n 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 have indicated, the lobbying on this by vice president gore and all the people has been all the people has been tremendous. china has about more co2 than

any other nation in the world. they have said that they reject any finding of such emissions and claim their rights to continue to release greenhouse gases. at the same time, we have tried to pass this legislation. the united states stands to lose many jobs to these countries that will profit from this bill today. some say we should make unilateral reductions, unilateral disarmament. i find it hard to believe that china and india will reduce their economic growth because they are willing to adopt the cat and trade. the cabin trade is flawed. -- cap and trade is flawed.

clean coal technology is important. advanced nuclear power generation is also important. the rapid development of widespread deployment of such technology is paramount in any reasonable effective effort to address co2 reductions. the mass new regulatory burdens proposed by this cap and trade scheme will cut the growth and innovation in this country and lose jobs in this country. let us not pass this bill. >> and his time has expired. the person from california? >> i reserve my time. >> the gentleman from california

has 20.5 minutes. 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 on middle class families, not increasing it. >> according to an mit study, the legislation will force middle-class americans to pay as much as $3,100 in high prices every year. the epa estimates that a family of four will pay an additional average of $1,100 each year. the impact on jobs is equally dismal. a cra study finds the

legislation will cost america 2.3 million jobs. at a time when many workers are losing their jobs every month, in a midst of a severe recession, why would we even contemplated plan that amount to a millstone around the neck of small businesses and all american consumers? it is not the utilities and the oil companies in producers that will bear the cost of this new regime. we note the company's low pie -- pass higher costs along to consumers and small businesses who rely on their services. this is a more expensive bill for every american from electricity to heating to gasoline to groceries. we cannot forget that this national energy tax comes down hardest on the poor. the highest income spends less of its income about 5% on these

products. families of the lowest income spent about 20% of these products. with a watchful eye towards job creation and growth, let us give consideration to the limited benefits that this begin a lateral legislation will bring about. we will still anticipate to slow global temperature increases by a mere .2 of a degree. india and china are growing rapidly and are not prepared to slow down. do we really want to put u.s. industries at a competitive disadvantage to asia? should we assume that our jobs will not immigrate to china and india?

taking this kind of action without enforceable commitment from our competitors is exercise in futility. republicans remain committed to bringing a swift end to the recession and paving the path to prosperity. we intend to focus on politics and put people back to work and grow the economy. that does not include this cap and the trade proposal. it gambles the house away on such a high cost, an award program is a grave mistake. republicans will not support this. i yield back. >> the gentleman from texas. >> one minute to the distinguished lady from virginia. >> share will be recognized for one minute. bags 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 what this cap and a trade bill is. it is a national energy tax that will burden consumers, businesses, and particularly burdened the lower income families in this country. particularly the lower income. it picks up regional winners and losers. west virginia will bear the brunt of this bill along with some other states. we will be penalized for a lower-cost power and will have to pay more for using our greatest resource, col. we should be innovating towards clean coal or we will continue to use our most abundant resource. we all want cleaner sources of fuel and more efficient energy. this bill is not the way forward. it is a job killer. it has real costs for real people. vote no on this bill. >> the gentleman from new york is recognized now. >> i rise today in support of

the american clean energy and security act of 2009. i urge my colleagues to support it. in a listening to the beginning of this debate, i am convinced that our voting today will be well remembered by the entire world. we know that we have a crisis. it is a universal crisis. it is a crisis that affects our country and our community. the ironic thing about it with the other side, all of their comments have been in criticism of the great work that has been done by congressman waxman and their committee.

just as they will remember the courageous and political forces that were put together to make this great contribution to human kind, they also will remember the-political shots that have been taken in the absence of any positive program that has been put forward. i like to reserve the balance for my time and congratulate our great speaker for. -- for coordinating this great effort. people on the other side call it deals when they do not have any other ideas to put forward. we are trying to move forward to provide the majority. i reserve the best of my time. >> who claims opposition?

>> one minute from california. >> i rise in strong opposition to the global cap and tax bill on the floor today. we do not have to look any further than california to see environmental alarm at its worst. it is killing businesses in california and driving people out of the state in record numbers. the local agricultural producers will have to pay more to receive equipment, machinery, steel, and other supplies. if you like giving your oil from hugo chavis, you will love getting breakfast, lunch, and dinner from him as well. if you are truly interested in improving dramatic reductions in fuel emissions without destroying our economy, we

should allow the free market to continue to produce commercially viable energy efficiency 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 yelled back. >> the gentleman from new york. >> i yield 10 minutes to michigan. -- i yield two minutes to michigan. >> i have two non-members of the committee that i would like to speak. >> i'd like to yield to the gentleman from new york. one minute. >> i want to thank mr. rangel for his courtesy.

>> when washington applies itself to a problem if it typically regulate. this bill is no different. it is over 1100 pages in length and 50 pages dedicated to regulating light bulbs. the most punitive cost of this bill is being shifted to later years to get it passed. the subsidy will shift to consumers who will pay directly to sustain this program through higher, job killing energy crises. the taxpayer bears the burden. this bill is a pipe dream. we need to focus on an energy solution that reports innovation using american-made energy, not trying to find a way to tax our way to prosperity and continued this horrific a job

loss. i urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. i yield back the balance of my time. >> gentleman from texas. >> i want to yield one minute to the congresswoman from illinois. >> she is recognized. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. in my home state of illinois we depend on nuclear coal and natural gas for our electricity. this bill discriminates on these energy sources. illinois it will be hit especially hard. gas prices will rise 75 cents a gallon. this is part of an arbitrary penalty on oil and gas and is passed on to the consumer. little has been done to incentivize a new nuclear production. nuclear power is safe and

emission free. what it does is inadequate considering the overall goal of this bill. there is no framework for an international agreement on climate change in this bill. this framework -- framework -- my district will lose thousands of jobs to countries like india and china if this legislation is passed. i oppose this bill and urge my colleagues to do the same. i yield back. >> gentleman from michigan. recognized for two minutes. >> without a job -- without objection, so ordered. >> climate change policy is a moral imperative. . action is a vital part of our legacy to the nation and to our children and grandchildren. we must ensure that the energy

industry is not placed at a competitive disadvantage by nations that have not made a similar commitment to reduce greenhouse gases. after discussions between energy and commerce committee's , and the administration, we have developed a reasonable proof -- provisions that involve the president and congress in taking action no more than necessary to ensure that this important legislation is a trade neutral for our energy industries. we want to see a meaningful international agreement. if we are unable to do so through an international agreement, this legislation ensures the u.s. will avoid carbon leakage in its energy intensive and trade industries. there are some critics who may be heard today who claimed these changes make the bill acceptable to trade challenges.

they are wrong. the world trade organization and the u.n. environment program issued a report today that confirms that wto rules do not trump environmental requirements. i yield back the balance of my time. >> as a candid, the president stated that under his energy plan, in electricity rates would not necessarily skyrocket. he is being honest with the american people. the unemployment rate is almost 10%. many americans will be out of a job and a paycheck to provide for their families. this national energy tax will drive up prices and make jobs scarcer.

state regulators have been encouraged to raise their electricity rate in anticipation of this energy tax. the speaker wants us to pay more in energy taxes, china and india have said that they will not follow suit. they will not impose those charges on their people. this should not surprise us. if everyone jumped off a cliff, would you? of course not. neither will china and india. they recognized that this is jumping off an economic cliff. this bill with a yes jet -- yes vote means more jobs moved to china and india. fewer americans will have jobs. there is no reduction in greenhouse gases. because this bill was rushed to the floor and the american people were not given a chance to review it, their representatives were not able to improve it, this bill contains numerous laws.

one committee has not reviewed an open area for our partners to retaliate against this bill and our workers. how does this help our economy, families, environment that it does not. i know that your constituents will be harmed by this bill. it has plenty of consumer protections. what are they? who is going to get them? not the middle class? not the people the president promised to protect. families making less than two under $50,000 a year. somewhere in the house, someone made the decision to eliminate the tax credit designed to help middle-class families pay for these high energy prices. here is a simple fact. under the energy tax, a family of four with income over $33,000 per year will lose under this bill. two other 35 million other americans will pay higher costs

and receive no help in offsetting those costs. -- to lead to 35 million other americans -- to lead to 35 million other 235 million ameriy higher costs and receive no help in offsetting those costs. it is all pain and no gain. i urge my colleagues to vote no on this bill and i reserve the balance of my time. >> gentleman on york. >> when the republican party becomes protector of the poor, it is a day i have been waiting for. i'd like to yield 10 limitwo mi to my colleague. >> it has been an interesting day in listening to the claims that emanated from the other side of the aisle. claims about honesty i.

claims about being forthright. former president bush claimed our addiction to oil. everybody put their head in the sand and did nothing. we continue to send an export american dollars overseas. we send american taxpayer dollars overseas to russia, saudi arabia, libya, venezuela, all of the people that have chimed in about today. that is the real tax that we are paying, because of our increasing addiction in 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 not have the courage to make the stand for the patriotic fiber to stand up and do the right thing.

to stop this addiction. if t-bill pickens can talk about this awful addiction -- t. boone pickens can talk about this awful addiction, as well as others, going to fund our enemies efforts against our own troops in our efforts against terrorism, that is what is going on in the final analysis. we need to make a stand for what we believe in. standing up for american dominance and superiority. the china and india nations are out there competing. we want to compete against them because we have better technology. we have to make the investment here and not in saudi arabia, and libya, and russia, and venezuela. that is where it must end today.

>> the gentleman's time is expired. >> i yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from california. >> not only is this legislation not the right thing, it is one of the most overreaching, damaging pieces of legislation that has ever come before this house of representatives. 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 measures. rural america, low-income families, farmers will suffer the most under this new tax. we all want to protect our environment. we can accomplish that through innovation and investment, not

by government micromanagement that undercuts americans' ability to compete globally. i urge all members to protect the american economy and livelihoods of many of american families and say no to this gigantic national energy tax. i yield back. >> the gentleman from new york. >> i like to yield two minutes to this gentleman. >> i want to commend mr. rangel and others who have attempted to forge a consensus on this legislation. the bottom line to this legislation is that it will make america less dependent on foreign oil. despite the criticism from the other side, some project the concept of climate change in

global warming from that side. it is very difficult to find middle gaunt -- ground. we must make difficult decisions and tough choices. this climate change bill before us today makes those tough choices for our future and our children's future. it is in the interest of america and the world. america leads the way. this is an opportunity for us to reclaim that leadership. this legislation will lead our consumers and small businesses towards smarter and cleaner and more efficient energy use. the american business community 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 as well. for the previous eight years, the administration rejected the idea of global warming -- to grudgingly acknowledge that perhaps it was happening but to spend the argument that it has presented a peril to our times. you will be hard to find scientists anywhere across the globe who have not forced a consensus on identifying and identify the problem. that is the case with public life. it is difficult ones a definition is some in to offer a solution. this legislation offers a solution. >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> gentleman from michigan. >> i yield one minute to a true american hero from texas. >> the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

i believe we should be good stewards of the earth and its resources. we are in the midst of a long recession. the democrats want to impose a mass of new energy tax on american families and businesses costing every american family heavily. americans are sick and tired of democrats spending too much, taxing too much, and borrowing too much. with the price of the pulverizing 65 cents this year, -- with the price of gasoline rising 65 cents this year, the democrats would kill 2.5 million jobs per year with this bill. my district would lose 3000 jobs per year. one person said it best. nobody in this country realizes the cap and trade is a tax, and a great big one. this is america. we should not sell a down the river.

>> the gentleman yield spec is tom -- the gentleman yield back his time. gentleman from new york. >> i would like to yield one minute to this person. >> the last 2.5 years i have had the privilege of working on a future select committee on global warming, driving home the reality of climate change. we had the opportunity to rebuild and renew america while protecting the probe -- planet today. i wanted to thank those for working with me to harness billions of dollars over the life of this bill to develop transportation that reduces the carbon footprint. it will make a difference for a country that emit more carbon with its transportation and china, india, and europe combined. we have an opportunity to protect the planet.

unless you are prepared to lead, china and india will continue to pollute more and more. this is the first step in this leadership. i urge the courage to vote guests on this legislation today. thank you, and i yelled back. >> gentleman from michigan. >> i yield a couple of minutes to this person. >> i thank the chairman for yielding. mr. speaker, i like to submit a statement for the record. i am not going to read it. i will respond to the gentleman from connecticut is said we need honesty in this discussion. the gentleman from illinois on the will -- on the rule said that there is a zero irrefutable articles from scientists the degree that humans are causing global warming.

one person has written 520 himself. he is the foremost expert in the world on sea levels. a professor at mit has written several articles. one of the world's foremost scientists on precipitation, as well as other professors and scientists from across the country, and the five authors of one particular report who wrote that there is no evidence that humans are causing any of this. those five sentences were removed and replaced with one sentence that said, it is clear that humans are the cause. the bureaucrat was asked why he removed those