Providing for Consideration of H.r. 8, North American Energy Security and Infrastructure Act of 2015; Providing for Consideration of S.J. Res. 23, Providing for Congressional Disapproval of a Rule Submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency; and Providing for Consideration of S.J. Res. 24, Providing for Congressional Disapproval of a Rule Submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this closed rule and the underlying legislation.

I want to begin by congratulating the Republican majority for breaking a record today. Through their exemplary, heavyhanded, undemocratic leadership, this is now officially the most closed session of Congress in the entire history of the United States of America. I am not

sure that is something to be proud of, but that is the title that they have earned.

Today, we are debating the 47th and 48th closed rules of the 114th Congress. We are in our third legislative week since Speaker Ryan took the gavel, and we are already debating our third and fourth closed rules during his short tenure.

Speaker Ryan promised a more open, more inclusive, more deliberative, more participatory process. I think he must have misspoken because, by any measure, the Republican leadership has already fallen short of that commitment.

Today, we are considering three bills: two that seek to undermine the EPA's ability to protect our public health and environment and a third that offers many troubling provisions, including one which would hastily rush the natural gas pipeline approval process and allow pipelines to be built and run right through our magnificent national parks.

On December 11, our government will run out of money. During the 114th Congress, we have stood in this Chamber debating Republican messaging bills to repeal the Affordable Care Act, undermine the Dodd-Frank financial reform law, and weaken public health and environmental regulations while failing to consider meaningful legislation that would create jobs, boost the economy, and help vulnerable Americans rise out of poverty. Instead of focusing on these priorities, this majority will bring to the floor three bills intended to prevent the EPA from effectively doing its job.

Now, if anyone is feeling déja 2 vu, that is probably because what I just said is from a floor speech I gave on a rule for three antiscience bills that the Republicans brought before us last November. The only difference is I changed 113th to 114th Congress. And while I hate to repeat myself, unfortunately, the majority is in a rut of bringing before us the same old same old: unproductive legislation that is going nowhere.

We have 6 legislative days left to ensure that the government doesn't run out of money, just 6 days; but instead of focusing on that, instead of working to ensure the government is funded, we are on the floor debating more Republican messaging bills that I think were written in the National Republican Congressional Committee because they are poorly drafted. These bills have drastic and devastating effects on public health and the environment, and they will be vetoed by the President of the United States.

I include in the Record the Statements of Administration Policy on these bills, expressing the administration's intent to veto these bills.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

But I guess from the Republican point of view, the positive thing about these bills is that they are yet another pander to big money fossil fuel special interests. I urge my colleagues to follow the money because that is what this is all about here today. It is not about serious legislating. It is about fundraising.

Mr. Speaker, S.J. Res. 23 and S.J. Res. 24 look to stop commonsense regulations that the EPA has put in place that protect us from the harmful pollution emitted by power plants. These joint resolutions are another clear message from the Republican majority that they do not believe that climate change is real. Over 120 environmental, faith-based, and public health organizations have already come out opposing these two resolutions, including the American Lung Association, the Allergy and Asthma Network, the League of Conservation Voters, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club, and Public Citizen. I can stand here forever and repeat the other organizations that have a lot of public support in this country that have come out against these bills.

Power plants account for 40 percent of our annual carbon pollution emissions. They are the single biggest source of carbon pollution in the country. Yet the Republican majority wants to take away the greatest step we have taken to try to curb that major source of pollution. These two joint resolutions would permanently prevent the EPA from ever, ever limiting pollution from power plants in the future as well.

H.R. 8 is also a deeply troubling piece of legislation. It favors the use of fossil fuels over renewable energy and favors consumption over energy efficiency.

It would ram pipeline applications through FERC in under 90 days even though most applications, by the way, are reviewed and approved in less than 1 year.

It all but removes individuals from the process, allowing big gas companies to choose to build wherever they want, regardless of the consequences for local communities. It would even allow them to build through our treasured national parks. It is an early Christmas gift for big special interests.

At some point, we must face the facts, Mr. Speaker.

So I want to say something to my colleagues on the Republican side. I know it may make you feel uncomfortable, but it is the truth: Climate change is real.

The overwhelming science says it is real, yet a huge chunk of the Republican Conference is in denial. They don't believe there is such a thing as climate change. They don't believe we have any responsibility to our children or to future generations to combat climate change.

They are perfectly happy living in this fantasy world where you can rely on fossil fuels and rely on fossil fuels and rely on fossil fuels and can just make believe that it has no impact at all on the environment.

Quite frankly, if climate change weren't such a serious issue, it would be comical, but climate change is a serious issue. It is a real issue. It is an issue not just for us; it is an issue for future generations. So their denial, quite frankly, is frightening.

We shouldn't be propping up coal and oil industries with taxpayer subsidies. We shouldn't be using taxpayer money to destroy our environment. When the scientific community reaches a clear consensus on an issue like climate change, Congress shouldn't undermine them with dangerous legislation like this.

When we receive credible, peer-reviewed study after study after study after study that tells us we are in the middle of a climate crisis and that something must be done about it, we need to listen, but the Republican majority refuses to listen.

Climate change is often referred to as the most pressing issue of our time. We know that climate change is for real. We know that. We see it. We live it. The scientific community has verified it.

Climate change is not a theory, it is not a hoax, and it is certainly not some silly fantasy. When arctic ice is crashing into the oceans at record rates, that is not a hoax. When species are going extinct at accelerated rates around the globe, that is not a fantasy. When extreme weather events are becoming commonplace, that is not a theory. When the global temperature of the planet continues to increase every year for decades, we should pay attention.

These are the exact same scare tactics that have been used for over 45 years in opposition to climate change. It is the same old stuff. Opponents of clean air have been claiming for half a century that clean air regulations would kill jobs and hurt economic growth, but they are wrong.

The truth is that the Clean Air Act alone has created $57 trillion in benefits since it was enacted in 1970. The Clean Power Plan will lead to a stronger economy, a safer climate, and better health for all of us.

Why is this so difficult? Maybe it is because my friends on the other side of the aisle don't like the President, so anything that he is for they have to be against. You have got to move beyond your anger. You have got to look at the issues, and you have to evaluate them based on the evidence.

The evidence is that climate change is for real, but you would never know that in listening to the majority. They have no solutions, only denial. Let's keep on down the road of the same old, same old, and their ``just say no'' agenda is a recipe for disaster.

As we gather here, leaders from all around the world are meeting in Paris to talk about how to deal with the issue of climate change. What we should be doing here is providing some wind at the backs of not only our President but of all of the leaders of the world who are gathering to try to figure out how to deal with this challenge.

Instead of doing that, we are doing this. It is really sad that this is what we have come to. If we are going to say ``no'' to anything today, it should be to this closed rule and to S.J. Res. 23 and to S.J. Res. 24.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. Speaker, to me, this should not be controversial, but in this Chamber that is so beholden to the National Rifle Association, this has become a point of controversy. We are talking about people who are suspected of international or domestic terrorism. I don't think any reasonable person feels comfortable with selling those people weapons.

We ought to be able to come together by putting the security interests of the people of this country first and enacting this. I hope that there is a strong, bipartisan vote to defeat the previous question so that we can actually bring this up, debate it, and pass it.

Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a letter from 120 organizations--many environmental organizations, many faith-based organizations--all who oppose S.J. Res. 23 and S.J. Res. 24.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source