overall, waxman-markey reduces gross domestic product by $393 billion annually between 2012, and 2005, cumulatively by $9.4 trillion. and with waxman-markey rather than without it, these costs are utt distributed evenly, low-income households spend an additional share of their incomes on energy and this would verait harder than average by waxman-markey. the bill has provisions to give back the revenue to low-income households but in my view it is likely these rebates will amount to only some portion of each dollar that was taken away from households in the first place in the form of higher energy costs and higher costs of other goods snd services. waxman-markey disproportionately burdens those states especially at the midwest and south and cturl have a substantial number of manufacturing jobs as well as those that rely more heavily than others on coal for electric generation. in addition, because the bill raises energy costs, it hurts rural america more than urban america, farmers spend 50% more on energy than the percentage of income than their urban counterparts and the cost would g

i believe that waxman-markey is irreversible policy. and so i'm here speaking against it for two big reasons. one is, they're wrong on the science. and i'm happy to debate them. and the other reason is they're really, really wrong on the economics. when you have secretary of agriculture that testifies before the ag committee that somehow he believes that increasing the cost to agriculture will result in more profits for agriculture because the innovative nature of american agriculture will overcome the handicaps that government is putting on them, that is an irrational degree of optimism to be stated by a secretary of agriculture, who finds himself at odds with democrats and republicans on the ag committee. there is no economic model that i know of throughout the history of the free market system that would dictate that would ensure a result that if you increase the cost to any business or a sector of the business world, that you're going to see profits go up. they will go down. and this

in his testimony, he made clear his position that the trading mechanism in the waxman-markey bill, will impose huge costs on customers. the costs will come in two ways: first, to pay for emission allowances which will not reduce greenhouse gas emission and then for the construction of low- and zero-carbon power planted to reduce emissions so in those two ways customers pay. he indicated mid-america's customers would see an increase in electricity rates of somewheres between 12% at the low end and 28% at the high end under this climate bill now before the other body. it appears that chairman markey did not appreciate the criticism leveled at his bill by mr. solkal. during the hearing, a letter was sent by chairman markey's office to the federal energy regulatory commission requesting information about mid-america's investments and other activities since the 2005 repeal of the public utilities holding company act, short term is pucha. and they requested a reply from ferc within two days. "in order to better inform the subcommittee deliberations on this matter." but the 2005 repeal of puch

professor did a study and calculated the overall dollars by waxman-markey and divided the number of house holds into it and the bottom line, increased average annual household costs for energy, $3,128 from waxman-markey's cap and tax bill. for every $5 collected for this cap and tax bill, only $1 goes into the treasury and the balance is consumed by the inefficiencies created. . this is an insidious tax, it will tax every glan of gas, every gallon of diesel fuel, every cup of coffee, every pair of shoes, every piece of paper, every flower on mother's day, and every two by four that goes into your house. and it transfers, madam speaker, america's industry, america's energy intensive industry off to other countries in the world like india and china, who have pledged not to participate in a cap and tax plan because they say this is their century to become industrialized nations. last century or two were our centuries to be industrialized. they say this is theirs. they're building between india and china one new coal-fired generating plant a week, belching smoke into the atmosphere, and these

waxman-markey hurts domestic products. we, too, were promised an explosion of green jobs a few years ago. instead, california's unemployment rate has skyrocketed to one of the highest in the country. i believe that if this bill becomes law history guarantees you two things. number one, the planet will continue to warm and to cool as it's been doing for billions of years. and, two, congress will have just delivered a staggering blow to our nation's economy just at the time when it's most vulnerable. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. markey: we would like to reserve at this time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts reserves his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. barton: i have another parliamentary inquiry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry. mr. barton: is there a rule of the house that requires a copy of the pending legislation to be present in or near the body? the speaker pro te

the waxman-markey bill is all had the and no cattle. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from nevada rise? the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. titus: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in support of efforts to spur investment a in clean energy and energy efficiency technology that will create clean energy jobs back home in nevada and across our country. investments in clean energy technologies like solar, wind, geothermal, smart grid, and advanced batteries will help the united states regain its competitive edge in a global green economy, reduce our reliance on foreign oil, and improve our energy security. clean energy jobs like manufacturing solar panels and windmills are jobs that can stay right here at home in the united states. but the united states is currently losing the clean energy jobs and market share to countries like china, germany, and korea. a thriving clean energy economy will ensure that the united states creates the sustainable manufacturing base that will compete with the rest o

for the purposes of the discussion, this is the waxman- markey bill. recognizing the cost to the nation, to the consumer from legislation such as this, and establishing a cap and trade regime as they have proposed, i am not convinced that our economy right now is strong enough to take this on. i am not convinced that families who are losing their homes, losing their jobs, what cause they may have to pay their, i do not believe that they are looking at this and are saying, "by golly, what this country needs is a cap and trade program that is going to mate -- make this country a better place." -- what cost they may have to pay for. if he were to take a cap and trade puiecpieciece and put it h an energy bill at a time like now when you have a weak economy, i think that is a mistake. i do not think that we should be advancing the climate change bill with our energy peaciece. >> i am what bloomberg news. >> this was a cap and trade plan -- i am with bloomberg news. this was a cap and trade plan. if the waxman-markey had looked more like that, would you have

if waxman markey were amended to look more like that which you support a cap-and-trade bill and therefore would you be more open to including it with your energy legislation? >> well, as you point out, i have supported a legislation that would put a system in pla place. and i did so because of the escape valve, if you will, the safeties that are there. recognizing that there will be an expense associated with a cap-and-trade bill you, if you're a business, if you're an industry, if you're a consumer but you know -- you kind of know the parameters of how bad it could be, as a business, you factor that into your business plan. but when you don't know how bad it's going to be, when there is this uncertainty and, you know, we're talking about these tradable credits and we don't really know how that's going to work. we don't know who the winners are going to be or who the losers are going to be, but you have this sinking feeling that you're going to be one of the lugers. that's not the approach that i was willing to take. i took kind of a bold step out three years ago when i signed on to a bil

this week we are scheduled to consider the waxman-markey cap and tax scheme that will cap our growth and tax all of us. in 2005, theure peaians implemented the emissions trading scheme or e.t.s. it has increased household energy cost by 16%, and industrial energy cost by 32% in just four years. with no measurable effect on greenhouse gases. the heritage foundation projects waxman-markey impact on america will be a 74% increase in electric prices, a 90% increase in energy prices, and at least $ -- 850,000 jobs lost every year. the energy bill for the average american household will go up over $3,000. that's exactly what the authors want. president obama recently stated in the only cap and tax scheme that it will work in this way. he's quoted as saying it has to have higher energy costs. they have to quote-unquote, skyrocket. i urge my colleagues to reject this bill that is all economic pain and no environmental gain and instead join me for supporting the american energy act that promotes and develops domestic energy source, encourages conservation, and advances renewable technologies

the american people, this cap and tax, tax and cap as i call it, cap and trade legislation, the waxman-markey bill. it's going to be disastrous for the american economy. it's going to be disastrous for american workers, and it's going to be disastrous for the poor and those who are limited incomes. why do i say that? well, i say that because every single person in this country utilizes energy. every single person when they flip on their light switch, their electric bill's going up. every single person in this country is dependent upon gasoline and diesel fuel. why? even if they use public transportation, it's gasoline and diesel fuel that motivates america. but it's more than that. groceries don't grow in the grocery store. grocery prices are going to go up marketedly because of this tax and cap legislation. every single good and service in this country is going to go up because of this tax and cap legislation. now, i'm a conservationist. i followed in the conservation movement for a long time. we have to be good stewards of our environment and there's no question. i want clean air and clean

what we saw in our model is that high energy costs reverberates under the economy and under the waxman-markey bill will be $9.4 trillion poorer in 2035 as a result of this bill. my concern with cap-and-trade is that many proponents of it don't even seem to believe in their own product. the whole theme, the whole purpose of cap-and-trade is to send a market signal but obviously if independent of that there are regulatory and legal restrictions on nuclear power, that's not a market signal. and conversely as we've heard with natural gas and the study from the colorado school of mines that finds we have much more natural gas than we -- than we thought, if that natural gas can't be accessed, that's not going to happen any way regardless of the market signal that sent that might encourage natural gas or nuclear power. it's absolutely vital that we make these energy sources available and that means streamlining or eliminating the regulatory barriers to any source of energy. >> senator alexander? >> thank you, senator bennett. this has been very, very helpful and i thank the four of you for your comm

the waxman-markey bill is the latest incarnation of the costly cap-and-trade legislation that will have a devastating impact on the economy, cost american jobs by pushing them overseas and drastically increase the size and scope of the federal government. here in the senate, we have successfully defeated cap-and-trade legislation in the years that i mentioned. four different times it's been on the floor. i can remember in 2005, i was the lead opposition to it. republicans were in the majority at that time. it had five days on the senate floor, ten hours a day, 50 hours. it was the mccain-lieberman bill at that time. and it was defeated then and by larger margins ever since then. just a year later with the economy in a deep recession, it's hard to believe that many more senators would dare vote in favor legislation that would not only increase the price of gas at the pump, create a huge new bureaucracy and raise taxes by record numbers. that's just not going to happen. i appreciate that my democratic colleagues desperately want to pass this bill. they argue that cap-and-trade is necessar

baldwin: the waxman-markey energy and security act has responses of epic proportions. global climate change must be addressed in a reel, meaningful -- in a real, meaningful manner. global gas emissions have put our security and our social structure at risk. if we fail to act that failure will reverberate throughout the century with a loss of human lives, destruction of ecosystems, declines in health and increased social conflict. climate change is a unique challenge in that our greatest obligation in tackling this threat is to the generations of americans and people throughout the world who haven't even been born yet. the ones who will inhabit this planet long after we're all gone. the legislation we have before us addresses global climate change while spurring innovation, creating clean energy jobs, and containing costs. it brings what we need in terms of leadership and kit commithment as we look forward copenhagen and beyond. it recognizes that our nation's security, our planet's sustainability, and our children's future hang in the balance. i urge my colleagues to s

the waxman-markey bill promises to destroy our standard of living and quality of life with higher energy costs, higher food prices and loss of jobs. the bill is the single largest economic threat to our farmers and ranchers in decades. we have more than 115 agricultural and food groups who have publicly opposed this bill as of today. madam speaker, i'd ask that the list be entered into the record at the appropriate place. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. lucas: do you know why? the greatest threat to agricultural producers is ignored. under h.r. 2452 input costs will escalate as a direct result of the energy tax. markets will shrink because foreign competitors whose government will not place burdens on their farmers, they will be able to undersell us. but what about the billions of dollars that farmers are supposed to garner due to offset credits? many farmers will not be able to participate. if the producers started soil tillage practices before 2001, they'll be ineligible to participate. the amendment does not exempt agriculture from performance standards in

i must begin by thanking chairman waxman and chairman markey for their hardworking staffs and for all the work they've done to improve this bill as it made its way through the legislative process and onto the floor today. with the chairman's help, we were able to strengthen this legislation by not only protecting low, moderate and middle income families from rising energy costs, but also providing real assistance for communities like the one i represent for new career pathways to move out poverty and into quality career oriented jobs in construction and energy-related fields. some of these provisions that we were able to get in the bill are the low-income allowances, 60% of all the total allowances go to low-income people. local -- targeted hiring for middle class careers in construction. low-income community energy efficiency programs. this low energy income efficient program will provide loans, assistance and grants to community organizations to provide financing to minority entrepreneurs. can i have an additional 30 seconds? mr. waxman: i yield the gentleman an additional 30 second

there were only minor mention of transmission in the waxman markey climate bill. weeks after the bill has been passed, we are having our first really big transmission hearing. we do have a long and distinguished panel today. i like to thank all of our witnesses for joining us. we would like to give special recognition to two companies. i would hope that we can all work together on this issue as a move forward. this committing past limited without any consideration to the question of getting renewable electricity to population centers. the strongest winds are concentrated in low population areas. the strongest exposures by the sun are found in low populations as well. there are areas of high population that are inadequate high-voltage. if we are going to be serious about our power, we have to revamp the grid. to properly do so, we will have to block the losses from environmental groups that have increased costs and blotched -- blocked much. let us put it in perspective. it costs $60 billion. in new transmission lines to reach the 20% mark for wind power. the lofty

though billed as cap and trade, in reality, waxman-markey is a cap and tax bill. instead of levying a tax, it disguises the tax as a carbon allowance auction that requires refinesers and others to pay a tax. it goes far beyond the price and our ability to turn on the rightlights in rural america. kansans who must already travel great distances to work and school and to receive medical care will pay disproportionately compared to those who have shorter distances to travel and can use public transportation. many hoped that rural america would be made whole under in bill, but this is clearly not the case. agriculture is not mentioned once in the section that defines offsets. instead, h.r. 2454 directs the e.p.a. to define the world of caon offsets this will lead to few benefits for farmers and ranchers and will allow e.p.a. to further intrude on our farms. e.p.a. has made harmful decisions that failed the test of common sense. unless agriculture offsets are express dihi defined, farmers will never see benefits from this legislation. even if those offsets are defined

. >> one of the things that we're really trying to accomplish, obviously, in the waxman-markey bill isto generate renewable electricity and renewable energy jobs generally in all 50 states. so, mr. izzo has a plan to, along with many other people in new jersey to generate, you know, new renewable energy jobs that help with the employment in his company but in the state of new jersey as well. and we don't want to invoke the law of unintended consequences here and have a great revolution, have a standard that's imposed on new jersey and then not have the jobs created in new jersey, especially if they have the richest renewable energy resource right off their shore. mr. english >> mr. chairman, i think you make a good point. but i also suggest one other thing. that it might make more sense in light of the objective of the legislation, in like of the fact that we're entering into a little different world than we have in the past that really what we're trying to do here is maximize the amount of renewable energy that we get produced all over this country. now, the fact of whether it's produ

. >> one of the things that we are trying to accomplish obviously in the waxman-markey bill is to generate renewable electricity and renewable energy jobs generally in all 50 states. so mr. izzo had the plan. along with many other people in new jersey, to generate new renewable energy jobs that help with the employment in his company but in the state of new jersey as well. and, we don't want to invoke the law of unintended consequences and have the standard imposed upon the jersey and not have the jobs created in new jersey especially if they have the richest renewable energy resources to write off their shore. mr. anguish. >> mr. chairman, i think you make a good point but i would also suggest one other things, that it might make more sense in light of the objective of the legislation and it led to the fact we are entering into a little different world than we have in the past that really what we are trying to do here is maximize the amount of renewable energy that we get reduced all over the country. in fact, whether it is produced in one state for is is another state, as long as it is t

want to say something about climate change and the issues that it opens up, there is already the waxman-markeybill which has been passed through the house. we wait and see what happens in the senate. and then there is also the issue of copenhagen, the national level you have got the markey bill would appropriate as the provision which actually requires the u.s. president to impose tariffs on the countries that do not have the cap and trade provisions all the kind that likes the markey bill actually puts in place. if not my own reading is that, it most certainly is inconsistent. and it is going to be challenged if the u.s. -- the president himself has been advised, he certainly has good advisors out there so he issued a statement yesterday that he was not very pleased about this particular provision or so at least you know, he is on the right side of it but nevertheless there is a requirement in the bill that the president must do that. and if it does happen, it is almost certain to be challenged in the wto. and even, in the countries like china and india were to lose on that, you can be sure t

pennsylvania public utility commission said in a memo to members of his delegation that, however, if the waxman-markey bill would pass pennsylvania is looking at a bleak scenario by 2020. a net loss of as many as 66,000 jobs, a sizeable hike in electricity bills of residential customers and increase in natural gas prices. you don't want to believe the public utility commission, just believe john dingell, chairman emeritus. he's quoted here as saying, nobody in this country realizes that cap and trade is a tax. and it's a big one. and if you don't believe that, just listen to the comments made by now president obama in january of 2008. under my plan of cap and trade system, electricity costs would necessarily skyrocket. now, in an economy like we have today, the last thing you want to do is affect jobs and coss the loss of jobs, either by -- cause the loss of jobs, either by moving fossil fuels or by raising electricity rates. i always bring this poster to the floor. these are miners that lost their jobs in the last iteration of the clean air act. this one mine had 1,200 miners. after the passage of th

if the waxman-markey bill is passed, it will have a net loss of 66,000 jobs, a sizeable hike of elect trick bills, an increase of natural gas prices and significant downward pressure on the state gross product. the cost estimates are staggering. pennsylvania public utility commission, i urge my colleagues to reject this national energy tax. the industrial and agricultural heartland states of america will pay, will pay big. and it's time that we reject this tax. i thank the speaker and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman from missouri seek recognition? mr. skelton: mr. speaker, at this time i ask unanimous consent that during consideration of h.r. 2647, pursuant to house resolution 572, debate on amendments 3 and 9 each be extended to 20 minutes and that amendment number 2 be modified in the form that is now placed at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the modification. the clerk: the amendment is modified to read as follows. at the end of subtitle e of page 10, after line 2, insert the following new section. section 1055, sense of congress h

hibbard and others talk about what the impact would be of the waxman-markey bill on the marketplace. the signal will be sent to move away from carbon-producing electrical generation. there'll be a national renewable electricity standard as a result encompassing several states and he said it will force states because of these national goals to reach accommodation on these new lines. and that the federal government is actually going to be less needed in the future. perhaps with the exception of the federal lands issue. to resolve these issues. what is your response to that in terms of the -- because we are trying to create a market-based response and i'll just give you an analogy and perhaps -- or an analogous situation and perhaps you can reflect upon it. an analogous situation and perhaps you can reflect upon it. after we passed the 1996

hibbard and others talk about the impact would be of the waxman-markey bill, it would be sense to move away from carbon producing electrical generation. there would be national renewable electricity standard now as the result encompassing an additional 20 states and he largely believes that is going to force states on a regional basis because of these national goals were to reach accommodation on these lines and the federal government is actually going to be less needed in the future perhaps with exception of the federal lands issue to resolve these issues. what is your response to that because we are trying to create a market based response and i will just give you an analogy or analogous situation perhaps you could reflect upon. after we passed the 1996 telecommunications act, all of a sudden there was an explosion of broadband appointment across the country. telephone companies, cable companies, people telling it isn't cost-effective to be deploying fiber optic or you know, broadband technology we are now on a mad race to do so because there's new -- a federal law placing a premium

like this administration is -- and the majority in this congress is determined to push through a waxman-markey bill or some version of it, probably the version that came out of committee here a few weeks ago. and have taken this position and i hold it that they're wrong on the science and economics. i want to address the science in a fairly short degree here. and it turns out to be this. remember our history. this issue was brought before this congress, i think the year was 1988, although i haven't referenced that. that's strictly from memory. when there was a hearing on global warming. and the lead witness on that was dr. james hanson. he and i went to the same high school together. he was ahead of me and i don't recall him. but the testimony was mid-summer. the room was not air conditioned. the humidity matched the temperature. and as members sweated, they were being told this world was going to get warm and all kinds of things were going to take place. 1988, that was a few years after all we had the interest in the ice age. there was a coming ice age that was published in some of the major

more sophisticated about how we work for the democrats in congress and one is the energy back -- waxman markey bill, excellent efforts. we lost a lot and the committee process. there are some flaws with this bill that we hope to strengthen through the floor process but one of the lessons that we learn in this is chairman henry waxman who is arguably one of the most passionate advocates of a clean energy economy was also the chief negotiator on the spell. hard to be a champion and a negotiator at the same time there and what we as a movement did not recognize is we would be doing chairman waxman a favor by elevating voices from the progressive caucus, elevating other who have the ability because they were responsible forgetting a bill at committee to be that voice of saying we can do more. americans want more, there are more jobs possible if we commit more in this bill and that is our job as a movement. a third dichotomy we would like to smash is we either hang together as a movement or all parts. i am a trained ecologist, i believe that the most vibrant ecosystems are the most diverse ecosyste

the waxman-markey bill is our generations smoot act that imposes taxes on domestic products. let's ignore for the moment that the climate is constantly charging and global warming has been going on. let's ignore the fact that within recorded history, we know of periods when the earth's climates has been warmer and others when it has been cooler. let's ignore thousands of meteorologyists who present concluded that co-2 gases are a negly geble factor. ignore all of that and we're still left with one lousy sense of timing. in the most serious recession since the great depression, why is it members of this house want to repeat the same mistakes that produced the great depression? watching how california has just wrecked its own economy and destroyed its own finances, why would members of this house want to do the same thing to our nation? mr. speaker, this is deadly serious stuff. this house has just made the biggest economic mistake since the days of herbert hoover. two things are certain if this measure becomes law. first, our planet is going to continue to warm and cool as it

waxman, mr. markey, mr. dingell, mr. inds lee, mr. gordon and their staff for the collaborative effort that went into the final provisions establishing a clean energy deployment administration. as a result of this effort, america is beginning to have an inget, well capitalized bank charged with the exclusive admission of deploying clean energy. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan. mr. camp: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time, i yield one minute to a distinguished member of the ways and means committee, the gentlewoman from florida, ms. brown-waite. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. brown-waite: this bill started out as the tax and cap bill, then the clean energy bill because my colleagues on the other side of the bill real arized this wasn't selling at home. it should be called the let's send more jobs to china act. this bill is going to cost people in the state of florida an additional $500 on their utility bills. let's look at the jobs that

actually a very disturbing model that is, of the house, at least out of committee, and that is the waxman-markey bill in a sense it is aimed at climate change reform and trying to control greenhouse gas emissions and yet the way the allowances were given away to garner state votes or effectively representative votes for some of the dirtier burning fuels, it seems to conspire against the objectives. what we need to do all of us is move to a future where we are much more dependent on alternative fuels but we have to recognize there is a huge scale issue that has the plan out very carefully. while we are incentivizing those alternatives, to make sure we are science-based as opposed to politically based, which is what got us corn-based ethanol, which is a disaster, and, secondly, we recognize that we need all the answers for a while here. importantly if we have climate change and have a hubris to the weekend control god's world, elisse would and would honestly and straightforwardly the term -- instead of trying to manipulate. host: "the financial times" april 2009, you called the president's focus a

i'll say this into the record, these folks that are pushing, waxman, markey, are wrong on the science. they can't defend the science, they can't argue it against people that are of equal scientific training, they can't even argue it against me. and i'm happy to do that, by the way. i'm happy to have that debate with al gore and the rest of them that come along. even if they're right on the science, and they're not, they're really, really wrong on the economics. this is almost -- this has almost become a religion. it's got political inertia. and we saw and heard from a ph.d. from spain who has been in the middle of -- spain embraced the green country, they want to be the leader in green energy for the world, the industrialized world. so they set about doing that and they built a bunch of wind chargers and they raised the cost of their electricity. they became the leaders in renewable energy and the industrialized world. they also became the leaders in unemployment at 17.5%, the leaders in the increase in utility bills, 20% to residents, but 100% increase for industry, for electrical bi

i express my deep gratitude to chairman waxman, mr. markey, mr. stupak, as well as representative sutson, israel, and inslee for their clab rat, collegial approach during the negotiations on the legislation. i want to commend my friend mr. upton and others of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle as well as the entire michigan delegation for their work on behalf of this. this legislation cannot wait. the longer it's put off, the more auto sales will be depressed ancon sumers who are excited thabt proposal will continue to wait for congress to pass this bill before buying that new car that we want them to have. in view of the unprecedented turmoil faced by the domestic automakers and growing imperatives to address global warming, ms. sutton's fleet modernization bill stands out as a practical mechanism by which to achieve cob sumer savings, reduce fuel consumption, lower carbon dioxide and pollutant emissions as well as increase sales for a critical sector of the national economy. indeed in countries such as germany, fleet modernization prog

whether or not we all agree with chairman waxman and chairman markey on the issue of global warming, and i personally do, we should all applaud the work these two chirmen have done to get us here today. this bill is not only an achievement for the american people, but also for our children and our grandchildren. by spurring a new era of clean energy jobs, this bill puts our economy on a new trajectory. because of this investment, our children and grandchildren will live in a country that is more sustainable, more economically viable, and more efficient than the country we live in today. the legislation will create millions of new clean energy jobs and hands america's energy independence and protect the environment. specifically, it requires electric uetults to be 20% of the electricity demand to renewable and energy sources and energy efficiency by 2020. it also invests in new clean energy technologies and energy efficiency, including energy efficiency and renewable energy, carbon capture, and sequestration, and basic scientific research and development. it mandates new energy saving

lot of credit to the members of congress who have worked hard on the bill, congressman waxman, congressman markey, been doing a good job, but i dare say that the legislative process is engaged, involved and that everybody has to be a -- has to have a say so in this thing and those two leaders have not denied that. in fact, they've welcomed it. i just want to give a broupped on the bill that exists so far -- background on the bill that exists so far. it's called the american clean energy and security act, the american clean energy and security act, and the referred to as acis. it passed by a vote of 33-25. 33-25. that's not a big margin. the legislation will create millions of new clean energy jobs, in my opinion and based on the facts, and it will enhance america's energy independence and protect the environment. another thing that the bill will do is it will signal to the world community that america is serious about cutting carbon emissions. america is leading the way in the world to cut carbon emissions. and therefore countries like india and china and other nations of the world that are big e

of their comments has been in criticism of the great work that has been done by congressman waxman and markey and their committee, the ways and means committee and those that were concerned about perfecting something that protect the people of this earth. and just as they will remember the courageous and political forces that were put together to make this great contribution to humankind, they also will remember the negative, political shots that have been taken and the absence of any positive program that the minority have brought forward. so i'd like to reserve the balance of my time and congratulate our great speaker for coordinating this effort. people call it on the other side deals when they don't have any ideas to put forward. but deals if it means bringing people together and giving a better bill and moving forward in order to provide the majority, then i'm proud to be on this side of the aisle. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves his time. who claims opposition? mr. barton: i yield one minute to a member of the committee from the golden s

i want to thank chairman waxman, chairman markey, representatives israel, inslee, stupak and upton for their collaboration and support on this bill. and thank you to my colleagues, representative candice miller and representative bruce braley who started this process with me back in march. mr. speaker, the bipartisan cars act will sure up millions of jobs and stimulate local economies. it will reduce our dependence on foreign oil. it will provide much-needed financial assistance to consumers to trade in less fuel-efficient vehicles, for vehicles which achieve a measured increase fuel economy. what the cars act will not do is allow someone to trade in a vehicle and receive a voucher to purchase a vehicle that is less fuel economy. we have ensured environmental integrity in this bill. and this bill demonstrates that we do not have to bind ourselves to the arguments of the past. we no longer have to give into the temptation of either or thinking. the cars act demonstrates that we can free ourselves of the false thinking of either you are for the environment or you are for jobs. we can do

leader hoyer, chairman towns, chairman spratt, chairman rahall, chairman gordon, chairman waxman, chairman markey, mr. lynch, susan davis for all the help they have given us on this very complicated, very important matter for our disabled veterans. at this time, madam speaker, i yield two minutes to my friend, my colleague, the distinguished chairman of the committee on oversight and government reform , the gentleman from new york, mr. towns. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for two minutes. mr. towns: thank you very much, madam speaker. thank you, the gentleman from missouri, for yielding. as chair of the oversight and government reform committee i rise in support of h.r. 2990. i am pleased the legislation we are considering today will assist the men and women of our armed forces by permitting disability mirled retirees to receive -- military retirees to receive their compen take and pay concurrentry. let me pause and thank chairman skelton for working closely with the oversight committee on title 2 of this legislation. title 2 makes several positive changes to

the chairman waxman and markey and before them, chairman belcher and chairman dingell have already held a lot hearings on the transition, so i would think sometime this fall there will be more and once it is a reality the fcc commissioners will come forward and stakeholders in the country. there is not calling to be this huge problem though. i mean half the country has already gone digital and you haven't heard any great outcries in those markets admittedly there was small lamarca it's the durham and then take the station market in my state. things worked fine so the usual people that wait until the last moment like me. i still haven't gotten my converter boxes but i know i have got to weeks to do it. we will wake up and get it done and the country will move forward. >> bill lake, we do like to respond to? >> some people will not be ready regard was the date. some people don't get their taxes filed on time. another thing i think it was good for the congress to set a hard date so people know when this is going to have been. and also the transition itself is a good thing. digital televisi

chairman waxman and chairman markey and before them, chairman belcher and chairman dingell have already held a lot of hearings on the transition. i would think that sometime this fall, there will be commissioners coming forward. there is not going to be this huge problem. half the country has already gone digital and you have not heard any great outcries in those markets. admittedly, they were smaller markets, but things work fine. people who wait until the last minute, like me, i have not gotten my converter box. i know i have two weeks to do it. we will wake up and go get it done in the country will move forward. >> what did you hear in that interview that he would like to respond to? i agree with the congressman. some people will not be ready and regardless of when the date is. some people do not get their taxes filed on time. another thing is that i think it was very good for congress to set a hard date so that they will know when this will happen. also, the transition itself is a good thing. digital television will be good for television viewers and the spectrum that is released fo

and i congratulate chairman waxman and mr. markey for the masterful job that they did in passing the bill through the energy and commerce committee. now, other committees have their jurisdiction to weigh in on and that's the process where we're involved in. and when we're finish and ready we will go to the floor. >> there are bipartisan discussions in the senate about an idea looking at creating privately run cooperative instead of a public option. just wondering what you think of the concept, and given the concerns among your moderate members of it is it something you won't be open to? >> not instead of a public option, no. in our caucus i think members have -- know that members have been very clear about what their concerns might be about a public option. and i agree. it should be actuarily sound. it should be administratively self-sufficient. it should be a real competitor with the private sector and not have an unfair advantage. when you say the words public option, if that is the term of art we will be using, you have to say rig

speaker file the legislation with the rules committee last night even though its authors henry waxman and ed markey are still working out a deal with collin peterson. lighthouse coverage at 10:30 a.m. on c-span. finally, -- live coverage of the house at 10:30 a.m. eastern. an investigator for the subway train accidents as a was part of an aging fleet that federal regulators have recommended three years ago to be phased out or retrofitted. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span rita. "washington journal" continues. host: we want to welcome our guests to c-span, bob schieffer. guest: thank you. host: how you view where we are at at this moment in time? guest: i can ever recall a time when the president has faced more serious issues. you look at north korea and the threat that poses right now. you look at iran and the the middle east, then afghanistan, pakistan. i still think that the border is still the most dangerous place in the world. that is not to mention iraq or what is going on in this country. then you have the financial crisis we have been going through in this country. if there is

but thanks to the leadership of speaker pelosi, chairman waxman, and chairman markey, and many of my colleagues and businesses and citizens all across america, we now have a golden opportunity to act and to modernize energy policy and to bolster science and research. we are going to pass the american clean energy and security act and none too soon. it comes at a critical time for our nation and right at the heels of the economic recovery act. together the clean energy act and the recovery plan provide a newfoundation for economic recovery, new jobs, and clean energy manufacturing. we are going to drive the development of new clean energy jobs that pay well and cannot be outsourced. people are fed up with the wild swings in gas prices and tired of watching america's economy rise and fall along with the price of a barrel of oil. so we are going to commit ourselves to a new economic future. the clean energy act has special significance to my home state of florida because alone in the continental united states my state is surrounded on three sides by water. if we do not take action to ad

for weeks, nervous democrats pleaded with energy and commerce chairman henry waxman and ed markey, two lead sponsors of this national energy tax for changes to their climate act bill. it would soften the blow to families in their states that they would suffer with this new energy tax. unfortunately, the bill passed the energy and commerce committee, is moving its way through congress and still is just a great big energy tax. the american people deserve better. republicans have held energy summits across the country to talk directly to the american people to talk about the democrats' costly energy plan and to develop real energy solutions that ensure american energy independence. congress must reject the democrats' national energy tax and deliver energy solutions that create a stronger economy and a cleaner environment. thank you, madam speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has before the house the following enrolled bill. the clerk: h.r. 918 an act to designate the facility of the united states postal service locate the at 300 east third street in jamestown, new yor

unlike the markey-waxman approach, this doesn't pick winners or losers in technology but allows the ingenuity of american citizens to create the technology that will make our country energy independent. i urge my colleagues to support the gentleman's amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia. mr. forbes: i'd like to yield one minute to the gentlelady from minnesota, mrs. bachmann. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from minnesota is recognized for one minute. backs back thank you, madam speaker, and i thank the gentleman from virginia. i support the gentleman's amendment. we know, madam speaker, that this natural energy tax will cost the american people $2 trillion. we know that. we know he this was -- this will result in a loss of 2.5 million jobs every year for the american people. we know that. we know this will result in a reduced standard of living for americans. we know that. what is the point and what's the benefit? but what is worse than this is the fact that now because of this underlying bill the federal government will v

chairman waxman of the commerce committee, chairman markey of the energy security and climate change committee, congressman rangel of the ways and means committee and chairman petersen of the agricultural committee. we thank you for their leadership. madam speaker, no matter how long this congress wants to talk about it, we cannot hold back the future. in order to move on with the future, i want to yield back my time, i submit my statement for the record and urge my colleagues to vote for this important legislation. when you do, remember these four words for what this legislation means jobs jobs -- jobs, jobs, jobs and jobs. let's vote for jobs. >> the house then went on to pass the energy and climate change bill. dara in samuelson joins us on the phone. what did the democrats have to do? >> they were working the hallways and the house floor. president obama called members and invited members to the white house. you had the people who wrote this bill going one by one and member by member to try to convince them that what they had passed out of the committee was a bill that had taken

chairman waxman of the energy and commerce committee, chairman markey of the energy security and climate change committee. congressman rangel, chairman rangel of the ways and means committee. and chairman peterson of the agriculture committee. we thank them for their leadership and for giving us this opportunity today. madam speaker, no matter how long this congress wants to talk about it, we cannot hold back the future. and so in order to move on with the future, i want to yield back my time, submit my statement for the record, urge my colleagues -- urge my colleagues to vote for this important legislation. when you do, just remember these four words for what this legislation means -- jobs, environment and energy daily is joining us on the phone. that vote was close. guest: they were working in the hallways, they got involved early this week it, and remembers to the white house. basically, you had energy and commerce democrats going one by one, trying to convince them that what they had passed out of the committee was a bill that had taken, you would often hear was a microcosm because o

chairman waxman of the energy and commerce committee, chairman markey of the energy security and climate change committee. congressman rangel, chairman rangel of the ways and means committee. and chairman peterson of the agriculture committee. we thank them for their leadership and for giving us this opportunity today. madam speaker, no matter how long this congress wants to talk about it, we cannot hold back the future. and so in order to move on with the future, i want to yield back my time, submit my statement for the record, urge my colleagues -- urge my colleagues to vote for this important legislation. when you do, just remember these four words for what this legislation means -- jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs. >> the house then went on to pass the energy and climate change bill on a vote of 219-212. darren small son joining us on the phone. that vote was close. do to get this bill passed? >> they were working the hall ways, the house floor. president obama got involved early this week, calling members, inviting members up to the white house, freshmen and sophomores primarily. and basicall