gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. lucas: madam speaker, i'd like to recognize the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for two minutes. mr. goodlatte: thank you, madam speaker. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. goodlatte: i rise in strong opposition to this bill. i agree with one thing the gentleman from massachusetts had to say and that is this bill has very important consequences, but those consequences are devastating for the future of the economy of this country. it's in pursuit of the fantsoif thinking this legislation will be able to cause us to turn down the thermostat of the world by reducing co-2 gas emissions when china and india and other nations are pumping more and more co-2 gas into the atmosphere all the time. we would be far better served with legislation that devotes itself to developing new technologies before we slam the door on our traditional sources of energy like coal and oil and

natural gas and nuclear power, the most co-2-free edition -- emission we have, and this bill does nothing to promote it. it stifles the ability of the people in this country to have the competitiveness thy they need in the world, to be able to get inexpensive sources of energy. i strongly oppose this legislation. we, republicans and democrats, our offered over 200 amendments to try to improve this bill. they made in order one. in shut do you think this democratic process, the speaker of the house has taken away the of the house has taken away the vo . the simple truth behind this legislation is, it raises taxes, kills jobs, and will lead to more government intrusion. it is estimated this bill will raise 94%, natural gas prices

55%, that's in addition to the expected rise in all of those sources of energy because this congress for the last 2 1/2 years has refused to take up a real american energy plan to devote more to producing domestic sources of all of our traditional sources of energy and developing new sources. we support the effort for energy efficiency. we support the effort to promote new and alternative forms of energy. we do not support this kind of suicide for the american economy. i urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: i want to yield to the gentleman who had been the chairman of the energy subcommittee on our full committee last congress and who was instrumental in getting the first draft of the legislation we worked off, but more importantly, as a knowledgeable individual in this area and from a constituency that has a special concern about the problems, he was table negotiate with us so that we could reach some of the accommodations in this

legislation that has made it a much better bill. i want to yield to him with great admiration five minutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr. boucher. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. boucher: i thank the gentleman for yielding and congratulate him on the tremendous leadership he's shown in bringing the issue to the house floor this afternoon. ski unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, ordered. mr. boucher: i rise in strong support of the bill and urge its approval by the house. it achieves broad reductions in greenhouse gases, enhances america's energy security and will unleash investments in clean energy technologies that will create millions of new american jobs. these energy technologies will evolve from america's laboratories. they will be deployed at home. they will be exported around the world. they will be the foundation for

our next technology revolution. and it all start here's with passage today of the clean energy security act. approximately 80% of the electricity in the district that i represent is coal-generated. and coal production is one of our region's major industries. it is a major employer of our constituents. not surprisingly, my focus in the shaping of the bill and the energy and commerce committee was to keep electricity rates affordable and to enable utilities to continue using coal which accounts for fully 51% of america's electricity generation. both of these goals have been achieved in the bill that is before us today. electricity rates will be only modestly affected. the nonpartisan congressional budget office says that by 2020, the cost of the entire program for the typical

american family will be $175 per year. the environmental protection agency projects that the nearer term cost for the american family for all elements of this legislation will be between $80 and $110 per year, about 20 cents a day for the typical american family. so the claims by the opponents that this legislation will impose enormous electricity price increases are simply wrong. and the environmental protection agency projects that by 2020, the usage of coal in our economy will grow as compared to today's usage. now that may seem somewhat counterintuitive in a bill that regulates greenhouse gas emissions. the e.p.a. projects that by 2020, coal usage in america under the terms of this bill

will actually grow. as transportation electrifies, the demand for electricity increases and coal, our most abundant fuel, will still be the fuel of choice to meet the rising demand. the claims of opponents that the co-2 controls under the bill will force utilities to surrender coal use causing an over reliance on natural gas with attendant broad economic harm to the nation are also simply wrong. this is a responsible measure. it is carefully balanced. it reduces greenhouse gases by 83% by the year 2050 as compared to 2005 levels. it keeps electricity rates affordable. it enables coal useage to grow as the demand for electricity increases nationwide. it opens the door to a more secure energy future and the creation of millions of new jobs, innovating, deploying and

exporting to the world. the new low carbon dioxide emitting technologies that will power our energy future. these are sound reasons to approve the bill. for those who still harbor doubts, let me make a more practical argument to vote for passage. in march of 2007, the supreme court held that carbon dioxide is a pollutant. you should that ruling and the terms of -- under that ruling and the terms of the existing act, the environmental protection agency is now effectively required to regulate co-2 emissions. federal regulation for greenhouse gases is now inevitable. it is not a question of whether we're going to have regulation, the only question is whether the regulation will be our carefully balanced congressionally adopted, economically sustainable regulation as contained within the bill before us today or whether we'll have e.p.a.'s regulation under the blunt

instrument of the clean air act where economic considerations cannot be fully weighed. given that choice and the path this bill charts for affordable electricity, for increased coal use and for new job creation, i would urge members to make a reasonable decision to approve today the clean energy security act. i yield back the balance of my time and urge passage of the bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. lucas: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from kansas, mr. moran. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. moran: thank you very much. i thank the gentleman for yielding. there's a story around congress today that with the adoption of the peterson amendment, the negotiations between the chairman of the committee, that this bill becomes acceptable and advantageous to those of us who represent rural america. i can assure you nothing could

be further from the truth. while the peterson amendment substantially improves the bill, at least modestly improves the bill, the end result is nothing but something that is disadvantageous, negative for rural economies. agriculture thought at one point in time there would be something they could gain by sequestering carbon in the soil. this bill still provides no assurance that the e.p.a., not the department of agriculture, but the e.p.a. would allow that to occur. if they would, the agriculture department is involved, but agriculture is not mentioned in this bill with regard to offsets. the electric cooperatives are still disadvantaged. if you're from rural america, the allowances allowed are for the east and west coast. but those of us in the poorer parts of the couldn't arery will be transferring our wealth to those other areas of the

country. s that jobs bill but it is a jobs -- jobs elimination bill. this bill creates a significant disadvantage for american small business and agriculture as we try to compete in a global economy in which other countries do not abide by these caps, rules, or regulations. i would assert that in my time in congress, there is no piece of legislation that will be more damaging to the future of rural america, to the future of small farms and businesses than the bill before us today. this bill, a jobs bill, as described by the gentleman from massachusetts is a job elimination bill, not a job creation bill. i urge my colleagues, both republicans and democrats, who come from the midwest, who come from rural america to vote no. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: madam speaker, it's my privilege to yield to an important member of the committee, mr. engel for one minute.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. engel: i thank the chairman for yielding to me and i rise in support of this bill as i supported it in committee. i think this bill goes a great step in the right direction. it will revitalize our economy by creating millions of clean energy jobs, increase our national security by reducing our dependence on foreign oil and help preserve our planet by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. i want to mention as i did in committee my disappointment that the bill does not contain strong enough language in terms of flex fuel cars in this country. i believe very strongly that the united states needs to move toward cars manufactured in america that can run on ethanol, methanol and gasoline. if you give gasoline competition with ethanol and methanol, i believe it will reduce the price of gasoline. so i'm disappointed that while the bill gos a step in that direction, it doesn't go

totally in the direction i'd like it to see. i would ask unanimous consent, yesterday, energy secretary chu said all new cars should have flex fuel capacity in this country. without objection, i'd like to enter into into the -- from "the "des moines register"." the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. engel: flex fuel vehicles would only cost $90 or $100 per car and would be very important in moving us in that direction. could i have an additional minute? mr. waxman: i yield the gentleman for another minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for a minute. mr. engel: g.m. and ford each committed to making 50% of their cars flex fuel vehicles by 2012. they're reneging now and i believe we should have strong language to move them back to their original position. i really believe that flex fuel cars are really the way to go. but we have a bill before us

and the bill is much, much more positive than anything else. it's a big step in the right direction and i think that our colleagues who are on the fence, as i pointed out, the bill doesn't give everything to everybody and doesn't do nearly what i would like to it to do but i think it does enough so we can move in the right direction to make ourselves energy independent, to reduce the warming of or -- of our planet and reduce greenhouse gases. i urge my colleagues for a yes vote, we can work afterwards to make the bill better and have the policies we want to see but rejection of this bill would be a terrible step in the wrong direction. i urge my colleagues to vote yet. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. lucas: i recognize the gentleman from ohio, mr. latta, for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. latta: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise in opposition to this

massive national energy tax. we're all for clean energy and the republicans have put forth an all of the above strategy. that's a strategy we need to do in this country, we can't pick winners and lose irs. i represent the largest manufacturing district in the state of ohio, but i represent the largest agricultural district. ohio uses 87% of coal for our generation. with this -- what this bill will do is kill jobs in ohio. we're struggling right now. it's tough. one of the things that a lot of people don't realize, since we have so few farmers out there left, 1% in ohio, we have so many farmers that not only work a full day on the farm but go out and work all night at another job. we've got to have jobs going both way prarkslell with each other this bill is not going to help these people out there. it's going to kill jobs across the country. when the secretary of agriculture was before us not long ago, i posed this question, is china going to comply with what we're going to

do? the answer is, maybe not this month or maybe not next month, but it's going to happen. may i have 30 seconds? mr. lucas: i yield the gentleman 15 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. latta: we've got to be able to compete against the world and this bill will kill the ability to do that. i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. waxman: madam speaker, it's my distinct honor to yield to the chairman emeritus of our committee who has been the leader in fashioning so many important legislative proposals that are now law and are serving our country so well, the gentleman from michigan, mr. dingell, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for two minutes. mr. dingell: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. dingell: madam speaker, i thank my good friend from

california for his kind remarks , and i express my appreciation to him. madam speaker, i rise in support of the clean energy security act. but before i address my remarks, i want to congratulate you on your distinguished service here and wish you well in the future. and express my personal distress that you are leaving us. now, my colleagues on the republican side, they are very anxious to criticize the bill and there are criticisms that can be had. there are not one of the 435 of us that could not come forward with statements in saying that the bill could be improved and that there are faults in the bill. both of those statements are true. but the harsh fact of the matter is it is urgent that we commence acting upon this legislation. it is based largely on the recommendations of u.s. cap which was a diverse group of environmental groups and industry with a shared desire for a commonsense bill to

address climate change. that process began last year with the drafting of the initial versions of this legislation which were taken and which were then handled by my friend from california. i would note that those proposals have gone -- have undergone significant improvement by reason of the works of members of this congress and this committee. now, there's some hard facts to be addressed. there's a scientific consensus that we need to address climate change quickly and effectively. we need and industry needs certainty. this bill gives certainty to american industry. without this certainty new expansion and new investment in this difficult time is not going to occur. there will be jobs which will flow from this legislation. actions by the supreme court, and i urge my colleagues to be scared to death by this --

mr. waxman: i yield the gentleman an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. dingell: actions by the supreme court in a finding by e.p.a. makes it critically important that we act. otherwise greenhouse gases will be regulated by e.p.a. and if you want something to shutter about, i beg you to take a look at that because we will see better than 300 different kinds of regulations coming from federal and state bodies who are in charge of this. now, this bill does protect the consumers. it's going to cost consumers about $175 a year. it will also protect american manufacturing and there are provisions in the legislation for that. and it has in addition to that additional programs which will meet the concerns of all of our branches of industry, coal, electric utility, manufacturing, chemicals and

also the securities market which will be controlled under an amendment offered by our good friend and colleague, mr. stupak. i am happy that this bill does have a dedicated allowance for natural resource adaptation and significant protection in acquisition of lands. this is a good bill. i urge my colleagues to support it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. lucas: madam speaker, i wish to recognize the gentleman from texas, mr. conaway, for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. mr. conaway: i wish to congratulate you on your long service. madam speaker, this bill passes today, this will be a bad day at black walk for america. this will raise energy costs. our president has said it will skyrocket. claims of high coal usage and lower costs is nonsensical. it is muted by the fact that we

delay implementation of many of these provisions for years and years in order for people to vote for this nonsense. it has no meaningful effect. we all want to breathe clean air. we all want to drink clean water. god has put us as responsible stewards for these resources and we ought to use them responsibly. this bill does nothing for it. it does no good. the only mingful thing it might do -- meaningful thing it might do is provide a photo on for our president in copenhagen bragging what we have done as the leaders in china and india laugh. voting for this bill will vote living standards for all americans for the foreseeable future. i urge my colleagues to vote against this bill. it does nothing good. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: madam speaker, i yield one minute to my colleague from california, ms. eshoo, who is a very important member for our committee. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentlewoman from california is recognized for one minute. ms. eshoo: i thank our very distinguished chairman. first, madam speaker, congratulations to you, and god speed. there may be no more critical issue facing our nation today than that of our energy future and the desperate need for new policies that will dramatically and forever change how we live and work in our country. our national security is irrevockably linked to it. -- irrevokeably linked to it. the future of our planet, the legacy of health and prosperity we all want to leave for our children cannot be assured without it. so it's time to take up this energy bill. in the season of days we are granted in this honorable institution, this is truly an historic moment. by passing this act, we're guaranteeing an investment of $190 billion in new clean

energy technologies and energy efficiency. creating jobs, spurring on new industries and fulfilling the desire of all americans that each of us in our own way can make this a better world. in my home district of silicon valley, dozens of burgeoning companies at the cutting edge of green and clean energy technology are poised for an explosion in innovation and healthy sustainable economic growth. can i have -- mr. waxman: i yield another 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for 30 seconds. ms. eshoo: thank you. it's a particular pride for me to work on this act and to influence some of its outcome. i'm proud that my own bill, h.r. 1742, the electric vehicle infrastructure act which will allow state and local governments to apply for financial assistance for the deployment of regional infrastructure to support the widespread use of electric vehicles is included. we are a hardworking people, madam speaker, who face the future with optimism and hope.

this act embodies these qualities, a vehicle for our willingness to work hard, to innovate, to imagine a better future and then to reach out and grasp it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. lucas: madam speaker, i yield to the gentleman from iowa, mr. king, one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from iowa is recognized for one minute. mr. king: thank you, madam speaker. i thank the gentleman from oklahoma for yielding. first, i would say that this court case that says the e.p.a. will regulate co-2 regardless, it takes a little change to interior approps to fix that. we are the united states congress. we don't capitulate to cap and tax because of a court ruling. we tell them what the american people think. second, this bill freezes or rolls back oil, natural gas, coal, nuclear and biofuels. we'll have less. we're not going to break dependency on foreign oil with less energy. iowa corn farmers, 6.2 million

acres, five million of them went in before 2001 and only 25% of them went in afterwards will be able to qualify because they rotate. so we're down to 4.8% of the guys doing it right, one out of 20 are going to get any benefit out of the peterson amendment. and furthermore, when speaker pelosi set up the cap and trade and bought the carbon credits, i can't verify that any of that changed any behavior for the positive. the ones i could verify had already been in place. we've seen an example in spain. it's a colossal mistake there. a political and economic error. this could be the most colossal mistake ever made in the history of the united states congress. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: madam speaker, i'm pleased at this point to yield to my good friend and colleague from southern california, mrs. capps, one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for one minute.

mrs. capps: madam speaker, i rise with great pride to support the american clean energy and security act. we built a record on energy and climate policy that indicates that the time for action is now. america is ready. the world is watching. we must transition to clean energy economy and jobs so that we can create jobs, achieve energy independence and protect our planet. we have before us a powerful and thorough and effective bill. it includes a nationwide renewable electricity standard. it contains critical investments in energy efficiency. it requires immediate significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions that are harming the health of our people and our planet. the bill also makes substantial investments in domestic, international, natural resource and public health adaptations that are crucial to the continuing prosperity of our nation and our world. madam speaker, to protect our health, to protect our economy,

our national security and our planet, we must enact comprehensive climate legislation and we must enact it now. we cannot sit idly by. i hope others will join me in seizing this opportunity to transition our economy to a new clean energy economy, and i urge a yes vote on this bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. lucas: madam speaker, once again, i'd like to recognize the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. thompson, for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for one minute. mr. thompson: i thank the speaker and i thank my friend from oklahoma. i have more concerns about this legislation than i have time to discuss. but since agriculture is pennsylvania's number one industry and because i'm on the house agriculture committee, i'd like to focus on the alarming effects that cap and trade will have on farmers of my home state. through mandates to decrease our attempts of fuels. the whole point of cap and frayed is to make fossil fuels

or 825% of the energy we consume more expensive. fossil fuels are essential for energy and electrical generation and also are equally important to use as a feed stock in many goods that we utilize. agriculture is an energy intensive industry, and natural gas will be capped under this legislation. natural gas is a basic ingredient in fertilizer, which is a building block for all of the food of the u.s. supplies. we can't make our food without fertilizer and we can't make fertilizer without natural gas. the dairy industry in my state is having a difficult time making profits because of falling milk prices. and while there are many reasons for low milk prices, energy costs are certainly part of that equation. this legislation will do nothing to reduce our carbon emissions or help pennsylvania agriculture and will only cause more economic hardship for many small farmers and businesses. and i urge my colleagues to reject this misguided measure. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california.

mr. waxman: madam speaker, i'm pleased to yield to the gentleman from texas, mr. green, who played a very significant role in developing this legislation, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. green: madam speaker, like my colleagues, we will miss you and good luck in your new endeavor in the administration. but today i rise in the house to -- set to consider the first comprehensive climate program in the history of the house of representatives, and i support h.r. 2454. this bill represents efforts to reach a consensus across the diverse membership and produce legislation that seeks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, both at home but also abroad. if congress does nothing greenhouse gas emissions could be regulated administratively through the e.p.a. without input from members that represent diverse constituencies. i represent petro chemical. it is home to thousands of industry. we cannot allow the petro chemical industries to migrate

out of america. they are vital to our economy and our nation. these industries could be left vulnerable to foreign competitors not facing carbon regulations if we do not carefully craft policies to prevent job loss and strengthen u.s. industries at home. i want to thank congressman inslee and congressman doyle for putting forth a proposal to provide 15% of the free allowances to emission intensive industries to address competitive concerns, especially in the chemical industry. if a manufacturing facility is energy intensive and trade exposed, allowances will be provided that facility on a production output basis, providing rebates for both the direct and indirect costs and complying with the climate program. it will level the playing field while encouraging emission reductions. the bill also protects the domestic refining industry while creating a climate change practice. our domestic refiners will face a competitivsa