Acid Rain and Mercury Control Act

Madam Speaker, pursuant to H. Res. 587, I call up the bill (H.R. 2454) to create clean-energy jobs, achieve energy independence, reduce global warming pollution and transition to a clean-energy economy, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the legislation under consideration.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Today we are taking a decisive and historic action to promote America's energy security and to create millions of clean-energy jobs that will drive our economic recovery and long-term growth.

This bill, when enacted into law, will break our dependence on foreign oil, make our Nation the world leader in clean-energy jobs and technology, and cut global warming pollution. As a result of these new policy settings, we will create millions of clean-energy jobs for America and restore our technological leadership in clean energy. We are also protecting consumers.

The bill tackles big problems that have been ignored for far too long. It proposes solutions that will transform our economic and clean- air environment.

There is a remarkable coalition behind this bill. Electric utilities support the bill. Manufacturers support the bill. Farmers support the bill, and so do the Nation's leading environmental organizations, labor unions, and faith-based groups.

There are many Members responsible for this remarkable coalition. On the Energy and Commerce Committee, John Dingell helped forge compromises with the auto industry. Rick Boucher developed ideas that will provide a future for coal. Mike Doyle addressed the concerns of the steel industry and other trade-vulnerable industries. The chairman of the Ways and Means Committee worked with us to make sure that the interest of low-income families are fully protected. And the chairman of the Agriculture Committee made sure the legislation addresses the concerns of farmers and makes them part of our energy future.

The need to act is clear and urgent. There is a national security imperative to act. This legislation at long last begins to break our addiction to imported foreign oil and put us on a path to true energy security.

There is a scientific imperative to act. The evidence on global warming, on the consequences of carbon emission is overwhelming, and we have based our bill on the science. And there is a moral imperative to act. We have obligations to protect and preserve the environment for our children and the generations that follow.

And there is an economic imperative to act. This legislation is an enormous jobs bill for America. It will promote investment and growth for decades ahead, creating jobs for the new-energy economy of the 21st century.

People in industry have told us that as soon as this legislation becomes law, we will find billions of dollars invested in infrastructure over the next 5 years. We can see an incredible lost opportunity if we don't act now. There are amazing developing new technological centers around the U.S., and we can see those jobs going overseas and that technological superiority going overseas as well.

And this bill is affordable. Contrary to what we will hear from our friends on the other side of the aisle, the Congressional Budget Office found that this legislation will cost households an average of only $175 in 2020, less than 50 cents a day. EPA's analysis put the cost at 22 to 30 cents a day, less than the cost of a single postage stamp, while lowering utility bills by 7 percent.

This bill is a tremendous opportunity to prevent a dangerous threat while creating millions of new jobs and driving economic growth. It will end our dependence on foreign oil and keep us more secure. This bill will drive a new era of sustainable growth and innovation, and I urge all Members to support it.

House of Representatives,

Committee on the Judiciary,

Washington, DC, June 24, 2009.

Hon. Henry A. Waxman,

Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Waxman: This is to advise you that, as a

result of your having consulted with us on provisions in H.R.

2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009,

that fall within the rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on

the Judiciary, we are able to agree to waive seeking any

formal referral of the bill, in order that it may proceed

without delay to the House floor for consideration.

The Judiciary Committee takes this action with the

understanding that by forgoing further consideration of H.R.

2454 at this time, we do not waive any jurisdiction over

subject matter contained in this or similar legislation. We

reserve the right to seek appointment of an appropriate

number of conferees to any House-Senate conference involving

this important legislation, and request your support if such

a request is made.

I would appreciate your including this letter in the

Congressional Record during consideration of the bill on the

House floor. Thank you for your attention to our requests,

and for the cooperative relationship between our two

committees.

Sincerely,

John Conyers, Jr.

Chairman.

Madam Speaker, at this time I am delighted to yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment as well as the Select Committee on Global Warming. He has played the fundamental role of shepherding this bill through our committee and working to get it to the floor today. I yield to Mr. Markey 3 minutes.

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Madam Speaker, I want to yield now to the gentleman who had been the chairman of the Energy Subcommittee on our full committee last Congress and who was instrumental in getting the first draft of the legislation that we worked off, but more importantly, as a knowledgeable individual of this area and from a constituency that has a special concern about the problems, he was able to negotiate with us so that we could reach some of the accommodations in this legislation that has made it a much better bill.

I yield, with great admiration, 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher).

(Mr. BOUCHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, it is my privilege now to yield 1 minute to a very important member of the committee, Mr. Engel.

I yield the gentleman 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, it's my distinct honor to yield 2 minutes to the chairman emeritus of our committee who has been the leader in fashioning so many important legislative proposals that are now law and are serving our country so well, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell).

(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my colleague from California (Ms. Eshoo), who is a very important member for our committee.

I yield another 30 seconds to the gentlewoman.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased at this point to yield 1 minute to my good friend and colleague from southern California (Mrs. Capps).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green), who played a very significant role in developing this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield to the vice chairman of the Commerce Committee, the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) for 90 seconds

(Ms. DeGETTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I want to yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle) a minute, with an option for another one, if he needs it. And I want to point out the essential role that he played in making sure this legislation protected those industries that are vulnerable to trade that might be at their disadvantage. I thank him for the work he has done.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased at this time to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois, who made sure in this legislation, among other important contributions, that we looked out for the interests of low-income people.

Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton).

Madam Speaker, may I inquire about the time each side has remaining.

Thank you. At this time I'd like to yield 1 minute to a distinguished member of our committee, the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Madam Speaker, it's my privilege at this time to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a gentleman who has worked successfully with Members representing disparate interests in different parts of the country to find workable solutions that helped lead to the consensus product we have today, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

(Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I am pleased at this time to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlelady from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin) who is an important member of our committee in both the energy and the health areas.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) who has been a very constructive and important member of our committee and has played a very essential role in having us recognize the essential part that transportation efforts can play in reducing carbon emissions.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to an important and distinguished member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield).

Madam Speaker, I wish to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes).

May I inquire how much time we have for the Energy and Commerce Committee?

At this time, I would like to yield to my colleague from California (Mr. McNerney) 1 minute.

I wish to yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Ohio (Ms. Sutton).

Madam Speaker, I'm pleased at this time to yield to a real leader from the State of Iowa who has taken an active role in this and so many other policy areas, Mr. Braley, for 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, at this time, I want to yield to the distinguished sole representative from the State of Vermont, a man we are very pleased to have on our committee and who has been a leader in some of the areas on this bill. He reminds us that efficiency is the way to go to use less fuel. I yield 1 minute to Mr. Welch.

If the gentleman would yield to me, when our time expires for both committees. Perhaps we ought to let you take additional time at this point, because we have used far more than you have.

If the gentleman would yield, perhaps we can inquire of the Chair how much time is still available to the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Why don't we discuss that informally?

Madam Speaker, I wish to yield to the gentleman from Michigan and chairman emeritus of our committee (Mr. Dingell) so he and I could engage in a colloquy.

(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I agree we must be sensitive to the State and Federal roles, but we must also move forward on transmission policy. My goal here is to take the first step.

Yes, that is my preference. However, there is more consensus about how to move forward in the western interconnect than there is in the eastern interconnect, and we should make the progress we can in the west. I will continue to work towards a policy that is comprehensive and effective.

This proposal leaves in place the current environmental protection in the eastern interconnection. The changes in the west account for the very sensitive nature of the lands there, including Federal lands.

Well, we need a policy that is clear and can be implemented. This is only a partial step forward, as I have said, and I look forward to having your help in adopting a workable policy.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott) for the purpose of a colloquy.

You and others have expressed concern about this issue. This matter will be determined by the work of the Financial Services Committee and the Agriculture Committee. We have a placeholder in the bill. Once they agree on the issue that is within their jurisdiction, it will be placed in the bill.

I want to point out that you have a unique role in that because you are on both committees and have a special interest on this question. So I look forward to seeing your work on that matter.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud) for the purposes of a colloquy.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman from California, and I thank him and his staff for the outstanding leadership and vision which he has provided on this legislation. This is the culmination of a career of work for the gentleman from California, and it is my honor to have been allowed to partner with him in order to construct this legislation that we bring to the floor here today.

I want to thank, as the gentleman from California has noted, the other Members who have worked on this legislation: Mr. Dingell, Mr. Boucher, Mr. Doyle, Mr. Inslee, Mr. Green, Mr. Butterfield, Mr. Stupak, Mr. Rush. So many Members, including Members off the committee like Henry Cuellar from the State of Texas who worked with us on natural gas-related issues. We would not be here unless we had the cooperation of so many Members across the full spectrum of the House.

During this process, we have received valuable input and expertise from other leaders in the House, like Chairman Rangel on trade issues, Chairman Peterson on agriculture issues, amongst, again, many others.

The legislation we have before us today is the most important energy and environment legislation to ever have been considered in the history of the United States. The consequences for our country are great unless we act to deal with these issues.

This legislation sets a new course for our country, creating millions of new, clean-energy jobs while reducing our dependence upon imported oil. And when it becomes law, and it will, for the first time in the history of the United States Congress, for the first time in the history of our country, we will put enforceable limits on global warming pollution.

At its core, however, this is a jobs bill. It will create millions of new, clean-energy jobs in whole new industries with incentives to drive competition in the energy marketplace. It sets ambitious and achievable standards for energy efficiency and renewable energy from solar, wind, geothermal, biomass so that by 2020, 20 percent of America's energy will be clean.

It saves consumers money by updating efficiency standards for new buildings, appliances, and lighting systems. It invests $10 billion a year in energy efficiency programs in States across this country.

And it starts the much-needed process of making our electric grid a smart grid so we can plug in the hybrid and electric cars of the future into an advanced, efficient energy network that by the year 2030 we will be raising a generation of children who know not how to receive gasoline at a gasoline station but, rather, by plugging their cars into a plug so that the electricity that we are generating ensures that those vehicles are being run for the benefit of our people.

This is a revolution. This is a moment in history. This is what the American people were calling for in the election of 2008, a fundamental change that breaks our dependence upon imported oil, creates millions of new jobs, reduces the amount of pollution that we send up into the atmosphere, and points us in a new direction in our country that breaks with the pattern of cyclical dependence on imported oil coming from OPEC that holds our Nation hostage.

I urge an ``aye'' vote on this bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2454, the Waxman- Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act.

I want to start by thanking the Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee and my partner in this legislation, Henry Waxman. He and I and our staffs have worked tirelessly on this bill, and his leadership, patience and fortitude have been remarkable.

And I want to thank all of my Energy and Commerce colleagues, especially Rick Boucher, John Dingell, Mike Doyle, Jay Inslee, Gene Green, GK Butterfield, Bart Stupak and so many others. And special thanks to Speaker Nancy Pelosi on her outstanding leadership on these issues since she became Speaker.

And during this process we have received valuable input and expertise from other leaders in the House like Chairman Rangel on trade issues and Mr. Peterson on agriculture issues.

The legislation we have before us today is the most important energy and environmental

legislation in the history of our country. It sets a new course for our country, one that steers us away from foreign oil and towards a path of clean American energy.

It will create millions of new clean energy jobs while reducing our dependence on foreign oil.

And when it becomes law, it will, for the first time in the history of the United States Congress, put enforceable limits on global warming pollution.

I also want to take time to commend my colleague John McHugh for his outstanding leadership on acid rain and air pollution control.

His state and my state both share a common problem of transported air pollution which falls in New York and New England as acid rain.

John McHugh has worked tirelessly to protect public health and the environment from the deleterious effects of air pollution, especially the problems of acid rain and toxic mercury pollution.

Reducing emissions of greenhouse gases must be done immediately to stop global warming, but we must also continue to reduce emissions of NOX SOX and mercury.

The technologies that we will use to reduce global warming pollution will also reduce other pollutants that kill our citizens and damage our environment.

We need to get the programs, including the Clean Air Interstate Rule and facility-specific mercury regulations, back on track.

Representative McHugh has introduced H.R. 1841, legislation that would help protect public health and fight acid rain.

That legislation describes well the problems we face today in fighting acid rain, soot and smog and sets forth thoughtful solutions to those problems. I agree with the gentleman that:

(1) reductions of atmospheric sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide from utility plants, in addition to the reductions required under the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), are needed to reduce acid deposition and its serious adverse effects on public health, natural resources, building structures, sensitive ecosystems, and visibility; (2) sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide contribute to the development of fine particulates, suspected of causing human mortality and morbidity to a significant extent; (3) regional nitrogen oxide reductions of 75 percent in the Eastern United States, in addition to the reductions required under the Clean Air Act, may be necessary to protect sensitive watersheds from the effects of nitrogen deposition; (4) since the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 were enacted, some acidic lakes in the Adirondacks in the State of New York have started to slowly show chemical recovery from acid rain, demonstrating that sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide regulations can be implemented in a cost-effective manner, but the recovery is progressing at a slower rate than originally intended; (5) nitrogen oxide is highly mobile and can lead to ozone formation hundreds of miles from the emitting source; (6) on March 10, 2005, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to require additional reductions in sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide in 28 Eastern States and the District of Columbia; (7) these reductions represent approximately a 70 percent reduction in sulfur dioxide and a 60 percent reduction in nitrogen oxide in the affected States; (8) on July 11, 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated CAIR and on December 23, 2008, the same court remanded the rule back to the EPA without vacature; (9) fossil fuel-fired electric generating units emit approximately 1/3 of the total mercury emissions in the United States; (10) mercury is considered a neurotoxin which can bioaccumulate as it moves its way up the food chain and is especially harmful to young children and developing fetuses; (11) according to the EPA, there were 3,080 fish advisories for mercury in 2006; there are over 90 fish advisories for mercury in New York alone, with blanket warning for the Adirondack and Catskill Mountains; (12) on March 15, 2005, EPA issued the Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR), which for the first time sought to regulate mercury emissions from power plants, but used a less restrictive cap-and-trade approach for this very harmful substance and would take a full decade to implement; (13) on February 8, 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated CAMR; and (14) on February 23, 2009, the Supreme Court denied a request to reconsider the decision.

This bill includes a study on the effects of different carbon reduction strategies on reducing emissions of NOX, SOX and mercury. Such a study will ensure that as we move to control greenhouse gas emissions, particularly from coal fired power plants that emit mercury, NOX and SOX, we do not lose the opportunity to implement the most cost effective ways of controlling soot, smog and mercury.

This is exactly the type of very thoughtful work that John McHugh has done during his many years in Congress to protect public health and fight acid rain and I am proud to stand beside this champion of environmental protection as we move to pass this legislation.

At its core, this is a jobs bill. It will create millions of new, clean energy jobs in whole new industries with incentives to drive competition in the energy marketplace.

It sets ambitious and achievable standards for energy efficiency and renewable energy from solar, wind, geothermal and biomass, so that by 2020, 20 percent of America's energy will be clean.

It saves consumers money by updating efficiency standards for our new buildings and the appliances and lighting systems we use. It invests $10 billion a year in energy efficiency programs in states across the country.

And it starts the much-needed process of making our electric grid a Smart Grid, so we can plug in the hybrid and electric cars of the future into an advanced, efficient, domestically-powered energy network that will give consumers more control of their power bill.

It makes nearly $200 billion in investments in clean energy technologies, including $20 billion in vital clean energy research and development.

And it does all this while nearly doubling the size of the economy by 2030, remaining budget neutral, and costing the average American family less than a postage stamp a day--a small price to pay as we transition off foreign oil once and for all.

By bringing competition and efficiency back to the energy marketplace, Waxman-Markey will deliver consumer savings. America's low-income families will actually benefit by $40 a year in 2020, and the energy efficiency policies alone will save American families more than $200 every year by 2030.

This bill address a technological imperative to lead on clean energy, the economic imperative to compete in a global clean energy race, and the moral imperative to protect our planet and the rights of all to live and prosper for generations to come.

This bill has the goals of the moon landing, the moral imperative of the Civil Rights Act, and the scope of the Clean Air Act, wrapped up in one.

I believe this is the most important vote we will take in our lives. The entire world is watching us. Our children and grandchildren are watching us. We have a choice to make and the fate of the planet hangs in the balance.

We cannot afford to be governed by fear and cling to the failed policies that have brought us to this crisis. As the President said yesterday: ``We cannot be afraid of the future, and we can't be prisoners of the past.''

Scientists say that global warming is a dangerous man-made problem.

Today we are saying clean energy will be the American-made solution.

This is an historic bill. This is a historic vote. This is a historic choice.

I urge my colleagues to support the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act. Vote ``aye.''

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The Waxman-Markey bill promises to destroy our standard of living and the quality of life with higher energy costs, higher food prices, and lost jobs. The bill is the single largest economic threat to our farmers and ranchers in decades. We have more than 115 agricultural and food groups who publicly oppose this bill as of today, and I ask that the list be entered in the Record.

Do you know why? The greatest threat to our agricultural producers is ignored. Under H.R. 2454, input costs will escalate as a direct result of the energy tax. Meanwhile, the markets for their crops will shrink because of foreign competitors whose governments will not place burdens on their farmers. They will be able to undersell us.

And what about the billions of dollars annually that farmers are supposed to garner selling offset credits? Many farmers will not be able to participate. Soil sequestration of carbon was going to be the way for farmers to generate credits, but if the producer started soil tillage practices before 2001, they will be ineligible to participate.

The amendment does not exempt agriculture from performance standards in the bill, which means the EPA could tell our producers how to manage their farms.

This bill will tax you. This bill will destroy the livelihoods of those who live and work in rural America, those who work every day to consistently provide our Nation and the world with a safe, affordable, abundant food and fiber supply. Agriculture sits squarely in the crosshairs of this bill because it is energy intensive. Whether it is the fuel for the tractor, the fertilizer for the crops, or the delivery of food to the grocery store, agriculture uses a great deal of energy throughout production and processing.

Although USDA hasn't devoted any time or resources to complete an economic analysis of how this bill will impact farmers, the Heritage Foundation has. A recent study from the Heritage Foundation revealed that by the year 2035, the average net income for farms will be decreased by 57 percent. And also by 2035, gasoline and diesel costs are expected to be 58 percent higher and electric rates 90 percent higher. For example, residents in Oklahoma can expect their electric rates to increase by $300 million.

So why are we doing this bill? So the U.S. can lead on climate change in the world? We can lead when China and India have refused to participate? We can lead when Europe is willing to do half of what this bill calls for? We can lead when the rest of the developing world is unable to do anything at all about climate change?

Some of my idealistic colleagues will say we have to set a standard for the rest of the world. But I say I will not make any constituents poor--poorer--so that others can get richer at our expense. My friends, this is the wrong bill at the wrong time for the wrong reason.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I recognize the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) for 2 minutes.

(Mr. GOODLATTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran).

Madam Speaker, I recognize the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta) for 1 minute.

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I wish to recognize the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway) for 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Madam Speaker, once again I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my time.

Madam Speaker, my fellow Members, let me rise to conclude the House Agriculture Republican portion of this discussion this evening and remind my colleagues one more time that this bill has a tremendous effect on rural America and production agriculture. When 115 farm groups send in letters, and food groups, expressing their opposition to the bill, that says something, 115 groups.

Madam Speaker, I submit a list of these groups for the Record.

Agriculture Groups Oppose to Waxman-Markey--as of June 26,

2009

1. Agribusiness Association of Iowa

2. Agricultural Retailers Association

3. Agrium Inc.

4. Alabama Farmers Federation

5. American Agri-Women

6. American Farm Bureau Association

7. American Farmers & Ranchers

8. American Feed Industry Association

9. American Frozen Food Institute

10. American Meat Institute

11. American Plant Food Corporation

12. AmeriFlax

13. Associated Industries of Florida

14. Beck' Superior Hybrids

15. Brandt Consolidated

16. CF Industries

17. Chemical Industry Council of Illinois

18. CHS Inc.

19. Corn Producers Association of Texas

20. D.B. Western, Inc.

21. Far West Agribusiness Association

22. Florida Chamber of Commerce

23. Florida Farm Bureau Federation

24. Florida Fertilizer & Agrichemical Association

25. Florida Strawberry Growers Association

26. Food Industry Environmental Council

27. GROWMARK

28. Hardee County Farm Bureau (FL)

29. Hillsborough County Farm Bureau (FL)

30. Illinois Farm Bureau

31. Illinois Fertilizer & Chemical Association

32. Indiana Beef Cattle Association

33. Indiana Farm Bureau

34. Indiana Grain & Feed Association

35. Indiana Office of Energy Development

36. Indiana Plant Food & Ag Chemicals Association

37. Indiana Pork Producers Association

38. Indiana Professional Dairy Producers

39. Indiana State Department of Agriculture

40. Indiana State Poultry Association

41. Institute for Shortening and Edible Oils

42. International Raw Materials, Ltd.

43. J.R. Simplot Company

44. Kansas Agribusiness Retailers Association

45. Kansas Grain and Feed Association

46. Minnesota Agri-Growth Council

47. Minnesota Corn Growers Association

48. Minnesota Crop Production Retailers

49. Missouri Agribusiness Association

50. Missouri Farm Bureau

51. Montana Agricultural Business Association

52. National Cattlemen's Beef Association

53. National Chicken Council

54. National Grain and Feed Association

55. National Grange

56. National Meat Association

57. National Oilseed Processors Association

58. National Pork Producers Council

59. National Turkey Federation

60. Nebraska Farm Bureau

61. NCRA

62. Nebraska Agri-Business Association

63. New Mexico Peanut Growers Association

64. North American Millers Association

65. North Carolina Peanut Growers Association

66. North Dakota Agricultural Association

67. North Dakota Barley Council

68. North Dakota Farm Bureau

69. North Dakota Grain Dealers Association

70. North Dakota Grain Growers Association

71. North Dakota Soybean Growers Association

72. North Dakota Stockmen's Association

73. North Dakota Wheat Commission

74. Northern Canola Growers Association

75. Northern Pulse Growers Association

76. Ohio Corn Growers Association

77. Ohio Farm Bureau

78. Ohio Poultry Association

79. Ohio Rural Electric Cooperatives, Inc.

80. Ohio Wheat Growers Association

81. Oklahoma Ag Retailers Association

82. Oklahoma Grain & Feed Association

83. Oklahoma Peanut Commission

84. Oklahoma Seed Trade Association

85. Oklahoma Wheat Growers Association

86. Panhandle Peanut Growers Association

87. Peace River Valley Citrus Growers Association

88. Peanut Growers Cooperative Marketing Association

89. Polk County Farm Bureau (FL)

90. PotashCorp

91. Rocky Mountain Agribusiness Association

92. Sarasota County Farm Bureau (FL)

93. Society of American Florists

94. South Carolina Fertilizer & Agrichemicals Association

95. South Carolina Peanut Growers Association

96. South Dakota Agri-Business Association

97. South Dakota Farm Bureau

98. South Dakota Grain & Feed Association

99. Southern Crop Production Association

100. Southwest Council of Agribusiness

101. Terra Industries Inc.

102. Texas Agricultural Cooperative Council

103. Texas Cattle Feeders Association

104. Texas Farm Bureau

105. Texas Grain & Feed Association

106. Texas Peanut Producers Board

107. Texas Sheep & Goat Raisers Association

108. Texas Wheat Producers Association

109. The Andersons, Inc.

110. The Fertilizer Institute

111. The McGregor Company

112. Todd Staples, Commissioner, Texas Department of

Agriculture

113. Tom Farms (Kip Tom, CEO)

114. United Egg Producers

115. USA Rice Federation

116. Virginia Peanut Growers Association

117. W.B. Johnston Grain Co.

118. Western Peanut Growers Association

119. Western Plant Health Association

120. Wyoming Stock Growers Association

Madam Speaker, I would also be remiss if I didn't express my appreciation and the appreciation of my colleagues on the Republican side of the Agriculture Committee to Chairman Peterson. He made, we believe, good-faith efforts with Chairman Waxman to try to correct the worst features of this bill. Unfortunately, good faith in the legislative process doesn't always cure every problem.

The fundamental underlying issue still is this bill will raise the cost of energy for production agriculture, an energy-intensive business. It will reduce our competitiveness with our competitors around the world, South America, Asia, Europe. But look at the way the so-called grand compromise on agriculture was put together. ``Compromise'' is a phrase used in one of the electronic publications this morning.

Indirect land use, where an agency of the Federal Government can determine how your corn farm or your wheat farm affects farms on other continents and tell you to change the way you do your business? Now, I know the bill says that can't happen for 5 years, and we will have a study and a moratorium for another year. But 6 years from now, 6 years from now, it comes at us like a brick bat.

The section of the bill talking about farms being able to be rewarded for good stewardship, carbon sequestration and those kinds of matters, the bill

says the amendment adopted, the practices can only be rewarded if they began after 2001. You heard my friend from Iowa talk about the percentage of corn farmers who adopted those good practices before 2001.

How do you explain to the folks back home that the good farmers, the good stewards, don't get anything, but the bad farmers who waited until they were shamed or embarrassed into adopting the best practices get rewarded?

Renewable fuel. Yes, we protect facilities that were under construction or have been completed or in production in 2007 and before, but that doesn't apply to everything since then. If you have got a mature ethanol plant, you are in good shape. But does that mean no one else can build an ethanol plant?

We, on the minority side of the Ag Committee, view ourselves as the conscience of the body. We have a responsibility to defend rural America and production agriculture. We thank Chairman Peterson for what he tried to accomplish, but we believe it is not enough to protect the future of farming and ranching and the folks out in rural America. That's why we have to be united in our opposition against this bill.

I am a farmer by trade. I may not always be a Member of this body, but I am going home to Oklahoma. I can't vote for this and go home to Oklahoma.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to speak in support of this historic legislation. Congress has never faced a challenge of such magnitude, complexity, or urgency. Global climate change is an existential threat that undermines our national security and imperils our coastal cities, agricultural heartland, and economic vitality.

After enduring eight years of intransigence, denial, and fealty to special interests, we are poised to transform the marketplace and spur a new generation of technological and industrial innovation.

By creating incentives for clean energy we will jump-start job creation and investment in production of advanced batteries, wind turbines, solar panels, geothermal systems, carbon capture and storage, and cellulosic biofuels. The dozens of companies that support this legislation have told us that they are poised to make these investments.

Although we have seen an alarming rise in greenhouse gas pollution, we also know that it is not too late to act. From New Orleans to Glacier National Park to the Everglades, by acting now we will protect America's iconic places and our national identity.

I thank Chairman Waxman, Chairman Markey, and their committee for leading the effort to write this legislation. Like many of my colleagues, I ran for Congress in order to restore economic growth, reform health care, and address global warming. We have made progress on the first pledge and are embarking on the second. With my vote for this bill I redeem my pledge to begin to address global warming and ask my colleagues to join me.

I also wish to thank Chairman Waxman, Chairman Markey, and the staff of the Energy and Commerce Committee for their collaboration in drafting this bill. When this discussion draft was released in March, the American Clean Energy and Security Act did not provide dedicated funding for local governments through the State Energy and Environmental Development (SEED) or Retrofit for Energy and Environmental Performance (REEP) programs. I wrote to Chairman Waxman and requested that a portion of funding through these programs be dedicated to local governments, to support local efforts to improve buildings' efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas pollution. The Committee responded to my request by dedicating SEED funding to local governments and by ensuring that REEP funding would support local weatherization programs. These important changes ensure that Northern Virginia localities can continue to lead efforts to reduce residents' electric bills and greenhouse gas pollution. These changes are very significant for Virginia. According to the Congressional Research Service, Virginia will receive between $108 and $216 million in SEED funding in 2012. As a result of the changes I requested, between $13.5 and $27 million should flow directly to local government programs to reduce pollution.

In my letter to Chairman Waxman, I also requested reforms to the transmission line siting process in order to protect environmental and cultural resources. Northern Virginians know that we must act to correct deficiencies to the 2005 Energy Policy Act, which created a National Interest Electric Transmission Corridor process that granted unprecedented authority for federal agencies to site transmission lines without regard for the impact on environmental and cultural resources or property values. Fortunately, the manager's amendment that is incorporated in the American Clean Energy and Security Act takes the important first step of ensuring that state and federal environmental agencies and land managers have a seat at the table in the planning process. Although additional reform of the transmission siting process is still needed, this change will better enable us to protect important Northern Virginia resources such as Manassas National Battlefield Park, Prince William Forest Park, and Shenandoah National Park.

I also applaud Chairman Waxman for incorporating an amendment proposed by the Sustainable Energy and Environment Caucus, of which I am a member. This amendment ensures that the Federal government will derive 20% of its energy from renewable sources by 2020. This proposal, which Chairman Waxman incorporated into the manager's amendment, is particularly important for Northern Virginia because it will result in renewable energy deployment to power Federal facilities in the National Capital Region. This is important because we must move to clean energy generation if our region is to achieve ground level ozone reductions, which are essential for public health, as recommended by the Environmental Protection Agency.

Finally, I thank Mr. Waxman for incorporating language that expresses the sense of Congress that the International Civil Aviation Association limit aviation-related emissions worldwide. Following Committee passage of H.R. 2454, the Washington Airports Task Force asked members of the Northern Virginia delegation to identify a role for the International Civil Aviation Association in limiting emissions, and I asked the Committee to see if they could address the Washington Airports Task Force's request. I believe that the language incorporated in Mr. Waxman's manager's amendment is a step in the right direction, and appreciate his willingness to address this issue at such a late point in the legislative process.

In summary, Chairman Waxman, Chairman Markey, and the staff on the Energy and Commerce Committee have been very responsive to my requests for changes to this bill that benefit Northern Virginia. I greatly appreciate their willingness to work with members like me to ensure that this legislation will benefit residents of Northern Virginia and across the country. As important as it is to have sound overarching legislation, I believe it also is essential that the legislative process allow individuals and businesses from across the country to have a role in crafting any bill. Because of the outstanding work by Chairman Waxman, Chairman Markey, and their committee, this bill has evolved to reflect the needs of Northern Virginians and others from across the country.

Finally, I would like to offer special praise to my colleague from Virginia, Mr. Boucher. As a senior member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Boucher played a central role in writing the American Clean Energy and Security Act. He is the only Virginia Congressman on that Committee, and I believe he did an outstanding job representing the interests of the Commonwealth. Specifically, he ensured that coal- reliant states like ours can transition to cleaner energy sources without creating price spikes and without negatively impacting regions where coal extraction is important economically. This was a difficult balance to strike, and required the skill and experience of a legislator of Mr. Boucher's caliber. Years from now, when coal extraction and electricity generation is substantially cleaner than today, and when Virginia finally has significant renewable electricity generation, we may look back and thank Mr. Boucher for his role in crafting this legislation that made such a transition possible.

Congress has never dealt with such a complex bill of such fundamental importance to our economy, environment, and quality of life. Led by Mr. Waxman and Mr. Markey, the American Clean Energy and Security Act reflects a carefully crafted consensus that has the support of large utilities like Dominion and environmental organizations alike. While forging this consensus the Committee found time to address requests from members representing diverse regions of the nation with competing needs. I thank Chairman Waxman, Chairman Markey, and I am proud to cast my vote for the American Clean Energy and Security Act.

I thank my good friend from California for his kind remarks, and I express my appreciation to him.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the Clean Energy Security Act. But before I address my remarks, I want to congratulate you on your distinguished service here and wish you well in the future and express my personal distress that you are leaving us.

Now, my colleagues on the Republican side, they are very anxious to criticize the bill. And there are criticisms that can be had. There is not one of the 435 of us that could not come forward with statements in saying that

the bill could be improved and that there are faults in the bill. Both of those statements are true.

But the harsh fact of the matter is it is urgent that we commence acting upon this legislation. It is based largely on the recommendations of USCAP, which is a diverse group of environmental groups and industry with a shared desire for a commonsense bill to address climate change. That process began last year with the drafting of the initial versions of this legislation, which were taken and which were then handled by my friend from California. I would note that those proposals have undergone significant improvement by reason of the work of Members of this Congress and this committee.

Now, there are some hard facts to be addressed. There's a scientific consensus that we need to address climate change quickly and effectively. We need and industry needs certainty. This bill gives certainty to American industry. Without this certainty new expansion and new investment in this difficult time is not going to occur. There will be jobs which will flow from this legislation.

Actions by the Supreme Court, and I urge my colleagues to be scared to death of this----

Actions by the Supreme Court in a recent endangerment finding by EPA makes it critically important that we act. Otherwise, greenhouse gases will be regulated by EPA. And if you want something to shudder about, I beg you to take a look at that because we will see better than 300 different kinds of regulations coming from Federal and State bodies if we're charged with this.

Now, the bill does protect the consumers. It's going to cost consumers about $175 a year. It will also protect American manufacturing, and there are provisions in the legislation for that. And it has, in addition to that, additional programs which will meet the concerns of all of our branches of industry--coal, electric utility, manufacturing, chemicals--and also the securities market, which will be controlled under an amendment offered by our good friend and colleague Mr. Stupak.

I am happy that this bill does have a dedicated allowance for natural resource adaptation and significant protection in acquisition of lands.

This is a good bill. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the American Clean Energy and Security Act.

Is the bill before us perfect? No. But I have long told my friends on both the right and the left, we must not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

The legislation before us is largely based on the recommendations of USCAP, a diverse group of environmental groups and industry with a shared desire for a commonsense bill to address climate change.

One might ask why such a diverse group would agree on a matter like this. Well, the answer is three-fold:

1. There is scientific consensus that we need to address climate change quickly and effectively.

2. We need, and industry needs, certainty. Without this certainty, expansion and new investment is not going to happen.

3. Actions by the Supreme Court which led to the recent endangerment finding by EPA makes it critically important we act. If we do not, we will face regulation under the Clean Air Act--and I assure you, the Clean Air Act was not designed to regulate greenhouse gases.

I am pleased with the provisions of the bill to protect consumers-- the legislation will cost consumers on average only $175 per year--and protect American manufacturing and pave the way for the green jobs of the future. In fact, my home state of Michigan just had some wonderful news today: General Electric has decided to locate a new research & development facility, working on renewable energy technologies and other green jobs in the 15th District, which I have the honor of representing. We have the best workers in the world in Michigan and I look forward to many more green job announcements just like this thanks to provisions in this bill. However, job protection and creation warrants a very watchful eye to ensure the United States does not face job leakage and these matters will need to be readdressed if we do see such consequences.

We have seen remarkable innovations from our automakers and this bill builds on those successes by providing allowance values for retooling existing plants to make the cars of the future and new, green job creation here at home.

I am very pleased the bill includes an amendment I offered to establish a Clean Energy Bank. As we transition to clean energy, we must fund the R&D as well as deployment of these energy sources to meet the mounting demand for zero-carbon technology to dramatically reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.

Finally, I am very pleased that this bill includes a dedicated allowance for natural resource adaptation. The great conservationist and the 26th President of these United States, Theodore Roosevelt, taught us that conservation is a great moral issue--that it is our duty, as it insures the safety and continuance of the nation.

This is a good bill and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Madam Speaker, I ask my good friend to join in a colloquy about the electric transmission provisions. I support renewable power, as does he. However, there is a delicate State-Federal balance of authority in this area.

I yield to my good friend.

I have concerns about the wisdom of splitting the country in two parts, into eastern and western interconnections, for the purpose of regulating transmissions. Does my colleague agree we should have a unified national transmission policy?

I thank my good friend. I have a further question. I am also concerned that wilderness areas and conservation easements be fully protected, particularly in the eastern interconnection.

Reclaiming my time, finally, the effect of this language on existing law is unclear, which might only lead to more litigation and delay.