Jared Polis

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, it is my honor to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer). Parliamentary Inquiries

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.

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. [From Nature] Into Ignorance Vote to overturn an aspect of climate science marks a worrying trend in US Congress As Nature went to press, a committee of the US Congress was poised to pass legislation that would overturn a scientific finding on the dangers of global warming. The Republican- sponsored bill is intended to prevent the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from regulating greenhouse-gas emissions, which the agency declared a threat to public welfare in 2009. That assessment serves as the EPA's legal basis for regulation, so repealing the `endangerment finding' would eliminate its authority over greenhouse gases. That this finding is scientifically sound had no bearing on the decision to push the legislation, and Republicans on the House of Representatives' energy and commerce committee have made clear their disdain for climate science. At a subcommittee hearing on 14 March, anger and distrust were directed at scientists and respected scientific societies. Misinformation was presented as fact, truth was twisted and nobody showed any inclination to listen to scientists, let alone learn from them. It has been an embarrassing display, not just for the Republican Party but also for Congress and the US citizens it represents. It is tempting to write all of this off as petty partisanship, a populist knee-jerk reaction to lost jobs and rising energy prices by a well-organized minority of Republican voters. After all, US polling data has consistently shown that, in general, the public accepts climate science. At a hearing last week, even Ed Whitfield (Republican, Kentucky), who chairs the subcommittee, seemed to distance himself from the rhetoric by focusing not on the science but on the economic effects of greenhouse-gas regulation. ``One need not be a sceptic of global warming to be a sceptic of the EPA's regulatory agenda,'' said Whitfield. ``The US Congress has entered the intellectual wilderness.'' Perhaps, but the legislation is fundamentally anti-science, just as the rhetoric that supports it is grounded in wilful ignorance. One lawmaker last week described scientists as ``elitist'' and ``arrogant'' creatures who hide behind ``discredited'' institutions. Another propagated the myth that in the 1970s the scientific community warned of an imminent ice age. Melting ice caps on Mars served to counter evidence of anthropogenic warming on Earth, and Antarctica was falsely said to be gaining ice. Several scientists were on hand--at the behest of Democrats on the subcommittee--to answer questions and clear things up, but many lawmakers weren't interested in answers, only in prejudice. It is hard to escape the conclusion that the US Congress has entered the intellectual wilderness, a sad state of affairs in a country that has led the world in many scientific arenas for so long. Global warming is a thorny problem, and disagreement about how to deal with it is understandable. It is not always clear how to interpret data or address legitimate questions. Nor is the scientific process, or any given scientist, perfect. But to deny that there is reason to be concerned, given the decades of work by countless scientists, is irresponsible. That this legislation is unlikely to become law doesn't make it any less dangerous. It is the attitude and ideas behind the bill that are troublesome, and they seem to be spreading. Fred Upton, the Michigan Republican who chairs the full energy and commerce committee, once endorsed climate science, but last month said--after being pinned down by a determined journalist--that he is not convinced that greenhouse-gas emissions contribute to global warming. It was yet another blow to the shrinking minority of moderate centrists in both parties. One can only assume that Congress will find its way at some point, pressured by voters who expect more from their public servants. In the meantime, as long as it can fend off this and other attacks on the EPA, President Barack Obama's administration should push forward with its entirely reasonable regulatory programme for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions where it can, while looking for ways to work with Congress in other areas. Rising oil prices should increase interest in energy security, a co-benefit of the greenhouse- gas and fuel-efficiency standards for vehicles that were announced by the administration last year. The same advice applies to the rest of the world. Work with the United States where possible, but don't wait for a sudden change of tenor in Washington, DC. One of the scientists testifying before Whitfield's subcommittee was Christopher Field, director of the Carnegie Institution's global ecology department in Stanford, California. Field generously hoped that his testimony at last week's hearing took place ``in the spirit of a genuine dialogue that is in the best interests of the country''. Maybe one day that hope will be justified.

Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Well, again, the Rules Committee found, and I believe the Parliamentarian advised, that the amendment was germane, and I have not been informed otherwise other than by the gentleman from California. Does the gentleman want to appeal the ruling of the Parliamentarian? I believe that it is germane.

Mr. POLIS. The amendment is pending; that's correct. Well, again, if the rule does waive this, we discussed in Rules Committee yesterday, and I believe that all the non-germane amendments were not included under this rule.

Mr. POLIS. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. POLIS. Madam Chair, I have a point of parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. POLIS. Reclaiming my time, there might be a different use of the word ``germane'' by the gentleman. I would encourage all of us to try to be on the same page with regard to the word ``germane.'' It is germane to the bill, the topic. Again, all my amendment does is say that if the EPA sees the danger they should act. It's a safety valve. The amendment respects the finding of the Supreme Court in the Massachusetts vs. EPA case that ensures that the Clean Air Act still has the ability to protect the public and that it is not removed under the underlying bill.

Mr. POLIS. The underlying bill tells the EPA in this case to perhaps ignore some science. My amendment says that the science shouldn't be ignored if it means you are risking people's lives.

Mr. POLIS. It's an important clarification and I urge support of the amendment.

Mr. POLIS. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. POLIS. Madam Chair, this amendment is simple, and I appreciate the rule making it in order. It allows the Environmental Protection Agency to continue protecting the American people from the greatest public health and environmental challenge in global history, global climate change. The overwhelming scientific evidence suggests that greenhouse gases and carbon pollution, if left unchecked, pose a significant threat to public health. This is not a scientific conclusion that anybody in the investigative community desires or wants. It is an unfortunate reality. I simply want the administrator to have the ability to temporarily unlock the handcuffs on the bill if there is a significant threat to the public health. Let's walk ourselves through what this bill does. The bill tells the EPA, EPA, you have done your homework just like the Supreme Court told you to do, and every inch of credible science is telling you there is a danger to America's health. Yet, we here in Congress know better. We will pretend like there is not a danger to the American health. We won't allow you, the EPA, that we set up and charged with this, to pay attention to the warnings or protect Americans from the dangers. To me, that's a very dangerous directive, telling the EPA they can't act even though they know we are in danger. If there was a meteor hurtling towards us, I would hope that this body wouldn't pass a bill that tells NASA to ignore it, to step away from the telescope, specifically forbids them from telling people to get out of the way. Yet that's exactly what this bill does with the very real and present danger. I, for one, want the EPA to be able to protect me, and my family and my constituents and all American families when the overwhelming warning signs say they should do just that. But if this body sends a message to the contrary, at the very least we should be smart enough to include a temporary escape hatch, a safety valve that my amendment provides. Madam Chair, I am going to vote today to put America's health before big polluters. The other side of the aisle likes to skew the facts. And instead of paying attention to the warning signs, they protect their big polluter friends by confusing the facts. It's critical that we provide a safety valve that when there is a clear and present danger to the health of the American people we don't hamstring the very agency that we have set up to protect the health of the American people, and enable them to move forward to protect us. This endangerment finding, the title of the EPA's research on dangers to our health, was based on sound science and found that as climate change increases, so does ground ozone level, air- and water-borne pathogens, and mold and pollen allergens that affect and make health problems worse like asthma, respiratory irritation, and heart disease. We cannot oversimplify a very serious problem with no easy answers. [From the Federal Register, Tuesday, Dec. 15, 2009] Part V--Environmental Protection Agency 40 cfr chapter i--endangerment and cause or contribute findings for greenhouse gases under section 202(a) of the clean air act; final rule

Mr. POLIS. I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman from Georgia. My concern is that the underlying bill removes some of the authority under these conditions that this amendment would reinstate. If this amendment merely restates this, I would hope that we can clarify the bill by specifically allowing the EPA the authority to suspend the prohibitions in the bill if a detailed analysis demonstrates that ground-level ozone, or extreme weather events, or food- and water-borne pathogens are a significant threat to public health. And, of course, we would hope that under their charge the EPA would then proceed if given this authority with regard to protecting the public health. To the extent that this clarifies something that was consistent with the intent of the original bill, I would hope that the gentleman would accept it. If it is contrary to a small element of the bill, we would hope to reestablish that authority in the case of a significant threat to public health, again, with the additional burden and requirement of a detailed analysis under the law. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Is the amendment germane to the bill?

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. POLIS. I yield to the gentlelady from Tennessee.

Mr. POLIS. Reclaiming my time, the Fairness Doctrine is something that I oppose, I will always oppose, and it is completely consistent. The Fairness Doctrine is consistent with the approach that the gentlelady is approaching with regard to the Internet. By having net neutrality in place, we prevent any type of fairness doctrine or selective allowance of certain content to consumers of the Internet. The whole net neutrality regulatory structure is to ensure that everybody has access to putting content on the Internet in the same way, and that that content will not be discriminated against based on its ideology, based on economic considerations.

Mr. POLIS. Is the gentlelady going to answer?

Mr. POLIS. Reclaiming my time, I would like to engage in a colloquy with the gentlelady. With regards to the Postal Service, would the gentlelady oppose an effort to say that the Postal Service can, perhaps, decide which mail to deliver, maybe based on which political candidates their unions support? Would the gentlelady say that that would be okay for the Postal Service to do that?

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.