Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
AUTHORITY GRANTED UNDER THE
CLEAN AIR ACT.
MADAM SPEAKER, I THANK YOU FOR
THE CONSIDERATION OF THIS
AMENDMENT, I URGE ALL MY
COLLEAGUES TO VOTE YES ON THIS
AMENDMENT AND I THANK YOU AND I
RESERVE THE BALANCE OF MY TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN
RESERVES THE BALANCE OF HIS
TIME.
DOES THE GENTLEMAN FROM TEXAS
SEEK RECOGNITION?
FOR THE TIME IN OPPOSITION?
I DO.
THE GENTLEMAN IS
RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.
THANK YOU.
I RISE IN OPPOSITION TO MY GOOD
FRIEND FROM TEXAS, MR.
CUELLAR,'S AMENDMENT.
IT MAY BE WELL INTENTIONED BUT
IT'S VERY POORLY DRAFTED.
HE MAY NOT HAVE INTENDED IT BUT
IF WE WERE TO ACCEPT IT BY
ALLOWING THE E.P.A. TO REGULATE
UNTIL UNDER TITLE 2, HE WOULD
GIVE THE E.P.A. AUTHORITY NOT
ONLY TO REGULATE TAIL PIPE
EMISSIONS OF CARS AND TRUCKS BUT
ALSO AUTHORITY TO REGULATE
TRAINS, PLANES AND ANY OTHER
MOBILE SOURCE.
I DON'T KNOW THAT
THAT WAS HIS INTENT BUT IT'S
CERTAINLY THE EFFECT OF THE
AMENDMENT.
WE OPPOSE THE AMENDMENT FOR THAT
REASON, FOR THE DRAFTING REASON.
WE ALSO OPPOSE THE AMENDMENT
BECAUSE IT'S THE MAJORITY'S
OPINION THAT WE NEED AFTER 2017
TO HAVE ONE REGULATOR FOR MOBILE
SOURCES AND THAT REGULATOR IS
THE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION
SAFETY ADMINISTRATION.
THIS AMENDMENT WOULD HAVE THREE
REGULATORS, NTSA, E.P.A. AND THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
WE HAVE BEEN VERY CAREFUL IN THE
DRAFTING OF THE UNDERLYING BILL
TO MAKE SURE THAT THE EXISTING
STANDARDS FOR TAIL PIPE
EMISSIONS STAY IN PLACE.
THIS BILL DOESN'T CHANGE THAT.
IT WOULD PREVENT E.P.A. FROM
ISSUING REGULATIONS FOR CO-2
EMISSIONS FOR TAIL PIPES, BUT
THE UNDERLYING BILL DOES NOT
PROHIBIT REGULATING THE VARIOUS
EMISSIONS UNDER NTSA AND THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR TAIL
PIPE EMISSIONS THAT ACTUALLY
AFFECT FUEL ECONOMY.
THE ONLY THING EVEN WITHOUT THIS
BILL THAT THE E.P.A. WOULD HAVE
THE ABILITY TO REGULATE ARE THE
EMISSIONS OUT OF THE COOL ANT OF
THE AIR CONDITIONING SYSTEMS --
COOLANT OUT OF THE AIR
CONDITIONING SYSTEMS, THEY HAVE
NO AFFECT ON THE FUEL ECONOMY.
WE OPPOSE THE AMENDMENT WITH
THAT I WANT TO YIELD THE BALANCE
OF THE MAJORITY TIME FOR HIS
CONTROL TO MR. OLSON OF TEXAS.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
TEXAS, MR. OLSON, WILL BE
RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES.
I THANK THE SPEAKER.
I THANK MY COLLEAGUE, THE
CHAIRMAN FROM THE COMMITTEE.
MADAM SPEAKER, I RISE IN
OPPOSITION TO THIS AMENDMENT.
H.R. 910 WAS CASMEY WRITTEN TO
PROVIDE THE -- CAREFULLY WRITTEN
TO PROVIDE THE AUTO INDUSTRY
WITH BETTER CERTAINTY BY
STHREEMLINE -- STREAMLINING THE
REGULATORY PROCESS WITH ONLY ONE
FUEL ECONOMY STANDARD REGULATOR.
NTSA.
FROM 2017 ONWARD.
THIS AMENDMENT WOULD REMOVE THAT
PROVISION BY REQUIRING THAT WE
CONTINUE TO HAVE THREE STRAIGHT
REGULATORS, THE E.P.A., NTSA,
AND CALIFORNIA, SETTING FUEL
ECONOMY STANDARDS, THIS IS
WASTEFUL AND DUPLICATIVE
SPENTING AT A TIME WHEN
GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE MORE
EFFICIENT -- SPENDING AT A TIME
WHEN GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE MORE
EFFICIENT AND PROVIDING GREATER
CERTAINTY FOR CUSTOMERS.
THIS AMENDMENT WOULD ALLOW THE
E.P.A. TO SET LOW-CARBEN FUEL
STANDARDS THAT WOULD EQUATE --
LOW-CARBON FUEL STANDARDS THAT
WOULD EQUATE TO NOTHING MORE
THAN A CARB TAX AT THE PUMP.
AT -- CARBON TAX AT THE PUMP.
THIS ADMINISTRATION HAS
DISREGARDED STUDIES WHICH HAVE
CONCLUDED THAT GREENHOUSE GAS
REGULATIONS WILL INCREASE ENERGY
COSTS AND DESTROY JOBS.
AN A.P. HEADLINE TODAY RED,
QUOTE, -- READ, QUOTE, PRICES
HURTING THE AMERICAN ECONOMY,
END QUOTE.
THESE REGULATIONS WILL ONLY
FORCE AMERICANS TO PAY MORE.
FURTHERMORE, IT IS CONGRESS, NOT
THE E.P.A., THAT HAS
CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO
DECIDE IF OR HOW GREENHOUSE
GASES SHOULD BE REGULATED.
MY HOME TEXAS HAS IMPROVED ITS
AIR QUALITY AND INCREASED ITS
ENERGY PRODUCTION EVEN AS WE'RE
HAVING THE LARGEST POPULATION
GROWTH IN AMERICA.
OUR LEGISLATION ALLOWS AMERICA
TO FIND COMMONSENSE SOLUTIONS
THAT PROVIDE AN AFFORDABLE,
RELIABLE ENERGY SUPPLY FOR OUR
NATION AS WELL AS PROVIDING
MUCH-NEEDED CERTAINTY TO AN
UNSTABLE JOB MARKET.
I URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO OPPOSE
THIS AMENDMENT AND SUPPORT THE
UNDERLYING BILL, H.R. 910.
I YIELD THE BALANCE OF MY TIME
POMPEO.
TO MY COLLEAGUE FROM KANSAS, MR.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
TEXAS.
THANK YOU.
I THANK MY COLLEAGUE FROM
HOUSTON AND THE GENTLEMAN FROM
DALLAS, ALSO.
JUST BECAUSE WE DRAFTED THIS
DOESN'T MEAN IT WAS POOR
DRAFTING, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT.
IF THEY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH
WHETHER THEY WANT TO PUT
LANGUAGE IN SCIENCE, THAT'S ONE
THING.
MY AMENDMENT IS ON THE SAME PAGE
OF WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO.
MY AMENDMENT JUST STRIKES THE
FINDINGS AND WHAT WE WANT TO DO
IS THAT H.R. IS ONLY ABOUT
ARTICLE 1 OF THE CONSTITUTION,
GIVING THE U.S. CONGRESS THE
RIGHT TO SAY WHETHER E.P.A. --
WHETHER THEY CAN OR CANNOT
REGULATE THE GREENHOUSE GAS.
THIS SHOULD NOT BE A QUESTION OF
SCIENCE.
I THINK THIS SHOULD BE A
QUESTION OF AUTHORITY.
WE'RE ON THE SAME PAGE BUT I SEE
THAT THE MAJORITY WANTS TO KEEP
THE FINDINGS AND I CAN
UNDERSTAND THAT, AND I JUST ASK,
MADAM CHAIRMAN, THE SUPPORT OF
AT THIS TIME.
THIS PARTICULAR BILL AND I CLOSE
DOES THE GENTLEMAN
RESERVE THE BALANCE OF HIS TIME?
I RESERVE THE
BALANCE OF MY TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN
RESERVES THE BALANCE OF HIS
TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM MICHIGAN.
I THINK WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO
CLOSE.
HOW MUCH TIME IS
REMAINING ON EACH SIDE?
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
TEXAS, MR. OLSON, DOES HAVE THE
RIGHT TO CLOSE.
AND HAS ONE MINUTE REMAINING.
AND THE GENTLEMAN FROM TEXAS,
MR. CUELLAR, HAS 2 1/2 MINUTES
REMAINING.
SO THE CHAIR WILL -- DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM MICHIGAN WISH TO
RESERVE THE TIME?
DOES THE GENTLEMAN WISH TO
RESERVE HIS TIME OR TAKE THE
CLOSE --
WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO
CLOSE, RIGHT?
THAT IS CORRECT.
RESERVES.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM MICHIGAN
THE GENTLEMAN FROM TEXAS IS
RECOGNIZED FOR UP TO 2 1/2
MINUTES.
THANK YOU, MADAM
SPEAKER.
AGAIN, MY AMENDMENT IS JUST
ABOUT SAYING THAT H.R. SHOULD BE
THE ARTICLE 1 OF THE
CONSTITUTION, THE QUESTION IS,
DOES CONGRESS HAVE THE RIGHT TO
REGULATE OR DO WE LET THE
BUREAUCRATS DECIDE?
THIS IS WHAT MY AMENDMENT DOES,
IT JUST SAYS THAT WE, THE
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, SHOULD
DECIDE WHETHER E.P.A. CAN OR
CANNOT REGULATE GREENHOUSE GAS.
AGAIN, THIS IS A QUESTION OF
AUTHORITY AND NOT -- SHOULD NOT
BE A QUESTION OF SCIENCE.
WITH THAT, MADAM CHAIR, I CLOSE.
THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS
BACK.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM MICHIGAN.
I URGE MY COLLEAGUES
TO VOTE NO ON THIS AMENDMENT
AND I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF
OUR TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS
BACK.
THE QUESTION IS ON THE
AMENDMENT OFFER BY THE
GENTLEMAN FROM TEXAS, MR.
CUELLAR.
THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THOSE OPPOSED, NO.
IN THE OPINION OF THE CHAIR,
THE NOES HAVE IT.
THE AMENDMENT IS NOT AGREED TO.
IT IS NOW IN ORDER TO CONSIDER
AMENDMENT NUMBER FIVE PRINTED
IN HOUSE REPORT 112-54.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM CONNECTICUT SEEK
RECOGNITION?
I HAVE AN AMENDMENT
AT THE DESK.
THE CLERK WILL
DESIGNATE THE AMENDMENT.
AMENDMENT NUMBER
FIVE, PRINTED IN HOUSE REPORT
112-54, OFFERED BY MR. MURPHY
OF CONNECTICUT.
PURSUANT TO HOUSE
RESOLUTION 203, THE GENTLEMAN
FROM CONNECTICUT, MR. MURPHY,
AND A MEMBER OPPOSED EACH WILL
CONTROL FIVE MINUTES.
THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM CONNECTICUT.
I YIELD MYSELF SUCH
TIME AS I MAY CONSUME.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.
SIMPLE.
THIS AMENDMENT IS FAIRLY
IN THE UNDERLYING BILL, THE
LEGISLATION, THOUGH I THINK IT
VERY WRONGLY PREVENTS THE
E.P.A. FROM GOING FORWARD ON
REGULATING GREENHOUSE GASES,
AFFIRMS THAT STATE-RUN
GREENHOUSE GAS FIRMS WILL NOT
BE AFFECTED BY THIS.
MY AMENDMENT CLARIFIES THAT
LANGUAGE, KEEPING IN PRACTICE
LONG STANDING TRADITION WHEREBY
THE E.P.A. WILL PROVIDE
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FOR STATES
LIKE MINE WHO HAVE TAKEN ACTION
ON THEIR OWN TO COMBAT CLIMATE
CHANGE.
I THINK THIS IS A GOOD AND
PERFECTING AMENDMENT.
UNFORTUNATELY, IT OPPORTUNITY
DO ENOUGH TO ALLOW ME TO
SUPPORT THIS LEGISLATION.
I CAN'T SUPPORT THIS
LEGISLATION BECAUSE AS MANY
HAVE SAID BEFORE, IT'S AN
AFFRONT AND ATTACK ON SCIENCE.
99% OF PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLES
WHICH HAVE SUPPORTED THE IDEA
THAT THE UNITED STATES NEEDS TO
DO SOMETHING AS 5% OF THE
WORLD'S POPULATION AND 25% OF
THE WORLD'S POLLUTION.
WE HAVE 230,000 DEATHS THAT
HAVE BEEN PREVENTED BY THE
CLEAN AIR ACT AND THE ECONOMIC
BENEFITS OUTWEIGHT E--
OUTWEIGHT THE COSTS OF IT BY A
3-1 MARGIN.
EVEN IF YOU SET ASIDE THE
SCIENTIFIC DEBATE, THERE ARE
DOZENS OF OTHER REASONS TO BE
SUPPORTIVE OF THE UNITED STATES
AND THE E.P.A. TAKING A STRONG
ROLE ON REGULATING GREENHOUSE
GASES.
IT IS AN AFFRONT TO THE
MILLIONS OF UNEMPLOYED WORKERS
WHO ARE ASKING FOR LEADERSHIP
FROM THIS CONGRESS ON
DEVELOPING A NEW ECONOMY IN THE
AREA OF CLEAN ENERGY TO DENY
THE E.P.A. THE ABILITY TO JOIN
OTHER NATIONS AROUND THE WORLD
IN PUTTING A DOWNWARD PRESSURE
ON CARBON EMIGS SO WE CAN HAVE
AN UPWARD PRESSURE ON A NUMBER
OF NEW CLEAN ENERGY JOB THIS IS
COUNTRY CAN CREATE.
EVEN IF YOU SET ASIDE THAT
ARGUMENT, EVEN IF YOU SET ASIDE
ARGUMENT FROM A NATIONAL
THE SCIENCE AND THE JOBS
SECURITY PERSPECTIVE, WE NEED
TO GO FORWARD WITH E.P.A.
REGULATIONS OR IN THE ABSENCE
WE NEED TO PASS LEGISLATION
CONGRESS.
HERE IN THE UNITED STATES
WE CONTINUE TO SEND ABROAD
AMERICAN DOLLARS TO PETRO
DICTATORS WHO USE IT TO FUNNEL
MONEY TO THE VERY PEOPLE
SEEKING TO ATTACK THIS NATION
FROM A NATIONAL SECURITY
STANDPOINT WORK ENEED TO BE
MOVING FORWARD WITH A
GREENHOUSE GAS STRATEGY.
I'M PROPOSING THIS AMENDMENT,
THOUGH, BECAUSE FOR ALL OF THE
NAYSAYERS, FOR ALL THE PEOPLE
WHO TALK ABOUT DOOMSDAY AND
ARMAGEDDON IF THE E.P.A.
REGULATIONS GO INTO EFFECT, I'D
LIKE THEM TO COME TO
CONNECTICUT, TO COME TO THE 10
STATES THAT ARE PART OF THE
CARBON EMISSIONS REGIME IN
WHICH WE HAVE SEEN WHAT SMART
REGULATION OF CARBON CAN DO.
WE HAVE SET A STANDARD IN OUR
SYSTEM TO REDUCE CARBON, AND
WE'RE DOING IT THROUGH THE CAB
AND TRADE REGIME MANY ON THE
OTHER SIDE HAVE TALKED ABOUT
FOR YEARS.
THE JURY IS IN, THE RESULTS ARE
IN, AND WE HAVE IN THE 10
STATES IN THE SYSTEM SAVED
ENOUGH ENERGY TO EQUAL THE
CUMULATIVE INPUT OF 442,000
HOMES.
WE SAVED AN IMMENSE AMOUNT OF
NRNL I BY DOING THAT, WHAT'S
HAPPENED TO COSTS?
COSTS HAVE PLUMMETED.
WE'VE SEEN $744 MILLION FOR
CONSUMERS IN CONTRACT
CONNECTICUT.
WHY?
WE DECREASED DEMANDS FOR
EMERGENCY.
SO WE HAVE DECREASED COSTS.
WE SAVED ENERGY AND DECREASED
COSTS THROUGH A SYSTEM OF
CARBON CONTROL, NOT DISSIMILAR
TO ONES WE TALKED ABOUT IN THIS
CONGRESS, NOT DISSIMILAR TO
WHAT WE ARE LOOKING AT AT THE
E.P.A. TODAY SYSTEM OF I
PROPOSE THIS AMENDMENT AS A WAY
OF SIMPLY ALLOWING STATES TO
MOVE FORWARD WITH WHAT I THINK
HAVE BEEN BENEFICIAL CARBON
REDUCTION REGIMES IN THE
ABSENCE OF FEDERAL CONTROL AND
I THINK IT'S A SAD DAY THAT
WE'RE HERE TALKING ABOUT THIS
TODAY.
IT USED TO BE THE REPUBLICANS
AND DEMOCRATS COULD AT THE VERY
LEAST AGREE ON CLEAN AIR.
WE COULD AT THE VERY LEAST
AGREE THAT POLLUTION WAS AN
ISSUE WHICH WE SHOULD ADDRESS
AND IN FACT THAT'S NOW A
SUBJECT OF DISAGREEMENT THAT'S
A GRAVE STATEMENT ON HOW FAR
THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HAS COME
OVER THE LAST DECADE.
BALANCE OF MY TIME.
WITH THAT, I RESERVE THE
THE GENTLEMAN
RESERVES.
DOES THE GENTLEMAN FROM
LOUISIANA SEEK TIME IN
OPPOSITION?
YES, MADAM SPEAKER.
THE GENTLEMAN IS
RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.
I YIELD TWO AND A HALF
MINUTES TO THE GENTLEMAN FROM
KANSAS, MR. POMPEO.
THE GENTLEMAN IS
RECOGNIZED FOR TWO AND A HALF
MINUTES.
I RISE IN
OPPOSITION TO THE MURPHY
REAMENT.
HE TALKED ABOUT THIS BEING A
SAD DAY, A DAY WHEN REPUBLICANS
AND DEMOCRATS CONDITION AGREE
ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF
ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY AND CLEAN
AIR, I CAN'T DISAGREE MORE.
THOSE ON OUR SIDE CARE DEEPLY
TO MAKE SURE WE'VE GOT CLEAN
AIR AN WATER, SAFE DRINKING
WATER.
IT'S NOT A SAD DAY.
WE CARE DEEPLY ABOUT THAT.
I'VE BEEN HERE IN CONGRESS FOR
90 DAYS.
YESTERDAY MARKED THREE MONTHS
ON STATION.
DEMOCRATS ARE TALKING ABOUT,
WHERE ARE THE JOBS BILLS?
HERE'S ONE.
HERE'S THE FIRST OF MANY.
IF WE CAN BEGIN TO PEEL AWAY
THE BURDEN AND THE DISASTER
THAT ARE THE REGULATIONS THAT
E.P.A. IS BEGINNING TO PLACE ON
OUR COUNTRY, WE WILL ONCE AGAIN
CREATE AN ENVIRONMENT WHERE
PRIVATE SECTOR CAN CREATE JOBS,
WHERE WE CAN ONCE AGAIN CREATE
MANUFACTURING JOBS.
YOU KNOW, UNTIL JANUARY 5 OF
THIS YEAR, I WAS IN THE
MANUFACTURING SECTOR.
I WAS MAKING THINGS IN THE
PRIVATE SECTOR.
I WATCHED AS GOVERNMENT GOT IN
THE WAY AND MADE IT EXPENSIVE,
DROVE UP THE COST OF ENERGY SO
THAT OUR PRODUCTS WERE NOT
COMPETITIVE.
WE ARE NOW BEGINNING WITH H.R.
910 TO PEEL THAT BACK, TO TAKE
ON THE TASK OF RESTORING
OPPORTUNITY FOR AMERICANS ONCE
AGAIN TO MANUFACTURE HERE IN
OUR COUNTRY.
FOR THOSE FOLKS WHO ARE
STRUGGLING TO BEGIN ONCE AGAIN
TO AFFORD ENERGY FOR
THEMSELVES, FOR THEIR FAMILIES,
AND FOR OUR SMALL BUSINESSES, I
OPPOSE THE MURPHY AMENDMENT
BECAUSE IT GUTS WHAT WE'RE
TRYING TO DO IN H.R. 910, WHICH
IS ONCE AGAIN PUT AMERICA BACK
ON A COURSE THAT SAYS WE'RE
GOING TO HAVE SAFE AIR, WE'RE
GOING TO HAVE CLEAN DRINKING
WATER AND WE'RE GOING TO DO IT
IN A WAY WHERE THE PRIVATE
SECTOR CAN CREATE JOBS, GROW
OUR ECONOMY AN WE WILL NOT HAVE
TO HAVE THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE
WE HAVE STRUGGLED THROUGH THE
LAST TWO AND A HALF YEARS.
I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY
TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME
HAS EXPIRED.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM CONNECTICUT.
MAY I INQUIRE HOW
MUCH TIME I HAVE REMAINING.
THE GENTLEMAN HAS 30
SECONDS REMAIN, THE GENTLEMAN
FROM LOUISIANA HAS THREE
MINUTES REMAINING.
I YIELD MYSELF THE
BALANCE OF MY TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN IS
RECOGNIZED.
I WAS GOING TO
INQUIRE AS TO HOW HE THINKS
THIS AMENDMENT GUTS THE
UNDERLYING LEGISLATION.
ALL THIS AMENDMENT DOES IS
ALLOW FOR THE E.P.A. TO
CONTINUE WORKING WITH STATES ON
THEIR OWN SYSTEMS.
SO I THINK THE HYPERBOLE HAS
GOTTEN A LITTLE OUT OF CONTROL
FROM THE REPUBLICAN SIDE.
THIS IS SIMPLY SEEKING TO
ASSIST STATES IN THE WORK THAT
THEY ARE CONTINUING TO DO
TODAY.
IT DOES NOTHING TO GUT THE
UNDERLYING LEGISLATION, IT ADDS
CLARIFYING LEGISLATION TO ALLOW
STATES TO MOVE FORWARD WITH
THEIR OWN SYSTEMS OF
CONTROLLING GREENHOUSE GASES.
WITH THAT, I YIELD BACK THE
BALANCE OF OUR TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS
BACK.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM LOUISIANA.
THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIR.
I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO
SUBMIT LETTERS OF SUPPORT OF
OUR LEGISLATION INTO THE
RECORD.
THE GENTLEMAN'S
QUESTION IS COVERED UNDER
GENERAL LEAVE.
THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIR.
OF COURSE, WHY WE'RE HERE TODAY
IS BECAUSE THE E.P.A. CONTINUED
TO PUSH THIS EFFORT TO PASS A
NATIONAL ENERGY TAX.
IT WAS TRIED THROUGH CAP AND
HALF.
TRADE OVER THE LAST YEAR AND A
THAT BILL WENT THROUGH THE
LEGISLATIVE PROCESS AND WAS
DEFEATED IN A BIPARTISAN WAY.
THIS IS NOT A REPUBLICAN OR
DEMOCRAT ISSUE WHEN WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT PREVENTING THE
E.P.A. FROM RUNNING MILLIONS OF
JOBS OUT OF OUR COUNTRY.
THAT'S LITERALLY WHAT'S AT
STAKE HERE.
BELIEVE ME, AS PEOPLE LOOK
THROUGH THE LETTERS OF SUPPORT,
AS WE CAN COMB THROUGH THE DAYS
OF TESTIMONY THAT WE'VE HAD ON
THIS OVER THE LAST TWO YEARS,
THIS CONCEPT OF THE E.P.A.
REGULATING GREENHOUSE GASES.
MADAM CHAIR, WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT A PROPOSAL OF THE -- BY
THE E.P.A. THAT ACCORDING TO
THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF
MANUFACTURERS WOULD RUN THREE
MILLION JOBS OUT OF OUR
COUNTRY.
NOW, WE SHOULD ALL BE HERE
WORKING FEVERISHLY TO CREATE
JOBS.
IN FACT, OUR LEGISLATION, THE
NATIONAL ENERGY TAX PREVENTION
ACT WILL CREATE JOBS BECAUSE IT
WILL REMOVE THE UNCERTAINTY
THAT EXISTS TODAY --
WHERE SO MANY
EMPLOYERS ARE SCARED TO DEATH
OF THE THREAT OF REGULATION
COMING OVER.
CONGRESS REJECTED THEIR
PROPOSAL FOR THE NATIONAL
ENERGY TAX THROUGH CAP AND
TRADE IN A BIPARTISAN WAY.
THEN THEY'VE COME FORWARD WITH
A PROPOSAL.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
LOUISIANA YIELDS TO THE
GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY.
I DON'T THINK THAT
COMES OUT OF MY TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
LOUISIANA HAS TO YIELD FOR THE
INQUIRY.
I YILE FOR THE
PARLIAMENTARY INCARERY.
IS THE DEBATE ONLY
ON THE PENDING AGREEMENT --
AMENDMENT OR ON THE LARGER
BILL.
I AM TALKING ABOUT
THE AMENDMENT, I'VE GOT TO
FINISH A THOUGHT FIRST BEFORE
WE TALK SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE
AMENDMENT, BUT FIRST OF ALL, IF
YOU LOOK AT WHAT HAPPENED ON
LEGISLATION, THEY TRIED
LEGISLATION, THE LEGISLATION
FAILED.
BIPARTISAN VOTE DEFEATED THAT
LEGISLATION.
THE THEY CAME BACK WITH
REGULATION.
SO THIS PROPOSED REGULATION IS
BEING ADDRESSED BY OUR BILL,
THE UNDERLYING BILL.
WHAT THIS AMENDMENT DOES AND
THE AMENDMENT BY THE GENTLEMAN
FROM CONNECTICUT PROPOSES TO
CREATE A LOOPHOLE TO CONTINUE
TO ALLOW E.P.A. TO GET THEIR
NOSE BACK UNDER THAT TENT TO
REGULATE GREENHOUSE GASES.
AND YOU CAN JUST LOOK AT THE
LANGUAGE TO SEE, IT ALLOWS THAT
LOOPHOLE THAT WE'RE TRYING TO
CLOSE BECAUSE FIRST OF ALL,
CONGRESS HAS SAID IN A
BIPARTISAN FASHION, MADAM
CHAIR, CONGRESS HAS SAID WE
DON'T WANT THE E.P.A. IMPOSING
THE NATIONAL ENERGY TAX THAT
CAP AND TRADE WOULD PROPOSE.
WE DON'T WANT MILLIONS OF JOBS
LEAVING OUR COUNTRY.
THEN THEY SAID, WE'LL DO IT
THROUGH REGULATION A DE FACTO
CAP AND TRADE ENERGY TAX
BECAUSE THEY COULDN'T GET IT
PASSED THROUGH CONGRESS.
ANYONE WHO HAS TAKEN CIVICS
KNOWS YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO GO
THROUGH THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS
TO CHANGE POLICY.
IF THIS BILL PASSES THE HOUSE,
OUR UNDERLYING BILL THEY WON'T
BE ABLE TO GO THROUGH
REGULATION BUT THE GENTLEMAN'S
AMENDMENT WOULD SAY THERE WOULD
BE A LOOPHOLE.
THERE WOULD BE A LOOPHOLE EP
THOUGH CONGRESS SAID NO, YOU
DON'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DO
THAT, YOU CAN'T RUN THESE THE
JOBS TO PLACES LIKE CHINA WHERE
THEY HAVE NO ENVIRONMENTAL
CONTROLS THAT WE HAVE TODAY
THAT ARE DRAMATICALLY BETTER
THAN WHAT THEY HAVE IN CHINA
AND INDIA AND OTHER COUNTRIES
THAT WOULD BE HAPPY TO TAKING
THE MILLIONS OF AMERICAN JOBS
THAT WOULD FLEE THIS COUNTRY IF
THEY COULD GET AWAY WITH IT.
WE HAVE TO REJECT THIS
AMENDMENT AND TAKE THAT
LOOPHOLE AWAY.
DON'T GIVE THEM THAT LOOPHOLE
TO CONTINUE TO REGULATE IT
THROUGH THAT DETACK FOE CAP AND
TRADE.
THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME
HAS EXPIRED.
I ASK THAT WE PASS
THE -- I YIELD BACK.
IN RESPONSE TO THE
GENTLEMAN'S PARLIAMENTARY
INQUIRY, DEBATE MUST BE
CONFINED TO THE QUESTION UNDER
DEBATE.
MADAM CHAIR.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
CALIFORNIA.
I ASK UNANIMOUS
CONSENT THAT WE EXPAND THIS
DEBATE TWO MINUTES ON EACH SIDE
ON THIS PARTICULAR AMENDMENT.
IS THERE OBJECTION?
IS THAT ONE AND ONE?
TWO MINUTES EACH.
LET'S DO ONE AND ONE.
WE CAN ACCEPT ONE AND ONE.
LET'S DO ONE AND ONE.
I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT
THE MINORITY AND MAJORITY EACH
HAVE ONE MINUTE TO CONTINUE
DEBATE.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
CALIFORNIA.
IF I RESERVE THE
RIGHT TO OBJECT, I GET TO SPEAK
WHAT WOULD BE THE EQUIVALENT OF
THAT EXTRA MINUTE, I PLEAD TO
GIVE AN ADDITIONAL MINUTE TO
EACH SIDE BECAUSE I THINK
THERE'S AN IMPORTANT ISSUE THAT
IS BEING IGNORED IN THIS
PARTICULAR AMENDMENT.
AND EACH SIDE MAY NOT NEED TO
TAKE UP THE TWO MINUTES.
I PREFER THAT WE
JUST DO ONE AND ONE AND END IT
THERE ON THIS AMENDMENT.
I CAN'T.
ONE AND ONE.
I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT
EACH SIDE HAVE ONE MINUTE ON
THIS AMENDMENT.
SKI UNANIMOUS
AND A HALF MINUTES.
CONSENT THAT EACH SIDE HAVE ONE
IS THERE OBJECTION.
WE ACCEPT YOUR
UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST.
ONE AND ONE.
IS THERE OBJECTION TO
THE GENTLEMAN FROM MICHIGAN'S
REQUEST FOR ONE MINUTE FOR EACH
SIDE?
IS THERE OBJECTION?
HEARING NO OBJECTION, EACH SIDE
.
WILL BE ALLOTTED AN EXTRA MINUTE
WHO SEEKS RECOGNITION?
THE GENTLEMAN FROM CONNECTICUT.
I YIELD TO THE GENTLEMAN FROM
CALIFORNIA, OUR TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
CALIFORNIA IS RECOGNIZED FOR ONE
MINUTE.
I THANK THE MAJORITY
FOR THE GRACIOUS INNOCENCE
ALLOWING A CLARIFICATION.
THIS AMENDMENT SIMPLY SAYS, ALL
THAT YOU SUGGESTED IN YOUR BILL
WOULD BECOME LAW IF IT WERE
PASSED WITH THE EXCEPTION THAT
WE WOULD CONTINUE TO ALLOW
E.P.A. TO GIVE TECHNICAL
INFORMATION TO THE STATES.
IT DOES NOT REPLACE THE OTHER
RESTRICTIONS ON E.P.A.
IT ONLY ALLOWS THEM TO GIVE
TECHNICAL INFORMATION TO THE
STATES WHICH THEY DO ALREADY,
WITHOUT REGULATING GREENHOUSE
GASES, UNDER THE UNITED STATES
FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE
CHANGE, WHICH WAS RATIFIED BY
THE SENATE IN 1992 AFTER
SUBMITTAL BY PRESIDENT BUSH AND
BECAUSE OF THIS INTERNATIONAL
AGREEMENT, WE TRIED TO KEEP
TRACK OF WHAT'S GOING ON AND THE
STATES SHOULD BE ABLE TO TALK TO
EACH -- E.P.A. AND GET EXPERT
ADVICE FROM THE E.P.A.
UNLESS YOU THINK THE STATES
SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO DO
ANYTHING ON THEIR OWN, WHICH
WOULD BE SOMETHING BEYOND THE
SCOPE OF THIS AMENDMENT.
SO I WOULD URGE MY COLLEAGUES
WHO SUPPORT THEIR BILL NOT TO BE
AGAINST THIS AMENDMENT.
THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME
HAS EXPIRED.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM LOUISIANA.
I APPRECIATE THE
GENTLEMAN'S OFFER FROM
CALIFORNIA, BUT I CANNOT ADHERE
TO A UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK, I
CANNOT ADHERE TO THE ABILITY FOR
E.P.A. TO CONTINUE TO KEEP THEIR
NOSE UNDER THE TENT, TO PROVIDE
WHETHER IT'S CALLED TECHNICAL
ASSISTANCE, WHETHER THEY TRY TO
CONTINUE TO PUSH THINGS, BECAUSE
E.P.A. DOES INTERACT WITH STATES
ON OTHER ISSUES, AND I SURELY
WOULD NOT WANT TO SEE SOME KIND
OF SITUATION WHERE E.P.A. IS
GOING TO TRY TO HOLD SOMETHING
ELSE OVER A STATE'S HEAD AND USE
THIS THREAT BECAUSE THEY REALLY
DO WANT TO REGULATE GREENHOUSE
GASES AND IMPOSE AN ENERGY TAX.
AND SO I THINK WE'VE DEBATED IT
VERY THOROUGHLY.
I UNDERSTAND YOUR POSITION, I
RESPECT THE GENTLEMAN FROM
CONNECTICUT'S POSITION.
I JUST DON'T AGREE WITH IT.
I THINK WE NEED TO PRESERVE
AMERICAN JOBS.
LET THE STATE DOES WHAT THEY
ALREADY DO SUCH A GOOD JOB AT,
BUT TELL THE E.P.A. NO MEANS NO
THEAFPBLET GOT THEIR OWN ROLL TO
PLAY AND IT'S NOT REGULATING
GREENHOUSE GASES AND I YIELD
BACK THE BALANCE OF MY TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME
HAS EXPIRED.
THE QUESTION SON THE AMENDMENT
CONNECTICUT.
OFFERED BY THE GENTLEMAN FROM
THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THOSE OPPOSED, NO.
IN THE OPINION OF THE CHAIR, THE
NOES HAVE IT.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM CONNECTICUT.
ON THAT I REQUEST
THE YEAS AND NAYS.
PURSUANT TO -- DOES
THE GENTLEMAN ASK FOR A RECORDED
VOTE.
MURPHY MURPHY I ASK FOR A
RECORDED VOTE.
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
ON THIS AMENDMENT OFFERED BY THE
BE POSTPONED.
GENTLEMAN FROM CONNECTICUT WILL
IT'S NOW IN ORDER TO CONSIDER
AMENDMENT NUMBER 6 PRINTED IN
HOUSE REPORT 112-54.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA RISE?
MADAM CHAIR, I HAVE
AN AMENDMENT AT THE DESK.
AMENDMENT NUMBER 6
PRINTED IN HOUSE REPORT 112-54.
OFFERED BY MR. WAXMAN OF
CALIFORNIA.
PURSUANT TO HOUSE
RESOLUTION 203, THE GENTLEMAN
FROM CALIFORNIA, MR. WAXMAN, AND
A MEMBER OPPOSED EACH WILL
CONTROL FIVE MINUTES.
THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA.
I RISE TO OFFER,
MADAM CHAIR, I RISE TO OFFER AN
AMENDMENT WITH MY COLLEAGUES,
REPRESENTATIVE DEGETTE AND
INSLEE, THAT RECOGNIZES THE
SCIENTIFIC REALITY OF CLIMATE
CHANGE.
ALL AMENDMENTS -- OUR AMENDMENT
STATES THAT CONGRESS ACCEPTS
E.P.A.'S SCIENTIFIC FINDING THAT
CLIMATE CHANGE IS OCCURRING, IS
CAUSED LARGELY BY HUMAN
ACTIVITIES AND POSES SIGNIFICANT
RISKS FOR PUBLIC HEALTH AND
WELFARE.
THIS SIMPLE RECOGNITION IS FAR
FROM ENOUGH, BUT IT IS CRUCIALY
IMPORTANT.
AS LONG AS CONGRESS PRETENDS
THAT CLIMATE CHANGE ISN'T
OCCURRING, WE CAN JUSTIFY NOT
ADDRESSING IT.
LAST MONTH THE EMINENT
SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL "NATURE"
WROTE AN EDITORIAL ENTITLED,
QUOTE, INTO IGNORANCE, END
QUOTE.
AND I WANT TO READ FROM THIS
EDITORIAL.
REPUBLICANS ON THE ENERGY AND
COMMERCE COMMITTEE HAVE MADE
CLEAR THEIR DISDAIN FOR CLIMATE
SCIENCE.
AT A SUBCOMMITTEE HEARING,
MISINFORMATION WAS PRESENTED AS
FACT, TRUTH WAS TWISTED AND
NOBODY SHOWED ANY INCLINATION TO
LISTEN TO SCIENTISTS.
THERE'S BEEN AN EMBARRASSING
DISPLAY NOT JUST FOR THE
REPUBLICAN PARTY BUT ALSO FOR
CONGRESS AND THE U.S. CITIZENS
IT REPRESENTS.
END QUOTE.
THE U.S. CONGRESS HAS ENTERED
THE INTELLECTUAL WILDERNESS.
THIS AMENDMENT IS A STEP OUT OF
THAT WILDERNESS.
IT SAYS WE ACCEPT THE SCIENTIFIC
FINDING OF E.P.A., THAT THE BEST
SCIENTISTS IN OUR COUNTRY AND
AROUND THE WORLD, THAT CLIMATE
CHANGE IS A SERIOUS THREAT TO
OUR HEALTH AND WELFARE.
AND IT RECOGNIZES THAT WHILE WE
HAVE THE POWER TO CHANGE THE
LAWS OF OUR NATION, WE CANNOT
REWRITE THE LAWS OF NATURE.
IT MAYBE DIFFICULT FOR US TO
AGREE ON A SOLUTION -- IT MAY BE
DIFFICULT FOR TO US AGREE ON A
SOLUTION TO CLIMATE CHANGE BUT
WE SHOULD AT LEAST BE ABLE TO
AGREE THAT IT IS A REAL PROBLEM
AND ONE WE NEED TO ADDRESS.
I HOPE MY COLLEAGUES WILL
SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT AND
THE GENTLEMAN
RESERVE THE BALANCE OF MY TIME.
RESERVES THE BALANCE OF HIS
TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM WISCONSIN
SEEK THE TIME IN OPPOSITION?
THE GENTLEMAN'S
I DO.
RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.
MADAM CHAIRMAN, I YIELD A
MINUTE AND A HALF TO THE
GENTLEMAN FROM ILLINOIS, MR.
DOLD.
THE GENTLEMAN VOICED
FOR A MINUTE AND A HALF.
THANK YOU.
I BELIEVE IN SCIENCE.
I ALSO KNOW THAT THE EARTH HAS
BEEN WARMING FOR SOME TIME.
IN FACT, THE UNDERLYING BILL IN
H.R. 910 CONCLUDES BY
ACKNOWLEDGING THERE IS
SCIENTIFIC CONCERN OVER THE
WARMING OF THE CLIMATE SYSTEM,
THAT ADDRESSING THE CLIMATE
CHANGE IS AN INTERNATIONAL
ISSUE.
I BELIEVE THAT HUMAN ACTIVITY IS
ALSO PLAYING A ROLE.
THE QUESTION IS HOW BIG A ROLE?
THIS AMENDMENT WOULD HAVE
CONGRESS ADOPT INTENTIONALLY
VEGAS LANGUAGE ON HUMAN
INVOLVEMENT -- VAGUE LANGUAGE
ONLY HUMAN INVOLVEMENT AND THE
RISK OF CLIMATE CHANGE WITHOUT
ADDRESSING THE SIZE AND SCOPE OF
HUMAN BEHAVIOR AND THE RISK TO
THE ENVIRONMENT.
I BELIEVE WE MUST REDUCE OUR
DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL AND
EXPAND RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
OF CLEAN ENERGY SOURCES AND
ENSURE THAT FUTURE GENERATIONS
OF AMERICANS HAVE A CLEAN AND
HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT.
BUT I DO NOT BELIEVE IN THE
NOTION THAT THE WAXMAN AMENDMENT
PUTS FORWARD THAT STATES THAT
CONGRESS SHOULD SHAL ONLY ACCEPT
THE SCIENTIFIC FINDINGS OF THE
E.P.A.
WE SHOULD ENCOURAGE OPEN,
TRANSPARENT SCIENTIFIC STUDIES,
NOT LIMIT OUR SCIENTIFIC
FINDINGS TO ONE GOVERNMENT
AGENCY.
WE MUST WORK TOGETHER IN A
BIPARTISAN MANNER TO PROMOTE
CLEAN ENERGY AND ENCOURAGE
GREATER ENERGY EFFICIENCIES, TO
GUARANTEE THAT OUR CHILDREN AND
GRANDCHILDREN HAVE A CLEANER
ENVIRONMENT THAN WE HAVE TODAY.
I URGE A NO VOTE TO THIS
AMENDMENT.
AND YIELD BACK.
THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS
BACK THE BALANCE OF HIS TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA.
MADAM CHAIR, I YIELD
A MINUTE TO THE GENTLEMAN FROM
WASHINGTON, MR. INSLEE.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
MINUTE.
WASHINGTON IS RECOGNIZED FOR ONE
I APPRECIATE MY
REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUE'S STATEMENT
BUT THE CLEAR FACT OF THIS BILL
IS IF IT PASSES, WHAT DOES IT
DO?
IT BASICALLY SAYS THAT SIR ISAAC
NEWTON, ALBERT EINSTEIN AND
THOMAS EDISON DIDN'T KNOW WHAT
THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT.
BECAUSE THIS BILL IN RATHER
CLEAR FORM CATERS TO A NARROW
SECTOR OF A NARROW POLITICAL
INTEREST TO IGNORE CLEAR SCIENCE
AND THERE IS NO WAY YOU CAN GET
AROUND THIS OR SWEET TALK YOUR
WAY AROUND THIS CLEAR REJECTION
OF SCIENCE.
NOW, THIS ISN'T JUST US.
WHO HAS SAID THIS STATEMENT THAT
WE SEEK TO PUT IN THIS BILL IS
CORRECT?
ONLY THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF
SCIENCES, NOAAA, THE DEPARTMENT
OF DEFENSE -- NOAA, THE
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, THE
AMERICAN IMMEDIATELOGICAL
CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL, THE
SOCIETY, THE GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY
OF AMERICA, THE AMERICAN
ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT
OF SCIENCE, THE AMERICAN
INSTITUTE OF PHYSICS AND THE
AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY, BUT
ONE SIDE OF THE AISLE THINKS
THAT THE TEA PARTY HAS GREATER
SCIENTIFIC CREDIBILITY AND
THAT'S WHO YOU'RE CATERING TO
WHEN YOU REFUSE TO ADOPT THIS
AMENDMENT.
LET'S HAVE A BIPARTISAN
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM SO WE
CAN HAVE A BIPARTISAN STATEMENT
OF THE SOLUTION.
THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME
HAS EXPIRED.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM WISCONSIN.
I'M THE ONLY
SPEAKER LEFT AND I BELIEVE THAT
I HAVE THE RIGHT TO CLOSE.
SO THE GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA
CAN USE THE REMAINDER OF HIS
TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
CALIFORNIA HAS THE RIGHT TO
CLOSE.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM WISCONSIN HAS
3 1/2 MINUTES REMAINING AND THE
GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA HAS --
SENSE SEASONS HOW MANY SPEAKERS
DOES THE GENTLEMAN FROM -- SENSE
--
SEASONS HOW MANY SPEAKERS DOES
HOW MANY
CALIFORNIA HAVE?
SPEAKERS DOES THE GENTLEMAN FROM
ONE OR TWO.
THE GENTLEMAN
HAS TWO SPEAKERS.
CAN HAVE HIS OTHER SPEAKER SPEAK
AND THEN I CAN CLOSE ON THIS
SIDE?
IF THE GENTLEMAN FROM
CALIFORNIA WISHES TO -- DOES NOT
WISH TO CONTINUE --
MAY I QUINE --
INQUIRE HOW TIME EACH SIDE HAS?
THE GENTLEMAN HAS TWO
MINUTES REMAINING.
AT THIS TIME I YIELD
-- AT THIS TIME I WOULD TELL THE
GENTLEMAN FROM WISCONSIN THAT WE
WILL HAVE ONE MORE SPEAKER TO
CLOSE THE DEBATE.
MADAM
SPEAKER, I YIELD MYSELF THE
BALANCE OF THE TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN IS
RECOGNIZED FOR 3 1/2 MINUTES.
MADAM
SPEAKER, THIS IS AN AMENDMENT
THAT ATTEMPTS TO REVERSE THE
ENTIRE THRUST OF THIS
LEGISLATION.
AND IN EFFECT IT GIVES A PROXY
TO THE E.P.A. TO MAKE
DETERMINATIONS THAT WILL HAVE
VAST IMPACT ON OUR ECONOMY,
WITHOUT GOING THROUGH THE
USUALLY LEGISLATIVE PROCESS --
USUAL LEGISLATIVE PROCESS.
THIS IS OUR JOB TO MAKE A
DETERMINATION ON WHETHER THE
CLEAN AIR ACT IS THE PROPER
VEHICLE TO DEAL WITH ISSUES
RELATED TO GREENHOUSE GASES.
THIS IS NOT A DEBATE ON THE
UNDERLYING SCIENCE OF CLIMATE
CHANGE.
I THINK THAT HAS TO BE MADE
CLEAR.
BUT IF WE DO WANT TO TALK ABOUT
THE E.P.A.'S ABILITY TO MITIGATE
CLIMATE CHANGE, LET'S FOCUS ON
THEIR OWN PROJECTIONS.
E.P.A.'S ANALYSIS OF THE CAR
RULE STATES THAT IT WILL ONLY
RESULT IN A 1/100TH OF A DEGREE
OF LOWERING OF THE EARTH'S
AVERAGE TEMPERATURE BY THE YEAR
2100.
ADMINISTRATOR JACKSON
CERTIFICATE HEFF STATED THAT
E.P.A. -- HERSELF STATED THAT
E.P.A. REGULATION WILL NOT
ULTIMATELY BE ABLE TO CHANGE THE
AMOUNT OF CO-2 THAT IS
ACCUMULATING IN THE ATMOSPHERE
IF OTHER NATIONS DO NOT AGREE
ALSO TO LIMIT EMISSIONS.
AND AREN'T AND THEY WON'T.
SO REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT
CONGRESS ISSUES A SCIENTIFIC
FINDING BASED UPON A 10-MINUTE
AMENDMENT DEBATE, WE'RE FACED
WITH THE INDISPUTABLE FACT THAT
E.P.A. GREENHOUSE GAS
REGULATIONS WILL LEAD TO
BILLIONS UPON BILLIONS OF
DOLLARS, LEAVING OUR ECONOMY
WITH ABSOLUTELY ZERO
ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFIT.
THIS AMENDMENT FLUNKS THE
COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS.
IT OUGHT TO BE REJECTED.
WE'RE HERE TODAY ABOUT
PROTECTING THE ECONOMY, JOB
CREATION AND STOPPING ENERGY
PRICES FROM SKYROCKETING.
THAT'S WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF THIS
AMENDMENT IS ADOPTED, IT SHOULD
BE REJECTED IN THE NAME OF JOBS
AND A HEALTHY ECONOMY.
DOES THE GENTLEMAN
YIELD BACK?
I YIELD BACK.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
WISCONSIN YIELDS BACK.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA.
TO CLOSE THE DEBATE
ON OUR SIDE, I RECOGNIZE MY
COLLEAGUE WHO IS A CO-SPONSOR OF
THIS LEGISLATION, ALONG WITH
MYSELF AND MR. INSLEE, MS.
DEGETTE FROM THE STATE OF
COLORADO.
THE GENTLEWOMAN FROM
COLORADO IS RECOGNIZED FOR TWO
MINUTES.
THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIR, AND THANK YOU TO THE
RANKING MEMBER FOR ALLOWING ME
TO CLOSE.
THE HOUSE WHAT SHOULD BE A VERY
THIS AMENDMENT GIVES MEMBERS OF
SIMPLE CHOICE.
RECOGNIZE THE OVERWHELMING
SCIENCE OR VOTE TO DENY THE
OVERWHELMING SCIENCE.
LAST MONTH -- OR WE IN CONGRESS
CAN CERTAINLY CHANGE THE LAWS OF
THIS COUNTRY, BUT LAST I HEARD,
WE CANNOT CHANGE THE LAWS OF
NATURE.
THERE IS NO SERIOUS DISAGREEMENT
ON THE SCIENCE OF CLIMATE
CHANGE.
IN FACT, THE FINDINGS HAVE BEEN
CONFIRMED BY ALL LEADING
SCIENTIFIC ACADEMIES AROUND THE
WORLD.
THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
LAST YEAR ISSUED A SERIES OF
COMPREHENSIVE REPORTS THAT ARE
UNAMBIGUOUS.
IT SAYS, FOR EXAMPLE, QUOTE,
CLIMATE CHANGE IS OCCURRING, IT
IS CAUSED LARGELY BY HUMAN
ACTIVITIES AND IN MANY CASES IT
IS ALREADY AFFECTING A BROAD
RANGE OF HUMAN AND NATURAL
SYSTEMS.
AND EVEN A TEAM OF SCIENTISTS
FROM UC-BERKLEY WHO WERE TOLD TO
TRY TO DISPROVE GLOBAL CLIMATE
CHANGE JUST REPORTED LAST WEEK
TO A CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE
THAT IN FACT GLOBAL CLIMATE
CHANGE IS OCCURRING.
THIS IS SIMPLE.
THIS IS CLEAR.
H.R. 910 REPRESENTS AN EFFORT TO
DENY AND RUN AWAY FROM SCIENCE
AND FROM REALITY.
IT IGNORES ONE OF THE CHIEF
DRIVERS BEHIND OUR NEED FOR A
CLEAN AND MODERNIZED ENERGY
POLICY, MASSIVE AND GROWING
HUMAN CONSUMPTION OF
CARBON-BASED FUELS.
LAST CONGRESS AND AGAIN TODAY I
CHOSE TO BE ON THE SIDE OF THOSE
WHO ACTED TO ADDRESS A CLIMATE
DISASTER AND PUT INTO PLACE A
FRAMEWORK FOR AN ENERGY POLICY
WHICH THIS COUNTRY SO PAINFULLY
GOES WITHOUT AND SO LITTLE CAN
AFFORD.
I URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO DO THE
SAME, VOTE YES ON THIS
AMENDMENT, VOTE NO ON THE
UNDERLYING BILL AND STAND WITH
I YIELD BACK.
SCIENCE.
THE GENTLEWOMAN
TIME.
YIELDS BACK THE BALANCE OF HER
ALL TIME FOR DEBATE HAS EXPIRED.
THE QUESTION IS ON THE AMENDMENT
OFFERED BY THE GENTLEMAN FROM
CALIFORNIA.
THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THOSE OPPOSED, NO.
IN THE OPINION OF THE CHAIR, THE
NOES HAVE IT.
MADAM CHAIR.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
CALIFORNIA.
I ASK FOR A ROLL
CALL VOTE.
DOES THE GENTLEMAN
FROM REQUEST THE YEAS AND NAYS?
-- DOES THE GENTLEMAN REQUEST
I --
THE YEAS AND NAYS?
I REQUEST THE YEAS
AND NAYS.
ALL PROCEEDINGS WILL
BE POSTPONED.
IT IS NOW IN ORDER TO CONSIDER
AMENDMENT NUMBER 7 PRINTED IN
HOUSE REPORT 112-54.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE THE
GENTLEMAN FROM ILLINOIS SEEK
RECOGNITION?
I HAVE AN
THE CLERK WILL
AMENDMENT AT THE DESK.
DESIGNATE THE AMENDMENT.
AMENDMENT NUMBER 7
PRINTED IN HOUSE REPORT 112-54
OFFERED BY MR. QUIGLEY OF
ILLINOIS.
PURSUANT TO HOUSE
RESOLUTION 203, THE GENTLEMAN
FROM ILLINOIS, MR. QUIGLEY, AND
A MEMBER OPPOSED, EACH WILL
CONTROL FIVE MINUTES.
THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM ILLINOIS.
THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIRMAN AND TO THE RANKING
MEMBER AND CHAIRMAN.
MY AMENDMENT WOULD REQUIRE THAT
THE G.A.O. REPORT TO CONGRESS
THE RESULTS OF A STUDY OF
HEALTH CARE COSTS IN THE U.S.
AS AFFECTED BY THE ELITTLE
NATION OF E.P. REGULATION UNDER
THIS ACT.
FURTHER REPORT WOULD ALSO
DETAIL COST IN THE U.S.
PRECEDING UNDER THE CURRENT
REGULATORY AS DETERMINED IN
2007 IN MASSACHUSETTS VS.
E.P.A.
IT IS SCIENCE, HARD FACTS FAKTS
AND FIGURES THAT HAVE LED TO
HUNDREDS OF SCIENTISTS TO
CONFIRM THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS
REAL.
THE MOST CONVINCING NUMBER IS
THAT THERE ARE OVER 200 PEER
REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC STUDIES
THAT HAVE DETERMINED THAT
GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL AND THAT
MAN CONTRIBUTES TO THAT AND
EXACTLY ZERO THAT HAVE PROVED
OR SHOWN EVIDENCE TO THE
CONTRARY.
IT WAS SCIENCE THAT LED THE
CONGRESS TO PASS THE CLEAN AIR
ACT, THE ACT WHICH DESIGNATED
E.P.A. AS THE BODY CHARGED WITH
OVERSEEING, ADAPTING AND
IMPLEMENTING THESE REGULAR
LACES.
IT WAS SCIENCE THAT LED THE
SUPREME COURT TO RULE IN 2007
THAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY DOES IN FACT
HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REGULATE
GREENHOUSE GASES.
MY AMENDMENT IS SIMPLE.
IT DIRECTS THE G.A.O. TO REPORT
THE COST OF HEALTH CARE ONUNDER
THE CLEAN AIR ACT AND THEN
REPORT THE -- HEALTH CARE UNDER
THE CLEAN AIR ACT AND THEN
REPORT BACK TO THE CONGRESS.
IN 2010 ALONE, THE E.P.A.
REPORTED A DEDUCTION FROM THE
CLEAN AIR ACT PREVENTED MORE
THAN 160,000 PREMATURE DEATHS,
130,000 HEART ATTACKS, 13
MILLION LOST WORK DAYS AND 1.7
MILLION ASTHMA ATTACKS.
THIS BURDENS THE GOVERNMENT
WITH SERIOUS BILLS.
WE FACE SERIOUS BUDGETARY
TIMES.
WE MAY BE OUT OF A RECESSION
BUT WE ARE FAR FROM RECOVERED.
IF WE ARE COMMITTED TO MAKING A
EFFECTIVE TO CUTTING WASTE,
GOVERNMENT MORE EFFICIENT AND
FRAUD AND ABUSE, THEN WE MUST
ACKNOWLEDGE THAT SPENDING A
SMART DOLLAR UPFRONT SAVES MANY
DOLLARS ON THE BACK END.
I ENCOURAGE MY COLLEAGUES TO
SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT THAT
WILL ALLOW THE EXPERTS AT THE
G.A.O. TO SHOW US IN A WORLD
WITH THE CLEAN AIR ACT AND A
WORLD WITHOUT.
MY ESTIMATION IS THAT LESS
MERCURY IN OUR WATER WILL COST
FAR LESS DOLLARS IN DEBT THAN
THE OPPOSITE.
I'LL DEFER TO THE EXPERTS AND
LOOK FORWARD TO THEIR REPORT ON
THIS SUBJECT.
I RESERVE THE BALANCE OF MY
TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
HIS TIME.
ILLINOIS RESERVE THE BALANCE OF
DOES THE GENTLEMAN FROM
MISSISSIPPI SEEK TIME IN
OPPOSITION?
YES.
THE GENTLEMAN IS
RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.
THIS STUDY WOULD BE
COMPLETED ONE YEAR, ANALYZING
THE G.A.O. REPORT FROM
MASSACHUSETTS VS. E.P.A.
THIS CASE DID NOT DETERMINE HOW
OR WHETHER E.P.A. SHOULD
REGULATE GREENHOUSE GASES.
TO THE CONTRARY, IT DID NOT
MANDATE THAT E.P.A. MOVE
FORWARD WITH GLOBAL WARMING
REGULATIONS AND IT CERTAINLY
DID NOT DIRECT E.P.A. BEGIN
REGULATING TENS OF THOUSANDS OR
MILLIONS OF STATIONARY SOURCES
ACROSS THE UNITED STATES
ECONOMY.
IN ANY EVENT, NO
G.A.O. STUDY IS NEEDED BECAUSE
E.P.A. ITSELF HAS ALREADY
CONCLUDED THAT GREENHOUSE GASES
POSE NO DIRECT ADVERSE HEALTH
EFFECTS.
HERE'S WHAT THE E.P.A. HAS
STATED.
CURRENT AND PROJECTED AMBIENT
CONCENTRATIONS, GREENHOUSE GAS
CONCENTRATIONS REMAIN WELL
BELOW PUBLISHED THRESHOLDS FOR
ANY ADVERSE HEALTH EFFECTS,
SUCH AS RESPIRATORY OR TOXIC
EFFECTS.
SO EVEN IF THE E.P.A. HAD
CONCLUDED THAT THERE WERE
DIRECT HEALTH IMPACTS, E.P.A.'S
OWN ADMINISTRATORS CONCLUDED
THAT THE AGENCY'S GREENHOUSE
GAS RULES ARE NOT GOING TO BE
EFFECTIVE IN REDUCING
TEMPERATURES OR GLOBAL
EMISSIONS.
ADMINISTRATOR JACKSON HAS SAID,
AND I QUOTE, WE WILL NOT BE
ABLE TO REDUCE CO-2 THAT IS
ACCUMULATING IN THE ATMOSPHERE
ALONE.
IF ANYTHING, E.P.A.'S GLOBAL
WARMING RULES WILL CAUSE GLOBAL
EMISSIONS TO INCREASE AS U.S.
MANUFACTURING AND INDUSTRY GOES
TO COUNTRIES WITH MUCH LESS
STRINGENT ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS.
I URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO VOTE NO
ON THIS AMENDMENT.
I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY
TIME TO THE GENTLEMAN FROM
GEORGIA.
THE GENTLEMAN WILL
RESERVE THE BALANCE OF HIS
TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM ILLINOIS.
THANK YOU, AGAIN,
MADAM CHAIRMAN.
I GUESS MY RESPONSE TO THIS,
WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, PROVE ME
WRONG.
IF THERE'S NO HEALTH CARE RISK,
LET THE G.A.O., INDEPENDENT
ANALYSIS, PROVE US WRONG, BUT
THERE'S A LOT AT STAKE HERE.
AND I WOULD DEFY ANYONE TO SAY
THAT GREENHOUSE GASES ARE NOT
IN AND OF THEMSELVES PUT ASIDE
GLOBAL WARMING, DANGEROUS
BECAUSE MANY ARE THE PRECURSOR
TO OZONE.
I LIVE IN CHICAGO WHICH IS THE
MORBIDITY AND MORTALITY CAPITAL
OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THOSE
INFLICTED WITH ASTHMA AND THERE
IS A DRAMATIC AND DIRECT IMPACT
OF WHAT OZONE DOES TO THOSE
PEOPLE SUFFERING FROM ASTHMA.
SO PROVE ME WRONG.
SHOW ME HOW WE'RE WRONG ON
THIS.
LET THERE BE A STUDY WHICH GOES
TO THIS BECAUSE IF I'M WRONG,
NO DAMAGE DONE.
BUT IF THERE'S SOME DANGER HERE
AND WE HAVE DECIDED THAT IT'S
NOT WORTH OUR STUDY, THEN WE
HAVE DONE A GREAT DISSERVICE TO
THE AMERICAN PUBLIC AND PUT
THEIR LIVES AT RISK.
THANK YOU AND I YIELD BACK.
THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS
BACK.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM GEORGIA.
MADAM CHAIRMAN, I
WANT TO THANK THE CHAIRMAN OF
THE ENERGY AND COMMERCE
COMMITTEE, MR. UPTON, AND THE
GENTLEMAN FROM MISSISSIPPI, MR.
HARPER, FOR YIELDING TIME FOR
ME TO SPEAK ON THIS AMENDMENT.
I RISE IN STRONG OPPOSITION TO
THE QUIGLEY AMENDMENT BECAUSE
IT REPRESENTS AN UNNECESSARY
USE OF CASE LAW IN
MASSACHUSETTS VS. E.P.A.
SOME OF WHAT I SAY IS
REPETITIVE.
MR. HARPER HAS JUST SAID IT.
IT BEARS REPEATING, MADAM
CHAIR.
IT ANALYZES HOW HEALTH CARE
COSTS WILL BE AFFECTED IF THE
E.P.A. DOES NOT PROCEED WITH
REGULATION IN ITS ROLE AS
DETERMINED IN MASSACHUSETTS VS.
THE E.P.A.
MADAM CHAIR, I'D LIKE TO REMIND
THE AUTHOR OF THE AMENDMENT,
MR. QUIGLEY, THAT MASSACHUSETTS
VS. E.P.A. DID NOT DETERMINE
WHETHER OR HOW THE E.P.A.
SHOULD ELIMINATE GREENHOUSE
GASES.
FURTHERMORE, A G.A.O. STUDY ON
THIS MATTER IS NOT NECESSARY
BECAUSE THE E.P.A. HAS ALREADY
CONCLUDED THAT GREENHOUSE GASES
HAVE NOED A FERS HEALTH EFFECT.
SPECIFICALLY, THE E.P.A. HAS
STATED, AND I QUOTE, CURRENT
AND PROJECTED AMBIENT
GREENHOUSE GAS CONCENTRATIONS
REMAIN WELL BELOW PUBLISHED
THRESHOLDS FOR ANY DIRECT
ADVERSE DIRECT HEALTH EFFECT
SUCH AS RESPIRATORY OR TOXIC
EFFECTS.
OPPONENTS TO THIS LEGISLATION
HAVE TRIED UNSUCCESSFULLY TO
ASSERT THAT THE UNDERLYING BILL
WILL BLOCK E.P.A. FROM
SAFEGUARDING PUBLIC HEALTH FROM
THE EFFECTS OF AIR POLLUTION
AND WILL RESULT IN INCREASED
ASTHMA ATTACKS OR OTHER
RESPIRATORY ILLNESSES.
NOTHING CAN BE FURTHER FROM THE
TRUTH.
MADAM CHAIR, H.R. 910 DOES NOT
AFFECT THE E.P.A. FROM
HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTION WHETHER
OR NOT E.P.A. IMPOSES THESE CAP
AND TRADE REGULATIONS, THE
AGENCY WILL CONTINUE TO HAVE
THE AUTHORITY TO REGULATE ALL
OF THE HIGH PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
THAT RAISE PUBLIC HEALTH
CONCERNS.
AS AN ORIGINAL CO-SPONSOR OF
H.R. 910, I STRONGLY SUPPORT
THE UNDERLYING BILL TO PROHIBIT
THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY FROM USING THE CLEAN AIR
ACT TO REGULATE GREENHOUSE
GASES.
BY AVOIDING THESE HARMFUL
REGULATIONS, H.R. 910 WILL SAVE
COUNTLESS OF NUMBER OF JOBS AND
PREVENT THE IMPLEMENTATION OF
AN ENERGY TAX THAT WILL COST
OUR ECONOMY LITERALLY TENS OF
BILLIONS OF DOLLARS WHEN WE CAN
LEAST AFFORD IT.
MADAM CHAIRMAN, I URGE MY
COLLEAGUES TO REJECT THIS
AMENDMENT AND SUPPORTING THE
UNDERLYING BILL.
IF I HAVE REMAINING TIME I'D
LIKE TO YIELD IT TO MY FRIEND
FROM CALIFORNIA.
I WANT TO POINT OUT THE
COMMENT WAS MADE TO PRECURSOR
TO OZONE.
ASK THE AIRBASE IN CALIFORNIA,
NEVER REGULATED CO-2 AS A
PRECURSOR TO OZONE BECAUSE IT
WAS SO MINUSCULE THAT THERE
WERE SO MANY OTHER ISSUES THAT
ARE ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL TO
ADDRESS THAT YOU DIDN'T EVEN
LOOK AT THAT.
IF YOU DIDN'T THINK THOSE OF US
IN CALIFORNIA THAT WERE WORKING
ON AIR POLLUTION, AIR QUALITY,
OUR COUNTY IN SAN DIEGO WENT
FROM SEVERE -- FROM SEVERE DOWN
TO SERIOUS.
IT WASN'T CHASING OZONE.
NOT CHASING CO-2.
IT WAS CHASING TRUE TOXIC
EMISSIONS.
UNDERSTAND YOU'RE
TALKING ABOUT SACRIFICING
EFFORTS --
THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME
HAS EXPIRED.
I YIELD BACK.
ALL TIME FOR DEBATE
HAS EXPIRED.
THE QUESTION IS ON THE
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY THE
GENTLEMAN FROM ILLINOIS, MR.
QUIGLEY.
THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THOSE OPPOSED, NO.
IN THE OPINION OF THE CHAIR,
THE NOES HAVE IT.
THE AMENDMENT IS NOT AGREED TO.
IT IS NOW IN ORDER TO CONSIDER
AMENDMENT NUMBER 8 PRINTED IN
HOUSE REPORT 112-54.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM COLORADO SEEK
RECOGNITION?
I HAVE AN AMENDMENT
THE CLERK WILL
AT THE DESK.
DESIGNATE THE AMENDMENT.
AMENDMENT NUMBER 8
PRINTED IN HOUSE REPORT 112-54
OFFERED BY MR. POLIS OF
COLORADO.
PURSUANT TO HOUSE
RESOLUTION 203, THE GENTLEMAN
FROM COLORADO, MR. POLIS, AND A
MEMBER OPPOSED, EACH WILL
CONTROL FIVE MINUTES.
THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM COLORADO.
THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIR.
THIS AMENDMENT IS SIMPLE.
AND I APPRECIATE THE RULE
MAKING IT IN ORDER.
IT ALLOWS THE ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY CONTINUE
PROTECTING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
FROM THE GREATEST PUBLIC HEALTH
AND ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGE IN
GLOBAL HISTORY, GLOBAL CLIMATE
CHANGE.
THE OVERWHELMING SCIENTIFIC
EVIDENCE SUGGESTS THAT
GREENHOUSE GASES AND CARBON
POLLUTION IF LEFT UNCHECKED
POSES A SIGNIFICANT THREAT TO
PUBLIC HEALTH.
THIS IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC
CONCLUSION THAT ANYBODY IN THE
INVESTIGATIVE COMMUNITY DESIRES
OR WANTS.
IT IS AN UNFORTUNATE REALITY.
I SIMPLY WANT THE ADMINISTRATOR
TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO
TEMPORARILY UNLOCK THE
HANDCUFFS ON THE BILL IF THERE
IS A SIGNIFICANT THREAT TO THE
PUBLIC HEALTH.
LET'S WALK OURSELVES THROUGH
WHAT THIS BILL DOES.
THE BILL TELLS THE E.P.A.,
E.P.A., YOU'VE DONE YOUR HOME
WORK JUST LIKE THE SUPREME
COURT TOLD YOU TO DO AND EVERY
INCH OF CREDIBLE SCIENCE IS
TELLING YOU THERE IS A DANGER
TO AMERICA'S HEALTH AND YET WE
HERE IN CONGRESS KNOW BETTER.
WE WILL PRETEND THERE IS NOT A
DANGER TO THE AMERICAN HEALTH.
WE WON'T ALLOW YOU, THE E.P.A.,
THAT WE SET UP AND CHARGED WITH
THIS, TO PAY ATTENTION TO THE
WARNINGS WHILE PROTECTING
AMERICANS FROM THE DANGERS.
TO ME THAT'S A VERY DANGEROUS
DIRECTIVE, TELLING THE E.P.A.
KNOW WE'RE IN DANGER.
THEY CAN'T ACT EVEN THOUGH THEY
IF THERE WAS A MEETEROR HURLING
TOWARD US, I HOPE THE BODY
WON'T TELL NASA TO IGNORE IT,
STEP AWAY FROM THE TELESCOPE,
SPECIFICALLY TELLING PEOPLE TO
GET OUT OF THE WAY.
THIS BILL DOES THAT AT THE VERY
REAL AND PRESENT DANGER.
I WANT THE E.P.A. TO PROTECT
ME, MY FAMILY AND MY
CONSTITUENTS AND ALL AMERICAN
FAMILIES WHEN THE OVERWHELMING
WARNING SIGNS SAY THEY SHOULD
DO JUST THAT.
BUT IF THIS BODY SENDS A
MESSAGE TO THE CONTRARY, AT THE
VERY LEAST WE SHOULD BE SMART
ENOUGH TO INCLUDE A TEMPORARY
ESCAPE HATCH, A SAFETY VALVE
THAT MY AMENDMENT PROVIDES.
MADAM SPEAKER, I'M GOING TO
VOTE TODAY TO PUT AMERICA'S
HEALTH BEFORE BIG POLLUTERS.
THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE
LIKES TO SKEW THE FACTS.
INTEAD OF PAYING ATTENTION TO
WARNING SIGNS, THEY CONFUSE THE
FACTS.
IT'S CRITICAL THAT WE PROVIDE A
SAFETY VALVE THAT WHEN THERE IS
A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TO
THE HEALTH OF THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE WE DON'T HAMSTRUNG THE
VERY AGENTS THAT WE HAVE SET UP
TO PROTECT THE VERY HEALTH OF
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND BE ABLE
TO MOVE FORWARD TO PROTECT US.
THIS ENDANGERMENT FINDING, THE
TITLE OF THE E.P.A.'S STUDY,
WAS BASED ON SOUND SCIENCE AND
FOUND THAT AS CLIMATE CHANGE
INCREASES SO DOES GROUND OZONE
LEVEL, AIR AND WATER-BORNE
PATHOGENS AND MOLD ALLERGENS
AND MAKE THINGS LIKE ASTHMA AND
RESPIRATORY PROBLEMS AND HEART
DISEASE WORSE.
WE CANNOT OVERSIMPLIFY AN EASY
PROBLEM WITH EASY ANSWERS.
I WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT TO THE
RECORD THE ENDANGERMENT
FINDINGS.
THE GENTLEMAN'S
REQUEST WILL BE COVERED UNDER
JUSTICE LEAVE.
I RESERVE THE
BALANCE OF MY TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN
RESERVES THE BALANCE OF HIS
TIME.
DOES THE GENTLEMAN SEEK TIME IN
OPPOSITION?
YES, I DO, MADAM SPEAKER.
THE GENTLEMAN IS
RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.
I'D LIKE TO YIELD
TO THE GENTLEMAN FROM GEORGIA
AS MUCH TIME AS HE MIGHT
CONSUME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
GEORGIA IS RECOGNIZED FOR AS
MUCH TIME AS HE MIGHT CONSUME.
MADAM CHAIRMAN,
THANK YOU.
I'D LIKE TO THANK MY FRIEND
FROM TEXAS, MR. BURGESS, FOR
CHAIRMAN OF THE ENERGY AND
YIELDING, AND, AGAIN, THANK THE
COMMERCE COMMITTEE AND THE
CHAIRMAN OF THE ENERGY AND
POWER SUBCOMMITTEE, MESSRS.
UPTON AND WHITFIELD, FOR
ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK ON THIS
AMENDMENT.
MUCH LIKE THE PREVIOUS
AMENDMENT, I RISE IN STRONG
OPPOSITION TO THE POLIS
AMENDMENT BECAUSE IT GIVES
DUPLICATIVE AUTHORITY TO THE
E.P.A.
THIS AMENDMENT WOULD
TEMPORARILY SUSPEND H.R. 910 IF
THE E.P.A. ADMINISTRATOR HAS
RULED THAT GROUND LEVEL OZONE,
EXTREME WEATHER EVENTS OR AN
INCREASE IN FOOD AND
WATER-BORNE PATHOGENS PRESENTS
A SIGNIFICANT DANGER TO THE
PUBLIC HEALTH.
OR THERE ARE OTHER SIGNIFICANT
THREATS TO PUBLIC HEALTH.
MADAM CHAIR, UNDER SECTION 303
OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT THE E.P.A.
ALREADY HAS THE AUTHORITY TO
RESPOND TO ANY IMMINENT AND
SUBSTANTIAL ENDANGERMENT TO
PUBLIC HEALTH OR WELFARE OR THE
.
ENVIRONMENT.
THEREFORE THIS AMENDMENT IS
UNNECESSARY.
THE POLIS AMENDMENT WOULD GIVE
THE E.P.A. ADMINISTRATOR THE
AUTHORITY TO MOVE FORWARD WITH A
CAP AND TRADE AGENDA IF THE
ADMINISTRATOR BELIEVED THERE
WERE THREATS TO PUBLIC HEALTH
FROM OZONE, EXTREME WEATHER OR
OTHER SIGNIFICANT THREATS TO
PUBLIC HEALTH, WHICH COULD BE
COMPLETELY UNRELATED TO
GREENHOUSE GASES.
I BELIEVE THAT THIS AMENDMENT IS
A NAIL.
LITERALLY A HAMMER IN SEARCH OF
THE E.P.A. ALREADY HAS THE
AUTHORITY TO ADDRESS THE
CONCERNS RAISED BY THIS
AMENDMENT AND MY FRIEND FROM
COLORADO.
I WOULD URGE MY COLLEAGUE FROM
COLORADO TO CONSIDER WITHDRAWING
THIS AMENDMENT, BUT IF HE
DOESN'T, I WOULD URGE ALL OF MY
COLLEAGUES TO OPPOSE IT AND
SUPPORT, CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THE
UNDERLYING LEGISLATION.
I WILL RESERVE THE BALANCE OF MY
TIME, MADAM CHAIR.
THE GENTLEMAN
RESERVES THE BALANCE OF HIS
TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM COLORADO.
I THANK THE GENTLEMAN
FROM GEORGIA, MY CONCERN IS THAT
THE UNDERLYING BILL REMOVES SOME
OF THE AUTHORITY UNDER THESE
CONDITIONS THAT THIS AMENDMENT
WOULD REINSTATE IF THIS
AMENDMENT MERELY RESTATES THIS,
I WOULD HOPE THAT WE CAN CLARIFY
THE BILL BY SPECIFICALLY
ALLOWING THE E.P.A. THE
AUTHORITY TO SUSPEND THE
PROHIBITIONS IN THE BILL, IF A
DETAILED ANALYSIS DEMONSTRATES
THAT GROUND LEVEL OZONE OR
EXTREME WEATHER EVENT ARE A
SIGNIFICANT THREAT TO PUBLIC
HEALTH AND OF COURSE, WE WOULD
HOPE THAT UNDER THEIR CHARGE,
THE E.P.A. WOULD THEN PROCEED.
IF GIVEN THIS AUTHORITY WITH
HEALTH.
REGARD TO PROTECTING THE PUBLIC
TO THE EXTENT THAT THIS
CLARIFIES SOMETHING THAT WAS
AGAINST THE INTENT OF THE
ORIGINAL BILL OR CONSISTENT WITH
THE INTENT OF THE ORIGINAL BILL,
I WOULD HOPE THE GENTLEMAN WOULD
ACCEPT IT.
IF IT IS CONTRARY TO A SMALL
ELEMENT IN THE BILL, WE WOULD
HOPE TO RE-ESTABLISH THAT
AUTHORITY IN THE CASE OF A
HEALTH.
SIGNIFICANT THREAT TO PUBLIC
WE WOULD REQUIRE A DETAILED
ANALYSIS UNDER THE LAW.
I RESERVE THE BALANCE OF MY
TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN
RESERVES THE BALANCE OF HIS
TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM GEORGIA.
I WANT TO POINT OUT
TO MY COLLEAGUE, THE E.P.A., I
PREVIOUSLY SAID, BUT LET ME
REPEAT IT, THE E.P.A. HAS
ALREADY CONCLUDED THAT
GREENHOUSE GASES POSE NO PUBLIC
HEALTH EMERGENCY AND THEY STATE,
AND I QUOTE, CURRENT AND
PROJECTED AMBIENT GREENHOUSE GAS
CONCENTRATIONS REMAIN WELL BELOW
PUBLISHED THRESHOLDS FOR ANY
DIRECT ADVERSE HEALTH EFFECT
SUCH AS RESPIRATORY OR TOXIC
EFFECTS, END QUOTE.
I WANT TO YIELD SUCH TIME TO THE
GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA, MR.
BILBRAY.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
CALIFORNIA IS RECOGNIZED FOR UP
TO 2 1/2 MINUTES.
AND THE GENTLEMAN FROM GEORGIA
HAS THE RIGHT TO CLOSE.
WE'RE NOT TALKING
ABOUT GREENHOUSE GASES HERE,
BECAUSE THE REGULATIONS THAT
HAVE BEEN PROPOSED BY THE E.P.A.
DO NOT ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE.
THEY DON'T ADDRESS CLIMATE
CHANGE.
WE'RE NOT TALKING CLIMATE CHANGE
HERE.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT E.P.A.
PROPOSING REGULATIONS THAT
ADMITTED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR,
DOES NOT HAVE ANY PROJECTIONS OF
WHAT REDUCTIONS WE'LL HAVE HERE.
AND REMEMBER, THE MINIMUM WE
NEED TO DO TO ADDRESS THE THREAT
OF CLIMATE CHANGE IS 17% WITHIN
NINE YEARS.
SO LET'S BE UP FRONT.
THIS IS NOT ABOUT CLIMATE
CHANGE.
THIS IS ABOUT PROPOSED
REGULATIONS BY A BUREAUCRACY IN
A FIELD OF LAW THAT WAS NEVER
MEANT TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE AT
ALL.
AND I SAY THAT AS SOMEBODY WHO
WORKED FOR OVER A DECADE WORKING
TO IMPLEMENT THE CLEAN AIR ACT.
AND WITH THE PROBLEMS THAT
YOU'RE POINTING OUT, THEY ARE
LEGITIMATE ISSUES, BUT WHAT IS
BEING PROPOSED AS AN ANSWER TO A
PROBLEM HAS NOTHING TO DO AND
WILL NOT AFFECT CLIMATE CHANGE
OR AFFECT THE ISSUES YOU HAVE
RAISED.
YOUR AMENDMENT IS NOT GERMANE
BECAUSE THE ISSUES YOU ARE
CONCERNED ABOUT DON'T EXIST.
BECAUSE YOU CAN'T CHANGE
ANYTHING.
AND THE FACT IS KEEPING SOMEBODY
FROM SELLING A PLACEBO DOES NOT
SOLVE THE PROBLEM OR AGGRAVATE
THE PROBLEM.
THE FACT IS WHAT HAS BEEN
PROPOSED BY THE E.P.A. IS A
PLACEBO.
LET'S NOT BE CONCERNED THAT IF
IT IS NOT AVAILABLE THAT THERE
MIGHT BE CONCERN WITH THE
LEGITIMATE ITEMS.
THE E.P.A. AND THE UNDERLYING
BILL DOES NOT AFFECT THOSE
ISSUES.
POINT OF
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY.
IS THE AMENDMENT GERMANE TO THE
BILL?
THE CHAIR WILL NOT
RENDER AN ADVISORY OPINION.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM COLORADO HAS
ONE MINUTE REMAINING.
THE RULES COMMITTEE
FOUND AND I BELIEVE THE
PARLIAMENTARIAN ADVISED THAT THE
AMENDMENT WAS GERMANE AND I HAVE
NOT BEEN INFORMED OTHERWISE
CALIFORNIA.
OTHER THAN BY THE GENTLEMAN FROM
DOES THE GENTLEMAN WANT TO
APPEAL THE RULING OF THE
PARLIAMENTARIAN?
I BELIEVE IT IS GERMANE.
WILL THE GENTLEMAN
SUSPEND.
THE REQUEST IS PENDING AND THE
AMENDMENT IS PENDING.
THE AMENDMENT IS PENDING.
AGAIN, IF THE RULE
DOES WAIVE THIS, WE DISCUSSED IN
COMMITTEE -- RULES COMMITTEE
YESTERDAY AND I BELIEVE ALL THE
NONGERMANE AMENDMENTS WERE NOT
INCLUDED UNDER THIS RULE.
I YIELD TO THE GENTLEMAN FOR A
MOMENT.
NOT GERMANE TO THE
ISSUE.
RECLAIMING MY TIME.
THERE MIGHT BE A DIFFERENT USE
OF THE WORD GERMANE.
I WOULD ENCOURAGE ALL OF US TO
BE ON THE SAME PAGE WITH REGARD
TO THE WORD GERMANE.
IT IS GERMANE TO THE BILL.
ALL MY AMENDMENT DOES IS IF THE
E.P.A. SEES A DANGER, THEY
SHOULD ACT.
THE AMENDMENT RESPECTS THE
FINDING OF THE SUPREME COURT
FINDINGS AND ENSURES IT HAS THE
ABILITY TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC
AND NOT REMOVED FROM THE
UNDERLYING BILL.
THE UNDERLYING BILL TELLS THE
E.P.A. TO PERHAPS IGNORE SOME
SCIENCE.
MY AMENDMENT SAYS THE SCIENCE
SHOULDN'T BE IGNORED.
IT'S AN IMPORTANT CLARIFICATION
AND I URGE SUPPORT OF THE
AMENDMENT.
THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME
HAS EXPIRED.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM GEORGIA HAS
45 SECONDS REMAINING AND THE
CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE GENTLEMAN
FROM GEORGIA.
THIS WOULD BE AN
AVENUE WITH THE E.P.A. TO MOVE
FORWARD ON BACK DOOR REGULATIONS
REGARDLESS OF ANY FACTS.
E.P.A. SHOULD NOT BE AUTHORIZED
TO MOVE FORWARD WITH BACK DOOR
GLOBAL WARMING REGULATIONS.
I URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO VOTE
AGAINST THIS AMENDMENT AND I
YIELD TO MY COLLEAGUE FROM
TEXAS.
GREENHOUSE GASES DO
NOT HAVE A DIRECT HEALTH IMPACT
BUT IN THE ODD EVENT THAT
SOMEONE WERE SPRAYED IN THE FACE
WITH A GREENHOUSE GAS SUCH AS
METHANE, THE EMERGENCY POWERS
EXIST UNDER SECTION 303 OF THE
CLEAN AIR ACT TO RESPOND TO THE
IMMINENT AND SUBSTANTIAL
ENDANGERMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH.
I YIELD BACK.
ALL TIME FOR DEBATE
HAS EXPIRED.
THE QUESTION IS ON THE
AMENDMENT.
OFFERED BY THE GENTLEMAN FROM
COLORADO, MR. POLIS.
THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THOSE OPPOSED, NO.
IN THE OPINION OF THE CHAIR, THE
NOES HAVE IT.
THE AMENDMENT IS NOT AGREED TO.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM COLORADO.
I REQUEST THE YEAS
AND NAYS.
DOES THE GENTLEMAN
ASK FOR A RECORDED VOTE?
YES.
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
ON THE AMENDMENT OFFERED BY THE
GENTLEMAN FROM COLORADO WILL BE
POSTPONED.
IT'S NOW IN ORDER TO CONSIDER
AMENDMENT NUMBER 9 PRINTED IN
HOUSE REPORT 112-54.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM MASSACHUSETTS
RISE?
I RISE IN SUPPORT OF
MY AMENDMENT.
THE CLERK WILL
DESIGNATE THE AMENDMENT.
AMENDMENT NUMBER 9
PRINTED IN HOUSE REPORT 112-54