I would hope you would be correct in that prediction. But the fact is, Mr. Secretary, they ... do intend to do nothing.

I think we have to have that answer, more especially in the High Plains.

Given the quick pace of the House's consideration and passage of the American Clean Energy and Security Act, I understand that there was not much time to think through the implementation aspect of the agricultural offsets program.

we are going to be putting our cotton farmers in particular at an unfair disadvantage in the world market.

If passed, would the United States be more vulnerable to challenges before the WTO? That answer to me is yes.

We are convinced that there will be some increased costs to producers.

no farm will escape the effect of this bill.

This is not good policy. There has to be a better way.

No matter how you look at that bill, it appears to me it imposes costs that will far outweigh the near-term and long-term benefits.

I want to support a bill that provides greater energy security for Americans and addresses climate change, but, unfortunately, the House bill is not it.

we will need every available acre of arable land to feed a hungry world.

However, in your testimony, you do not address the cost aspects of the House bill and a cap and trade program.

Climate change and the energy security of our Country are two very important issues facing our Nation.

Let's leave the record open. I have some other questions, and other members may have to.

Why are we burdening the U.S. economy with a bill that admittedly will not do anything to address the problem?

the chief purpose of the Waxman-Markey and the Boxer bills is to raise the price of energy.

I am just delighted to be here today to talk about the reauthorization and enrichment of the Workforce Investment Act.

I never knew a finer representative in the assembly, and I am sure there is no better commissioner of labor in the United States.