For Immediate Releases: June 11, 2009
Congressman K. Michael Conaway Opening Statement for Full Committee on Agriculture Hearing Re: To Review Pending Climate Change Legislation
Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling this hearing today. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the impacts that the Markey-Waxman bill will have on the food and fiber producers in Texas and throughout our nation. I would also like to thank our three panels today for taking the time to prepare, to travel to Washington, and to appear before us today. Your input is important and will hopefully not be in vain due to political considerations that once again seem to be trumping the legislative process. To clarify, I am encouraged by the words and efforts of my good friend, Chairman Peterson. The Chairman has consistently placed the concerns and interests of rural America above that of partisan ploys and flawed ideas. It is my hope that other Democratic Chairmen will follow Mr. Petersonʼs lead and stand up for working families and small businesses across their Congressional Districts and the country as a whole. It is our duty to ensure that the needs and concerns of the agricultural community and rural America are heard and addressed before this legislation moves any further. Although I remain highly skeptical of the science underlying this debate and dispute the fundamental need for this legislation, todayʼs hearing is not about computer modeling and variables or formulas and graphs; it is about the very real costs that this bill will impose on our families, our businesses, and ultimately, our economy. Today, we will have an opportunity to hear from Americaʼs agricultural community about what burdens they expect this national energy tax scheme to present. Further, we will have an opportunity to discuss whether or not we feel these costs are appropriate and worthwhile responses to the assumed threat posed by global warming. Global warming, as its name suggests is an issue that ignores national boundaries. If the science is correct, which is in no manner an agreed upon issue, then the carbon dioxide emitted in China is just as bad as carbon dioxide emitted in the United States. The U.S., while the worldʼs most industrialized nation, is no longer the largest emitter of carbon dioxide. Recently, the United States was passed by China in total tonnage emitted, and India is close at our
heels. Both China and India have declared that global warming is a problem of the industrialized world, and that they will not deny their citizens the increased standard of living that cheap, abundant energy provides. With a population of over 2.5 billion people between them, these two rising economies represent the overwhelming bulk of new emissions for the foreseeable future. Reliable and affordable sources of energy represent a path out of crushing poverty for hundreds of millions of Chinese and Indians, and it is irrational to expect their leaders to surrender that tool. Yet, a plan to curb emissions that does not include them, will not be worth the paper on which it is printed. Any emissions savings that we can produce will simply be swamped by the new emissions coming from these two economies. The United States cannot unilaterally address such an issue. A global problem requires a global solution. The Markey-Waxman bill is expected to hit agricultural producers particularly hard. According to a recent study by the Heritage Foundation, the legislation would shear $8 billion from farm income in 2012 and $50 billion by 2035. This is too steep a price to pay for a plan that cannot even begin to guarantee that it will be able to meet its objectives. Again, this is principally because the problem lies largely outside of the jurisdiction of the legislation at hand. Because the Markey-Waxman bill is silent on specific agricultural provisions or exemptions, we are left to speculate at how this bill will directly impact production agriculture. Already concerns have been voiced that the EPA may move to regulate farms and ranches for green house gasses. Without an explicit exemption from an emissions cap for agriculture, it is not in my opinion a matter of IF production agriculture will be regulated but WHEN. In Texas, our state officials from our the State Agriculture Commissioner, to the Comptroller, and up to the Governor, have expressed grave concerns and even opposition to the legislation. They have studied it and determined that it would bring more harm than benefit to our Great State. Further, a growing number of Texas agriculture organizations that span the entire spectrum of production have reviewed this bill and come to the same conclusion. I plan to submit their letters for the record so that even in their absence here today, their voices and concerns may be heard. These producers and organizations, involved in the day-to-day operations of farms and ranches realize full well the pending disaster that the Markey-Waxman legislation would cast upon rural America. These fundamental concerns of rural communities and production of agriculture have not been explored by the Energy and Commerce Committee and will remain unaddressed in todayʼs hearing. Although I believe the opportunity to point out how this legislation will adversely impact the people of my district and to hear directly from those who understand the agricultural economy is important, a hearing cannot and will not make the Markey-Waxman legislation a better bill. At the conclusion of this hearing, the legislation will remain unchanged and the
concerns of rural America will remain unaddressed. Mr. Chairman, I urge you to continue your demand of the Speaker that the Agriculture Committee be allowed to exercise its jurisdiction over this legislation and that a proper full committee markup take place. Thank you.