Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2454) to create clean energy jobs, achieve energy independence, reduce global warming pollution and transition to a clean energy economy.

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.

I would yield to the gentleman.

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.

You do object. I would like to ask the gentlewoman if we could extend the time on both sides by 5 minutes then.

I would like to see if we could extend by 1 minute this debate on both sides.

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 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.

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

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.

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).

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

Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 1\1/ 2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Broun.

Madam Speaker, could you please advise us how much time remains on both sides?

Madam Speaker, at this time I would yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey.

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.

At this time I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

At this time I would yield a grand total of 30 seconds to the distinguished gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

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.

If she has additional speakers, I will reserve the balance of my time.

At this time I yield 1 minute to gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Roe).

Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).

At this time I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the ranking member of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 587 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

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.

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.

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.

No, we will not agree to that. We object.

We object. There are 3 hours on the bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts, a member of the Rules Committee, my colleague, Mr. McGovern.

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

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).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida, a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee (Ms. Castor).

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. Giffords).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Vermont, a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, Mr. Welch.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Jackson-Lee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a member of the Committee on Natural Resources, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Heinrich).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley).

I have additional speakers coming.

Madam Speaker, I don't see my speakers present there, so I'm ready to close. I will use my remaining time to close.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Lujan).

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

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.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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.