BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DOYLE. I yield myself 2 minutes.
Madam Chair, I sit on the Energy and Commerce Committee and on the Energy and Power Subcommittee, which has primary jurisdiction of H.R. 910. As such, I have been at several hearings on this bill where my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle have claimed that the pending EPA regulations on greenhouse gases will cause our industries to pack up and move overseas, taking with them our jobs and our carbon emissions.
At a committee hearing on this bill held in March of this year, our chairman told us, ``We live in a global economy with global competition, and nations like China absolutely have no intention of similarly burdening their industries. Manufacturing will leave this country unless the EPA is stopped.''
Madam Chair, unfortunately, my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle have forgotten to check with the Chinese. Just 2 days ago, a report came out saying China to Tax Energy Usage of Energy-Intensive Industries. The report says that China will impose a tax on energy usage of eight industrial sectors, including iron and steel, aluminum and cement. Xie Zhenhua, vice chairman of National Development and Reform, said that China has launched pilot carbon emission trading schemes in some of their provinces. So much for this idea that all these jobs are going to China because there's no taxing there or that they're not looking at a trading scheme.
While I dispute the claims of my colleagues that China has no intention of addressing climate change, what I am more concerned about is the varying claims that these regulations will ship jobs overseas. What we have as an amendment here is to address that very question: Are these industries here in America that utilize energy-intensive processes and have special trade pressures, what will the effect of these regulations be on those types of industries?
In the last Congress, I worked with Congressman Inslee to develop and address job and carbon leakage issues when we did the American Clean Energy Security Act. We were able to develop a fair system of distributing these allowances. This amendment proposes to do the same thing.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. DOYLE. Thank you.
I will reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KINZINGER of Illinois. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. KINZINGER of Illinois. Madam Chairman, this is an interesting amendment. This is an amendment to a bill to study the cost of regulations that if this bill goes through, regulations won't exist. I don't get it, but okay.
We don't need another study. We need jobs. I come from the 11th Congressional District in Illinois. We have high unemployment. Where I come from is an industry base, a manufacturing base. Americans are hurting. We have high unemployment. Statistics show that jobs are leaving at a record pace.
There is no longer any question about whether the EPA's climate change regulations would actually hurt international competitiveness and affect American companies. We already know they would. We already know that. I talked to a factory in my district that said when cap-and-trade was going to be passed, or this de facto cap-and-trade that's being looked at, if that passes, that will definitely result in them leaving. There's no benefit. It's a higher cost of doing business. It makes us uncompetitive in the free world, especially in areas affected where we have an ability to trade with other countries.
Now here's the very interesting part about that, though. We're concerned about the environment, and we're very concerned about the environment. When you add cost to doing business in a country that already well regulates what is put out of an industry's smokestack and you add cost to that, you drive those businesses overseas into areas where they have far less environmental regulation. So not only are we losing jobs here in the United States, not only is the middle class continuing to be squeezed again by not having their manufacturing jobs, but now we've hurt the environment.
This is backwards. This isn't what we want to do. This isn't the kind of America that we strive to come back to, to get a middle class that's vibrant and producing things and exporting them overseas and people are getting a good paycheck. This amendment studies something that will not exist if we pass this bill.
We heard from a wide cross-section of energy producers and manufacturers on the Energy and Commerce Committee who testified as to the harm these regulations will do in steel and chemical and refineries. The fact that China, India and other industrial competitors have no intention of imposing similar regulations is further evidence that such regulations are costly and economically damaging.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DOYLE. Madam Chair, I yield myself 15 seconds to say to the gentleman that maybe he wasn't here when I just read the fact that China is imposing a tax on their industries, is looking at cap-and-trade.
I would also say to the gentleman who says why we want a study for a bill that is going to abolish these regulations, your bill is never going to become law. This bill has a veto threat. We need to do a study to see what the implications are on our industries.
I would now like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DOYLE. Madam Chair, let me just close by saying to my colleagues that all we're asking for is to put some good data behind this. Let's study it. Let's have the EPA take a look at this. Let's see what the effects are on our energy-intensive industries, because this is an issue we're going to have to deal with eventually, and we want to have good data behind it. Let's not have all the stories be anecdotal. Let's have the agency study this, and let's work together to find solutions to protect our industries while we clean up our environment for our kids and our grandkids.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT