universities, florida atlanta university, is developing technology where they can put turbines in the atlantic ocean and capture that energy. i don't know if this is going to work long term, but that's the kind of american ingenuity we are looking for. we as a government and private sector, our scientists, our entrepreneurs, work together to capture that and build on that. of course there's the environment. we all understand that. and there is something going on in the world on climate. people can have different opinions. i think most scientists agree there's something going on. whatever we can do in the united states and around the world provide leadership to reduce the impact of co-2 and other things, it's good for all of us. i live in a coastal area. some of the most beautiful areas in the world. we are very sensitive to the hurricane activity, rise of the atlantic ocean, things like that. i think we all understand there is an environmental issue statement. . what are re-we doing in

washington? some groups are coming forward to work on this in a very productive way to make sure that the united states is leading the world in these areas of alternative energy. and we're debating a bill right now, and i certainly invite all of our -- i know our colleagues are asking for comments from back home. we want to do it in a way that allows for appropriate levels of transition, for our industries are dependent on old fuel sources to go to new fuel sources. we need to make sure that system eases away that's economically competitive. that's what we need to do. at the same time we ought to be encouraging as much as we can getting these products into play. so i'm very excited about the fact that we can build a new energy future and i look forward to working with all of my members to do that. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from west virginia, mrs. capito, for five minutes. mrs. capito: thank you. thank you, madam chairman. i'm here today to talk about the same issue that my colleague from florida just talked about and that's energy. and he alluded to the energy

bill that's been moving through congress over the last several months, but he neglected to say that in that bill are some real costs for real people. and i think these are the important issues in front of our nation today. energy we found when the price of gasoline went up last summer over $4 a gallon. we were pressed, i think, appropriately to try to find an energy future, a plan for our energy future. and we never really answered that question. well, this morning in charleston, west virginia, where i'm from, the price of gasoline went up to $2.75 and has been going up almost daily. so we need a national energy plan that doesn't pick winners and losers, that takes into account real costs for real people. right now the bill that's gone -- that passed out of the energy and commerce committee is a national energy tax on every single american. it's -- we call it cap and tax.

the supporters call it cap and trade. but what it is in reality is it has serious problems for states such as mine in west virginia. we rely on 98% of the energy generation in our state is -- 98% of that is generated through coal. well naturally we are the second largest coal producing state in this nation. we've powered america for generations by giving of our natural resources across this country. and i'm proud to say we have a proud heritage not only of turning the lights on in america but also of the coal mining jobs and the coal mining community and families throughout my state. but this bill picks winners and losers because the heartland of which i consider west virginia -- and we just heard the gentleman from florida talk about solar, but the heartland which has relied on fossil fuels for generations to keep our manufacturing jobs, we're going to be the losers here. we're going to be the ones who are going to pay the heavy price. what kind of price are we going to pay?

number one, job loss. it's estimated that my state alone will suffer over 10,000 jobs will be lost in our manufacturing sector because of this -- because of this bill. and you ask why is that. well, because our industrial input will be lower because of the high cost of meeting the demands, because of the lack of a transitional period in this bill. we'll also lose our -- probably many, many, tens of thousands of jobs in our coal mining industry and associated industries alone. also, for the individuals, how's this going to impact the individual now who is paying the $2.75 in west virginia and some areas of the country it sounds good. we've had the luxury of lower energy prices and we're pleased about that but it's escaping us and in this bill we will no longer have that. but an individual -- if you look at the west virginia electricity pricesnd this bill will go up over 100%. think about that. 100% of your electricity bill somewhere in the estimate of

$2,000 to $3,000 a year. for and -- and who's the loser there? small businesses are a loser. they are going to lose jobs because they are going to have the higher cost of turning on their electricity. and that's going to result in job loss. and it's going to lack in capital to help the business. and higher cost of transportation will not only hurt individuals but small businesses as well. but it's also going to hurt those people who can barely afford to keep the lights on as it is and those are our lower income folks. by the year 2020 it is estimated that this -- with this bill, with this cap and tax bill, with this national energy tax that the lower income folks across this nation will pay 25% of their income will go to paying for their energy cost. now, let's think about this. we've just gone through a housing crisis where people are losing their homes or people are having trouble, people are losing their jobs.

and now we say to you a quarter of your income will go to one of the basic needs you have and that's the basic need for energy. another loser are our state budgets. think what an impact a national energy tax is going to have on every hospital, on every public school, on every university. think of the cost of running the school buses that we've seen as the rise up in energy costs go. so i don't think this is the kind of bill that is going to solve the problem. it sets up winners and losers and it has real costs to real people. it does have in there a great capture of carbon sequestration where we will use the coal and technology and innovation but we need to keep moving in this direction so we can be realistic of how we'll meet our energy needs and how we're going to transition to the next best source. green jobs and green future, that's what we all want. i think that it's a lottable goal and one we will reach but

we have to do it where we're not picking winners and losers and realize there are real costs for real people. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia, mr. connelly, for five minutes. mr. connelly: madam speaker, as a congressman from virginia, also a coal-producing state, i wish to rise to address the current economic recession. we need to spur investment and create new jobs and we need to act now. an essential part of that effort is the american clean energy and security act. this legislation, unlike some of the statistics we've been hearing lately, recently approved by the house energy and commerce committee would reduce greenhouse gas pollution and create lots of clean energy jobs, including in the coal sector and make polluters pay for the greenhouse gas pollution they're emitting right now. last week the united states climate action partnership

hosted a congressional briefing to discuss the business reasons for passing legislation to reduce global warming pollution. the it -- it is a coalition of many american businesses who support the legislation including the energy sector. they include alcoa, b.p., conocophillips, dow, duke energy, du pont, general electric, general motors, johnson & johnson, energy-energy, shell and siemons. environmental groups are also members. many of these companies have built billion-dollar companies through the processing of fossil fuels. most of b.p., shell and conocophillips is in oil exploration and production. duke energy produces 75% of its electricity from coal. manufacturers such as g.e., alcoa and dow consume a great deal of electricity and would be negatively affected by higher energy prices.

they support this bill. these businesses worked for two years with environmentalists and members of congress to develop a blueprint for legislative action that laid out a plan to reduce greenhouse gas pollution, create jobs and spur investment in renewable energy. this blueprint for legislative action form the foundation for the american clean energy and security act passed by the house energy and commerce committee on a bipartisan vote, i might add. at its briefing, members emphasized the importance of the american clean energy and security act and spurring innovation and economic growth. representatives of dow, energy and energy, shell said without passage of this legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions there won't be sufficient incentives to obtain storage, something that's necessary for the coal industry, madam speaker. carbon capture and storage is a technology that holds tremendous promise. it's essential to more sustainable coal generated electricity production.

the minority party claims that the american clean energy act will hurt coal, as we just heard, but the business community include companies that rely principally for coal generation support this bill. the minority party claims that the american clean energy act will impair our ability to deploy american energy resources, yet conocophillips and shell, for example, noted at the briefing that without this bill they simply will not be able to develop the next generation of biofuels. right now we get most of our oil from overseas, madam speaker, from countries like saudi arabia. we must end our dependence on foreign oil. by spurring development of biofuels, the american clean energy and security act would help reach that objective while creating economic opportunities here at home. i think the business community said it best. at the recent briefing, a member representative said, quote, one of the reasons that many members are enthusiastic about this bill is because we

see that it is essential for our businesses to move to a low carbon economy. madam speaker, let's unleash new investment in america, let's produce more of our energy here at home, let's wean ourselves off foreign oil dependency. let us create new clean energy jobs in america. we cannot delay economic recovery, and we cannot risk further destabilization of our climate. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from north carolina, ms. foxx, for five minutes. ms. foxx: thank you, madam chair. my colleague from indiana made some very, very eloquent and compelling remarks about the status of our economy, and my colleague from west virginia gave valuable information on energy and called attention to some important issues. my distinguished colleague from florida, whom i like and admire very much, says the energy bill will create jobs, but he's wrong. it will kill jobs.

he never answered his own question -- why don't we produce those mirrors in the united states? because our taxes are high and regulations drive jobs overseas. america, if the democrats pass this cap and tax bill, get ready to pay more for electricity, a lot more. this cap and tax scheme, better known as the national energy tax, if it becomes law will cost $846 billion. that's according to the congressional budget office's latest estimate. the c.b.o. is a nonpartisan organization. who's going to bear the brunt of this new national energy tax? anyone who turns the lights on. but it's also going to be especially harmful for many of my constituents and all others who work in manufacturing. as companies adjust to this new energy tax, many will be forced

to ship jobs and the accompanying greenhouse gas emissions overseas where energy costs will be much lower. many employers will face the tough choice of outsourcing or going out of business altogether. this destructive energy policy will kill millions of american jobs and permanently send them overseas. and i and many others cannot support this. i want to quote from a report that came out from the weams ranking member dave camp who has based his -- weams ranking member dave camp who has based his -- ways and means dave camp. he says, quote, the facts are plain and clean. the president's pledge is broken. the president has repeatedly stated that married couples earning $250,000 or less would

not face a raise in taxes. it will not help families making more than $42,000 or individuals making as little as $23,000. increasing americans' fuel and utility bills in this recession is not only bad policy but it completely ignores the hardships millions of americans are already facing. this is dangerous legislation in desperate need of closer view, end quote. republicans want energy independence for americans, and we can have it, but not under this cap and tax bill. and, madam chairman, i'd like to point out one other issue that's before the congress recently and that is money for the i.m.f., the international monetary fund in the supplemental bill. what they -- what the democrats want to do is cut $5 billion from our troops in order to fund the i.m.f. and because any i.m.f. member country may apply for these

loans, iran, venezuela, zimbabwe and burma are all eligible. therefore, state sponsors of terrorism can receive american taxpayer money under the democrats' proposal. "the new york times" reported on may 27 that hezbollah is in talks with the ifrlt m.f. about -- i.m.f. about continuing loans to lebanon if they win an election. therefore, a terrorist organization could receive american taxpayer dollars under the democrats' proposal. to loan the i.m.f. $108 billion america will have to get a loan from a country like china. this will put america further into debt, a cost that will be paid by our children and grandchildren, a point pointed out by my colleague from indiana. also, according to the center for economic policy and research, american taxpayers

will actually lose money by loaning it to the i.m.f. while countries like china, russia, brazil and india have announced they will not participate in loans, the democrats are asking americans to support this. . finally the american taxpayers are sick of bailouts in their own country. how can democrats rationalize a global bailout? madam chairman, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york, mr. maffei, for five minutes. mr. maffei: thank you, madam speaker. i rise to ask chrysler and general motors to continue to honor their commitments to auto dealers in this contry. chrysler and g.m. should not deprive economic rights to profitable dealerships across this country. yesterday i joined with representative frank cato vill of maryland and introduced the economic rights restoration act of 2009. the act claims to restore the economic rights of g.m. and chrysler dealers as they excited

prior to each company's bankruptcies. we want to preserve g.m. and chrysler car dealer's rights to recourse under state law and at the request of an automobile dealer require g.m. and chrysler to reinstate franchise agreements. these are bankruptcies negotiated with federal officials at taxpayer dollars are helping to maintain both companies. therefore these bankruptcies should not be used to change the rules that dealers have been operating under. i first wrote a bipartisan letter with representative chris lee of new york and more than 65 of our colleagues to the auto task force in may asking them to work with the companies to reconsider the forced closings. since then thousands of dealers have been informed by g.m. and chrysler through a seemingly arbitrary system their relationships were ending. essentially immediately. leaving some dealers with millions of dollars invested in car stock with no leverage for liquidation. in my home district in upstate new york, there is a dealership which has been the cornerstone of one of our communities for 50

years. mr. goodman opened his dealership in 1959 in syracuse. two years ago at the age of 82 mr. goodman passed away. but his dying wish was to make sure the dealership reached the half century park. his widow promised to keep it running, at least through the 50th anniversary which was last week. they received a letter on may 15 informing them that chrysler was severing their relationship. the letter gave no indication was to why this particular dealership was targeted. just that it was ending. i visited mrs. goodman last week to celebrate the 50th anniversary. this is a dealership that is profitable partly because of selling preowned cars. it employs dozens of people, has been loyal to them for years. it is exlacte kind of small family business that we in this house claim to want to help not close. we all recognize that the economy is not favorable to the auto industry right now and especially not in certain sections of the country where the population can no longer support an extensive dealer network. we have already seen layoffs from parts manufacturers in my districts, plant closings, and

chapter 11 among one of the suppliers. in this context across central new york, 11 dealerships have closed on their own since 2007. we expect to see other dealerships consolidate and close this year. but we do not in the middle of a recession need to take a hatchet to local family-owned business that is have supported our communities for decades. when market forces arer already at work. these dealerships employ hundreds of people across my district. they sponsor local little legal teams, they buy ads in our local newspapers and local tv newscasts. they have been the cornerstone of our community for generations. now, i have also signed a letter with congressman chris van hollen and majority leader hoyer and over 100 of our fellow members and we sent it to president obama talking about our concerns. the total lack of transparency in how this system is shutting down profitable dealerships. and we want to know from both sides of the aisle whether we can get more transparency an

indication how this indeed saves money. the auto companies should be honest with the dealerships and with the american people about how these decisions are being made and they should be nobetted with the dealership should be nobetted with on how to consolidate dealerships in a way to help to find a soft landing for the workers and the communities not in just my district but across the country. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida, mr. stearns, for five minutes. mr. stearns: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. stearns: good morning, madam speaker. i rise today to ask a simple question that is in every american's mind. what has been done by the administration and this congress to fix the troubled economic system we have today? while this administration continues to pour trillions of dollars into a flawed financial

system and continues to have washington bureaucrats simply take control over failed businesses and continues to appoint czar after czar to exercise government control over our free market system, the question still remains, madam speaker, what has this administration done to fix a broken system, and is it working? government control is not the answer. as ourure peaian neighbors have figured out recently and spoken recently through their elections to change their left-leaning programs and political regimes. this economic crisis was created by a flawed system, a system that is indeed need of structure reform. however the administration's answer to this glaring problem is to continue to throw more money. taxpayers' money at the problem which essentially increase this is country's unsustainable debt and increases federal bureaucrat control over all of our private

institutions. this country must stop the taxpayer paid for corporate welfare from being handed out and simply return this economy to what has worked for over 200 years. a system that rewards people who take risks, prudent risks, and punishes those which take irresponsible risk. we must return to being a frugal nation, one where the federal government balances budget, encourages savings, and reins in the $12 trillion worth of debt. this nation can no longer afford one more loan from china as our credit rating teeters on the brink of failure. this structural reform begins with the executives that are tasked with simply running these institution banks and corporations. what this economic crisis has taught us that these c.e.o.'s care more about their stock options even at the expense of hiding fraudulent assets and taking bonus risk to inflate

their p and l statements. government guaranteed bailouts and guaranteed bonuses allow these individuals to escape their poor decisions and sidestep the economic hardship that their risky choices have created for the average american family. i believe this starts by giving investors and shareholders more transparency in what occurs. shareholders investors need greater access to information to allow their confidence in company governance determine where their investment capital is being allocated. in addition, investors, regulators, and the american people need greaterer temperatures into the daily operation of wall street. it is nearly impossible for one to find information or records of a corporation credit default swaps. who owns them? who backs them? who has issued these complex financial tools? vital information like this will help to prevent corporation from concealing this information in their books what, they owe, and

how much debt they really are in to. the same can be said with regard to the subprime mortgage securities. what are they worth now? furthermore, madam speaker, there is no such thing as too big to fail. these institutions must realize that every time they make an irresponsible decision or a risky bet, the federal treasury will not come to their financial rescue. financial bailouts are a slippery slope and set a dangerous precedent. when the federal government begins to arbitrarily pick winners and losers, fairness, equality, and the free market are tossed out the window as evidenced by bear stearns government bailout and layman brothers allowed failure. this administration, the federal reserve, and the federal treasury must release their tarp records and disclose in full their bailout money, how it's been spent, who the money has gone to, and the reason why some received help and others were allowed to fail. this money belongs to the taxpayers. we have a right to know.

for these and other reasons, i'm calling on this congress and the administration to have a series of comprehensive hearings to determine what exactly happened, who was at fault, and what is the best way to restructure this flawed system. and how are the taxpayers going to get their money back from these bailouts? status quo is not acceptable and neither is bailout after bailout, leading to federal bureaucratic control of our institutions and our bank. it's time we find answers to these problems rather than continue to throw good money after bad. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until noon today.

the house may also vote on a conference report for additional more spending for iraq and afghanistan fiscal year 2009. live coverage and known eastern when the gavel back again on c- span. until then, part of "washington journal" from this morning. continues. host: we want to welcome congressman phil gingrey, the co-chair of the republicans doctors congress. good morning. guest: good morning, steve. host: where do you come down on the health care debate? guest: well, i come down on the fact that we need some reform. there are certain things that we

could and should and do agree with in a bipartisan way. i would like to see more sharing of information so that we become closer together to agreeing on a health care reform plan. there are also certain things that the democratic majority and president obama what in a reform plan that the republican party -- me and the physician members of the body -- are totally opposed to, and that would be obviously a single-payer system, a hillary-care type system. and we are also very opposed to a government default option plan competing with the private marketplace. host: some would argue that the republican plan is to slow down any kind of change when democrats argue that we have been down this road before in the 1970's with kennedy and nixon's plan, the 1990's with the clinton plan, and we still have an escalation of an estimated $4.4 trillion in

expenditures. guest: nothing could be further from the truth, steve. the former administration and president bush was in favor of -- it would be wrong to accuse republicans in the current health-care debate that we do not want to do anything because clearly i am here today to do when your program to say -- and i think i speak for most of my colleagues on the republican side, certainly in the house -- that we do want reform, but we just do not want to pile on and expand medicare and medicaid and say that this reform. we do not want to pile on a broken system with more of the same. we would rather go back and restructure to make sure that we change the things that need changing so that we can get these 47 million people that need insurance insured. host: if one of those

individuals came to you and you were about to deliver a baby, who pays for that delivery? guest: typically those deliveries are paid through a private health insurance plan that that patient has negotiated through her place of employment. host: but if they do not have insurance? guest: if they do not have insurance, someone else pays for it. many are actually illegals who are fearful of trying to access health care because they do not want to be sought out. but those that do not have insurance that utilize manley the emergency room for their care, whether it is -- that you lies mainly the emergency room for their care, the cost is borne ultimately by those who are insured. :