[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 104 (Monday, July 13, 2009)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1743]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             AMERICAN CLEAN ENERGY AND SECURITY ACT OF 2009

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                          HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                         Friday, June 26, 2009

  Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, today, as we discuss comprehensive energy 
and climate legislation, our focus is on how we can lower the carbon 
footprint of electricity generation.
  As we move to a clean energy future, however, the country still needs 
to make progress in reducing sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and 
mercury emissions, air pollutants that cause acid rain, ground-level 
ozone, particulate matter pollution, and mercury contamination.
  In developing their strategies to reduce carbon dioxide, electricity 
generators will still need to take into account the need to reduce 
emissions of these conventional air pollutants.
  For many years, Congressman McHugh has worked to tackle the problems 
created by emissions of such pollutants. In particular, he has shown 
great leadership in his work to address acid rain and mercury pollution 
from power plants, as demonstrated by his bill H.R. 1841, the findings 
of which persuasively demonstrate the case for a strong control program 
for sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and mercury emissions from power 
plants.
  Putting in place strategies to reduce carbon dioxide emissions will 
also help address these problems. Mr. McHugh's amendment to the 
American Clean Energy and Security Act does important work by making 
this link explicit.
  It directs EPA to study what effects strategies and technologies that 
will reduce emissions of carbon dioxide will have on emissions of 
conventional pollutants like SOx, NOx, and 
mercury.
  Further understanding of this interaction between carbon control 
strategies and the reduction of criteria pollutants will be of clear 
benefit to policymakers, air quality planners, and the power sector.
  Adopting approaches that reduce both types of pollutants would 
represent a major step forward towards cleaner coal use, and Mr. 
McHugh's amendment will result in important information on what we know 
now, and what steps should be taken next, in order to achieve this 
objective.
  I also wish to address the purpose of the intellectual property 
protection provisions in Title IV, Subtitle D, which are to ensure that 
funding for international climate change mitigation promotes robust 
compliance with and enforcement of intellectual property rights for 
clean technology. The intent of the provisions is to safeguard 
intellectual property rights in order to support investment in the 
research and development necessary to design and deploy new 
technologies. For the purposes of this section, clean technologies are 
any technologies or services relating to the qualifying activities 
enumerated in section 445.
  Section 446 would prohibit bilateral assistance for the benefit of 
qualifying activities that would undermine compliance with and 
enforcement of intellectual property rights for clean technology as 
provided in the World Trade Organization's Agreement on Trade-Related 
Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) and applicable 
bilateral Free Trade Agreements. With regard to multilateral 
assistance, the provision directs the President to seek to ensure that 
any climate change mitigation assistance disbursed through a 
multilateral framework not be permitted for any activity that on its 
own or in connection to a related activity would undermine intellectual 
property rights for clean technology, as provided in TRIPS. The 
objective is to prevent funds from being spent to support the export of 
a technology where the underlying patent or other intellectual property 
rights would be undermined as a result of the project. The objective is 
also to ensure that decisions about individual projects also scrutinize 
whether related activities have undermined intellectual property rights 
for clean technology. For example, a funding decision for a project 
involving the export of wind technology should take into account 
whether there is a history of intellectual property violations in 
similar projects involving solar energy technology or technology to 
support capture and sequestration of carbon dioxide emissions.
  An annual assessment of compliance with and enforcement of 
intellectual property rights would be made by the interagency group 
established in section 443.
  Madam Speaker, I also wish to address some unwarranted concerns that 
have been raised by misreadings of provisions in H.R. 2454.
  In new Section 811 of the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is 
required to publish an inventory of categories of stationary sources 
that includes each source category that is responsible for at least 10 
percent of the uncapped methane emissions in 2005. The provision goes 
on to provide that the inventory shall not include sources of enteric 
fermentation. Thus, emissions from enteric fermentation shall be 
included in the calculation of uncapped methane emissions in 2005, but 
enteric fermentation shall be not listed as a source category on the 
inventory.
  I would also like to clear up some confusion on the covered entity 
definition in new section 700(13)(C) of the Clean Air Act. Under this 
provision, an entity that produces or imports any of the specified 
greenhouse gases for sale or distribution in interstate commerce in the 
specified amount is a covered entity. It has been suggested that 
somehow this provision might be interpreted so that beef producers 
would be covered because they produce beef for sale or distribution in 
interstate commerce because, in the production of beef, they produce 
manure as a byproduct that is not intended for sale or distribution in 
interstate commerce. This would be an impermissible reading of section 
700(13)(C).
  In addition, I would like to clarify that, contrary to claims made by 
the opponents of the building efficiency provisions, the building 
labeling provisions of Section 204 establish a voluntary program and 
are not mandatory requirements. This program is voluntary for the 
states to choose to implement once EPA produces a prototype label, and 
it is voluntary for building owners to utilize subject to state policy. 
Its sole purpose is to provide information to consumers about building 
energy performance. It is also limited to new construction. There is 
nothing in the bill, and never has been, that would provide a basis for 
assertions that homeowners would be required to pay for an expensive 
audit and upgrades to a home before being allowed to sell it.
  I know that those outdoor lighting manufacturers, efficiency groups, 
and lighting consumer interests who are involved in the ongoing 
negotiations to reach new consensus efficiency standards for outdoor 
lighting may be concerned about amendments to the bill's language with 
regard to those standards. Their efforts provided the basis for the 
outdoor lighting provisions in the legislation as introduced, and I 
remain supportive of their ongoing negotiations. It's my hope and 
expectation that their process will yield a negotiated standard with as 
much consensus as possible that will deliver substantial energy savings 
from outdoor lighting products on a realistic schedule. Such a result 
could be very influential as Congress continues to consider this 
matter.

                          ____________________