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

Very clearly, it is going to impact our ability to export in the world market, and I am one of those who has long advocated the fact that the future of American agriculture and our ability to make a profit depends on our ability to export…

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

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

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

I would say a couple of things. First of all, we take seriously this threat that EPA may at some point, under existing law, go out and try to regulate what is going on in agriculture.

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

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.