On the recordApril 6, 2011
Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Chair, this is an amendment that attempts to reverse the entire thrust of this legislation. In effect, it gives the proxy to the EPA to make determinations that will have vast impact on our economy without going through the usual legislative process. This is our job to make a determination on whether the Clean Air Act is the proper vehicle to deal with issues related to greenhouse gases. This is not a debate on the underlying science of climate change, and I think that has to be made clear. But if we do want to talk about the EPA's ability to mitigate climate change, let's focus on their own projections. EPA's analysis of the current rule states that it will only result in 1/100 of a degree of lowering of the Earth's average temperature by the year 2100. Administrator Jackson herself stated before the Energy and Commerce Committee that EPA regulation will not ultimately be able to change the amount of CO<INF>2</INF> that is accumulating in the atmosphere if other nations do not agree also to limit emissions. And they aren't, and they won't. So, regardless of whether or not Congress issues a scientific finding based upon a 10-minute amendment debate, we are faced with the indisputable fact that EPA greenhouse gas regulations will lead to billions upon billions of dollars leaving our economy with absolutely zero environmental benefit. This amendment flunks the cost-benefit analysis. It ought to be rejected.…





