On the recordApril 6, 2011
I appreciate that. Let's talk science, ladies and gentlemen. Everyone wants to talk about the threat of climate change, but no one wants to address the fact that what EPA has proposed, by the admission of the administrator, cannot even indicate what percentage of greenhouse gases those regulations could reduce. And not one scientist, not one expert in our committee, or I have seen anywhere else, has ever said what is being proposed by EPA, that is going to cost at least $200 million, will not avoid the problem of climate change. So the question is this, what are the American people getting for their $200 million. Now, I'm sorry, some of us have worked on air pollution issues. I know the precursors to ozone. If they are saying that the problem is it's a precursor to ozone, believe me, it is so small and minute that those of us that are working in non-attainment areas never even gave a second glance at CO<INF>2</INF>. So don't talk about it being a health risk based on a precursor to ozone. Look at what we are getting for the money. What we are actually talking about here is not allowing EPA to go out and implement programs that the administrator admits that she cannot tell us what the American people are going to get for their dollars. If you want to do a study, then let's do a study on what would have to be done to address this issue the way that some of us think it should be addressed.…
Source
govinfo.gov




