[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 11]
[House]
[Page 14868]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         CLIMATE CHANGE HEARING

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, as we speak here on the floor of the 
House right now, the House Agriculture Committee is holding a hearing 
on the legislation reported out of the Energy and Commerce Committee, 
the so-called cap-and-trade legislation. Many of us know it as cap-and-
tax or a massive new energy tax on the American people.
  The Agriculture Committee has wisely decided to hold a hearing on 
this complex legislation and, in fact, the Secretary of Agriculture, 
Secretary Vilsack, has been answering questions from Members on both 
sides of the aisle for the past 3\1/2\ hours, as Members are almost 
uniformly opposed to the legislation, regardless of their party status, 
and have expressed grave concerns about the impact that this will have 
on America's farmers and ranchers, that it will have on rural America 
and, indeed, the devastating impact that it will have on our economy 
and jobs and our standard of living as a whole. And I want to bring to 
the attention of the Members of the House some of the concerns that we 
have raised.
  The impact that this legislation will have on our economy and our 
very lives is extensive, and we should make sure that not just the 
Energy and Commerce Committee, but every committee in the House fully 
vets this bill.
  The cap-and-trade proposal is really an $846 billion national energy 
tax that will hit nearly every American. Moving into a cap-and-trade 
system will place the United States economy at a distinct competitive 
disadvantage because it would place significant additional costs on 
every American business, farmer, manufacturer, and American family.
  This bill will raise electric bills across the country by hindering 
the development of traditional energy sources while also, ironically, 
limiting the development of renewable energy.
  Coal provides the majority of electricity generation in our country, 
and this bill will effectively stop coal-fired power plants from being 
built in the United States at a time when one new coal-fired electric 
generating power plant a week is being built in India and China. They 
will use those coal-fired power plants to power the growth in their 
economy, taking jobs away from the United States and putting the same 
CO2 gas into the atmosphere that we are passing this 
legislation to try to stop in this country. It makes no sense.
  Nuclear power is the second largest source of electricity generation 
and the largest source of CO2-free energy, and it is 
effectively ignored by this bill, notwithstanding the fact that it will 
reduce CO2 gas emissions by a far greater measure than any 
of the other alternatives that are being discussed.
  Also concerning to me is the one-size-fits-all renewable electric 
standard. This legislation assumes that all States have the exact same 
amount of renewable resources and can develop them and penalizes States 
when they cannot.
  Furthermore, the legislation excludes far too many people who should 
be able to participate in the renewable energy market. I know I speak 
for members on both sides of our committee when I say that the biomass 
definition in this bill is inadequate. Woody biomass is a clean, 
sustainable form of energy that deserves encouragement from the Federal 
Government, not unneeded restrictions. Given the restrictions already 
placed on woody biomass by the Renewable Fuels Standard, we should not 
be repeating the same mistake in this legislation.
  We must keep in mind that agriculture is an extensive energy-
intensive industry, and this legislation will make the cost of energy 
even higher. It's estimated that the Waxman legislation will raise 
electricity rates 90 percent after adjusting for inflation, gas prices 
74 percent, and natural gas prices 55 percent.
  There is no doubt that this legislation will also raise the cost of 
fertilizer, chemical, and equipment which farmers use daily. This will 
cause serious economic harm for the American farmer. According to the 
Heritage Foundation, farm income is expected to drop because of this 
legislation by $8 billion in 2012, $25 billion in 2024, and over $50 
billion in 2035. These are decreases of 28 percent, 60 percent and 94 
percent, respectively. I do not know how we can expect American farmers 
to survive when we cut their farm income by 94 percent.
  What I find even more frustrating is that the impetus for this 
legislation is to reduce carbon emissions, yet it does not recognize 
the role that agriculture and forestry can play in sequestering carbon.

                              {time}  1745

  The legislation does not specifically provide for agricultural or 
forestry offsets but rather leaves eligible offsets to the discretion 
of the Environmental Protection Agency. To add insult to injury, over 
30 pages of this bill are devoted to developing international forestry 
offsets, including provisions to send American taxpayer money overseas 
to forest owners in developing countries while disregarding our own 
forest owners.
  I urge my colleagues to look at this legislation closely and to 
soundly reject it.
  Quite frankly, leaving these offsets at the discretion of the EPA 
makes me nervous. The EPA is not known to have the best working 
relationship with farmers and ranchers. USDA has a long record of 
working with farmers and ranchers, and they have the extensive 
expertise in agriculture and forestry that will make an agricultural 
offset program successful. This legislation needs to be amended to 
allow the USDA, not the EPA, to be in charge of administering 
agricultural offsets.
  This legislation has far reaching consequences for every person, 
farmer, and business in the country. We cannot ignore that America's 
economy is intrinsically linked to the availability and affordability 
of energy. During this economic slow-down we should be adopting 
policies that seek to rebuild our economy and create more jobs; we need 
reliable and affordable energy supplies. Unfortunately, cap and trade 
legislation would only further cripple our economy. Instead of 
government mandates and bureaucracy we should focus on policies that 
support technological advances and consumer choices. The bottom line is 
that we need policies which encourage investment in environmentally 
sound, cost-effective practices without stifling innovation and setting 
our economy further back. The simple truth behind the Waxman energy 
plan is that it raises taxes, kills jobs and will lead to more 
government intrusion.

                          ____________________