diesel costs are expected to be 58% higher and electric rates 90% higher. for example, residents in oklahoma can expect rates to increase by nearly $300 million. why are we doing this bill? so the u.s. can lead on climate change in the world? we can lead when china and india have refused to participate. we can lead when europe is willing to do half of what this bill calls for. we can lead with the rest of the developing world is unable to do anything at all about climate change. some of my idealistic colleagues will say that we have to set a standard for the rest of the world. i say i will not make my constituents poorer so that others can get richer at our expense. my friends, this is the wrong bill at the wrong time for the wrong reason. madam speaker, i reserve the

balance of my time. >> the gentleman from california is recognized. >> madam speaker, at this time, and divide -- i am delighted to yield to the gentleman from massachusetts. he is on the select committee of global warming. he has played a fundamental role of shepherding this bill to our committee and working to get it to the floor today. i will yield three minutes. >> i think the gentleman from california. and i think gm and his staff for the outstanding leadership -- i thank him and his staff for the outstanding leadership they have provided. this is the culmination of a career of work from the gentleman from california, and it is my honor to have been allowed to partner with him in

order to construct this legislation that we bring to the floor here today. i want to thank, as the gentleman from california as well has noted, the other members who have worked on this legislation. mr. dingell, mr. bowsher, mr. doyle, mr. kinsley, mr. green, mr. steve packed -- stupak, so many members. why can ring, from the state of texas who worked with us on natural gas related issues. we would not be here unless we had the cooperation of some members across the full spectrum of the house. during this process, we have received valuable input and expertise from other leaders in the house like chairman randall

on trade issues, chairman petersen on agriculture issues amongst many others. the legislation we have before us today is the most important energy and environment legislation to ever have been considered in the history of the united states. the consequences for our country are great. unless we act to deal with these issues. this legislation sets a new course for our country, creating millions of nuclear energy jobs while reducing our dependence on imported oil. and when it becomes law, and it will, for the first time in our history of the united states congress, for the first time in the history of our country, we will put enforceable limits on global warming pollution.

at its core, however, this is a jobs bill. it will create millions of new clean energy jobs in a whole new industries with incentives to drive competition in the energy marketplace. it sets ambitious and achievable standards for energy efficiency and renewable energy from solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, so that by 2020, 20% of our energy will be clean. it saved consumers money by updating efficiency standards for new buildings, appliances, and lighting systems. it will invest $10 billion a year in energy efficiency programs in states across this country. >> i yield vegetal and one additional minute. -- i yield the gentleman one additional minute.

>> it starts the process of making our electric grid a smart grid so we can plug in a hybrid it into an advance, efficient energy network that by the year 2030, we will be raising a generation of children who know not how to receive gasoline at a gasoline station, but rather by plugging their cars into a plug so that the electricity that we generate ensures that those vehicles are being run for the benefit of our people. this is a revolution. this is a moment in history. this is what the american people were calling for in the election of 2008, a fundamental change that breaks our dependence on imported oil, creates millions of new jobs, reduces the amount of pollution that we send up into the atmosphere, and points us in a new direction in our

country that breaks with this pattern of cyclical dependence on imported oil coming from opec that holds our nation hostage. i urge and a positive vote on this. >> alike to recognize the gentleman from virginia for two minutes. >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. i rise in strong opposition to this bill. i agree with one thing the gentleman from massachusetts has to say. this bill has very important consequences. those consequences are devastating for the future of the economy of this country, and it is in pursuit of the fantasy of thinking that this legislation will cause us to be able to turn down the thermostat of the world by reducing co2 gas emissions when china, india, and other nations are pumping more and more co2 gas into the air all the time.

we would be far better served by legislation that would be served -- dedicated to building new technologies before slam the door on our traditional sources of energy like coal, oil, natural gas, and a nuclear power. the most co2 free admission that we have, this bill has done nothing to promote it. it stifles the people of this country to have the kind of competitiveness we need in the world to be able to get an expensive sources of energy. i strongly oppose this legislation. republicans and democrats offer over 200 amendments to try to improve this bill. in shutting down this democratic process, the speaker of the house has taken away the voice of the american people. the simple truth is, it raises taxes, kills jobs, and will lead to more government intrusion. it is estimated that this bill will raise electricity rates

90%. gas prices 74%. gas prices 55 -- and natural gas prices 55%. this congress, for the last two and a half years, has refused to take on a real american energy plan to produce domestic sources of all our traditional sources of energy, and developing new sources. we support the effort for energy efficiency. we support the effort to promote new an alternative forms of energy. we do not support this kind of suicide for the american economy. i urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. >> madam speaker, i want to yield now to the gentleman who had been the chairman of the energy subcommittee on our full committee last congress, and he was instrumental in getting the first draft of the legislation that we worked on. more importantly, as a

knowledgeable individual of this area, and from a constituency that has a special concern about the problems, he was able to 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. >> i thank the gentleman from california for yielding. i congratulate him on the tremendous leadership that he has shown in bringing this measure ship -- in bringing this measure to the house floor. as canada's consent to revise and extend my remarks. -- i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. it achieves broad reductions in greenhouse gases, and hanses america oppose the energy security, and places -- and enhances america's energy

security. these energy technologies will evolve from america's laboratories. they will be deployed at home. they will be exported around the world. it will be the foundation of our next technology revolution, and it all starts here with passage today of the clean energy security act. approximately 80% of electricity in the district that i represent is coal generated. coal production is one of our region's major industries. not surprisingly, my focus and the shaping of the bill on the energy and commerce committee was to keep electricity rates affordable and to enable utilities to continue using coal which accounts for 51% of americans oppose 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 near- term cost for a typical family, all elements of this legislation will be between $80.100 $10 per year. -- between $80.100 $10 per year -- $80 and $110 a year. by 2020, the usage of coal and our economy will grow. as compared to today's usage. it may seem somewhat counter

intuitive. in a bill that regulates greenhouse gas emissions, -- 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 will still be the fuel of choice to meet that rising demand. the claims of opponents that the co2 controls under the bill will force utilities to surrender coal use, causing an overreliance on natural gas with intending brought economic harm to the nation are simply wrong. it is a carefully balanced measure that reduces greenhouse gases by 83% by the year 2015 as compared to 2005 levels. it keeps electricity rates affordable, and enables cold usage to grow as the demand for

electricity increases nationwide. and it opens the door to a more secure energy future, and the creation of jobs. the new low carbon dioxide and adding technologies 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. under that ruling, and the terms of the existing clean air act, the environmental protection agency is now effectively required to regulate co2 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 a carefully

balanced, congressionally adopted, economically sustainable regulation as contained before the bill before us today. -- as contained in the bill before us today. economic considerations could not be more fully weighed. at the path this bill starts for affordable electricity, for increased coal use, and for new job creation, i would urge the members to make a reasonable decision to approve today, the clean energy security act. i yield back the balance of my time and urge passes of the bill. >> the time has expired. >> i yield to two minutes to the gentleman from kansas. >> thank you very much. i thank the gentleman for yielding. there is a story around congress today that with the adoption of the peterson amendment, the negotiations between the, -- it

becomes advantageous for us to represent rural america. i can assure my colleagues to come from rural america who are present -- represent agricultural america, nothing could be further from the truth. while the peterson amendment modestly improve the bill, the end result is nothing but something that is disadvantageous and negative for rural economies. they thought there be something they could gain from sequestering carbon in the soil. this bill still provides no assurance that the epa, not the department of agriculture, but the epa would allow that to occur. once again, agriculture is not even mentioned in this bill in regard offsets. in addition to that, the electric cooperatives are still disadvantaged. if you come from rural america, the allowances this allows are

advantages that represents some of the poorest areas of the country. we will be transferring our income and wealth to those. it is a jobs bill has indicated from the gentleman from massachusetts, but it is a jobs elimination bill. it creates a significant disadvantage in which other countries do not abide by these caps, rules, regulations. i would assert that during my time in congress, there is no piece of legislation that would be more damaging to the future of rural america, to the future of small farms and businesses, then the bill that is before us today. this jobs bill that is described by the german from massachusetts is a job elimination bill, not a job creation bill. i urge both republicans and democrats to vote no.

>> 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 a chairman of the ranking members indicated, the lobbying of this by vice president gore, the president, and all people has been tremendous. it is a possibility that they still do not have the votes. there is not fairness factor here. china adds more co2 to the atmosphere each year than any other nation in the world. they have consistently said that they reject any binding international cap on such missions and plan the right to continue to increase its release of greenhouse gases, what 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 this legislation say that we should make unilateral reductions, unilateral disarmament, which will impose moral pressure on other countries. i find it hard to believe that china and india will reduce their economic growth and let their people -- because they're willing to adopt a cap at a trade. it is flawed. china and india are not going to go forward. any meaningful effort to achieve long-term sustainable reductions in greenhouse gas emissions depend on the development and deployment of new energy technologies. that includes clean coal technologies, carbon capture, and the advanced nuclear power generations. my amendment was designed on this respect. the rapid developments of widespread deployment of such technologies are a pair mons, my colleagues, of importance in any

effective effort to address co2 reductions. the massive new regulatory burdens imposed by this cap and trade scheme will invariably cut the growth and innovation in this country. we will lose jobs. let's foster new technology and not pass this bill. >> the gentleman from california. >> we reserve the balance of our time. >> what is the time on each side remaining right now? >> the gentleman from texas has 37 and 3/4, and the gentleman from california has 21 and one half. >> i yield to mr. kantor from virginia. >> i think the gentlemen. madam speaker, there is one thing that everyone in 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.

the evidence suggests that by taking up this cap and a trade bill, we are abandoning this fundamental mission. according to an mit study, the legislation before us will force america opposing middle- class families to pay as much as $31 million in high prices every year. the epa estimates that a family of four will eventually pay an additional average of $1,100 each year. the impact on jobs is equally dismal. an international study finds that the legislation will cost america 2.3-2.7 million jobs. this at a time where hundreds of thousands of workers are losing their jobs every month. in the midst of a severe recession, why would we even contemplate a plan that amounts to a growth killing milestone are around the neck of small businesses and all american consumers. madam speaker, it is not the utilities, oil companies, and

other producers that will bear the cost of this new regime. we already know 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 from everything to electricity, heating, gasoline, and groceries. this energy tax come down -- it comes down hardest on the poor. they spend less than 5% of its income on energy intensive products. other families spend over 20% on those items. this is according to cbo. with a watchful eye towards jobs and economic growth, let us give thoughtful consideration to the benefits this unilateral action will bring about. even if the bill cuts carbon emissions to 83 percent of current levels by 2050, we are still only anticipated to slow global temperature increases by

a mere 2 cents of a degree. there is also real elephant in the room. india and china, both of these free wheeling nations that are growing rapidly and not prepared to slow down. do you want to hamstring u.s. industry and put it at a competitive disadvantage to asia? can we be so naive to assume our businesses, jobs, and emissions want to emigrate to china and india? moving to eliminate co2 from the atmosphere is fine, but taking this action without carbon commitments from our competitors is only an exercise in futility. madam speaker, republicans remain committed to bringing a swift end to the recession and paving a 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 capita trade proposal. with stakes so high, gambling house away on such a high cost

will reward program is a grave mistake that republicans will not support. i yield back. >> the gentleman from texas. >> i would yield one minute to the distinguished lady from west virginia. >> in a time where families are already struggling to meet their basic needs like -- to meet their basic needs, the last thing we need is a tax on consumers. it is a tax that will burden consumers, businesses, and particularly burdened the lower income families of this country. it picks regional winners and losers with cold and that states like mine, west virginia, bearing the brunt of this bill some will be penalized for our lower costs.

we should be innovating towards clean coal and ore we can continue to use our most abundant resources. this cap and a trade bill is not the way forward. this bill as a jobs killer, this bill has real cost. vote no on this bill. >> the gentleman from new york. he is recognized for 15 minutes. >> i rise in today -- i rise today in support of american clean energy act of 2009, and urge my colleagues to support it. listening to the beginning of this debate -- the voting will not -- will be remembered not by democrats or republicans, and we

know we have universal crisis. the ironic thing about it, all of the comments have laid criticism of the great work that has been done by congressman waxman and their committee. those that are concerned to protect the people of this earth, and just as they will remember the courageous and political forces that we put together to make this great contribution to human kind, they also will remember the-political shots that had been taken in the absence of any positive program that the minority has put forward. i like to reserve the balance of my time and congratulate our great speaker for coordinating

this effort. people call it on the other side, -- if it means bringing people together and getting a better bill and moving forward in order to provide for the majority, i am proud to be on the side of the aisle. i like to reserve the balance of my time. >> who claims opposition? >> i will yield one minute to the member of the committee from the golden state of california. >> mr. speaker, i rise in strong opposition to the global cap and tax bill that is on the floor today. we do not have to look any further than my home state of california to see environmental alarmists and at its worst. california has adopted its own renewable energy standard and a cap and trade scheme. it is killing business in california and driving people out of the state in record

numbers. rural and agricultural communities will be most affected by this bill. they will have to pay more for seed, equipment, machinery, steel, and other supplies. if you like getting your oil with hugo job as, you are going to love getting breakfast, lunch, and dinner for him, too. into it -- in achieving dramatic reductions in co2 emissions, we should preserve a robust economy and allow the free market to continue to produce commercially viable industries and clean energy technologies. i urge them to do something for the economy and put this bill where it belongs, and the recycle bin. >> i like to yield two minutes to the chairman from michigan.

mr. levin. >> i have to non-members of the ways and means committee that i would like to go out of order to get us some balance. >> i yield to the gel them. >> alike feel that to the german from new york one minute, mr. lee. i want to thank mr. rangel for his courtesy. >> the people in my district note to well that when washington applies itself to a problem, it over regulates and hides the true cost to the taxpayer. with it being over 1100 pages in length and 50 pages dedicated to regulating light bulbs, in order to garner enough votes, the majority is trying to shift the most punitive costs to laborers so they can get it passed. early on, it will be the

government putting this enormous bill with your tax dollars, and down the road, the subsidy will shift to consumers who will pay directly to sustain this program to hire, job killing enterprises. either way, is the taxpayer that bears the burden. 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 terrific job loss. that is why i urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. >> the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from texas. >> i want to yield one minute to the distinguished congresswoman from the science committee. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise in opposition to the american clean energy and security act. in my home state of illinois, we depend