the department of energy reports that the best way for utilities to reduce carbon emissions is nuclear energy. yet nothing here, nothing here in this bill. this bill is a burr cat's dream. it gives the e.p.a., the d.o.e. and many others, leverage over our energy markets. some in congress will have these buyer cats in their crosshairs aiming to game the system as this massively complex plan is implemented. i oppose this bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: i yield to the the gentleman from kansas, mr. moore, for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. moore: i commend chairman waxman that will help the country make a transition to a new clean energy economy. i urge members to vote in support of the underlying bill. americans are demanding bold policies that will push our country in a new direction on energy and secure a clean energy

future for america. this is a positive step forward, but i urge chairman waxman's leadership to strengthen the renewable electricity standard during the conference committee. a strong standard would mean more jobs in the united states and a larger share in domestic clean energy. our children and grandchildren are watching. if we don't take the step to leave them with a world more healthy and secure, when will we. i urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas. . mr. barton: i reserve at this time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: i yield to the gentleman from the state of oregon, mr. blumenauer, one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon is recognized for one minute. mr. blumenauer: thank you, madam speaker, chairman waxman, i appreciate your courtesy as i

appreciate your leadership. it's strangely the debate boils down to our friends from the minority party being able to access the website of the rules committee to print out the rule that has been available to any member of the house. i understand some of them were waving earlier in the day talking about provisions they didn't like. but i guess we shouldn't be surprised because this is the same leadership that continually misrepresents the m.i.t. study citing $3,000 of costs that has been reputed by the author of that report and asked the republican leadership to stop misrepresenting his handy work. the c.b.o., the e.p.a. have given estimates that are pennies a day, not thousands of dollars a year, and we are not talking about the long-term benefits of transitioning to an economy of the future. i appreciate the leadership on

the recent trip to china with the speaker, we saw the chinese moving ahead. this legislation is an opportunity for us to keep pace and assume our rightful leadership with an economy for the future. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: madam speaker, i'm going to reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves his time. the gentleman from texas has 10 1/4 minutes remaining. mr. barton: how much does mr. waxman have? the speaker pro tempore: 16 minutes. mr. barton: i'll yield one minute to mr. poe of texas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. mr. poe: thank you, madam speaker. i appreciate the gentleman for yielding. i represent southeast texas, the energy capital of the united states. 20% of the refineries in this country that help all these folks all over the fruited plain with energy i represent them.

this week alone we've had 86 people call and say vote for this bill. we've had 1,578 people in my district call and say, vote no against this bill. almost 20 times. i'm an advocate for those people in southeast texas. they believe, as i believe, we're going to close america's energy with this bill. the c.b.o. and the e.p.a. says there's not going to be much difference in the climate if we pass this deal. bummer. it's not even going to work. and it's more important to realize this bill is about control, government control of our lives, our businesses and everything we do. washington, d.c.'s going to dictate how we live and how we shall live and how our businesses will live and it's all bad because d.c. is in control and not the people. this is a bad bill. vote no. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: madam speaker, i am pleased to yield at this time a minute to the gentleman from colorado, mr. perlmutter, who has made many important

contributions to this effort. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for one minute. peril peril thank you, madam speaker, thank -- mr. perlmutter: thank you, madam speaker, thank you, mr. chairman. let me read a letter from the national association of realtors. the national association of realtors supports h.r. 2998, the american clean energy and security act which addresses a broad and global array of issues. in closing, the national association of realtors asked for the favorable passage of this. as do duke energy, american electric power, b.p. amicle, g.e., the american institute of architects. this bill is designed to help with national security, the climate and jobs. my friend, mr. poe from texas, says just vote no. well, that's the party of the status quo. just vote no. we like the status quo. it is time for a change, ladies and gentlemen. we can't afford the status quo, and this bill brings us in that

change and a new direction. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: madam speaker, i have one more person who wanted to be recognized and then we'll be prepared to close. would the gentleman from texas have someone he wishes to yield to before -- and we do have the right to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves his time. mr. barton: i have three leadership speakers to close and i have only one nonleadership speaker. i'll yield that one minute to mr. gohmert of texas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. mr. gohmert: thank you, madam speaker. you know, i've been trying to get through what i could of this and then finding out, well, actually it's another bill and then you have to incorporate all these other pages into it because i'd like to know what we're doing to the

american people. we've had people say we're playing politics on this side. if we wanted to play politics because we know in our hearts this is bad for america, we'd let you pass it and let you lose your jobs. but i've kind of grown kind of fond of some of my friends on the other side. i'd like to keep you around. anyway, let me tell you those who say there won't be any job losses. let me read some of the things that are in your bill. the climate change adjustment allowance. when you lose your job, for any week of unemployment, you going to get some unemployment assistance after that. that's in there. you got some relocation allowance, but the could you degra is that if you're -- the cue degrass is if you lose your job, we find a study in here. so i would encourage my colleagues, if you lose your job because of this bill, you probably are going to be able to get assistance because you

lost your job because of this bill. don't vote for it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: madam speaker, i at this time want to yield to my good friend, the important leader in environmental areas and many others as well, the gentleman from texas, mr. doggett, one minute. mr. doggett: i thank the gentleman. i urged strong objections to this bill. i voted against this rule because of some rejections to amendments that i thought were important to improve the legislation. for three reasons i'm voting for final passage. first i've been listening to the debate. not so much of those who support a bill that i'm not all that enthusiastic about. but listening to the flat earth society, some of the most arguments i've heard against refusing to act on this vital national security challenge. second, i believe there's still some hope to make improvements to this bill once it gets out

of the house. better to have a seat at the table to try to influence the change that is needed in this legislation. and third, i'm convinced that unless we act today, the senate will not act. and unless we act in this congress, we will not get the international agreements we need to address this serious challenge. i'm voting yes in the hopes that we will have a better bill and we will have the international card that we so desperately need to deal with this critical matter. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: at this time i have an additional colleague who wants to address this issue before we close, and i am very pleased to recognize her because she's a good friend and a very important member of the house of representatives, my colleague from california, barbara lee, for one minute.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized for one minute. ms. lee: thank you very much. thank you, madam speaker. and i want to thank the chair for yielding and also for your leadership, you and mr. markey, everyone has done a phenomenal job on this bill. i rise in support of h.r. 2454 which really sends a clear and unequivocal message that polluting our planet, our communities and our livelihood no longer comes without a cost. this bill will create millions of high-paying career term green jobs that represents a much-needed pathway out of poverty for millions of individuals across this country. and i am pleased to see the inclusion of much-needed funding for the green jobs act. i must also be clear in saying that in america we should do more to address the climate crisis than provided for in this bill, but this is an unbelievable first start. i believe we can produce more renewable electricity and

achieve more aggressive emission reductions over time. i also recognize that passing the american clean energy and security act is a major, major bold critical first step toward achieving our goal of realizing a greener future. as a person of faith and as a long-time advocate for safeguarding our environment for future generations, mr. chairman, madam speaker, i think it's our moral and our ethical imperative and our responsibility to support this bill. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: madam speaker, we reserve the right tclose on the debate, so i will now look for the other side to complete their statements. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from georgia. mr. price: i have a unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will state his request. mr. price: madam speaker, it's been estimated with great accuracy that between 2.3 million and 7.2 million jobs

will be lost each year with this bill. i would ask unanimous consent that the house rise for a moment of silence to recognize those who will lose their jobs because of this bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves the right to object. the gentleman has objected. mr. price: i thank the speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. barton: we reserve our time, madam speaker. we only have three speakers. we're ready as soon as they're ready to close we're ready to close. mr. waxman: you might not have heard my comments but we are -- we have the right to close and i'm going to close. so go ahead and use up your time and then i will close the debate. mr. barton: then i would yield the three minutes to the distinguished republican conference chairman, mr. pence of indiana. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for three minutes. mr. pence: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore:

without objection, so ordered. mr. pence: congratulations. i thank the gentleman for yielding. it's hard to know where to start. i got to think, madam speaker, a lot of people looking in on this debate, hearing about copies filed andess taric process really -- and esoteric really don't care about this because this economy is hurting. american families are struggling under the weight of the worst recession in a generation. families in my district are losing their jobs. small businesses and family farms are struggling. and all they've seen out of washington, d.c., so far is a gusher of runaway federal spending, deficits and debt and bailouts. they didn't think it could get worse. but here we go. in the midst of the worst recession in a generation, this

administration and this majority in congress are prepared to pass a national energy tax that will raise the cost of energy on every american family. now, my colleague sporting the green lapel button, who i greatly respect, said that there is a lot of dispute about how much the average american household will pay if this national energy tax becomes law and that's true. there are estimates ranging from a few hundred dollars a year to the hair tage foundation's over $-- heritage foundation's over $4,000. i heard president candidate barack obama who said in january of 2008 to the san francisco chronicle and i should quote with the deepest respect. under my plan of cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. that will cost money. they referring to the utility companies. they will pass that money onto

consumers, closed quote. now president barack obama. now, i know earlier this week the president of the united states said that polluters are going to pay the cost of this national energy tax. that's not what he said last year. now, i don't know how y'all define skyrocket. when the president said electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket under my cap and trade plan, but i'd be prepared to defer to you. i define skyrocket as a prescription for economic decline. there may be a dispute of the numbers of how much i'll be paying in my electrical bill or how much the cost of goods and services are going to go up, but there's no dispute that this cap and trade legislation is going to cost millions of american jobs. raising the cost of energy is a bad idea in prosperous times. raising a national energy tax

in the worst recession in a generation is a profoundly bad idea. . we are in the minority as we have been reminded. we don't have the votes to stop this bill. but you do. if you oppose the national energy tax, call your congressman right now. you think we can do better to serve the interests of the american people and achieve energy independence with an all of the above strategy, call your congressman right now. alexander hamilton said, the people govern. we can stop this bill and so we must. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. barton: can i inquire how much time remains? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas has 5 1/4 and the gentleman from california has 13 minutes remaining. mr. barton: the gentleman from

california has the right to close? the speaker pro tempore: yes. mr. barton: one more parliamentary inquiry, the leadership on both sides, each is allowed one minute to speak at any time, will that time come out of this debate or does that time come out of the debate on the forbes' amendment? the speaker pro tempore: depends on wart of the debate they're yielded to. mr. barton: could i -- would mr. waxman yield for a question then? i need to know if i need to reserve one minute for mr. boehner to speak or if the speaker and the majority leader are going to speak later and not in this part of the debate. mr. waxman: we're ready to conclude the general debate. we will then move onto the amendment. and in the course of the

discussion of the amendment in the nature of a substitute, our leadership plans to speak. and they will close the debate for our side as we vote -- as we move to the passage on that, to vote on that amendment and then passage on the bill. mr. barton: i yield myself the balance of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for 5 1/4 minutes. mr. barton: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. barton: i want to compliment you on your speakership of this debate. as always you have been gracious, fair and wish you the

very best in your new position at the department of state. the speaker pro tempore: thank you. mr. barton: as the country western song goes, i've got a long way to go and a short time to get there. so i will go through the major issues on the debate before us. i want to first start with the so-called compromise, the chairman of the agriculture committee and chairman of the energy and commerce committee have worked outs. as we have seen during the debate by the number of colloquys, the compromise is a work in process. i have seen it amended and referred and rebutted several times on the majority side. but if you look to my far left on this chart in the base text of the bill, there is a provision that gives the administrator of the e.p.a. the right at any time, at any time to designate any manmade gas as

a greenhouse gas subject to the regulations of this bill. as far as i can tell, that paragraph trumps everything that chairman peterson has attempted to negotiate with chairman waxman. the second thing i want to point out is the basic math of their allowance system simply doesn't work. the transportation sector today is responsible for 35% of the greenhouse gas emissions in the united states, 35%. they get, if you count the good work that mr. dingell did and the good work that mr. green did on the majority side on getting allowances for the transportation sector, they get a grand total of 4%, 4%. well, 4 from 35 is 31%. when you get down to 2050, you have to reduce co-2 emissions by

83%, which only leaves 17% of total emissions from the baseline year. you have to cut the transportation sector in half. and if you assume that we're not going to develop some sort of a giant rubber band for general aviation, you can't put an electric battery or a nuclear reactor in an airplane. general aviation is going to have to use fossil fuel. you simply can't get to that 83% reduction from the 2005 baseline with the math in their bill. it is a physical impossible built. the third point, the science is not there to back it up. there was an e.p.a. report that has been suppressed that was never made a part of the record that we're trying to get as we speak that raises grave doubts about the endangerment finding. now if you don't have an endangerment finding, you don't

need this bill. we don't need this bill. and for some reason, the e.p.a. saw fit not to include that in making the decision. we have e-mails that show that the director of the subcabinet agency within the e.p.a. said the decision has been made. the report is not helpful. it's not only not helpful, it's harmful. so the science isn't there. next point. no matter how you cut it, costs are going up. just basic math, just basic math. in iowa, the c.e.o. of a utility that provides most of the electricity for iowa says in iowa alone, costs are going to go up $110 a month for a residential customer. that's $1,200. gasoline prices will go up between 40 cents and 70 cents a gallon. if you take the mid point and say 50 cents a gallon and

husband and wife each drive 1,000 miles an month you will have $800,000. that is $2,000 per family in 2012. it's not a postage stamp. their estimates are as high as $6,000. let's start with $2,000. that's in the first year and every year thereafter. if you look at this chart here on unemployment, if it goes below the bar, that's a negative. 2015, 2.3 million jobs. 2025, 2.7 million. it averages two million jobs every year. you talk about a green job resolution. in spain, they have been trying to do that. and in spain, for every green job they've created, they have lost two conventional jobs. and the green jobs they've created in spain have cost $1.2

million per job created in government subsidies. that's not a revolution i want to be part of, madam speaker. i cannot express enough to get to 83% baseline reduction in co-2 by the year 2050, which doesn't change in this bill, you have to reduce the emissions in the united states to the level that we had in 1910. and if you want to look at that on a per capita basis, assuming that the population is going to average 1% growth a year, it takes us back to 1875. this is a bad bill. it deserves to be defeated. please vote no. thank you, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: i yield myself the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman is recognized for 13 minutes. mr. waxman: 30 minutes? the speaker pro tempore: 13. mr. waxman: i won't take 13 minutes. my colleagues, we have a unique historical opportunity today to pass a bill that will lead us to greater independence as a nation controlling our own national security. we have an opportunity to transform our economy with new jobs. and we must do something about the carbon emissions that are causing such an enormous problem to our planet. we have this opportunity because president obama has set this high on his agenda. we have it because of the commitment of speaker pelosi. we have it because the scientists are telling us there is an overwhelming consensus

that despite the comments that we've heard from the other side of the aisle, global warming is real and it's moving very rapidly. and we may get to a point that will be a tipping point. our actions will make no difference after that. let us not lose this historical opportunity for our national security, for jobs in this country, to protect our environment, to make us the leader once again in the international community and to get them to join with us in doing what we must to avoid the disasters that many scientists have predicted. vote for this legislation. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. debate has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? mr. forbes: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: part c, amendment --

part b amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in house report 111-185 offered by mr. forbes of virginia. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 587, the gentleman from virginia, mr. forbes, and a member opposed each will control 15 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. forbes: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. forbes: first of all, i would like to thank the rules committee for allowing me to bring this amendment by making it in order no matter what the motivation or the intentions. i appreciate that opportunity. and i want to make it clear, this amendment is not an addition. it is an amendment in the nature of a substitute that would replace the current bill on the floor. i would like to make clear that this is not a democratic amendment obviously and we will hear from the democratic leadership in a few minutes to make that clear. it's not a republican amendment. and we will probably hear from the republican leadership to that extent in just a few

moments, but it is an amendment that is overwhelmingly supported by the american people. you know, i never ceased to be amazed that day after day we come into this body and enter this chamber, we put on our adversarial roles, but unfortunately the adversarial process leads us to be more concerned with scoring points than we are with winning solutions. and this debate i have listened to today, there are good men and women on both sides and smart men and women on both sides and they all believe they are right, but there are limits to the good ideas that he we can bring into this one chamber about energy. the reality is if you are from a coal area, people back home know you will be fighting for coal. if you are from a gas ear, you will be fighting for gas. or an area with wind and air technology.

but even the majority can't always be right and that's only 33% of the people in america approve of what congress is doing currently today. this amendment, madam chairman is the new manhattan project for energy independence. a lot of people have talked about doing something like this and today we have the opportunity to do it. it says that instead of the 435 of us on this floor bringing our ideas and imposing them on the american people, that what we do is bring together a commission of the brightest men and women in america from government, from the private sector from academics and we have them create in the next year a plan of energy for this country that would give us 50% dependent from foreign oil in 10 years and 100% in 20 years or tell us why we can't get there. this amendment also realizes that in this bill on the floor