[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 183 (Tuesday, December 8, 2009)]
[House]
[Page H13607]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              CLIMATEGATE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Inglis) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. INGLIS. Madam Speaker, a number of physicians would tell you that 
longevity is based only on genetic make-up. But you might ask them, 
Doctor, if I were to diet and exercise safely, might I extend my life? 
Well, most physicians would say, If you can do it safely, go ahead.
  That is really what I think we should be talking about when it comes 
to climate change. If we can do it safely as to the economy, we should 
act. If we can't do it safely, then we should hold up.
  In the case of cap-and-trade, which has passed this floor, 
unfortunately, and is pending now in the other body, it can't be done 
that way. In other words, it will harm the economy. We are talking 
about a tax increase in the midst of a recession. We are talking about 
a Wall Street trading scheme that would make some traders blush, and it 
punishes American manufacturing. So for all those reasons, I wish cap-
and-trade were off the table. Hopefully, it falls apart over in the 
other body.
  Then the question is, Could we act in some way that is sort of like 
the longevity question? It might not extend our lives, but on the other 
hand, would it hurt us? And in this case, what we are looking for is 
something that would work that wouldn't hurt us, that wouldn't hurt our 
economy.
  And what I have proposed is a 15-page alternative to the 1,200-page 
cap-and-trade, and that 15 pages describes a tax cut on payroll and a 
shift on to emissions, the result being that we would change the 
economics of the incumbent fossil fuels and begin replacing them with 
better fuels that can create jobs and improve the national security of 
the United States.
  Along the way, though, I think the big debate about whether the 
climate change models are right, and it's very important that we get it 
right as to those models, but that process is going to take a long 
time. It's going to take a longer time with this setback here recently 
with the revelation that various climate data has been manipulated.
  What we have here is a teachable moment for all scientists everywhere 
that when this kind of misconduct occurs, the result is all of science 
is questioned. It's not a good result because the reality is we need 
this science to advance, and we need it to advance in a transparent way 
where the evidence can be pushed on and replicated if it's accurate. If 
it's not accurate and can't be replicated, it's rejected. But in the 
rejection, we learn, and science advances.
  So I join with Ranking Member Hall in asking for a full investigation 
of these revelations about the manipulation of data because we need to 
get to the bottom of it. Especially in the Science Committee, we need 
to use this as a teachable moment to figure out how to advance science, 
true science, without manipulation of data in calling to account those 
who have manipulated data. In the process, we will all learn a lot 
about the climate models, we will advance science, and we will make 
better public policy.

                          ____________________