Cory Gardner passionately argues on floor against a bill not under consideration...

Apparently Cory Gardner still thinks he is fighting against Rep. Markey of Massachusetts, because he just argues on the House floor against last year's Energy Bill (introduced by Rep. Markey, instead of discussing the actual issue at hand.

Today, the House is debating H.R. 910, the Koch Brothers Appreciation Act of 2011, which will stop the EPA from regulating any greenhouse gases under the Clean Energy Act. To defend the bill, Cory Gardner used cost estimates about the effect of last year's Cap and Trade bill, even though that bill was an economy wide regulation of greenhouse gases, not the issue at hand, which is specific energy efficiency regulations and greenhouse gas regulations on new refineries and some other major sources.

Gardner on the floor:

Why did the rural electric association in my district write to me and say that it will cost farmers  and ranchers in my state an additional 1700 per year to irrigate their land if the carbon bill were to pass this congress last year and signed into law by the president? 1700 dollars a year that carbon legislation would have cost farmers and ranchers in my state.

News flash for you, Mr. Gardner, that bill didn't pass Congress and it didn't get signed by the president. This bill is a completely different issue. But those numbers you cite sound expensive, so why let details stop you from using them.

Rep. Henry Waxman quickly refuted Gardner's bad data:

Mr. Chairman, that information is incorrect, I would like to see a letter that pertains to this EPA action. I think it might have been a letter related to a different piece of legislation.

For more information on the differences between the EPA regulations being fought and last year's energy bill, see an article from early last month in The Hill:

The Hill: GOP gas price claims under fire ahead of climate vote

House GOP claims that legislation to block Environmental Protection Agency climate change rules will combat rising gasoline costs are coming under fire ahead of a committee vote Thursday.

“It is one of the most pathetically, economically invalid arguments ever made in human history,” Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, told E2 Wednesday.

But their claims about the degree to which prices will rise are rooted in an industry-commissioned study of cap-and-trade legislation that died in the last Congress — not an analysis of rules that EPA is moving ahead with under its existing powers.

“H.R. 2454 required an economy-wide 80 percent reduction in emissions, and oil companies were required to hold emission allowances for the gasoline they sold. Still, gasoline prices were only expected to increase less than 2 cents per year. EPA’s modest energy-efficiency requirements simply don’t apply to existing refineries that aren’t making major capital investments and increasing their pollution, and for the few facilities they cover, they may well produce cost savings," Waxman said.

I guess Cory Gardner and his staff didn't have time to read about the differences in the last month. He's been too busy deciding that climate change doesn't exist voting to support his campaign donors. And not creating jobs. He's good at not doing that.