On the recordJune 20, 2019
Madam Chair, I ask one simple question: If Members of this body are so confident of the 2009 endangerment findings, then high- quality peer review would result in the same outcome, correct? What would be the fallacy with that? Once again, good process builds good policy builds good politics. We fail to do that. We want to use science when it is convenient for us. That is the problem. The other side calls themselves the party of science. Then they should be all for this peer review aspect. But, no, we don't want to do that because it is not convenient. Once again, I agree. Climates are always changing. That is why we find fossilized fish up in western Wyoming. Was man around during that time? No, not at all. Were the carbon footprints at that time very similar to what they are today? They were higher at that point in time. Science has been peer-reviewed, and that is why we have gotten to the point that when I give you one set of circumstances, you get the same outcome. That is what peer-reviewed science is. This country is set upon sound science. We ought to determine that. Madam Chair, I ask for everybody to vote for this, and I yield back the balance of my time. Ms. McCOLLUM. Once again, what I see is delay by not going with scientists around the world. Madam Chair, 97 percent of the scientists leading the way on what we should be doing clearly state that human activity has a direct impact on climate change. We can't ignore the dangers of it.…





