Joe Barton: “I thank the distinguished chairman for the time. Well, let me say something positive about my good friend from Houston…”

“I thank the distinguished chairman for the time. Well, let me say something positive about my good friend from Houston, Texas's amendment before I say something negative. If it were to pass, it would at least force the EPA to do a real study, which is more than I can say they did before they issued their endangerment finding. If you look at the endangerment finding that they actually did to satisfy the requirement of the Supreme Court, they didn't do any scientific analysis. They didn't do any independent analysis. They basically took regurgitated research and press clippings and apparently some student's thesis as the justification for coming up with their endangerment finding. If we accept the gentlelady from Houston's amendment, you do really gut this bill, which, if you are opposed to it, that's probably a good outcome. But if you are supportive of it, it's not a good outcome. We don't need to do a study. CO<INF>2</INF> is not a pollutant under the definitions of the Clean Air Act. It's not harmful to health, as I keep pointing out. As I speak, I create CO<INF>2</INF>, and so you need CO<INF>2</INF> for life. Manmade CO<INF>2</INF> does not significantly contribute to climate change. We do have climate change, as we always have and always will. But to say that CO<INF>2</INF> emissions made by man somehow are causing all these catastrophic changes is simply not true.…”