Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOYER. Briefly, in response to the gentleman's assertion, of course the court has said EPA does, in fact, have this authority. This is not a new authority they're making up. Rather than invest in new energy technologies, address carbon pollution, and create clean energy jobs, our friends on the other side are choosing instead to deny the problem and take away America's tools for responding to it.

This bill would overturn auto emission standards that are making our cars and trucks cheaper to drive and breaking our independence on foreign oil. This bill would not do a single thing to bring down the price of gas, but it would keep America from saving 1.8 billion barrels of oil over the lifetime of our new cars. We would not have gotten there, frankly, if some of the proponents of this bill who opposed getting to those standards had prevailed. And it would do so at a time when the turmoil in the Middle East should serve as an energy independence wake-up call.

I'm for using all of our energy that we can do so in a healthy, safe way. This bill, however, would significantly weaken the Clean Air Act over its 40-year span.

The benefits of the act: longer lives, healthier kids, greater workforce productivity, and protected ecosystems have outweighed the costs by more than 30-1. That's a pretty good return, ladies and gentlemen. Last year, according to the EPA, just one part of the Clean Air Act prevented someone 160,000 premature deaths, 130,000 heart attacks, and 100,000 hospital visits. That is a pretty good return on our investment.

And according to the American Medical Association, ``If physicians want evidence of climate change, they may well find it in their own offices. Patients are presenting with illnesses that once happened only in warmer areas. Chronic conditions are becoming aggravated by more frequent and extended heat waves. Allergy and asthma seasons are getting longer.''

The gentleman from New Hampshire said he doesn't doubt global warming. I agree with that conclusion. It is a shame this bill doesn't take that perspective. The Republican response is to make pollution easier, frankly.

Finally, this bill overturns scientific findings that carbon pollution endangers the environment and human health, which has been confirmed by all of the world's leading scientists.

A partisan majority can pass whatever bill it wants. I understand that. But it cannot legislate the facts out of existence, facts that as recently as a few years ago were accepted in both parties. What changed? The science or the politics?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source