that with the adoption of the peterson amendment that this bill somehow now becomes acceptable and something advantageous for those of us that represents a rural america. republican or democrat, this cannot be further from the truth. while the amendment substantially improves the bill or modestly improved it, the end result is nothing but something that is disadvantageous or - 4 rule of companies. agriculturae thought they could gain stemming from carbon in soil. this bill still provides no assurance that the epa iwill allow it tooto occur. agricultural is not even mentioned in this bill in regard to offset.

the electric cooperatives are still disadvantage. if you come from rural america, the allowances this bill allows are advantages to those who live on the west and east coast. those who represent the poor areas of the country will be transferring our income and wealth to those close. this bill is a jobs bill but it is a jobs elimination bill. this bill creates a significant competitive disadvantage for american small-business and agricultural as we compete in the global economy. other countries do not abide by these rules or regulations. i would assert that during my time in congress there is no piece of legislation that will be more damaging to the future of rural america and small farms and businesses than the bill that is before us today. this bill, a jobs bill as described by massachusetts, is a

job eliminations will not a job creation bill. i urge my colleagues who come from the midwest or rural america to vote no. >> this is a defining moment. where were you when this legislation came on the floor is going to be something you'll remember. as a chairmen has mentioned, the lobbying by the president and all the people has been tremendous. there is a possibility that they still do not have the votes. there is not a fairness factor here. china has about more co2 into the atmosphere every year than any of the nation in the world. they have consistently said they reject any binding international cap on such emissions and claim the right to continue to increase its amount of greenhouse gases. we will still try to pass this legislation. without a public effort by china

and india, to limit emissions, we stand to lose many hundreds of thousands of jobs to these countries that will profit from this bill. the proponents of the legislation say we should make unilateral reductions. this will impose more 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 are willing to adopt a cap and trade . the cap and trade is flawed. china and india will not go forward. any meaningful effort to restrain reductions depend on the development of new energy technologies. we all agree. this includes advance generation. my memo was designed on this.

this is of paramount importance. the new regulatory burdens imposed by this cap and trade scheme will and terribly cut the growth and innovation in this country. let's try new technology. let's not pass this bill. >> we reserve the balance of our time. >> what is the time on these remaining ones? >> the demand from texas has 37 and the gentlemen from california has 20.5. >> thank you. i want to yield three minutes to the distinguished minority, mr. kantor of virginia. >> thank you. there is one thing 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 and not increase it. the evidence suggests that by picking up this bill we are abandoning this fundamental mission. according to an mit study, this legislation will force middle- class families to pay as much as $3,100 in higher 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. a study found the legislation will cost america 2.3 million jobs. this is a time when hundreds of thousands of workers are losing their jobs every month. in the middle of a severe recession, why would we even contemplate a plan that amounts to a growth killing at milestone

around small businesses and all american consumers? it is not the utility's and the other producers. we are the know that the companies will pass higher costs along to the consumer and small businesses that rely on the services. this means more expensive bills for all americans on everything from electricity to teaching to gasoline to grocers. we cannot forget that this national energy tax comes down hardest on the poor. the highest in come spend less than 5% of its income on energy products. the family of the lowest incomes spend over 20% on those items. this is according to cbo. with a watchful eye, let us give thoughtful consideration to limited benefits this unilateral action will bring about. even if the bill cuts u.s.

carbon emissions to 83% of current levels by 2015, we will still are anticipated to slow global temperature by a mere 2/10th of a degree. then there is the real elephant in the room. india and china. both of these nations are growing rapidly in not prepared to slow down. do you really want to hamstring the u.s. industry and put it at a competitive disadvantage to asia? can we be so naive to assume our businesses, jobs, and emissions will not emigrate to china and india? taking this kind of action without enforceable carving commence from our -- carbon emissions from our competitors is a wrongful thing. we need to pay that to prosperity. we intend to go with some policies that will put people back to work and grow the

economy. this is not include this proposal. with stakes so high, gambling the house away on such a high cost and low reward program is a grave mistake that republicans will not support. i yield back. >> time has expired. gentleman from texas. >> yield one minute. >> at a time when families are already struggling to meet their basic needs, the last thing we need is a new energy tax on all consumers. that is exactly what is a bill is. it is a national energy tax that will burden consumers, businesses, and the lower income families in this country. this is particularly the lower income families. it peaks regional winners and losers -- it picks regional

winners and losers. people will be penalized for their lower cost power and will have to pay more to use the greatest resource, col. we should be innovating toward clean coal. we all want cleaner sources of fuel and more efficient energy, but this bill is not the way forward. this bill is a job killer. this bill has real cost for real people. vote no on this bill. >> gentleman from new york. >> recognized for 15 minutes. >> i rise in support of the american clean energy act of 2009 and urge my colleagues to support it. listening to the beginning of this debate, i am convinced that one of the people on the other

side said that our voting will be well remembered not by democrats and republicans but by the entire world. we know that we have a crisis. it is universal. it affects our countries. the rhine -- the ironic thing about it with the other side, all of their comments have been criticism of the great work that has been done by congressman waxman and their committee and those that we are concerned about. just as they will remember the courageous and political forces that we put together to make this great contribution, they also will remember the--- the negative shots and been taken against the programs.

i would 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 it denied that any other ideas. that means bringing people together and bringing people forward. i am proud to be on this side of the aisle. i like to reserve the balance of my time. >> he reserves his time. who claimed opposition? >> for one minute to remember the committee from the golden state to california. one minute. >> i rise and strong opposition to the global tax bill that is on the floor today. we do not have to look any for the then california to see environmental alarmists and at its worst. california has adopted its own

renewable energy standard and carbon cap and trade scheme. it is killing business in california and driving people out to the state in record numbers. agricultural communities will be most affected by this bill, forcing local producers to pay more for send, equipment, and other supplies. if you like getting your oil from hugo chavez, you are going to love getting breakfast, lunch, and a dinner for him to. we are truly interested. we should preserve a robust economy and of the free market to continue to produce a viable and efficiencies and clean energy technology. 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 would like to yield to two

minutes. >> i have to to non-members of the committee that i would like to go out of order to get this imbalance. i would like to yield the gentleman to new york. >> by one soon thank mr. rangel for his courtesy. >> we know only too well that when washington applies itself to a program is over regulates and has the true cost of taxpayers. this bill is no different. there are over 1100 pages and 50 pages dedicated to light bulbs. in order to garner enough votes,

they are trying to shift the most punitive cost of the bill to later years of digging in the past. early on, it to be the government bring this enormous bill with your tax dollars. down the road, the subsidy will shift to consumers will pay directly to sustain this program the higher energy prices. either way, it is the taxpayer who pays the burden. this bill is 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 continued the horrific job loss. i urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. >> gentleman from new york. >> i want to yield one minute to the congresswoman from illinois. >> i thank the gentleman from

yielding. i rise in opposition. in my home state, we depend on nuclear, coal, natural gas for our electricity. this bill discriminates against the sources and illinois will be especially hit hard. gas prices could rise by 77 cents a gallon and diesel by and 88 cents a gallon. this is part of an entirely arbitrary penalty that is passed on to the consumer. there is little to incentivize a new nuclear production despite the fact that nuclear power is safe and emission free. what little it does is grossly inadequate considering the overall goal of the bill. there is no framework for an international agreement on climate change. in the absence of such framework, my district can count on losing thousands of jobs to

countries like india and china. i oppose this bill and urge my colleagues to do the same. >> she yells back her time. michigan? >> action on climate change is a policy indeed a moral imperative. prompt action is a vital part of our legacy to the nation and our children and grandchildren. as we act, we must ensure that the u.s. energy industry are not placed at a competitive disadvantage by nations to of not made a similar commitment to reduce greenhouse gases. after discussions between energy and commerce and the ministration, we have developed reasonable and effective

provisions which involve the president and congress in taking action no more than necessary to insure this important legislation is neutral for energy intensive and industries. we want to see meaning full international agreement. if we are unable to do so, this legislation ensures that the u.s. will avoid carbon and the glitch in its energy intensive and trade sensitive industry. there are some critics 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 "wto rules do not trump environmental requirements." i yield back the balance of my time.

>> gentleman from michigan. >> as a candid, the president stated that under the plan "and a trustee rates would not necessarily skyrocket." he was being honest with the american people. the unemployment level is fast approaching 10%. one out of every 10 americans will soon be without a job or paycheck to provide for themselves and their families. this national energy tax will drive up prices will making jobs scarcer. one utility 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 to pay more in energy taxes, china and india have said they will not follow suit. they will not employ iimpose the

charges on their people. china and india will not. they recognize that enacting these caps is like jumping off an economic cliff. a yes vote means more american manufacturing jobs moved to china and india. fewer americans have jobs. there is no reduction in global greenhouse gases. 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 review it, this bill contains numerous flaws. the message of the committee has not reviewed are an area open for our trading partners to retaliate against our good and against our workers. how does this help our economy? how does this help families? how this is how our environment? it does not. promises have been made that your constituents will not be harmed. it contains plenty of consumer

protection. what are those protections? who is going to get them? not the middle class. not the people the president promised to protect, families making less than to wonder if the thousand dollars a year. somewhere in this house, someone made the decision to eliminate the tax credits designed to help middle-class families pay for these prices. here are the facts. under the tax, a family of four with income over $33,000 per year will lose under this bill. they and 235 million other americans will pay higher costs and received no help in offsetting those costs. let's be clear what this means. three out of every four americans will pay more under this bill. the speakers national energy tax is bad for our economy. it is bad for families to are already struggling to make ends meet. it will do nothing to reduce

global greenhouse gas emissions. it is all pain and no game. i urge my colleagues to vote no. >> when the republican party becomes a protector of the poor is the day i've been waiting for. i will yield to two minutes. >> i am thank the distinguished chairman. it has been an interesting day listening to the claims that have emanated from the other side of the aisle. these are claims about honesty, claims about being forthright. we had the president of the previous administration get on the floor in claimed our addiction to oil. everybody put their head in the sand. they did nothing as we continued to export american dollars over the seas.

we sent american taxpayer dollars overseas. recent into russia, saudia arabia, libya, venezuela, all the people that yet time and about today. that is the real tax that we are paying. this is because of our increasing addiction and our need to stand up and rid ourselves of dependency on foreign oil. the challenge faces us once again. it was here 30 years ago. we did have the courage to make the stand near the patriotic fervor to stand up and do the right thing and stop this addiction. a tune 3 if the american policye previous administration is to leave no man behind -- [unintelligible]

that is what this is about in the final analysis. it is about this great country of ours and making a stand for what we believe them. we are standing up for american dominance and superiority. the china and india are out there competing. we want to compete against them because we have better technology. we decide to make the investment here. donees dude in russia and venezuela. that is what the policies with lettuce do. that is where it must in today. >> i wish the gentleman's passion was directed to bring in the bill before the committee. i yield one minute. >> not only is this legislation and not the right thing, this

legislation is one of the most overreaching, damaging pieces of legislation that has ever come before this house. this national energy tax is a job killer and will cost american families over $3,000 per year while doing very little to affect global temperatures. rural america, low and middle families, will suffer the most under this new tax. we all want to protect our environment, but we should accomplish that there innovation and investment not by government micromanagement that undercut america's ability to compete globally. i urge all members to protect the american economy and livelihood of millions of american families and say no to this gigantic national energy tax.

>> new york. >> i like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts. >> he is recognized for two minutes. >> i want to commend mr. rangel and waxman who have attempted to forge a consensus on this legislation. the bottom line to this legislation as proposed today is that it will make america less dependent on foreign oil. remember, despite what they say, there is an element on the other side of? the concepts of climate change in global warming. it is very difficult to find middle ground if they reject the science of our time. part of our job is to make some difficult decisions. this climate change bill we have before us today makes those tough choices for our future and

our children's future. it is in the interest of america and in the interest of the world. america leads the way. this is an opportunity for us to reclaim that leadership. this legislation will lead our consumers, businesses, and communities toward smarter and more efficient energy use. it will not be alone. strong trade enforcement means the american business community's will not be disadvantaged by importers who skirt the rules. this legislation is a vote for innovation and environmental stewardship. i would be remiss if i did not mention this. for the previous eight years, the administration rejected the idea of global warming. the other side was given fanti talking points. they did not -- based on the

argument that presented a peril to our time. you'd be hard pressed to find sites is anywhere in this " would not ellis' forged a consensus on defining the problem. it is difficult when definition has settled in to offer a solution. this legislation offers a solution. >> the time has expired. >> i yield one minute to make true american hero, mr. johnson of texas. >> thank you. as a clean energy advocate, i believe we should be good stewards of the earth and its resources. we are in the middle of a longer recession. the democrats want to impose a massive new energy tax on american families and businesses, costing every american family heavily. americans are sick and tired of

democrats spending too much and borrowing too much. with the price of the pump rising 65 cents this year, the democrats would create a 70 cent per gallon tax hike with unemployment close to 10%. the democrats would kill 2.5 million jobs per year. my district alone will lose 3000 jobs per year. "nobody in this country realizes that cap and trade is a tax and a big one. this is america. let's not selling down the river." >> if he is now standing advocate of prevention of global warming. it is my honor to yield a minute to him. >> i appreciated the courtesy. the last 2.5 years i the privilege of working with the

select committee on global warming, driving home the reality of global change. we have a major opportunity to rebuild and renew america wall protecting the planet. i want to think the committees for working with me to harnessed billions of dollars are the life of this bill to develop transportation that reduces carbon footprints for transit and development patterns, things that will make a difference for a country that in its more carbon with its transportation then china, india, and europe combined. we of an opportunity to protect the planet. unless you are prepared to lead, china and india will continue to believe -- pollute more and more. i urge the courage to vote yes on this legislation today. thank you. >> gentlemen yields that his time. >> i yield