Ed Markey

The issue here is not that it is difficult to do; the issue here is that some States have not even tried.

We should heed the Hippocratic oath of doctors and do no more harm to our climate and to the health of today's children and future generations.

The reason we are taking all this time, Mr. Chairman, is because you have 1 day after the announcement of this plan to come forward with essentially a repeal.

The negative health impacts of climate change are numerous heat waves and extreme storms to expanding ranges of dangerous diseases and longer allergy seasons.

If the ice starts breaking off Greenland and goes into the ocean, there is no place to go, and it results in flooding, higher temperatures, more water hitting our coastline.

Please accept how important this is to us and how very real the science is behind this, virtually undisputed on the oceans front.

If I felt there was a sincere effort to seek a level playing field in the creation of new jobs and new energy industries, that would be one thing, but that does not exist.

That is what this plan does in addition to reducing CO2 by 32 percent by the year 2030.

We feel the health effects. We are the downwind States. We are the coastal States. It is really happening to us.

The time for clean energy is now. The health impacts of some of the old energy are serious.

What is your plan to cut carbon pollution and address the negative health impacts of climate change?

Without question, we are about to begin a historic debate. The President has laid out what is necessary in order to protect our planet, in order to protect the health of those who live on our planet, and those who live in the United States…

I cannot tell you how hurtful it is when I have Rhode Island kids going to the emergency room because of asthma.

This bill would eliminate EPA's ability to address carbon pollution through the Clean Power Plan or essentially any action in the future.

This is the most important debate we are going to have in this committee in 2015 and 2016.

The rise in sea level is undeniable. It is measurable. It is not something that is complicated.

That is why eight leading medical and health organizations sent a letter yesterday opposing this bill because it would put lives at risk by delaying and blocking critical clean air protections.

Mr. Gomez, during your investigation of the EPA settlements and the Clean Air Act litigation did you see evidence that EPA agreed to do anything other than just set a new deadline?

Litigation has always shaped public health and our environment.

So in essence they were just saying get your job done, set deadlines, get to work, get finished, right?

Are there any, Mr. Pidot, meaningful distinctions between the types of settlements agreements that typically involve litigation between industry and the agency and the types of settlement agreements that typically involve litigation…

Not one species would have been listed under the Endangered Species Act during the Bush administration without citizen petitions.

Could you share an example of when a proposed settlement agreement was not approved by Department of Justice guidance required or when the court rejected a proposed settlement because it overreached?

Isn't it true that the settlement merely required the Fish and Wildlife Service to make final decisions by a certain date as to whether or not the candidate species warranted listing?

They are putting profits above clean air and water.