BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mrs. BACHMANN. I commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shimkus) for all the work that he has done, the tremendous work on energy. The energy fight that we all participated in last summer when we talked about how we needed to adopt an all-of-the-above-energy standard so that we can increase America's energy supply, your leadership was exemplary on that effort.
We all remember how much fun that was last July 4, when we were all paying $4 and more a gallon, thinking that we were on our way to paying $6 a gallon, $8 a gallon. We had no idea where it would lead, because what we are seeing was that the world was diminishing its supply, raising its prices. And here in the United States we adopted a policy that was to not produce more American energy, and that constricted and constrained the American public because they had less supply and they had to pay more money. This was not a scenario that the American people were very happy about, and we can see why.
Now, it is curious that under President Obama's spending plan, and that is what we talked about last week on the floor, that the President's budget spends too much, it taxes too much, it borrows too much. All of this radical historical level of spending is mandating massive tax increases. Mandating.
Just the stimulus plan alone, which we found doesn't do anything to stimulate, was over $1 trillion in spending. Then we saw after that a $410 billion budget bill which included almost 9,000 earmarks. And our President, who said he would not sign a bill with earmarks, signed a bill loaded with earmarks, and he did it behind a closed door where no cameras were present. And sandwiched in between all that massive spending was a fiscal responsibility summit. Now, that was a little humorous to me, but now here we are today talking about the budget.
Moving forward. This historic level of spending, $3.7 trillion, where will the money come? Where will the money come from to fund all of this massive spending? I can guarantee to the American people, there is no vault back here in the Capitol filled with wrapped $100 bills. There is no money here. There is no money tree out on the Capitol lawn that produces money every morning that we can shake and go gather that money up and spend on all these programs, socialized medicine, all the programs that the President is envisioning. So where will we go to get this money?
To fuel this radical historic level of spending, we are looking at the system that Mr. Shimkus has spoken of so well, and it is the cap-and-trade system, which we all know now is a subterfuge for an energy tax. This is a massive tax. And just as our President stood right here in this room several weeks ago and looked into the camera and said to the American people: 95 percent of the American people will pay no increase in taxation. And that absolutely is not true. We know it, because during the course of those remarks he said he wants to pass a cap-and-trade system.
What will cap-and-trade do? It will increase the price of almost every product and service in the United States. Why? Because think of any commodity that somehow doesn't have energy attached to it. There isn't one.
I hail from great State of Minnesota, Minnesota's Sixth District. I will tell you one thing. When October hits in Minnesota, you turn on your furnace, and your furnace stays on until April. Our furnace is still on in Minnesota. It stays on. Energy is a fact of life. And under this cap-and-tax system, we are looking at a minimum 40 percent increase in the monthly energy bill, the monthly electric bill, let alone the increase in the gas tax when you go to the gas station, let alone when you go to the grocery store the increase in taxation. We know this.
As a matter of fact, we have some quotes from our President. We have a quote just a few days ago when the President said that he wants to pass this cap-and-tax system, but he said we may need to delay implementation until 2012. Why? Because our President said, in our current economic meltdown, we will not be able to afford a cap-and-tax system. Well, we know something about our economy. We engage in business cycles where we have good times and not so good times. What are we going to do, suspend this tax in not so good times? The President by his own words is admitting this will harm our economic future.
In fact, when President Obama was running for President, he said, and I quote, ``What I said is that we would put a cap-and-trade system in place that is more, that is as aggressive if not more aggressive than anybody else's out there.'' So if somebody wants to build a coal powered plant, they can. It is just that they will bankrupt them, because they are going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that is being emitted.
And then he want on to say, ``When I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, uh, you know, under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.''
Coal is the number one energy electricity producer in the United States, and we have coal in abundance in this country. Coal isn't evil. Oil isn't evil. Natural gas isn't evil. It has given us the energy to fuel the greatest economy that has ever been known in the history of man. And I fear that what we will be seeing is the demise of the American economy if we tie cement blocks onto the coal, oil, and natural gas industry. And I fear even the biofuel industry will be negatively impacted, the solar and wind industries I think also will be negatively impacted, because we need to have money in private hands to be able to create these new, wonderful alternative forms of energy that we need to have in the United States. We want to see more nuclear powered plants, zero emissions.
Now, if the President is truly worried about the emissions problem into our atmosphere, why not embrace nuclear power? It produces zero emissions. We should be building nuclear power plants all across this country.
I don't want to take up all the time here, and I would be happy to dialogue with my colleague. Again, I want to thank Mr. Shimkus, because Mr. Shimkus understands, unfortunately all too well personally in his own district, what the cost has been when government rolls the dice with people's lives and thinks that they have come up with some grand new idea, but that grand new idea, as we have already seen economists forecast, is a loss of at minimum 1 million jobs. How could America accommodate right now 1 million more job losses because of this new tax? I yield back.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mrs. BACHMANN. I thank you for yielding.
When we are looking at the money and where all of this massive amount of money will be spent, again, the placeholder in the President's budget is $646 billion. But we are told that is maybe one-third of the true amount of revenue that will be generated. Now just think, that is between $1.5 and $2 trillion in new taxation. That is just one new taxation burden on the American people. And the President has already indicated that he may be using that money not to build new nuclear power plants, which would have zero emissions, but to redistribute the wealth, as he is wont to do, with paying for socialized medicine. So we are going to embrace a socialistic view of socialized medicine for the American people which will further be a burden on the American people.
I just wanted to go back on your previous comments on China. There is an article in today's Washington Times newspaper. Open up the inside of the paper. It said this regarding China, China made the comment that they will not be engaging in a cap-and-trade system. They won't be engaging in reducing their own emissions. Why? Because they said the United States are the consumers of products. Japan is the producers of products. They said, with a straight face, ``as the producers of products, we aren't the ones who are truly generating the emissions, it is the consumers.'' Now they are ignoring the fact that they probably have one of the largest pools of consumers in the world.
They have no intention of paying this tax. And if you would give Al Gore and the people who are embracing the whole global warming narrative, if you would give them every aspect of what they believe, if you presume every premise they believe, and if the United States would implement all of their radical ideas, all of this cap and tax, let's say we did everything, gave it all to them, what would we produce in lowering emissions? By their own numbers, it shows that we would be reducing emissions by the year 2095--which is a long time from now--by less than 1 percent. That is a negligible amount. And we know that China is going to continue to grow as a manufacturer. India will continue to grow. Their emissions will overtake any savings the United States would possibly have.
So we need to recognize the truth of what cap and tax is. Cap and tax, pure and simple, is a big government attempt to reach into Americans' pockets, pull more money out, bring it to Washington, DC, to empower the Federal Government so they can decide to do what they want to do with the American people's money.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT