we talked about last fall oil shale, we could talk about the tar sands, vast resources of energy which, through a climate change regime, through a cap-and-tax provision, we could lose. Well, these guys lost out and ladies. This one mine in southern Illinois that had over 1,200 miners was shut down, and it was shut down to meet the requirements of the 90 amendments to the Clean Air Act. So I find it very, very difficult when my colleagues say there will be no effect. And we have been very successful, I think, in this debate to highlight the reality that people will lose jobs as we move to address the climate regime. These guys and these ladies lost their jobs. This is one mine. I talked to an individual who was a business agent for the United Mine Workers who told me, at one time before these acts were passed there were about 16,000 bargain members of the United Mine Workers in southern Illinois. After this last legislation was passed, he was reorganized into a three-State region and he only was working for at that time 4,000 miners. So he went from 14,000 miners in southern Illinois to 4,000 United Mine Workers in a three-State region. There will be definitely be effects, and it is the blue-collar jobs, the working men and women who have mined our coals. The historical importance of coal mining is part of the reason why many immigrant families found jobs when they moved here. I am a fourth- generation Lithuanian. My great grandfather came to this country and worked in the coal mine. That story is told over and over and over again and highlights the importance of this debate. So you go from this coal mine, this operation to nothing, you go to this job loss, and then you go to the last revenue for the county. Now, this is just one story that can be told over and over again in just my State, central Illinois, from central Illinois all the way down to the southern tip, that story of miners losing their jobs. So that is why we come to this debate. And we come fervently to talk about the challenges of a cap-and-trade regime. In this country, the portfolio of energy, again, in this chamber the electricity produced is by a coal-fired power plant just two blocks away from here. The electricity generated in this country is generated by 49 percent coal. So just imagine that you take coal out of the equation. Now you have current demand and you have less than half the amount of supply. And if you understand supply and demand, costs will then escalate. Who will that cost escalate to? Well, it escalates to everybody. We hear about the President is making work pay tax credit, the $300 to $400 a year for an individual or the $700 for a couple, that is for 95 percent of all Americans, as he promised. But what he hasn't been able to explain is how, as he passes this cap-and-tax on to the American public, he is going to tax everybody, 100 percent, because we will pay, the consumer will pay for the energy used across the board, because energy is used in everything that we touch, we eat, we consume in this country, and that cost will be passed on in higher costs. So now let's just talk about the manufacturing sector. If you think that the manufacturing sector that is in this economic malaise right now, you think it is better served with low energy costs or high energy costs? I think the answer is clear: It is better served with low energy costs. If our manufacturing sector is completing against the likes of India and China in the manufacturing sector, do you think our manufacturing sector is better served with higher costs versus the competitors of India and China? Of course they are not. But this Congress and this President is planning to threaten the economic vitality of this country on this cap-and-tax regime and put thousands and thousands of people employed either in the mines or in the power plants or in the manufacturing sector out of work. And I am just going to end with this story, and then I will yield to my colleague from Minnesota. People say, well, you know, America has got to lead. We have got to lead the folks from India and China. I was in a bipartisan meeting with senior Democrat leaders talking to a senior Chinese official; and I didn't ask the question, two of my democratic colleagues asked this question. The question was: Will China ever agree to an international cap-and-trade regime that is complied by the worldwide organization? After answering both questions for about 15 minutes, the answer was the same, and this is a paraphrase. He said: You know, the United States and Western Europe built their middle class by cheap fossil fuel use, and now it is our turn. Now it is our turn. So for anyone who thinks that they are going to comply just because we have now guttered ourselves and made ourselves less competitive and they are going to be goody two-shoes and going to join, they are wrong, and they are not understanding this other simple fact. I think in January, more automobiles were sold in China than in the United States. They are only starting their era of fossil fuel use. They are not going to stop their era of fossil fuel use. They are not going to comply with any international standards. So our pain, our job loss, our inability to get out of this recession or this economic malaise is going to be held hostage to the fact that China is going to do nothing. We are going to tell our blue-collar workers out there, yeah, we are going to shut down this coal mine in the hopes that we can encourage China to join us? Are they kidding me? So that is why we took to the floor. There is a lot more to talk about. I appreciate my colleague and friend from Minnesota for coming down, and I would like to yield time to her.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an important community institution in Mt. Vernon, Illinois. In February, Trinity Episcopal Church celebrated its 100th anniversary. Since the first service was held at 1100 Harrison Street in Mt. Vernon on January 3, 1909, thousands of people have visited Trinity Episcopal to worship with their neighbors. Generations of families in Mt. Vernon and Jefferson County have been welcomed into the congregation. Today, Trinity Episcopal is an important part of the spiritual fabric of the community and serves as a good neighbor to families in need throughout the area. Through a century of the congregation's generosity, many have found a helping hand, warm embrace, and comfort in times of despair. I want to congratulate Father Gene Tucker of Trinity Episcopal, all members of the congregation, and the extended Trinity Episcopal family on 100 years of service and thank them for the important role they play in our community.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. The President today said that he was frustrated at the Republicans' ``just say no'' attitude. Well, this is what I am going to say ``no'' to. I am saying ``no'' to a 686 billion carbon tax increase. What does that mean? This is Peabody Mine No. 10 in 1990. After the last Clean Air amendments, this mine was shut down. We lost over 1,200 mineworkers' jobs because of that. The carbon tax, the cap-and-tax provision in the budget bill, will raise costs to every energy user in this country, hurting manufacturing, hurting retail industries. It's egregious, it's not necessary, and it only hurts an ailing economy.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Speaker, I also come down to the floor to talk about the President's budget, and I am going to focus on the issue of taxing. There is one provision in the tax increase of the President's budget that is very detrimental to our country and to our society, and that is the carbon tax aspect of this. Imagine paying more for every piece of energy that you use. That is what this cap-and-trade, cap-and- tax plan will do. I have seen the direct result of placing taxes and additional regulatory burdens on my congressional district in Southern Illinois. I always tell the story about the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act where because of Federal regulation, in this one case, in this one case, 1,200 miners lost their jobs. I was told by someone who was the business manager for the United Mine Workers of America in Southern Illinois that during 1990 he was responsible for 14,000 mine workers in Southern Illinois. After the amendments were passed, he then was reorganized into a three-State region to only bargain for 4,000 United Mine workers. 10,000 mine workers' jobs were lost. That was just in the cap-and-trade clean air amendments 1990s, where we had technology to make the transformation. This carbon dioxide cap- and-tax provision, we do not have the technology available today to effect this change. So this is what happened. This is actually a picture of mine workers who lost their jobs. This is the mine I was talking about, Peabody No. 10 in Kincaid, Illinois. The interesting thing about this mine, it is very, very efficient in that the mine was right across the street from the power plant, so you saved on the transportation costs, whether that be the trucks or that would be the rail applications. There was a little conveyor belt going across the road to the power plant. This mine was closed down. These miners lost their jobs. Now, under the new regime of the President's bill that taxes too much, he proposes additional taxation of $686 billion through a carbon tax. This carbon tax will be passed on to everybody who uses fossil fuels in America. You might say, I don't want to use fossil fuels. It is like the story where the individual says I don't like coal, I don't like nuclear power, I don't like hydroelectric. I like electricity. The problem with this is 50 percent of all electricity, even the electricity that lights this Chamber, is produced by coal-based electricity generation. The power plant just down the road two blocks from here is a coal-fired power plant. Fifty percent. If you put additional taxation on that fossil fuel, that cost will be passed on to the individuals and the consumers. This is the worst time to really attack our economy through additional taxation, because of the economic slowdown, the economic recession, the competitive nature of the world. If we not only put a challenge to our use of fossil fuels in this country, not only coal, natural gas as a fossil fuel, gasoline as a fossil fuel, estimations of the last cap-and-trade bills are 50 cents additional to the cost of a gallon of gas. Where does that money go to when we collect it? There is an old story. When the bank robbers rob a bank and they get away to their hideaway and they put the loot on the table, what happens? That is when you have the fights break out. That is when one bad guy shoots the other bad guy and says, I am taking all the money for myself. What this cap-and-tax regime will do will allow bureaucrats, it will allow us in Washington, to decide how that money is going to be split up, and it will be folks here making that determination. Why do you think so many people are at the table? They are at the table because they want part of your tax dollars that you are going to pay through higher rates to us and they want to get benefited. You can look across all the regimes that are at the table. They are at the table because they want part of that revenue stream. What this revenue stream will do is not only kill the fossil fuel of this industry, which is hundreds of thousands of jobs and low-cost power, it will make us not competitive with the developing nations who are using coal and having low cost power.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Y-Yard Auto and Truck, Inc. of Effingham, Illinois. Y-Yard Auto and Truck, Inc. was awarded the Automotive Recyclers Association CAR Star award in recognition of their commitment to environmental stewardship in the automotive recycling industry. I would like to congratulate Y-Yard Auto and Truck, Inc. for this achievement, earned by upholding the highest in standards of environmental consciousness, safety, and customer service setting a leading example in their industry and community.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a championship team from Harrisburg, Illinois. On February 18, the Harrisburg Junior Bulldogs beat previously- undefeated Carlyle 52-43 to clinch the 2009 Southern Illinois Junior High School Athletic Association Class L state championship. Finishing with a record of 26-1, the Junior Bulldogs gave Harrisburg Middle School its first state championship in boys basketball. Facing a strong, talented opponent, the Junior Bulldogs stayed cool under pressure, held off a late rally and then came from behind to seal the win. This year's team exemplifies teamwork. As Coach Kevin Dowdy told the local newspaper, ``Everyone had their part.'' I want to congratulate Coach Dowdy and his assistant coach, Marcus Questelle, on their fine work with this group of student athletes. I also want to extend my congratulations to the members of the 2008-2009 Harrisburg Junior Bulldogs state championship boys basketball team: Tyler Smithpeters, Capel Henshaw, Ryne Roper, Brian Berkel, Caleb Bailey, Justin Younger, Cody Hall, Isaac Ingram, Caleb Bartok, Gabe Oglesby, Phillip West, Brandon Pate and Chris Wilsey. This outstanding group of young men represented themselves, their school, families and community in a first-rate fashion. It is my privilege to congratulate them on a job well done.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an important community institution. The Altamont Lions Club in Altamont, Illinois, celebrated its 70th Anniversary on January 15 at the Immanuel Lutheran Church Parish Hall. Since January 1939, the Altamont Lions Club has been doing good deeds in this small town in Effingham County, Illinois. Each year, the club gives two Lions Club scholarships to deserving students in the community. Through the Lions' nationwide commitment to assisting the sight-impaired, they hold candy days fundraisers to purchase large- print Readers' Digests for the local library, and donate funds to enable blind youth to attend Space Camp. This commitment has also led to the club purchasing eyeglasses for community members in need. In recent years, the Altamont Lions have sponsored youth soccer and basketball leagues, giving area children a positive opportunity for healthy recreation. I want to congratulate Club President Jim Strange and the members of the Altamont Lions Club on 70 years of good work, and wish them all the best for the next 70 years and beyond.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an outstanding group of student athletes from Bartelso, Illinois. The Bartelso Braves of Bartelso Elementary School, defeated Centralia Trinity Lutheran 49-26 to capture the Southern Illinois Junior High School Athletic Association Class S State Championship. The win followed victories in the quarterfinals over Rome and in the semifinals over Waltonville. I want to congratulate Coach Gigi Kohrmann and Assistant Coach Abby Winkeler for all of their work with their team. I especially want to congratulate the members of the 2008-2009 Bartelso Braves state championship basketball team: Emily Koelling, April Gebke, Madison Thole, Kaitlyn Albers, Katlyn Albers, Paige Varel, Torre Kohrmann, Nicole Loepker, Noel Loepker, Jillian Menkhaus, Erin Brueggemann, Sophie Rickhoff, Elle Gebke, Chloe Beckmann and Madison Haake. These young ladies have made our community proud, and have brought home the championship trophy to Bartelso. I wish them all the best in their future academic and athletic endeavors.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a community institution in Harrisburg, Illinois, celebrating its 100th birthday. Bill Ghent, Inc. began business in 1909 as J.C. Robertson, and boasted as its slogan, ``Friends may sympathize, but we pay cash.'' Bill Ghent joined the business in the late 1930s, and in 1957, Bill Ghent, Inc. was established. In the early days, the only worries this small-town insurance agency was concerned with were fire and lightning. ``Now, we've got all kinds of perils to deal with,'' Bill Ghent, II, told the local newspaper. These days, Bill Ghent, Inc, insures not just private citizens and their property, but also looks after the schools of the area. Insuring schools is something of a tradition for Bill Ghent, Inc. In Mr. Ghent's office, behind glass, is the 1909 to 1911 policy for the Bramlet School in Raleigh, Illinois. It insured the school building for $500 and the contents for $100. Bill Ghent, Inc. has served the residents of Harrisburg and southeastern Illinois from the days of horse and buggies to today's modern world. I want to congratulate Bill Ghent and all the employees of Bill Ghent, Inc. on one hundred years of service to the community, and to wish them one hundred more.