the e.p.a.'s leaking underground storage tank program financed by 1/10 of 1% tax per gallon of tax sold has a balance of more than $3 billion that offsets the deficit. clearly, the program in this bill -- programs in this bill goes towards a long way paying for themselves. this bill is not all increases. we had to make difficult choices. through hearings and briefings, we carefully reviewed the proposed budget and have recommended a number of recommendations and terminations. some of these were the result of recommendations made by the g.a.o. and the inspector general. in total, we recommend program reductions or terminations of over $320 million from the 2009 level and $300 million from the budget request. the bill before us today provides historic increases and focused funding to protect the environment. clean water received $3.9 billion, enough to provide assistance to more than 1,500 communities. we included authorities to subsidized assistance to these cities and towns which cannot afford co

so i asked the e.p.a. to use $3 million of already allocated stimulus funding to relocate the community. $3 million. i was told no. so instead of solving this problem and relocating the families of treece to a safe community, the e.p.a. over the next few months, with assistance of the stimulus package, intends to continue to spend even more money, $25 million -- $25 million -- eight times the amount needed to relocate the community, the hundred people that live in blight, in fear that their homes will sink into a sink hole. to put new soil -- new soil, this is what they're currently going to do -- on to contaminated soil which will then collapse and recontaminate all of the soil -- this just doesn't make any sense. i have had an ongoing dialogue with e.p.a., and in a recent response to a letter i sent, they told me, "the wastes are causing great environmental harm to southeast kansas." we, of course, knew that. "as evidenced by the documented impacts of birds, fish, mackerel, mussels, invert brats and horse

the e.p.a. if using funding to implement or enforce its notice of rule making finding six greenhouse gases constitute a threat to the public's health and welfare. the e.p.a. issued a rules making that found six greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide, nitrous ox side and others pose a significant health risk to the public's health and welfare. this endangerment finding is a precursor for the e.p.a. to regulate these emissions with or without explicit authority from congress do so. my amendment would have simply returned this explicit authority to congress to regulate greenhouse gases. without this amendment, the e.p.a. could implement sweeping changes without giving any consideration to the effects on this eeconomy since the e.p.a.'s mandate is environmental and public hell. passing this amendment could have removed a threat so we could consider climate change legislation in an open, deliberative process. if the majority's national energy tax, scheduled for debate later this week, gets signed into law e

the c.b.o., the e.p.a. have given estimates that are pennies a day, not thousands of dollars a year, and we are not talking about the long-term benefits of transitioning to an economy of the future. i appreciate the leadership on the recent trip to china with the speaker, we saw the chinese moving ahead. this legislation is an opportunity for us to keep pace and assume our rightful leadership with an economy for the future. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: madam speaker, i'm going to reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves his time. the gentleman from texas has 10 1/4 minutes remaining. mr. barton: how much does mr. waxman have? the speaker pro tempore: 16 minutes. mr. barton: i'll yield one minute to mr. poe of texas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. mr. poe: thank you, madam speaker. i appreciate the gentle

a reduction of this size would mean the e.p.a. would stop construction and demobilize eight to 10 large high-cost, ongoing superfund projects such as the site in new jersey, the tar greek site in oklahoma and the new bedford site in massachusetts. e.p.a. would not be able to start any new superfund sites in 2010. after years of reduction under the previous administration. e.p.a. estimates that a reduction of this size would prohibit them from completing construction at as many as nine superfund sites in 2010 and 2011. this reduction would mean e.p.a. would not properly certify new vehicles, fuels and engines sold in the united states, to ensure they conform to e.p.a.'s emission standards. 217 tribes would lose funding for their environmental programs, a 38% reduction to the a.p. would reduce every program they administer. but this reduction would affect every american who wants to drink clean water and breathe clean air. let me remind the members, we all have the environment in our districts, so i urge a strong, strong no vote on t

when the e.p.a. was established in july of 1970, as i said, in large part the impetus came from that fire on the cuyahoga in 1969. when the e.p.a. was established the summer of 1970, it marked a sustained effort by citizens to demand that their government protect our health and sustain our environment. like so many times throughout our nation's history citizen activism served as a vehicle for change. prior to that fire in 1969, i remember as a child -- i was born in 1952. as a small child, as a teenager, i remember going 60 miles north of where i grew up in going to the shores of lake eerie and seeing dead fish along the river, along the lake, seeing what was left of a wonderful living lake in all, one of the great lakes, the greatest national resource in this country, the five great lakes. i remember seeing the pollution and the damage that came from the effluent that human beings, that individuals and farmers and industry dumped into that lake over -- into rivers and many, many years into the lake.

the e.p.a. projects that by 2020, coal usage in america under the terms of this bill will actually grow. as transportation electrifies, the demand for electricity increases and coal, our most abundant fuel, will still be the fuel of choice to meet the rising demand. the claims of opponents that the co-2 controls under the bill will force utilities to surrender coal use causing an over reliance on natural gas with attendant broad economic harm to the nation are also simply wrong. this is a responsible measure. it is carefully balanced. it reduces greenhouse gases by 83% by the year 2050 as compared to 2005 levels. it keeps electricity rates affordable. it enables coal useage to grow as the demand for electricity increases nationwide. it opens the door to a more secure energy future and the creation of millions of new jobs, innovating, deploying and exporting to the world. the new low carbon dioxide emitting technologies that will power our energy future. these are sound reasons to approve the bill

concluding that the statute did not permit the e.p.a. to use cost benefit analysis, the second circuit remanded the matter to the agency for clarification whether the e.p.a. had relied on that analysis. the supreme court held that the statute reasonably could be read to allow cost benefit balancing, justice stephens, the lead dissenter thought the second circuit was absolutely right and criticized the majority for diluting the strength of congress' best technology available instruction. second of the april 1 decisions, 14 penn ploopla sa v. pyatt, can concerned a collective bargaining agreement providing that union members had to ar by trait, not bring suit in court, for complaints under the age discrimination in employment act. relying on a past 1974 decision, alexander v. garden denver, the district court and court of appeals held that a collective bargaining agreement could not waive covered workers' rights to a judicial forum for claims that congress created. the supreme court's reversal shrunk garden of denver to petite size. justice

this bill today actually prohibits the e.p.a. from continuing to develop rules to regulate greenhouse gases in the tradition of the clean water act and the clean air act. instead, it turns to a market-based approach. instead of a firm cap, regulating and reducing, this bill turns to carbon offset derivative futures that will be ensured by -- insured by credit default swaps. how quickly they forget wall street and a.i.g. and the damage they rot in the -- wrought in the financial sector. the market manipulators of enron corporation may have bankrupted their company, ken lay may be gone but they are truly embodied in this legislation. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas rise? mr. boozman: i ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. boozman: thank you, madam speaker. i rise today to honor the life of martin renic, a gracious contributor to the third district of arkansas who unexpectedly passed aw

and it's estimated by the e.p.a. that with some simple adjustments in the way that we use water, the average household could save close to $200 a year on their water an sewer -- and sewer bills. there is an interesting nexus between water an energy use. if you conserve water, you conserve energy. less water means less energy for our showers, sinks, dishwashers, and the energy used to supply and treat public water. the e.p.a. estimates if 1% of american households used water sense certified toilets, each year we could save enough electricity to power 43,000 homes for a month. take lower water bills, and energy bills an reduce demands on the environment, that is something that we should strive to accomplish. now numerous groups already support this legislation, as it's written, and -- as it's written, and i focus on my home state of colorado where industry groups an water authorities and local leaders in colorado have signed on to this concept. i wanted to also say that moving forward on this legislation gained added im

the e.p.a. put the cost at 22 cents to 32 cents a day, less than the cost of a postage stamps and lowering utility bills by 7%. this bill is a tremendous opportunity creating millions of new jobs and driving economic growth. it will end our dependence on foreign oil and keep us more secure. this bill will drive to a new area of sustainable growth and innovation, and i urge all members to support it. and, madam speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves his time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. barton: thank you, madam speaker. i ask unanimous consent that the ranking member of the agriculture committee, mr. lucas of oklahoma, control the first 15 minutes of the debate on the minority side. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. lucas: thank you, madam speaker. i thank the gentleman from texas. thank you, madam speaker. and i thank the gentleman and i yield my

the next five years it would prevent e.p.a. from calculating indirect land use when determining how to implement our nation's renewable fuel standard. this is good news for ethanol and biodiesel production facilities and for the farmers who sell the goods to these facilities. energy reform is not just a matter of wanting to keep our planet clean. it's worthy and important to those goals. it's also a matter of national security. in recent years, the pentagon has taken a hard look at how climate change could have impact on global security and stability. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. barton: madam speaker, i want to yield one minute to a member of the committee, dr. gingrey of georgia. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for one minute. mr. gingrey: madam speaker, we are at a crossroads. our nation faces significant challenges with unemployment nearing 10% and $1 trillion deficits piling up decades of debt for our children and our grandchildren

why is the e.p.a. in the coal industry being gutted? well, let me say the reason why those provisions regarding e.p.a. oversight of the coal industry are not strong enough is simply because we haven't heard from you enough. we need input. we need you to talk about how you feel on this. we need oversight on everything, but we need your input on what we should be doing to have oversight on coal and need your input on how this bill needs to be changed to make sure that the coal industry is being critically monitored. this is critical. coal-fired plants and power plants are in my view, a serious problem. and i think at a basic minimum that they have the technology necessary to clean them up as much as possible, but the fact is, even the best technology we have so far still, we have coal releasing matter into the air, lead, serious things, mercury emissions into our water that makes our fish unedible. we have to have oversight on coal. and i'm here tonight to ask you to get engaged in this debate. get involved in this conversation and put yo

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 and usda is given the authority, it's hard to see how agriculture will overcome the increased cost of using this cap and tax system. in the best-case scenario under backman-markey a farmer could mitigate 10% to 15% of the cost, in the worst-case scenario, farmers and ranchers could find themselves unable to use the offset market at all and have to cover all the cost. unlike crop farmers, ranch operators have few opportunities to accumulate carbon offsets. much emphasis has been placed on our nation's economic recovery since the market perhaps of last fall this bill is almost certain to destroy any chance of economic recovery if ena

the budget for the e.p.a. was cut by 29% and the budget for the forest service who take fires out, was cut by 35%. these were huge cuts in these programs. the park service was in trouble. the fish and wildlife service was in trouble. we had to step in. and we did this on a bipartisan basis. in fact, when i was in the minority, mr. taylor and i, mr. regula and i worked to try to increase the funding for the park service so we wouldn't see it dweteryate. and now we have a -- deteriorate . we have huge backlog of work to be done at the fish and wildlife service, b.l.m. even with the bigger budget, we don't have enough money to take care of all the issues we need to address. this is a good bill that deserves our support. and this rule deserves support. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from north carolina. ms. foxx: i think it's important to point out to the american people that there are only 60 members on the appropriations committee, which means only 60 out of 435 members

when you go into nonattainment and don't attain the standards, the e.p.a. has the right to freeze all building permits so you can't go your community. if you had the infrastructure, roads, water, sewer and schools, you could grow and businesses would want to come there. you would want an environment where business could flourish and we looked at the challenges of energy. and we looked at how can we manage this energy problem. did we raise taxes on power? we had a landfill and we looked at this as an opportunity. and we went into a public-private partnership with zero tax dollars and formed this partnership and went to our landfill. we drilled wells into it. sent a pipe four miles over to a v.a., named after a congressman who served here for 34 years, huge campus, heat and cool that campus with the methane campus, which is the second largest greenhouse gas outside of carbon dioxide. the taxpayer gets a 15% discount on our bill. we the local taxpayer make royalties and the private company created jobs and made money. that's the way you do it. we cut our consum

with the e.p.a. being in the middle, look at all of these different agencies that are involved. this is the most elaborate thing that i've seen. you know, i've been here awhile. and i've seen some pretty craze question things. but i have never seen anything this -- crazy things. democrats in rural america are going to have to make a real decision about whether they're going to stand with speaker pelosi and liberal special interests or whether they're going to stand with their constituents who are going to be punished by this ridiculous tax. listen, there's a big difference between san francisco and the heart land. al gore stands for higher electricity bills, higher gasoline prices, and shipping millions of jobs overseas. some of our members still remember his b.t.u. tax from 1993 where he tried this idea of imposing this tax on all b.t.u.'s used in the country. a lot of democrat members got burnt on that vote. for those of you that might have been around. so it's no surprise that as quickly as al gore was invited to come to washington to help lobby on this, it seems that he was

regulatory authority is stripped from the e.p.a. the bill relies on huge numbers of carbon offsets. for example, it says you can have two billion tons a year of carbon offsets which is roughly equivalent to 30% of all u.s. greenhouse gas emissions. recent analysis suggests it might be 2026 until we see the emissions decline below 2005 levels. the renewable targets are not strong enough. a recent analysis by the union are concerned -- of concerned scientists indicate this target provides no new renewable energy over business as usual projections. dirty energy options qualify as renewable, including biomass burners and trash incineraters. it gives a significant number of pollution permits away free. it opens up a carbon derivatives market in the u.s. and this bill would help establish one of the largest derivative markets in the world, without adequate oversight or regulation. it taxes households to pay for an unproven carbon cap storage technology and allocations for funding for international obligations are underfunded. we can do better. . the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose d

in the goal mining case, the e.p.a. and the army corps of engineers had been working for years to determine who would have which permanenting -- permitting authority. they had finally worked out their differences and come to an afwreement where both agencies worked together, and in this case both agencies issued permits, and the court decided we are not going to substitute our judgment for what the agencies have done with respect to their allegation of responsibility under the clean water ack. >> thank you. let me move on now. john, what should we say about the first amendment this term? >> well, the first amendment this term, the really interesting case is still to be decided on monday. justice roberts' successful attempts to bring union anyonity made the other cases less exciting. in your hand out, the case about union regulation and the case about the monument in the park, the court really did not change the law substantially as evidence by unanimous results and almost unanimous opinions in both cases. so i tholed i w

according to the e.p.a. and c. bmple f. with this bill passed and signed, the united states will finally be able to argue persuasively and creditably. we understand if the chinese do not act or the indians don't act, the air that they belch will soon come to this comment nent, and our children and families will be at risk. this is a global problem, but america is the leader. america must lead, america must set the example. this bill does exact lie that. at the same time, action on global warming will send a powerful job created signal, spurring every part of the renewable energy economy. jobs, jobs, jobs. that is one of the reasons why the u.s. climate action partnership, a business coalition has argued that, and i quote, the way we produce and use energy must fundamentally change nationally and globally, and that this coming change represents an excellent opportunity for economic growth. that is why another coalition of 19 businesses including the pacific gas and electric cossak, duke energy, national grid, hmple p., starbu

jenkins and myself to correct the issue, the delegation's working with the e.p.a. regional office in kansas city that in order to proceed with the project in public law 111-8, it should read, quote, the city of manhattan for water line extension project, end of quote. i thank the chairman for consideration on this important issue. mr. dicks: i understand my colleague's problem and with our -- we are going to work with him and try to work this out. with the other body. but i realize how serious this is and we'll work with him until we get a satisfy -- satisfactory solution. mr. tiahrt: i thank the chairman. . mr. dicks: i would like to yield -- if i could be recognized again. i want to welcome -- yield two minutes to congressman connolly of virginia for the purposes of a colloquy. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. connolly: i thank the chair and i thank my distinguished friend, chairman of the subcommittee. heritage programs have been proven to be effective vehicles in improving tourism and conservation. many citizens have worked with members

debatable proposition whether the provisions chairman peterson negotiated have any value at all since the e.p.a. administrator still retains the ultimate authority under the bill to regulate any man made -- manmade greenhouse gas. this bill needs to be pulled today. if we vote against the rule, it will be. we need to go back, make sure that these new provisions are vetted in the committees and in public debate, and then bring the revised bill to the floor sometime in july or september and have a week of debate on it with numerous amendments, 200 amendments were presented to the rules committee last night. one was made in order. one. of 224. this is a bad rule. it is a closed rule. this is a bad bill. it is the economic disaster bill for the united states of america if it were to pass. the easiest thing to do is vote no on the rule and then let's do work together to come up with a more reasonable bill sometime this fall. with that, i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. matsui: madam spe

the e.p.a. will have the ability to write the regulations. we're taking the -- taking the responsibility to do it here in this congress desm spite the con trarne views on this floor, there is a real global crisis we face, despite the objections of my colleagues on the other side, there is a need to create new jobs and this bill would create 1.7 million of them. another reason we should support this change in our policy, ahmadinejad, the saudi kingdom they want exactly what my republican friends are advocating, don't do anything. keep pumping the same amount of petroleum, keep using the same amount of oil. every time we put our pump to our gas tank, we are helping the tyrants in iran and the tyrants in saudi arabia to export their terrorism. why do we keep doing it? we need to change our behavior and this bill recognizes it. it reduces carbon emissions and makes our earth safer, of course, but it also creates new jobs and takes away the lifeblood to the terrorist regimes. we can't come to the floor and say, i'm outraged by what's going on in i

according to the e.p.a. and c.b.o. with this bill passed and signed, the united states will finally be able to argue, persuasively and credibly, for global action on a challenge that knows no borders. we understand that if the chinese do not act or the indians don't act, the air that they belch will soon come to this continent and our children and families will be at risk. this is a global problem, but america is the leader. america must lead. america must set the example. this bill does exactly that. at the same time, action on global warming will send a powerful job-creating price signal to the private sector, spurring innovation in every part of the renewable energy economy. jobs, jobs, jobs. that is one of the reasons why the u.s. climate action partnership a business coalition, dedicated to fighting climate change has argued that, and i quote, the way we produce and use emergency -- energy must fundamentally change both nationally and globally and this coming change represents an excellent opportunity for economic

i believe she was part of the e.p.a. last time, maybe under carter or clinton, i'm not sure. probably clinton. i don't know all about all these people. urban czar, infotech czar, faith-based czar, the been reported that he's an atheist. but that is his faith, i suppose. health reform czar, nancy-ann, tarp czar, now we have all heard about the tarps, heash alison is the -- herb alison is the tarp czar. stimulus accountability czar, the nonproliferation czar, the -- and i may be mispronouncing these folks' names and let me say right off, if i've mispronounced anybody's name, it's because i'm from texas and i apologize for that. the terrorist czar is john brennan, the regulatory czar, there's an interesting one, cass, the drug czar is gil kerilowski. the guantanamo closure czar, the af/pak czar, the mideast peace czar, the persian gulf/southwest asia czar, dennis ross, the sudan czar, j. scott, climate czar, todd stern, car czar, steve rad in her -- rat in her. he's been all over the place -- ratner, he's been all over the place. economic czar, the executive pay czar, that's one

the e.p.a., meanwhile, estimates that a family of four will pay an additional $1,100 each year. the impact on jobs is equally dismal. a c.r.a. international study finds that legislation, when fully implemented, will cost america $2.-- 2.3 million to 2.7 million jobs, this at a time when hundreds of millions of workers are losing their jobs every month. in the midst of a severe recession, why contemplate a plan that amounts to a growth-killing millstone around the neck of small businesses and all american consumers. mammings, it's not the utility the oil companies and other producers who will bear the cost of this new regime. we know that the companies will pass their higher costs along to the consumers and small businesses that rely on their services this means more expensive bills for all americans on everything from electricity to heating to gasoline to groceries. we also can't forget that this national energy tax comes down hardest on the poor. the highest income quine tile spends less than 5% of its income on energy intensive products. but our families in the lowest income qu

the e.p.a. even confirmed it last year during the debate on the lieberman-warner bill and the same would hold true for this year's bill. put simply any isolated u.s. attempt to avert global warming is a futile effort without meaningful or robust cooperation much the american people need to know what they will be geting with their money all costs and no benefit. and this shows the u.s. action without international action would have no affect on world co2. this is asiewching there is no change in the -- this is assuming there is no change in the manufacturing base, which there would be. this brings us to whether a new, robust international agreement can be achieved. in addition to the -- the u.s. is involved with negotiations for a new international climate change agreement to replace the flawed the keyo treaty, this process is scheduled to culminate in copenhagen. the prospects of such an endeavor look bleak at best. following the conclusion of the climate meeting in bonn, the u.s.'s top climate r

to date only 32% of the funds appropriated for this program through the recovery act have been spent. i understand that e.p.a. plans to obligate all the recovery act funds before they begin a solicitation for the 2009 funds. it could be well into 2010 before the 2009 funds are spent. . president obama's request for deera, and this bill provides that. i will work with you, mr. calvert, congresswoman matsui has talked to me about this, e.p.a. and stake holders in hopes of improving and streamlining its grant-making process and ensure the proper level of funding in 2011. mr. simpson: i will work with you over the coming year to improve the deero granting process to ensure that applications are processed and grants are awarded and work with you in the coming fiscal years to secure morrow bus funding for this program that truly is a win-win-win situation stimulating the economy, improving air quality and reducing emissions that are among the greatest contributors to global warming and thank mr. calvert for bringing this to our attention. and i reserve the balance of our time. the chair: the gentleman from washing

the bush administration's c.d.c. said it is unequivocal that our people are in danger if we don't act. and now president obama sees it clearly and his e.p.a. has picked up the ball and issued a draft finding that we are in danger. so senator inhofe and other senators can stand up and say that we're not. but this work started in the bush administration. and bush administration officials participated in a lot of these u.n. meeting. so it is clear now. we have a good recession we're dealing with. and we have this great challenge of global warming. the great news is, when we act to solve global warming, we act to solve the problems of this great recession. why do i say that? because we necessit know from te capitalists many of whom live in the silicone valley, from the private sector, the money that will flow into clean energy, is going to dwarf that, that went into the computer industry; this went into high-tech and biotech. this is testimony from those who are venture capitalists. and that, matched with the cap-and-trade system which will have the ability to really help agriculture, which will have the ability to help our manufacturers, whi

as a result of that, regardless of how you see that matter, i think when the statute was passed, they gave e.p.a. regulation to control pollution in 1970's, long before global warming was ever a thought, th that -- that the congress had no contemplation that it would be used to limit carbon dioxide some years later. but that's what the court ruled. i only say that because there was a hiewrnlg economic decisi decision -- huge economic decision of monumental proportions that called on the agency of the department of -- of the united states government to regulate every business in america that uses fossil fuels. it's a far-reaching thing. right or wrong, i just point out what five members of the court can do with a ruling, and that was five members. four members dissented on that case. they also have the supreme court -- or at least two members of the supreme court have concluded that the death penalty is unconstitutional because they concluded that it is cruel and unusual as prohibited by the eighth amendment to the constitution. they dissented on every single death penalty case and tried to get o

but now the contracts are let, shovels are going to be in the ground, people with hard hats are going to be working making a decent wage. at e.p.a., mr. president, we're going to accelerate the clean sites that exist on the national priority list. education, 135,000 education related jobs including teachers, principals, administrators, support staff we'll talk about in a minute. at labor 125,000 summer jobs. and the idea of these summer jobs, let's not make jobs we're going to put students in positions of jobs that they'll be able to turn around. lastly the defense department will initiate 2,300 rehabilitation construction projects on 359 military facility across the country. so mr. president, whether it's more energy efficient facilities and our park system, more teachers or more cops in the street, construction cranes and hard hats are going to be seeing a lot more this summer than they have in the past. we've accelerated efforts mr. president across the federal government. as i said, at the end of this 100 days we feel confident we're going to be able to demonstrate to you we have created or saved another 600,000 jobs. it's f

the city of trucky, california, was about to sign a long-term power contract to get its electricity from a new e.p.a.-approved, coal-fired plant way off in utah. plant way off in utah. but ab-32 legislation caused them to abandon that contract. the replacement power that they acquired literally doubled their electricity costs. so when economists warn that we can expect electricity prices to double under the cap and trade bill, i can tell you from the bitter experience of my district that that is not some future prediction, that is an historical fact. . governor schwarzenegger assured us that it would mean an explosion of new green jobs, the same promises we heard on this floor today. in california, exactly the opposite has happened. we lost so many jobs that the economic forecast is now using the d word, depression, to describe california's job market. mr. speaker, the cap and trade bill proposes what amounts to endlessly increasing taxes on any enterprises that produce carbon dioxide or other so-called greenhouse gas. we need to understand exactly what that means. it has profound implications for a

the offset program is something that will pay farmers and landowners to do environmentally friendly conservation practices, agriculture, planting trees. and collin peterson thinks that usda has a much more keen understanding of these things than e.p.a. >> darren samuelson of environment and energy daily. thanks for the update. >> happy to do it. >> there's still time to get your copy of c span's 2009 congressional directory with information on house and senate members, the cabinet, supreme court justices and the nation's governors plus district maps and how to contact commitees and caucuses. it's 16.95. online at c-span.org/products or call 1-877-on-c span [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] . >> there will be more from the newly released tapes saturday afternoon on c-span radio. >> now we have a hearing on stimulus spending. the house transportation committee heard from federal officials about airline, train, and highway spending. the committee will come to order. and this is the second of a series of oversight hearings that i have committed as to undertake at the outset of the recovery act. in december of 2007, when i proposed an initiative to get the ec

the issue of preservation. and i would be happy to yield. mr. dicks: this amendment -- you put it on your website. it was taken and we looked at it very carefully and reviewed by e.p.a. and we feel that this is a totally justified amendment. and we strongly support it. mr. visclosky: i appreciate the gentleman's remarks and i reserve the balance of my time. mr. dicks: the park service strongly supports it. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. campbell: i appreciate the gentleman's point and i appreciate the gentleman's passion for the project. but as i mentioned before, that is not the point. the point i believe is that there are 434 others of us who have parks that we may believe are greater in need than this or are just in need as this and is this the way that we should allocate scarce resources around the various national parks that we have in the country? and i think it's not. and with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields the balance of his time. the gentleman from indiana is recognized. mr. visclosky: i make the observation that the gentleman talks about other parks, but we ar

the theory like that. that's be a interesting tidbit of history. mr. king: he didn't have e.p.a. approval either. mr. akin: i'm sure he would have gotten in trouble with that. just a treat to have also my good friend, congressman lamborn who is joining us tonight as well, and we're just getting started now talking a little bit about this idea that somehow all of this spending that we've been seeing in this last year that we've been here together, this incredible level of spending is supposed to help with this unemployment problem and yet just as morgenthau would have predicted, we're seeing unemployment going up and the spending just totally out of control. i yield time to my good friend. mr. lamborn: i thank the gentleman from missouri for letting me have this time. it's good to join you for a few minutes with this time that you've put together to speak and present to the american people and to have a dialogue between each other, what the spending is really costing us and so far it's not producing jobs. i think we hit 9.4%, if i have that correct, of what the latest unemployment figures are. mr. aki