Providing for Consideration of H.R. 910, Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Texas for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, it has been a remarkable April in the House of Representatives. Last week, the majority rewrote the Constitution with a bill stating that one House of Congress can deem a law made all by itself regardless of what the Senate or the President of the United States might think. And if that wasn't enough, today the majority is proposing to rewrite the laws of science itself, the definition of taxes, and the laws of economics.
Despite indisputable scientific evidence, the Republicans are seeking to bar the Environmental Protection Agency from protecting Americans' health and safety from what the scientific consensus agrees is the worst environmental threat in the world's history: global climate change.
It's akin to telling Homeland Security to stop protecting the homeland. It denies scientific proof and logic. Even the Supreme Court stated that the EPA has a responsibility to act to keep the public safe. We're witnessing nothing less today than a full assault on four decades of progress in protecting Americans from environmental dangers.
Madam Speaker, for nearly 40 years the EPA and the Clean Air Act have protected the health of Americans from dangers both seen and unseen. Over the last 20 years, the Clean Air Act prevented an estimated 843,000 asthma attacks, 18 million cases of respiratory illness among children, 672,000 cases of chronic bronchitis, 21,000 cases of heart disease, and 200,000 premature deaths--not only saving people from the human toll of dealing with illness among themselves and their family, but saving the economic costs to society and individuals from all of these conditions.
Yet my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to ignore this progress and prevent the EPA by handcuffing it and preventing it from protecting us in the future.
Repealing the EPA's authority to limit pollution would have devastating consequences. It would increase the number of children and adults who suffer from asthma. It would increase the number of individuals with emphysema, lung cancer, bronchitis, and many other respiratory diseases driving up health care costs for all Americans significantly.
For this reason, 280 groups--including the American Heart Association, the American Public Health Association and many others--sent a letter to Congress urging us to reject measures that would block or delay the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency from doing its job to protect all Americans from life-threatening air pollution.
Madam Speaker, my friend from Texas mentioned the word "tax" six times in his remarks, to my count. It's possible I missed a couple of instances of that word as well. And yet yesterday in committee, both Chairman Upton and Ranking Member Waxman agreed that the EPA does not have the statutory authority to confer any taxes whatsoever.
Therefore, the name of this bill, the Energy Tax Prevention Act, is a complete misnomer. This bill has not even originated in or been passed out of the committee in Congress that has jurisdiction in tax matters, namely, the Ways and Means Committee. It's a completely inappropriate and misleading way to convey what this bill does.
Madam Speaker, America's science and environmental policy should be driven by science and science alone. The EPA should be allowed to move forward. And I urge my colleagues to reject the rule and the underlying bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. POLIS. I yield myself 1 minute to respond.
I know the gentleman from Florida mentioned the cow flatulence in our committee meeting last night, and it sounded like a topic that bore looking into. I did have a chance to look it up in the interim, and Fox News had reported the prospect of EPA regulating cow and livestock gas.
However, it never existed. FactCheck.org, which I looked it up on, dispelled the myth and EPA itself actually came out with a statement that said not only is there no such regulation that it discussed or was in the works, but even EPA admitted it's not under their authority to regulate that in any way, shape or form.
So it is a false accusation with regard to the issue regarding livestock.
Madam Speaker, it's my honor to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch), a former member of the Rules Committee and a former member of the Energy and Commerce Committee. He has racked up quite a few former memberships.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. POLIS. I yield myself 1 minute.
Madam Speaker, it's hard to figure out where to start with regard to refuting some of the statements that were made.
First of all, again, with regard to the information regarding methane emissions on the EPA Web site, there is a difference between a statement of fact and an action, and part of what the EPA does is it provides good scientific facts.
They, EPA itself, concedes and says they don't have the authority, nor should they have the authority, to monitor emissions from livestock. So they will publish good information. I don't refute the information the gentleman said, and I hope they publish more useful information about the impact of livestock, but they are not seeking to regulate it.
The gentleman said they are going to tax cattle. Again, very clearly, Chairman Upton, Ranking Member Waxman, said the EPA does not have the ability to impose a tax.
I would ask my colleague from Texas a simple "yes" or "no"question: Does the EPA have the ability to impose a tax?
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. POLIS. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. A tax is a burden.
Mr. POLIS. Reclaiming my time, it's a simple "yes" or "no" question. If there is an additional statement the gentleman would like to make, I would be happy to have him explain it on his own time. My time is limited and I have many speakers.
But I would be happy to enter into a dialogue with him on his time or allow him to respond to whether or not the EPA has the ability to impose a tax.
I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
The gentlelady mentioned science. One of the expert witnesses the Republicans called for last week's congressional hearing on climate science was Professor Richard Muller of Berkeley. Now, this was a physicist who had gotten into the climate skeptic game. And I have to say, the climate skeptic game is a very lucrative one for people. Anybody who finds a way to deny climate change sells lots of books, gets booked on the conservative talk show circuit, and does very well for themselves. And yet, despite the intensive economic pressure for climate scientists to deny climate change, 99 percent have stayed true to the scientific method; and the conclusion of the vast majority is that climate change exists.
Now, Professor Muller reported that his group's preliminary findings were that the global warming trend is very similar to that reported by prior groups. Now, this took some courage. Because of his belief in science, no doubt it hurts his own earning potential. I think he had been doing very well as a climate skeptic. Now he is somebody who has put his scientific principles above his own economic need.
What science tells us is not always convenient. Every climate scientist that I know wishes that they could say that there is no danger from climate change, wishes there was no danger from carbon emissions. Nobody wants to be a harbinger of disaster--what a terrible thing to be--and yet they value the integrity of the scientific process.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, when we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to provide that immediately after the House adopts this rule, it will bring up Senate bill 388, a bill that prohibits Members of Congress and the President from receiving pay during government shutdowns.
It is my honor to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia, a sponsor of a bill to do the same, Mr. Moran.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. POLIS. I yield myself 1 minute.
Madam Speaker, I want to be clear that we can in this body take up and pass Senate bill 388 if we can defeat the previous question, and this will go directly to the President's desk. There is still time.
I think the American people don't know that if government shuts down at the end of the day Friday as it might--it seems increasingly likely--Members of Congress will still continue to receive their paycheck. I had a tweet from one of my constituents that said, "If there is a government shutdown, are Congressmen and Senators considered essential employees?"
I responded that we had a bill, Senate bill 388, that would make sure that Members of Congress don't get paid in the event of a shutdown, but Speaker Boehner refuses to bring it to the floor of the House in spite of passing the Senate unanimously.
My constituent responded, "Maybe if the rulemakers had to live by the same rules they created, a solution would come faster. Gridlock is not governance."
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman. I am the last speaker for my side, and I yield myself the balance of my time.
I would like to submit into the Record a Nature editorial entitled, "Into Ignorance: Vote to Overturn an Aspect of Climate Science Marks a Worrying Trend in U.S. Congress."
Madam Speaker, time and time again we've heard our colleagues cry wolf and make outlandish claims about what the Environmental Protection Agency is attempting to do. But the American people aren't fools. They know that every time the EPA stands up to big polluters, big polluters claim the sky is falling.
That's exactly what happened when the EPA tackled the acid rain problem. Polluters claimed new safeguards would end their industries, increase the price of consumer goods, and cause massive job loss. In reality, acid rain has been dramatically reduced and the limits on pollution were met faster and at roughly a tenth of the cost that industry estimated--all without driving consumer prices up.
A recent MIT study even suggests that implementing the EPA safeguards we are debating today would create 1.4 million jobs as companies invent, build and install newer and cheaper pollution control tools and renewable energy.
Rather than discussing ridiculous and already disreputable and refuted claims of cow flatulence and other elements that aren't even considered by the EPA, let's discuss science and the facts.
Republicans have claimed that the EPA has found carbon dioxide to be dangerous, the same gas we exhale. They say, how can carbon dioxide be dangerous? In reality, the endangerment finding was based on sound science and found that as climate change increases, so does ground-level ozone, longer pollen seasons, and more mold allergies. These affect health problems like asthma and heart disease. Once again, Republicans were oversimplifying a serious problem to support their big polluter buddies at the cost of public health.
Science will guide us in the right direction, and science is a blind goddess. It doesn't care what we want science to say. What matters is what good science done actually says.
The supporters of this legislation want to present a false dichotomy that somehow protecting the environment would hurt job creation. Instead, the exact opposite has been proven to be true.
Since 1970, the economic benefits of the Clean Air Act have been shown to outweigh all costs associated with the law, and the economic benefits of the Clean Air Act are expected to reach nearly $2 trillion in 2020--exceeding costs by more than 30 to 1.
That's why a number of business organizations representing over 60,000 firms wrote to President Obama and congressional leaders urging them to support the EPA's mission and to reject efforts to block, delay or weaken implementation of the Clean Air Act. In their letters, the groups note that studies consistently show that the economic benefits of implementing the act far exceed the costs of controlling air pollutant emissions.
The EPA's rule is strictly tailored to only the country's biggest power plants and industrial polluters. These safeguards apply to about 700 of the top polluting power plants and oil refineries, facilities that need new permits, anyway, under current law.
It's been proven countless times that we can protect the environment and public health and grow and strengthen our economy at the same time. To say otherwise simply ignores the facts.
Madam Speaker, I want to make sure that no one is misled by the title of the bill we're considering, the Energy Tax Prevention Act. The only amendment that would have actually prevented energy taxes was offered by my friend from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) and was denied even a floor discussion and debate or a vote under this rule. The only thing this bill is taxing is our patience. As serious issues confront America, including the government shutdown, the majority seems intent on legislating by false bumper-sticker slogans.
Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to consider Senate bill 388.
I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Colorado?
There was no objection.
Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote "no" and defeat the previous question so we can debate and pass a bill that actually does something useful, ensures Members of Congress don't get paid during a shutdown of government and has a real chance of being enacted into law and signed by President Obama, and I urge a "no" vote on the rule.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source