Senate Session 2011 - 04 - 06 - 15 - 00 - 04 - 16 - 01 - 20

QUORUM CALL: THE SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY. WE'RE SPEAKING AS IF IN MORNING BUSINESS, IS THAT CORRECT? WE ARE IN IN THE MIDDLE OF A QUORUM CALL. MR. PRESIDENT, THIS AFTERNOON -- THE SENATE IS IN A QUORUM CALL. OH. I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT THE QUORUM CALL DISPENSED WITH. WITHOUT OBJECTION. MR. PRESIDENT, THIS AFTERNOON WHICH THIS CHAMBER HAS GOT TO FACE A CLEAR QUESTION: WHAT MATTERS MORE, CHILDREN'S HEALTH OR POLLUTER'S PROFITS? WE WILL BE VOTING ON AMENDMENTS THAT WILL CRIPPLE THE GOVERNMENT'S ABILITY TO ENFORCE THE CLEAN AIR ACT. NOW, THIS IS A LANDMARK LAW THAT PROTECTS OUR CHILDREN FROM TOXIC CHEMICALS IN THE AIR AND ILLNESSES LIKE ASTHMA AND LUNG CANCER. IN 2010, THE CLEAN AIR ACT PREVENTED 1.7 MILLION CASES OF CHILDHOOD ASTHMA AND MORE THAN 160,000 PREMATURE DEATHS FROM OCCURRING. THE NUMBERS WILL BIG BUT NUMBERS DON'T MEAN MUCH UNLESS IT'S YOUR CHILD. IF IT'S YOUR CHILD, THERE'S NO NUMBER THAT'S TOO LARGE TO TAKE CARE OF THAT CHILD'S HEALTH. YOU WANT TO KNOW THE REAL VALUE OF CLEAN AIR ACT TO AMERICAN TALK TO THE MILLIONS OF PARENTS WHO LIVE IN FEAR OF THEIR CHILD'S NEXT ASTHMA ATTACK, AND IT'S A FEAR THAT MY OWN FAMILY KNOWS VERY WELL. I HAVE A GRANDSON, TERRIFIC ATHLETE, VERY ENERGETIC AND HE SUFFERS FROM ASTHMA. HE'S AN ATHLETIC CHILD. EVERY TIME HE GOES TO PLAY SOCCER, MY DAUGHTER, HIS MOTHER, WILL CHECK FIRST TO SEE WHERE THE NEAREST EMERGENCY ROOM IS. SHE KNOWS VERY WELL THAT IF HE STARTS WHEEZE, SHE'S GOT TO GET HIM TO A CLINIC IN A HURRY. AND NO PARENT SHOULD HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THAT, LETTING THEIR CHILDREN PLAY OUTSIDE. THE FACT IS, THE CLEAN AIR ACT HAS IMPROVED LIVES FOR MILLIONS OF YOUNG PEOPLE. THE SUPREME COURT AND SCIENTISTS AGREE THAT THE CLEAN AIR ACT IS A TOOL WE MUST USE TO STOP DANGEROUS POLLUTION. AND WE HAVE A -- A PICTURE ON DISPLAY HERE THAT I'LL SHOW YOU IN JUST A MINUTE AND IT DEMONSTRATES SO CLEARLY WHAT IT'S LIKE WITH SMOG IN THE AIR AND IT PERMITS US TO IMAGINE WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE INSIDE A CHILD'S LUNG. WE ARE UNFORTUNATELY SEARCHING FOR THE PLACARD, WHICH WE'LL SHORTLY HAVE. THIS PICTURE SHOWS WHAT TOXIC SKIES LOOK LIKE, AND IT'S AN UGLY SCENE BUT IT'S MUCH UGLIER WHEN IT'S INSIDE A CHILD'S YOUNG OR A CHILD'S BODY OR ANYBODY WHO IS SENSITIVE TO POLLUTED AREA. THAT'S THE PICTURE COMING OUT OF THE SMOKESTACK AND THE PICTURE TURNS INTO REALITY WHEN IT'S IN THE LUNG OR THE BODY OF AN INDIVIDUAL. BUT ALLOWING COUNTRIES -- COMPANIES, RATHER, TO REDUCE POLLUTION SAY IT WOULD COST TOO MUCH FOR POLLUTERS. TOO BAD. WHAT'S A LIFE WORTH? WHAT'S A -- A -- WHAT'S IT MEAN TO SOMEONE WHO IS SENSITIVE TO POLLUTED AIR NOT TO BE ABLE TO GET OUT OR TOP COUGHING OR STOP WHEEZING? BUT ALLOWING COMPANIES TO CONTINUE POLLUTING DOESN'T ELIMINATE THE COSTS. IT SIMPLY SHIFTS THE COST TO OUR FAMILIES, OUR CHILDREN AND ALL OF US WHO BREATHE THAT AIR. THE AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION AND FIVE OTHER HEALTH GROUPS SENT A LETTER OPPOSING ALL OF THESE AMENDMENTS, HEALTH GROUPS OPPOSING ALL OF THESE AMENDMENTS AMENDMENTS. THEY SAY -- AND I QUOTE HERE -- "THE CLEAN AIR ACT PROTECTS PUBLIC HEALTH AND REDUCES HEALTH CARE COSTS FOR ALL BY PREVENTING THOUSANDS OF ADVERSE HEALTH OUTCOMES, INCLUDING CANCER, ASTHMA ATTACKS, HEART ATTACKS, STROKES, EMERGENCY ROOM VISITS, HOSPITALIZATIONS, AND PREMATURE DEATHS. AND I'M AWARE OF THE THREAT THAT ASTHMA CAN BE. I HAD A SISTER WHO WAS A VICTIM OF ASTHMA AND SHE WOULD -- IF WE TRAVELED TOGETHER, FAMILIES TOGETHER, SHE WOULD HAVE A LITTLE RESPIRATOR THAT COULD BE PLUGGED INTO THE CIGARETTE LIGHTER HOLE AND ENABLE HER TO BREATHE MORE COMFORTABLY. AND ONE DAY SHE WAS AT A SCHOOL BOARD MEETING IN RYE, NEW YORK, WHERE SHE WAS A MEMBER OF THE SCHOOL BOARD, AND SHE FELT AN ATTACK COMING ON. AND HER INSTINCT WAS TO TRY TO RUN TO HER CAR SO SHE COULD PLUG IN THE MACHINE TO THE LIGHTER HOLE, AND SHE COLLAPSED IN THE PARKING LOT AND SHE DIED THREE DAYS LATER. AND WE SAW IT UP FRONT AND PERSONAL. IT'S A TERRIBLE, TERRIBLE FAMILY TRAGEDY. TIME. SO WHEN WE LOOK AND WE SEE -- TALK ABOUT HOW THREATENING IT IS TO CONTROL PLIEW WE SAY NO, NO -- CONTROL POLLUTION, WE SAY NO, NO, NO. THE THREAT IS TO OUR FAMILY HEALTH AND WELL-BEING. AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE ABOUT, FAMILIES WITH YOUNG PEOPLE ACROSS THE COUNTRY, ACROSS THE WORLD. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT THE COST THERE ISN'T A FAMILY IN THE WORLD THAT WOULDN'T DISPOSE OF ALL OF THEIR ASSETS TO PROTECT CHILD. AND HISTORY SHOWS THAT THE COST OF CLEANER AIR IS VERY LOW COMPARED TO ITS ENORMOUS BENEFITS. THANKS TO CLEAN AIR -- THE CLEAN AIR ACT, FEWER PARENTS MISS WORK TO TAKE CARE OF CHILDREN SUFFERING FROM ASTHMA. MORE FAMILIES AVOID THE CRUSHING HEALTH CARE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH A HEART ATTACK OR STROKE. AND PEOPLE LIVE LONGER, MORE COMFORTABLE -- MORE COMFORTABLY AND MORE PRODUCTIVE LIVES. SIMPLY PUT, WEAKENING THE CLEAN AIR ACT PUTS THE PROFITS OF POLLUTERS AHEAD OF THE HEALTH OF OUR CHILDREN. TO SEE WHAT THE WHAT'S WOULD LOOK LIKE WITHOUT THE CLEAN AIR ACT, WE ONLY NEED TO LOOK AT CHINA. ON A VISIT THERE, I WAS SCOLDED BY THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENT THAT THE UNITED STATES WAS USING TOO MUCH OF THE -- OF THE WORLD'S OIL, FUEL, CREATING DIFFICULTIES IN THE AIR. AND WHEN I WAS IN THE MINISTER'S OFFICE, I INVITED ME TO JOIN HIM AT THE WINDOW 23 STORIES UP IN THE AIR. WE LOOKED OUTSIDE AND WE COULDN'T SEE THE SIDEWALK. THAT'S HOW THICK THE POLLUTED AIR WAS. THE AIR IN CHINA IS SO POLLUTED THAT MANY PEOPLE WHERE MASKS WHEN THEY WALK OUTSIDE. WE DON'T WANT TO BE DOING THAT IN AMERICA. SO, MR. PRESIDENT, THE -- THIS POISON MUST NOT BE THE FUTURE. I DON'T WANT IT FOR MY GRANDCHILDREN AND I DON'T WANT IT FOR ANYBODY ELSE'S CHILDREN OR GRANDCHILDREN. IN OUR SENATE, IN OUR CONGRESS, OUR GOAL MUST BE TO TAKE CARE OF OUR OBLIGATIONS TO PROTECT OUR FAMILIES, AND THE STRONGEST OBLIGATION THAT ANYONE HAS, ANYBODY THAT WE KNOW WHO HAS CHILDREN DOESN'T WANT TO ENDANGER THEIR HEALTH. I ASK ALL OF MY COLLEAGUES, STAND UP, VOTE DOWN THESE DANGEROUS -- THESE DANGEROUS EFFORTS TO DESTROY THE CLEAN AIR ACT. IT BELONGS AS PART OF OUR ENVIRONMENT AND PROTECTS OUR CHILDREN AND PROTECTS THE ENVIRONMENT AND WE MUSTN'T LET THIS OPPORTUNITY MISS -- BE MISUNDERSTOOD AND SAY, NO, WE'VE GOT TO VOTE "NO" TO GIVE THE POLLUTERS A PREFERENCE BEFORE OUR CHILDREN. WITH THAT, I YIELD THE FLOOR AND NOTE THE ABSENCE OF A QUORUM. THE CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLL. QUORUM CALL: THE SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON. MR. PRESIDENT, I DISPENSED WITH. WITHOUT OBJECTION. MR. PRESIDENT, I RISE TODAY TO SPEAK AGAINST THE RADICAL McCONNELL-INHOFE AMENDMENT AND IN OPPOSITION TO THE EFFORTS TO OVERTURN THE WE SHOULD NOT BE GUTTING THE CLEAN AIR ACT AND PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONS THAT ARE IMPORTANT TO EVERY AMERICAN. THESE ANTIENVIRONMENTAL, ANTIPUBLIC HEALTH, ANTIECONOMIC RIDERS I BELIEVE DON'T BELONG ON A SMALL BUSINESS BILL. WHEN YOU BOIL IT DOWN, WHAT'S AT STRAIGHTFORWARD. IT'S ABOUT THE GOOD VERSUS THE SPECIAL INTEREST. THE FACTS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES. AND ACCORDING TO SOME COMPREHENSIVE REPORTS, THE CLEAN AIR ACT WILL SAVE OUR ECONOMY $2 TRILLION THROUGH THE YEAR 2020. AND EVEN MORE IMPORTANTLY, THE CLEAN AIR ACT WILL CUMULATIVELY SAVE 4.2 MILLION LIVES BY 2020. MR. PRESIDENT, THOSE ARE STRIKING NUMBERS AND THAT'S WHY IT IS SO IMPORTANT THAT WE PROTECT THE CLEAN AIR ACT AND TURN DOWN THESE RADICAL AMENDMENTS THAT ARE TRYING TO OVERTURN IT. YOU KNOW, CONGRESS HAS STOPPED OTHER RADICAL ATTEMPTS TO OVERTURN LAWS THAT ARE ABOUT PROTECTING OUR ENVIRONMENT AND PROTECTING THE SAFETY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. I REMEMBER HERE ON THE SENATE FLOOR THE DEBATE 2003 ON MTBE. MTBE WAS A FUEL ADDITIVE THAT JUST A DROP LEAKED INTO A WATER SYSTEM COULD RUIN THAT SUPPLY. YET MTBE MANUFACTURERS, WHO WERE ON THE HOOK FOR BILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF CLEANUP, WANTED FREE PASS, THEY WANTED IMMUNITY. AND THEY CAME HERE TO THE UNITED STATES SENATE HOPING TO GET THAT. WELL, IMPORTANTLY ENOUGH, A GROUP OF BIPARTISAN SENATORS STOOD UP TO THAT THAT PROPOSAL AND THE PROPOSAL TO LET MTBE MANUFACTURERS OFF THE HOOK WAS TURNED DOWN. THERE HAVE BEEN OTHER ATTEMPTS TO OVERTURN THE CLEAN WATER ACT, THE SUPERFUND CLEANUP ACT AND SOMETIMES THEY GET AS FAR AS BILLS OR ONLY A HEARING. SOMETIMES WE HAVE VOTES ON THEM. BUT THESE THINGS ALL HAVE ONE THING IN COMMON. IT IS ABOUT THE GREATER GOOD VERSUS SPECIAL INTERESTS. AND TIME AND TIME AGAIN CONGRESS HAS ENDED UP WISELY ON THE RIGHT SIDE AND HAS REJECTED THESE PROPOSALS BY SPECIAL INTERESTS. THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION THAT'S WE HAVE CONTINUE TODAY BECAUSE WE'VE STOOD UP TO FIGHT FOR THEM. IN PASSING AN ANTI-E.P.A. AMENDMENT WOULD HURT OUR ECONOMY. THAT CERTAINLY THE CASE WITH THE IT WOULD OVERTURN HARD-WON GAMES FROM THE 2007 ENERGY BILL THAT PUT CAFE STANDARDS IN PLACE AT A HIGHER LEVEL TO GET FUEL EFFICIENCY ECONOMY FOR CONSUMERS IN AMERICA. THIS WAS PASSED ON A BIPARTISAN BASIS AND IT WAS VERY IMPORTANT IN HELPING CONSUMERS SAVE MONEY AND CAR BUYERS AS MUCH AS $3,000 OVER THE LIFE OF A CAR BECAUSE WE HAVE MADE THEM MORE FUEL EFFICIENT. THIS LEGISLATION SEEKS TO OVERTURN THAT. AND IT IS THESE FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS PASSED WITH THAT BIPARTISAN MAJORITY IN 2007 THAT IS HELPING US GET OFF OF OUR DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL. NOT MORE DOMESTIC DRILLING. WE COULD DRILL IN EVERY PRISTINE, UNTOUCHED CORNER OF THE UNITED STATES AND SOMETIMES IT SEEMS LIKE THE BACKERS OF THOSE INTERESTS WOULD LIKE US TO BUT IN A RECENT LETTER SENATOR BINGAMAN AND I RECEIVED FROM THE ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION, WHICH I WOULD LIKE TO PLACE INTO THE RECORD, MR. PRESIDENT. WITHOUT OBJECTION. IN 2007 THE ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION WAS PREDICTING THAT OUR FOREIGN DEPENDENCY WAS GOING TO CONTINUE TO INCREASE IN THE COMING DECADES. NOW, I SHOULD NOTE THAT AFTER THE 2005 ENERGY BILL, I'VE HEARD SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE SAY THAT WAS THE GREAT PREDICTER AND IT WAS GOING TO HELP US REDUCE OUR DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL. BUT THE TRUTH IS IS THAT THE SUBSEQUENT EIA -- E.I.A. ANALYSIS MADE AFTER WE PASSED THE 2007 ENERGY BILL, SAYS ACCORDING TO THE EXPERTS IN ANALYSIS ONLY TWO POLICIES IN THAT LANDMARK BILL INCREASING CAFE STANDARDS AND RENEWABLE FUEL STANDARDS ARE THE REASON WE ARE LESS DEPENDENT ON FOREIGN OIL. SO THE THINGS THAT HAVE MADE US LESS DEPENDENT ON FOREIGN OIL ARE THE VERY THINGS THAT PEOPLE TRYING TO GUT OUT OF IMPORTANT LEGISLATION ALREADY ON THE BOOKS. IT IS NOT THE CASE THAT ADDITIONAL DRILLING, DRILLING, DRILLING, AND SAYING TO THE E.P.A. IGNORE THE SUPREME COURT ON THE CLEAN AIR ACT IS GOING TO HELP US. REDUCING DEMAND IS GOING TO REDUCE PRICES AT THE PUMP AND LOOKING AT THE U.K. THEY PRODUCE ALMOST ALL THEIR OWN OIL FROM THE NORTH SEA, BUT THEY STILL GOT HAMMERED IN 2008 WHEN OIL PRICES PEAKED AT $147 A BARREL. SO THE NOTION THAT SOMEHOW LET'S SKIRT OUR ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITIES AND DRILL, DRILL, DRILL AND SOMEHOW WE'RE GOING TO PROTECT OURSELVES FROM THE PRICE OF OIL, YOU NEED TO THAT EXAMPLE. I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THE MINORITY LEADER WANTS US TO INCREASE OUR NATION'S RELIANCE ON FOREIGN OIL. I THINK WE SHOULD BE GETTING OFF OF FOREIGN OIL AND NOT ALLOWING POLLUTERS TO ADDICT ANOTHER GENERATION TO THAT PRODUCT. I THINK WE SHOULD BE GETTING OFF OF FOREIGN OIL, NOT FUTURE GENERATION WHERE WE'LL BE FIGHTING THE CHINESE OVER EVERY LAST REMAINING SUPPLY OF EXPENSIVE OIL. I AGREE THAT IT WOULD BE BETTER IF CONGRESS ACTED TO ADDRESS THE DIVERSITY OF OUR NATION'S ENERGY SOURCES, AND I'M ANXIOUS TO WORK WITH MY COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE TO HELP GET FREE MARKET LEGISLATION THAT WOULD DO THAT AND WOULD PROTECT CONSUMERS. AND I'M CERTAIN THAT THERE IS A BIPARTISAN SOLUTION HERE THAT WE CAN ALL AGREE TO. BUT WE CAN SOLVE OUR CARBON POLLUTION PROBLEM BY WORKING TOGETHER, NOT BY BURYING OUR HEADS IN THE SAND, AND SAYING THAT WE CAN IGNORE THE SUPREME COURT'S TO IGNORE THE CLEAN AIR THERE IS A WAY TO TRANSITION TO A 21st CENTURY ECONOMY. WE SHOULD GET ABOUT THAT. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE ABOUT PICKING WINNERS AND LOSERS AND WE CAN DO IT AND PROTECT CONSUMERS WHILE WE GO. I WANT MY COLLEAGUES TO CONTINUE TO WORK ON THAT AS A FRAMEWORK, BUT UNTIL THEN, I URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO VOTE AGAINST THESE AMENDMENTS THAT WILL UNDERMINE OUR CLEAN AIR ACT. THAT WILL ACTUALLY INCREASE OUR DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL, FORCE CONSUMERS TO BUY MORE GASOLINE AND MAKE OUR AIR DIRTIER. WE CAN DO BETTER, MR. PRESIDENT, AND I HOPE THAT WE WILL. I THANK THE PRESIDENT AND I YIELD THE FLOOR. MR. PRESIDENT, I ASK CONSENT THAT SENATOR BOXER, CHAIR OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PUBLIC BOX COMMITTEE BE THE -- WORKS COMMITTEE BE THE NEXT DEMOCRATIC SPEAKER AND THAT SHE HAVE UP TO 10 MINUTES. WITHOUT OBJECTION. I NOTE THE ABSENCE OF A QUORUM. THE CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLL. QUORUM CALL: THE SENATOR FROM OKLAHOMA. MR. PRESIDENT, I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT AFTER QUORUM CALL IS IN PROGRESS. I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT THE QUORUM CALL IN PROGRESS BE VITIATED. OBJECTION. I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE REMARKS BY THE SENATOR FROM TEXAS, THAT SENATOR BOXER, I UNDERSTAND, WANTS TO SPEAK FOR 10 MINUTES AND THAT I BE RECOGNIZED AFTER SENATOR BOXER FOR ABOUT 10 MINUTES. THAT'S GOING TO BE ABOUT THE TIME FRAME THAT WE'LL HAVE. WITHOUT OBJECTION. I OBSERVE THE ABSENCE OF A QUORUM. THE CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLL. QUORUM CALL: QUORUM CALL: MR. PRESIDENT? THE SENATOR FROM TEXAS. I HAVE, I BELIEVE, ABOUT SEVEN IS IN PROGRESS. I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO LIFT THE QUORUM CALL. I'D WHRIEK TO, BEFORE I START TALKING ON THE BILL, WHICH IS MY MOST IMPORTANT REASON FOR BEING HERE, BECAUSE I AM SUCH A BELIEVE THEIR WE NEED TO REPEAL THE E.P.A.'S EFFORTS. BUT SOMETHING HAPPENED LAST NIGHT, AND I FEEL COMPELLED TO SAY ON THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE THAT I AM VERY PROUD OF THE TEXAS AGGIE WOMEN MO WON THE NATIONAL BASKETBALL CHAMPIONSHIP IS. AND I JUST WANT TO SAY A COUPLE OF WORDS ABOUT THAT, BECAUSE THIS IS THE FIRST NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP THAT THE LADY AGGIES HAVE EVER WON AND IT WAS A GREAT GAME LAST NIGHT. AND I CERTAINLY CONGRATULATE NOTER DIME'S FIGHTING IRISH AS WE WILL, BUT THE TEXAS AGGIES PLAYED AND CAME BEHIND IN THE HALF. THEY DEFEATED NOTRE DAME AND I WANT TO CONGRATULATE THE TEXAS AGGIE LADIES BUT I ALSO WANT TO SAY THAT TEXAS A&M'S COACH GARY BLAIR BECAME THE OLDEST COACH TO EVER WIN A NATIONAL WOMEN'S CHAMPIONSHIP. AND HE HAS TURNED THE LADY AGGIE BASKETBALL TEAM INTO THIS NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP TEAM. I WANT TO MENTION DANIEL ADAMS. HER ALL-AMERICAN PERFORMANCE LAST NIGHT WAS INCREDIBLE. AND IT'S JUST A GREAT DAY. YOU KNOW, I'M A TEXAS LONGHORN, AND MOST DAYS I AM FOR ALL OF OUR TEXAS TEAMS, AND I LOVE TO SAY "GEGGA AGGIES." THERE'S ONLY ONE DAY I CAN'T SAY THAT'S THANK GIVING DAY. BUT 364 DAYS A YEAR I'M ALL FOR THE AGGIES. ALL AMERICA SHOULD RECOGNIZE WHEN THEY PLAY LIKE THAT. WITH THAT, I'D LIKE TO SAY THAT MY COLLEAGUE, SENATOR CORNYN AND I ARE GOING TO ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO OFFER A RESOLUTION CONGRATULATING THE LADY AGGIES OF TEXAS A&M OF WINNING THE 2011 NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC DIVISION I BASKETBALL CHAMPIONSHIP. RECORD. OBJECTION. THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I WANT TO SPEAK ON THE McCONNELL AMENDMENT THAT SENATOR INHOFE HAS WORKED SO HARD TO BRING UP AND ALSO LISA MURKOWSKI FROM ALASKA. BECAUSE WE ALL KNOW WHAT'S HAPPENING TO GASOLINE PRICES IN THE UNITED STATES RIGHT NOW. THEY HAVE GONE UP NOW -- AVERAGE IS ABOUT $3.60 A GALLON. AND WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS MORE INCREASES IN THOSE GASOLINE PRICES IF THE E.P.A. IS REALLY ALLOWED TO TAKE AN AUTHORITY THAT IT DOES NOT HAVE AND REGULATE GREENHOUSE GASES. SOME OF THE OTHER AMENDMENTS OFFERED ON THIS SUBJECT ARE WELL-INTENTIONED BUT THEY DO FALL SHORT OF ACTUALLY MAKING A THE AMENDMENT BEFORE US JUST REPEALS E.P.A.'S EFFORTS. IT'S VERY SIMPLE AND VERY CLEAN VERY CLEAN. SMALL BUSINESSES ARE STRUGGLING TO SURVIVE, STRUGGLING TO KEEP WORKERS UNDERSTAND AND TRYING TO MAKE IT IN -- AND TRYING TO MIKE IT IN VERY SMALL MARGINS IN THIS ECONOMIC TIME. FAMILIES ARE FACING HIGHER ENERGY COSTS. WE'RE ALL SUFFERING. I HAVE A PICKUP TRUCK WHICH I LOVE TO DRIVE. I FILLED IT UP A COUPLE OF WEEKENDS AGO AND IT WAS ABOUT NOW, THAT'S A PICKUP TRUCK. THAT'S A BASIC FORM OF TRANSPORTATION FOR MANY AMERICANS. FARMERS DEPEND ON AFFORDABLE ENERGY PRICES. THEY MUST PUT GASOLINE IN THEIR TRUCKS, DIESEL IN THEIR HARVESTERS, USE ENERGY-INTENSIVE FERTILIZER. HIGHER COSTS FOR FARMERS MEAN HIGHER COSTS FOR FOOD. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT NOW AN INFLATION THAT WE CANNOT AFFORD IN THIS KIND OF ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT. DURING ALL OF THIS, THE E.P.A. NOW WANTS TO IMPOSE A NEW GAS TAX ON AMERICA IN THE FORM OF GREENHOUSE GAS REGULATIONS. LAST CONGRESS I ISSUED A REPORT THAT DOCUMENTED HOW THE KERRY-LIEBERMAN CLIMATE LEGISLATION WOULD IMPOSE A $3.6 TRILLION GAS TAX ON THE AMERICAN USING THE DATA FROM E.P.A. AND THE ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION, WE CALCULATED THAT CLIMATE LEGISLATION WOULD IMPOSE A $2 TRILLION GASOLINE TAX, A $1.3 TRILLION DIESEL TAX, AND A $330 BILLION JET FUEL TAX. ACCORDING TO THE E.P.A. AND THE SENIOR OBAMA ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS, REGULATIONS WOULD BE EVENING WORSE THAN LEGISLATION. THAT WAS ONE OF THE MAIN ARGUMENTS THEY USED IN SUPPORT OF CLIMATE LEGISLATION, THAT THE REGULATIONS WOULD BE EVEN WORSE THAN CAP-AND-TRADE LEGISLATION. BUT, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE GETTING WITH THE E.P.A., NOW TRYING TO REGULATE WHAT WE COULD NOT PASS IN THE LEGISLATURE FOR GOOD REASON. THE BAUCUS AMENDMENT COULD SHIELD SMALL BUSINESS AND FARMERS FROM E.P.A. PERMIT REQUIREMENTS, BUT IT CODIFIES THE REQUIREMENTS FOR ENERGY AND FUEL PRODUCE,MEANING EVERYONE IN AMERICA WILL STILL PAY HIGHER ENERGY PRICES. THE STABENOW AND ROCKEFELLER AMENDMENTS ONLY DELAY THE HIGHER ENERGY COSTS AND JOB LOSSES FOR TWO YEARS. THAT'S NOT GOOD ENOUGH. I HOPE THAT MY COLLEAGUES WILL SEE THAT THIS IS OUR TIME TO TELL THE E.P.A. THAT WE WILL DETERMINE WHAT WE WANT THEM TO REGULATE, THAT THAT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS. WE ARE TO MAKE THE LAWS, THEY ARE TO IMPLEMENT THEM. THEY ARE NOT TO REINVENT THEM IN THEIR OWN MODEL OF WHAT THEY HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DO. THEY HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DO WHAT WE GIVE THEM AUTHORITY TO DO, AND WE HAVE NOT GIVEN THEM THE AUTHORITY TO REGULATE GREENHOUSE GASES. THE REFINERIES SAY THAT THIS ADDED AMOUNT OF REGULATION IS GOING TO COST SO MUCH THAT THEY WILL HAVE TO RAISE THEIR PRICES IN THEIR FACTORIES, AND THAT ASSUREDLY WILL RAISE THE PRICE OF OIL AND GASOLINE THROUGHOUT THE USE OF OUR COUNTRY. SO, MR. PRESIDENT, THIS IS AN AMENDMENT -- THERE'S ONLY ONE AMENDMENT OF ALL THE AMENDMENTS ON THIS SUBJECT THAT WILL REALLY DO THE JOB. IT'S SIMPLE AND CLEAR. IT WOULD ELIMINATE THE E.P.A.'S ABILITY TO MAKE REGULATIONS IN AN AREA THAT CONGRESS HAS NOT AUTHORIZED IT TO DO. THAT'S WHAT WE NEED TO DO. CONGRESS NEEDS TO TAKE THE REINS AND HALT THE OVERREGULATION THAT IS HURTING OUR SMALL BUSINESSES AND HURTING OUR ECONOMIC RECOVERY. AND I HOPE MY COLLEAGUES WILL JOIN ME IN SUPPORTING THE McCONNELL-INHOFE-MURKOWSKI AMENDMENT THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT, AND I YIELD THE FLOOR. THE SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA. MR. PRESIDENT, I'M HERE BECAUSE I WANT TO URGE A "NO" VOTE ON ALL THESE AMENDMENTS THAT ESSENTIALLY STOP THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY FROM DOING THEIR WORK, AS IT RELATES TO AIR POLLUTION. AND I'M HERE TO DO THAT BECAUSE NEVER BEFORE HAVE WE EVER INTERFERED IN A ENFORCEMENT OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT AND IT'S WORKED BECAUSE WE HAVE SEEN TREMENDOUS, TREMENDOUS ADVANCES IN OUR CLEAN AIR. POLLUTANTS CAUSE OR CONTRIBUTE TO ASTHMA, EMPHYSEMA, HEART DISEASE AND OTHER POTENTIALLY LETHAL RESPIRATORY AILMENTS AND WE KNOW FROM THE WORK OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION AND THAT OF THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION THAT THE ENDANGERMENT FINDING THAT SAID THAT GREENHOUSE GASES WERE DANGER US FOR OUR HEALTH PREDICTED THAT GROUND-LEVEL OZONE WOULD INCREASE IF WE DID NOTHING AND WE'D HAVE MORE CASES OF ASTHMA AND COUGHING AND PEOPLE STAYING HOME FROM SCHOOL AND STAYING HOME FROM WORK. THE E.P.A.'S ENDANGERMENT FINDING IS KEY, AND HERE'S WHAT THEY TOLD US. PROJECTED TO INTENSE FISHINGS WHICH CAN INCREASE HEAT-RELATED DEATHS AND SICKNESS. REMEMBER, THIS IS RELATED TO GASES. EXACTLY WHAT MY COLLEAGUES ARE TRYING TO EITHER SLOW DOWN CLEANING UP OR STOP CLEANING UP. IN AN UNPRECEDENTED ASSAULT ON OUR NATION'S HEALTH -- UNPRECEDENTED ASSAULT ON OUR NATION'S HEALTH. WE EVEN HAVE HAD A SENATOR STAND UP HERE AND SAY THAT E.P.A. DOESN'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO REGULATE CARBON POLLUTION, GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. I WOULD URGE MY PERSON THAT EVERYONE ELSE SAYING THAT TO READ THE CLEAN AIR ACT. IT'S SO CLEAR SHALL DID AND BY THE WAY, THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION DIDN'T WANT TO ENFORCE THE CLEAN AIR ACT, AND THEY WENT ALL THE WAY TO THE SUPREME COURT, AND THE SUPREME COURT SAID, UH-HUH -- IT'S VERY CLEAR IN THE CLEAN AIR ACT THAT, YES, CONGRESS MEANT THAT WE SHOULD CONTROL THIS TYPE OF DANGEROUS POLLUTION, ONCE AN ENDANGERMENT FIND IS MADE. AND THAT WAS MADE. WHAT THE McCONNELL AMENDMENT DOES, WHICH MY FRIEND JIM INHOFE WAS ACTUALLY THE AUTHOR OF THE FULL BILL, SAME THING, IS ESSENTIALLY SAY THAT THE E.P.A. IS OVERRIDDEN -- THEY REPEAL THE ENDANGERMENT FINDING. THAT'S LIKE MY COMING HERE AND SAYING, I WANT TO REPEAL SCIENCE THAT SAYS THAT SMOKING CAUSES LUNG CANCER. OKAY? I WANT TO PLAY DOCTOR. I WANT TO PLAY SCIENTIST. IT'S ABSOLUTELY A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT BECAUSE IT INVOLVES OUR PEOPLE. AND CLIMATE CHANGE IS EXPECTED TO WORSEN REGIONAL SMOG POLLUTION, WHICH CAN CAUSE DECREASED LUNG FUNCTION, AGGRAVATED ASTHMA, INCREASED EMERGENCY ROOM VISITS AND PREMATURE DEATH. WHY ON EARTH DO MY COLLEAGUES WANT TO REPEAL AN ENDANGERMENT FINDING -- BY THE WAY, SENATOR MURKOWSKI ONCE TRIED IT; IT AND IT'S GOING TO FAIL HERE TODAY. BUT THE FACT IS, WHY SHOULD WE PLAY DOCTOR? I KNOW WE HAVE A -- SOME OF US OURSELVES. BUT, PLEASE, WE DON'T HAVE -- YOUACOUPLE HAVE DOCTOR DEGREES, BUT MOST OF US AREN'T SCIENTISTS AND DOCTORS. WE ACT LIKE WE ARE. AND I'M JUST TOO HUMBLE TO REPEAL, YOU KNOW, SCIENCE, AND THAT'S WHAT THEY'D DO HERE. NOW, LET'S LOOK AT THE HEALTH SUCCESSES OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT. IN 2010 ALONE, THE ACT PREVENTED 160,000 PREMATURE DEATHS, 1.7 MILLION ASTHMA ATTACKS, 130,000 HEART ATTACKS, AND 3.2 MILLION LOST DAYS OF SCHOOL. I'M TELLING YOU, THE CLEAN AIR ACT HAS BEEN A GREAT SUCCESS. THE NUMBER OF SMOG-RELATED HEALTH ADVISORIES IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA HAS DROPPED FROM 166 DAYS IN 1976 TO ZERO DAYS IN 2010. WHY ON EARTH WOULD WE WANT TO WORKING? IT HAS BEEN WORKING. I DEFY ANYONE TO POINT OUT A LAW THAT HAS WORKED HE'S WE WORKED AS WELL AS THIS WE WENT FROM 166 DAYS IN LOS ANGELES WHERE PEOPLE WERE TOLD NOT TO GO OUT DOORS TO ZERO DAYS IN 2010. BECAUSE THE E.P.A. -- CREATED BY A REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT, RICHARD NIXON -- THAT E.P.A. DOES ITS JOB. DOES ITS JOB. LOOK AT THE BIPARTISAN SUPPORT FOR THE CLEAN AIR ACT. FIRST OF ALL, IT PASSED THE SENATE 73-0, THE HOUSE 375-1. AND THE CONFERENCE REPORT WAS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY, AND NOW SUDDENLY I CAN'T FIND A REPUBLICAN TO SAY THEY FULLY SUPPORT THE CLEAN AIR ACT. WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO MY FRIENDS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE? THIS WAS A BIPARTISAN ISSUE. IT CERTAINLY IS WITH THE PEOPLE. IN 1990, WE HAD A BIPARTISAN VOTE SONDE BY PRESIDENT GEORGE HERBERT WALKER BUSH. SENATE: 89-10, HOUSE: 401-25. THAT'S WHY SO MANY PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY STILL SUPPORT THE CLEAN AIR ACT. LET'S LOOK AT THAT -- RESULTS OF THAT BIPARTISAN POLL THAT WE HAD. IT WAS CREATED -- THE E.P.A. -- BY RICHARD NIXON, REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT GEORGE HERBERT WALKER BUSH SIGNED THE REAUTHORIZATION, AND 69% OF PEOPLE IN THIS NATION -- AND THIS IS A POLL THAT'S -- WAS TAKEN FEBRUARY 14 OF THIS YEAR -- SAY THAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY SHOULD UPDATE CLEAN AIR ACT STANDARDS WITH STRICTER AIR POLLUTION LIMITS. LISTEN, STRICTER AIR POLLUTION LIMITS. NOW, THE POLLUTERS DON'T LIKE THEY'RE -- THEY'RE CRYING ALL THE WAY TO THE BANK. THEY HAD THE BIGGEST PROFITS THEY EVER HAD THE OIL COMPANIES. THEY DON'T WANT THE E.P.A. ENFORCING THE LAW. AND, BY THE WAY, MY COLLEAGUES' NAME THIS AMENDMENT SOMETHING LIKE THE GAS REDUCTION PRICE ACT, CAR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. THEY SAY THIS IS GOING TO HELP US STOP GAS PRICES FROM RISINGS. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. YOU KNOW, EVERY TIME WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THE CLEAN AIR ACT PREDICTIONS FROM ALL THE POLLUTERS ABOUT HOW HORRIBLE IT WILL BE, AND WE NEVER HAD SUCH A PERIOD OF PROSPERITY. SINCE RI -- SINCE RICHARD NIXON SIGNED THE CLEAN AIR ACT. 68% SAY CONGRESS STAY OUT OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT ACT. LEAVE THEM ALONE; DON'T CHANGE THIS AMENDMENT BY McCONNELL AND THE OTHERS ALL INTERFERE. 69% SAY E.P.A. SCIENTISTS, NOT STANDARDS. THIS McCONNELL AMENDMENT AND THE OTHERS ALL PUT CONGRESS IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS. GUESS WHAT? THE PEOPLE ARE SMART. THEY DON'T WANT POLITICIANS HEALTH. THEY DON'T COME TO US WHEN THEY HAVE ASTHMA. THEY DON'T COME TO US WHEN THEY GET CANCER. THEY RELY ON PHYSICIANS. THEY RELY ON SCIENTISTS. TODAY. WE'RE GOING TO REPEAL, OR THEY'RE TRYING TO REPEAL THE ENDANGERMENT FINDING THAT WENT ALONG WITH THE E.P.A. DECIDING TO MOVE FORWARD AND ENFORCE DECREASES IN CARBON POLLUTION. NOW, "THE WASHINGTON POST" ON MARCH 24 HAD A VERY INTERESTING ARTICLE IN IT, AN OP-ED PIECE SIGNED BY CHRISTIE TODD WHITMAN, E.P.A. ADMINISTRATOR, FROM 2001 AND 2003 AND WILLIAM RUBBING -- WILLIAM RUCKLEHAUS. YOU KNOW WHAT THEY SAID? TODAY THE AGENCY RICHARD NIXON CREATED IN RESPONSE TO THE PUBLIC OUTCRY OVER AIR POLLUTION AND FLAMMABLE RIVERS IS UNDER SIEGE. THE SENATE IS POISED TO VOTE ON A BILL THAT WOULD FOR THE FIRST TIME DISAPPROVE OF A SCIENTIFICALLY BASED FINDING, IN THIS CASE THAT GREENHOUSE GASES WELFARE. AND THIS IS SIGNED BY TWO REPUBLICAN FORMER HEADS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. I'M TELLING YOU THAT THE McCONNELL AMENDMENT IS RADICAL IN THE EXTREME. WE NEVER BEFORE PLAYED DOCTOR AND REPEALED A SCIENTIFIC FINDING THAT SAID A CERTAIN SOLUTION IS A PROBLEM. THEY ALSO SAY IT'S EASY TO FORGET HOW FAR WE'VE COME IN THE PAST 40 YEARS. WE SHOULD TAKE HEART FROM ALL THE PROGRESS AND NOT, AS SOME IN CONGRESS HAVE SUGGESTED, SEEK TO TEAR DOWN THE AGENCY THAT THE PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS CREATED TO PROTECT AMERICA'S HEALTH AND SO IF YOU'RE INTERESTED IN BIPARTISANSHIP AROUND HERE, WHY DON'T WE LOOK AT THE FACTS. AND THE FACTS ARE THAT THE AMERICAN PUBLIC SUPPORTS E.P.A. AND THE CLEAN AIR ACT. THE FACTS ARE THAT RICHARD NIXON CREATED THE E.P.A. THE FACTS ARE GEORGE HERBERT WALKER BUSH SIGNED THE CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENT. AND THE FACTS ARE -- AND I WILL FINISH WITH THIS -- THAT IT IS VERY CLEAR IN THE CLEAN AIR ACT THAT CARBON POLLUTION AND ANY POLLUTION RELATED TO CLIMATE CHANGE IS COVERED. SO THIS IS A REALITY CHECK FROM SOMEONE WHO BELIEVES WE SHOULDN'T GO DOWN THIS DANGEROUS PATH OF PLAYING DOCTOR, PLAYING SCIENTIST, OVERTURNING THE WHICH ENJOYS ALMOST 70% SUPPORT AMONG THE PEOPLE OF THIS GREATEST OF ALL NATIONS. I THANK YOU VERY MUCH, AND I WOULD YIELD. MR. PRESIDENT? THE SENATOR FROM OKLAHOMA. FIRST OF ALL, LET ME JUST STATE THAT I AGREE IN ONE RESPECT WITH THE SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA. OF THINGS. WE AGREE ON INFRASTRUCTURE AND THINGS WE KNOW THIS COUNTRY BUT IN THE AREA OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT, SHE SAID SHOW ME ONE REPUBLICAN WHO SUPPORTS IT -- I SUPPORT THE CLEAN AIR ACT. IT'S BEEN A TREMENDOUS SUCCESS. YOU STOP AND LOOK AT THE REAL I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT GREENHOUSE I'M TALKING ABOUT THE SIX REAL POLLUTANTS AND WHAT HAS IT'S AMAZING THE SUCCESS OF THE I AGREE WITH THAT. I'D LIKE TO REMIND EVERYONE THOUGH THAT THE CLEAN AIR ACT WOULD NOT BE REGULATING Co2 EXCEPT IF THE COURT SAID IF YOU WANT TO DO IT, YOU CAN DO IT. THEY DID NOT MANDATE IT CAN BE DONE. IT'S REALLY WORTH CONSIDERING. I THINK SINCE I HAVE THE TIME RIGHT NOW UNTIL WE'RE VOTING ON THE FIRST OF THREE COVER VOTES BEFORE THEY GET TO MINE -- BY THE WAY, I'M WILLING TO CORRECT MY GOOD FRIEND FROM CALIFORNIA. SHE REFERRED TO McCONNELL. IT'S THE McCONNELL-INHOFE IN FACT, IT CAME FROM MY BILL THAT I INTRODUCED WITH FRED UPTON SOME TIME AGO, A BILL THAT'S GOING TO BE VOTED ON IN THINK, TODAY. SO IT'S VERY APPROPRIATE THAT WE TAKE IT UP NOW. I MIGHT ADD THAT THIS AMENDMENT HAS BEEN UP, I THINK, POSTPONED SIX OR SEVEN TIMES, AND I APPLAUD THE MAJORITY LEADER FOR LETTING US HAVE THESE VOTES. THIS. NOW, HERE'S WHAT I'D LIKE TO SAY THAT I THINK IS IMPORTANT. PEOPLE NEED TO UNDERSTAND A COUPLE OF THINGS. FIRST OF ALL, WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT. YOU KNOW, WE TALKED ABOUT, STARTING IN 2003 -- NO, STARTING IN THE 1990'S WHEN THEY HAD THE KYOTO CONVENTION THAT WE WERE SUPPOSED TO RATIFY, PRESIDENT CLINTON NEVER DID SUBMIT IT TO THE SENATE FOR RATIFICATION. BUT NONETHELESS, IT WAS ONE THAT REGULATED GREENHOUSE GASES. AND I REMEMBER AT THAT TIME I THINK IT WAS THE WHARTON SCHOOL. WE DID AN ANALYSIS. WHAT IF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WERE TO RATIFY THE KYOTO AMENDMENT AND LIVE BY ITS REQUIREMENTS. WHAT WOULD THE COST BE. IT CAME OUT SOMEWHERE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF BETWEEN $300 BILLION AND $400 BILLION. WE DEFEATED THAT. DIDN'T DEFEAT IT, WE JUST NEVER RATIFIED IT BECAUSE THE RATIFICATION. VOTES. ALMOST EVERY YEAR WE HAD LEGISLATION THAT WAS INTRODUCED THAT WOULD DO ESSENTIALLY WHAT THE KYOTO TREATY WOULD HAVE DONE TRADE. SO WE HAD M.I.T. AND OTHERS LOOK AT IT TO SEE WHAT IN FACT WOULD THIS. I CAN REMEMBER WHEN MY GOOD FRIEND, THE JUNIOR SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA, SENATOR BOXER, AND I TALKED ON THE FLOOR DURING THE LAST TIME WE DEFEATED HER BILL, I THINK THIS MIGHT HAVE BEEN THE WAXMAN-MARKEY BILL. IT DOESN'T MATTER, THEY'RE ALL THE SAME. I STIPULATED TO THE SCIENCE. I SAID LET'S ASSUME THE SCIENCE IS RIGHT. IT'S NOT BUT LET'S ASSUME IT IS THAT. ASSUMING IT IS, LET'S TALK ABOUT THE ECONOMICS. THAT'S WHEN WE DEVELOPED WHAT IT WOULD COST. IN MY STATE OF OKLAHOMA, I HAVE A POLICY THAT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT BILLIONS AND TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS, I TRY TO SAY PUT IT IN CONTEXT AS TO WHAT IT WOULD, HOW IT WILL AFFECT MY TAXPAYERS IN THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA. THAT I DO. I TAKE THE TOTAL NUMBER OF FAMILIES THAT FILE TAX RETURNS AND THEN I DO THE MATH. IF YOU DIVIDE THAT INTO SAY $350 BILLION A YEAR, THAT MEANS THE AVERAGE TAXPAYER IN MY FAMILY -- MY STATE OF OKLAHOMA WOULD HAVE TO PAY $3,100 A YEAR IN ADDITIONAL TAXES IN ORDER TO PAY FOR THE CAP AND TRADE REGIME THAT COMES WITH ANY TYPE OF A AND SO WE TALKED ABOUT THAT, AND CONSEQUENTLY WE DEFEATED EACH BILL THAT CAME ALONG. THIS IS THE KEY THING: THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION IS VERY BEHOLDEN TO SOME OF THE FAR AND LEFT WING PEOPLE AND HE COMMITED TO TRY TRADE. SO HE SAID IF WE CAN'T DO IT LEGISLATIVELY, WE'LL DO IT THROUGH REGULATIONS. SO WE HAVE ALL THESE REGULATIONS THAT THEY STARTED, E.P.A. STARTED COMING DOWN WITH. I HAVE TO MENTION, OF THESE SIGNIFICANT BECAUSE I REMEMBER WHEN SHE WAS BEFORE OUR ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE, I SAID TO HER -- AND THIS IS RIGHT BEFORE GOING TO THE BIG U.N. PARTY IN COPENHAGEN ABOUT 16, 18 MONTHS AGO, I SAID YOU KNOW, I HAVE A FEELING, MADAM DIRECTOR, THAT YOU'RE GOING TO COME UP WITH AN ENDANGERMENT FINDING, AND WHEN YOU DO IT HAS TO BE BASED ON SOME TYPE OF SCIENCE. WHAT SCIENCE WOULD YOU BASE IT AND SHE SAID PRIMARILY ON THE IPCC. JUST MAKE SURE EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS WHAT THE IPCC IS, THE IPCC IS THE UNITED NATIONS. THEY ARE THE ONES THAT CAME WUP THIS WHOLE THING -- CAME UP WITH THIS WHOLE THING AND SAID THIS IS WHAT THE END OF THE WORLD IS GOING TO BE AND ALL THIS. ANYWAY, I SAID IF YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE AN ENDANGERMENT FINDING, Co2 IS ENDANGERMENT TO THE SOME SCIENCE. WHAT SCIENCE WOULD THAT BE BASED THE ANSWER WAS, WELL, THE UNITED NATIONS, IT'S GOING TO BE BASED ON THE SCIENCE OF THE -- OF THE IPCC, THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE. THAT'S THE UNITED NATIONS. COINCIDENTALLY, RIGHT AFTER THAT IS WHEN CLIMATEGATE CAME AND THEY FOUND THEY HAD BEEN COOKING THIS SINCE FOR ABOUT TEN YEARS AND THAT THE LEGITIMATE INTERESTS AND INPUT OF REAL SCIENTISTS WERE COMPLETELY AND SO THE SCIENCE JUST FLAT WASN'T THERE. THAT'S WHY I SAID AT THE TIME THAT WE -- THAT WE HAD THIS BILL UP, I'LL STIPULATE TO THE SCIENCE EVEN THOUGH THE SCIENCE I KNOW IT'S NOT THERE. BUT WHAT IS THERE IS THE ECONOMICS. HERE WE ARE FACED WITH THE SITUATION WHERE WE WERE LOOKING AT THE POSSIBILITY OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY COMING AND REGULATING Co2. I WILL CONTEND THAT THEY CAN DO IT IF THEY HAVE AN ENDANGERMENT FINDING BUT THEY DON'T HAVE TO THE ECONOMIC PUNISHMENT TO AMERICA WOULD BE TREMENDOUS BUT IT WOULDN'T DO ANY GOOD. HERE'S THE BIG QUESTION: WHAT IF I'M WRONG. PEOPLE ASKED ME, INHOFE, WHAT IF YOU'RE WRONG? YOU'VE BEEN LEADING THIS FIGHT FOR NINE YEARS. WHAT IF Co2 DOES ENDANGER HEALTH AND CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING HEAR? MY RESPONSE IS IF THAT'S THE CASE IT'S NOT GOING TO MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE BECAUSE EVEN THE E.P.A. DIRECTOR ADMITS THAT IF WE UNILATERALLY IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PASS SOME TYPE OF REGULATION THAT STOPS THE REGULATION OF GREENHOUSE GAS THAT IS IT'S NOT GOING TO AFFECT THE OVERALL RELEASE OF THE EMISSIONS, Co2 EMISSIONS. THE REASON FOR THAT IS VERY THAT IF YOU, IF YOU DO ONLY IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, YOU WOULD ARGUE THAT THAT'S NOT WHERE THE PROBLEM IS. THE PROBLEM IS IN CHINA, THE PROBLEM IS IN MEXICO, THE PROBLEM IS IN INDIA, IN COUNTRIES, THIRD-WORLD COUNTRIES THAT DON'T HAVE ANY EMISSION CONTROLS AT ALL. I THINK EVERYONE AGREES IF WE PASS SOMETHING LIKE THESE REGULATIONS OF THE E.P.A. UNILATERALLY, IT WOULDN'T REDUCE EMISSIONS ANY, NOT ANY AT ALL. CONSEQUENTLY, ALL THIS ECONOMIC PUNISHMENT TO ACHIEVE NOTHING. I WOULD TAKE ONE STEP FURTHER. AS WE CHASE AWAY OUR MANUFACTURING BASE, AS THEY SAY WOULD HAPPEN, THAT WE WOULD BE IN A POSITION WHERE WE COULDN'T -- THEY'D GO TO COUNTRIES WHERE THERE'S NO EMISSION, IT WOULD HAVE THE RESULT OF INCREASING EMISSION. EVEN IF SENATOR BOXER IS RIGHT IN EVERYTHING SHE SAYS, SHE'S WRONG IN THE RESPECT THAT IF WE PASSED IT, IT'S NOT GOING TO LOWER EMISSIONS. THAT'S THE FACT. WE'RE RUNNING OUT OF TIME BUT I HAVE THE TIME UP TO 4:00 AND I'M GOING TO GO OVER FOUR THINGS THAT ARE GOING TO HAPPEN, TPAOEUPBZING THE -- FINALIZING THE VOTE. LET ME FINISH BECAUSE I'M GOING TO NEED ALL THE TIME I'VE GOT RIGHT NOW. CONSENT TO SPEAK FOR TWO MINUTES PRIOR TO THE VOTE ON MY IS THERE OBJECTION? RESERVING THE RIGHT TO OBJECT, IS THE SENATOR TALKING ABOUT DOING IT AFTER 4:00? BEFORE THE VOTE, YES. ALL RIGHT. I'D SAY IF YOU WOULD INCLUDE ME TO SPEAK FOR ONE MINUTE AT THAT TIME, I HAVE NO OBJECTION. FINE. OBJECTION. THE SENATOR, BY THE WAY, SENATOR BAUCUS IS GOING TO HAVE AN AMENDMENT UP, AND I THINK IT'S KIND OF INTERESTING BECAUSE WITH THREE AMENDMENTS I REFER TO AS COVER AMENDMENTS -- IN OTHER WORDS, THERE ARE A LOT OF DEMOCRATS WHO DON'T WANT TO VOTE TO TAKE AWAY THE JURISDICTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY TO REGULATE GREENHOUSE GASES, SO THEY HAVE OTHER ONES. THE BAUCUS AMENDMENT IS ONE THAT IS GOING TO EXEMPT CERTAIN SMALL PEOPLE, SMALL FARMERS AND ALL THAT, BUT THAT DOESN'T EXEMPT THEM FROM HAVING THEIR ELECTRICITY RATES ESCALATE. THE AMERICAN FARM BUREAU SAYS WE VOTES. WE DON'T WANT THE BAUCUS BILL. WE DON'T WANT STABENOW AND WE DON'T WANT THE ROCKEFELLER. STABENOW WOULD ALSO HAVE A DELAY IN CERTAIN PARTS OF THE REGULATION. THE ROCKEFELLER VOTE, WHICH IS GOING TO BE THE THIRD VOTE THAT WE VOTE ON STARTING AT 4:00, IS ONE THAT WOULD MERELY HAVE A TWO-YEAR DELAY. IN OTHER WORDS IT, SAYS YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND DO THIS REGULATION, BUT WE'RE GOING TO KIND OF PUT IT OFF FOR TWO YEARS. THE REAL VOTE AND THE ONE THAT IS THE CRITICAL VOTE -- AND IF THERE IS ANYONE OUT THERE THAT DOESN'T WANT TO GO HOME TO THE PEOPLE AND SAY I'M RESPONSIBLE FOR PASSING THE LARGEST TAX INCREASE IN THE HISTORY OF AMERICA BY DEFEATING THE INHOFE-McCONNELL AMENDMENT, THEN GO AHEAD AND VOTE THAT WAY. THAT'S GOING TO BE A SERIOUS PROBLEM NOT FOR ME, BUT FOR THE SENATORS WHO MIGHT VOTE THE WRONG WAY. SO I'D ONLY SAY THIS, THAT THE McCONNELL-INHOFE AMENDMENT WOULD BE THE FOURTH ONE THAT WE THIS IS THE CRITICAL ONE. THE REST ARE COVER VOTES. WITH THAT BEING AT 4:00, I WOULD YIELD THE FLOOR. THE SENATOR FROM MONTANA. MR. PRESIDENT, I ALSO ASK CONSENT THAT IN ADDITION TO MY BEING ABLE TO SPEAK FOR TWO MINUTES AND SENATOR INHOFE ONE MINUTE -- OBJECTION. -- THAT SENATOR BOXER ALSO BE ALLOWED TO SPEAK FOR ONE MINUTE ON THIS WITHOUT OBJECTION. MR. PRESIDENT, I HAVE, I THINK IS A VERY IT BASICALLY SAYS OKAY, IT GENERALLY MAKES SENSE BUT THERE SHOULD BE A COUPLE OF EXCEPTIONS. THE GENERAL RULE IS WE SHOULD HAVE REGULATIONS ON GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, BUT NOT FOR PRODUCERS. NOT PROCESSORS. REGULATIONS STILL APPLY TO PROCESSORS. I'M JUST TALKING ABOUT PRODUCERS, AGRICULTURE PRODUCERS, THEY SHOULD BE EXEMPT. REGULATIONS. E.P.A. MAY OR MAY NOT PASS REGULATIONS THAT AFFECT AGRICULTURE PRODUCERS. I THINK WE SHOULD MAKE CLEAR TO THE AMERICAN AGRICULTURE THAT THEY ARE EXEMPT. THEY ARE NOT THE GREENHOUSE GAS SECOND, THIS AMENDMENT PUTS IN PLACE AND CODIFIES E.P.A.'S ATTEMPT TO DEAL WITH SMALL RULE. IT MAY OR MAY NOT BE UPHELD IN THE COURTS. PASSAGE OF THIS AMENDMENT WOULD COURTS. ESSENTIALLY, IT SAYS THERE ARE 15,000 EMITTERS IN THE COUNTRY, GREENHOUSE GAS EMITTERS, AND THAT THEY ARE THE BIG ONES. THE OTHER SIX MILLION, BASICALLY, ARE THE VERY SMALL ONES. WHAT ABOUT THE BIG ONES, THE THOSE ARE LARGE PLANTS RUN BY BIG CORPORATIONS. THEY HAVE ESSENTIALLY PRODUCED MOST OF THE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. 96% OF THESE, 15,000, THE BIG ONES, ARE ALREADY SUBJECT TO E.P.A. CRITERIA. THEY HAVE TO GET PERMITS. MOREOVER, THEY ADMIT 70% OF THE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. SO I'M JUST SAYING SMALL BUSINESS, THERE ARE A LOT OF THEM, VERY IMPORTANT THAT THEY REGULATIONS. VERY COMMON SENSE, VETERAN RULE OKAY, BUT EXEMPT AGRICULTURE AND EXEMPT SMALL BUSINESS. THE SENATOR FROM MONTANA HAS CONSUMED YOUR TWO MINUTES.