i'd like to ask unanimous consent to the -- the gentlewoman from california, if we could extend the time of debate. i'm inundated with the amount of requests and would like to ask that we extend it 30 minutes, extending both sides an additional 15 minutes. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection? ms. matsui: we will not agree to that. we object. mr. sessions: you do object. the speaker pro tempore: objection is heard. mr. sessions: i would like to ask the gentlewoman if we could extend the time on both sides by five minutes. mr. matsui: we object. there's three hours on the bill. mr. session: i would like to see if we could extend by one minute this debate on both sides. ms. matsui: we object. mr. sessions: madam speaker. good morning. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. sessions: i appreciate the gentlewoman extended me these few minutes that she has given us to debate this very

important bill. i rise in opposition to this lockdown rule and the underlying legislation which, if passed, the "wall street journal" correctly notes will become the biggest tax in american history. after limited committee hearings and only one markup on this 1,200-plus page bill the negotiation that is have brought this bill to the floor have completely excluded republicans and ignored our good ideas on how to stop the most economically devastating and job killing parts of this bill. . for example, during the bill's brief deliberation during committee, republicans offered three commonsense amendments. one to suspend the program if gas prices hit $5 a gallon. one to suspend the program if electricity prices rise 10% over 2009. and one to suspend the program if unemployment rates hit 15%.

but unfortunately the committee's democrats defeated them all. to make matters worse for the past two weeks despite numerous contrary promises to our democratic colleagues and to the american people, speaker pelosi and her hand picked lieutenants on the rules committee have limited open debate and once again here on the floor debate to talk about this unprecedented bill that is before the american people. while this behavior is undemocratic and mildly irritating, when dealing with bills like federal employees paid parental leave act of 2009 it is simply unacceptable when it comes to legislation of such great importance to the future of american jobs and families. so once again this morning in the rules committee after -- and by the way that was about 2:00 to 3:30 this morning -- after being handed a brand new

309-page revision of the bill, this unacceptable behavior continued. my republican colleagues and i offered numerous good ideas and improvements to this brand new bill this morning which not one member has even read. as a matter of fact, we even joked about that as we walked in about 2:00 this morning about, sure, everybody had a chance to read the bill. that's why we were up so late last night. this legislation that republicans proposed would have provided commonsense relief for farmers and small businesses that drive our economy. unsurprisingly, each of these good ideas was rejected by our democrat colleagues along party lines. whether or not to impose the biggest tax increase in american history is a very serious issue and one that affects every american family. legislation that the heritage foundation estimates will cost

working families in the 32nd congressional district of texas, just one district which i happen to represent, some 4,178 jobs in 2012. and we believe that this should -- this bill should be actually debated and openly read so that everyone doesn't just rush through this day but rather understands the true impact of what we're doing. the rule being proposed here today is a grave mistake and undemocratic embarrassment. and i for one think this body can do better. we owe it to the american people to allow members, members of this body on both sides who have good ideas to be heard. especially the ideas to address the needs of rural and working class people who will see their incomes and choices slashed by this bill. instead of an inclusive debate

on how to conserve our resources and provide clean affordable energy for american businesses and families, the democrats' answer to the worse recession in decades is a national energy tax. thinly disguised as a climate change bill. billions of dollars wasted on extra energy costs and millions of jobs lost is an extremely high price to pay for a bill that is estimated at best to slow the earth's temperature rises by 1/100 of a single degree by 2050 and no more than .2 of a degree by 2060. it's clear, nancy pelosi's national energy tax will kill american jobs, it will raise prices on hardworking american

families and does almost nothing to clean up our environment. but the american people watching today's debate don't need to take my word for it. president obama and his senior administration officials and many prominent democrats agree that cap and trade is actually cap and tax. in january of 2008, president obama told "the san francisco chronicle" that under his preferred cap and trade system electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. then on february 26, 2009, the president's own budget estimates that the climate revenue generated by this legislation to pay for washington bureaucrat health care run program and a job stimulus package would cost american manufacturers and energy producers $646 billion over 10 years. three weeks later, the

administration's top economic advisors disagreed with this lowball figure suggesting that cap and trade could actually cost up to $1.9 trillion over 10 years. next, former energy and commerce committee chairman, john dingell, stated in a hearing on cap and trade, and i quote, nobody in this country realizes that cap and trade is a tax, and it's a big one. as recently as this week, congressman gene green of texas stated in an op-ed instituting a cap on a nationwide greenhouse gas emissions will raise the price of energy for consumers and businesses alike. madam speaker, i'm confused. why on this earth would my friends on your side of the aisle create such a big tax on all american families and

businesses during a time that a recession is so serious? why are we rushing to do this with $1 trillion spending plan that will such have a large impact on the american people on killing jobs and making it more difficult for us to come out of this recession? on june 15 i received a letter from the texas comptroller of public accounts stating that the current plan to implement mandatory mission caps would weigh far more heavily on texas than any other region in the country. it goes on to note that, and i quote, based on rising fuel prices as a result of the cap and trade provisions of this bill, texas could see $1 -- 135,000 to 277,000 fewer jobs in 2012, the first year of the bill. madam speaker, texas leads this

country in jobs, and people are coming to texas from all over the united states just to have jobs. why would we go and diminish the opportunities for people to find those jobs that were available to help their families? madam speaker, families all over texas are already hurting, and with all the other troubles plaguing the economy, they simply cannot afford the additional and completely avoidable economic asexual assault that the new democrat majority is placing on the american people. perhaps worst of all, madam speaker, the economic damage created by this legislation actually favors foreign companies over american ones. china, the number one emitter of greenhouse gases, and india who is said to expand its emissions, will not be required to modify their behavior at all. that means that this new

democrat majority is taking the astonishing position of asking american small businesses and consumers to carry the global load for the world's carbon consumption. because, as everyone understands, if only americans tax their manufacturing and productions then only americans will be losing out while china, india and other countries gain an advantage over our domestic manufacturing businesses, jobs and future. every member of this chamber understands that in an era of rising energy costs, congress must and should be doing something in its power to ensure that domestic production of clean energy is available at the cheapest price. however, i recently received a letter from the american petroleum institute expressing concern that this legislation could add as much as 77 cents to each gallon of gasoline.

very simply, this legislation means that every american business consumer will pay more for their fuels, to heat their homes and to purchase everyday goods. the facts are clear, nancy pelosi's national energy tax will kill american jobs, will raise prices on hardworking americans and do little to clean up our environment. i encourage a no vote on this locked down rule and a no vote on this legislation and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves his time. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. matsui: madam speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, a member of the rules committee, my colleague, mr. mcgovern. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for two minutes. mr. mcgovern: thank you. and i thank the gentlelady from california for yielding to me. madam speaker, i stand here today in support of this rule and in support of the underlying legislation. i want to thank speaker pelosi,

leader hoyer, ed markey for crafting and sheprding -- shepherding through this legislation. this would reduce the greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, reduce global warming and will spur the creation of millions of clean energy jobs in the united states. specifically, i'd like to thank the chairman for including funding for domestic and international adaptation in clean technology transfer. while i supported greater adaptation for funding, this represents a necessary first step in u.s. commitment. by dedicating a portion of the allowances to international adaptation financing, we can ensure that those poorest of countries who have already been and will continue to be disproportionately impacted by climate change will receive crucial funding to help them save their farm lands, sources of water and oftentimes their homes. as the co-chair of the congressional hunger caucus, i'm particularly concerned with the impacts of climate change upon the hungriest in the world. by investing in sustainable

agriculture culture and practices, adaptation in financing will help hunger. for many island nations, the harmful impacts of climate change have already taken their toll. sea level rise caused by global warming, have changed the geography of some nations. to echo what the speaker said, there is a moral imperative to be good stewards of this earth. as we look toward the negotiations in copenhagen, the world is looking for leadership from the united states for global solutions to this global problem. and by leading the way on clean technology and services to help the poorest nations build resistance to climate change impacts, the united states will spur a boom in jobs. such as irrigation technologies can create jobs here while solving problems abroad. can i ask for 15 a seconds? ms. matsui: i yield an additional 15 seconds.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: devoting portions of a cap and trade system to adaptation to those countries' most vulnerable is a signal that the u.s. can combat climate change. i ask unanimous consent to insert in the record a column by the president of relief services entitled combat hunger by investing in agricultural development. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: thank you, madam speaker. at this time i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from ennis, texas, mr. barton. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for three minutes. mr. barton: i thank the distinguished member of the rules committee. i'd ask unanimous consent to revise and extend, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. barton: madam speaker, this is the most important economic bill before this house in the last 100 years.

and we get under this rule 3 1/2 hours of debate equally divided. i could almost say we have debated ceremonial resolutions longer than this bill if this rule passes. let me give you just two or three reasons to vote against the rule. 400 pages of this bill have never been seen before. . they were literally hot off the xerox machine when they were handed to the rules committee sometime between 2:00 and 3:00 a.m. this morning. that's one reason to vote no on the rule. number two, there is a provision in this revised bill on derivatives that the chairman of thing a committee and the chairman of the financial committee have already said needs to be repealed. but they have agreed to let it be be a part of today's package with the understanding that it will then be repealed later

this summer. that's another reason to vote against the rule. there are so many new provisions that have never been seen, the provision that is chairman peterson and chairman waxman negotiated on agriculture have never been -- the focus of a hearinger or even a public debate. -- hearing or even a public debate. it was a debatable proposition whether the provisions chairman peterson negotiated have any value at all since the e.p.a. administrator still retains the ultimate authority under the bill to regulate any man made -- manmade greenhouse gas. this bill needs to be pulled today. if we vote against the rule, it will be. we need to go back, make sure that these new provisions are

vetted in the committees and in public debate, and then bring the revised bill to the floor sometime in july or september and have a week of debate on it with numerous amendments, 200 amendments were presented to the rules committee last night. one was made in order. one. of 224. this is a bad rule. it is a closed rule. this is a bad bill. it is the economic disaster bill for the united states of america if it were to pass. the easiest thing to do is vote no on the rule and then let's do work together to come up with a more reasonable bill sometime this fall. with that, i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. matsui: madam speaker, i yield two minutes to the the gentlelady from nevada a. member of the transportation

infrastructure committee, ms. titus. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from nevada is recognized for two minutes. ms. titus: thank you very much. i rise today in strong support of the titus-gifford-heinrich amendment which the manager's amendment incorporates into the american clean energy and security act. our amendment will create clean energy jobs, promote deployment of renewable energy technology, and put the federal government in a position to lead by example. our amendment extends the limit for the federal government to 20 years on a contract for the acquisition of electricity generated from a renewable energy resource. often referred to as a power purchase agreement. this provision will encourage wide scale deployment of renewable energy technology at federal buildings, b.l.m. land and superfund sites. additionally it will allow agencies to plan for more sustainable and affordable energy use over an extended period of time.

the small change will allow the door to government investments in cleern, more sustainable, and ultimately more cost beneficial energy technologies. our amendment also establishes a renewable electricity standard for federal agencies. this res will ensure that the federal government meets 27% of its electricity demand through renewable energy by 2020. it will drive demand for new clean energy technologies and help create new clean energy jobs. indeed we will be leading by example. i'm proud to have joined my fellow members of the sustainable energy and environment coalition chaired by jay inslee and steve israel on this provision. i'd like to thank chairman waxman for his assistance on this important amendment. i, too, will miss you, madam speaker, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back her time of the the gentleman from texas. mr. session: thank you, madam speaker. i appreciate the gentlewoman coming down speaking this

morning. there's an estimate that in her congressional district there will be 5,334 jobs that will be lost in the first year of this bill. madam speaker, 3:00 this morning, 2:30 this morning we received the manager's amendment, 309 pages, brand new. and this is the text of the ideas that chairman barton was talking about that were completely just ignored by the democrat majority last night in the rules committee. the members had come up to speak plainly about the ideas. completely ignored. completely ignored. at this time i'd like to yield three minutes to the ranking member of the energy and environment subcommittee of the energy and commerce committee, mr. upton. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for three minutes. mr. upton: thank you, madam speaker. this bill sure is an energy

bill. this bill will turn out the lights on america. there was a chance we were going to have a bipartisan bill. but that chance melted away when the subcommittee failed to mark up a bill. we went right to full committee. we thought we might have a chance on the house floor, i can remember when speaker hastert was in your chair, madam speaker, because four years ago we had an energy bill on the floor and there werer more than 50 amendments that were offered under chairman dreier and the rules committee. many of them democratic amendments. we spent a number of days on this. and at the end of the day, both mr. dingell, the former chairman, and joe barton, the then chairman of the energy and commerce committee, were able to vote for a bill because in fact it was bipartisan. yesterday more than 200 amendments were filed up at the rules committee. many of them republican. many of them bipartisan. mr. hill, democrat from indiana, myself offered a bipartisan amendment on nuclear. nuclear is one issue that is absent from this bill.

don't ask me why. there's no greenhouse gas emission was nuclear. it really is a jobs bill. i got two nuclear plants in my congressional district. when they were both brought on line, 85% of the components were made in america. today a new nuclear plant 85% will come from someplace else because we turned the light from green to red on nuclear the last 20, 25 years. yet no amendment on nuclear in this bill n. this rule. -- bill, in this rule. i woke up this morning i saw my friend and colleague, mr. inslee, speaking on c-span. this bill was going to cost only a postage stamp. look at the paper this morning, gasoline will only go 2 cents a gallon. i hope they are true but don't think they are going to be true. we had amendments as a safety valve in case it does go up. the c.b.o. and american petroleum institute says that gas prices are going to go up 77 cents a gallon.

diesel price, 88 cents a gallon. some energy costs could go up by 40% to 50%. we had amendments that said, hey, if gasoline goes up to five bucks a gallon, we'll take off this cap and trade f electricity price goes up more than 10%, we'll take off cap and trade f unemployment reaches 15%, it's almost there already in michigan, we'll take off this job killing provision. were those amendments allowed? no. then we got the whole issue of india and china, jobs going someplace else. that consumed a couple hours of debate i think in full committee, yet no amendment at all allowed on the house floor. mr. speaker -- madam speaker, my folks want to work and pay taxes, yet they are going to find themselves laid off and in michigan 100,000 folks this year will run out of benefits. no amendments are allowed to help those folks. not even a republican

substitute is allowed as part of this rule. madam speaker, your side has an 80-vote margin. i'd like to think at least we could have the same cards to offer positive constructive amendments and dwight debate it on the merits not on the politics. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from california. mrs. tauscher: i yield two minutes to the the gentlewoman from florida, a member of the energy and commerce committee, ms. castor. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from florida is recognized for two minutes. ms. castor: i thank my good friend, congresswoman matsui, from florida and say it is absolutely appropriate that congresswoman doris matsui leads off debate today on behalf of the rules committee because she has been one of america's most outspoken advocates for new clean energy economy. madam speaker, the american people's election of president obama was a call for a change in the direction of the country. especially our energy policy. america's energy policy is

outdated. we rely too much on foreign oil. which has serious economic and strategy risks. we have not invested in renewable energy or in cost saving technologies as we should. meanwhile, carbon pollution is changing our climate and destabilizing global markets. unless carbon pollution is addressed we face an uncertain future. but thanks to the leadership of speaker pelosi, chairman waxman, and chairman markey, and many of my colleagues and businesses and citizens all across america, we now have a golden opportunity to act and to modernize energy policy and to bolster science and research. we are going to pass the american clean energy and security act and none too soon. it comes at a critical time for our nation and right at the heels of the economic recovery act. together the clean energy act and the recovery plan provide a newfoundation for economic recovery, new jobs, and clean energy manufacturing. we are going to drive the

development of new clean energy jobs that pay well and cannot be outsourced. people are fed up with the wild swings in gas prices and tired of watching america's economy rise and fall along with the price of a barrel of oil. so we are going to commit ourselves to a new economic future. the clean energy act has special significance to my home state of florida because alone in the continental united states my state is surrounded on three sides by water. if we do not take action to address carbon pollution, it is possible that much of my state in future decades will no longer be be habitable. ms. matsui: i yield 30 seconds. ms. castor: the seas could rise and the coast cost move inland. florida has already seen increasing droughts and saltwater intrusion of our aquifers. what happens if we do not act? property insurance rates are already out of sight.

what if scientists are right that warmer waters increase the intensity of hurricanes? for those who say it's not time to build on a new energy economy or environmental changes can be ignored, you are on the wrong side of history. we are going to make good on the promise to future generations of americans and break our dependence on foreign oil and create the clean energy jobs that will revitalize america's economy in the coming century. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: thank you, madam speaker. i appreciate the gentlewoman florida coming down. a vote for this bill will lose 3,500 jobs in her congressional district in the year 2012, the first year of its implementation. i'd like to yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the fifth congressional district of texas, mr. hensarling. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. hensarling: madam speaker, since the democrats have taken control of congress, we have seen their idea to increase the deficit tenfold. we have seen their idea to

triple the national debt in 10 years. we have seen their ideas to bailout a.i.g., g.m., fannie and freddie and the list goes on. and today's new idea a. new national energy tax. costing every american family $1,500 to $3,000 a year. only if they choose to turn on a light, cook a meal, or drive their children to school. don't take my word for it. listen to the president of the united states. who said that under his plan, under his plan electricity rates would, quote, necessarily skyrocket, unquote. that's from our president. our gas prices will go up 77 cents a gallon at the pump. now all this is due to global warming concerns. madam speaker, these are legitimate concerns. we have a right to be concerned and manmade activity does contribute. but is this a smart policy? if india and china don't

participate, it is for naught. even the young federal -- even our own federal government estimates at best over a course of 100 years this may impact global temperatures .2 of one degree. frankly that variance occurs naturally every single year. think about the severe job loss, millions and millions of jobs lost due to the competitive disadvante we have. there are smarter ways to deal with global warming, but we hear nothing clean coal from the other side. we hear nothing about nuclear from the other side. think about the huge loss of national wealth that could have been used to cure cancer, send a generation to college, help launch millions of small businesses. madam speaker, some call it cap and trade. it will cap american opportunity, it will trade away american jobs. it's time to reject the new national energy tax. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired.