To amend the Clean Air Act to provide that greenhouse gases are not subject to the Act, and for other purposes.

Well, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for holding this Special Order to talk about the cap-and-tax proposal that has been offered by Chairman Waxman of the Energy and Commerce Committee and subcommittee Chairman Markey of the subcommittee dealing with energy on that committee. And it concerns me greatly as it should concern all Americans.

When you look at the sources of energy that we have in our country today, this legislation is going to drive up energy costs for the average American. It is going to drive up the costs of a whole lot of other things than simply their electric bills and the cost of other energy they receive. It is also going to drive up the cost of virtually every good that they receive and a lot of services that they receive as well. It concerns me greatly.

I have served as the ranking member and previously the chairman of the Agriculture Committee. Today I serve as the ranking member on the subcommittee of the Agriculture Committee that deals with energy. And quite frankly, it is a situation where this is a solution in search of a problem. And quite frankly, the solution is going to create great problems for the American people.

What we really need to have in this country in this time of very severe economic turmoil when people are losing their jobs and the economy is suffering is we need to be looking at producing more domestic sources of energy of all kinds. And yet this legislation is going to discourage the production of most of the principal sources of energy that we utilize in our country today, including coal production and nuclear power.

The gentleman may correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that nuclear power, which is completely CO2 gas emission- free, is going to not receive any credit for the availability of electricity that is produced from this source which today produces about 20 percent of all of our electricity in the country. And it seems to me that if you're truly dedicated to solving our problems of energy sources, you would want to be encouraging increased production of all different sorts of energy.

Now nuclear power is very capital intensive. But once you have a new nuclear power plant, it is the cheapest source of electric generation that exists in the country, even far cheaper than coal as a source of energy. And yet the fact that it is CO2-free doesn't seem to make any difference, because there are those in the environmental community who are very hostile to nuclear power production, even though we have--and countries like France which now produces more than 75 percent of its electricity from nuclear power--have addressed in new and innovative ways the waste disposal issue and other safety issues that make nuclear power very, very attractive.

And then when it comes to coal, do you know that more than half of our electricity in this country is generated by coal? It is a very, very important source of energy. And yet it is treated like the lost step-child in this legislation because no effort is really made here to help coal address the serious concerns that have been raised by some about the amount of CO2 that is emitted from coal production. That to me does not make any sense. We are the Saudi Arabia of the world in terms of coal production. We have more coal reserves than any other country in the world. And we have tremendous capabilities in terms of long-term ability to generate cheap, low-cost power.

So what are they going to replace it with?

They like electricity? I like electricity. You like electricity. But you have to produce it with something.

Seventy-five percent of our electricity--people who are paying attention to this issue should know that 75 percent of the electricity produced in our country today is produced from coal and nuclear.

And they have no good answer in terms of what to replace it with. Wind power and solar, two that are very commonly cited, produce just a tiny percentage of the electricity in our country today. I think wind power and solar are great and they have great potential and we should encourage more of them, but there is no way that they are going to replace our traditional sources of generating electricity any time in the near future.

So the natural result is going to be that if you write legislation that heavily penalizes other sources of energy, particularly coal, what you are going to have as a result is much higher energy costs. And it will affect people all across the country in very dramatic ways, and they will see it when they open their bill for their electricity. But they are also going to see it in ways that may surprise them in terms of the cost of goods and services and in terms of their very livelihood because many jobs will go outside of the country to other countries like Russia and China and India that have no intention of complying with the same type of a cap-and-tax system that is being proposed right here in this Congress. Therefore, they are going to have cheaper sources of energy.

China and India, right now, are building one new coal-fired power plant a week. Are they going to comply with cap-and-tax? Are they going to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions? No, they are going to dramatically increase those greenhouse gas emissions, and the end result is they will produce electricity cheaper. Therefore, they will be able to produce goods cheaper in those countries. They will be a magnet to draw jobs to those countries, to become manufacturing bases, as they are already growing to be. It is just going to get worse.

Even though China has grown so much in terms of its manufacturing in

recent years, the United States is still the world's largest manufacturing country. We are going to lose that when this bill takes effect if we don't get the American people to speak out about it and let the Members of Congress know that this kind of damaging legislation will cost jobs and raise the cost of living in this country if it is not brought to a halt.

Every source of energy that we have, whether it is coal or nuclear power or oil or natural gas or solar or wind power or geothermal or renewable biofuels, all of them have environmental issues attached to them. You can't name a one that doesn't.

Wind power has all kinds of environmental issues attached to it. People have attempted to build wind power facilities in my district and have gotten great push back on the effect about birds and bats and noise.

Solar generating facilities that have been proposed for the southwest of this country have had lawsuits brought against them to prevent them from building these solar facilities because of the impact it will have on desert vegetation and desert wildlife and so on.

Ethanol and other renewable fuels have environmental opponents to them as well.

So it seems to me that the all-of-the-above approach of the Republican Conference, of promoting the development of new sources of energy, of promoting energy conservation and efficiency, and of promoting the development of all of our sources of energy, including our traditional sources, and producing them domestically to reduce our foreign trade deficit problems and to create more jobs in this country is the way to go here. That ought to be the alternative that this Congress turns to instead of a cap-and-tax government planning scheme that stifles private sector innovation, that causes higher consumer energy prices and causes job losses and lower wages and stock devaluation.

Its potential for abuse and corruption is great. It is a windfall for certain people who didn't do anything to deserve the benefits that they will get when they suddenly find that they have something to sell or trade under this system. And it is not likely to actually reduce any emissions significantly.

This idea that somehow we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions to the extent that we can turn down the thermostat of the world when other countries are going to increase their CO2 emissions around the world is folly. That is what this legislation is, and it has no guarantee that it will solve the global warming issue that many have focused on. Instead, we do have a guarantee that it will have a devastating impact on our economy.

I thank the gentleman for allowing me to speak during this Special Order.

Mr. Speaker, it is great to be down here, and I am going to turn immediately to my colleague, Dr. Paul Broun from Georgia, to talk on the cap-and-tax, global climate change, destruction of jobs in America,

a bill that may be coming to the floor soon.

I thank my colleague, and I appreciate him coming down. I am going to turn quickly to my colleague from Tennessee, Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn, for such time as she may consume.

I thank my colleague for coming down and making the time. We have already had a colleague from Georgia and now from Tennessee. I'm now going to be followed by Dr. Fleming of Louisiana, a new Member, and I think this shows the diversity of representation in this country.

I appreciate your coming down and you're free to open with your comments.

Thank you, Dr. Fleming, for joining us. Now I'm pleased to be joined by the ranking member of our Agriculture Committee from the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Ranking Member Goodlatte, thanks for joining us.

Would the gentleman yield on coal just for a second? I think this is an important issue, of course, for me. But a couple of recent occurrences highlight the fact that this bill really is an assault on coal. And however they try to clean it up, it is not working. Yesterday in the local paper, what did Speaker Pelosi do? She said the coal-fire power plant here in the Capitol is now switching to natural gas, that coal is gone. At a news conference briefing held last week at the United States Energy Association, FERC Chairman Wellinghoff told reporters that nuclear and coal power was too expensive. He estimated the cost of building a nuclear plant at about $7,000 per kilowatt and discouraged investors from undertaking such ventures.

So the signals are no nuclear and no coal.

They don't like coal. They don't like hydro. But don't like nuclear. But they like electricity.

Here is the President's comments.

And here is the President's statement during the campaign: ``What I have said is that we would put a cap-and-trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else's out there. So if somebody wants to build a coal-fired power plant, they can. It is just that it will bankrupt them because they are going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that is being emitted.''

So the signals are ``no'' in a venue when the demand for electricity is going to go up by 30 percent. But we want to limit the ability to produce electricity which is why we fear the real price escalations.

I just want to tie this in with the leadership of this House in Washington and down at the White House and through the Federal agencies. They are saying ``no'' to coal and ``no'' to nuclear when we have all these challenges that face us.

I appreciate the gentleman coming down, and I would like to now recognize the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

I thank my colleague.

It is very important that we continue this discussion, this dialogue, and help inform the American public.

The reality is the 686-page bill, so it is $1 billion a page, but the reality is that there are large portions that are to be written later. Part of our challenge to really debate this bill is to call my friends out and say, okay, you promised transparency. You promised openness and regular order. What are the scores so we can figure out the winners and losers? But it is crafted behind closed doors.

In fact, I heard today that this bill will now bypass the subcommittee and hopefully go to the full committee, which is really a shame for individuals who have promised regular order to continue to disregard it.

In fact, Chairman Waxman, Chairman Markey, and Chairman Emeritus Dingell all sent a letter making sure that this would not be done in reconciliation, and pushing for regular order. They sent a letter to President Obama.

And it is now these very same people who sent a letter begging for regular order who are not going to allow regular order to occur on this bill. That is sad because it hurts our ability to educate our constituents, our voters, and let them make a decision. And they do that every 2 years.

With that, I am pleased to be joined by a new Member from Pennsylvania, Mr. Glenn Thompson.

I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania for joining us. I look forward to working with him as we move to defeat this, wherever we get a chance to.

Now, just for my colleagues to know, I think there are about 10 minutes remaining. I would like to now give the time to Dr. Phil Gingrey, a colleague of mine from Georgia on the Energy and Commerce Committee.

I appreciate my colleague from Georgia. Georgia has some significant challenges on the renewable electricity standard that they are trying to cram down, which will definitely increase rates in the Southeast. We need you in the fight--and we are glad you are here.

I would now like to turn to my other colleague and friend, also from the Energy and Commerce Committee, Congressman Steve Scalise from Louisiana.

I appreciate my colleagues--all my colleagues--for coming down here tonight. In fact, I didn't have to spend much time, we had so many people involved. I think it shows the concern of this debate.

One of our new Members recently elected--and when you are elected out of cycle, you get a chance to get sworn in and speak here. And he actually had one of the best speeches I have ever heard. In fact, I wrote it down to a point that I wanted to highlight his comments.

He said, ``It is a humbling experience to take a job when people back home are losing theirs, and become a member of this House when people are losing theirs.''

It made me appreciate the great honor that the people of southern Illinois have bestowed on me to come here and represent them. How dare I come here and cast votes that would cause them to lose their jobs in even greater numbers. I am here to protect their jobs.

Why am I so impassioned? In the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments, this mine, Peabody No. 10 in Kincaid, Illinois, closed. Twelve hundred jobs were lost in just one mine. Fourteen thousand in southern Illinois.

The Special Order before this had a lot of members from Ohio, and one of them mentioned Bob and Betty Buckeye, which I thought was cute. Ohio lost 35,000 coal mine jobs. Ohio. About 92 percent of their energy portfolio is coal.

If you follow President Obama's quotes and you follow the FERC chairman and you follow the bill, this is an assault on every State that relies on coal-fired power and the miners that get that coal from the ground.

We will have a chance to talk, debate, offer amendments to make sure that these jobs are protected, and then when my colleague makes a comment, ``it is humbling to be given a job when people are losing theirs,'' we best be about the business of protecting the jobs of our constituents.

And this cap-and-tax, this national energy tax, will destroy jobs; and that is what we are here to fight.

I see my colleague is here. I have 1 minute left, and I recognize the gentleman from New Jersey.

I appreciate my colleague joining me.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman from Illinois for his leadership on this issue and for hosting this Special Order hour. I am so pleased to come and join with you and discuss the issues that we have before us with the Democrats' national energy tax, or the cap-and- tax legislation as some call it, or cap our growth and trade our jobs, or, Mr. Speaker, many people refer to cap-and-trade as just that, because it is certainly what they are going to do.

Now, we also know that if they don't get their way on cap-and-trade, what they are talking about doing is an end run and coming back around and letting the EPA regulate CO2 emissions under the Clean Air Act. Indeed, I have a bill, H.R. 391, that I would encourage all colleagues in this House, all Members of this House to sign on and support this bill and keep the EPA from going around against the will of the people and regulating CO2 emissions under the Clean Air Act.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is very interesting that as we are having this hour tonight and as we are looking at the logic of EPA and the logic of some of my colleagues, I wonder if we have considered that if you look at the EPA's threshold of 25,000 tons of CO2, that would make you a major emitter, if we have considered that the EPA threatens to use that regulation against every business, every farm, every church, or every building in this country. And, of course, before the EPA gets the chance to regulate CO2, many of our colleagues want to come in and tax it right here so that they can both regulate the air that we breathe and tax the air that we both breathe and then that we exhale.

The debate that we have before us is not about making energy cleaner; it is not about making energy more plentiful. What we would see happen from this debate is that energy would become more and more scarce, and we also would see that the cost to every family would be more and more expense.

So, here we are. We are talking about cap-and-trade; we are talking about the expense of it. And as expensive as energy costs got last year, we are not going to take any action that will make it more plentiful, we are not taking any action that would make it more readily available, we are not taking actions that are going to make it cleaner, and we are not taking actions that are going to make it more affordable. Indeed, the legislation before us would do quite the opposite.

So I join the gentleman from Illinois in being from a State, my State of Tennessee, that would be among the hardest hit by this new energy tax and by the efforts that are coming from the other side, indeed, their efforts to make energy more expensive. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have conveniently forgotten how quickly economic slowdowns follow escalating energy costs. They have forgotten how dramatically high gas prices impacted family budgets last summer. They look upon the increased use of mass transit in the wake of those energy costs as a positive development, forgetting that in many rural districts like mine in Tennessee there is no mass transit, there is no bus service that goes from Waynesboro to Adamsville to Selmer. There is no mass transit in these rural communities. And in picking winners and losers--which they do in this legislation; they pick lots of winners and decide who is going to be the losers--they are asking the American people in their bill to make a choice between very expensive energy or no energy at all. All their scheme will cap is American productivity and trade American jobs.

Now, I think, Mr. Speaker, that if you were to ask each and every Member of this House, we would all say that we believe in clean air, clean water, and clean energy. We believe in conserving our environment for future generations.

Certainly, I grew up in a household with a mother who dedicated much of her life to conservation and beautification and preservation and historic preservation efforts, so much so that in 1997 Keep America Beautiful gave her

their lifetime achievement award. We grew up doing the things that helped clean this planet, looking for ways for energy to be more affordable and more accessible.

Now, Republicans as a whole believe in that type conservation for future generations. We do not believe that you need to tax the American people out of their house and home to pay for it, a house, by the way, which under a cap-and-trade system is going to be hotter during the summer and colder during the winter.

Republicans believe that we have more alternatives than wind and solar as sources for clean, secure energy. We know that we can safely exploit American oil resources to provide for a less expensive transition to alternative fuels. We know that we can power a next- generation electricity grid with safe nuclear power that will allow for practical electric cars and reliable transmission, rather than forcing the costs of energy to explode so that Washington might fund yet another expansion of the Federal Government.

Tennesseans know that hydroelectric power is safe and reliable. It is clean. It has powered our State for two generations. What bewilders me is that these kinds of innovative solutions are discouraged under the Democrat cap-and-tax system. It reinforces my belief that this bill is more about revenue than it is about revolutionary energy.

We should be doing things to encourage our innovators. We should be doing things that will incentivize exploration and transition to new types of energy, rather than making it more expensive, making it more scarce, and cutting off energy and innovation.

Republicans have proposals for safer, cleaner, cheaper domestic energy that will conserve our resources, secure our energy sources, and expand our economy. We do it without picking losers but, rather, by inspiring that innovative spirit that has solved problem after problem after problem in this Nation. We do it without making energy more expensive and more burdensome to the family budget. We do it without making power more scarce, but by making it more abundant.

I thank the gentleman from Illinois for his leadership on this issue, and I encourage all of our colleagues to join us in making certain that we stand against cap-and-trade and also that we support H.R. 391, which will prohibit the EPA from regulating CO2 emissions under the Clean Air Act.

Well, I thank the gentleman from Illinois. I also thank the gentlelady from Tennessee for her remarks. I certainly agree with everything she has said this evening. And perhaps I have a couple more things to add.

Mr. Speaker, there are no two ways about it: this is a revenue- boosting or a net tax system by any way you look at it. The experts have looked at it, economists and energy people. I guess you could call it cap-and-trade with a little C for the ``cap'' and a big T for ``tax.'' What do I mean by that? Well, what is the cap-and-trade or what we call the ``cap-and-tax?'' Basically, it says that there are factories out there that can burn coal or emit CO2 into the atmosphere as long as they can find somebody else by way of allotments who are perhaps under the threshold by taking that burden from them. And in the process, there is some sort of exchange of currency.

Now what kind of currency are we talking about? Well, it is estimated, at least at this point, and we don't have details as often we don't get on these things, of $646 billion of net taxation to our economy. So again, let there be no mistake about it. This is a tax.

Now, what effect will it have on us Americans? Well, first of all, we know it is going to increase unemployment because as the tax burden is put on the factories and as it is put on power plants, there will have to be a movement of factories and other things offshore or to other countries who are not part of this program. We also know that it hits the poor. And it is also going to lower the overall standard of living.

Well, here is just a couple of facts that I would like to share with you, Mr. Speaker. A recent MIT study shows that cap-and-tax will cost the average American household $3,100 a year. Now, I know there has been some controversy about this. And it is my understanding that the MIT people went back and said, we were wrong on that; it is more than $3,100.

Another study shows that we are likely to lose three to four million American jobs if this is enacted. Companies who are looking to invest in our economy will simply move overseas, as I said. There is also a debate about whether it will create a stimulus. For the last few months, we have been talking about how important stimulus is to our economy. Well, this will definitely stimulate an economy. It will stimulate other countries' economies while hurting our economy.

Now all of this perhaps would be a theoretical and perhaps a hypothetical discussion except for the fact that cap-and-trade is not really a new concept. They have had it in Europe for years. This morning I heard Dr. Gabriel Calzada talk about this. This gentleman is from Spain and an expert in this area. So what is the Spanish experience in this, Mr. Speaker? What Spain found was that for every green job that was added, and again, I'm not exactly sure what a ``green job'' is, but for every green job, there was a loss of 2.2 jobs. In the so-called ``green jobs'' it was found that 90 percent of these jobs were in the implementation or construction. And these jobs were quickly dissipated as soon as the construction was ended. So what is the current unemployment rate of Spain? Seventeen and a half percent.

Now there was also a discussion by a very interesting expert in microeconomics. Aparna Mathur is her name. And I would like to read some very interesting facts into the Record: ``These higher costs of production by cap-and-trade will translate to higher energy and product prices. In a paper that I co-authored with my colleagues at the American Enterprise Institute, we estimate that a cap-and-trade system, with a $15 permit price, will increase the cost of everything, from food, clothing, shoes and home furnishings by 1 percent, of gasoline 7.7 percent, electricity 12.5 percent, and natural gas 12.3 percent. Of course, as previous experience with cap-and-trade programs has shown, permit prices are likely to be extremely volatile and rising over time, and our $15 price estimate is likely to be conservative. Other studies suggest that the price could be above $50 in 2015, close to $100 in 2030 and $200 in 2050. We can safely project that our estimates will be some multiple of these higher prices.''

Now, also she points out something else, and that is this: as a percent of the total home budget for poor people, electricity is 4 percent, whereas for richer, more wealthy people, upper middle class perhaps, it is only 1 percent. Therefore, the burden to a low-income person is going to be four times that of someone of higher income. So what does this do in net effect? What it does is it hits the poor first and worst. How else does it hit the poor and how else does it hit everyone else? Well, we know that all the costs have to be passed along to the consumer. So as Dr. Mathur pointed out, we are going to see inflation in the cost of everything we do because everything we have today in terms of products, and even services to some extent, are dependent upon energy cost. And certainly it is going to create unemployment, because if this system were implemented worldwide, perhaps it would be an even playing field. But that is not the case. We know that for everything we do, we have China and India that is reversing that tremendously in terms of the impact on the environment. And while their economies are growing rapidly, ours will be diminishing related to this.

So the net effect of that, Mr. Speaker, is that if we move forward with this crazy plan, we are going to see both middle class and lower- income people hurt the worst. We are going to see an overall lowering of life styles. We are going to see ourselves less productive and less competitive around the world.

And that is going to relegate to actually a net loss in jobs.

So I call upon my colleagues in our discussion this evening--and hopefully this bill won't even come to the floor. But if it does, I ask my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, to vote ``no'' on this wasteful bill that is really, in my opinion, just another Trojan horse, a way of generating revenue to pay for new social programs and perhaps even newer social programs that are yet to be determined.

And with that, I thank you, Mr. Shimkus, and I yield back to you.

I thank the gentleman and I am delighted to be here with Mr. Shimkus.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Shimkus has done so much on energy for so long in the Energy and Commerce Committee and has really brought to the forefront so many innovations and ideas on how we can solve our problems, and also making sure that we do the right thing.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my concern about our national energy and environmental future. I am really worried that Congress may soon consider the cap-and-trade legislation in an attempt to move America toward a clean energy economy and decrease our reliance on foreign oil sources.

That sounds good, doesn't it, and the act in its current form will do that, but it will do much worse, and I cannot support a cap-and-trade program that will unfairly penalize small business, industry and taxpayers across the country.

A lot of my constituents get this. I would like to read a short quote from one of my constituents. The gentleman is from Darien, Illinois, and he says: ``I am writing to ask you to vote ``no'' on any cap-and- trade bill that comes up for a vote this congressional session. Cap- and-trade is a huge tax on every American who flips on a light switch or puts gas in their car. Cap-and-trade would do nothing to affect global climate change, but would harm our economy and lead to job losses and higher taxes for all Americans.''

Many estimates exist on job losses and rising electricity prices under a cap-and-trade program. One recent and very conservative estimate suggests that Illinois would lose 48,000 manufacturing jobs by 2020 and see a $1.47 per kilowatt increase in their utility bills. Illinois is 50 percent reliant on nuclear power followed by coal.

For this reason, I think with record unemployment and foreclosures, how can we ask the American people to swallow a huge cost of living increase when they are already struggling to live?

In an apparent trend, the recently passed budget resolution slashed Yucca Mountain funding. This disturbs me. It effectively signaled lack of support for expanded nuclear production, closing the window of opportunity for a waste solution. Taxpayers have already put $16 billion into this mountain to take care of our waste. So this is welcome back to the Carter years when the reprocessing plants that were built here in the United States, six of them, were shut down before they even opened. I think one opened.

Mr. Speaker, there is no silver bullet solution for the future of our national energy supply, but we would be irresponsible to incentivize emission reductions without including supply increase solutions. I think that the U.S. can lead in the environmental performance and production with this policy. I just don't believe that cap-and-trade is an appropriate means of doing that.

We need a combination of technology and increased production of nuclear renewables and fossil fuels. Each have to be a part of the long-term plan for America's energy and environmental security.

I want to focus for a moment on the nuclear. As I said, Illinois is 50 percent nuclear, 20 percent in our country, and there are a lot of permits pending out there for increased nuclear plants. But we need reprocessing to deal with the waste. If you thought of nuclear energy as a log, and you cut 3 percent off this side and 3 percent off of that side of the log, and you put that log, the 3 percent plus the 3 percent and burned it, and then take the other part of the log, which is 94 percent, and put that into the ground as waste, that is what we are doing right now. So we can really increase the capabilities of nuclear and we can reduce the toxicity and we can reduce the longevity of the radioactivity. So this is a no-brainer. I can't understand the Secretary of Energy and the administration suddenly deciding that we put a hold on the recycling process when we have worked so hard and come so far on the research to be ready to do that without nuclear proliferation.

So I think we really have to look at doubling the amount of power generated from zero emission nuclear power by 2030; and, more importantly, we need to begin nuclear fuel recycling and incentivize interim storage to get us there. Recycling reduces the volume of that, and it is clean and it is safe. And then utilizing technology to transition to a low carbon transportation system is another way we can dramatically decrease petroleum use and reduce emissions.

Lithium batteries in fuel-cell technology, like those being developed in Illinois at Argonne National Lab in my district, will transform both the auto manufacturing sector and help America recapture the domestic battery manufacturing base.

I currently serve as the co-Chair of the High Performance Building Caucus, and each month we hear from a business or an association about the technology, a service that offers a solution for improving commercial and residential building efficiency. Forty percent of the emissions in this country come from existing building infrastructure. So retrofitting existing buildings or utilizing technology in new building construction can serve a variety of things. There are so many things that we can do. We need everything to cut out the CO2 and the other gas emissions that cause so many problems.

Illinois is almost exclusively dependent on nuclear power followed by coal, so we cannot afford the price spikes that would follow a cap-and- trade plan, especially without the increased power production.

I hope that leadership on both sides of the aisle remember to put their constituents first when it comes to considering climate legislation and allow

technology and the market to pave the way for emission reductions.

I thank the gentleman for holding this Special Order. I think it is a great benefit that we continue to discuss this issue. I hope that we can all work together to really solve this. Cap-and-trade will not do it.