the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. dingell: i rise to revise and extend my remarks. i want to join in a colloquy about the electric transmission provisions. i support renewable power, as does he. however, there is a state balance in this. i yield to my friend. mr. waxman: i agree we must be sensitive to the federal state and roles but we must move forward on transmission policy. my goal is to take the first step. mr. dingell: i have concerns about the wisdom of splitting the country in two parts. into eastern and western interconnections for the purposes of regulating transmission. does my colleague agree that we should have a unified national transmission policy, i yield to the gentleman? mr. waxman: yes, that is my preference. there is more consensus how to move forward in the western interconnect than there is in

the eastern interconnect, and we should make the progress we can in the west. i'll continue to work toward a policy that is comprehensive and effective. mr. dingell: i thank my good friend and i have this further question. i'm also concerned that wilderness areas conservation needs will be fully protected. i yield to my friend. mr. waxman: it leaves in place the current environmental protection in the eastern interconnection. the changes in the west account for the very sensitive nature of the lands there, including federal lands. mr. dingell: finally, the effect of this law on existing land is unclear. mr. waxman: we need a policy that's clear and can be implemented. this is only a partial step forward and look forward to having your help in adopting a workable cause. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas. mr. barton: i'd like to yield

one minute to the distinguished senior member of the committee from the great state of georgia, mr. deal. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. deal: i thank the gentleman for yielding. there are many issues that need to be discussed. i rise in opposition to this leg. one topic is that of jobs. we're told we're going to gain jobs. by most reasonable estimates, we're going to lose jobs. the best example of that is to look at what happened in spain. spain has traveled this path of renewables and green energy. their estimate is that for every job they gained they lost over two. i don't consider that to be the direction that our country needs to go, especially in these difficult economic times. the second thing that needs to be said is that there is a disparity being created in the renewable portfolio

requirements. for portions of the cubtry such as georgia and the southeast in georgia, -- in general we don't have the volume of alternatives allowed under this legislation. especially if we are not going to get credit for the nuclear plants we are trying to bring onboard in our state. therefore, we're going to have to purchase those credits from some other part of the country, something i think will have an undoubtable, definite negative effect on the power bills of the citizens of my state. i rise in opposition to the legislation and urge my colleagues to vote against it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expire. the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: i yield one minute to my good friend, the gentleman from georgia, for the purpose of colloquy. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank you for changing the ru re-newble standards to reflect the needs

of my constituents in georgia and especially the energy star guidelines. there's one issue i discussed with you that we're working our way through, which concerns the jurisdiction of derivatives. i everybody -- i serve on the agriculture committee, we feel strongly that any language in this dealing with the regulation of derivatives certainly should be handled by the financial services and agriculture committees and you and i have had discussions on this, i would like to know how that is done, particularly in view of the fact that 54% of the -- 94% of the largest corporations use derivatives for risk management. mr. waxman: reclaiming my time, this matter will be determined by the work of the financial -- the financial services

committee and the agricultural committee. we have a placeholder in the bill. once they agree on the issue that's within their jurisdiction, another 30 seconds. it will be placed in the bill. i want to point out that you have a unique role in that. you are on both committees and have a special interest on this question. i look forward to seeing your work on that matter. mr. scott: with that i support the bill and urge my colleagues to support this important bill. thank you, mr. chairman, for your work. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expire. the gentleman from texas. mr. barton: i yield myself 15 seconds before i yield to mr. pitts. we just experienced something somewhat revolutionary. we have a bill before us that has a placeholder in the bill. we are passing a bill with a placeholder to be determined later. i have never seen a final passage on a bill that had a

placeholder in the bill. with that, mr. pitts a member of the committee, from pennsylvania, one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for one minute. mr. pitts: like all of us, i believe we should work to decrease the amount of greenhouse gas emissions in our atmosphere and be good stewards of the earth and its resources. i do not believe it will accomplish a dramatic decrease in greenhouse gas emissions. yet i do believe it will have a crippling effect on our economy for years. no matter how you doctor or tailor it, it is a national energy tax that will hurt each and every household. it will destroy sector ours oeconomy at an unprecedented rate. here's a chart that shows the job losses in thousands of jobs here nearly two million jobs, 2012, 2035, over two million jobs a year. we should be protecting our environment through enno, i --

innovation and entrepreneurship but this bill tries to cut carbon emissions through taxation, heavy handed government and litigation. the bill was analyzed by the p.u.c. in pennsylvania, said it would cost pennsylvania 66,000 jobs by the year 2020. i urge my colleagues to consider how irresponsible it is to move legislation that's going to cost so many jobs, so much damage to our economy and yet, it's anticipated to slow temperature increases by only .2 of one degree fahrenheit by the end of the century. there is a better way. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: i yield one minute to the gentleman from maine, mr. michaud for purposes of kohl three. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. michaud: i rise in colloquy with chairman peterson. i want to thank chairman peterson for his hard work in

this legislation. i seek clarification of two provisions in section 788 in the bill, relative to forestry lands and the forestry sector, specifically, page 9 , line 14, ilede like to know if the legislation includes forest lands and forestry sector and on page 199, does the term projects include sustainable forest practices such as avoided deforestation agreement? mr. peterson: i want to thank the gentleman for his work in improving the definition of biomass in the bill and just as with many usda conservation programs, forestland qualifies for this program and it's our intent ta it be included. they could be used to provide incentives to private forestland owners who may not otherwise qualify to

participate in the ag offset program. i'll continue to work with the gentleman and he can be assured this will be include. mr. >> i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. barton: i want to tell me members if you haven't made your deal yet, come to the floor. what we're seeing is unprecedented, we're making deals on the floor. i want to commend mr. waxman, at least he's now doing it in public. that's -- it's unprecedented but at least it is transparent. with that, i want to yield -- two minutes to mr. stearns of florida. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. members are reminded to address their remarks to the chair. the gentleman from florida is recognized for two minutes. mr. stearns: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that my entire speech be made part of the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. stearns: this is a defining moment. where were you when this legislation came on the floor

is going to be something you're going to remember. as chairman of -- as the chairman and ranking member have indicated, the lobbying on this by vice president gore and all the people has been tremendous. it's a possibility they still don't have the votes. one reason is this there's not a fairness factor here. china adds about more co-2 to the atmosphere each year than any other nation in the world. however, they have consistently said they reject any binding international cap on such emissions and claim the right to continue to increase thes release of greenhouse gases. at the same time we're going to attempt to pass this legislation. without equivalent efforts by china and india, to limit greenhouse gas emissions, the united states stands to lose many hundreds of thousands of jobs to these countries that will profit from this bill today. the proponents of the legislation say we should make unilateral reductions.

unilateral disarmament. which in turn will impose moral pressure on other countries. i find it hard to believe that china and india will reduce their economic growth and idle their people because they're willing to adopt a cap and trade. the cap and trade is flawed. china and india are not going to go forward. any meaningful effort to achieve long-term, sustainable reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions depend on the development and deployment of technologies, we ail agree, it includes clean coal technologies, carbon capture and se quest ration and advanced nuclear power generations. my amendment was denied on this respect. the rapid development demonstration of widespread deployment of such technologies are of paramount prns in any reasonable and any effective effort to addrs c; 2 reductions. the massive new regulatory

burdens imposed by this cap and trade scheme will cut the growth and inknow ration in this jobs. let's not pass this bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: we reserve the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. barton: what's the time on each sidery maining right now? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas has 37 3/4, the gentleman from california has 28 1/2. mr. barton: thank you, madam speaker. i want to yield three minutes to the distinguished minority whip, mr. cantor of virginia. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for three minutes. mr. cantor: thank you, madam speaker. i thank the gentleman. there's one thing everyone this chamber should be able to agree on, we need to focus on job creation and relieve the burden on middle class families, not increasing it. yet the evidence suggests that by taking up this cap and trade bill, we are aban conning this

submission. according to the m.i.t. study, the legislation before us will force america's middle class families to pay as much as $3,100 in higher prices every year. the e.p.a., meanwhile, estimates that a family of four will pay an additional $1,100 each year. the impact on jobs is equally dismal. a c.r.a. international study finds that legislation, when fully implemented, will cost america $2.-- 2.3 million to 2.7 million jobs, this at a time when hundreds of millions of workers are losing their jobs every month. in the midst of a severe recession, why contemplate a plan that amounts to a growth-killing millstone around the neck of small businesses and all american consumers. mammings, it's not the utility the oil companies and other producers who will bear the cost of this new regime. we know that the companies will pass their higher costs along

to the consumers and small businesses that rely on their services this means more expensive bills for all americans on everything from electricity to heating to gasoline to groceries. we also can't forget that this national energy tax comes down hardest on the poor. the highest income quine tile spends less than 5% of its income on energy intensive products. but our families in the lowest income quintile spends the most on those items, this from the c.b.o. with a watchful eye to the possibilities of jobs and economic growth, let's give consideration owhat this bill will bring about. even if it cuts carbon emissions 80% by 2050, we'll still only slow temperature increases by .2 of a degree.

then there's the real elephant in the room, india and china. both growing rapidly and not agoing to slow down. do we want to hamstring u.s. industry and put it at competitive disadvantage to asia? can we do be so naive to assume our wizes and jobs won't migrate to china and india? trying to remove co-2 from the atmosphere is a noble idea but this is only an exercise in futility. madam speaker, republicans remain committed to bringing a swift end to the recession and paving the path to prosperity. we intend to focus on policies that will put people back to work and grow the economy. that does not include this cap and trade proposal. with stakes so high, gambling the house away on such a high cost, low-reward program is a grave mistake that republicans will not support. i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. barton: i want to yield one minute to the distinguished lady from west virginia, congresswoman capito. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from west virginia is recognized for one minute. mrs. capito: at a time when families are already struggling to meet their basic things like things, the last thing we need is a new energy tax on consumers. this cap and tacts tax is a national energy tax that will burden consumers, burden businesses and particularly burden the lower income families in this country. particularly the lower income. it picks regional winners and losers with coal dependent states like mine, west virginia, bearing the brunt of this bill. under this bill, we'll actually be penalized for our lower cost power and have to pay more for using our greatest resource, coal. we should be going towards carbon sequestration where we

can use our most abundant resource. we all want cleaner sources of fuel and more efficient energy. but this cap and trade bill is not the way forward. this bill is a jobs killer. this bill has real costs for real people. vote no on this bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york. mr. rangel: mr. speaker -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 15 minutes. mr. rangel: i rise in support of the american clean energy and security act of 2009 and urge my colleagues to support it. listening to the beginning of this debate, i'm convinced that one of the people on the other side said that our voting today will be well remembered, not by democrats and republicans, but by the entire world. we know that we have a crisis. it's a universal crisis. it's a crisis that affects our country and our communities.

but the ironic thing about it, the other side, all of their comments has been in criticism of the great work that has been done by congressman waxman and markey and their committee, the ways and means committee and those that were concerned about perfecting something that protect the people of this earth. and just as they will remember the courageous and political forces that were put together to make this great contribution to humankind, they also will remember the negative, political shots that have been taken and the absence of any positive program that the minority have brought forward. so i'd like to reserve the balance of my time and congratulate our great speaker for coordinating this effort. people call it on the other side deals when they don't have any ideas to put forward.

but deals if it means bringing people together and giving a better bill and moving forward in order to provide the majority, then i'm proud to be on this side of the aisle. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves his time. who claims opposition? mr. barton: i yield one minute to a member of the committee from the golden state of california, mr. radanovich, one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. radanovich i rise in strong opposition -- mr. radanovich: i rise in strong opposition to the cap and tax bill. we can look no further than my beloved state of california to look at its worse. they have adopted their own renewable energy standard and carbon tax and trade scheme. it's killing business in california and driving people out of the state in record numbers. rural and agriculture communities will be most affected by this bill forcing local agriculture producers to

pay more for seed, equipment, machinery, steel and other supplies. if you like getting your oil from hugo chavez with cap and tax you are going to love getting breakfast, lunch and dinner for him too. we are truly interested if -- if you are truly interested in achieving dramatic reductions in co-2 emissions without destroying our economy, we should preserve a robust economy and allow the free market to continue to produce commercially viable energy efficiencies and clean energy technologies. i urge my colleagues to do something good for the economy and the environment and put this bill where it belongs, in the recycle bin. i yield back, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york. mr. rangel: mr. speaker, i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman, chairman levin from michigan. mr. levin.

i'll be glad to. mr. barton: i have two nonmembers of the ways and means committee that i'd like to go out of order to get us in balance so mr. camp and you could balance each other. mr. rangel: i yield to the gentleman. mr. barton: i'd like to yield to the gentleman from new york one minute, mr. lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. barton: and i'd like to thank mr. rangel for his courtesy. mr. lee: i like to thank the gentleman for yielding. my community knows too well that washington typically overregulates and hides the costs to taxpayer. this bill is being over 1,100 pages in length and 50 pages dedicating to regulating light bulbs. in order to garner enough votes, the majority has tried to shift the most punitive costs of this bill to later years so they can get it passed. early on it will be the government footing this enormous bill with your tax dollars. and then down the road the subsidy will shift to consumers

will pay directly to sustain this program through higher job-killing energy prices. either way, it's the taxpayer who bears the burden. this bill is truly a pipe dream. we need to focus on an energy solution that rewards innovation using american-made energy, not trying to find a way to tax our way to prosperity and continue this horrific job loss. that is why i urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york reserves? mr. rangel: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. barton: mr. speaker, i'm going to yield one minute to the distinguished congresswoman from illinois, a member of the science committee, congresswoman biggert. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. biggert: mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to the stuart stuart. in my home state of illinois we de-- to the american clean energy and security act. in my home state of illinois,

we use a lot of energy. illinois will be hit especially hard. gas prices could rise by 77 cents a gallon and diesel by 88 cents a gallon. this is part of an entirely arbitrary penalty on oil and gas that is passed onto the consumer. h.r. 2454 does little to incentivize a new nuclear production, despite the fact that nuclear power is safe and emissions free. and what it does is grossly inadequate considering the overall goal of this bill. i am deeply concerned also that there is no framework for an international agreement for climate change in this bill. in the absence of the framework and in agreement from developing nations, my district can count on losing thousands of jobs to countries like india and china if this legislation is enacted. mr. speaker, i oppose this bill and urge my colleagues to do the same. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from michigan is

recognized for two minutes. without objection, so ordered. mr. levin: action on climate change is a policy indeed a moral imperative. prompt action is a vital part of our legacy to the nation and to our children and grandchildren. as we act we can and must ensure that the u.s. energy intensive industries are not placed at a competitive disadvantage by nations that have not made a similar commitment to reduce greenhouse gases. after discussions between the energy and commerce and the ways and means committees and the administration, we have developed reasonable and productive things that will take action no more than necessary to ensure that this important legislation is trade neutral for our energy intensive industries. we want to see a meaningful international agreement.

if we're unable to do so through an international agreement. this legislation ensures that the u.s. will avoid carbon leakage in its energy intensive and trade sensitive industries. there are some critics, and we may hear from them today, who claim that these changes make the bill subject to trade challenges. they are wrong. just today the world trade organization and the u.n. environment program issued a report which confirms that, and i quote, w.t.o. rules do not trump environmental requirements. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas. >> the president stated under his energy plan, and i quote, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket, end quote.

i give him credit. he's being honest with the american people. today, the nation's unemployment level is fast approaching 10%. that means one out of every 10 americans will soon be without a job and without a paycheck to provide for themselves and their families. yet, this national energy tax will drive up prices while making jobs scarcer. in fact, one utility, which is even supporting this legislation, has already applied to state regulators to raise their electricity rates in anticipation of the cost of complying with this national energy tax. while the speaker wants us to pay more in energy taxes, china and india have repeatedly said they will not follow suit. they'll not impose those hardships on their people. this shouldn't surprise us. as our mothers used to ask, if everyone else jumped off a cliff, would you? of course not. neither will china and india. they reckon acting these caps is like -- they recognize enacting these caps is like jumping off a cliff.

more manufacturing jobs will move to china and india. fewer americans have jobs and there is no reduction in global greenhouse gases. and because this bill was rushed to the floor, because the american people were not given a chance to review it, because their representatives were not given a chance to improve it through the committee process, this bill contains numerous flaws. the border measures, which the committee on ways and means has not reviewed are an area open for our trading partners to retaliate against our goods and against our workers. how does this help our economy? how does this help families? how does this help our environment? it doesn't. now, i know promises have been made, that your constituents won't be harmed by this bill, that it contains plenty of consumer protections. what are those protections? who's going to get them? not the middle class, not the people the president promised to protect, families making less than $250,000 a year. somewhere in this house late at night someone made the decision

to eliminate the tax credits designed to help middle-class families pay for these high energy prices. here are the plain and simple facts. under the speaker's national energy tax, a family of four with incomover $33,000 per year will lose under this bill. they and 235 million other americans will pay higher costs and receive no help in offsetting these costs. let's be clear what this means. three out of every four americans will pay more under this bill. the speaker's national energy tax is bad for our economy, bad for families who are already struggling to make ends meet and it will do nothing to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. it's all pain and no gain. i urge my colleagues to vote no on this bill and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves his time. the gentleman from new york. mr. rangel: when the republican party becomes the protector of

the poor it's a day that i've been waiting for. i'd like to yield two minutes to mr. larson, an outstanding leader of the democratic party. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. larson: i thank the distinguished chairman and mr. speaker. it's been an interesting day listening to the claims imnated from the other -- emanated from the other side of the aisle, claims of being forth right. we had the president of the previous administration, president bush stood on the floor and claimed our addiction to oil. and everybody put their head in the sand, did nothing. as we continue to send and export american dollars overseas. we send american taxpayer dollars overseas. to russia, to saudi arabia, to libya, to venezuela, all the people that you have chimed in about today.