On the recordJune 24, 2015
With great respect to my friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush), whom I have had the privilege of sitting through 5 years, it seems like, of hearings almost every day, while I have the greatest respect for him, I do rise in opposition to this amendment. His amendment would basically say that State Governors must certify that the cost to the ratepayers under EPA's 111(d) rule would exceed the costs associated with responding to extreme weather events. I point out once again that in The Economist magazine just this May, a few weeks ago, they were quoting scientists who were saying it is impossible to say categorically that climate change has caused any individual storm, flood, drought, heat wave, tornado, hurricane, or any other adverse weather effect. So that correlation has simply not been established scientifically. This amendment would require State Governors to make a certification on something that they cannot do, even the EPA itself will not and cannot do, which is to show any direct benefit on climate events from their rule. EPA has said in their own testimony that this rule, this regulation, will not have a significant impact on climate events in the U.S. As a matter of fact, in April testimony before Congress, Acting Assistant Administrator McCabe indicated that EPA could not predict the impact of the rule on any of its climate indicators.…
