Thank you Mr. Chairman. I do want to reduce emissions of carbon and promote the development of clean energy—whether it be clean coal using carbon capture technologies, greater use of renewables like wind, solar, and hydro, or turning the switch back to green on nuclear, resulting in the potential creation of hundreds of thousands of good-paying jobs
We know that our country is going to require 30 to 40 percent more electricity in the next 20 years. And, we know that we haven't put a new nuclear reactor on-line in the last 20 years or a new coal plant in the last several years.
I returned from Michigan this morning. Our economic woes are well-known. Every one of my counties has double-digit unemployment—and our state average could well hit 20 percent by the end of summer.
One of Michigan's largest utility companies, DTE Energy, has one in three customers in arrears, with perhaps $400-500 million in uncollected bills this year.
Folks don't want a handout to help pay their bills - they want a job and a paycheck to send their kids to college, pay their bills, and save for retirement.
From the start, I've said that climate legislation should adhere to five principles: provide a tangible environmental benefit to the American people; advance technology and provide for opportunity to export; protect American jobs; strengthen U.S. energy security; and require global participation.
We've heard story after story that if this cap-and-trade scheme sticks, by design increasing costs for employers in this country, there will be even more incentive for businesses to close up shop here and move to China, India, Brazil, you name it—anywhere where they don't have anything close in terms of environmental regulations—and set up shop there.
China produces nearly three times the amount of carbon per ton of steel produced than at facilities here in the United States. What good does it do for the planet to shift production from the United States to China? China is bringing a new coal plant on-line virtually every single week. Does anyone here think they have the same requirements as we do?
I support renewables, but a question we've asked over and over is: Where is the legislative language to connect wind and solar to the grid? As we look to what is counted as a renewable, where is hydro? Shouldn't existing hydro count and why is it so hard to bring new hydro on-line?
Why is it that France can have nearly 90 percent of its electric power generated from nuclear, greenhouse gas emission-free, by the way - and take only five years from start to finish, and we can barely get above 20 percent or construct a new plant in less than 10 years. And in a 1,000 page bill on reducing emissions, nuclear, the source of 70 percent our nation's emissions-free electricity, is only mentioned twice – on page 23 and page 351.
France, China, Spain, the United Kingdom, and India are embracing nuclear. Decades ago, we built 85 percent of nuclear components here on U.S. soil with American workers – now 85 percent of parts to build a nuclear plant are built overseas. By renewing our commitment to nuclear power, we have the potential to revitalize an entire manufacturing sector, and our economy will be better for it.
I'd like to vote for a bill—not only in this committee, but also on the floor, but this version does not pass the test. John Engler, now President of the National Association of Manufacturers, said that the enactment of this legislation could indeed lead to a permanent recession. I agree. The last thing our economy needs right now is higher costs on consumers, which in the Midwest could increase utility bills by 40-50 percent.
The further leakage of jobs is certain without global participation—and the record is clear that the largest emitter of all—China—can hardly wait for us to pass this bill.
I intend to support constructive amendments to fix this bill. The Senate voted 67 to 31 last month to reject cap-and-trade as part of the budget and I would hope we would do the same.
In closing, the American people deserve to know and understand the scale of the emissions reductions being called for in this bill. Under this Act, the United States cannot emit more in the year 2050 than we emitted in 1910. That's a fact. Consider that in 1910 the United States had only 92 million people—compared to an estimated 420 million in 2050. In 1910, per capita income, in current dollars, was about $6,000. To reach the lofty goal of 83 percent reduction, emissions from the entire transportation sector would have to drop to zero; emissions from all electricity generation would have to drop to zero; and then we'd still need to reduce the remainder by 50 percent
There are numerous studies on the potential effects under a cap-and-trade regime that offer various figures and predictions, yet one finding remains constant in each study - families will see their bills go up at a time when they can least afford it. Quite simply, this legislation puts the nation's working families in the crosshairs. Our national unemployment hovers just below 9 percent, yet here we are today discussing legislation that will hemorrhage jobs and wreak havoc on our economy. We have a unique opportunity and a responsibility to reduce emissions and preserve our economy – the American public is desperate for solutions, but cap and trade is not the answer. The stakes are too high not to get this right.
Mr. Chairman, I expect a spirited markup this week, focusing on the issues most important to the American people. We cannot ignore how this legislation will impact our economy, energy costs, or jobs. Protections must be put in place.
I yield back.
