Cap and Trade
The "cap and trade" bill that passed the House of Representatives on June 16, 2009, would revolutionize how Americans use and consume energy to combat climate change. U.S. Reps. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, and Ed Markey D-Mass., sponsors of the bill, claim that it will create green jobs, increase energy efficiency, and combat global warming. The inconvenient truth is that the legislation will hinder economic recovery, result in a net loss of jobs and do very little to change short- and long-term global temperatures.
What people should know first about cap and trade is that it is a tax, despite the effort (1,200 pages' worth) to hide that fact. The cap and trade bill would increase the price of fossil fuels, with the cost passed on to consumers.
Here is how cap and trade would work: The bill would cap greenhouse gas emissions -- a byproduct of burning coal, oil and natural gas. These fuels constitute 85 percent of U.S. energy production. From 2005 emission levels, the Waxman-Markey bill would require a 3 percent reduction by 2012, a 17 percent reduction by 2020 and an 83 percent reduction by 2050. The major providers of electricity would be given "allowances" of carbon dioxide, which would be tradable (hence the "trade" portion of the name). The allowances would be reduced each year.
The bill makes energy production more expensive and thus, costlier for us to consume. The point of the bill is to force Americans to use less energy and force energy providers to create new, alternative sources.
The questions on everyone's mind are how much the plan will cost and whether it will work. According to the Congressional Budget Office, by 2020, Waxman-Markey compliance will cost about $110 billion a year.
The businesses that are forced to pony up this staggering sum will be left with three options: pass the cost on to consumers; move their operations overseas; or close their doors.
Some estimates show that the bill may cost a family of four $1,870 a year in 2020 and $6,800 a year by 2035. Any way you slice it, the economy will suffer.
So after hundreds of thousands of people have lost their jobs and families are paying excessive costs for energy, what do we get in return? Climate scientist Chip Knappenberger of New Hope Environmental Services has calculated that the bill would reduce the Earth's temperature by a rather anticlimactic 0.1 to 0.2 degrees Celsius by 2100.
American families simply cannot afford the Waxman-Markey bill. It would put the United States at a severe disadvantage against countries such as China and India, which have said they will not sacrifice prosperity for energy reform.
However, I strongly agree that America must wean itself off of foreign energy sources. That is why I introduced the MORE Act, H.R. 797, which prevents energy exploration and production within 25 miles of a state's coastline, unless the state enacts a law approving such exploration.
The MORE Act also provides coastal states with an increased share of royalty revenue, which would help with our state budget deficit. To help end dependence on fossil fuels, the bill also dedicates a portion of the royalty revenue to renewable energy and energy efficiency research.
I also signed onto the American Energy Act, which would create more supply and less carbon dioxide through increased use of nuclear energy. This "all of the above" strategy takes advantage of domestic energy resources and creates incentives for clean, renewable energy -- the carrot approach. In addition to reducing our dependence on foreign oil, this approach would create all kinds of jobs -- green, high tech and construction.
When a government wants to legislate change in societal behavior, it has the option to use a stick or a carrot. Unfortunately, Democrats in Congress have opted to use the stick to bring about change in the way we use energy. Like many American families, I wish they had chosen the carrot.
Healthcare Reform
There is no doubt that we must reform America’s health care system. However, I am concerned about the loss of individual freedom and the costs of government operated health reform proposals before Congress. Recent cost estimates performed by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office have placed the cost of health reform proposals, including a government plan, as high as $1.6 trillion over the next 10 fiscal years. An unintended result of this may be denial of medical treatment in order to contain costs, however even the rationing of care will not cover the full cost of these plans. To make up the difference, new taxes on individuals and employers are being proposed. These taxes will ultimately result in decreased wages from employers and decreased take-home pay for workers. In addition, some have proposed taxing items such as soda to help pay for health care reforms. I am opposed to rationing and taxes, as well as government control of medical decisions.
Health reform must be a priority in this Congress and I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the isle to accomplish this goal. However, I cannot support a health care regime that seeks to accomplish its coverage goals through the rationing of care and increased taxes.
One way to combat increasing health care costs is by working to eliminate the waste, fraud and abuse present in our current health care system. Every day, doctors find it necessary to order expensive tests and treatments because they believe it will protect them from a lawsuit. These tests raise the cost of health care and are paid for out of the pockets of patients through higher insurance premiums. Any health reform must address the tort issues that encourage this cost raising medical practice.
I am a co-sponsor of the Patient’s Choice Act, H.R. 2520, which seeks to achieve the goals of increased access to health care and affordable insurance coverage as well as provide all Americans with a refundable tax credit to help them purchase private insurance. Additionally, it creates a health insurance exchange, giving Americans a one-stop marketplace where all the plans available will compete to best suit each individual’s needs. Through these steps we can create a health care system that puts patients first in providing affordable, accessible and high quality care.
We can also increase access to health care by removing barriers to purchasing insurance such as exclusions for preexisting conditions and taking common sense steps to reduce the cost of health insurance. Increased enrollment in health insurance will reduce its cost. Additionally, we must take steps to stimulate research into, and take steps to prevent, the relatively few but serious chronic diseases that make up 75% of all health care costs (heart disease; cancer, stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes). Promoting lifestyle choices that lower the risk of developing one of these diseases and researching toward cures will lower the cost of health insurance for all Americans.
All Americans should have access to high quality health care and part of that is ensuring that you and your doctor are able to make the best health care decisions for you and your family without having to ask permission from a Washington bureaucrat. However, in countries such as Canada and Great Britain that have a government run health insurance industry this is exactly what happens. If your treatments can be delayed or denied by the government, you do not have access to high quality care.
There is a lot we can and must do to reform our health care system. However, we must be cautious as we move forward and allow all stakeholders to come to the table to voice their ideas.
Economy and Government Spending
I am very concerned about the unprecedented levels of spending while unemployment in America continues to rise. The Pelosi-controlled Congress is outspending the previous Administration four to one. The Bush Administration increased the debt by $2 trillion over eight years, while the current Administration is increasing the debt by a whopping $1 trillion per year – and that is just an estimate.
Most of this spending – the stimulus, the auto bailout, the mortgage cramdown – have been in an effort to help our ailing economy. Unfortunately, none it has worked. Our area - at 13% - is experiencing higher than the national average for unemployment.
I strongly believe the way to get our economy on track is to lower the tax burden on Americans to get them spending and investing – especially our small businesses. Our small businesses and entrepreneurs need incentives and you and your family need incentives. That is why I introduced legislation that would create a $15,000 homebuyer tax credit and a bill that would temporarily expand the home-sale capital gains exclusion by allowing taxpayers to apply the exclusion to up to two additional homes purchased over the next three years. Both bills would create an incentive to taxpayers looking to invest to consider purchasing additional houses.
I will continue to work in Congress to support legislation that puts Americans back to work and reigns in out-of-control government spending.
Illegal Immigration
In 1996, I created E-Verify – the only employment verification tool available to employers to check the legal status of newly hired employees. E-Verify 99.6% accurate, user-friendly, and free to employers. To sign up, visit www.dhs.gov/everify.
The way to truly end illegal immigration is to cut off the job magnet. Of course, I also support a strong physical fence and am pleased to report that 330 miles of pedestrian fencing and 340 of vehicular barrier fencing has been put along the southern border. We’ve also completed 33 miles of double-layer physical fence at the most egregious crossing spots. A strong border presence coupled with mandatory employment verification will allow us to truly gain control of our borders.
Congress recently passed the Fiscal Year 2010 Homeland Security Appropriations bill that includes a two year reauthorization of E-Verify and $162 million for further expansion of E-Verify.
During consideration of the Fiscal Year 2010 Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations bill, I was able to work with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to increase funding for the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program – also known as SCAAP. The original amount included in the bill was $300 million – a $100 million reduction from last year’s level. I fought in the committee mark up to bring that back up to $400 million and while it failed in committee, I was able to work to increase it through an amendment later during the full House debate on the bill.
Illegal immigration is clearly a federal responsibility and local law enforcement should not have to foot the bill for the failure of the federal government to properly enforce the border.
I will continue to support policies that will end the overwhelming tide of illegal immigration and fight any attempts to grant amnesty to the estimated 12 million people here illegally. Amnesty is inherently unfair to the millions of people that have come to the United States legally and the millions that are currently in line to come here legally.
California Water Crisis
For many years California water users have experienced fairly level water rates. However, some communities have begun to see rate increases because the population growth in southern California has not been matched by similar growth in available water supplies. Local water agencies must ultimately decide what water rates are appropriate in order for them to provide water to their users.
In December of 2007, U. S. District Judge Oliver Wanger issued a final ruling that is expected to result in the reduction of water deliveries from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta by about a third, in an effort to protect the endangered delta smelt. The ruling comes at a time when 23 California counties are under a federal drought emergency declaration, and the Colorado River is experiencing historically low flow levels. If these conditions continue, Californians in many areas may be faced with mandatory water rationing in the not too distant future.
I believe that California must address its water imbalance by increasing water supplies and taking appropriate measures to reduce water demand. Significant investments are needed to improve our water infrastructure, including additional surface and groundwater storage, a comprehensive Bay Delta solution and water use efficiency. California must continue to examine water recycling, desalination, and conservation methods to efficiently manage our water supplies.
As the former Chairman of the House Water and Power Subcommittee, I have worked to maintain and enhance a reliable water supply in California and our nation. My legislation, H.R. 2828, the Water Supply, Reliability and Environmental Enhancement Act, was passed during the 108th Congress and signed into law by President Bush. This federal reauthorization of the California-Federal Bay Delta Program (CALFED) will play a critical role in developing new water yield and adequate storage.
In January of 2008, I testified along with some of my California colleagues at a Congressional hearing focused on finding solutions to California’s water crisis. In another attempt to help increase water supplies, I introduced the Riverside – Corona Feeder Water Supply Act, H.R. 1139, earlier this Congress. The bill would authorize federal funding for the Riverside – Corona Feeder water supply project, which would capture and store new water in wet years in order to increase firm water supplies, reduce water costs, and improve water quality. The bill was passed by the House in June of 2007, and is pending in the Senate.
