[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 16494-16504]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2454, AMERICAN CLEAN ENERGY AND 
                          SECURITY ACT OF 2009

  Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 587 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 587

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 
     2454) to create clean energy jobs, achieve energy 
     independence, reduce global warming pollution and transition 
     to a clean energy economy. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived except those arising 
     under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. In lieu of the amendment 
     recommended by the Committee on Energy and Commerce now 
     printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute consisting of the text of H.R. 2998, modified by 
     the amendment printed in part A of the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be 
     considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against provisions of 
     the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall 
     be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any 
     further amendment thereto, to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) three hours of debate, with 
     two and one half hours equally divided and controlled by the 
     chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy 
     and Commerce and 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by 
     the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Ways and Means; (2) the further amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute printed in part B of the report of the Committee 
     on Rules, if offered by Representative Forbes of Virginia or 
     his designee, which shall be in order without intervention of 
     any point of order except those arising under clause 9 or 10 
     of rule XXI, shall be considered as read, and shall be 
     separately debatable for 30 minutes equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and (3) one 
     motion to recommit with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Tauscher). The gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Matsui) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. MATSUI. For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 
minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). All time yielded 
during consideration of the rule is for debate only.


                             General Leave

  Ms. MATSUI. I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 
legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to 
insert extraneous materials into the record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, before I begin my remarks, I would like to 
speak briefly about all that the Speaker has meant to this body.
  Since coming to Congress, I have watched Ellen Tauscher navigate the 
legislative and political waters of the House of Representatives. She 
has always done so with uncommon grace, skill and acumen which we would 
all be well served to emulate.
  We will all miss her presence here in this Chamber, whether in the 
chair or on the floor. But we know that she will continue to serve our 
country well in her new capacity as Under Secretary for Arms Control 
and International Security at the State Department.
  Madam Speaker, H. Res. 587 provides a structured rule for 
consideration of H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act. 
The resolution provides for 3 hours of general debate with 2\1/2\ hours 
controlled by the Committee on Energy and Commerce and 30 minutes 
controlled by the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Madam Speaker, from coast to coast we are seeing the effects of our 
changing climate. Just last week, experts from 13 government agencies 
and several universities issued a new report on global climate change 
impacts in the United States. Their analysis was clear: global warming 
is caused by human-induced emissions.
  It is also already having visible impacts in the United States. We 
are seeing these effects throughout our country, from increases in 
heavy storms to rising sea levels. From earlier snow melt to 
alterations in river flows. These experts concluded that negative 
effects of climate change will continue to worsen.
  Climate change will combine with other air pollution, population 
growth, overuse of resources, and social, economic, and environmental 
stresses to create larger impacts that will be felt around the world 
and here at home. For my constituents, this threat is very real and 
very urgent.
  California's Department of Water Resources projects that the Sierra 
Nevada snow pack will experience a 25 to 40 percent reduction by 2050. 
These are not empty numbers. As California's climate warms, more of the 
Sierra Nevada's watershed will continue to peak storm runoff. High-
frequency flood events are projected to increase as a result. We have 
no choice but to adapt to these changing realities.
  In Sacramento, we live at the confluence of two great rivers, the 
Sacramento and the American. As global warming intensifies, scientists 
predict greater storm intensity that could forever change these rivers' 
flow patterns. This means that my district will have to cope with more 
direct runoff and more flooding.
  I want to thank Chairman Waxman and Chairman Markey for working with 
me to ensure that this bill addresses California's water needs in the 
context of climate change. Allowances are distributed to States for 
urgent projects to help fight extreme weather and flooding. These 
resources are vital as we work to adapt to changing climates and more 
intense weather patterns.
  In order to deal with these issues and with others that confront us 
all, the Energy and Commerce Committee has held countless hearings on 
energy and climate change policy over the past 2\1/2\ years. This year 
alone we have convened over a dozen hearings and heard from numerous 
experts, as well as national and international leaders. In total, the 
committee has held over 40 days of hearings on energy and climate 
change policy over the past two Congresses. During these deliberations, 
over 300 witnesses testified, including 130 in this year alone.

[[Page 16495]]

  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 chairmen 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. And 
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, 
enhance America's energy independence, and protect the environment. 
Specifically, it requires electric utilities to meet 20 percent of the 
electricity demand through renewable and energy sources and energy 
efficiency by 2020.
  It also invests in new clean energy technologies and energy 
efficiencies, including energy efficiency and renewable energy carbon 
capture and sequestration, and basic scientific research and 
development.
  It mandates new energy-saving standards for buildings, appliances, 
and industry, and it reduces carbon emissions from major U.S. sources 
by 17 percent by 2020 and over 80 percent by 2050. These are the 
nationwide impacts of this groundbreaking legislation.
  Part of the brilliance of this bill before us today, though, is that 
it also gives tools to local communities to fight climate change on 
their own. One of the ways this bill does so is through the 
transportation sector. Transportation accounts for 30 percent of the 
greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere each year. Therefore, 
effective climate change legislation must include a transportation 
component if we are going to achieve the emission reduction levels that 
scientists say are vital to saving our planet.
  I appreciated working with the committee on section 222, which seeks 
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through comprehensive transportation 
efficiency and land use planning. The way we plan our communities and 
transportation systems has a real effect on how well we reduce 
emissions from transportation. This legislation also protects consumers 
from energy price increases.
  According to estimates from the EPA, the reductions in carbon 
pollution required by the legislation will cost American families only 
22 to 30 cents per day. But fighting global warming is not just about 
preserving our current way of life; it is also about creating a 
cleaner, stronger economy that will power the United States toward a 
clean energy future.
  EPA analysis shows that the Nation's gross domestic product would 
grow from $13 trillion in 2008 to over $22 trillion in 2030 while 
deploying clean energy technology and reducing global warming 
pollution. And consumption, an economic measure of a household's 
purchasing potential, would grow by 8 to 10 percent from 2010 to 2015, 
and 23 percent to 28 percent by 2030.
  With the American Clean Energy and Security Act, we are making smart 
investments. We are giving entrepreneurs the tools they need to create 
clean energy jobs that demand American skills and that put our country 
in a strong position to compete internationally.
  Madam Speaker, with the American Clean Energy and Security Act, we 
will show the rest of the world that America is back and we are ready 
to lead again.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  0930

  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I would like to, on behalf of my 
Republican colleagues, congratulate you for your wonderful new 
responsibilities that you will have at the State Department, and 
congratulations on your Senate confirmation yesterday.
  Mr. UPTON. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I would yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. UPTON. I, too, extend my congratulations, as I understand it, in 
charge of arms control. And I think this is a particularly worthy day 
that you have this job still, as a Member of Congress, until the end of 
the day, because you're going to need to repair a lot of arms on that 
side of the aisle after this vote is over.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Reclaiming my time, and I thank the gentleman, but 
congratulations very much, Ellen.
  At the very top, Madam Speaker, I would like to ask unanimous consent 
to the gentlewoman from California if we could extend the time of 
debate. I am inundated with the amount of requests and would like to 
ask that we extend it 30 minutes, extending both sides an additional 15 
minutes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  Ms. MATSUI. No, we will not agree to that. We object.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The objection is heard.
  Mr. SESSIONS. You do object. I would like to ask the gentlewoman if 
we could extend the time on both sides by 5 minutes then.
  Ms. MATSUI. We object. There are 3 hours on the bill.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I would like to see if we could extend by 1 minute this 
debate on both sides.
  Ms. MATSUI. We object.
  Mr. SESSIONS. You object. Okay.
  Madam Speaker, good morning. I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. And I appreciate the gentlewoman extending me these few 
minutes that she has given us to debate this very important bill.
  I rise in opposition to this lockdown rule and the underlying 
legislation which, if passed, The Wall Street Journal correctly notes 
will become the ``biggest tax in American history.''
  After limited committee hearings and only one markup on this 1,200-
plus page bill, the negotiations that have brought this bill to the 
floor have completely excluded Republicans and ignored our good ideas 
on how to stop the most economically devastating and job-killing parts 
of this bill.
  For example, during the bill's brief deliberation in committee, 
Republicans offered three commonsense amendments, one to suspend the 
program if gas prices hit $5 a gallon, one to suspend the program if 
electricity prices rise 10 percent over 2009, and one to suspend the 
program if unemployment rates hit 15 percent. But, unfortunately, the 
committee's Democrats defeated them all.
  To make matters worse, for the past 2 weeks, despite numerous 
contrary promises to our Democrat colleagues and to the American 
people, Speaker Pelosi and her handpicked lieutenants on the Rules 
Committee have limited open debate and, once again here on the floor, 
debate to talk about this unprecedented bill that is before the 
American people.
  While this behavior is undemocratic and mildly irritating when 
dealing with bills like Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act of 
2009, it is simply unacceptable when it comes to legislation of such 
great importance to the future of American jobs and families.
  So once again, early this morning in the Rules Committee, after--and 
by the way, that was about 2-3:30 this morning--after being handed a 
brand-new 309-page revision of the bill, this unacceptable behavior 
continued.
  My Republican colleagues and I offered numerous good ideas and 
improvements to this brand-new bill this morning, which not one Member 
has even read. As a matter of fact, we even joked about that as we 
walked in at 2 o'clock this morning about, sure everybody had a chance 
to read the bill, that's why we were up so late last night. This 
legislation that Republicans proposed would have provided commonsense 
relief for farmers and small businesses that drive our economy. 
Unsurprisingly, each of these good ideas was rejected by our Democrat 
colleagues along party lines.
  Whether or not to impose the biggest tax increase in American history 
is a very serious issue, and one that affects every American family, 
legislation that the Heritage Foundation estimates will cost working 
families in the 32nd Congressional District of Texas, just one district 
which I happen to represent, some 4,178 jobs in 2012. We believe that 
this bill should actually be

[[Page 16496]]

debated and openly read so that everyone doesn't just rush through this 
day but, rather, understands the true impact of what we're doing.
  The rule being proposed here today is a grave mistake and an 
undemocratic embarrassment. And I, for one, think this body can do 
better. We owe it to the American people to allow Members, Members of 
this body on both sides, who have good ideas to be heard, especially 
the ideas to address the needs of rural and working class people who 
will see their incomes and choices slashed by this bill.
  Instead of an inclusive debate on how to conserve our resources and 
provide clean, affordable energy for American businesses and families, 
the Democrats' answer to the worst recession in decades is a national 
energy tax, thinly disguised as a climate change bill.
  Billions of dollars wasted on extra energy costs and millions of jobs 
lost is an extremely high price to pay for a bill that is estimated, at 
best, to slow the Earth's temperature rises by one-hundredth of a 
single degree by 2050, and no more than two-tenths of a degree by the 
end of this century.
  Madam Speaker, the facts are clear: Nancy Pelosi's national energy 
tax will kill American jobs, it will raise prices on hardworking 
Americans, and do almost nothing to clean up our environment. But the 
American people watching today's debate don't need to take my word for 
it. President Obama and his senior administration officials, and many 
prominent Democrats, agree that cap-and-trade is actually cap-and-tax.
  In January of 2008, President Obama told the San Francisco Chronicle 
that under his preferred cap-and-trade system electricity rates would 
necessarily skyrocket. Then on February 26, 2009, the President's own 
budget estimates that the climate revenue generated by this legislation 
to pay for Washington bureaucrat-run health care and a jobless stimulus 
package would cost American manufacturers and energy producers $646 
billion over 10 years. Three weeks later, the administration's top 
economic advisers disagreed with this lowball figure, suggesting that 
cap-and-trade could actually cost up to $1.9 trillion over 10 years.
  Next, former Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman, John Dingell, 
stated in a hearing on cap-and-trade: ``Nobody in this country realizes 
that cap-and-trade is a tax, and it's a big one.''
  As recently as this week, Congressman Gene Green of Texas stated in 
an op-ed: ``Instituting a cap on nationwide greenhouse emissions will 
raise the price of energy for consumers and businesses alike.''
  Madam Speaker, I'm confused. Why on this Earth would my friends on 
your side of the aisle create such a big tax on all American families 
and businesses during a time that a recession is so serious? Why are we 
rushing to do this with a $1 trillion spending plan that will have such 
a large impact on the American people, killing jobs and making it more 
difficult for us to come out of this recession?
  On June 15, I received a letter from the Texas Comptroller of Public 
Accounts stating that the current plan to implement mandatory mission 
caps would weigh far more heavily on Texas than any other region in the 
country. It goes on to note that ``based on rising fuel prices as a 
result of the cap-and-trade provisions of this bill, Texas could see 
135,000 to 277,000 fewer jobs in 2012, the first year of the bill.''
  Madam Speaker, Texas leads this country in jobs, and people are 
coming to Texas from all over the United States just to have jobs. Why 
would we go and diminish the opportunities for people to find those 
jobs that were available to help their families?
  Madam Speaker, families all over Texas are already hurting; and with 
all the other troubles plaguing the economy, they simply cannot afford 
the additional and completely avoidable economic assault that the new 
Democrat majority is placing on the American people.
  Perhaps worst of all, Madam Speaker, the economic damage created by 
this legislation actually favors foreign companies over American ones. 
China, the number one emitter of greenhouse gases, and India, who is 
set to expand its emissions, will not be required to modify their 
behavior at all. That means that this new Democrat majority is taking 
the astonishing position of asking American small businesses and 
consumers to carry the global load for the world's carbon consumption 
because, as everyone understands, if only Americans tax their 
manufacturing and productions, then only Americans will be losing out 
while China, India and other countries gain an advantage over our 
domestic manufacturers, businesses, jobs and future.
  Every Member of this Chamber understands that in an era of rising 
energy costs, Congress must and should be doing everything in its power 
to ensure that domestic production of clean energy is available at the 
cheapest price. However, I recently received a letter from the American 
Petroleum Institute expressing concern that this legislation could add 
as much as 77 cents to each gallon of gasoline.
  Very simply, this legislation means that every American business and 
consumer will pay more to fuel their vehicles, heat their homes, and 
purchase everyday goods.
  The facts are clear: Nancy Pelosi's national energy tax will kill 
American jobs, will raise prices on hardworking Americans, and do 
little to clean up our environment.
  I encourage a ``no'' vote on this lockdown rule and a ``no'' vote on 
the underlying legislation.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts, a member of the Rules Committee, my colleague, Mr. 
McGovern.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentlelady from California for yielding to 
me.
  Madam Speaker, I stand here today in support of this rule and in 
support of the underlying legislation.
  I want to thank Speaker Pelosi, Leader Hoyer, Chairman Waxman, and my 
Massachusetts colleague, Ed Markey, for crafting and shepherding 
through this tremendously important legislation.
  This bill will reduce the release of greenhouse gases into our 
atmosphere, reduce global warming, and concurrently will spur the 
creation of millions of clean-energy jobs in the United States.
  Specifically, I would like to thank the chairman for including 
funding for domestic and international adaptation and clean technology 
transfer. While I supported greater dedication for adaptation funding, 
this represents a necessary first step in U.S. commitment.
  By dedicating a portion of the allowances to international adaptation 
financing, we can ensure that those poorest of countries who have 
already been and will continue to be disproportionately impacted by 
climate change will receive crucial funding to help them save their 
farmlands, sources of water, and oftentimes their homes.
  As a co-Chair of the Congressional Hunger Caucus, I am particularly 
concerned with the impacts of climate change upon the hungriest in the 
world. By investing in sustaining agriculture technology and practices, 
adaptation financing will help in this fight to end hunger.
  For many island nations and equatorial countries, the harmful impacts 
of climate change have already taken their toll. Sea level rise, caused 
by rising global temperature, has already fundamentally altered the 
geography of some nations.
  Madam Speaker, to echo what Speaker Pelosi has emphasized 
consistently, there is a moral imperative to be good stewards of this 
Earth. And as we look toward the negotiations in Copenhagen this 
December, the world is looking for leadership from the United States 
for global solutions to this global problem. And by leading the way on 
clean-energy technology and services to help the poorest nations build 
resistance to climate change impacts, the U.S. will experience a boon 
in job creation and innovation. Solutions such as efficient water 
systems and irrigation technology can create jobs here while solving 
problems abroad.

[[Page 16497]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Ms. MATSUI. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Devoting portions of revenues from a cap-and-trade 
system to investments in international adaptation to those countries 
most vulnerable is a clear signal to the world that the U.S. is ready 
to lead in combating global climate change.
  I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying 
legislation.
  I would like to insert in the Record a column by Ken Hackett, the 
president of Catholic Relief Services, entitled, ``Combat Hunger By 
Investing in Agricultural Development.''

              [From the Des Moines Register, May 29, 2009]

         Combat Hunger by Investing in Agricultural Development

                            (By Ken Hackett)

       The world is hungry.
       The unprecedented global financial crisis is plummeting 
     more people into poverty. Nearly 1 billion worldwide go 
     hungry, according to the U.N. Food and Agriculture 
     Organization. Our conscience tells us this is morally 
     reprehensible; our intellect reminds us that hunger pangs can 
     breed riots and civil unrest that jeopardize the peace for us 
     all.
       This human calamity--with far-reaching consequences--
     demands that we strategically and smartly retool our thinking 
     on how to tackle the scourge of global hunger.
       One place to begin is to increase our investment in all 
     aspects of agricultural development, from seed to market. 
     Despite the fact that the majority of poor people in the 
     developing world live in rural areas and sustain themselves 
     through farming, overall funding for agriculture has been 
     declining for many years.
       As clearly shown by the World Bank, agricultural 
     productivity gains and innovation have been particularly low 
     in Africa. This lack of investment has led to stagnating 
     productivity and missed opportunities to take advantage of 
     improved technologies that enable farmers to grow more food, 
     to process it and to sell it for the best price.
       A modest investment in agriculture can pay major dividends, 
     boosting the incomes of farm families and helping to lift 
     them out of poverty. In Niger, where I just visited, Fatou 
     Soumana for years sold her unprocessed sesame seeds for a 
     pittance, barely making enough to feed her family. With some 
     help provided by Catholic Relief Services, including training 
     on how to save and invest and classes on how to process 
     sesame seeds, she is now selling a refined oil for use in 
     skin-care products that is fetching top dollar.
       Fatou has used her profits to buy a cell phone, six sheep 
     and a refrigerator. The refrigerator helps her to store the 
     ice cream she makes and sells on the side. Here is an example 
     of the multiplier effect of this approach: awakening an 
     entrepreneurial spirit.
       We need to move toward more holistic approaches to rural 
     development that reflect the needs of the poor themselves and 
     build permanent solutions to end global hunger. These 
     approaches are starting to take root among the world's 
     poorest countries through the efforts of smart development-
     assistance programs.
       The U.S. Government's Millennium Challenge Corp., for 
     example, is investing in every facet of the agricultural 
     value chain. Millennium Challenge grants are training 
     farmers, including women who make up the majority of farmers 
     throughout the developing world; building the roads and 
     bridges they need to get their crops to market; and 
     bolstering a sound policy environment that secures land 
     rights for farmers or expands the financial services 
     agribusinesses need to flourish. Innovative approaches like 
     the sesame project in Niger are rather small, but Millennium 
     Challenge grants can replicate them on a larger scale.
       I applaud the Obama administration for the steps it has 
     taken so far in the fight against global hunger and poverty, 
     specifically in its commitment to increased funding for food 
     security and for demonstrating its support of the Millennium 
     Challenge Corp. in the proposed budget for the coming fiscal 
     year. I urge the administration and Congress to continue 
     America's commitment to assisting the world's poor in the 
     face of fiscal stress and competing budget priorities.
       To cure the malady of hunger, we must invest today in 
     agriculture's long-term sustainability. We have smart models 
     of development assistance that are working toward this goal 
     for the world's poor. If we are truly committed to ending 
     global hunger, we must deepen our support for the solutions 
     these models are delivering.

  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 3 
minutes to the distinguished gentleman, the ranking member of Energy 
and Commerce from Ennis, Texas (Mr. Barton).
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I thank the distinguished member of the Rules 
Committee.
  Madam Speaker, this is the most important economic bill before this 
House in the last 100 years, and we get, under this rule, 3\1/2\ hours 
of debate, equally divided. I can almost say we have debated ceremonial 
resolutions longer than this bill if this rule passes.

                              {time}  0945

  Let me give you just two or three reasons to vote against the rule. 
Four hundred pages of this bill have never been seen before. They were 
literally hot off the Xerox machine when they were handed into the 
Rules Committee at approximately sometime between 2 and 3 a.m. this 
morning. That's one reason to vote ``no'' on the rule.
  Number two, there is a provision in this revised bill on derivatives 
that the chairman of the Ag Committee and the chairman of the Financial 
Services Committee have already said needs to be repealed. But they 
have agreed to let it be a part of today's package with the 
understanding that it will then be repealed later this summer. That's 
another reason to vote against the rule.
  There are so many new provisions that have never been seen. 
Provisions that Chairman Peterson and Chairman Waxman negotiated on 
agriculture have never been the focus of a hearing or even a public 
debate. It is a debatable proposition whether the provisions that 
Chairman Peterson had negotiated have any value at all since the EPA 
Administrator still retains the ultimate authority under the bill to 
regulate any man-made greenhouse gas.
  This bill needs to be pulled today. And 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.
  Two hundred 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.
  Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Nevada, a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and 
Education and Labor Committee (Ms. Titus).
  Ms. TITUS. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Titus-
Giffords-Heinrich amendment, which the manager's amendment incorporates 
into the American Clean Energy and Security Act.
  Our amendment will create clean-energy jobs, promote deployment of 
renewable energy technology, and put the Federal Government in a 
position to lead by example. Our amendment extends the limit for the 
Federal Government to 20 years on a contract for the acquisition of 
electricity generated from a renewable energy resource, often referred 
to as a power purchase agreement. This provision will encourage wide-
scale deployment of renewable energy technology at Federal buildings, 
BLM land, and Superfund sites. Additionally, it will allow agencies to 
plan for more sustainable and affordable energy use over an extended 
period of time. This small change will open the door to government 
investments in cleaner, more sustainable, and ultimately more cost-
beneficial energy technologies.
  Our amendment also establishes a Renewable Electricity Standard for 
Federal agencies. This RES will ensure that the Federal Government 
meets 20 percent of its electricity demands through renewable energy by 
2020. It will drive demand for new, clean-energy technologies and help 
create new, clean-energy jobs. Indeed, we will be leading by example.
  I'm proud to have joined my fellow members of the Sustainable Energy 
and Environment Coalition, chaired by Jay Inslee and Steve Israel, on 
this provision. I would like to thank Chairman Waxman for his 
assistance on this important amendment.
  I too will miss you, Madam Speaker.

[[Page 16498]]


  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman's coming 
down and speaking this morning. There's an estimate that in her 
congressional district, there will be 5,334 jobs that will be lost in 
the first year of this bill.
  Madam Speaker, at 3 o'clock, 2:30 this morning, we received the 
manager's amendment, 309 pages, brand new. And this is the text of the 
ideas that Chairman Barton was talking about that were completely 
ignored by the Democrat majority last night in the Rules Committee. The 
Members had come up to speak plainly about their ideas. Completely 
ignored. Completely ignored.
  At this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the ranking member of 
the Energy and Environment Subcommittee of the Energy and Commerce 
Committee, Mr. Upton.
  Mr. UPTON. Madam Speaker, this bill sure is an energy bill. This bill 
will turn out the lights on America.
  You know, there was a chance that we were going to have a bipartisan 
bill. But that chance melted away when the subcommittee failed to mark 
up a bill and we went right to full committee. We thought we might have 
a chance on the House floor. And I can remember when Speaker Hastert 
was in your chair, Madam Speaker, because 4 years ago we had an energy 
bill on the floor and there were more than 50 amendments that were 
offered under Chairman Dreier and the Rules Committee, many of them 
Democratic amendments. We spent a number of days on this. And at the 
end of the day, both Mr. Dingell, the former chairman, and Joe Barton, 
the then-chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, were able to 
vote for a bill because, in fact, it was bipartisan.
  Yesterday more than 200 amendments were filed up at the Rules 
Committee, many of them Republican, many of them bipartisan. Mr. Hill, 
Democrat from Indiana, and I offered a bipartisan amendment on nuclear. 
Nuclear is one issue that is absent from this bill. Don't ask me why. 
There are no greenhouse gas emissions from nuclear. It really is a jobs 
bill. I've got two nuclear plants in my congressional district. When 
they were both brought online, 85 percent of the components were made 
in America. Today for a new nuclear plant, 85 percent is going to come 
from someplace else because we turned the light from green to red on 
nuclear the last 20, 25 years. Yet no amendment on nuclear in this bill 
and in this rule.
  I woke up this morning and saw my friend and colleague Mr. Inslee 
speaking on C-SPAN. He said this bill was going to cost only a postage 
stamp. I looked at the paper this morning and saw a full-page ad: 
gasoline costs will only go up 2 cents a gallon.
  You know, I hope they're true. But I don't think that those 
statements are going to be true. We had amendments as a safety valve in 
case it does go up. The CBO and American Petroleum Institute say that 
gas prices are going to go up 77 cents a gallon, diesel prices 88 cents 
a gallon. Some energy costs could go up by 40 to 50 percent. We had 
amendments that said, hey, if gasoline goes up to 5 bucks a gallon, 
we're going to take off this cap-and-trade. If electricity prices go up 
more than 10 percent, we'll take off cap-and-trade. If unemployment 
reaches 15 percent, and it's almost there already in Michigan, we'll 
take off those job-killing provisions. Were those amendments allowed? 
No.
  Then we've got the whole issue of India and China, jobs going 
someplace else. That consumed a couple of hours of debate, I think, in 
full committee. Yet no amendment at all allowed on the House floor.
  Madam Speaker, my folks want to work and pay taxes. Yet they're going 
to find themselves laid off, and in Michigan a hundred thousand folks 
this year will run out of benefits. No amendments are allowed to help 
those folks. Not even a Republican substitute is allowed as part of 
this rule.
  Madam Speaker, your side has an 80-vote margin. I would like to think 
that at least we could have the same cards to offer positive 
constructive amendments and debate it on the merits, not on the 
politics.
  Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida, a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee (Ms. Castor).
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. I thank my good friend Congresswoman Matsui 
from California for yielding and say that it is absolutely appropriate 
that Congresswoman Doris Matsui leads off the debate today on behalf of 
the Rules Committee because she has been one of America's most 
outspoken advocates for a new, clean-energy economy.
  Madam Speaker, the American people's election of President Obama was 
a call for a change in the direction of the country, especially our 
energy policy.
  America's energy policy is outdated. We rely too much on foreign oil, 
which has serious economic and strategic risks. We have not invested in 
renewable energy or in cost-saving technologies as we should. 
Meanwhile, carbon pollution is changing our climate and destabilizing 
global markets. Unless carbon pollution is addressed, we face an 
uncertain future.
  But thanks to the leadership of Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Waxman, 
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 on 
the heels of the Economic Recovery Act. Together the Clean Energy Act 
and the recovery plan provide a new foundation 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're 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 address 
carbon pollution, it is possible that much of my State in future 
decades will no longer be habitable. We must act now.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Ms. MATSUI. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. I thank my colleague.
  Scientists tell us that if carbon pollution is not addressed, the 
seas could rise and the coasts could move inland. Florida has already 
seen increasing droughts and saltwater intrusion of our aquifers. What 
happens if we do not act? Property insurance rates are already out of 
sight. What if the scientists are right that warmer waters increase the 
intensity of hurricanes?
  So for those that say that it's not time to build on a new energy 
economy or that environmental changes can be ignored, you are on the 
wrong side of history. We are going to make good on the promise to 
future generations of Americans and break our dependence on foreign oil 
and create the clean-energy jobs that will revitalize America's economy 
in the coming century.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman from 
Florida's coming down. A vote for this bill will lose 3,500 jobs in her 
congressional district in the year 2012, the first year of its 
implementation.
  Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from the Fifth Congressional District of Texas (Mr. 
Hensarling).
  Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, since the Democrats have taken control 
of Congress, we have seen their idea to increase the deficit tenfold. 
We've seen their idea to triple the national debt in 10 years. We've 
seen their ideas to bail out AIG, GM, Fannie and Freddie, and the list 
goes on. And today's new idea, a new national energy tax costing every 
American family $1,500 to $3,000 a year, but only if they choose to 
turn on a light, cook a meal, or drive their children to school.
  Don't take my word for it. Listen to the President of the United 
States, who

[[Page 16499]]

said that under his plan, electricity rates would ``necessarily 
skyrocket.'' That's from our President. Estimates are our gas prices 
will go up about 77 cents a gallon at the pump.
  Now, all of this is due to global warming concerns, and, Madam 
Speaker, these are legitimate concerns. We have a right to be 
concerned, and man-made activity does contribute. But is this a smart 
policy? You know, if India and China don't participate, it is for 
naught. Even our own Federal Government estimates, at best over a 
course of a hundred years, this may impact global temperatures \2/10\ 
of 1 degree. Frankly, that variance occurs naturally every single year.
  Think about the severe job loss, millions and millions of jobs lost 
due to the competitive disadvantage we have.
  There are smarter ways to deal with global warming, but we hear 
nothing about clean coal from the other side. We hear nothing about 
nuclear from the other side.
  Think about the huge loss of national wealth that could have been 
used to cure cancer, send a generation to college, help launch millions 
of small businesses.
  Now, Madam Speaker, some call it ``cap-and-trade.'' It will cap 
American opportunity. It will trade away American jobs. It's time to 
reject the new national energy tax.

                              {time}  1000

  Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Arizona (Ms. Giffords).
  Ms. GIFFORDS. Thank you, Ms. Matsui.
  I rise today in support of this legislation. I was pleased to join 
with my Southwestern colleagues Dina Titus and Martin Heinrich to offer 
amendments to this bill, which are now part of the manager's amendment.
  With strong support from my colleagues and the Sustainable Energy and 
Environment Coalition, we cracked an amendment which will significantly 
expand the government's use of electricity from renewable sources, such 
as solar energy, in a couple of ways.
  First, it extends the allowable period of time for which Federal 
agencies may sign public power agreements from 10 years to 20 years. 
This will allow renewable power providers to offer lower rates, making 
renewable power much more cost competitive. This is going to promote 
the installation of renewable power projects on government buildings 
and military installations across the country.
  In my district, southern Arizona, both Fort Huachuca and Davis-
Monthan Air Force Base are looking at installing solar projects. This 
time expansion from 10 to 20 years, this provision is going to be a 
significant benefit to these projects and other projects across the 
country.
  Second, the amendment will establish a target of 20 percent renewable 
electricity for all government agencies by 2020. Similar to the 
renewable electricity standard for utilities already crafted in this 
legislation, this provision simply ensures that our Federal Government 
is doing the same. We are creating a market for renewable power.
  As an enormous consumer of energy, particularly the Department of 
Defense, the Federal Government can have a significant positive impact 
by modifying its procurement process to support emerging technologies 
in this way.
  This bill, Madam Speaker, is not a perfect bill, but it's an 
important piece of legislation, and I urge my colleagues on both sides 
of the aisle to support it.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman, the chairman of the Republican Conference, 
Mr. Pence.
  Mr. PENCE. Madam Speaker, this is a difficult time in the life of our 
Nation and the life of our Nation's economy and that of families and 
small businesses and family farms.
  Remarkably, today, with an embarrassingly brief amount of debate and 
discussion and amendment, the Democrat majority is poised to bring to 
the floor of the Congress what amounts to the largest tax increase in 
American history under the guise of climate change legislation.
  Now, there is a lot of debate about what this bill will cost the 
average American household from hundreds of dollars to thousands of 
dollars, but there actually is no debate over the fact that this 
legislation will cost millions of American jobs. On that point there is 
no discussion.
  The bill, itself, actually includes a fund that would provide 
resources for Americans who lose their jobs if cap-and-trade becomes 
law, and there are news reports this morning, although I am yet to 
confirm them, that there may be new trade restrictions in this 
legislation, because the expectation, and it is reasonable, is, by 
raising the cost of energy for every American business, that we will 
see businesses flee overseas, taking jobs abroad in these difficult 
economic times. It is extraordinary, to say the least.
  But the way that this bill is coming to the floor ought to be 
disturbing to every American, Republican, Democrat and Independent 
that's looking in. Last night, at 3:09 a.m., House Democrats filed a 
309-page amendment and denied Republican and Democrat amendments to the 
tune of the 224 that were submitted.
  Three hours of debate, one amendment filed at 3:09 in the morning 
that's 309 pages. And I would ask the Democrat majority and the Speaker 
respectfully, what's the hurry? What are we hiding here that we can't 
afford more time for the American people and their elected 
representatives to examine what's in this bill?
  I mean, is there more corporate welfare, more deals for special 
interests. Were Members that were on the fence placated with special 
provisions for industries in their districts? We are hurrying to find 
out, and we have to hurry, because the majority just recently denied us 
one additional minute of debate.
  You know, the term ``Congress,'' Madam Speaker, actually is an 
ancient term. It means interaction. It means the intercourse between 
men and women in ideas and philosophies. This is not Congress. I don't 
know what this is; 3 o'clock in the morning, 300 pages, one amendment 
is a travesty.
  Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Vermont, a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, Mr. 
Welch.
  Mr. WELCH. I thank my colleague.
  Madam Speaker, a confident nation acknowledges the challenges it 
faces. It doesn't ignore them. A confident people, when faced with the 
challenge, rolls up their sleeves and addresses the problems before 
them.
  Madam Speaker, today, Congress has two questions. The first is will 
it acknowledge the challenge of global warming that it is real, that it 
is urgent, and that demands attention now.
  And second, will Congress, by this first step of passing this 
legislation, unleash the power of America to take that step towards 
American energy independence; to unleash the brilliance of our 
scientists and engineers to develop alternative and renewable energy; 
to unleash the competitiveness of our entrepreneurs to bring to market 
energy-saving devices and to create jobs in America; the frugality and 
thriftiness of our homeowners and business owners who have buildings to 
be able to retrofit and make them more energy efficient and save money; 
the skills of our plumbers, masons, electricians and carpenters to go 
to work making our buildings more energy independent.
  Madam Speaker, every generation faces its challenge, and what we have 
seen across America is that young people have taken this on, and our 
question is whether we are going to----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. MATSUI. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.
  Mr. WELCH. The question we face as Congress is simply this: Will we 
put to work those young Americans, those scientists, those 
entrepreneurs, and allow them to make America energy independent?
  The questions we face can be solved. We have to give permission and 
authority for people to act.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 1\1/
2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Broun.

[[Page 16500]]


  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I want to give my personal congratulations to 
Congresswoman Tauscher, and I just look for great things out of you. 
Congratulations.
  I rise to speak against this rule. This rule is blatantly unfair to 
the American people. It is quashed. It is. It has prevented good 
amendments to be introduced on this floor and to have the proper debate 
that we should have over something that is extremely important, as this 
bill is. We have just gotten this, but let me tell what you this bill 
is, America, Madam Speaker. This bill is going to kill millions of jobs 
in America. People are going to be put out of work because of this 
bill.
  Now, we hear all the time about global warming. Actually, we have had 
flat-line temperatures globally for the last 8 years. Scientists all 
over this world say that the idea of human-induced global climate 
change is one of the greatest hoaxes perpetrated out of the scientific 
community. It is a hoax. There is no scientific consensus.
  But this is going to kill jobs. It's going to raise the cost of food. 
It's going to raise the cost of medicines. It's going to raise the cost 
of electricity and gasoline. Every good and service in this country is 
going to go up, and who is going to be hurt most? The poor, the people 
on limited income, the retirees, the elderly, the people who can least 
afford to have their energy taxes raised by, MIT says, over $3,100 per 
family.
  This rule must be defeated. This bill must be defeated. We need to be 
good stewards of our environment, but this is not it. It's a hoax.
  I encourage people to vote against the rule and the bill.
  Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas, Ms. Jackson-Lee.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I would like to thank the gentlelady from 
California, and I would like to express my recognition that this is 
heavy lifting.
  This is for the courageous and the willing who want to see a new 
vision. I am well aware of the hard task that our friends on the Rules 
Committee had, so I am voting for the rule, and I come from the energy 
capital of the world. We are proud to say that. We have obviously lived 
in the clothing of the energy of this past century and what continues 
in the century to come.
  But I realize it should be a seamless energy policy. I represent the 
city of Houston, hardworking Americans. And so it's important as we 
listen to our friends on the other side of the aisle, this is a 
challenging time. It is a time for heavy lifting, to be able to look at 
what happened in the past. We realize that under the Bush 
administration, the increase in what we pay for gasoline went from 
2,000-plus to 4,000-plus. We also realize that in this legislation 
there is a great effort to ensure that the American people are 
addressed fairly.
  So 40 percent of American households will face almost no cost as a 
result of this bill. Let's get the facts. We know that the CBO score of 
the bill that had been utilized by our friends on the other side of the 
aisle is incorrect because the increase on building our energy 
resources will wind up being $770 per family. But there are issues that 
we should continue to be focused on, and, therefore, we should look to 
ensure that no American who may be displaced for any reason, new 
technology, is not, in essence, overlooked.
  There are millions of dollars for green energy job training in this 
bill. I am looking to offer amendments that focus on making sure that 
any dip in job positions will be monitored by the Labor Department and, 
in fact, that resources be available for all Americans.
  But what we are trying to do here is to build a new culture and work 
with what we have, to build the seamless resources that we have across 
the country and guide the carbons out of the air and make our quality 
of life better and at the same time give us a new vision for how we 
handle the energy needs of our Nation.
  And so it is important that we recognize that there is a structure to 
capture that carbon. There is a response to those who are, in essence, 
impacted. There are credits that are going to be given.
  At the same time, I was concerned about the labeling of different 
buildings, and we are working on language that would ensure that older 
buildings won't have to participate in the assessment of whether your 
building is energy efficient. It will be for new construction.
  So we are making our way because, in fact, this is a beginning. We 
will be working with the Senate. We will be working with the President. 
We will be working on behalf of the American people.
  We have to get started. We have to be innovative. We have to claim 
the 1.7 million jobs that this bill will create. I think America wants 
us to do that.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, could you please advise us how much time 
remains on both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 6 minutes 
remaining. The gentlewoman from California has 9\3/4\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, at this time I would yield 1\1/2\ 
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey.
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this 
rule and to the underlying legislation. I am just not sure to which I 
am more opposed. Americans are watching, as from Iran to North Korea, 
the forces of darkness are attempting to silence the voices of 
democracy and freedom.
  The irony is, on this day, the democratic process and our Nation's 
economic freedom are under threat, not by some rogue state but in this 
very Chamber in which we stand. Good people may disagree on the impact 
of the merits of this bill, but no one can disagree with the fact that 
the Speaker and our Rules Committee have silenced the opposition of 224 
amendments. Madam Speaker, one, and I repeat, one amendment was 
actually made in order.
  Madam Speaker, I offered an amendment which was, of course, not made 
in order, that would have allowed a State to opt out of this 
legislation.

                              {time}  1015

  How can we not give them the ability to say that their citizens and 
their businesses simply cannot afford this Pelosi global warming tax? 
For some of them, this bill will be an economic death sentence.
  And yet, Madam Speaker, this House will not have a chance to vote on 
this amendment or any of the other 222. They were banned from being 
debated and voted upon in this, the people's House.
  I call upon every Member of this House, oppose and defeat this rule, 
not just for the sake of the democratic process, but for the sake of 
our Nation's economy.
  Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a member of the 
Committee on Natural Resources, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. 
Heinrich).
  Mr. HEINRICH. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule, 
which includes an amendment I worked to draft with my colleagues, Ms. 
Titus of Nevada and Ms. Giffords of Arizona.
  This amendment will make sure that the Federal Government leads by 
example on clean energy. In my district, Kirtland Air Force Base has 
tried for a number of years to contract with local clean-energy 
producers to purchase electricity to help power the base, but there are 
several Federal policies that stand in the way of these kinds of 
projects.
  New Mexico is second in the Nation for solar energy potential, and we 
have a thriving clean-energy industry in Albuquerque, creating jobs 
today. So this is a natural partnership.
  However, many Federal agencies have discovered that the 10-year limit 
on Federal power purchase agreements made these kinds of agreements 
uneconomical for their private sector partners in the solar industry.
  Our amendment will extend the length of these contracts to 20 years, 
allowing more Federal agencies to sign agreements with clean-energy 
producers. This will put Americans to work and ensure the Federal 
Government leads by example in the use of clean energy.

[[Page 16501]]

  I urge my colleagues to support this rule, this legislation.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, if I can please ask my colleague, the 
gentlewoman from California, in an effort to get our time back to an 
even balance, if she could have one of her speakers up at this time.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MATSUI. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Schiff).
  Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, the bill today that Chairman Waxman has so 
carefully shepherded to the floor today is a landmark achievement for 
this body. For the first time as a Nation we are moving towards energy 
independence, creating millions of new clean jobs, and confronting the 
threat that global warming poses to the Earth.
  As parents, we all struggle to provide our children with a better 
life. Without the strong action embodied in this bill, the world that 
we bequeath to our children will be diminished by continued reliance on 
Middle Eastern oil, by exporting billions of hard-earned American 
dollars to petro dictatorships, and by a warming Earth.
  America has been at her best during her greatest struggles and, as 
before, her industry and entrepreneurial spirit will prevail. Already, 
the green technology industry is booming across the country, with new 
factories built and new companies formed every day.
  Unfortunately, the Federal Government itself has not been able to 
fully utilize renewable energy. Many renewable energy installations 
have large upfront costs, which then have to be recovered in the form 
of cheap energy over the course of many years. But the Federal 
Government has been restricted from signing long-term contracts for 
energy, so affordable renewable energy has been unavailable to 
thousands of government offices around the country.
  The rule for this bill inserts an important provision that I authored 
as independent legislation earlier this year and that I worked with 
many colleagues to include. It loosens the restrictions on energy 
purchases by the government, and that will spur local green energy 
development in every State in the Nation.
  I hope that we can support this measure, this rule, this bill and 
fulfill the promise that we have given to our constituents, that we 
will serve this country not only today and during this Congress, but 
for the long haul, that we will make not only the easy decisions, but 
the hard ones.
  Mr. SESSIONS. At this time I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).
  Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, I 
rise today in opposition to this rule and the bill. I offered five 
bipartisan, commonsense amendments to the bill with the support of 
other Members. Not one of these was made in order.
  I offered an amendment to strike the section that mandates national 
building codes. Because my amendment was rejected, if State and local 
governments don't comply with these new national mandates, homeowners 
today who are struggling to make ends meet could be charged $100 a day 
for not being in compliance. A new tax on American homeowners is the 
wrong direction.
  I had another amendment to strike from this bill the new tax on all 
transactions cleared via any U.S. regulated derivatives clearing 
organization. This bill then will have very chilling consequences. It 
will punish those using U.S.-regulated clearing organizations, 
discourage the use of central clearing organizations, and reduce 
transparency and liquidity and encourage legitimate business activities 
to move to unregulated foreign markets.
  Another amendment would revise the Nuclear Advanced Fuel Cycle 
Initiative to set a policy for clean, safe nuclear energy. I oppose 
this rule and the bill.
  Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Quigley).
  Mr. QUIGLEY. It's interesting, earlier today someone asked me: How 
can you vote for this measure, because global warming is a hoax. My 
answer was: It's very simple. I remove the blinders there that exist 
with some of my colleagues who think that global warming is a hoax. I 
remind them that there are zero peer-reviewed scientific studies that 
say global warming is a hoax.
  There are hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific studies that say 
global warming is real and that man's actions contribute greatly to 
that increase in temperature.
  We are often asked: What is our legacy here? What really matters 
about what we do? And I'd like to think it's how our children and our 
grandchildren will react to what we did and what we left behind.
  So let's face reality and do what is right for our children and our 
children's children.
  Mr. SESSIONS. At this time I would yield a grand total of 30 seconds 
to the distinguished gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I do rise to oppose this 
rule. Many of my constituents see this as a government regulation of 
the very air you breathe. They know that this is a liberal's dream, and 
that indeed many think that the Democrats have become the party of 
punishment. We are the party of ``no.'' We want people to know what is 
in this bill.
  I offered in committee an amendment that would require disclosure of 
what this legislation would cost consumers on their electric bills, at 
the gas pump, and on the products that they buy.
  In Rules Committee, I offered an amendment to require every 
transaction that FERC makes on these allocations and offsets to be 
listed in a database that is searchable by the public so they will know 
what is in this. They were voted down.
  I encourage all to oppose this rule and this bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California has 5\1/2\ 
minutes. The gentleman from Texas has 3 minutes remaining.
  Ms. MATSUI. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. If I could, Madam Speaker, is the gentlewoman through 
with her speakers now? We still have some disparity in the little bit 
of time that was given. I would like for there to be some parity.
  Ms. MATSUI. I have additional speakers coming.
  Mr. SESSIONS. If she has additional speakers, I will reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I don't see my speakers present there, so 
I'm ready to close. I will use my remaining time to close.
  Mr. SESSIONS. At this time I yield 1 minute to gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Roe).
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this 
rule and the underlying legislation. I've only been here 6 months, but 
this is the worst piece of legislation that has come out of the House 
yet.
  It defies logic that at a time of economic recession we would impose 
a regressive national energy tax that many have predicted will result 
in a net job loss. Supporters of this legislation only want to talk 
about the so-called ``green'' jobs that will be created, but they 
conveniently ignore that some studies indicate that for every one job 
created, two are eliminated.
  Worse, we are creating a costly, confusing program of carbon credits. 
Let me make one prediction: the only certainty under this bill is Wall 
Street traders sophisticated enough to understand how these credits are 
traded will make millions.
  I offered an amendment yesterday at the Rules Committee stating that 
at least bring it to a level playing field between the U.S., China, and 
India. My feeling is that if Congress is going to pass this 
legislation, we should require India and China--two enormous and 
growing resources of greenhouse emissions--to abide by the same 
standards.
  My amendment would have required the U.S. to come to agreement with 
these two countries on emission reductions before implementing any 
provision within this bill.
  This rule is a sham. It pales in comparison to how awful the bill is. 
I urge

[[Page 16502]]

the Members to demand a return to the democratic process and defeat 
this bill that will certainly exacerbate our economic recession.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).
  Mr. SCALISE. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise in opposition to this 
rule. This is a massive energy tax on the backs of the American people 
all across this country. All estimates show millions of jobs will be 
lost by this cap-and-trade energy tax.
  Every household family will see an increase in their utility bills. 
And we brought amendments last night to protect American jobs. They 
ruled every one of those amendments out of order.
  We brought amendments to protect American families having their 
utility bills increased. They ruled every one of those amendments out 
of order.
  What is Speaker Pelosi and this liberal leadership trying to hide 
from the American people? We should have an open, honest debate on this 
bill. It's a bad bill and a bad rule. I urge rejection of the rule.
  Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Mexico (Mr. Lujan).
  Mr. LUJAN. Our country's dependence on foreign oils threatens our 
economy and security. We need to take bold steps to become energy 
independent by growing a new energy economy. Comprehensive energy 
reform will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, making us more secure 
as a Nation.
  The energy bill we consider today will also create clean-energy jobs, 
inspiring a new economy. As a former utility commissioner, I saw 
firsthand the positive impact energy reform had on my State of New 
Mexico. We instituted a renewable energy standard that increased the 
generation of renewables. We encouraged energy efficiency to reduce 
costs for homes and businesses. And it's now time to see these steps at 
a national level.
  For too long we have accepted the status quo on energy, and now, with 
the American Clean Energy and Security Act, we can put America on a 
path to energy independence, make America the global leader in energy 
technology, cut costly and harmful pollution, create new jobs, and save 
billions in the long run.
  I support this rule and urge my colleagues to join us in supporting 
this rule and this legislation.
  Mr. SESSIONS. At this time I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the ranking 
member of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Dreier).
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for his superb management. The American 
people are hurting. We know that very, very well. We hear it daily. 
Jobs are being lost, people are losing their businesses, people are 
losing their homes. They don't want to see another tax burden imposed 
on them, which is exactly what this bill is going to do. Everyone 
recognizes that there is going to be an increase in the burden on the 
American people.
  Unfortunately, as we pursue green technology, we have not been given 
an opportunity to do that. My friend from Ohio has been very thoughtful 
on this issue. He had an idea--several ideas that I offered before the 
committee.
  One of the things I believe we should do, Madam Speaker, is allow for 
the free flow of green technology globally. I'm working with my friend 
from Ohio in a bipartisan way on that.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. I'd be happy to yield to the gentleman.

                              {time}  1030

  Mr. KUCINICH. I believe the choices we are being offered in this bill 
are insufficient to address the immediate real threat of global 
warming. We can take market-based approaches that protect the planet, 
respect nature through incentivizing the mass production and worldwide 
distribution of American-made wind and solar microtechnologies, 
lowering our carbon footprint, lowering our energy costs, and rallying 
the American people to join in a great economic and social cause of 
creating a green future. We can do that. We can still do that.
  I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time. Let me say that I 
totally agree with the statement of my friend. Here is a demonstration 
of bipartisanship. It's not often that Mr. Kucinich and I work together 
on the exact same issue. We believe that the free flow of tremendous 
green technology around the world will, in fact, dramatically improve 
our economy and the standard of living and quality of life for the 
American people and for the rest of the world.
  Defeat this rule, so that we can bring back some of the 224 brilliant 
ideas that were offered but totally denied by this majority.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California is 
recognized for 4\1/2\ minutes.
  Ms. MATSUI. The rule before us today is a fair rule. It allows us to 
highlight our current energy policy challenges and a vision for a 
better tomorrow.
  The bill contains expedited procedures for consideration of a joint 
resolution of approval related to an international reserve allowance 
program. Such procedures are within the jurisdiction of the Rules 
Committee, and it is the committee's understanding that the procedures 
are placeholder language that will be finalized as the legislation 
moves forward. The Rules Committee looks forward to working with the 
other committees of jurisdiction on this provision.
  From water, to energy, to transportation, agriculture and public 
health, climate change is a defining environmental challenge of our 
time. The action we take today will impact our country in a positive 
way for generations.
  Today, it is this Congress' responsibility to pass comprehensive 
energy policy that charts a new course towards a clean energy economy. 
The underlying bill, the American Clean Energy and Security Act, takes 
huge steps to create jobs, help end our dangerous dependence on foreign 
oil and fight global warming.
  I urge my colleagues to recognize the urgent nature of the challenge 
before us today. If we do not act, we face disastrous consequences. 
Nearly every scientific society around the world has warned of the cost 
of inaction.
  On the other hand, if we do act here today, we make our planet more 
sustainable, more economically viable and more efficient than the world 
we live in today. We will make a positive impact, not only on the 
billions of people who live on the Earth today, but for generations 
into the future.
  Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on 
the rule.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Rule. I 
offered a commonsense amendment to strike the International Climate 
Change Adaptation program and the allocation of emission allowances to 
this program. We don't need to establish yet another foreign assistance 
program that is not only redundant but will actually hurt American 
manufacturers.
  This legislation calls for the U.S. to transfer to developing nations 
a portion of America's emission allowances so that these nations can 
continue to pollute. By giving away additional allowances this 
legislation will put America's manufacturers at an even worse 
competitive footing than ever before. This is another incentive to 
encourage American manufacturers to leave this country.
  And, this initiative will not reduce emissions. According to an 
article in yesterday's Washington Times, David Bookbinder, chief 
climate counsel to the Sierra Club, said, ``emissions could actually 
stay the same or increase domestically because companies could choose 
to buy permits instead of investing in technology to make their 
operations cleaner.'' I ask unanimous consent to insert the full 
article into the Record.
  Plus, this Rule prohibits a debate on some other commonsense 
amendments. My fellow Illinoisan, Representative Judy Biggert, had a 
responsible amendment to strike the federalization of local building 
codes and replace it with positive incentives to encourage federal, 
state, and local governments to move towards green building codes. Even 
the liberal Washington Post editorialized against this provision in the 
bill. I ask unanimous consent to insert

[[Page 16503]]

this editorial into the Record. This amendment was defeated 3 to 7 in 
the Rules Committee last night.
  The Rule also prohibits a debate on an amendment offered by 
Representative David Roe of Tennessee to waive this bill until the U.S. 
reaches an agreement with China and India on greenhouse gas reductions. 
Again, this sensible amendment was defeated by a vote of 3 to 7 in the 
Rules Committee last night. This is atrocious. We are only fooling 
ourselves if we think we're doing something to save the planet when all 
we're doing is transferring our manufacturing jobs and our pollution 
problems to China, India, and other developing nations. This bill will 
not lower global emissions of greenhouse gasses. The Roe amendment 
would have prevented this mistake.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and ``no'' on the 
final ``cap and tax'' bill.

               [From the Washington Times, June 25, 2009]

             Climate Bill Gives Billions to Foreign Foliage

                           (By Amanda DeBard)

       If a tree falls in Brazil, it will, in fact, be heard in 
     the U.S.--at least if a little-noticed provision in the 
     pending climate-change bill in Congress becomes law.
       As part of the far-reaching climate bill, the House is set 
     to vote Friday on a plan to pay companies billions of dollars 
     not to chop down trees around the world, as a way to reduce 
     global warming.
       The provision, called ``offsets,'' has been attacked by 
     both environmentalists and business groups as ineffective and 
     poorly designed. Critics contend it would send scarce federal 
     dollars overseas to plant trees when subsidies are needed at 
     home, while the purported ecological benefits would be 
     difficult to quantify.
       The offsets ``would be a transfer of wealth overseas,'' 
     said William Kovacs, vice president for environmental affairs 
     at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
       The Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the official fiscal 
     scorekeeper on Capitol Hill, has not offered an estimate on 
     how much the offset plan would cost, but the liberal Center 
     for American Progress says it will be pricey.
       ``The international offsets market is not a huge or cheap 
     market,'' said Joseph Romm, a climate expert at the center. 
     ``By 2020, the U.S. could be spending $4 billion on 
     international offsets.''
       Supporters of the legislation counter that the plan 
     recognizes the need to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions to 
     curb global warming--in the United States and beyond. 
     Supporting ways to keep trees alive or plant new trees, 
     wherever those trees are located, helps the effort, they say.
       Under the program, the government would reward domestic and 
     international companies that perform approved ``green'' 
     actions with certificates, called permits.
       Those companies could, in turn, sell the permits to other 
     companies that emit greenhouse gases. The permits would be, 
     in effect, licenses to pollute--and potentially very 
     valuable.
       The heart of the climate plan would require major polluters 
     to purchase the permits if they want to pollute above a 
     certain level, controlling overall emissions through a market 
     that is called ``cap-and-trade.''
       Under the provision to be voted on in the House, the 
     ``green'' companies could sell their offset permits to 
     companies that need them because they are unable to, reduce 
     their own emissions as fast as the government would like.
       But critics from both the political left and right see 
     problems.
       ``You have to ask yourself, what is the purpose of this 
     provision? Because it won't actually reduce emissions,'' said 
     David Bookbinder, chief climate counsel to the Sierra Club, 
     the environmental advocacy group.
       Mr. Bookbinder said emissions could actually stay the same 
     or increase domestically because companies could choose to 
     buy permits instead of invest in technology to make their 
     operations cleaner.
       Kenneth P. Green, a climate specialist at the conservative 
     American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, 
     said keeping track of which projects would be eligible for 
     inclusion is another flaw in the plan.
       ``Who is responsible if there's a fire that burns down a 
     [green] project? Will those just be wasted offsets?'' he 
     asked.
       Mr. Green and others say the bill's offset provisions, are 
     too vague and leave unanswered too many questions about which 
     projects will qualify for the offsets and how many offsets 
     would be offered for a given project.
       ``The key with offsets is ensuring that they 
     generate`credible' emission reductions,'' said Evan Juska, 
     North America senior policy manager for the Climate Group, 
     which advises governments and business how to move to a low-
     carbon economy.
       Mr. Juska said the bill, as written, ``leaves much of it to 
     be determined by the administrator after the program is 
     enacted.''
       While tree stands are a large absorber of carbon dioxide 
     and other greenhouse gases, they may not be the only projects 
     that qualify for offsets. Companies that erect wind farms, 
     install solar panels, invest in devices that trap the methane 
     gas in landfills, use less fertilizer, or upgrade equipment 
     at their refineries and power plants might also be eligible 
     for offsets.
       The bill would only allow 2 billion tons, or about 30 
     percent, of carbon-dioxide emissions to be offset a year 
     through the so-called ``green'' actions.
       Half of the qualifying projects must be domestic and half 
     must be overseas, but the bill includes the option to award 
     more offsets to international projects if not enough domestic 
     projects are available.
       The CBO projects that the thousands of firms subject to the 
     cap-and-trade program would utilize 230 million tons of 
     domestic offsets and 190 million tons of international 
     offsets in 2012, the year the legislation is proposed to take 
     effect, instead of reducing their emissions levels.
                                  ____


                [From the Washington Post, June 7, 2009]

                              Buried Code

       The running joke in Washington is that nobody has read the 
     900-plus-page energy bill sponsored by Reps. Henry A. Waxman 
     (D-Calif.) and Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), which the House 
     will consider in coming weeks. What you hear from its backers 
     is that its cap-and-trade provisions would create a market-
     based program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions--which 
     should mean that a simple, systemwide incentive encourages 
     polluters to make the easiest reductions in greenhouse gases 
     first, keeping the costs of fighting global warming to a 
     minimum. In fact, the bill also contains regulations on 
     everything from light bulb standards to the specs on hot 
     tubs, and it will reshape America's economy in dozens of ways 
     that many don't realize.
       Here is just one: The bill would give the federal 
     government power over local building codes. It requires that 
     by 2012 codes must require that new buildings be 30 percent 
     more efficient than they would have been under current 
     regulations. By 2016, that figure rises to 50 percent, with 
     increases scheduled for years after that. With those targets 
     in mind, the bill expects organizations that develop model 
     codes for states and localities to fall in the details, 
     creating a national code. If they don't, the bill commands 
     the Energy Department to draft a national code itself.
       States, meanwhile, would have to adopt the national code or 
     one that achieves the same efficiency targets. Those that 
     refuse will see their codes overwritten automatically, and 
     they will be docked federal funds and carbon ``allowances''--
     valuable securities created elsewhere in the bill that give 
     the holder the right to pollute and can be sold. The Energy 
     Department also could enforce its code itself. Among other 
     things, the policy would demonstrate the new leverage of 
     allocation of allowances as a sort of carbon currency--
     leverage this bill would be giving to Congress to direct 
     state behavior.
       According to the bill's advocates, America's buildings 
     account for perhaps 40 percent of U.S. greenhouse emissions, 
     and technology is available for builders to meet the targets 
     in ways that are economical for building owners. Much of the 
     problem is old buildings that waste huge amounts of energy, 
     which wouldn't necessarily be touched by the new code. But it 
     would be good if builders met these efficiency goals with new 
     construction.
       Is the best way to achieve that, though, to federalize what 
     has long been a matter of local concern? And if the point of 
     cap-and-trade is to change market incentives, why does 
     Congress, and not the market, need to dictate these changes? 
     Those are a few questions that emerge when you begin to read 
     through the 900 pages.

  Mr. GRAVES. Madam Speaker, I come to the floor today extremely 
disappointed with the Rule put before us.
  Every day I hear the same message from my constituents--stop 
Washington's addiction to spending. Bailout after bailout, with no 
change in sight, the small business owners, farmers and hard working 
families in Missouri have grown weary and frustrated.
  Instead of providing our taxpayers much needed relief, we are here 
today to ask for more of their money. H.R. 2454 is a thinly veiled 
attempt to address climate change, unsuccessfully I might add, while 
its actual goal is to direct more taxpayer dollars to the government 
coffers. The results are unacceptable:
  an average tax increase of $3100 for families;
  additional regulatory and administrative costs on small businesses;
  higher energy expenses for all--especially those in rural areas;
  and significant job loss.
  When will enough be enough?
  I offered two common sense amendments to H.R. 2454--rejected by the 
Rules Committee--which struck the cap and tax provisions in the 
underlying bill should the unemployment rate reach 8 percent or higher. 
I have financially strapped companies in my district, who instead of 
laying off their employees have chosen to keep them on payroll at 
reduced hours. These business owners and employees are making serious 
sacrifices. Should

[[Page 16504]]

this cap and tax provision be implemented while these companies 
continue to struggle to survive this economic downturn, their strategic 
and innovative efforts will become null and void and their employees 
will join the already overextended unemployment line.
  Today I strongly urge my colleagues to stand with me. It is 
irresponsible of Congress to use taxation as an answer to our 
challenges. Voting against this rule and the underlying legislation 
will demonstrate your willingness to work together towards real energy 
solutions for our future and our children's future.
  Ms. LEE of California. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the rule.
  President Obama, in commenting on the American Clean Energy and 
Security Act earlier this week, cited that this legislation ``will open 
the door to a better future for this nation.''
  I strongly agree with President Obama, but I must also stress our 
responsibility to ensure all individuals will be provided the 
opportunity to participate in the new green economy.
  That is why I offered the Lee Amendment to this legislation, which 
would have authorized legislation I have introduced in the House 
entitled the Metro Economies Green Act, or MEGA, in order to establish 
targeted grant programs to support green economic development, job 
training and creation.
  Inclusion of the Lee Amendment to H.R. 2454 would have provided 
valuable opportunities for those who can benefit from good paying green 
collar jobs the most--urban youth of color, the unemployed, and those 
among our neighbors who have just faced incredible hardships in life.
  Unfortunately the Lee Amendment was not made in order. However, I 
look forward to working with my colleagues in the future to expand 
access to high-paying, career-term green jobs that represent a much 
needed pathway out of poverty for millions of individuals across this 
country.
  Mr. MATSUI. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________