more difficult in the senate. however, democrats are fully aware of that, and senate majority leader harry reid and senate environment chairwoman barbara boxer have already been working for a couple of months behind the scenes to try to build up the same kind of consensus in the senate. they have assumed that they're going to take a debate bill, the house bill, they have looked at the dynamic that have slowed it down in the house -- especially, for example, the real concerns of the farm state and agriculture committee democrat. they have been reaching out to those members in the senate, to the midwest and farm members. they recognize it is a long, tough haul, but it is a very high priority for democratic leaders. they are trying to build a legislative strategy before the bill even comes to their chamber. host: we will leave it there.

corals, thank you for calling in. we are joined now by u.s. representative john shadegg. guest: house republicans believe this is the wrong way to go about this task, first and foremost. we had it with us that came before the energy and commerce committee before the energy subcommittee who testified that his utilities -- and he represents a number of large utilities in the mess -- in the midwest -- could meet the caps set in the bill by the deadline. what he objected to is that the cost of doing it under this bill will be roughly double the cost of just doing it by having them meet the standard. the reason for that is the so- called cap and trade structure says first you as a utility that limits, for example, carbon dioxide, must buy permits from the government to continue to limit what you are remitting

now. then as your base grows, york to buy permits to continue to in that what you're gross costs. then, beside that, you have to spend additional money to essentially get rid of the carbon dioxide. the first step of that, buying the permits from the government, does nothing to reduce carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere. it just costs money, and that money goes to the government. and of course there is a lot of discussion of what the government will do with that money. will they pay for nationalize health care or a new government plan with it? but his point was, after i buy all those permits, i then have to go buy things that would reduce carbon dioxide. like getting rid of a coal plant and replacing it with a natural gas plant, which emits less carbon dioxide. or replacing it with a nuclear plant or wind or solar. his particular utility has more wind generation than any other in the nation. by structuring the cap and a

trade bill, forcing people who emit carbon dioxide to buy the permits first from the government, doing nothing to slow down carbon dioxide emissions, and then pushing them to go out and do the capital investment to get rid of more of the high-carbon-in meeting fuel, you are doubling the cost. i think that sums up why most republicans believe it is the wrong thing to do. i think republicans are concerned about doing this to the economy at this point in time. the economy is not doing well, and nobody estimates that this will actually reduce the cost of energy or reduce the cost of the things that you and i buy. all of those i think are added up, and then i think people are saying, look, the stance on global warming is not moving in a certain direction, it is

moving in the opposite direction. in australia, similar legislation appears to be feeling because fewer people believe that manmade carbon dioxide is causing global warming. so i think republicans think, timeout, let's do what we can do it easily, and then see where the science goes, and then take action. for example, i mean, i think we can do things that have what i call a dual benefit, which reduce our reliance on foreign oil. every american wants to get off of foreign oil. we are tired of being dependent on foreign countries for our energy supply. so let's move the energy dependence. there are lots of things we can do to do that. we can make our buildings more efficient, our automobiles and transportation system more efficient. we can produce energy here at home through a variety of tactics, including wind and solar, without doing this expensive cap and trade system. i think that is why republicans oppose this legislation. it took one of the arguments

that brought a bomb has in building -- host: one of the arguments that barack obama has made -- but make no mistake. we are already seeing why this is true through the recovery act. in california, 3000 people will be employed to build a new solar plant that will create 1000 jobs. in michigan, investments in wind turbines and when technology is expected to create over 2600 jobs. in florida, three new solar projects are expected to employ 1400 people. the list goes on and on, but the point is this. this legislation will finally make a clean energy the profitable kind of energy. that will lead to the creation of new businesses, and entire new industries. that will lead to american jobs that pay well and cannot be outsourced. host: do you agree or disagree? guest: i disagree. with all due respect, this is

one of the most hotly debated issues in the legislation. lots of people sasay we are going to create green jobs. i am for creating green jobs, but we should be doing every form of renewable, and we should be producing energy here and refining energy here. independent organizations, like charles river associates, estimates that this bill, netting out the green jobs that would be created, will result in a job reduction of 2.3 million and 2.7 million jobs per year. i do not see how the history of this kind of legislation could possibly support the claim that it will create jobs. similar legislation was enacted in europe. it had a devastating economic impact. the cost of electricity in places in europe is two to three times as high as it was here. there is a cement plant in europe that was -- before they created the cap and trade program, it moved, relocated to

get out from under the cap and trade system. that means the environment does not get better. we do not reduce carbon dioxide. and there is pretty much at least a heated debate, is not sound evidence, that it will lose encaustic lots of jobs. what will it do to jobs leaving the united states? athe caller from louisiana talkd about a small refinery in his district, is getting ready to build a much larger plan. he pointed out to the committee that that company is on hold right now waiting to see if this legislation is enacted into law. if it is, it will not build the plant in the united states, it will build a plant in mexico. there is evidence upon evidence upon evidence that this in fact will kill jobs. it may create some green jobs, but the net cost of jobs -- and that is pretty obvious. if you start paying for something that you have not had to pay for before, that will hurt job growth.

there is no question about it. and it is not just charles river and associates. there are many other organizations that have predicted that. the 2.3 million to 2.7 million is at the high-end, bennett many jobs will be lost. americans are thinking that is this the right time to do this? energy policy that focuses on our economy, and i think you can deal with the issue of global warming, the deal with it when the evidence is better. as i pointed out, it is getting worse rather than dealing with now. host: i want to ask one more question. the house will vote sometime today or early tomorrow morning. do you expect any of the members of your party to vote on this? guest: yes, i think there will be a handful of republicans. i think it is less than 10, maybe five or six, that will vote for this.

that will aid the democrats. there will also be a slew of democrats who vote against this bill, making it a very close vote. host: let's hear from our callers. we're talking energy with congressman john shadegg. we go to the independent line from with kentucky. caller: good morning. i would like to first of all say to the president of the united states, sir, everyone does not have the internet. everybody does not use twitter. everybody does not use cell phones. there are a lot of us, a folk out here that do not have those things and do not want those things. we want the old fashioned telephone connected to the wall. second is this carbon tax thing. i am not going to get it. use your common sense up there in washington, please. come out here in the country

with us, walk our fields, what our forests. and the environmentalist, would you please come and get these wild turkeys that you have let loose? i mean, lord help you, you all in washington, please get out of washington, get out of the city, putting so much concrete down, and save us. help us with our jobs. people are hurting so badly. my mother is 92 years old. she grew up through the depression. she still lives in the same house i was born in. she has no air-conditioning whatsoever and she says, i am not hot. as you grow old, you get used to it. she has never done it and she is doing fine. host: do you have a question? caller: yes. would you please tell them to use their common sense or the

people will stop electing you -- not you, personally -- but they are going to start electing people out of office and put an old-time farmers in their that knows that god takes care of the heavens, god takes care of the earth, and we are the keeper of god's garden. host: let's talk about consumer costs. what is this going to cost the people in kentucky? guest: i think you heard in her voice and in her questioning the frustration that many people feel about this. it was as solid science as the proponents claim, that might be an issue. it was clear that there is -- there are larger numbers of scientists coming up that say that this is not true. you mentioned the woman who retired as a scientist, and she is finally free to say that this

is not sound science. the other thing they heard in the caller's voice was look at the american economy. look at jobs. look at what is happening to people out in the real world. i want to say her i want to say to her, when she said get out of washington, i want to get out of washington tonight and get back to arizona. it is not that we are not mindful about the environment. i care about the environment. it seems to me we need to be focused on a cleaner image of policy -- a cleaner energy policy, and we can. this much cost at this point in time for what appears to be little benefit -- i point out that in europe, with the cap and trade system, they have had very little reduction in carbon dioxide emission. the carbon dioxide emission in the united states went down half as much in the 2008 than europe

has since they put through the cap entry program. why do it right now? host: you reference the opinion editorial in "the wall street journal," in which she writes, "the into the truth is that the u.s. temperatures have flat line since 2001. research has debunked the doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans. let's go to brian on the independent line from brockton, massachusetts. host: good morning to c-span -- caller: good morning to c-span. yes, i do not even have a high school diploma and it seems to me i understand why they are putting these cap and trade policies into place. the oil companies refused to do

it on their own. the gentleman -- it makes sense to me that if somebody does not stepped in place and say you have to stop and it is going to cost you money to keep destroying the planet the way you have been, you know, pay the cost, and we will put the money to good use. you know, maybe that will force these companies to get into line. that makes perfectly good sense. you say why now. the reason why now is because they have not done it in the last 50 or 100 years that they have been in business and they have no incentive to. you contradict yourself when you say the science is not there, that carbon dioxide is not a man-made problem, but yet you say these companies do not -- these companies going to mexico does not hurt the economy. all these people on the republican side that do not get climate change, destroying the planet, and you say you are for

it, but then you worry about jobs, jobs. wwell, there are going to be no jobs if it would keep going the way it is and gets destroyed. we really ought to think about our children and, you know, we are going to have to make more sacrifices than you people are willing to make. guest: there is the opposite point of view. one of the things i would note is that it is easy to point out that the energy companies need to pay the costs. the problem is they do not print money. they raise rates. the cost of electricity will go up dramatically. in my state of arizona, we got a letter from r utilities in response to a request, and they said that in the first year, the cost of electricity will go up at least 2% to 3%. the problem is that those costs going up are imposed upon you

and i, and they damage the economy. as for whether carbon dioxide it is depleted? the john and said i in peach myself. i want to be reasonable about the issue, but the evidence seems to be -- in the rest of the world, skepticism about manmade carbon dioxide causing global warming is not just appearing in australia, where the article was written, but in japan, germany, and other places around the world. in the czech republic, only 11% of people believe carbon dioxide created by man is causing this problem. you heard a pretty good reputation of both sides of the debate. host: let's go to the democratic lonine. kay from minneapolis, minnesota. caller: thank you for c-span.

i want to agree totally and fundamentally with the person who just called in. i am really getting upset by the extent to which republicans who have been opposed to any kind of government reform or change for ever and ever are denying the extent to which doing something that needs to be done by government and creating responsible government rather than making government be the boogeyman have got us into such terrible, terrible trouble that is growing and growing and growing. you talk about we cannot afford it? well, i mean, look at all the people that are suffering so terribly in this economic crisis after we could not have regulation, we could not have reform, we could not do anything about energy or health care or controlling the financial sector that has brought the

world down to its knees in this economic crisis. it really is time for the republicans to stop, stop, stop attacking all progressive change in this country. we are in trouble. guest: well, i think she has bought hook, line, and sinker the argument of the other side. i think much of the deregulation was brought on by democrats, who opposed regulating and pushed the subprime loans. she has taken this line and said republicans advocated those positions. john mccain was arguing for stronger regulation of part of the economy, including freddie mac and fannie mae. i think it is very important to note that none of those arguments go to the issue of whether or not global warming is in fact being caused by man-made

activity or whether a cat and trade system is the right way to go about it. we began by pointing out by saying that the democrats want to cap carbon dioxide emissions, we should do it as has been done with other so-called pollutants. the gentleman from -- and the gentleman that i mentioned earlier said his utility can meet the carbon-side caps and meet them by the deadlines in the legislation. we can do that, and i am willing to do that. he said his company can meet those caps sooner than in the bill and can be more severe ones than in the bill. but just do not do it by cap and trade because it doubles the cost. her concern about the economy is my concern about the economy. if we can meet the carbon dioxide goals -- carbon dioxide is a pollutant, which the majority appears to believe -- and assuming that it is true that it causes a global warming, why go through a cap and trade

system which doubles the cost? host: are other elements of the bill that you do support in terms of the renewable fuels elements, reducing dependence on foreign alleges that? guest: and any legislation, you can find things you agree with. there are, for example, efficiency standards for buildings that america needs to move in. for many years we have not made commercial buildings anywhere near as efficient as they could be because the tenant is going to be paying the utility bill, not the landowner. the building owner did not have the motivation to make the build efficient. i did everything i could in arizona to insulate our homes every way that i could. it does not mean that i think it is worth the overall cost. host: you also come from a very sunny state. what do you think of solar power?

guest: i have been in favor of solar power. i voted for the first tax credits for solar power on homes and businesses. it was a republican bill that made the tax credits for solar and wind energy permanent instead of having their expire every two years. there are lots of things that republicans back that we can be doing that are progressive. host: the tier from byron from cleveland, tennessee, on the republican line. caller: good morning. the lady said something a while ago that people need to be aware of. a progressive is a socialist. i notice the congressman did not say a whole lot about what is actually going to be the cost for the people. i work in major manufacturing. we passed cost on to the consumer, and the consumer is going to have a tremendous energy bill. electric bills and things of that nature.

food is going to increase. everything is going to increase on this bill. i just do not see how, if you are thinking, you can even support a bill like this. it is just astronomical what the cost will be on this. guest: i mentioned some of the things about the cost earlier, but i think the gentleman makes an extrexcellent point. the predictions are that it will cause the average consumer's cost of energy to go up by somewhere between $1,200 and $3,000 a year. but the cost of everything you buy will go dramatically higher than that because everything requires energy. there is not a thing that you and i do, from sitting in the studio to getting out of bed in the morning, that does not require energy. you need energy to heat your home, cook your breakfast or dinner. that burden, i think the caller

is exactly right. it is not just the direct increase in the cost of ollie could be, which could be over $200 per year -- all it could be, which could be over $1,200 per year, it is cost of everything. the american petroleum institute has talked about gas prices going up stunningly, and diesel prices, which means trucking costs. the cost of this legislation, i think the caller is exactly right. in the future, as you discussed with your correspondent, it is not clear. i think this bill will die in the senate. i think the senate will not impose these kinds of costs, stunning costs, on the american and economy at this point in time. host: much here on our independent line, roger from norman, " oregon. caller: norman, oklahoma, ma'am.

host: i am sorry. caller: i am a republican schoolteacher. this cap and a trade bill is going to raise taxes, and basically what is going to happen is our school is then going to have to pay huge energy costs. we already use -- we are doing everything we can to save energy, but it is going to raise it up so badly that then we are going to have to look at how many teachers do we have, we are going to have to get rid of teachers now oc. they're paying all these people money, and before you know it, we are cleaning our own rooms and we are -- people are out of jobs and kids have a poor education. this thing is going to trickle down -- and i hate to use that word -- but this thing is going to trickle down to where every last part of society is going to

be affected tremendously by it. we are scared of it in oklahoma. we are really scared of it. guest: and i think people should be scared of it. he is exactly right. my wife was a teacher until she retired a year ago. both of my sisters were public school teachers. what you're hearing is that kind of concern. you raise the utility cost on schools, and diesel fuel for school buses, that money has got to come from somewhere. it will have ramifications, and his concern about doing this to the economy when it is not clear that it will solve the problem or when, as the gentleman mentioned, says, look, we can meet carbon dioxide standards without the additional tax, the fees that are being imposed. i think people ought to be scared about this, but i think the american people have great common sense, and that is why i think democrats are working so hard to pass this bill. there are stories about the arm twisting that is going on that you discussed earlier.

i think there is incredible arm twisting going on, and i think there are legislative deals being made to members of congress who do not want to vote for this bill are saying i need this or that. one thing voters should ask is what do you get for it? i wanted to make this point earlier about the woman -- i believe it was from michigan or minnesota talked about the cost of not acting. let's look at the cost of acting. not only are we going to raise the cost of energy, but it is pretty clear that any of these companies that can leave will leave. a cement company left. global warming is -- if in fact it is being caused by man-made activity, is not going to be solved by the united states doing it alone. this bill spends billions of dollars to try to encourage foreign governments to not cut

down forests. he gives money away to foreign governments to develop clean technology. i have an amendment to say, no, let's give that money to the people in the united states to develop that technology so we can sell and create those jobs. i do not think there's any question that this is in fact a bill that will devastate american jobs and the man saying i am scared of this bill is exactly where i am. i believe it will be devastating damage if it is enacted, and i hope the american people will engage in the debate. host: let's go to our next call, jacksonville, florida. caller: yeah. i was not going to try to get through until i heard that first lady call. i hope you give me half the time you give her. to just sit there and laugh and

grin and agree with her as she was quoting the bible, and the last caller who said that he was afraid of the bill and what was going to do with him. he ought to be afraid of those two senators he has in oklahoma. one of them claimed to be a doctor. i will give you credit, at least you call it cap and trade. burton and all those guys, all those guys call it "cap and tax. even neil caputo from fox news calls it cap and tax. that is the image the republican party has got. you just stand up for business so much, you have the image, and the business committee chamber of commerce supports from day

one, no discussion, no nothing, just take care of the chamber. looking at "the wall street journal" and those crazy folks you are talking about. "the washinton post" yesterday, 70% of people support this. the actual figure -- and you all keep quoting the guy down in georgia that he came back and told you he did not say that -- the actual amount of money this is going to cost, if it does cost any money, is a i think $174 a year for a household. what this amounts to is that it is not going to lose jobs, it is going to create jobs. guest: i am not sure it deserves much of a comment. i personally do use the term cap and trade because that is what is called. i