greenhouse gases and we leave e.p.a.'s authority to monitor and regulate pollutants intact. in short, the underlying bill clarifies that the clean air act is not a vehicle for regulatory taxing. the decision about whether and how to regulate greenhouse gases should be made by congress and only by congress not the regulatory body of a president who wishes to put -- place his overriding answers on un-elected bureaucrats to fulfill this role. . the e.p.a. has been aggressively pursuing a national cap and tax energy agenda through regulation and legislation for years. after cap and trade failed in congress last year, the e.p.a. accelerated its efforts to regulate this controversial

policy through a series of new rules on hundreds of thousands of buildings across the united states. in other words, because the president couldn't get his political agenda through congress, he's taking his political agenda in the administration to overlay the american people. we disagree with that. that's why we're on the floor of the house of representatives today. regulating greenhouse gas emissions primarily the cardon dioxide emissions that come from coal, oil, and natural gas, will increase the cost of everything from gasoline to household utilities and of course groceries. additionally, regulating and taxing emissions will ship american jobs overseas to countries that understand and recognize stable, affordable energy policies that are vital

for their economic growth. according to a letter from the chamber of commerce from march 9 of last year, to the energy and commerce committee, and i quote, those regulations will impose significant burden across the united states economy, including sectors that would have created jobs and will lead us into economic recovery. end of quote. additionally, the letter references that the american council for capital formation has, and i quote, estimated that e.p.a.'s greenhouse gas regulations could reduce business investment between $97 billion and $290 billion in 2011 and as much as $309 billion in 2014. a tremendous hit on the economy when it comes from the president of the united states, barack obama, and his administration. this is not a way for america

or our future to be successful. the american coalition for clean coal electricity also references the american council for capital formation in a press re-- formation. in a press release just last month that estimates that a greenhouse gas tax, and i quote, could result in the loss of between 467,000 to 1.4 million jobs, end of quote. republicans are committed to putting americans back to work and our democratic colleagues continue to pursue a reckless agenda that puts more americans out of work, drives business overseas, all the while limiting u.s. energy production and use. madam speaker, today, the republican party is on the floor of the house of representatives with good news not just for the taxpayers, but for the american people. in particular, not just consumers, but those who have

lost their job or who are underemployed. we believe that what we're doing today is a jobs saver bill. the house natural resources committee reported last month that the obama administration policies have caused domestic oil production to drop by 16% versus projected levels and future prosections show continued decreases in domestic production and more -- future predictions show continued decreases in domestic production. a recent rasmussen poll from march of 2011 shows that three quarters of americans believe this country does not do enough to develop its own oil and gas resources. so whether through greenhouse gas regulation, permit delays or permitting moratoriums which the president stands behind in this administration, this administration should change their policies and their

direction. we must find new sources of energy and not tax those that exist for the freedom of this country. so while energy prices soar and continue to soar, and projections estimate a $5 a gallon gasoline by summertime, this administration wants to inflict more costs on consumers. the bill today would help to ease the cost of energy prices, it would assist in the global competitiveness of america, it would help ensure that this nation does not lose millions more jobs and does not threaten the intent of the clean air act. no, madam speaker, the republican party is here because this is yet another opportunity at a jobs bill that is pro-consumer and pro the american people who want and need to be able to help in a desperate time when we're losing our jobs and things are

tough back home to do something positive on behalf of the american public. this is a bipartisan bill that provides good policy for our nation and we're asking every single member of congress to understand clearly and see this for what it is. it is a jobs protection bill. madam speaker, i encourage my colleagues to vote yes on the rule and the underlying bill and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: thank you, madam speaker. i thank my friend from texas for yielding me the customary 30 minutes and yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. polis: it's been a remarkable april in the house of representatives. last week, the majority rewrote the constitution saying that one house of congress can deem a law made regardless of what the senate or the president of the united states might think. today the majority is proposing to rewrite the laws of science itself, the definition of taxes and the laws of economics.

despite indisputable scientific evidence, republicans are seeking to bar the environmental protection agency from protecting americans' health and safety from what the scientific consensus agrees is the worst environmental threat in world history, global climate change. it's akin to telling homeland security to stop protecting the homeland. it denies scientific proof and logic. even the supreme court said the e.p.a. has a responsibility to act to keep the public safe. we're witnessing nothing less than a full assault on decades of progress in protecting americans from 1r50eur789al dangers. for 40 years, the e.p.a. and clean air act protected america from dangers. the clean air act protected 343,000 asthma attacks. 672,000 cases of chronic bronchitis, 21,000 cases of heart disease and 200,000

premature deaths not only saving people from the human toll of dealing with illness among themselves and their family but saving the economic costs to society and individuals from all these conditions. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to ignore this progress and hand cough the e.p.a. and prevent them from protecting us in the future. repealing their authority to limit pollution would increase the number of children and adults who suffer from asthma, increase the numb of individuals with emphysema, lung cancer, bronchitis and other respiratory diseases, driving up health care costs for all americans. for this reason, 280 groups, including the american heart association, the american public health association and others sent letters urging us to block measures that would keep the e.p.a. from doing its job in protecting americans from life-threatening

pollution. my friend from texas mentioned the word tax six times in his remarks, to my count, it's possible i missed a couple of instances of that word as well. yesterday in committee, both chairman upton and ranking member waxman agreed the e.p.a. does not have the authority to confer taxes in this bill. therefore, the name of the bill, the energy tax prevention act is a misnoem -- misnomer. it's completely inappropriate and misleading way to convey what this bill does. madam speaker, america's science and environmental policy should be driven by science and science alone. the e.p.a. should be allowed to move forward and i urge my colleagues to reject the rule and the underlying bill and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado resebs. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: thank you, madam speaker. at this time, i'd like to yield three minutes to the distinguished gentleman from

beaumont, texas, judge poe. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. poe: thank you for yielding. the e.p.a. is on a mission to destroy american industry. they're, their plan to regulate so-called carbon emissions will cost every household in america $106,000 per year. these unnecessary regulations will strangle the economy by driving up the cost of energy, gasoline is $4 a gallon, will soon be $5 a gallon. it will put more americans out of work, especially in the energy industry. congress must take immediate action to stop the e. pamplet from its out of control concepts from ruining american industry. earlier this year, i introduced similar legislation to what we are considering today. i introduced it during the first c.r. it passed this house by -- with a bipartisan support and what it would do is similar to what this legislation is going to do. that would be to prevent the

e.p.a.'s attempt to regulate so-called greenhouse gases. i support this rule and the underlying legislation. madam speaker in my opinion, when regulators, especially those at the e.p.a., go to work, every day they go down the street to one of these marble palaces they get in a big room with a big oak table, they drink their lattes and they sit around and say, who can we regulate today? because that's what regulators do. regulators regulate. and they figure out new ways to regulate the entire united states all on the so-called premise of protecting us from ourselves. in my opinion, it has nothing to do about protection but it has to do about power. the e.p.a. has a power agenda and they have a political ayen da and they're trying to claim it is an agenda to protect all of us from ourselves. the e.p.a.'s regulation of grease house gases in my opinion lacks proven scientific

basis and the e.p.a. is out of control. at this time, i'd like unanimous consent to introduce a letter or an article from "the wall street journal" dated january 4 that's entitled the e.p.a. is at war with texas. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. poe: thank you, madam speaker. perfect example of how the e.p.a. is not only at war with texas but at war with the american energy system. you know, the e.p.a. overregulates and it's driving businesses, energy businesses out of this country. it's hammering the american energy industry and i doubt whether or not it is doing so with scientific basis. the united states is in an energy crisis. it's a national security issue. and what does the -- what is the administration's energy plan? let's not drill here, let's not drill there, we can't drill in anwr, we can't drill in any new land in the united states, we're not going to promote permitting in the gulf of mexico at a rapid pace so we can drill there but our energy plan is to send money to brazil

and let the brazilians drill off their coast so we can buy their crude oil that doesn't make sense to me. it's time for us to drill in the united states safely, it's time for america to take care of america. that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: it's my honor to yield two minutes to the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. blumenauer: before i begin, i had a parliamentary inquiry to the speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will state his inquiry. mr. blumenauer: madam speaker, when making decisions on a bill referral, is the bill title a consideration? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is asking for an advisory opinion and the chair cannot respond to that at this time.

mr. blumenauer: further parliamentary inquiry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will state. mr. blumenauer: is it true that anyone can put the word tax in the title of the bill even though it has nothing to do with taxes? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's inquiry has not been stated in a proper fashion. mr. blumenauer: well, madam speaker, let me turn, if i could, to my good friend on the rules committee for purposes of yielding to a question, if he would. mr. sessions: i welcome the gentleman. mr. blumenauer: i had an amendment before the rules committee, i noticed you waived germaneness and other questions, i had an amendment that submitted that would simply ensure that the bill accurately accomplished what its title describes. my amendment would have struck everything in the bill except the title, energy tax

prevention act, and replaced it with language that actually prevented the e.p.a. from imposing an energy tax. do you have any guidance as to why this amendment was not in order? mr. sessions: i appreciate the gentleman engaging me in a colloquy and i'll just give him a straight answer. we did not offer any waivers, all 12 amendments offered by democrats were germane. this and perhaps others that were submitted to the rules committee were not germane to the house rules, so we did not offer any waiver. but the others that we did, the 12, were all germane and did not have to have a waiver. mr. blumenauer: reclaiming my time, i would just note that the committee did deal with germaneness in terms of allowing tings -- things to go through from the energy and commerce committee, it's unfortunate that you would not allow an amendment to at least

have an accurate title before the chamber for its debate. it's clear that h.r. 319 -- h.r. 910 has nothing to do with energy taxes. the bill is designed to confuse members of congress and mislead the public. as a member of the ways and means committee, i would strongly object to e.p.a. imposing a tax on energy. we all know that the e.p.a. has no intention of imposing a tax on energy. instead, this bill will overrule the scientific consensus on climate change, ignore a supreme court decision . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional 30 seconds. mr. blumenauer: endanger the future of the planet. i urge a no vote on the rule and the bill. i would urge defeat. i'd just say, madam speaker, i'd ask unanimous consent to insert in the record a statement from the joint

committee on tax that indicates that this bill has nothing to do with taxation. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. blumenauer: thank you, madam speaker. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: madam speaker, thank you very much. you know, at this time, madam speaker, i'd like to yield three minutes to one of our brand-new freshmen, a gentleman who is not only called on a committee but an exclusive committee of the united states congress, distinguished career as a sheriff in florida and a distinguished member of the rules committee, the gentleman, mr. nugent. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. nugent: thank you, madam speaker. i'd like to thank the gentleman from dallas, mr. sessions. today i rise in support of house rule 203 and the underlying legislation, h.r. 910. when i talk to people in florida's fifth district about what we're doing here in the house of representatives, to cut spending, reduce the size and scope of the federal government, i always stress that we're just one part of the

process. the house can only do so much. we still need the senate and the president to sign off on any legislation we pass before it becomes law. this is one of the most basic building blocks of our government, and one is reminded as we continue to wait on the senate to pass a budget for this fiscal year and to prevent a government shutdown. the obama administration has decided to bypass congress on the issue of greenhouse gas. passed cap and -- so now unelected bureaucrats in the e.p.a. are trying to regulate greenhouse gases. among the gases the e.p.a. is trying to regulate is methane. according to e.p.a., 28% of the global methane omissions they classify as coming from human-related activities actually come from livestock. i don't think it's a

coincidence that the e.p.a.'s move to regulate methane, including cow flash ue lents, comes on the heels of the reports from the food and agriculture organization of states, livestock are one of the most contributaries of the environmental problems. urgent action is to remedy the situation, unquote. now, i'm pretty sure if the ask the ranchers of florida's fifth district, as much as they'd like to regulate cows from passing gas, for plenty of reasons, some smellier than others, we just don't have that capacity. nevertheless, e.p.a. wants to follow the u.n.'s lead and regulate methane. and it will fall on the backs of american families. madam speaker, h.r. 910 is a good an important bill -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired.

mr. sessions: i'd like to give the gentleman an additional minute. mr. nugent: h.res. 203 gives us time for a full and comprehensive debate on the issue and i urge my colleagues to support them both. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i yield myself a minute to respond. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. polis: thank you. i know the gentleman from florida mentioned the cow flatulence last night. i did have a chance to look it up in the interim. fox news had reported the prospect of e.p.a. regulating cow and live stock gas. however, it never ex-- livestock gas. however, it never existed. the e.p.a. itself came out with a statement that said not only is there no such regulation that is discussed or is in the works but even the e.p.a. has admitted it's not under their authority to regulate that in any way, shape or form. so it is a false accusation

with regard to the issue with regard to livestock. madam speaker, it's my honor to yield two minutes to a former member of the rules committee and a former member of the energy and commerce committee, he's racked up quite a few former memberships, the gentleman from vermont, mr. welch. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from vermont is recognized for two minutes. mr. welch: i thank the gentleman. madam speaker, today's legislation is essentially about the very simple sounding act of abolishing the clean air act. why? how is it that we're going to do this? the authors and supporters of this legislation have come to the legislative conclusion that global warming is a hoax. give them credit. coming to that conclusion was a big lift. it flies in the face of the unanimous conclusion of american scientists, 97% that

global warming is real and it's manmade. you know, when you're going to get to that conclusion you have to follow a long established tradition that humans have and that's the ability to disregard the obvious and the proven when that conflicts with what our ideology says we want. you know, aristotle was the e.p.a. of his day. he was attacked when he said that the earth was round. the world at that time thought the world was flat. and people argued with aristotle and about aristotle for about 1,500 years. galileo became the e.p.a. of his day when he said that the earth reinvolved around the sun. -- reinvolved around the sun. he, too, was attacked for centuries for, quote, being wrong. today we have unanimous -- near unanimous, scientific conclusion that global warming exists, it's a threat to our planet, it's a threat to our health and, yet, as the folks who attacked aristotle when he

said the earth was round, the folks who attacked galileo when he said the earth reinvolved around the sun, the authors and supporters of this legislation deny the proven fact of global warming and wave it away by abolishing the clean air act. this is the wrong step to be taking. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from vermont yields back. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: thank you, madam speaker. you know, madam speaker, there was a dialogue back and forth about cows, cattle, and the e.p.a. is not at issue. if you go to the e.p.a. website, epa.gov, and you look under the portion called frequent questions where it deals with livestock, in fact, this e.p.a. is trying to talk about methane produced by livestock.

and it ends up saying, as i read from my blackberry, that essentially 20% of all the methane content in the air comes from livestock. well, that's what they want to go and regulate. mr. polis: will the gentleman yield? mr. sessions: the gentleman will have his own time in a minute and i'm sure he will be very effective. but i encourage him to get on his blackberry and go to the website and look this up. they're going to blame it on cattle. they're going to tax cattle. they're going to tax the output because that's what they're proposing. madam speaker, at this time i'd like to yield three minutes to the distinguished gentleman from ennis, texas, the gentleman, mr. barton. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for three minutes. mr. barton: i thank the gentleman and ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. barton: thank you.

madam speaker, i rise in strong support of this rule and in strong support of the underlying bill. i have been a member of the energy and commerce committee for 26 -- now 27 years. i'm a past chairman, i'm a past subcommittee chairman. i'm currently -- have the title of chairman emeritus. i participated under former chairman john dingell, former chairman billy tozan, former chairman henry waxman and now current chairman fred upton. dozens of hearings on the clean air act. markups, amendments. dozens of hearings on climate change, global warming. and all of those issues. the bill before us, if the rule passes, does not change the clean air act. it does not gut the clean air act. it does not in any way prevent enforcement of the criteria pollutants that are regulated by the clean air act. it simply says that greenhouse gases are not to be regulated

under the clean air act. and the reason that it says that is that greenhouse gases are different than the criteria pollutants that are regulated under the clean air act. first of all, greenhouse gas is by definition are necessary for life. as i stand here, madam speaker, and speak, i am creating as i breathe in and out through the respiratory process co-2, so under the dictates of today's e.p.a., i am a mobile source polluter because i am breathing, i am creating co-2. co-2, carbon dioxide, is necessary for life. greenhouse gases are necessary to protect the environment. they have the ability to prevent heat from escaping into the -- into outer space, and that is what creates the temperature zone that allows life to exist. the radical environmentalists

who think co-2 is a pollutant have decided amongst themselves -- i don't know how they've done it, but they say that the magic number for co-2 in the atmosphere is 350 parts per billion. we are currently at 380 parts per billion. we know from records and from ice samples and tree rings and things like this of the past that we had co-2 up in the thousands of parts per billion in the past so how 350 has become the magic number is beyond me. in any event, let me simply say the bill before us doesn't change one sentence in the clean air act. it does say that the endangerment finding that i think was flawed and the decision by the obama administration to regulate co-2 under the clean air act is wrong and should not be allowed to stand. if this congress or future congresses want to regulate

co-2, want to regulate greenhouse gases, let them bring a bill forward through the normal regulatory process and do it. please vote for the rule. please vote for the bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i yield myself one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. polis: madam speaker, it's hard to figure out where to start with regard to refuting some of the statements that were made. first of all, again, with regard to the information regarding methane emissions on the e.p.a. website, there's the difference between a statement of fact and action and part of what the p.a. does is it provides good, scientific facts. the e.p.a. itself concedes and says they don't have the authority nor should they have the authority to monitor emissions from livestock so they'll publish good information. i don't refute the information the gentleman says and i hope they'll publish more information about the livestock. the gentleman says they're going to tax cattle. chairman upton, ranking member waxman, says the e.p.a. doesn't have the ability to impose a tax. i'd ask my colleague from texas a simple question, does the

e.p.a. have the ability to impose a tax? mr. sessions: a tax is a burden . mr. polis: reclaiming my time. a simple yes or no answer. if the gentleman has a statement to make, he can respond on his own time. i want to know if the e.p.a. has the ability to impose a tax? with that i yield two minutes to the gentleman from illinois, mr. quigley. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for two minutes. mr. quigley: thank you, madam speaker. we speak a lot about costs. cost to repeal, cost of implementation. dealing with this discussion is lives lost, those altered by heart attacks, asthma and brain damage due to a particular matter in our air and mercury in my water. my hometown of chicago knows this all too well. chicago ranks second among all cities in the country adversely affected by power plant pollution. two particularly egregious emitters, the fisk and crawford power plant emit a matter that

directly contribute to 41 deaths, 550 e.r. visits and 2,800 asthma attacks annually. the particular emission from power plants shorten the lives of 1,356 people from my home state each year. talk about cost. in 2001 the harvard school of public health put out an illinois power plant study. in the eight years since these harms were modeled and publicized, the environmental law said the continued fisk and crawford plant cost between $150 million to $1 billion in health and environmental-related damages. even if you don't care about global warming and you don't believe climate change is manmade you can't argue with these numbers. so if you want to talk cost, let's talk cost. the power plants cost chicagoans 550 e.r. visits per year. they cost chicagoans 2,800 asthma attacks per year and the power plants cost chicagoans

751 to $1 billion in the eight-plus years we've been collecting data on these pollutants. it is not to repeal the law that cleans our air, that protects our children and allows us to remain competitive in the market. the answer is to transition away from the antiquated and outdatedtory that pollutes and toward green sfrass that encourages -- infrastructure that encourages production. i ask my colleagues to oppose the rule and the bill. thank you, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: may i inquire of the time remaining on both sides, please. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas has 12 minutes remaining and the gentleman from colorado has 18 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: i would like to defer to the gentleman to run his time down. we have at least one additional speaker and will be closing.

mr. polis: we have three remaining speakers, perhaps, so i thank the gentleman. i yield to the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. mcgovern: i rise in strong opposition to this rule an the underlying legislation which is an assault on science and reason. indeed it is an assault on the very air we breathe my republican friends continue to bury their heads in the sand. last night in the rules committee, along with my colleagues, earl blumenauer and peter welsh, i offered an amendment to end taxpayer funded subsidies to big oil, something the republican leadership refused to do. these subsidies have helped b.p., chevron, conoco phillips, exxonmobil and shell make a combined profit of nearly $1 trillion over the past decade. that's trillion with a t. give me a break. our amendment would have raised $40 billion that would have gone straight toward deficit reduction.

unfortunately, but not surprisingly, our amendment was defeat odden a party line vote. that shows exactly where the republican priorities are, madam speaker. a radical redistribution of wealth from the middle class and the poor to the wealthiest people and corporations in the country. yesterday, our republican friends unveiled their budget proposal. that budget takes extreme right wing trickle down economics to new levels. they want to destroy medicare as we know it and impose a huge tax increase on middle class seniors through higher health care costs. they want to eviscerate medicaid by turning it into a block grant program. they want to cut food stamp programs, environmental protection and medical research. programs which actually create jobs and improve the lives of american working families. at the same time, my republican friends want to provide massive tax cuts to the very wealthiest americans and corporations including big oil companies that are reaping billions and billions and billions of

dollars in profits each year. the republican party wants to increase health care costs for seniors in order to pay for tax breaks for the rich. those are wrong priorities, madam speaker. as harold meyerson wrote today in "the washington post," and i quote if it does nothing else, the budget the republicans unvealed -- unveiled tuesday provides the first real program for the 21st century and it is this -- repeal the 20th century. end quote. for the life of me, i can't understand why the people who caused the recession be allowed to keep everything while innocent workers get the bill. we all want to reduce the deficit, madam speaker. how about ending our occupation in afghanistan. how about ending subsidies for multinational oil companies and ragry business. how about asking hedge fund managers to pay fair tax rate. the republican leadership has made it clear they are willing to shut the government down in order to achieve their

right-wing radical ayen da. if that happens, madam speaker, and i hope it doesn't, i pray it doesn't, the american people need to know that the responsibility lies at the feet of the republican members of this house. again, i urge my colleagues to reject this, again, another restrictive rule and reject the underlying legislation. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: thank you, madam speaker. my, oh, my. we've heard this tirade before, it wasn't just republicans in the house which we've had now for about four months. it was something else, the democrats are looking for somebody to blame their woes on, their tax increases, their overregulation, all the big spending and the debt. madam speaker, we know what it is. if they search quick hi enough they can find out what the american people know. it is pin the tail on the donkey. we know how this happened. madam speaker, at this time i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from

grandfather community, north carolina, dr. foxx. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for three minutes. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. i thank my colleague from texas for yielding time. you know, our colleagues on our side of the aisle have made it abundantly clear that this bill does not affect the clean air act. what it does is help us rein in unelected bureaucrats who are arrogant and who believe that they have all the answers to what needs to be done in this country. after listening to the debate over this issue, it's clear to me thatnaryry a liberal here has read a become entitled " heaven and earth" by a renowned australian geeologist who takes a science-based approach to disproving the myths in the manmade global warming theory. it's a gripping, powerful book

that would leave a deep impression on any independent thinker. i want to mention, madam speaker, another book, a heartland institute book review of a book tchailed politically incorrect guide to global warming and environmentalism by christopher horner, which highlights some of the motivations for liberals to persist with the manmade global warming theory. and i quote here, horner tells us global warming hysteria is truly the environmentalist's dream come true. it's the perfect storm of demons an perils and the ideal scare campaign for those who would establish global governance. and he goes on, we're daily told of an alleged consensus on the issue, a concept actually foreign to science and global warming alarmists want to put disbelievers on trial. they want to control our lifestyles without anyone being allowed to question their cause.

and he says no where is horner more brilliant than in convincing the read of the odious concept of consensus taking root regarding climate science where alarmists and the rest of the global warming industry assail scientists and other experts with adhominem campaigns to discredit them. history is full of efforts to stifle innovation by reference to authority of consensus. galley owe and copernicus -- galileo and copernicus come to mind. this shows the arrogance of our colleagues across the aisle and the arrogance of the bureaucrats. they think we human beings have more impact on the climate and the world than god does. and we don't. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i yield myself one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. polis: i'd like to enter

this into the record, "a truth." the gentlelady mentioned science and one of the ex-parawitnesses the republicans called to last week's hearing on climate science was professor richard mueller of berkley this is a physicist who got into the climate skeptic game. the game is lucrative for people. anyone who finds a way to dispute climate change sells a lot of books. 99% of them stayed true to the scientific method and the conclusion of the vast majority is that climate change exists. professor mueller said his group's preliminary finding was that climate change is like other reports.

now he's somebody who put his scientific principles above his own economic needs. what science tells us is not always convenient. every climate scientist i know wishes that they could say there was no danger from climate change. wishes there was no danger from carbon emissions. nobody wants to be a harbinger of disaster. what a terrible thing to be. yet they value the integrity of the scientific process. i'm proud to yield two minutes to the gentlelady from hawaii, ms. hirono. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. hirono: thank you, madam speaker. i thank the gentleman from colorado for yielding time. i rise in opposition to this rule and the underlying legislation, the energy tax prevention act. in spite of the title of this bill, it has absolutely nothing to do with limiting taxes on energy or taxes from the get-go. this bill should be called the dirty air act because it turns back the clock by erasing years of advances that we've made in

fighting air pollution and curbing greenhouse gas emissions. this bill ignores clear cut scientific evidence, carbon pollution is endangering our health and the environment. and that the need for urgent action to address climate change is indisputable. this prevents the environmental agency from actsing under the clean air act to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. unequivocally linked to climate change. under this bill, they will be prohibited from enforcing common sense. i want to repeat that word, common sense protections against carbon dioxide pollution and other greenhouse gses. since its enactment in 1970, the benefit the health benefits of the clean air act has far outweighed industry's compliance costs. toxic and health threatening air pollutants have been reduced by 60% and the world did not come to an end for corporations.

in fact, during this time the economy grew by 200%. this legislation guts the clean air act pollution standards and repeals e.p.a.'s authority to limit health threatening pollution and for what? for what? to protect the profits of the big polluters. in so doing, this bill repeals important safeguards that are needed to create american clean energy job rerks deuce energy costs, redeuce our dependence on foreign oil and increase our economic competitiveness. we cannot pass the republican majority's anti-science, anti-innovation bill and let's not forget one of the top goals, continuing multibillion dollar tax breaks. mr. polis: i yield the gentlelady 30 additional seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. hirono: in my book, clean air and he thelt of the -- health of the american people trumps costs to polluters every timism urge my colleagues to vote against this rule and against the bill.

i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady -- the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: we are talking about 1.4 million jobs a lot of cattle, and a lot of bull. madam speaker, at this time i'd like to yield one minute to the gentleman from melbourne, florida, mr. posey. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. posey: thank you, madam speaker. congressman webster and i were walking past the rear of the chamber and looked at each other kind of funny after former comments and thought we were walking by a set for comedy hour. i think i really heard somebody allude to the fact that we need more government regulation and for sure we need more taxes on the oil companies. those evil oil company the answer to all our problems is to tax them more. as if the members of the body and the public is stupid enough to think that at the end of the year those big oil companies are going to just write a check

for an extra zillion dollars. let's say we tax them another $1 a gallon. they're not going to write the check. we know what's going to happen. they're going to raise the price $1 a gallon. or sometimes they round it to two bucks a gallon. corporations don't pay taxes, they collect tax. they collect taxes from consumers who ultimately pay the tax. you add a tax to a product and the consumer has to pay more. it doesn't pass the straight face test and i wish we would quit, as the gentleman from texas says, quit trying to play pin the tail on the donkey. we know corporations don't pay taxes. consumers pay taxes. corporations just pass it on. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i will make a motion that immediately after we adopt

this bill we prohibit members of congress and the president from receiving pay during a government shutdown. it's my honor to yield to a gentleman who sponsored a bill to do the same, mr. moran. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. moran: the federal government is now six months into fiscal year 2011 without a budget. since this congress began, we've created no new jobs and in fact have put tens of thousands of people out of work. we haven't been able to keep the government operating, even. all we've done is to stumble along from continuing resolution to continuing resolution. that's no way to run a government, let alone the most powerful in the world. sadly, with the clock running, ticking toward the 11th hour of a government shutdown today

which could well happen by the end of this week agreement ton a full year of budget is -- agreement on a full year of budget is nowhere to be found. we have no consensus. we can't get together. we can't do our job. and instead the house continues to serve up far right ideological proposals such as this which pretends that global warming isn't really happening. it will block e.p.a.'s modest attempts to limit the growth of greenhouse gas emissions that are endangering the public's health and our children's future. instead, this body would be wiser to bring up a big that has already been passed in the senate and sits ready for consideration in the house today. that's the moran tested government shutdown fairness act. on the eve of a government shutdown with hundreds of thousands of government employees facing furlough and millions of americans having to

forgo the essential services that the government provides on a daily basis, it's unconscionable that members of congress will continue to receive their pay. having advocated our responsibility to do our job, to pass a budget, we should not continue to receive a paycheck. it's simply a matter of fairness, madam chair woman. if all americans are going to feel the pain of a government shutdown, then we should make sacrifices too. the moran bill would suspend member's pay in the face of a shutdown. the senate passed it unanimously and so should we. it's the one thing we could agree on now and have signed by the president immediately. that's the vote we should be taking. now, some have argued for self-centered reasons that the moran-tester bill is unconstitutional. but that's simply a smokescreen, madam chair woman. they know perfectly well that

the courts decide constitutionality. and further, we know the individuals withstanding before the court would be the very members of congress who would be voting to shut down the government. so just consider the scene where members of congress would be arguing -- mr. polis: 30 seconds. mr. moran: thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. moran: so i ask the chairwoman just to consider the scene where members of congress would be arguing before the courts their right to be paid while millions forgo their pay. madam chair woman, this body is wasting its time with the legislation we're considering today. let's demonstrate to the public that we are willing to make the same sacrifice we are asking of others. if we are going to put 800,000 federal employees and our staff on the street then we ought to be out there with them. take up the moran-tester bill instead of this ideological

extremism that is dead on arrival. that's what we should be considering. thank you, madam chair woman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: there was a discussion a few minutes ago about republicans and oil companies and very interesting comments. yet, any on our side have alluded to president obama supporting the brazilian government and people by supporting their oil drilling, drilling for natural resources that they have. the president is willing to go down and back up a 2009 commitment to proposing $2 billion from the export-import bank to the brazilian company that is their energy company, and i'd like to quote, if i can, for just a second, because i think it's very interesting that he said, at a time when we've been reminded how easily unstable parts of the world can affect prices, the united

states could not be happier for a potential for a new stable source of energy. madam speaker, i'd like to ask unanimous consent to insert this into the record because -- the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. sessions: what he just spoke of was the united states' ability to produce our own oil so we don't have to look for foreigners to get that done. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i yield myself a minute to respond. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. polis: madam speaker, i want to be clear that we can in this body take up and pass senate bill 388 if we can defeat the previous question and this will go directly to the president's desk. there is still time. if the government shuts down at the end of the day friday members of congress will continue to receive their paycheck. i had a tweet from one of my constituents that said, if there's a government shutdown, are congressmen and senators considered essential employees? i responded, we had a bill, senate bill 388, would make sure that members of congress

would not be paid but speaker boehner will not bring it to the floor of the house. he responded, maybe if the rule makers make the rules they created a solution would come faster. gridlock is not governance. madam speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. doggett. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. doggett: the next sad chapter in republican fantasy land is being written here today. last month they couldn't tell the difference between big bird and big government. now, they insist that dirty air is really good for us. they live in a fact-free zone when the facts don't support their point of view, insisting that big polluters know best and that good science should be ignored. the clean air act for the last 40 years has improved air quality and saved hundreds of thousands of lives. unfortunately, my home state of

texas is one of the world's leading carbon polluters and it's also one of the leaders in condoning oil by those polluters. for my three granddaughters and their generation, particularly for the more than 23,000 children in my home county who are suffering from asthma, we need to ensure clean air and that ought to be a given, not just a goal. science-based decisions, not ideologically driven nonsense, should guide us. i stand with the american lung association with a large number of scientists across many disciplines who call for this bill's rejection, and in it is a drive to interfere with our health, this same republican proposal creates the very type of uncertainty that stands in the way of more job creation throughout texas. texas moving to become the leading wind provider in the

country. those wind turbines could be built in our state. solar energy could be expanding in our state but in climate of uncertainty to which this bill adds even more will interfere with the startups, with the new ideas that could keep us at the forefront of creating clean jobs instead of sending all those jobs over in china and other parts of the world. this is a bad bill for our economy and it is a bad bill for the future health of our country's well. i urge its rejection. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: madam speaker, at this time i'd like to notify the gentleman i am through with any speakers that we have on this side and would encourage the gentleman to finish his speakers and close and yield back and then i'll do the same. reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i am the last speaker of my side and i yield myself the remainder of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. polis: i'd like to submit to the record an editorial.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. polis: thank you, madam speaker. time and time again we've heard our colleagues cry wolf and make outlandish claims what the environmental protection agency is attempting to do. but the american people aren't fooled. they know that every time the e.p.a. stands up to big polluters, big polluters claim the sky is falling. that's exactly what happened when the e.p.a. tackled the acid rain problem. they claimed that new safeguards would end their industries, end the price of consumer goods, cause massive job loss. in reality, acid rain has been dramatically reduced. it was roughly the 10th of the cost that industry estimated all without driving consumer prices up. a study said that implementing the e.p.a. safeguards we are implementing today will create 1.4 million jobs as companies invent, build and install new and cheaper pollution-controlled tools and renewable energy. rather than discussing ridiculous and already

disreputable and refuted claims of cow flatulents and others not considered by the e.p.a., let's discuss science and the facts. republicans have claimed that the e.p.a. has found carbon dioxide to be dangerous, the same gas we exhale, they say, how can carbon dioxide be dangerous? in reality, the endangerment finding was based on sound science and has found that as climb change changes, so does allergies. these hurt asthma and heart disease. once again, republican was oversimplifying a small problem to support their big polluter buddies. science is a blind goddess. it doesn't care what we want science to say. what matters is what good science actually says. the supporters of this legislation wants to say that this would hurt job creation.

in fact, the exact opposite has been true. since 1970's, the economic benefits of the clean air act outweighs the costs associated with the law. the it is expected to reach $2 trillion in 2020, exceeding costs by more than 30-1. that's why a number of business organizations representing over 60,000 firms wrote to president obama and congressional leaders urging them to support the e.p.a.'s mission and to reject efforts to block, delay or weaken implementation of the clean air act. in their letters, the groups note that studies consistently show that the economic benefits of implementing the act far exceed the cost of controlling air emissions. the e.p.a.'s rule is strictly tailored to the biggest power plants and polluters. they apply to about 700 of the top polluting power plants and oil refineries, facilities that need new permits anyway under current law. it's been proven countless times that we can protect the environment and public health and grow and strengthen our

economy at the same time. to say otherwise simply ignores the facts. madam speaker, i want to make sure that no one is misled by the title of the bill we're considering, the energy tax prevention act, the only amendment that would have actually prevented energy taxes was offered by my friend, mr. blumenauer, and denied even for discussion or vote under this rule. the only thing this bill is taxing is our patience. and we have serious issues confront america, including a government shutdown, the majority seems intent on legislating by false bumper sticker slogans. madam speaker, when we defeat the previous question i'll offer an amendment to the bill to offer senate bill 388. i ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the record along with extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. polis: madam speaker, i urge my colleagues to vote no and defeat the previous question so we can debate and pass a bill that actually does something useful and ensure that members of congress don't get paid during a shutdown of government and has a real chance of being enacted into law and signed by president

obama. i urge a no vote on the rule, and 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. mr. sessions: thank you, madam speaker. and i appreciate the gentleman from colorado for this wonderful discussion and debate that we've had here today. madam speaker, the bill we're discussing today does not weaken the clean air act or the regulation of air pollution. it does interfere with the e.p.a.'s longstanding authority and it does not interfere with the e.p.a.'s longstanding authority to protect the environment. in fact, as i stated in the very beginning, it clarifies that the clean air act was never designated, designed or shown to be for regulating greenhouse gas emissions. thus, we would be removing authority that the e.p.a. has not had, should not have and would not have because this congress will not pass what is called cap and tax regulations. again, control government spending, eliminate government

regulations. the private sector believes that the republican congress can be here for the interest of not only taxpayer but also to make sure that jobs, investments in this economy and the future are very bright. i applaud my colleagues for coming down to help debate this bill. madam speaker, i encourage a yes vote and i move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. polis: madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: on that i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 20, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be followed by five-minute votes on adoption of house resolution 203, if

ordered, and approval of the journal, if ordered. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 266. the nays are 158. the previous question is

ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. >> mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. five minutes. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote --

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 250. the nays are 172. the resolution is adopted. without objection, a motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the question on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. which the chair will put de novo. the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the journal stands approved. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: on that i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device.

this is a five-minute vote. five minutes. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 321. the nays are 98 with one answering present. the journal stands approved. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? >> i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on this legislation they are about to take up and insert extraneous material on the bill. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. pursuant to house resolution 203 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 910. the chair appoints the gentleman from arkansas, mr.

womack, to preside over the committee of the whole. the chair: the committee will be in order. the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 910 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to amend the clean air act, prohibit the administrator of the environmental protection agency from promulgating any regulation concerning taking into consideration the emission after greenhouse gas to address climate change, and for other purposes. the chair: the house will be in order. the committee will be in order.

pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as read the first time. the gentleman from michigan, mr. upton, and the gentleman from california, mr. waxman, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mr. upton: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself three minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. upton: last november americans spoke with a very clear voice. they told us that we needed to get the country working again. they told us that big government was not the solution. they told us to lead or get out of the way on the economy. and our side got it. particularly with a cap and trade vote in the last congress. mr. chairman, today the house has a chance again to vote for a bill that directly responds to the demands of the american people. this legislation will remove the biggest regulatory threat to the american economy. this is a threat imposed not by congress but entirely by the obama environmental protection agency. we all know that this administration wanted a cap and trade system to regulate

greenhouse gases. but congress said no, so beginning in early 2009 e.p.a. began putting together a house of cards to regulate emissions of carbon dioxide. the agency began with automobiles, declaring that their emissions endangered public health and welfare. that single endangerment finding has since been used by e.p.a. to launch an unparalleled regulatory onslaught. the result two years later is a series of regulations that will ultimately affect every citizen, every job creator, every industry, really every aspect of our economy and way of life. mr. chairman, this bill is about protecting jobs. e.p.a. regulations will hit or manufacturing sector hard with direct limits on factory emissions, indirect costs from the higher prices to power their facilities. it will hit small businesses hard, too, because when the electricity to power your business and gasoline to fuel your vehicles is more expensive, your profit's less

and you hire fewer new employees. that's why the nfib, chamber of commerce, and others they have endorsed h.r. 910. this is a key vote with many of those different groups. mr. chairman, this bill is also about energy prices for working families. power plants will be forced to comply with strict new emission caps. they'll have to purchase expensive new equipment to retrofit their facilities and we all know the costs have nowhere to go except on family and businesses monthly utility bills. it is about gas prices. the refiners that turn oil into gasoline will also be caught into the web of costly regs. when it costs more to make gasoline, it costs more to buy gasoline. and with prices already at $4 a gallon across much of the country, the last thing that our families need is government policies designed to make the price at the pump even higher. i am from michigan, i know what a strong growing economy looks like. i think that it is a travesty

that this government is deliberately imposing policies that are going to harm job creators and working families. and for what, mr. chairman? for what? e.p.a. administrator lisa jackson herself admits that u.s. regulation of greenhouse gases will not affect global climate conditions. the only environmental impact may be to ship our jobs to countries with no environmental protections at all. so, mr. chairman, at thend of the day the e.p.a. climate regime is all economic pain and no environmental gain. so let's pass this bill today and get american -- get the american economy back on track. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. -- the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. waxman: since the clean air act was adopted 40 years ago, we made steady progress in cleaning our air and protecting the public health and welfare. today, however, the clean air act is under attack and progress is threatened.

the upton-inhofe bill is a direct assault on the clean air act. its premise is that climate change is a hoax and carbon pollution does not endanger health and welfare. but climate change is real. it is caused by pollution and it is a serious threat to our health and welfare. we need to confront these realities not put our head in the sands. . american families count on the environmental protection agency to keep our air and water clean, but this bill has politicians overruling the experts at the environmental protection agency. and it exempts our biggest polluters from regulation. if upton-inhofe is enacted, the environmental protection agency's ability to control dangerous carbon pollution will be gutted. that's why health experts like

the american lung association are opposed to this legislation. they know it is a polluter's protection act. it's anti-science, anti-environment and anti-health. the environmental protection agency made a scientific determination that carbon pollution endangers health and the environment. our nation's top scientists at the national academy of sciences agrees with this finding, and so do scientists around the world. yet, this legislation repeals that scientific finding. that's something no congress has ever done. we need an energy policy based on science, not science fiction. with oil at $100 per barrel and rising, the middle-aged in turmoil and a nuclear crisis in japan, we urgently need clean

energy policies. we need more vehicles that run on electricity, natural gas and renewable fuels. we need more wind and solar power, and we need more energy efficiency. what we need is to work together to develop energy policies that reduce our dependence on foreign oil and protect the health of american families. instead, we are pursuing a divisive, partisan bill that takes us in exactly the wrong direction. this extreme legislation won't pass in the senate, and if it did it would be vetoed by president obama. it is a distraction from the imperative of developing new sources of energy that will break our dependence on foreign oil, protect our health and preserve our environment. american -- americans want clean air to breathe and sensible science-based limits

on carbon pollution. i urge all members to oppose this legislation and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. upton: i'd yield to the chair emeritus of the energy and commerce committee, the gentleman from texas, mr. barton, three minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. barton: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the chair: without objection. mr. barton: i rise in strong support of this bill. i'd like to make a few comments. first of all, the bill before us doesn't change one sentence or one paragraph in the clean air act, doesn't change anything. what it does do is prevent the e.p.a. from using the clean air act to regulate co-2 as a criteria pollutant under the clean air act. i was in congress when we passed the clean air act amendments back in 1991. i was co-sponsor of the bill, voted for it on the floor.

so oim' a supporter of a strong clean air act. co-2 is not a criteria pollutant under the clean air act. it was never intended to be. it was only because of a 5-4 supreme court decision said that the e.p.a. had to make a decision whether it should be and then a very flawed e.p.a. endangerment finding when president obama became the president that we have an e.p.a. authority tenous as it is to regulate co-2 under the clean air act. what this bill is take us back to the original clean air act and say we're going to regulate the criteria pollutants but greenhouse gas and co-2, which is a greenhouse gas, is one of those criteria pollutants. what's the benefits of reporting co-2? where according to numerous studies in terms of the amount of reduction in co-2 by the

year 2100, which is 90 years away, 89 years away, we'd see a reduction of three parts per billion if we regulated co-2 from the current 380 to 390 parts per billion. we'll see a reduction in temperature by about 6,000th to 15,000th of a degree sent grade and we'll see a reduction in sea level -- centigrade and we'll see a reduction in sea level of 1,000th of a sent meeter -- centimeter. we'll get no reduction in parts per billion. we'll get no reduction in temperature and get no reduction in sea level but we do get a huge cost to the economy. this bill is a commonsense bill that simply says the clean air act is the clean air act and let's use it to regulate sulfur

dioxide and lead and particulate matter and ozone but let's not use it to regulate a necessary compound which is necessary for life and which helps us all. please vote against all of the amendments and please vote for this very commonsense bill when we get to final passage. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: i'm pleased to yield to a member on the energy and commerce committee, the gentleman from illinois, mr. rush. the chair: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for three minutes. mr. rush: i thank the gentleman the chairman. i thank the gentleman for yielding me for this discussion. mr. speaker, i'm opposed to h.r. 910, the upton-inhofe dirty air act because this bill is an extreme and excessive

piece of legislation and it's simply bad public policy. this bill will ignore the warnings from the respecting scoin tific community simply because policymakers do not like what that science is telling us and it will face earnings and profits above protecting the american public. i applaud the obama administration for making the clear and unequivocal statement yesterday that the president would veto this bill if it ever made it to his desk. mr. speaker, every respective, every notable scientific organization, including the national academy of sciences, the american association for the advancement of science, the american geophysical union, the american meterological society, the u.s. global change research

program as well as the intergovernmental panel on climate change, are all in agreement that man made greenhouse gases do contribute to climate change and that these impacts can be mitigated through policy to curb these emissions. additionally, mr. speaker, many of the nation's top public health advocacy groups, including the american lung association and the american public health association, as well as leading civil rights groups, such as the naacp, have all come out strongly against this bill saying that it will hurt our most vulnerable citizens unprotected if this bill were to become law. as this poster highlights, mr. speaker, there are so many more

-- addressing climate change, such as the science tells us we must do, including energy independence, sustainability, greener air and water and a healthier, more vibrant, more robust public, just to name a few. hoping that the majority of the world's scientists are just plain wrong. mr. speaker, i'm opposed to this bill because the science compels me to oppose this bill and i urge all my colleagues, every one of you all, to vote against this bill, and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. upton: mr. chairman, i would yield -- i might ask a parliamentary inquiry, how much side has both sides used so

far? the chair: both sides have 24 minutes remaining. mr. upton: i would yield three minutes to the chairman of the energy and power subcommittee, the gentleman from kentucky, mr. whitfield. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized for three minutes. mr. whitfield: thank you very much. i'm delighted we have this opportunity today to debate this important legislation. over the last two years, the environmental protection agency has been the most aggressive agency representing environmental causes in many, many years. today we have an opportunity to try to stop their unprecedented power grab. even the longest serving member of this house, the distinguished democrat from michigan, mr. john dingell, whom we all respect and admire, said it would be a glorious mess, if peampt ever tried to regulate greenhouse gases. carbon dioxide, one of the things they're trying to

regulate, is necessary for human life. when we had hearings on this issue, lisa jackson, the administrator of e.p.a., came to the congress and said when asked a question, what kind of impact would their regulations have, she said it would have negligentable impact on solving -- negligable impact on solving global warming unless other nations are willing to act as well. what this gets down to is coal because coal in america produces 52% of our energy. in china coal produces 80% of our electricity. electricity is produced at the lowest rate with coal and that is necessary if america is going to be competitive in the global marketplace. that's why today you see china

expanding its coal marketing and coal utilities to produce electricity. that's why in china you see so many jobs being produced because they produce at a very low cost. this legislation will stop e.p.a. from driving up electricity costs in america, will make it less likely that we're going to continue to lose jobs to china if we stop e.p.a. and i would remind all of you that when gina mccarthy, the air quality director of e.p.a., came to congress, she said herself that trying to regulate greenhouse gases in america just for the enforcing arms of the greenhouse gas bill, which would be every state in america, would cost the enforcing agencies $24 billion, not including the additional cost to all of the utility companies, those people that have boilers, farmers, others,

the addition costs that it would provide to them. so if we want america to be competitive, to create jobs, to compete with china, we must stop this out-of-control e.p.a. and that's precisely what this legislation is designed to do. we're not changing the clean air act in any way. air quality, all those things will still be enforced. so i would urge passage of this legislation. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. waxman: mr. chairman, i am pleased at this time to yield three minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for three minutes. mr. markey: i thank the gentleman. i rise in opposition to the dirty air act which overturns the scientific finding that pollution is harming our people and our planet. but as long as republicans are making an ideological decision

to overturn scientific reality, i wonder if the republicans could offer an amendment overturning inconvenient geological reality as well. let's tell the united states geological survey that congress doesn't believe that the united states only has 2% of the world's oil as well. what the republican majority is bringing to the house floor today is almost as absurd. republicans want our own weapon against opec to be a bumper sticker slogan, "drill, baby, drill." well, i have news for my republican friends, we are drilling, baby. u.s. production is at its highest level in nearly a decade. domestic natural gas production is at an all-time high, but we will never be able to drill our way out of this problem. what republicans fail to acknowledge is that a clean energy revolution is already

under way. take a look at the new electrical generating capacity installed in the us -- in the united states in the last four years. the last four years. 80% of all new electrical generating capacity has been natural gas, 33,000 new megawatts, and wind, 28,000 new megawatts. this is the last four years, ladies and gentlemen. coal is down at 10,000, but rising very quickly, solar at nearly 2,000 megawatts, biomass at nearly 1,000 megawatts. in other words, there is a revolution that is already under way. the only problem is there is no long-term policy or certainty that has been put on the books. all we have is republicans fighting as hard as they can to prevent this revolution from coming to fruition so we can

dramatically reduce the amount of greenhouse gases that warm our planet, and create a new clean energy revolution here in america that produces jobs for americans. this arbitrary rejection of scientific fact will not cause the gross domestic product to rise or for unemployment to fall. but here's what their bill will do. it will lead to higher pollution levels, which will rise. oil imports, which will rise. temperatures, which will rise. job creation domestically, which will go down. vote no on this assault on science, on public health, and on the american economic competitiveness that allows a revolution to take off which makes it possible to solve the problems of employment, national security and a dangerously warming planet. >> the gentleman's time has expired.

the gentleman from michigan. >> i yield one minute to the gentleman from illinois, mr. shimkus. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. shimkus: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. shimkus: thank you, mr. speaker. it's great we have this chance to be on the floor today to really address one of the most important job creating pieces of legislation that we brought to the floor, and that's this one today. for the climate change believers, their plan is simple. price carbon fuels so that we drive this new world of peace, security, and green energy, but they forgot one thing. they destroy jobs in doing that.

these are well known miners who lost their jobs the last time we did it. thousands of coal miners in illinois lost their jobs. even in the greenhouse gas debate, it would add 50 cents a gallon to a gallon of gas. does that create jobs? it destroys jobs. we're trying to price energy, all costs go up. if you're concerned about the economy and concerned about jobs, this is the perfect bill to support. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the -- the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: i yield to my colleague from the state of california, mrs. capps, one and a half minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one and a half minutes. mrs. capps: i rise in strong opposition to the dirty air bill. once again the house is considering legislation that has little to no chance of becoming law.

meanwhile, the public wants us to focus on job creation. but the leadership of this house isn't listening. the only job they seem interested in is the one they want e.p.a. not to do, protect the public's hell. it's not surprising that many of our nation's biggest polluters have asked for this bill, it lets them keep polluting. what is surprising is that with this bill we're rejecting scientific consensus. even george w. bush's e.p.a. agreed that carbon pollution harms public health. this pollution will cause asthma attacks and premature deaths. it will hobble our efforts to compete in the global energy marketplace. earlier this year, the president stood on this house floor and talked about winning the future, tapping into america's genius for innovation an he used clean energy as an example. it will help america compete globally.

let's in the obstruct the e.p.a. from doing its job of protecting the public's health. let's not stick our heads in the sand about the dangers of climate change. let's not turn away from meeting this challenge. rather, use it to build dominance in the global industry of clean energy. i urge my colleagues to vote no on this terrible bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields her time. the gentleman from michigan. >> i yield one minute to the gentleman from colorado, mr. gardner. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. gardner: i rise in support of the energy tax prevention act. without this bill, the e.p.a. is going to outsource jobs and business with greenhouse gas regulations not to mention placing huge financial burdens on consumers who will see costs skyrocket as a result of increased costs to utilities, refineries and more.

however, what i want to talk about is how it relates to rural america and agriculture, particularly in colorado. the e.p.a. says agriculture is exempt. if agriculture is exempt why did the rural electric write to me that it will cost farmers and ranchers in my state an additional $7,000 a year to ir-- an additional $1,700 a year to irrigate their land. by 2030, it would cost them an additional $7,000 a year for one meter to run their irgation. that's costing agriculture. that's costing jobs. instead of becoming the environmental protection agency, the e.p.a. is becoming the everyone pays a lot agency. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: mr. chairman that information is incorrect. i'd like to see a letter that pertains to this e.p.a. answer.

i think it might have been a letter related to a different piece of legislation. i'm now pleased to yield two minutes to my colleague from california, ms. eshoo. ms. eshoo: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. eshoo: i thank the distinguished ranking member of the house energy and commerce committee. mr. chairman, i rise in very, very strong opposition to this bill h.r. 910. i can't help but think as i listen to what's being said on the other side that they're sitting in a car, looking in the rearview mirror and they think they see the future. there is a reason why people on this side of the aisle are opposed to this bill and call it the dirty air bill. because that's exactly what it is. and so instead of helping to create jobs for the american people, which is their top

priority, their very, very top priority, what is the gift of the new majority? dirty air. that's why the american lung association is vehemently opposed to this bill. the american public health association is vehemently opposed to this bill. former senior military officers, environmental organizations and scientists all strongly oppose the bill. now, guess who is for it. guess who is for it, america? big oil. because it will increase the demand for oil and do nothing to reduce consumer -- what consumers spend on gasoline. this bill would put an end to future cost savings because both the e.p.a. and states would be prohibited from updating the standards that

they've already set. one would think that during this time of rising gas prices and the turmoil in the middle east that we would be voting on legislation to decrease our dependence on foreign oil, voting to drive innovation in clean energy industries, and voting to assure future security and achieve energy independence and leave the next generation of americans with a healthy world. instead, we're voting on a bill to gut the clean air act. i think this is all heavy evidence for members of the house to oppose the dirty air act. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady -- the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan. >> i yield two minutes to the gentleman from west virginia, mr. rahall, two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes.

mr. rahall: i thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding time to me. i appreciate he and his committee's work on this legislation. mr. chairman, i don't think anybody in this body is for dirty air or dirty water or any of the adjectives that have been used to describe the supporters of this legislation. certainly the clean water act, the clean air act and other worthy pieces of legislation that congress have passed have worthy goals and have achieved tremendous progress for this country and there's not a person in this country, i dare say, who would want to renege on a lot of the positive initiatives achieved under these piece of legislation. no singular government agency, however, is sufficiently positioned to tackle the complex solution required to address carbon emissions. the answer has to be multipronged. it must involve innovation and investment in addition to reductions. it must be crafted, taking into account the realities in the fact -- of the fact that these

reductions will have on the economic recovery this country is experiencing and on jobs. and on jobs. especially in the heartland of america. these are not matters the e.p.a. is required to consider or eequipped to address. to simply allow the e.p.a. to move ahead on its own in crafting a national strategy on climate change is a recipe for disaster. it assures a lopsided solution to a broad and cumbersome challenge and what may be worse, it does not provide for the kind of transparency and public input needed for a viable, long-term solution. it is one of the eternal truths of our form of government, mr. chairman, that the public has to be involved. it has to be informed. and the public must be engaged. this legislation is crystal clear in its message that the e.p.a. has gotten ahead of public opinion and that the congress now has a responsibility to put pull it back. i support this legislation and i urge its passage today and i

yield back the balance of my time to the chairman of the committee. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: i'm pleased to yield to the gentleman from washington state, mr. inslee, two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. inslee: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the chair: without objection. mr. inslee: we should oppose this dirty air act because it would suggest we're a nation in a deep and dangerous sleep, dozing in the face of disastrous pollution, slummering while our children are riddled with asthma. it's time for america to get up, get out of our comfortable beds of denial and start building a new, clean economy. the chinese are not sleeping while they build five times more wind turbines than us, thiermans are not sleeping, who are build sogelar panels. it is time to wake up. nobody in human history has ever won a race while asleep.

that's why it's time for a national awakening by rejecting this bill. the time to put engineers to work on clean energy, it's a time to grow miss, it's a time to help students learn new technologies. it's an irony, but it's true, you can only dream while you're asleep but you can only real ides the dream while you're awake. we should believe in american exceptionalism. we are exceptional in innovation. exceptional in entrepreneurship. exceptional in pioneering technology. if we do these things, the sun we see on the horizon will be a sunrise, not a sunset. it will be a sign of an aback -- awakened nation. we'll do this because we'll know an american can know the profound satisfaction of building a clean energy economy and producing children free of asthma, rather than increasing it like this dirty air act. vote no against this

small-minded exercise in pessimism. vote no and embrace the optimism that is inherent in our national character. the chair: the gentleman from michigan. >> i yield one minute to the gentlelady from tennessee, mrs. blackburn. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. mrs. blackburn: i thank you, mr. chairman, and i rise in support of the legislation and thank our chairman, mr. upton, for bringing it forth and bringing forth a bill that will limit the e.p.a.'s regulatory overreach. it's important that we do. this is an issue that has been going on since 2007 when the supreme court gave the e.p.a. permission to regulate greenhouse gases. at that point, i introduced a bill that would have stopped the e.p.a., unfortunately, congress didn't act and the e.p.a. has now issued a final rule and there will be more rules and regulations on the way if congress does not step in and take action to stop this.

so i am grateful that we are stepping forward and making certain that this authority returns to congress. i urge my colleagues to vote for h. reform 910 and reassert congress' authority over this issue. as it should be. and take it away from unelected bureaucrats. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: i'm pleased to yield to a distinguished member of our committee, mrs. christensen from the virgin islands, two minutes. the chair: the gentlelady from the virgin islands is recognized for two minutes. mrs. christensen: i thank the gentleman for yielding. as representative of the district that has the highest greenhouse emission levels per square mile in the united states and the caribbean, i rise in strong opposition to h.r. 910, appropriately known as the dirty air act. as a physician and a person

trained on sound science, i have to reject a legislation that is based wrongly on the premise that there is no science to support the court's admission that greenhouse emissions is dangerous to public's health. leading scientific academies, associations and think tanks have all clearly documented a clear connection between these gases and poorer health. they make a clear connection of these gases to the acceleration of climate change which adds another dimension of health challenges, some of which we're already facing today. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle tend to attribute the finding of the e.p.a. administrator. it was the scientific community, respected experts in the field, who said this. mr. speaker, the reduction of greenhouse gases is of particularly importance of poor and racial and ethnic

minorities. as has been shown, the polluting industries are more often located in or near our communities. and i would like to ask unanimous consent to insert a letter from the naacp in opposition to 910. in committee. and i suppose today you'll hear a lot about co-2 but that's not the only greenhouse gas that we're concerned about. the harmful group of gases include methane, nitrous oxide, sulfa hexafluoride. the caribbean have seen the increases of cancer as the presence of these gases increase. no one should support it. we have the responsibility to protect the health of the american public. i urge my colleagues to reject h.r. 910 and to vote no to dirty air. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentlelady's request for unanimous consent will be covered by general leave. the gentleman from michigan. mr. upton: mr. chairman, i would yield one minute to the

gentleman from north dakota, mr. burrow. the chair: the gentleman from north dakota is recognized for one minute. mr. berg: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the chair: without objection. mr. berg: this bill lowers energy costs. this encourages private sector investment and will grow jobs. you know, north dakota is a leader in energy development. however, overreaching e.p.a. regulation threaten not only energy producers but consumers as well. the e.p.a.'s efforts to impose a cap and trade tax threatens to increase the price of energy on american families. these higher energy costs will also impact small business threatening them and enabling them and preventing them from growing the economy and creating the jobs. our economy is suffering and heaping more taxes on american families and imposing new regulations will hurt job

creation. it's not what our country needs now to get back on track. i firmly support the energy tax prevention act and want to thank you and i'll yield the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields his time. the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: mr. speaker, for purpose of unanimous consent request i yield to the gentleman from texas, mr. green. mr. green: i ask unanimous consent to place in the record a statement in opposition to h.r. 910. the chair: without objection. mr. waxman: mr. chairman, i now yield two minutes to the gentleman from the state of oregon, mr. blumenauer. the chair: the gentleman from oregon is recognized for two minutes. mr. blumenauer: i appreciate the gentleman's courtesy. i rise in strong opposition to this legislation which makes a mockery of science, public health, international cooperation, the supreme court and congress. the problem with this bill starts with title the, quote, energy tax prevention act. the bill has nothing to do with taxes. i had an amendment to actually prevent the e.p.a. from

imposing an energy tax that the rules committee would not allow. during the rules debate, my colleague, mr. sessions from texas, indicated the committee didn't because my bill -- my amendment was, quote, not germane, because the bill doesn't have anything to do with taxes. welcome to another journey down the legislative rabbit hole. last week the majority pretended that you didn't have to have both chambers of congress to enact a law. this week we have purposely misleading bill titles. the rule, by the way, did wave a point of order of germaneness for a provision added in committee, but the rules committee refused to allow to make in order an amendment that would actually prevent energy taxes. that's because there's no threat that the e.p.a. will impose taxes. instead, the agency's measured reasonable approach to update the clean air act to deal with carbon pollution will reduce

health and economic costs. the tax moniker is not the only falsehood being floated about the e.p.a. supporters have also claimed this bill will prevent rising gas prices. pulitzer prize winning "pol irving tifact" has raised this claim false. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle understand that. they're taken a page from frank lunts approach to policymaking. they don't want to have a fact behaved debate about e.p.a.'s authority to limit carbon pollution. instead, they're working to have poll tested, wildly inaccurate language to attack sound science and undermine confidence in laws that keep us safe. i'd hope my colleagues will join me in rejecting this unfortunate piece of legislation and the tactic that is being used to advance it. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan. mr. upton: thank you, mr. chairman. at this point i'd yield two

minutes to the distinguished chairman of the house ag committee, mr. lucas from oklahoma. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized for two minutes. mr. lucas: i support h.r. 910. mr. moran: than two years we've used the obama environmental protection agency use its authority over the american agriculture community. it should be regulated by the clean air act. during a recent agriculture committee hearing, the e.p.a. administrator said agriculture is currently exempt from the proposed regulations because e.p.a. has targeted only the largest grenhouse gas emitters. this doesn't provide any certainty to our farmers and ranchers, especially since in a recent interview, lisa jackson was quoted as saying that the e.p.a. will begin looking at regulating greenhouse gases from farms as soon as 2013 which counters her own remarks at that hearing. additionally, a mythical exemption doesn't insulate farmers, ranchers and rural businesses from higher energy

and operating costs. they'll face from other industries hit by these regulations. whether it's the fuel in the tractor, the fer lieser for the crops or -- fertilizer for the crops or the delivery to the grocery store, this will hit rural america. i urge my colleagues to join us in passing h.r. 910, the energy tax prevention act and protect agriculture from the e.p.a.'s overreach. this bill will prevent the e.p.a. from running wild across america's farms and subjecting our producers to more burdensome regulation and threaten to put them out of business. rural america has never stopped being a good place to live so it's our job to make sure it's a good place to make a living too. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: mr. chairman, i now yield two minutes to the

gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for two minutes. mr. connolly: thank you, mr. chairman. i thank my friend from california for his leadership. i rise today in opposition to h.r. 910. my friend, mr. blumenauer, made the point that does a deliberate, misleading title to this bill, to somehow allow cynically voters to believe that this is about taxes. and i think and i had an amendment before the rules committee that unfortunately was not accepted how about we be intellectually factual about this? let's clear the air and be honest. that's what this bill is what it's about, not clearing the air but ensuring that it stays polluted. today, sadly, the other side will attempt to pass a bill that allows -- aids of science in order to protect the profits of few favorite corporations. next, we may hear that the claims that the earth indeed is flat.

when congress passed the clean air act in 1970 it directed the environmental protection agency from pollution that would alter weather and climate. 40 years ago. in the last 40 years ago, hundreds of peered reviewed scientific paper says that global warming is caused by humans, is becoming worse, and imposes a threat to our economic and vitality. this makes congress the final ash tore of science. that is a perilous path, mr. speaker, to go down and it repudiates 100 years to correct public health legislation according to science. not since the scope's trial has a division of government weighed such an outlandish assault on science. h.r. 910, republicans aligned themselves with the school board in tennessee and with the pope who excommunicated galileo. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time.

the gentleman from michigan. mr. upton: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for two minutes. mr. goodlatte: i thank the gentleman for the time and for his leadership on this issue and i rise in strong support of this legislation. despite president obama's stating that he would prefer congress to take the lead in determining how to handle greenhouse gases, what do you know, the environmental protection agency has begun their own plan to regulate greenhouse gases. american voters spoke in november, and they clearly rejected the cap and trade agenda that was offered in this congress last year, not taken up in the united states senate. now we're faced with the need to act ourselves. so unless the congress act to stop the e.p.a., this administration and the environmental protection agency will enact their own cap and trade-like agenda. without action, the e.p.a. will add more regulatory red tape on

american businesses and manufacturers, hampering the ability of companies to operate competitively in the united states. these businesses could be forced to move those jobs overseas to locations with fewer regulatory burdens or simply pass these increased costs on to american consumers. either choice is not good for jobs in america. without action, these regulations will be paid by anyone who turns on a light switch or plugs in an appliance. we must stop the e.p.a. from continuing their spree of overregulating our economy. during this economic slowdown we should be adopting policies that seek to rebuild our economy, create more jobs. we should be producing more energy, an all-of the above energy plan that i know the energy and commerce committee is working on to increase domestic production of oil and natural gas and coal and safe

nuclear power and encourage new productions from new sources of energy, but let's make america energy independent. let's not raise the cost of energy and ship jobs overseas and cost millions of american jobs. we should be doing just the opposite. this legislation starts us on that path, and i urge my colleagues to support it. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: mr. chairman, may i inquire how much time is on each side. the chair: the gentleman has 10 minutes remaining. mr. waxman: and the other side? the chair: the gentleman from michigan has 11 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. waxman: how much? the chair: 1 is 1/2 minutes. mr. waxman: we have two? the chair: 10 minutes. mr. waxman: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from michigan. mr. upton: i yield one minute to the gentleman from oklahoma, co-sponsor of the bill, mr. boren. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized for one minute. mr. boren: i rise in support of

h.r. 910, a bill to prevent the e.p.a. from regulating greenhouse gases. by passing this bill, congress will rein in the e.p.a. and save thousands of american jobs. this is a very sensitive issue to me. georgia pacific, a subsidiary of coke industries, is the largest employer in my hometown of muskogee, oklahoma, employing almost 1,000 oklahomans. i'm proud of the work coke industries brings to mike district and its record of environmental stewardship. i want to make sure that georgia pacific employees keep their jobs and that coke can continue to invest in oklahoma. every member of congress understands the delicate balance between creating jobs and preserving the environment. but i ask my colleagues to see that the answer to america's economic and environmental challenges is not a more powerful e.p.a. let's pass the upton bill and put an end to this job-killing

idea. i yield back, mr. speaker. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from california. the gentleman from michigan. mr. upton: thank you, mr. chairman. i'll yield two minutes to the gentleman from minnesota, the former chairman of the house ag committee and now ranking member of that committee, mr. peterson, two minutes. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for two minutes. mr. peterson: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise today in support of h.r. 910, and we recently held a hearing in the agriculture committee with the folks from the e.p.a., and the message and from people from agriculture and the message we heard was pretty clear were agriculture that they believe the e.p.a. needs to be reined in, not only in regard to this bill, but other measures that are being considered within the e.p.a. as well.

what this bill will do is hit a pause button on the e.p.a.'s current regulations of greenhouse gases and that's what people in agriculture think we need. i've traveled all over the country talking to agriculture producers, both in my district and other places, and they're concerned about what they're seeing coming out of this agency, and what really concerns them is the agency doesn't seem to understand agriculture and doesn't seem to want to understand agriculture. these proposed regulations we're seeing from e.p.a. could potentially get in the way of what agriculture producers are already doing when it comes to conservation of our natural resources. american farmers and ranchers rely on these resources to provide the world's food supply and are committed to prose everybody -- preserving them for the next generation. the e.p.a. claims to be

operating in an open and transparent manner but they're sending mixed messages. at a he cent hearing, we were told agriculture is currently exempt from proposed regulations yet reports have quoted the administration since as saying that the e.p.a. will begin looking at regulating greenhouse gases from farms as soon as 2013. if congress opportunity do something about the regulations imposed on our farmers, ranchers and rural communities, it's going to affect everyone in america. we're being asked to feed more and more people not only in this country but around the world this kind of legislation, the effect is going to be to make it harder to do that and also to raise the cost on all of the consumers in this country at a time when that's the last thing we need. so i encourage my colleagues to support h.r. 910 and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from new jersey, mr.

holt. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for one minute. mr. holt: mr. chairman, i thank my colleague from california. four 40 year the clean air act has been successful in reducing emissions in the atmosphere, pollution that kills people. thousands of people are alive today because of the clean air act. none of them know what they are. it might be people in this chamber, some of us. and the success of the clean air bill is due in large part to being enacted and strengthened based on the best science available to find ways to remove the worst pollutants from our air. the legislation before us today appropriately nicknamed the dirty air act would gut the clean air act and prevent e.p.a. scientists from doing their squobs. the clean air act was written wisely to allow the safeguards to grow with the scientific understanding of the dangers

pozzed by various chemicals in the air and with the technological means for controlling those pollutants. carbon pollution, a couple of years ago, was determined by e.p.a. scientists to endanger the health and welfare of the american people. e.p.a. scientists should be allowed to continue their work. air pollution is costly and -- in lives and in dollars. the clean air act is successful. the legislation must be protected. the chair: the secret's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan. mr. upton: may i inquire as to the time remaining on both sides. the chair: the gentleman from michigan has 8 and a half minutes remain, the gentleman from california has nine minutes remaining. the gentleman from california has nine minute the gentleman from michigan has 8 1/2 minutes. mr. waxman: why don't you go ahead. mr. upton: i would yield one minute to the gentlelady from

west virginia, ms. cap tosme the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for -- mrs. capito. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. mrs. capito: i rise in support of the energy tax prevks act, prohibiting the e.p.a. to regulate with taxes. the e.p.a. is intent on taking matters into their own hands, which will result in a bleeding of jobs. if the e.p.a. is allowed to continue to pick winners and losers, we'll be seeing higher prices at the gas pump, higher utility bills and job loss. we should be making it easier, not harder for small businesses to expand and hire. however, the e.p.a.'s assault on fossil fuels will push american jobs overseas. at home in west virginia, the e.p.a. is making it much more expensive to turn on our lights, drive to work and that's not the way to get our economy back on track. this legislation is of particular importance to my

constituents in west virginia. the e.p.a.'s regular lailingses will disproportionately affect our state's economy. west virginia powers the nation. our energy providers provide thousands of good paying jobs and coal alone provides one half of our nation's electricity and over 95% of the power in my state. i urge my colleagues to vote in favor of h.r. 910 to stop the e.p.a.'s regulatory overreach and job killing strategy. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: i yield myself one minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. waxman: i want to clarify some statements that have been made that are inaccurate. there may be members unhappy about e.p.a. regulations as they hear from their constituents but that's in the what's involved in this bill today. this bill would stop e.p.a. from regulating as it relates to carbon emissions. and e.p.a. has undertaken this because of a scientific finding

that carbon emissions are causing a danger to public health and the environment. e.p.a. under the clean air act has a wide range of possible regulations. but e.p.a. has decided that they would restrict their regulations only to new sources or expansion of existing sources of large polluters of 100,000 tons per year and that is all. i yield myself another 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. backman: we heard claims that they're going to come in and regulate where they're not seeking to regulate nor in fact do it. the new sources, 100,000 tovens

pollution, is equivalent to burning a train load of coal per day. we hear people from the coal burning states, they're not threatened unless -- with new sources of that magnitude. the oil companies won't regulated unless they have a new source of that magnitude. maybe they're fearful of other regulation but that's no reason to support this bill. the chair: the gentleman from michigan. mr. upton: i yield one minute to the chairman of the energy and power subcommittee, mr. whitfield. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. whitfield: on this tailoring rule adopted by e.p.a., saying they would regulate only those emitters of 100,000 tons or more per year, that's in direct violation of the language of the clean air act which says they have to regulate anything 150 to -- 150

to 200 tons per year and lawsuits have been filed against the e.p.a. violating the clean air act and there's a strong sense that the tailoring act would be ruled illegal and if it is, as geena mccarthy said, they would have to regulate everything in society, including small farms, small businesses, everyone, they do not have the man power to do that and as she stated, it would take the enforcing agencies alone -- it would cost them $24 billion and that's not including the money that industries and others would have to spend to comply with the new regulations. so this statement that they will not be impacted is certainly not settled. the chair: the gentleman's time is expired. the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: i yield myself one minute. the chair: the gentleman is zed of.

mr. waxman: there's a tested approval of e.p.a. to design regulations to address certain problems. the complaint on the other side is there's a wide-ranging regulation but there's not. there will be an amendment offered by representatives kind and owens to restrict in law that regulation to what the e.p.a. is proposing. i hope the gentleman that spoke just now will vote for that amendment. whether it passes or not, e.p.a. can design its regulation and they are complaining about a regulation that's not being proposed. they don't want even the minimal one the e.p.a. is proposing. if we don't legislate and don't regulate, we're ignoring the problem and we'll make it much, much worse, and costlier to correct later on. the chair: the gentleman from michigan. mr. uptop: i yield one minute to the gentleman from new

hampshire, mr. bass. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. bass: i rise in support of this legislation. for me, this debate is not about whether or not climate change is occurring. it's about preventing -- nor is it about preventing the congressionally directed policies that congress should have to reduce greenhouse gas emotions and -- emissions and allow us to have a low carbon producing economy. i think climate change is real and needs to be addressed with practical collusions with attainable goals. i also believe that the clean air act is true -- has truly benefited our nation and should never be weakened, rather strengthened. agencies should not be able to regulate what has not been legislated. doing so does not solve problems, it creates even more uncertainty as it opens up the agency's rules to countless legal channels and i'm committed to finding a workable solution to achieve clean air, help address global warming and address the economic

competitiveness of the united states in the dwhrobal marketplace. with my friend, congressman matheson of utah, we offered an amendment in markup that's in the bill that states there's established scientific concern over warming of the climate system and congress should fulfill its role. i rise in support of this legislation but i also support a meaningful solution to the carbon crisis. the chair: the gentleman's time is expired. the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: i'm pleased to yield to the democratic whip in the house, mr. hoyer, three minutes. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. hoyer: briefly in response to the gentleman's assertion, the court has said the e.p.a. has this authority. this is not a new authority they're making up. rather than invest in new energy technologies and create clean energy jobs, our friend on the other side are choosing instead to deny the problem and take away america's tools for

responding to it. this bill would overturn auto emission standards that would make our cars and trucks cheaper to drive and breaking our dependence on foreign oil this bill would not do a single thing to bring down the price of gas but would keep america from ceying 1.8 billion barrels of oil other the lifetime of our new cars. we would not have gotten there, frankly, if some of the proponents of this bill who opposed getting to those standards has prevailed. it would do so at a time when the turmoil in the middle east should serb as an energy independence wakeup call. i'm for using all our energy if we can do so in a healthy, safe way this bill, however, would significantly weaken the clean air act other its 40-year span. the benefits of the act, longer live, healthier kids, greater work force productivity and protected ecosystems have outweighed the costs by more than 30-1.

that's a pretty good return, ladies and gentlemen. last year, according to the e.p.a., just one part of the clean air act prevented some 160,000 premature deaths. 130,000 heart attacks. and 100,000 hospital visits. that's a pretty good return on our investment. according to the american medical association, quote, if physicians want evidence of climate change, they may well find it in their own offices. patients are presenting with illnesses that once happened only in warmer areas. chronic conditions are becoming aggravated by more frequent and extended heat waves. allergy and asthma seasons are getting longer. the gentleman says he doesn't doubt global warming, i agree with that conclusion. it's a shame this bill doesn't take that perspective. the republican response is to make pollution easier, frankly. finally, this bill overturns scientific findings that carbon pollution endangers the

environment and human health. which has been confirmed by all of the world's leading scientists. a partisan majority can pass whatever bill it wants, i understand that, but it cannot legislate the facts out of existence. facts that as recently as a few years ago were accepted in both parties. what changed? the science? or the politics? mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to oppose this bill which recklessly endangers our air, our health, our climate and our energy independence and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. upton: mr. chairman, i'd yield one minute to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. murphy, a member of the committee. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. murphy: when we discuss the cap and trade bill, it's like the "seinfeld" show, do you know what george says, do you know what this show is about?

jr.y says, what? george says, nothing. factory b sells their nothing to factory a. they add that cost to the cost of their products. sooner they raise the cost to electricity, they can't make it in america any more. america figured this out long ago and said we're going to see energy go up and jobs and income go down. we don't want it to work this way. we want clean air, clean land and clean water but the way these things are working is not what's going to make it happen. the american people say, don't export our jobs, don't export our factories. don't export our manufacturing and then end up importing emissions from other country. it's a global problem. it's something we have to deal with. but having the e.p.a. do this without working through congress is not the way. let's not continue on down this road of exporting our jobs to other countries. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: continuing to reserve the time.

the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. upton: mr. chairman, if i might just enter with a brief colloquy with my friend, the gentleman from california. each of us has about the same amount of time left. we've allocated our time and presume you have as well. our remaining speakers are someplace meeting, and i'm prepared to close and yield back if you are unless somebody comes to the floor awfully fast. mr. waxman: i find myself in the same position. we're prepared to close and yield back our time unless one of our members show up unexpectedly. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. waxman: mr. chairman and my colleagues, i have before me a letter from the united states environmental protection agency . we ask the very specific questions, and one was whether this would establish a back door cap and trade program. they said, one, e.p.a. has not adopted a cap and trade program to address greenhouse gas emissions.

two, e.p.a. is not considering or evaluating a cap and trade program to address these emissions that are existing under the clean air act authority and they further went on to say they do not anticipate they will do a cap and trade program. none of the five programs that they've adopted is considering adopting to limit harmful pollutions or cap and trade programs. so when we hear members get up and say, oh, they're about to adopt a cap and trade program, because jerry seinfeld's show might lead you to that conclusion, it's not, according to lisa jackson, the head of the e.p.a., their intent. e.p.a. under the law is required to look at the science. once they determine that carbon is a pollution, that causes harm to public health and the environment, they must decide to regulate. they could under their powers fashion the regulation in a modest way which is exactly what they've done.

regulations they have proposed can be met through greater efficiency in these new sources that would emit such large amounts of carbon. that is a reasonable thing to do because it is beneficial for the industries to be more efficient. we've just found over the years under the clean air act when sources of pollution, industries, reduce their pollution they become more efficient and more competitive. that's what will happen as a result of the regulations that are being proposed. let us not tie e.p.a.' hands and say they can't -- e.p.a.'s hands and say they cannot deal with this subject. for those that deny the science i disagree with you, but if you're wrong it will take a long time before any strategy will come into effect to reduce these emissions. buy at least an insurance policy to reduce these

dangerous pollutions so we can avoid some of the terrible consequences of greenhouse gas emissions and the climate change which is already evident in this country and around the world. i urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. vote no. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. upton: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself the balance of the time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. upton: mr. chairman, we followed regular order on this bill. we had plenty of hearings. we issued a discussion draft. we had markups in both full and the subcommittee. we sought bipartisan support. in fact, we received it. mr. peterson, who spoke earlier, the former chairman of the house ag committee, mr. rahall, former chairman of the natural resources committee, are both original co-sponsors. we have different rules than the other body, the senate. they're debating this same issue today, in fact. they've been debating it now for a couple of weeks. and it's interesting to me that

a number of the amendments on the amendment tree in the senate by different democratic sponsors in fact i would say confess that the e.p.a. has run amuck because they, too, though they might not be fully supportive of this legislation, they, too, are supporting a two-year time-out to the e.p.a. to tell them to stop. they're not ready for this. i support it. i voted for the clean air act back in 1990, and i think most of my colleagues then, it was a strong majority that supported that. it allows the e.p.a. to regulate 188 different contaminants. they do that. this bill does not weaken those -- that work by the e.p.a. there was an issue then that the senate, included in their version of the bill, that did regulate greenhouse gases. and when it went to conference with the house, john dingell was then chairman of the conference committee, the house did not accept the senate

language. the senate receded to the house, as the lingo goes, and the clean air act went without regulating greenhouse gases. we had a huge debate in the last congress on cap and trade. speaker pelosi had a 80-vote margin here in the house. cap and trade, yes, it did pass in the house. it passed by seven votes. you switch four votes, it goes the other way. but despite that passage in june of 2009, the senate did not take that legislation up. didn't go through subcommittee, full committee, never got to the senate floor and it died with the conclusion of the 110th congress. what we're saying is that the congress, elected leaders here, should decide what is regulated. we know that from the testimony that we had in committee we may lose as a million and a half jobs. we heard from the refineries. they know it's going to

increase costs because they are going to have additional regulation. they are going to pass those costs on and in fact it will raise the price of gasoline by 20 cents to 50 cents over the next number of years. that's not what we want to see in this country. and what's going to happen? what's going to happen to those jobs? they are going to leave this country and they're not going to come back and they're going to go to other places, let's face it, india and china, neither country has nearly the environmental laws that we have today. we are going to continue to enforce to see the clean air act enforced. this does not weaken that act. we just say we're not ready to regulate greenhouse gases. not when we have an unemployment rate where it is today. michigan, much higher than the national average, knowing that it's going to cost a lot of jobs. so i would urge my colleagues to support this legislation. it tells the e.p.a., no, you're not going to do this. we'll see what happens with the senate as they debate this issue the rest of the day and perhaps into tomorrow, but i would urge all of my colleagues

to support h.r. 910, particularly now as we get into the amendments, and, mr. chairman, i would yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time for general debate has expired. pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule and shall be considered as read. no amendment to the committee amendment is in order except those printed in house report 112-54. each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divide and controlled by the proponent and opponent, shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question. it is now in order to consider amendment number 1 printed in house report 112-54. for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas seek recognition? ms. jackson lee: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in house report 112-54

offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 203, the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from texas. ms. jackson lee: i thank the distinguished chair very much, and i want to thank the ranking member of the full committee for reading a very important letter into the record that the e.p.a. has no intention to manipulate or to utilize cap and trade as particulate of their responsibilities. this is not a cap and trade initiative or legislation. it has nothing to do with cap and trade. in fact, i think the whole concept of this energy tax prevention act is muddled and befuddled. i don't understand it. i practice oil and gas law for almost 15 or 20 years. i come from houston, and i recognize the difficulties that we have in the industry and understanding the industry, but

i also am cognizant that this majority, my good friend on the other side, represents that they are interested in adhering to the constitution. i don't know why they have not studied the supreme court decision in massachusetts vs. e.p.a. that clearly indicates, even though this was a motor vehicle emission that they were talking about, but it held that greenhouse gases widely viewed as contributing to climate change constitute air pollutants. and, therefore, that phrase is utilized under the clean air act and the e.p.a. has jurisdiction to regulate under the clean air act. i assume what we're doing is trying to bash a long-standing process rather than coming up with better ideas. i think my amendment brings about a better idea because energy is a national security issue, and what my amendment poses to do is to ask serious

questions about the impact of eliminating the e.p.a. authority. finding a way to work through this question, what would be the long-term impact? because the legislation that is now written by my friends on the other side of the aisle is telling the united states of america -- let me hold up the constitution, which the majority is basing their whole legislative agenda on. well, we have constitutional authority, and they're now telling us that we should not regulate water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrocals fluro carbon and any other sabs -- hydrofluro carbon and any other substance. and so the amendment that i have that i'm asking for real consideration on the basis of a

natural security question, how will we provide for resources that will provide for the engine economy of this community, of this nation, the long-term impacts of the environmental protection agency having no authority to regulate emissions of greenhouse gases, also, if there are alternatives to ensure compliance with the clean air act, if you have a better alternative and best practices with respect to greenhouse gas regulation under the clean air act, which the supreme court decision clearly dictates that it has the authority to regulate it. but we need to collaborate and cooperate and understand how we balance the needs of an energy policy. might i also say that energy recognizes all forms of energy, and energy companies that are in oil and gas are looking at alternatives. they have whole sections that are addressing the question of alternative fuel. why are we raising a bill that has no sense of direction and what it's trying to do and to eliminate an oversight that is protecting the american public

and the quality of life and also does it speak to how we work with the industry to actually make sure that we check these emissions but as well provide the opportunity for domestic growth and domestic energy growth? so i would reserve the balance of my time, ask my colleagues to support this amendment. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from michigan, for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? mr. upton: mr. chairman, i would yield myself the five minutes -- the chair: does the gentleman rise in opposition? mr. upton: i rise in opposition and ask control of the time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. upton: i just want to say to my friend from texas, with regard to the u.n. cry of folks that support this legislation, not a lot of business folks, i have a whole series of letters of support for our legislation from the american electric power to farm bureau, to the iron and steel institute, americans for tax reform, american public power association, business roundtable, chamber of commerce, metal casters aligns, auto dealers, realtors, manufacturers, national association of mferts,

cattlemen, mining association, petro chemical, rural electric cooperative and on and on and on. i ask unanimous consent that all of these letters be placed in the record, and i yield now to the gentleman from texas -- the chair: the gentleman's request is covered under general leave. the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. barton: i thank the distinguished chairman and i thank the madam speaker for the time. well, let me say something positive about my good friend from houston, texas' amendment before i say something negative. if it were to pass it would at least force the e.p.a. to do a real study which is more than i can say they did before they listed their endangerment finding. if you look at the endangerment finding that they actually did that dissatisfied the requirement of the supreme court, they didn't do any scientific analysis, they didn't do any independent analysis. they basically took reurgegurge tated research and press

clippings and apparently some students' thesis as the justification for coming up with their endangerment finding. if we accept the gentlelady from houston's amendment, you do really gut this bill, which if you're opposed to it that's probably a good outcome but if you're supportive of it that's not a good outcome. we don't need to do a study. co-2 is not a pollutant under the clean air act. it's not harm to feel health. as i speak, i create co-2. you need co-2 for life. manmade co-2 does not significantly contribute to climate change. we do have climate change, as we always have, and always will. but to say that co-2 emissions

somehow are causing all these made -- made by man are causing these catastrophic changes is not true. and what the bill before us does is say, we protect the clean air act, we want to enforce the clean air act, but we want it to be enforced for the criteria pollutants it was intended and we did not believe that co-2 is one of the pollutants it was intended to regulate. so we don't need a study and i would oppose my good friend from houston's amendment and encourage all members to also oppose and i will either reserve or yield back, depending on the chairman's wish. mr. upton: i yield the balance of our time, which is how long? the chair: the gentlelady has 2 3/4 minutes. mr. upton: i yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from california, mr. bilbray. mr. bilbray: i appreciate that.

let's talk science, ladies and gentlemen. everyone wants to talk about the threat of climate change but no one wants to address the fact that what e.p.a. has proposed by the admission of the administrator cannot even indicate what percentage of greenhouse gases those regulations could reduce. not one scientist, not one expert in our committee or i have seen anywhere else has ever said, what is being proposed by e.p.a. that's going to cost at least $200 million, will not avoid the problem of climate change. so the question is this, what are the american people getting for their $200 million. i'm sorry, some of us have worked on air pollution issues. i know the precursors to ozone. if they are saying that the problem is it's a precursor to ozone, believe me, it is so small and minute that these of us working in nonattainment

areas never even gave a second glance at co-2. don't talk about it being a health risk based on it being a precursor to ozone. look at what we're getting for the money. what we're talking about is not allowing e.p.a. to implement a program that the administrator admits she cannot tell us what the american people are going to get. if you want to do a study, let's do a study on what would have to be done to address this issue the way some of us think it should be addressed but let's not say that somehow by holding up a program that is admitted not to be able to deliver any tangible benefits, that holding up that program would be a threat to public health. let's get back down to the real science and that is, no one in this establishment is talking about addressing the climate change issue. some people are saying it doesn't exist and others are

trying to sell and environmental placebo that makes you look good because you're doing something but spends huge amounts of money, has a great impact and does not address the problem. one thing we've got to make clear, don't talk to me about incrementalism when you talk about climate change you talk to the same scientists who talk about climate change they say if we don't get it done in the next decade or two, forget about it. the fact is, climate change will happen and sadly what i've seen the last two years about this issue, this body should be talking about what we should do to mitigate the impact because you're not doing anything to avoid it and we shouldn't tell the american people we are. the chair: the gentlewoman from texas. ms. jackson lee: may i ask the remaining time? the chair: the gentlewoman has one minute remaining. ms. jackson lee: i yield 30 seconds to my good friend.

mr. waxman: i want to point out, mr. barton, when i asked him to work on a bipartisan energy bill policy, he said, i don't believe there is such a thing as global warming, it doesn't exist, why spend money or effort to find a solution. now while the gentlelady's amendment is saying at least study what will happen if you don't do anything. he said that's not necessary. i think we ought to at least know what the gentlelady is suggesting, what's the long-term impact if we do nothing. i support the amendment. ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentleman for his work. i come as a peacemaker, madam chairwoman. houston, by the american lung association, is the seventh most ozone polluted city in the nation. the supreme court clearly said under the clean air act that it authorized the e.p.a. to regulate greenhouse gases if it makes a judgment it impacts on climate change. at the same time, there are industries, oil and gas, that can sit town an benefit from a

real study that will talk about best practices and also have the engagement that we need to have. it is reckless to talk about what scientists have said. the members are not scientists. i believe you cannot rid the e.p.a. of its jurisdiction. i ask my colleagues to be thoughtful along with the industry and let's have a reasonable study this impacts everyone. i ask my colleagues to support my amendment. the chair: all time for the bait has expired. the question son the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the gentlewoman from texas. ms. jackson lee: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from texas will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number two printed in house report 112-54. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? ms. jackson lee: i have an amendment at the desk.

the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in house report 112-54, offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. the chair: pursuant to haas resolution 203, the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from texas. ms. jackson lee: thank you, madam chair. i'm going to take a slightly different perspective and ask my colleagues to support this amendment. again i am hoping, i know there are a lot of letters my good friend from michigan says he has and any time you put forward legislation that trade groups send word out to membership and say, this is going to save you a bucketful of money and you better jump on the bandwagon and there's no alternative or there's no basis of understanding the underpinnings of what we're doing. then you get that kind of phrase. i hope that people who are with

the industry, having practiced the law and seeing some of the mountains that all industries have to climb, i think we can find a reasonable way of functioning. i just want to put in the record that the industry, which is part of the drive of my friends on the other side, the oil and gas industry does generate $9 -- does generate 9,237,000 jobs, $178 billion paid to the government in rent royalties and bonus payments and $95.6 billion in income taxes. $94 billion invested to improve the 1r50eur789al performance of its products and $58.4 billion amount invested in low and zero carbon emission policies. i encourage them to keep going but the way you keep going is not to eliminate the oversight

body but you work with it. in my -- my amendment is very clear. i create a pathway for the industry to be engaged on any rule making. it should provide a notice period of no less than 30 days specifically to the affected greenhouse gas reducers. s that pipeline for the industry. proposed to be regulated, allow industry specific comments to be submitted, separate and apart from the public comment period and to discuss the economic impact of the proposed regulation. provide for an opportunity for the regulated industry to receive a 60-diextension. we should take into consideration the effect of the proposed regulation on greenhouse gas emissions. these companies have employees living in our community. and it is noted that houston the houston area to huntsville, has some of the largest pollutants in the air. the effect of the proposed regulation on energy production, the feasibility of the implementation of regulation on the entities being regulated, the effect on the proposed regulation on the

available of energy to consumers and the adverse environmental effects on delaying implementation, it allows a discussion that may not be at the level that we would like it today. i can't imagine and i guess my friend on the other side of the aisle will come up an show me all the letters he's saying that are supporting legislation that obliterates the opportunity for governmental oversights, i disagree. i want to know whether or not we have had the kinds of discussions that warrant a deliberative process and to bring about an -- a concept of listening to industry and industry listening on the question of air pollute tans. i hold up, and i'd like unanimous consent to submit into the ror, the mayor's task force on the health effects -- the chair: the gentlelady's request is covered by general leave. ms. jackson lee: thank you. it talks about houston. i'm not going to narrow this to houston. wherever there are companies that are refineries as with

they so discussed, we're not trying to undermine that work. but does anybody want to live in china with the air pollutants they have? let me say that what we're addressing is a question of balance. my amendment provides input by the industry and the e.p.a. collaborating on how this will impact going forward. i'd like you to support my amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. does the gentleman from kentucky seek the time in opposition? >> yes, i do. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i yield as much time as he may consume to mr. shimkus, the chairman of the environment and economy subcommittee. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for up to five minutes. mr. shimkus: thank you. i'd like to thank my colleague from kentucky for the time. i appreciate this opportunity to really talk about this. i rise reluctantly to oppose my friend from houston. i know she has a lot of her constituents who work in the fossil fuel industry and the

refining industry and the refineries, but parts of the amendment do some disastrous things to the bill. first of all, it strikes most of the base text. we are here today, and i understand her position of wanting industry to listen, we want e.p.a. to listen. that's the whole -- the whole debate, why we're down here, is we want e.p.a. to listen. and so as we address this debate, her amendment would strike most of the base text and the whole reason why we're here is to get the attention of the e.p.a. an respond to the people who sent us here to not -- do not hurt and harm job creation. my friend, the ranking member waxman and markey, their bill did not pass the legislative process. it didn't get through both chamber, did not get signed by the president, why?

because we understood what would have happened. what we successfully argued the debate that energy costs go up if you price car gone, you raise the cost of electricity. if you price carbon you raise the cost of manufacturing. if you price carbon you raise the cost of gasoline. now, in this recessionnary economy, do we want to do that? and do we want to give the environmental protection agency the sole authority without us doing the process that i think the legislation process allows us to do, to talk about the winners and the losers, the give and take. what was decided in the last congress was, the legislative process could not pass this because it was too controversial and it would affect jobs. it would affect jobs. and this is what we're all concerned about. the last round of clean air acts, which are really, you could really talk about toxic

emitance, cost thousands of jobs in southern illinois, cost thousands of jobs in ohio valley, and again you go back to the basic premise if you price carbon. what my colleague's amendment does is says, let's keep the e.p.a. pricing an emmittant that is not toxic, carbon dioxide is not a toxics emittant. it's not nitrous ox side or a particulate matter, it's not a criteria pollutant under the e.p.a. and clean air act. we're saying, don't regulate emit tants that aren't -- emittants that aren't toxic, don't put a price on carbons that will cost jobs. the base of the other amendment this isn't the only attack on the fossil fuel industry. greenhouse gas is just one rule coming down, then we have

boiler max. we've got merksry mac. we've got cooling towers. coal ash. transport rule. all separate rules and these affect the refinery industry. most of these regulations are new regulations coming down from the e.p.a. to destroy the fozz ill fuel sector that raises costs and destroys jobs. so, my colleagues' amendment, what it does is it doesn't change the reason why we're here. the reason why we're here is saying e.p.a., stop. if it's a good enough policy, you can pass the legislative body. but you know what? it wasn't a good enough policy to pass the democrat-controlled senate. and it wasn't good enough policy to get a bill to the president to sign into law. so why is it a good policy to let unelected bureaucrats in the environmental protection agency move on a process to destroy jobs? let's be held accountable.

if we want to do that, let's cast our votes. we're casting our votes today, is to keep the cost of power low and save jobs, create jobs and grow jobs. if you want job creation, we support the underlying bill. we do not support any amendment that puts off telling the e.p.a. to stop and desist and do no more. again, the basic premise of the climate debate is putting a price on carbon emission that is not toxic. and by putting a price on there you raise the cogs of energy that everybody uses -- the cost of energy that everybody uses. you raise the cost of home heating, automobiles, electricity and the like. thank you. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from texas.

ms. jackson lee: may i ask the remaining time? the chair: the gentlelady has one minute remaining. the time has expired on the other side. ms. jackson lee: can i give my ranking member 15 seconds. mr. waxman: thank you for yielding me. the e.p.a. does not put a price on carbon, the e.p.a. is not setting up a cap and trade program, the e.p.a. is only saying in new facilities with large amounts of carbon emissions, put in firbletsy standards so that you can reduce -- efficiency standards so you can reduce those emissions. that's all. ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentleman. my friend from illinois, have i got an amendment for you. i am answering your concern. and in just a moment, all their team has expired, is that correct? the chair: that is correct. ms. jackson lee: i have an amendment, my amendment says it requires that before finalizing emission regulations on greenhouse gas producers, the e.p.a. must provide the producer with adequate notice of 30 days and allow for industry input,

encouraging collaboration between e.p.a. and energy providers during the process. currently the e.p.a. does not have a minimum time requirement. it also gives another 60-day extension. this is about national security. because air pollutants and then no energy, bad on one side and bad on the other. let's get together. because we can't dismiss any of these energy sources but they need to be better and how can we, since this is supposed to be the supreme court constitution side, how you can dismiss the constitutional right that the e.p.a. has to regulate? i ask my colleagues to support this amendment -- the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentlewoman's time has expired. all time for debate has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. ms. jackson lee: madam chair. the chair: the gentlewoman from texas. ms. jackson lee: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the

gentlewoman from texas will be postponed. it's now in order to consider amendment number 3 printed in house report 112-54. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. mcnerney: madam speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in house report number 112-54 offered by mr. mcnerney of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 203, the gentleman from california, mr. mcnerney, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. mcnerney: madam speaker, i rise to offer an amendment to h.r. 910. let's be crystal clear about two things. the bill we are considering today, which i will call the dirty air act, is an attack on science, it's bad policy that will harm the american people. the world scientific experts overwhelmingly agree that climate change is happening, it's primarily caused by human activities and it has harmful

consequences. however, despite our disagreements about the merits of h.r. 910, i am offering an amendment that i think we can all support. my amendment is proenvironment, proconsumer and probusiness to make sure that our country can continue to administer voluntary programs to reduce pollution and improve public health and address climate change. >> will the gentleman yield? mr. mcnerney: the gentleman yields to the gentleman from michigan for a comment. >> if the gentleman will yield. we're prepared to accept the amendment if we can -- mr. mcnerney: i will accept that. >> we're prepared to accept the amendment. the chair: the amendment is agreed to. does the gentleman from california yield back? mr. mcnerney: the gentleman yields. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment from -- of the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the

ace have it. the amendment is agreed to -- the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 4 printed in house report 112-54. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. cuellar: madam speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in house report 112-54 offered by mr. cuellar of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 203, the gentleman from texas, mr. cuellar, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. cuellar: thank you, madam speaker. i rise today to encourage my colleagues to support my amendment. the intent of my amendment is quite narrow. this amendment makes the underlying legislation a question of authority, not a question of science. the amendment strikes the finding of the language from the particular bill. this ensures that h.r. 910 is only about article 1 of the constitution, given the u.s.

congress -- giving the u.s. congress the right to say whether the e.p.a. can or cannot regulate greenhouse gas. also the amendment preserves the authority of the agency to improve the efficiency of automobiles and light trucks emission which deserves wide spread agreement. while it tends to accept auto standards, it would stop the e.p.a. from improving any car efficiency standards. this does not remove any enforcement power the e.p.a. has previously exercised since the enactsment of the clean air act. at the same time, this amendment does not authorize new regulatory emissions as beyond what the agency has done for decades. for example, the agency is no way authorized to undertake low-carben fuel standards or new emission guidelines or permitting obligations for stationary sources. finally, my amendment refines the definition of h.r. 910 by removing water vapor. this is consistent with the legislation we have considered in the past of what is and isn't

greenhouse gas. water vapor is not a long-term harmful warming cause in short this amendment makes the underlying legislation a question of the e.p.a.'s authority granted under the clean air act. madam speaker, i thank you for the consideration of this amendment, i urge all my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment and i thank you and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? for the time in opposition? >> i do. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. i rise in opposition to my good friend from texas, mr. cuellar,'s amendment. it may be well intentioned but it's very poorly drafted. he may not have intended it but if we were to accept it by allowing the e.p.a. to regulate until under title 2, he would give the e.p.a. authority not only to regulate tail pipe emissions of cars and trucks but also authority to regulate trains, planes and any other mobile source.

mr. barton: i don't know that that was his intent but it's certainly the effect of the amendment. we oppose the amendment for that reason, for the drafting reason. we also oppose the amendment because it's the majority's opinion that we need after 2017 to have one regulator for mobile sources and that regulator is the national transportation safety administration. this amendment would have three regulators, ntsa, e.p.a. and the state of california. we have been very careful in the drafting of the underlying bill to make sure that the existing standards for tail pipe emissions stay in place. this bill doesn't change that. it would prevent e.p.a. from issuing regulations for co-2 emissions for tail pipes, but the underlying bill does not prohibit regulating the various emissions under ntsa and the

state of california for tail pipe emissions that actually affect fuel economy. the only thing even without this bill that the e.p.a. would have the ability to regulate are the emissions out of the cool ant of the air conditioning systems -- coolant out of the air conditioning systems, they have no affect on the fuel economy. we oppose the amendment with that i want to yield the balance of the majority time for his control to mr. olson of texas. the chair: the gentleman from texas, mr. olson, will be recognized for three minutes. mr. olson: i thank the speaker. i thank my colleague, the chairman from the committee. madam speaker, i rise in opposition to this amendment. h.r. 910 was casmey written to provide the -- carefully written to provide the auto industry with better certainty by sthreemline -- streamlining the regulatory process with only one fuel economy standard regulator. ntsa.

from 2017 onward. this amendment would remove that provision by requiring that we continue to have three straight regulators, the e.p.a., ntsa, and california, setting fuel economy standards, this is wasteful and duplicative spenting at a time when government should be more efficient -- spending at a time when government should be more efficient and providing greater certainty for customers. this amendment would allow the e.p.a. to set low-carben fuel standards that would equate -- low-carbon fuel standards that would equate to nothing more than a carb tax at the pump. at -- carbon tax at the pump. this administration has disregarded studies which have concluded that greenhouse gas regulations will increase energy costs and destroy jobs. an a.p. headline today red, quote, -- read, quote, prices hurting the american economy, end quote. these regulations will only force americans to pay more.

furthermore, it is congress, not the e.p.a., that has constitutional authority to decide if or how greenhouse gases should be regulated. my home texas has improved its air quality and increased its energy production even as we're having the largest population growth in america. our legislation allows america to find commonsense solutions that provide an affordable, reliable energy supply for our nation as well as providing much-needed certainty to an unstable job market. i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and support the underlying bill, h.r. 910. i yield the balance of my time to my colleague from kansas, mr. pompeo. the chair: the gentleman from texas. mr. cuellar: thank you. i thank my colleague from houston and the gentleman from dallas, also. just because we drafted this doesn't mean it was poor

drafting, with all due respect. if they have a problem with whether they want to put language in science, that's one thing. my amendment is on the same page of what they're trying to do. my amendment just strikes the findings and what we want to do is that h.r. is only about article 1 of the constitution, giving the u.s. congress the right to say whether e.p.a. -- whether they can or cannot regulate the greenhouse gas. this should not be a question of science. i think this should be a question of authority. we're on the same page but i see that the majority wants to keep the findings and i can understand that, and i just ask, madam chairman, the support of this particular bill and i close at this time. the chair: does the gentleman reserve the balance of his time? mr. cuellar: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan. >> i think we have the right to close. mr. upton: how much time is remaining on each side?

the chair: the gentleman from texas, mr. olson, does have the right to close. and has one minute remaining. and the gentleman from texas, mr. cuellar, has 2 1/2 minutes remaining. so the chair will -- does the gentleman from michigan wish to reserve the time? does the gentleman wish to reserve his time or take the close -- mr. upton: we have the right to close, right? the chair: that is correct. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized for up to 2 1/2 minutes. mr. cuellar: thank you, madam speaker. again, my amendment is just about saying that h.r. should be the article 1 of the constitution, the question is, does congress have the right to regulate or do we let the bureaucrats decide? this is what my amendment does, it just says that we, the members of congress, should decide whether e.p.a. can or

cannot regulate greenhouse gas. again, this is a question of authority and not -- should not be a question of science. with that, madam chair, i close the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan. mr. upton: i urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment and i yield back the balance of our time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offer by the gentleman from texas, mr. cuellar. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number five printed in house report 112-54. for what purpose does the gentleman from connecticut seek recognition? mr. murphy: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number five, printed in house report

112-54, offered by mr. murphy of connecticut. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 203, the gentleman from connecticut, mr. murphy, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from connecticut. mr. murphy: i yield myself such time as i may consume. thank you, madam chair. this amendment is fairly simple. in the underlying bill, the legislation, though i think it very wrongly prevents the e.p.a. from going forward on regulating greenhouse gases, affirms that state-run greenhouse gas firms will not be affected by this. my amendment clarifies that language, keeping in practice long standing tradition whereby the e.p.a. will provide technical assistance for states like mine who have taken action on their own to combat climate change. i think this is a good and

perfecting amendment. unfortunately, it opportunity do enough to allow me to support this legislation. i can't support this legislation because as many have said before, it's an affront and attack on science. 99% of peer-reviewed articles which have supported the idea that the united states needs to do something as 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's pollution. we have 230,000 deaths that have been prevented by the clean air act and the economic benefits outweight e-- outweight the costs of it by a 3-1 margin. even if you set aside the scientific debate, there are dozens of other reasons to be supportive of the united states and the e.p.a. taking a strong role on regulating greenhouse gases. it is an affront to the millions of unemployed workers who are asking for leadership from this congress on developing a new economy in the area of clean energy to deny

the e.p.a. the ability to join other nations around the world in putting a downward pressure on carbon emigs so we can have an upward pressure on a number of new clean energy job this is country can create. even if you set aside that argument, even if you set aside the science and the jobs argument from a national security perspective, we need to go forward with e.p.a. regulations or in the absence we need to pass legislation here in the united states congress. we continue to send abroad american dollars to petro dictators who use it to funnel money to the very people seeking to attack this nation from a national security standpoint work eneed to be moving forward with a greenhouse gas strategy. i'm proposing this amendment, though, because for all of the naysayers, for all the people who talk about doomsday and armageddon if the e.p.a. regulations go into effect, i'd like them to come to connecticut, to come to the 10 states that are part of the

carbon emissions regime in which we have seen what smart regulation of carbon can do. we have set a standard in our system to reduce carbon, and we're doing it through the cab and trade regime many on the other side have talked about for years. the jury is in, the results are in, and we have in the 10 states in the system saved enough energy to equal the cumulative input of 442,000 homes. we saved an immense amount of nrnl i by doing that, what's happened to costs? costs have plummeted. we've seen $744 million for consumers in contract connecticut. why? we decreased demands for emergency. so we have decreased costs. we saved energy and decreased

costs through a system of carbon control, not dissimilar to ones we talked about in this congress, not dissimilar to what we are looking at at the e.p.a. today system of i propose this amendment as a way of simply allowing states to move forward with what i think have been beneficial carbon reduction regimes in the absence of federal control and i think it's a sad day that we're here talking about this today. it used to be the republicans and democrats could at the very least agree on clean air. we could at the very least agree that pollution was an issue which we should address and in fact that's now a subject of disagreement that's a grave statement on how far the republican party has come over the last decade. with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. does the gentleman from louisiana seek time in opposition? >> yes, madam speaker. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes.

>> i yield two and a half minutes to the gentleman from kansas, mr. pompeo. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two and a half minutes. mr. pompeo: i rise in opposition to the murphy reament. he talked about this being a sad day, a day when republicans and democrats condition agree about the importance of environmental safety and clean air, i can't disagree more. those on our side care deeply to make sure we've got clean air an water, safe drinking water. we care deeply about that. it's not a sad day. i've been here in congress for 90 days. yesterday marked three months on station. democrats are talking about, where are the jobs bills? here's one. here's the first of many. if we can begin to peel away the burden and the disaster that are the regulations that e.p.a. is beginning to place on our country, we will once again create an environment where private sector can create jobs, where we can once again create

manufacturing jobs. you know, until january 5 of this year, i was in the manufacturing sector. i was making things in the private sector. i watched as government got in the way and made it expensive, drove up the cost of energy so that our products were not competitive. we are now beginning with h.r. 910 to peel that back, to take on the task of restoring opportunity for americans once again to manufacture here in our country. for those folks who are struggling to begin once again to afford energy for themselves, for their families, and for our small businesses, i oppose the murphy amendment because it guts what we're trying to do in h.r. 910, which is once again put america back on a course that says we're going to have safe air, we're going to have clean drinking water and we're going to do it in a way where the private sector can create jobs, grow our economy an we will not have to have the unemployment rate we have struggled through the last two and a half years. i yield back the balance of my time.

the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from connecticut. mr. murphy: may i inquire how much time i have remaining. the chair: the gentleman has 30 seconds remain, the gentleman from louisiana has three minutes remaining. mr. murphy: i yield myself the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. murphy: i was going to inquire as to how he thinks this amendment guts the underlying legislation. all this amendment does is allow for the e.p.a. to continue working with states on their own systems. so i think the hyperbole has gotten a little out of control from the republican side. this is simply seeking to assist states in the work that they are continuing to do today. it does nothing to gut the underlying legislation, it adds clarifying legislation to allow states to move forward with their own systems of controlling greenhouse gases.

with that, i yield back the balance of our time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from louisiana. mr. boustany: thank you, madam chair. i ask unanimous consent to submit letters of support of our legislation into the record. the chair: the gentleman's question is covered under general leave. mr. boustany: thank you, madam chair. of course, why we're here today is because the e.p.a. continued to push this effort to pass a national energy tax. it was tried through cap and trade over the last year and a half. that bill went through the legislative process and was defeated in a bipartisan way. this is not a republican or democrat issue when we're talking about preventing the e.p.a. from running millions of jobs out of our country. that's literally what's at stake here. believe me, as people look through the letters of support, as we can comb through the days of testimony that we've had on this over the last two years, this concept of the e.p.a. regulating greenhouse gases. madam chair, we're talking about a proposal of the -- by

the e.p.a. that according to the national society of manufacturers would run three million jobs out of our country. now, we should all be here working feverishly to create jobs. in fact, our legislation, the national energy tax prevention act will create jobs because it will remove the uncertainty that exists today -- mr. scalise: where so many employers are scared to death of the threat of regulation coming over. congress rejected their proposal for the national energy tax through cap and trade in a bipartisan way. then they've come forward with a proposal. the chair: the gentleman from louisiana yields to the gentleman from california. >> parliamentary inquiry. mr. scalise: i don't think that comes out of my time. the chair: the gentleman from louisiana has to yield for the inquiry. mr. scalise: i yile for the parliamentary incarery.

mr. waxman: is the debate only on the pending agreement -- amendment or on the larger bill. mr. scalise: i am talking about the amendment, i've got to finish a thought first before we talk specifically about the amendment, but first of all, if you look at what happened on legislation, they tried legislation, the legislation failed. bipartisan vote defeated that legislation. the they came back with regulation. so this proposed regulation is being addressed by our bill, the underlying bill. what this amendment does and the amendment by the gentleman from connecticut proposes to create a loophole to continue to allow e.p.a. to get their nose back under that tent to regulate greenhouse gases. and you can just look at the language to see, it allows that loophole that we're trying to close because first of all, congress has said in a bipartisan fashion, madam

chair, congress has said we don't want the e.p.a. imposing the national energy tax that cap and trade would propose. we don't want millions of jobs leaving our country. then they said, we'll do it through regulation a de facto cap and trade energy tax because they couldn't get it passed through congress. anyone who has taken civics knows you're supposed to go through the legislative process to change policy. if this bill passes the house, our underlying bill they won't be able to go through regulation but the gentleman's amendment would say there would be a loophole. there would be a loophole ep though congress said no, you don't have the authority to do that, you can't run these the jobs to places like china where they have no environmental controls that we have today that are dramatically better than what they have in china and india and other countries that would be happy to taking the millions of american jobs that would flee this country if they could get away with it. we have to reject this amendment and take that loophole away. don't give them that loophole

to continue to regulate it through that detack foe cap and trade. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. scalise: i ask that we pass the -- i yield back. the chair: in response to the gentleman's parliamentary inquiry, debate must be confined to the question under debate. mr. backman: madam chair. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: i ask unanimous consent that we expand this debate two minutes on each side on this particular amendment. the chair: is there objection? >> is that one and one? mr. waxman: two minutes each. >> let's do one and one. we can accept one and one.

let's do one and one. i ask unanimous consent that the minority and majority each have one minute to continue debate. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: if i reserve the right to object, i get to speak what would be the equivalent of that extra minute, i plead to give an additional minute to each side because i think there's an important issue that is being ignored in this particular amendment. and each side may not need to take up the two minutes. mr. upton: i prefer that we just do one and one and end it there on this amendment. i can't. one and one. i ask unanimous consent that each side have one minute on this amendment. mr. waxman: ski unanimous consent that each side have one and a half minutes. the chair: is there objection.

mr. waxman: we accept your unanimous consent request. mr. upton: one and one. the chair: is there objection to the gentleman from michigan's request for one minute for each side? is there objection? hearing no objection, each side will be allotted an extra minute . who seeks recognition? the gentleman from connecticut. >> i yield to the gentleman from california, our time. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. mr. waxman: i thank the majority for the gracious innocence allowing a clarification. this amendment simply says, all that you suggested in your bill would become law if it were passed with the exception that we would continue to allow e.p.a. to give technical information to the states. it does not replace the other restrictions on e.p.a. it only allows them to give technical information to the states which they do already, without regulating greenhouse

gases, under the united states framework convention on climate change, which was ratified by the senate in 1992 after submittal by president bush and because of this international agreement, we tried to keep track of what's going on and the states should be able to talk to each -- e.p.a. and get expert advice from the e.p.a. unless you think the states should not be allowed to do anything on their own, which would be something beyond the scope of this amendment. so i would urge my colleagues who support their bill not to be against this amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from louisiana. mr. scalise: i appreciate the gentleman's offer from california, but i cannot adhere to a united nations framework, i cannot adhere to the ability for e.p.a. to continue to keep their nose under the tent, to provide whether it's called technical assistance, whether they try to continue to push things, because e.p.a. does interact with states

on other issues, and i surely would not want to see some kind of situation where e.p.a. is going to try to hold something else over a state's head and use this threat because they really do want to regulate greenhouse gases and impose an energy tax. and so i think we've debated it very thoroughly. i understand your position, i respect the gentleman from connecticut's position. i just don't agree with it. i think we need to preserve american jobs. let the state does what they already do such a good job at, but tell the e.p.a. no means no theafpblet got their own roll to play and it's not regulating greenhouse gases and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the question son the amendment offered by the gentleman from connecticut. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the gentleman from connecticut. mr. murphy: on that i request the yeas and nays. the chair: pursuant to -- does the gentleman ask for a recorded vote. murphy murphy i ask for a

recorded vote. the chair: further proceedings on this amendment offered by the gentleman from connecticut will be postponed. it's now in order to consider amendment number 6 printed in house report 112-54. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. waxman: madam chair, i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 6 printed in house report 112-54. offered by mr. waxman of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 203, the gentleman from california, mr. waxman, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: i rise to offer, madam chair, i rise to offer an amendment with my colleagues, representative degette and inslee, that recognizes the scientific reality of climate change. all amendments -- our amendment states that congress accepts e.p.a.'s scientific finding that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities and poses significant risks for public health and welfare.

this simple recognition is far from enough, but it is crucialy important. as long as congress pretends that climate change isn't occurring, we can justify not addressing it. last month the eminent scientific journal "nature" wrote an editorial entitled, quote, into ignorance, end quote. and i want to read from this editorial. republicans on the energy and commerce committee have made clear their disdain for climate science. at a subcommittee hearing, misinformation was presented as fact, truth was twisted and nobody showed any inclination to listen to scientists. there's been an embarrassing display not just for the republican party but also for congress and the u.s. citizens it represents. end quote. the u.s. congress has entered the intellectual wilderness. this amendment is a step out of that wilderness. it says we accept the scientific

finding of e.p.a., that the best scientists in our country and around the world, that climate change is a serious threat to our health and welfare. and it recognizes that while we have the power to change the laws of our nation, we cannot rewrite the laws of nature. it maybe difficult for us to agree on a solution -- it may be difficult for to us agree on a solution to climate change but we should at least be able to agree that it is a real problem and one we need to address. i hope my colleagues will support this amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from wisconsin seek the time in opposition? >> i do. the chair: the gentleman's recognized for five minutes. >> madam chairman, i yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from illinois, mr. dold. the chair: the gentleman voiced for a minute and a half. mr. dold: thank you. i believe in science. i also know that the earth has been warming for some time.

in fact, the underlying bill in h.r. 910 concludes by acknowledging there is scientific concern over the warming of the climate system, that addressing the climate change is an international issue. i believe that human activity is also playing a role. the question is how big a role? this amendment would have congress adopt intentionally vegas language on human involvement -- vague language only human involvement and the risk of climate change without addressing the size and scope of human behavior and the risk to the environment. i believe we must reduce our dependence on foreign oil and expand research and development of clean energy sources and ensure that future generations of americans have a clean and healthy environment. but i do not believe in the notion that the waxman amendment puts forward that states that congress should shal only accept the scientific findings of the e.p.a. we should encourage open, transparent scientific studies, not limit our scientific findings to one government agency.

we must work together in a bipartisan manner to promote clean energy and encourage greater energy efficiencies, to guarantee that our children and grandchildren have a cleaner environment than we have today. i urge a no vote to this amendment. and yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: madam chair, i yield a minute to the gentleman from washington, mr. inslee. the chair: the gentleman from washington is recognized for one minute. mr. inslee: i appreciate my republican colleague's statement but the clear fact of this bill is if it passes, what does it do? it basically says that sir isaac newton, albert einstein and thomas edison didn't know what they were talking about. because this bill in rather clear form caters to a narrow sector of a narrow political interest to ignore clear science and there is no way you can get around this or sweet talk your way around this clear rejection of science. now, this isn't just us. who has said this statement that

we seek to put in this bill is correct? only the national academy of sciences, noaaa, the department of defense -- noaa, the department of defense, the centers for disease control, the american immediatelogical society, the geological society of america, the american association for the advancement of science, the american institute of physics and the american chemical society, but one side of the aisle thinks that the tea party has greater scientific credibility and that's who you're catering to when you refuse to adopt this amendment. let's have a bipartisan statement of the problem so we can have a bipartisan statement of the solution. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. sensenbrenner: i'm the only speaker left and i believe that i have the right to close. so the gentleman from california can use the remainder of his time. the chair: the gentleman from california has the right to close. the gentleman from wisconsin has 3 1/2 minutes remaining and the gentleman from california has -- sense seasons how many speakers

does the gentleman from -- sense seasons how many speakers does -- mr. sensenbrenner: how many speakers does the gentleman from california have? mr. waxman: one or two. mr. sensenbrenner: the gentleman has two speakers. can have his other speaker speak and then i can close on this side? the chair: if the gentleman from california wishes to -- does not wish to continue -- mr. waxman: may i quine -- inquire how time each side has? the chair: the gentleman has two minutes remaining. mr. waxman: at this time i yield -- at this time i would tell the gentleman from wisconsin that we will have one more speaker to close the debate. mr. sensenbrenner: madam speaker, i yield myself the balance of the time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 3 1/2 minutes. mr. sensenbrenner: madam speaker, this is an amendment that attempts to reverse the entire thrust of this legislation. and in effect it gives a proxy to the e.p.a. to make determinations that will have

vast impact on our economy, without going through the usually legislative process -- usual legislative process. this is our job to make a determination on whether the clean air act is the proper vehicle to deal with issues related to greenhouse gases. this is not a debate on the underlying science of climate change. i think that has to be made clear. but if we do want to talk about the e.p.a.'s ability to mitigate climate change, let's focus on their own projections. e.p.a.'s analysis of the car rule states that it will only result in a 1/100th of a degree of lowering of the earth's average temperature by the year 2100. administrator jackson certificate heff stated that e.p.a. -- herself stated that e.p.a. regulation will not ultimately be able to change the amount of co-2 that is accumulating in the atmosphere if other nations do not agree also to limit emissions.

and aren't and they won't. so regardless of whether or not congress issues a scientific finding based upon a 10-minute amendment debate, we're faced with the indisputable fact that e.p.a. greenhouse gas regulations will lead to billions upon billions of dollars, leaving our economy with absolutely zero environmental benefit. this amendment flunks the cost-benefit analysis. it ought to be rejected. we're here today about protecting the economy, job creation and stopping energy prices from skyrocketing. that's what will happen if this amendment is adopted, it should be rejected in the name of jobs and a healthy economy. the chair: does the gentleman yield back? mr. sensenbrenner: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: to close the debate on our side, i recognize my colleague who is a co-sponsor of this legislation, along with myself and mr. inslee, ms. degette from the state of

colorado. the chair: the gentlewoman from colorado is recognized for two minutes. ms. degette: thank you, madam chair, and thank you to the ranking member for allowing me to close. this amendment gives members of the house what should be a very simple choice. recognize the overwhelming science or vote to deny the overwhelming science. last month -- or we in congress can certainly change the laws of this country, but last i heard, we cannot change the laws of nature. there is no serious disagreement on the science of climate change. in fact, the findings have been confirmed by all leading scientific academies around the world. the national academy of sciences last year issued a series of comprehensive reports that are unambiguous. it says, for example, quote, climate change is occurring, it is caused largely by human activities and in many cases it is already affecting a broad range of human and natural systems. and even a team of scientists

from uc-berkley who were told to try to disprove global climate change just reported last week to a congressional committee that in fact global climate change is occurring. this is simple. this is clear. h.r. 910 represents an effort to deny and run away from science and from reality. it ignores one of the chief drivers behind our need for a clean and modernized energy policy, massive and growing human consumption of carbon-based fuels. last congress and again today i chose to be on the side of those who acted to address a climate disaster and put into place a framework for an energy policy which this country so painfully goes without and so little can afford. i urge my colleagues to do the same, vote yes on this amendment, vote no on the underlying bill and stand with